Dragging Jehovah's name trough the mud!

by truthseekeriam 25 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Londo111

  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/index.html?sourceCode=TAWEB_MRE170_a&mode=premium&dest=http://m.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/in-depth/sex-abuse-hidden-to-protect-jehovahs-name/story-fngburq5-1227459326775&memtype=anonymous
• 

  LongHairGal

  Paradisebeauty

  I agree with you that they probably should not have used God's name for their religion/organization.

  I have always felt that in many ways they have spoken presumptuously!
• 

  Vidiot

  The Commission hasn't "dragged Jehovah's name through the mud".

  The WTS has - arguably - done that themselves.
• 

  OrphanCrow

  I find the phrase "Jehovah's name" to be odd.

  It doesn't make sense. If I were to refer to a person, I would say "you should be careful about damaging that person's name"...I wouldn't say "Bob's name" because his name is Bob.

  What is Jehovah's name? Well...it is Jehovah.

  It is a redundant phrase.

  Does that mean that God's name is Jehovah but Jehovah's name...is "God"???

  Huh. Bob's name is Bob. Well, no shit.
• 

  EdenOne

  It's not redundant when by 'name' is implied "reputation".

  Eden
• 

  OrphanCrow

  It's not redundant when by 'name' is implied "reputation".
  Eden

  You are right, Eden. It is a cultural understanding of "name". I think I am more used to the Chinese expression of lose "face" rather than "name".

  "Jehovah's name" still sounds weird to me. I guess it is because the JWs emphasize so much that "Jehovah is God's name" that it is difficult for me to turn that around to "reputation" in this usage.
• 

  EdenOne

  I

  From the actual transcript of the first day:

  1. Mr O'Brien will testify that the Governing Body is not
     47 involved in the administration and implementation of child

     1. sexual abuse policies and procedures in branch offices of
        2 the Jehovah's Witness Church.

  How can they go before an official authority and make such a preposterous, false claim ?? Sorry for the horrid editing, I'm doing it from an ipad.

  Eden
• 

  steve2

  Dragging "Jehovah's" name through the mud is the least of JW organization's offenses.

  Far more concerning is the impact of the organization's policies and procedures on its members.

  All this fussing over the English-invented name shows a strange priority. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all in their own ways hung up about God's name and their localized or unique variants. JWs are just a tiny group who claim to be helping sanctify their God's name when they should be looking at the way they treat each other instead.
• 

  wwjdnwt

  I was shocked that they shortened everything to JW. org. I do believe JW is what the apostates called them. They adopted the name. They talk so much about bring reproach on Jehovah's name to their members, but they themselves are bringing reproach on a huge level.
  
• 

  DATA-DOG

  OMG!!!! "Jehovah" isn't God's name!!!! PLEASE stop saying that it is!!! "Jehovah" was never uttered by any human in bible times. It's grammatically IMPOSSIBLE.

  This pisses me off to no end!!!

  DD