RUSSIA: Sacked for being Jehovah's Witnesses

by blondie 36 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  XQsThaiPoes

  And some of you want us to join the military and potentialy control weapons of mass destruction that could end civilization and bring a true Great Tribulation yet you don't trust us to watch a cash register. Priorities anyone?

  Also the watchtower forbids kidnapping because it makes them look bad and it is better for them to look good than you to excercise your bible trained concience.

  I can't see them stealing but I can see them forming a spy net, smuggling, or murdering. Stealing is to trivial for the watchtower to care about. Now maybe if an elder asked a person to steal for the congregations personal gain then big maybe. But the watchtowers stance on stealing is their is no excause. Unlike lieing, smuggling, or espionage. Muder is just useually an unforseen side effect of the aforementioned activities.
• 

  Lady Lee

  I didn't read this thread but my anonymous reader friend says:

  'And they will definitely kill their children at the word of their religious superiors. They do.
  
  Undercover, you are wrong. This country has a dangerously knee-jerk reaction to First Amendment issues.
  
  Not everything is a perfectly okay 'freedom' just because you call it a religion.'
• 

  undercover

  'And they will definitely kill their children at the word of their religious superiors. They do.
  
  Undercover, you are wrong. This country has a dangerously knee-jerk reaction to First Amendment issues.
  
  Not everything is a perfectly okay 'freedom' just because you call it a religion.'

  I hate these blanket statements, "...they will definitely kill their children....". JWs do not kill their children. One who is not familiar with the situation could read into this statement that a JW will actually take weapon to hand and kill their child if told to by an elder. That is not true. JWs do let their children die in certain circumstances and to do so is horrible and senseless and I understand the anger of people when this subject comes up but to make blanket statements that JWs kill their children is not a completely true statement.

  I don't think I am wrong. To deny anyone civil and human rights, no matter what their religion, faith, color, nationality is wrong. If it's so okay, lets round up all the Muslims in the US and deport them, because some of them might be terrorists. I don't know how the Russian laws or amendments work regarding religion, but if they advocate freedom of religion, then singling out one religion to ban is wrong.

  The blood policy is wrong and people die beacuse of it. Families are disrupted because of shunning. JWs are a high control group, cult if you like. I will not defend their faith or beliefs but I also will not cheer when they are singled out and banned as a religion and their members suffer for it. If they banned Mormons tomorrow would we all cheer and be happy about it?
• 

  Will Power

  They just banned baby walkers in Canada. Cribs now have an illegal distance between the bars.

  Our generation and many before and a couple after LOL were fine without bans - but also many children suffered & died. They don't sell or use asbestos anymore, You can't spray pesticides anymore in my neighborhood. I can't send anthrax thru the mail.....or a bizillion other things that are harmful or even the potential of becoming harmful - even tho it is our RIGHT to use & choose.

  We as humans have a duty to protect each other. Protect liberties sure but what about life and the pursuit of happiness!

  will
• 

  Earnest

  Hillary,

  The WTS relies on its adherents to read between its lines...and only a Jehovah's Witness would really know what the WTS is actually saying and recommending.

  I agree with your remarks and also have some misgivings about the article "A Time to Speak"-When? (w87 9/1 12-15). For instance, the sentence highlighted in the following paragraph leaves little to the individual conscience.

  ...some brothers who are lawyers, doctors, accountants, and so forth, have prepared guidelines in writing and have asked brothers who may consult them to read these over before revealing anything confidential. Thus an understanding is required in advance that if serious wrongdoing comes to light, the wrongdoer would be encouraged to go to the elders in his congregation about the matter. It would be understood that if he did not do so, the counselor would feel an obligation to go to the elders himself.

  I also note that the reasoning in the paragraph below reduces the severity of breaking an oath of confidentiality as the "oath" to God would take priority. As you say, only a JW immediately understands what is being said.

  While oaths or solemn promises should never be taken lightly, there may be times when promises required by men are in conflict with the requirement that we render exclusive devotion to our God. When someone commits a serious sin, he, in effect, comes under a ?public curse? from the One wronged, Jehovah God. (Deuteronomy 27:26; Proverbs 3:33) All who become part of the Christian congregation put themselves under "oath" to keep the congregation clean, both by what they do personally and by the way they he lp others to remain clean.

  My primary contention was, and is, that most JWs would not "steal money from the firm if told to do so by their religious superiors" and I cannot envisage a convincing scenario whereby this would be justified scripturally. It has long been dogma that JWs are expected to inform the elders if they know of serious wrongdoing by others. I suspect that the WT article was in response to questions raised by Witnesses who found themselves in "Mary's" situation. As such, the answer was that in some circumstances the oath is not binding...it being left to each one to decide whether their circumstances warranted it. For the record, I would not report a blood transfusion or any other "sin" that did not affect others whether or not there was an oath involved, but I am no longer an "active" Witness so I guess that is irrelevant to your point.

  Regards,

  Earnest
• 

  Lady Lee

  anonymous reader says

  Undercover, I don't care about your 'trouble with blanket statements'.
  
  As a young child I watched my JW mother pull the plug on my 3-year old sister for the sake of her WT righteousness.
  
  And - in America - Muslim parents who might try to train their children to become suicide bombers would have their children taken away from them if that was found out.
  
  I stand by my words.
  
  Americans have a dangerously knee-jerk reaction to First Amendment issues and, as far as JWs are concerned, their innocent children suffer greatly and many times, they lose their lives as a result.
• 

  XQsThaiPoes

  Americans have a dangerously knee-jerk reaction to First Amendment issues and, as far as JWs are concerned, their innocent children suffer greatly and many times, they lose their lives as a result.

  This is not an exclusively JW phenomena. Also I doubt you could train a anyone to become a sucide bomber. It is a choice. Unless you believe all those muslims are under some type of mind control by some clandestine "high control group". Comments like this are just unrealistic. They ignore reality and are just emotional. Why don't you think a fundementalist could train his child to shoot an abortion DR? Because that is too close to home and is dismissed as nonsense that could only be pepatrated by a small demented minority of fundimentalist christians and wuold fail more times than suceed. That's why!

  I love this mind control myth I just wish people applied it evenly to all groups or not at all.