Hence, why I said ... their assets and reputation are values that trump all other considerations. It's their very survival as a viable religious business that's at stake.
Who can explain why the "Two Witness" rule is wrong, in the simplest term?
by DATA-DOG 95 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Vidiot
EdenOne - "It's their very survival as a viable religious business that's at stake."
Yes, this.
The thing that I find really interesting is just how hard the Org is fighting. After all, they wouldn't be so anxious about the Org's survival if it wasn't actually at risk, would they?
And even if it weren't, it almost feels like the sheer amount of resistance and belligerence they're displaying (whether for mundane or ideological reasons) could make it happen, anyway.
When I'm in a weird mood, I'm almost inclined to think that they're anticipating disaster, and are drawing their theological line in the sand (even to the point of passive-aggressively provoking "Satan's World"), in the misguided hope that God will bail them out at the last minute.
At the very least, I do believe that the higher-ups would rather the Org crash and burn than budge.
-
Phizzy
" At the very least, I do believe that the higher-ups would rather the Org crash and burn than budge."
It seems that way for sure Vid, I cannot understand it, they only have to say unequivocally that "all Criminal acts that Elders get to hear of should be reported immediately to the Authorities. If two witnesses cannot be established then no Judicial action by the Congregation can take place at that time."
How does this interfere with their view of Scripture ?
-
LongHairGal
DATADOG:
I always believed the two Witness rule would apply to smaller things or things that may have been semi public to start with.
I don't believe it was ever meant to apply to things that were basically of a private nature, like sexual things. Generally, these things are not done in front of an audience. Why would anybody expect that sexual abuse of a minor would be done with people watching??
-
Vidiot
Phizzy – "...they only have to say unequivocally that 'all criminal acts that Elders get to hear of should be reported immediately to the Authorities'..."
Sure, they could.
Which would likely (among other things) disqualify any alleged perpetrators of said acts from congregation duties.
But they really don’t seem to want to do that.
Which suggests to me that if that actually happened, the apparent shortage of qualified and willing “brothers” able to administer the Org’s day-to-day actions at the grassroots level would be hampered to a very significant degree.
Which begs the question, “just how much criminal action is actually being committed by individual Jehovah’s Witnesses”?
-
tor1500
Hi LonghairGal,
Exactly, I brought that out earlier, what fool would bring another person to witness them do something wrong...
Didn't Jesus say he came to put an end to the law....and I do remember the ARC asking if the JW's follow the NT or the OT, I think the reply was NT...so if Jesus came to put an end to the law...Deut. is null and void...
What Jesus is saying...your old credit card has expired....yep, you made a lot of bad and good purchases...but I came to pay your credit card in full...and use this new credit card...old one no good...
The 2 witness rule is a weak defense...they think they are saying something...but, if we are in the NT...the OT stuff don't apply anymore...
In the words of Johnny Cochran...if it don't apply let it fly....
Tor