False oath in Russia

by neat blue dog 10 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  neat blue dog

  I'll be the first to say that the Russian government is pretty terrible and overreaching in its', power but that's not what this is about. In a recent hearing, a witness for the JWs said this under oath:

  One thing makes Jehovah’s Witnesses unique: They do not rely on strict rules or the authority of any particular leader, instead, they try to help adherents develop a Bible-trained conscience so that each individual can personally and voluntarily make decisions guided by the Bible.

  I'm sorry but that is just not true. Then there's this ridiculous contradiction:

  The Bible says that ‘life is in the blood’; therefore, blood should never be used.
  . . .
  They believe that blood should not be used in any form
  . . .
  They do, however, accept minor blood fractions.
• 

  Atlantis

  neat blue dog:

  They do not rely on strict rules or the authority of any particular leader

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Oh brother! Now I've heard it all! Whether it's the blood issue or any other issue, JW's "must" obey their Watchtower governing body or they are out.

  What a bold-face lie! That witness for the JW's needs to do some research.

  Atlantis!
  
  
• 

  smiddy3

  I`ll go one further : That JW should have been prosecuted for lying under oath / giving an affirmation to tell the truth

  Because what he/she said is an outright bold faced lie.

  The prosecution also needs to do their research so they can pull them up on such blatant lies.
• 

  JeffT

  The trouble is the average JW probably actually believes that bullshit. The WTBS has their thought processes so twisted up they can no longer tell what's real and what isn't.
  
• 

  cha ching

  JeffT...
  The trouble is the average JW probably actually believes that bullshit

  Very true, in one way, and not in another... That is the brilliance of WT.

  I agree that their brains are trained to think that they "have no rules"... they aren't 'rules', they 'have a Bible trained conscience'... (trained by the rules in the WT)

  Yet, in a flick of a switch, when I went to see my non JW dad, one of the first things out of my mother's mouth was:

  "I can't talk to you. You know the rules"

  Enter "cognitive dissonance.".... Two realities at the same time. ;-)
• 

  blondie

  Enter "cognitive dissonance.".... Two realities at the same time.

  Ain't that the truth!
  
  
• 

  Vidiot

  cha ching - "Very true, in one way, and not in another... That is the brilliance of WT... I agree that their brains are trained to think that they "have no rules"... they aren't 'rules', they 'have a Bible trained conscience'... (trained by the rules in the WT)... Yet, in a flick of a switch, when I went to see my non JW dad, one of the first things out of my mother's mouth was: 'I can't talk to you. You know the rules'..."

  A good rule of thumb to remember...

  ...if a "principle" looks like a rule, smells like a rule, and sounds like a rule...

  ...it's not a "principle".

  It's a rule.
• 

  RayoFlight2014

  neat blue dog,

  These statements are typical of watchtower and Jehovah's witnesses.

  They make cleverly worded ambiguous claims that infer a particular idea or clear expression, but ones they can later (with use of semantics) weasel out of.

  For example: • they do not rely on strict (rules or authority) of any particular leader------ we have eight men who individually are not leaders but when they come together they form the fds.

  • Geoffrey Jackson, in his reply to Angus Stewart at the ARC; "I (think) it would (seem) to be quite presumptuous to say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using". ------but we'll say it anyway because we presume to be the only spokesperson that God is using.

  • who is that "prophet" that god is using today?-------Jehovah's witnesses never said we are (Prophets) with a capital "P".

  • 1975? Something, but We aren't saying.

  Sometimes they get caught out with direct statements, but most times they won't commit and if you look closely at the twisted wording you'll find they have provided themselves with enough ambiguity to be able to wiggle (like the maggots they are) away from the statement and narrative they were responsible for inferring.

  RayoFlight2014.
• 

  RayoFlight2014

  In a written statement I could say I'm a "virgin".

  When that is read out to an audience, no-one can see i don't have a capital V .

  Or that I have punctuation marks around my virginity.

  The reader may not even comprehend what it means to be a lower case virgin.

  So the inference would be that I haven't had sexual intercourse.

  And later if push comes to shove and someone notices that in fact I'm not a Virgin, I have plausible deniability---- I never said I was a Virgin, check out my lower case v.

  RayoFlight2014.
• 

  exjwlemming

  "It is not a lie, if you believe it."- George Costanza.