Actually, as a translation I think "brazen conduct" is an improvement over the more ambiguous "loose conduct."
I always assumed "loose conduct" was a sex thing. Isn't it?
the penalty of this charge??
yes, disfellowshipping.. bad association?
excessive time at work?
Actually, as a translation I think "brazen conduct" is an improvement over the more ambiguous "loose conduct."
I always assumed "loose conduct" was a sex thing. Isn't it?
just watched the news about the air canada crash in halifax that they want to claim was just a "hard landing".. i can only imagine the distinction matters for insurance purposes otherwise they are just being idiots.
pretty poor behavior for the airline whatever the motivation imo.. now i'm no plane expert but i think when then plane is smashed up, the engines have come off and the nose is in pieces that should be obviously classed as a crash.
if you can't take off again then you have been in a crash, not a hard landing.. .
Were these girls at Halifax airport doing their end-of-the-runway dancing again?
back in the early 70's, the wt stated that all persons who had lived and died would be resurrected after armageddon.
only non believers would be killed at armageddon, never to return.
in short, if you died before the big a, you were guaranteed to return.. this gave rise amongst several ex's to concerns that their well-meaning jw parents might just consider the possibilty of having their offspring "lovingly" bumped off so as to ensure their resurrection!.
Back in the early 70's, the WT stated that all persons who had lived and died would be resurrected after armageddon. Only non believers would be killed at armageddon, never to return. In short, if you died before the big A, you were guaranteed to return.
This gave rise amongst several ex's to concerns that their well-meaning JW parents might just consider the possibilty of having their offspring "lovingly" bumped off so as to ensure their resurrection!
I'm just recalling an article a while back in which mentioned that JW's maybe asked to do something that might seem at first to be an unreasonable course of action. That seemed a little weird.
I guess I'm just rambling a little, but IMHO, anyone who could disown their own children for a religion just has to be pretty radicalised.
it appears that a new 16-page brochure, with the title "return to jehovah" is to be released at the regional convention (dc) this year.
it would be written specifically for those faded or da/df.chapters are:a letter from the governing body1.
the lost one i will search for2.
It's also for the beneifit of the media. Non-JW's are often astounded when they hear of the harshness of disfellowshipping, I'm betting that the WT will respond by saying that they do all they can to help the DF'd ones to return and quote this booklet.
I suggest quoting their own literature back at them, in particular their misuse of the parable of the prodigal son. They conveniently forget that it was the father himself who ran out to meet the returning son before he'd even arrived at the family home, not the father waiting until the son had had prostrated himself and then waited a year for re-admission.
just can't wrap my head around this.
the guy (a) evidently did all of this on purpose, and (b) evidently had no reason at all to do so.. there is a huge chunk of the puzzle missing from this one (so far)..
i am most curious.
i would like this to become a permanent thread, because i think there are grounds - at least in europe - to take this matter up to the european court of human rights.
not sure we'll ever get there, but one must start somewhere.
objective: force, by legal means, the watchtower society and the jehovah's witnesses to stop the practice of shunning ex-jehovah's witnesses, on grounds that it constitutes a violation of human rights.. what is needed: all written material ever published by the watchtower society, especially since 1940's, concerning the practice of shunning.
JW's become acutely embarrassed about disfellowshipping when it's brought to the notice of non-JW's. It has no martyr quality like the blood issue!
During the "mentally diseased apostates" saga they even lied that shunning was a "personal matter", which of course is patently untrue as refusal to shun is a disfellowshipping offence!
Look at this quote taken from the Independent newspaper, UK:
Rick Fenton, a spokesperson for the Watchtower Society, insisted last night that ostracisation was "a personal matter for each individual to decide for himself". "Any one of Jehovah's Witnesses is free to express their feelings and to ask questions," he said. "If a person changes their mind about Bible-based teachings they once held dear, we recognise their right to leave."
are parts of the usa in a different century from europe?.
why don't they just stone them to death?.
This guy is about the same age as me and his memories of executions that occurred during his childhood are identical to mine.
following on from the recent thread about wt losing an appeal concerning the uk charity commission (sorry, i can't do the link) i'm pleased to report that this matter is covered in the latest 'private eye' (20 march - 2 april issue).. it's a one-third page article (p.34) under the heading 'child abuse' and the headline 'silent witnesses'.
it reports the case accurately, mentions several criminal cases and the ongoing high court compensation case.
it includes some of judge mckenna's comments..
The online version is here: Private Eye
The only reference made to the hard copy says:
SILENT WITNESSES
The Jehovah’s Witnesses are criticised for delaying an investigation
into safeguarding procedures, potentially putting children at risk.
july 15, 1992 wt.
"apostates capitalize on errors or seeming mistakes made by brothers who take the lead.
our safety lies in avoiding apostate propaganda as though it were poison, which in fact it is.".