Posts by OrphanCrow

I think it was more than just a lie. I think O'Brien's response is indicative of how he views the lowly congregants. They don't exist - they are incidental. He said "everybody" because those who do have access to all those libraries that jwleaks posted are, in O'Brien's mind, the only ones who count.

8

Transcripts for Case Study 54 available

by OrphanCrow in

available now in either a pdf or word format:.

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

OrphanCrow

jwleaks: There are a number of different Watchtower Library versions. What version you are authorized to have access to depends on how high up the Watchtower corporate ladder or JW religious hierarchy you are.

Thanks, jwleaks. So that means that not "everybody", as O'Brien claims, has access to magazines going back to 1930.

These WT guys are such weasels

8

Transcripts for Case Study 54 available

by OrphanCrow in

available now in either a pdf or word format:.

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

OrphanCrow

I don't read "The Watchtower Library" that O'Brien speaks about in this following exchange....but, is it true that The Watchtower Library, with copies of magazines going back to 1930, is accessible to everyone? Anytime I have wanted to access historical WT or Awake magazines, I have to search for them in places other than the org's website - older literature is not available on their site

MR O'BRIEN: No, I think the average member of
a congregation has exhaustive references to what we call
The Watchtower Library and subjects such as those you have
mentioned are considered in Watchtower articles that
everyone has access to.
MR STEWART: And many of those going back over a long
period of time?
MR O'BRIEN: And recent, yes. The most recent, back to,
I think, as far as 1930.

8

Transcripts for Case Study 54 available

by OrphanCrow in

available now in either a pdf or word format:.

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

OrphanCrow

Available now in either a pdf or word format:

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

7

Article: 'I was dead to them': How Lara escaped the Jehovah's Witnesses 'cult'

by AndersonsInfo in

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/4522599/i-was-dead-to-them-how-lara-escaped-the-jehovahs-witnesses-cult/?cs=4173.

'i was dead to them': how lara escaped the jehovah's witnesses 'cult'.

rachel brownemarch 10, 2017. three decades ago jodi*'s family were searching for a better life for themselves and their four children, well away from the gritty inner-city high rise apartment they called home.. the family packed up their belongings and moved to rural victoria where they planned to start anew.. then one morning a pair of jehovah's witnesses knocked on the door to spread the word of the watchtower bible and tract society.

OrphanCrow

darkspliver: But the link to the SMH in the above post is dead now

What are you going on about?

Both links that Barbara posted work. Maybe try clicking directly on top of them. I know that tech is hard, but just hit the blue words. You will figure it out.

Do you have a personal problem with Barbara's posts? You seem to whine about a lot of them

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.