Posts by OrphanCrow

95

Who can explain why the "Two Witness" rule is wrong, in the simplest term?

by DATA-DOG in

with all the legalese being tossed around, and the expert manipulation on the part of the wtbts, who can explain why the "two witness" is being perverted by the wtbts?

i don't care if you're a bible believer and want to approach this from a biblical standpoint, or if you simply use logic and reason.

how would you explain this subject to a j-dub, or even a non-dub?.

OrphanCrow

Fisherman: In this hypothetical case, the testimony of 2 witnesses was necessary to establish the truthfulness of the accusations of idolatry.

Exactly. That is how serious 'God' viewed those who dissented from the ways of the culture being established at the time. Anyone who didn't follow the same ways were to be put to death. Loyalty was prized and disloyalty was punished with the most serious punishment of all - death.

And then the scripture goes on to speak of other judicial matters - the matters that are common to all societies. Ones that don't require death penalty (disfellowshipping).

Disfellowshipping/death was the punishment for not believing in the same god. Death isn't mentioned for the other sins/crimes.

And that reveals how cruel the WT actually is. They disfellowship for any and all perceived minor sins/crimes. They stone the sinner. They have perverted the original meaning of the law.

And, they are using that law to take secular law decisions into their own hands. That isn't cool. They have no authority to do so.

95

Who can explain why the "Two Witness" rule is wrong, in the simplest term?

by DATA-DOG in

with all the legalese being tossed around, and the expert manipulation on the part of the wtbts, who can explain why the "two witness" is being perverted by the wtbts?

i don't care if you're a bible believer and want to approach this from a biblical standpoint, or if you simply use logic and reason.

how would you explain this subject to a j-dub, or even a non-dub?.

OrphanCrow

I have been thinking a little more about the two witnesses being required in death penalty cases.

In the context of the JWs being an religion based on archaic laws, that rule makes sense in their religious framework. They view disfellowshipping as a spiritual death and, as a literal death as well - ie...you will die forever instead of live forever if you are not a JW. They condemn the sinner to death.

What the retention of the two witness rule does is expose the cruel ideology of the JWs: if you don't behave, we have the power to 'kill' you.

Disfellowshipping is a death sentence. That is how harsh the judicial system of the WT is.

*to add...with all that said, the two witness rule is all about whether or not the offender/sinner will be disfellowshipped. It has nothing to do with establishing guilt - it has to do with the harshness of the punishment. If you put the scripture in context, it goes on to say that matters other than those that require the death penalty, are simply taken to the priests to decide

95

Who can explain why the "Two Witness" rule is wrong, in the simplest term?

by DATA-DOG in

with all the legalese being tossed around, and the expert manipulation on the part of the wtbts, who can explain why the "two witness" is being perverted by the wtbts?

i don't care if you're a bible believer and want to approach this from a biblical standpoint, or if you simply use logic and reason.

how would you explain this subject to a j-dub, or even a non-dub?.

OrphanCrow

Are you accusing watchtower of obstructing justice?

Yes

YES

YES

95

Who can explain why the "Two Witness" rule is wrong, in the simplest term?

by DATA-DOG in

with all the legalese being tossed around, and the expert manipulation on the part of the wtbts, who can explain why the "two witness" is being perverted by the wtbts?

i don't care if you're a bible believer and want to approach this from a biblical standpoint, or if you simply use logic and reason.

how would you explain this subject to a j-dub, or even a non-dub?.

OrphanCrow

fisherman: That is correct and the context of verses 8-11 show that cases involving law trangressions in ancient Israel were adjudicated and decisions were reached

That is right. And when the two witness rule is spoken about - it is referencing the death penalty. That is when the two witnesses are required - if the punishment is death.

Nowhere in there does it say that two witnesses are required to establish guilt in all cases - it only speaks about it being required when the offender is going to be put to death.

95

Who can explain why the "Two Witness" rule is wrong, in the simplest term?

by DATA-DOG in

with all the legalese being tossed around, and the expert manipulation on the part of the wtbts, who can explain why the "two witness" is being perverted by the wtbts?

i don't care if you're a bible believer and want to approach this from a biblical standpoint, or if you simply use logic and reason.

how would you explain this subject to a j-dub, or even a non-dub?.

OrphanCrow

fisherman:...what is a fact is that Watchtower is not authorized to enforce secular law and it is also a fact that Watchtower does not have the power or authority to administer secular justice.

You finally said something valuable Fisherperson. You have pointed out exactly what the problem is with the WT. They are not authorized to enforce secular law. It is for exactly that reason that they are deficient in their policies - they are not authorized to administer secular justice.

Because of that, their policies need to reflect that they will not obstruct justice being carried out. And, they need to back off and stop trying to determine if the secular law has been broken - they need to let the ones who do have secular authority do their job.

As it stands, the WT policies interfere with the administration of justice - the WT obstructs justice.

95

Who can explain why the "Two Witness" rule is wrong, in the simplest term?

by DATA-DOG in

with all the legalese being tossed around, and the expert manipulation on the part of the wtbts, who can explain why the "two witness" is being perverted by the wtbts?

i don't care if you're a bible believer and want to approach this from a biblical standpoint, or if you simply use logic and reason.

how would you explain this subject to a j-dub, or even a non-dub?.

OrphanCrow

smiddy: Deut.17:6
"at the mouth of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one dying should be put to death .He will not be put to death at the mouth of one witness."

Just reading the "law" like that, it appears like it concerns the seriousness of capital punishment. The death penalty could only be given if there were two witnesses. It says nothing about establishing guilt.

95

Who can explain why the "Two Witness" rule is wrong, in the simplest term?

by DATA-DOG in

with all the legalese being tossed around, and the expert manipulation on the part of the wtbts, who can explain why the "two witness" is being perverted by the wtbts?

i don't care if you're a bible believer and want to approach this from a biblical standpoint, or if you simply use logic and reason.

how would you explain this subject to a j-dub, or even a non-dub?.

OrphanCrow

What Chook said.

Forensic evidence is a 'witness'. And, it is a more reliable witness than a human. Forensics don't lie. Humans do.

But, then again...that could be exactly why they won't cave in on this rule. Forensic evidence doesn't allow for weaseling. Actual, provable "truth" scares the crap out of them. They can't handle the truth*.

*to add - they don't want the truth. If they were really concerned with finding out if an accused is guilty or innocent, they wouldn't hesitate to call in authorities - experts who can collect evidence. Evidence is a witness that does not lie but the WT guys don't want that. They are not concerned with real evidence/truth

49

ARC Case Study 54 - Witness List published for 10 March 2017

by jwleaks in

http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.

.

OrphanCrow

Fisherman: One poster here said that he felt that Mr Angus as laughing at some people being investigated. If that is true, that couldvbe something that the government could look into as it relates to the validy of what the government decides are the facts or something else for that mstter.

Don't be ridiculous.

I am surprised that there wasn't more derision shown to the two bumbling fools that the WT sent to do their dirty work

49

ARC Case Study 54 - Witness List published for 10 March 2017

by jwleaks in

http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.

.

OrphanCrow

Dubstepped - got it! Yes, a definite smirk :)

49

ARC Case Study 54 - Witness List published for 10 March 2017

by jwleaks in

http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.

.

OrphanCrow

Fisherman: Shouldnt you allow the investigation to continue and be completed and wait until the Australian government forms an opinion on the commission's findings and recommendations, then look at all of the facts, before forming a personal opinion?

The investigation has been completed. It is over. Done. Finished.

The commission has published their findings and recommendations. The findings were done. Finished. The recommendations were done. Finished.

The WT was deficient in their response in the last hearing.

What would someone have to wait on to form an opinion? Some stamp of approval/disapproval by the government of Australia? The Commission represents the government. The facts are in. What are you waiting for? Someone to tell you how to think?