The Protect the Children Sham

by HildaBingen 123 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  mystikool

  Mr F:

  We do not dialogue with those who choose to use insulting, reviling language and bad logic. You also have no knowledge of Hebrew Bible or koine greek. Get your money back from koine 101.
• 

  dungbeetle

  Anyone who comes to a board like this full of rape and molestation survivors and sh*t stirs for their own pleasure and minimizes our pain and suffering and anguish must be molesters themselves.

  As I stated before, these threads WILL be directed and redirected toward victims/survivors of rape and molestation. That's the way it's goanna be; that's the way it SHOULD BE.

  The only person who has a problem with that is a molester themselves.

  THIS IS ABOUT VICTIMS. THIS IS ABOUT SURVIVORS.

  AND ITS GONNA STAY THAT WAY.

  BEFORE YOU TRY TO REMOVE THE STICK FROM MY ARSE, REMOVE THE TELEPHONE POLE FROM YOUR OWN ARSE.
• 

  mystikool

  :As usual, the WTS wants to have its cake and eat it too - it claims that JWs don't accept blood transfusions. That is correct in the sense that they don't take transfusions of whole blood.:

  We do not take blood of any kind. Acts 15:29 says abstain from blood. What do you not understand about the word abstain?

  :However, the WTS has succeeded in associating transfusions with blood borne disease as opposed to the blood itself. Transfusions themselves have become the bogey man as opposed to the blood itself.:

  There is nothing wrong with blood when it is used properly.

  :By allowing the medical uses of all blood parts in some form or other the GB affords JWs no protection from diseases transmitted by blood. Further, since their new teachings violate their own understanding of Acts 15 then they put people's health at risk without any basis in scripture or in medical science.:

  How do new teaching violate Acts 15?

  :That is criminal irresponsibility and amounts to issuing medical advice without having medical qualifications. Not only that but this "advice" is enforced by shunning. This is all done in a cowardly attempt to disguise the fact they very clearly do not speak for God.:

  So what is your suggestion? Do you want blood to be a conscience issue?
• 

  mystikool

  :Anyone who comes to a board like this full of rape and molestation survivors and sh*t stirs for their own pleasure and minimizes our pain and suffering and anguish must be molesters themselves.:

  Nobody is stirring dung, dung. This board is for jws and it is a free speech zone. If you do not like it, go somewhere else. This board is not just for molested victims. Have you bothered to read the title of this board? Just because I put down injustice does not mean I support pedo. Pedo is injust two.
• 

  RedhorseWoman

  You dont know me. I have done this thing you talk about.

  And I, likewise, know of many who have been disfellowshipped for preaching their own "direction" from God within the congregation.

  Exactly WHAT is the "direction" you have preached to the congregation that is so totally acceptable?

  We therefore encourage obedience to Caesar's law with the least amount of reproach on God's name.

  Pretty nebulous statement here. Perhaps you could clarify this.

  Does every congregation elder contact the authorities when a case of molestation is brought to his attention? Does every congregation elder, at the very least, ENCOURAGE (not "allow", but "encourage") the parents to seek outside help when a case of molestation is brought to his attention?

  What brings reproach on God's name....is the the act of molestation, or the reporting of that act? Is it really God's name that is the issue here, or the purported "cleanliness" of the congregation, and the reputation of holiness that is proclaimed by JWs?
• 

  mystikool

  :And I, likewise, know of many who have been disfellowshipped for preaching their own "direction" from God within the congregation.:

  I did not say one should "preach" her own direction. I said one can talk about it humbly. Theres a differance, dear.

  :Exactly WHAT is the "direction" you have preached to the congregation that is so totally acceptable?:

  I have not "preached" anything, dearie. I said one can talk about or discuss her ideas.

  :Pretty nebulous statement here. Perhaps you could clarify this.:

  It means just what it says, accounting for the presence of absence in among signifiers.

  :Does every congregation elder contact the authorities when a case of molestation is brought to his attention? Does every congregation elder, at the very least, ENCOURAGE (not "allow", but "encourage") the parents to seek outside help when a case of molestation is brought to his attention?:

  No and no. There are few "everries" in everyday life, sweetie.

  :What brings reproach on God's name....is the the act of molestation, or the reporting of that act? Is it really God's name that is the issue here, or the purported "cleanliness" of the congregation, and the reputation of holiness that is proclaimed by JWs?:

  Both and both and kinda.
• 

  AlanF

  HildaTroll again deigned to reply:

  :: The Governing Body (in the guise of Russell, Rutherford, Knorr & Franz, and the post-1971 Keystone Kops) has certainly prophesied.

  : It depend on what you mean.

  I explained precisely what I meant, dummy. My entire line of discussion was by way of explanation.

  :: They might not have claimed that their prophecies originated with themselves, but they certainly claimed that their prophecies originated with God.

  : Where did the wt say dat dee prophecies dat dey was prophesying was deirs?

  I assume you meant to say: "Where did the wt say dat dee prophecies dat dey was prophesying was not deirs?" Otherwise, your statement is nonsensical. I'll assume that you were trying to make sense.

  Anyway, you're a glutton for punishment. But you asked for it. I will now give some proofs that Watchtower leaders have claimed that their prophecies originated with God.

  C. T. Russell specifically claimed that he was not inspired, but that God, in some mysterious and unspecified manner, "revealed" things to him. While many Christians could be called, in a certain sense, a "mouthpiece of God", if what they spoke perfectly reflected what was in the Bible, Russell went further and claimed that God gave him understandings that he gave to no one else. In the July 15, 1906 Watch Tower, on page 229, Russell wrote:

  "The truths I present, as God's mouthpiece, were not revealed in visions or dreams nor by God's audible voice, nor all at once, but gradually, especially since 1870, and particularly since 1880. Neither is this clear unfolding of truth due to any human ingenuity or acuteness of perception, but to the simple fact that God's due time has come; and if I did not speak, and no other agent could be found, the very stones would cry out."

  So Russell got his "truths" in an unspecified but miraculous way that was just as miraculous as if the very stone cried out.

  In 1894 one of Russell's readers questioned him about his chronology leading to 1914. In Zion's Watch Tower, July 15, 1894, Russell wrote on page 226, under the subtitle "Can It Be Delayed Until 1914?":
  
  "We see no reason for changing the figures -- nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours."

  If Russell were so convinced that his now-discredited dates were so certain that he could call them "God's dates", it is obvious that he thought that God directed him to find all those dates in the scriptures. In other words, God actively led Russell to figure out those dates -- something that he claimed he was unable to do on his own. That is a direct claim of inspiration, no matter what excuses an apologist might make.

  Rutherford made far more outrageous claims. To see a goodly collection of Rutherford's claims that he was angelically inspired, see this link: http://www.premier1.net/~raines/articles.html and look at the various articles under "Angelic Channeling".

  Here is an example of Rutherford's declaring that what he wrote in The Watch Tower was as certain as God's inspired words to Noah about the coming Flood. The issue of April 1, 1923, said on page 106, in the "Question and Answer" section:

  Question: Did the order go forth eight months ago to the Pilgrims to cease talking about 1925? Have we more reason, or as much, to believe the kingdom will be established in 1925 than Noah had to believe that there would be a flood?

  Answer: .... There was never at any time any intimation to the Pilgrim brethren that they should cease talking about 1925.... Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the Scriptures, marking the end of the typical jubilees. Just exactly what will happen at that time no one can tell to a certainty; but we expect such a climax in the affairs of the world that the people will begin to realize the presence of the Lord and his kingdom power. He is already present, as we know, and has taken unto himself his power and begun his reign. He has come to his temple. He is dashing to pieces the nations. Every Christian ought to be content, then, to do with his might what his hands find to do, without stopping to quibble about what is going to happen on a certain date.

  As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had (so far as the Scriptures reveal) upon which to base his faith in a coming deluge.

  Obviously, God's words to Noah were inspired. And if the 1925 date were even more certain than the coming Flood, then its prediction was just as much a product of divine inspiration as was God's prediction of the Flood. Thus, Rutherford claimed divine inspiration.

  I could go on and on and on with this, but an extensive set of proofs that Watchtower leaders claim virtual inspiration can be found in the article "The WTS and the End of the World" here: http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/index2.htm . Today's Watchtower leaders are more cagey than Russell and Rutherford, but no less adamant that their predictions and teachings are the product of divine direction, which is a synonym for divine inspiration.

  :: They all claimed or claim to be God's exclusive spokesmen to mankind. They all claimed or claim that their teachings should be obeyed as if God himself were speaking. No exceptions, for to disobey is to "go against the arrangement of God".

  : What you been smoking? They say no such thing.

  Of course they do. The above-mentioned link contains plenty of references to prove my claim. Also at that link, read the article "Do Jehovah's Witnesses Claim That They Are the Only Ones Who Will Be Saved?" and you'll find lots of direct quotes that prove my claim.

  Furthermore, surely you're familiar with the Society's comparing rebellion against JW leaders with the rebellion of Korah and company against the inspired Moses. If such rebellion amounts in both cases to rebellion against God, then both of these claimed spokesmen, Moses and JW leaders, must be equally inspired. Otherwise the Society's comparison is simply a lie, a tactic to fool the JW rank & file into thinking that when they obey JW leaders they're obeying God.

  :: Thus, when they made predictions based on anything at all, they made them in God's name. That is one definition of prophesying. That is exactly what the Old Testament prophets did, with the possible exception that they claimed that God spoke directly to them in rather obvious ways. But Rutherford explicitly claimed that angels gave him lots of information that he merely passed on to the JW community. And the others have always claimed that God "directs" them, not just by their passively reading the Bible, but in an unspecified but clearly active way. Thus, the Governing Body today claims inspiration, although they don't use the word "inspiration". They use the word "direction", but the way they use it, it's a distinction without a difference.

  : You, dear boy, need to go back and get your money back for that koine 101 class you took.

  This discussion is in English, dummy, not Greek.

  : The governing body do not claim to be inspired.

  That's exactly what I said, dummy. They just use different words to say the equivalent thing. In fact I also said that JW leaders claim that:

  : they are guided by god spirit.

  You don't object to the fact that they claim divine direction, but to the fact that divine direction is by definition divine inspiration. You want to cover that up, because it wouldn't do to make a direct claim of inspiration.

  : And God directs governing body like he direct all christians.

  Cough, cough!!! Sputter! Hhhaaaaaauuuuuuggghhhhh!

  Righto. He puts ideas into their heads and then they go off and put them into practice. That's inspiration, dummy!

  :: Another definition of prophesying comes straight from Watchtower literature. A prophet, according to the Insight book, is one who claims to speak in God's name. That claim can be true or false, and so a prophet can be either true or false. Because the Watchtower Society's leaders have taught many false things while claiming to speak in God's name, they are -- by their own definition -- false prophets.

  : The wt has not taught false things. Maybe they have missapprehended the truth at times.

  Oh, please! By that reasoning, no other Christian religion that merely "misapprehends the truth" at times teaches falsehoods. But as a JW, you surely teach others that all Christian religions other than your own teaches falsehoods, despite many of those falsehoods being just as much a product of "misapprehension" as the dumbest of Watchtower "misapprehensions". As usual, we find a JW proving to be a gross hypocrite by holding double standards.

  Furthermore, many people have demonstrated that Watchtower leaders totally reject correction of their "misapprehensions" by someone outside that tight little cadre of sycophants that comprises the top echelon of WTS leaders. People submit thoroughly documented proof that some teaching or policy needs to change, and what happens? They find themselves at the wrong end of a judicial committee.

  A good case in point is that most putrid of Watchtower books, the 1985 Creation book. Over the years, dozens of people have pointed out to the Society that the book contains dozens and dozens of errors of fact, errors of interpretation, and just about every sort of error of content that a writer can make. Some of them are demonstrably deliberate. But the book is still in production and is still touted as a wonderful refutation of the theory of evolution. The fact that even the writer of the book himself has been personally presented with proof of his book's failings, yet fails to act on this, proves that he, along with his leaders, has no respect for truth or for the God of truth. The above-mentioned link contains the article "The WTS View of Creation and Evolution" which fully documents more than 100 of these errors.

  : But so have all humans.

  But few humans claim to speak for God.

  : Calling wt false is like calling Ptolemy's geocentric theory false. It is not false.

  My, my, but you're good at deceiving yourself. So the claim that the sun orbits the earth is not false, eh? I suppose you think that the claim that the earth is flat is also not false. And that there are unicorns. And every other falsehood is not false. Talk about an Orwellian mindset!

  : Are you that dense?

  I must be. Yikes! To think that falsehoods are false! What am I thinking?

  AlanF
• 

  herbert

  Trollette,

  : We do not take blood of any kind. Acts 15:29 says abstain from blood. What do you not understand about the word abstain?

  How is accepting hemoglobin, Factor VIII and any product derived directly from blood abstaining from blood? On what scriptural grounds does the GB distinguish between an intact red blood cell and the hemoglobin contained within it. Be specific.

  : There is nothing wrong with blood when it is used properly.

  Who defines properly? Show me the scriptures. Why is it proper to accept the products derived from donated blood? Does not the scripture say that all blood must be poured out? Essentially you are saying that "There is nothing wrong with using blood in ways that the GB says are acceptable." That's mereley a tautology.

  : How do new teaching violate Acts 15?

  Acts 15 says to abstain from blood. If your doctor told you to abstain from strong liquor would it be acceptable to separate the alcohol from the whisky and drink or inject that? Use your brain, if any.

  : So what is your suggestion? Do you want blood to be a conscience issue?

  It is essentially a conscience issue as it stands. However, the WTS prefers to keep people in a state of confusion. That's for obvious and dishonest reasons.

  Herbert
• 

  RedhorseWoman

  I have not "preached" anything, dearie. I said one can talk about or discuss her ideas.

  Do you, then, feel free to follow your own "direction", even if it disagrees with the "direction" the GB purport to have received? After all, isn't God's "direction" valid in both cases?

  If you had received "direction" from God that the no organ transplant policy was bogus (oh, wait....it couldn't be because the GB received that direction from God)....but, anyway, if you had followed YOUR "direction" from God (since it's just as viable as that received by the GB in your opinion), would you have been surprised when your "direction" caused you to be booted from the congregation?

  Both and both and kinda.

  Ah, yes, a firm statement of your convictions. LOLOLOLOL
• 

  AlanF

  Ah, we may now note that HildaTroll is highly offended by use of strong language, but is not offended in the least by misuse of language. What misuse? Lying in order to support a religion and its miserable policies.

  You're busted, HildaTroll. Go away now.

  AlanF