Jwsurvey and Trey Bundy

by DATA-DOG 5 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  DATA-DOG

  Good evening, or morning, whatever the case may be.

  Just a couple of points about the JW Monthly broadcast, and the "two witness" rule. I'm tired, so I'm going to be brief.

  1) I had a nice conversation with Trey Bundy about the flaws in the WT's "logic" concerning their pet scripture in Deuteronomy. In short, their RNWT ( The most accurate translation of all time, because the FDS were involved...) says that no one person can be convicted on the testimony of one witness. Did you notice that?? Convicted.... That doesn't mean that any and all efforts to investigate are "left in Jehovah's hands", because only one person approached the Older Men with an allegation.. Are you picking up what I'm laying down?? Mr. Bundy did...

  The WTBTS's own translation conflicts with their "logic." Someone has to come forward in any given situation where a sin/crime has allegedly been committed. That's what starts the investigation. The scripture in Deuteronomy is not saying allegations cannot be brought against an individual, by only one individual. Otherwise, absolutely zero investigations/stonings would have taken place in the beloved OT...

  Mr. Bundy stated that he had not noticed the wording of the scripture that Gary Breaux ( Bro?? Asshat??) had cited as supporting evidence of the "two witness" dogma, and had never considered that angle. So, just seriously think about what those scriptures actually say, not only in rhe RNWT, but many others.

  Do you see why the WT is wrong??

  The a-hole GB and their sycophants are very crafty, but not crafty enough to get out of their own way.

  Also, Mr. Bundy greatly appreciated that fact that we are all supporting his efforts, and he thanks you.

  2) Lloyd Evans is working on a great rebuttal , but he did not mention the above situation that I briefly discussed with Trey Bundy.

  I tried to reach out to Lloyd, but his website would not come up. I tried several times to no avail. Did his site crash?

  Hopefully, he's not under attack and it's just on my end. Anyway, I'll keep trying as I feel the above reasoning is worth mentioning.

  All false reasoning by the cult must be highlighted. This is war. Children are involved.

  DD 😴😴😴
• 

  konceptual99

  I just got an internal server error and then the next request was fine
• 

  sparrowdown

  Their slavish adherence to selected parts of OT law when it suits them is infuriating.

  They truly "strain the gnat and gulp the camel."

  I agree their twisted reasonings that ruin lives should be shouted form every available rooftop.
• 

  cha ching

  Good job DD!

  I agree, I think the WT just tries to 'distract' with all of these "we stand for the scriptures' tactics. (red herring)

  What are they realllllly doing?

  Well, when you listen to Geoffrey Jackson, during the ARC investigation, he answers the judge's question of "IF you MADE us report it to you, IF it WAS a law, we of COURSE would report child abuse IF it was MANDATORY." (basically)

  Why? Because you are right DD, they don't need to 'convict' anyone on one witness. They CAN investigate with only one witness...

  AAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDD

  There is NO scripture in the Bible that says "you cannot report it to the police!" In principle, Rom 13:1, 2 says  "Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. 2 Therefore he who opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God" This would be 'perfect cover' for their 'new light' .

  
  

  Personally, I think the lawyers for WT & the GB would looooooovvve a way out, it if it was "mandatory to report". It might seem like they don't love it, but it is a lot like blood transfusions.

  Back in the day, Children's Hospital in Oakland had a standing arrangement with the judges, they could order a transfusion for a minor. in a flash, parents could do nothing about it.. After a while, witness parents could protest the state's involvement, but feel relieved that their child's live was saved.

  The same thing might happen if state "mandatory reporting" laws were changed to require clergy to be mandated reporters. Stay tuned!......

  The GB do not want to be sued, or said that "they are going against the scriptures." If they changed the "two witness rule" they would be so sued by so many people. Parents: "IF you would have let me investigate, if you would have told the police all these OTHER kids would not have been hurt!" Listen to the abuse victims as to why they are coming forward. A big part of the reason is to protect other kids.

  cha ching
• 

  Diogenesister

  Bloody well spotted D.D.👍👍👍

  I think Lloyd has already posted a rebuttal to Gary NOT-a-Bro on the two witness rule segment of the broadcast; as he got so annoyed about their bol - oney.

  I think he plans to do a fuller rebuttal for that particular jwBroadcast soon. Hopefully you can get a message to him before then. You could message him directly at exjwreddit - his username is u/cedars1929.
• 

  steve2

  After a while, witness parents could protest the state's involvement, but feel relieved that their child's live was saved.

  Yes, cha ching, I noticed the same response pattern among JW parents whose children are court-mandated to receive blood transfusions if medical professionals deem them necessary. Protest for sure - but relieved it is taken out of their hands.