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?.
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.
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?.
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
http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
.
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
http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
.
Dubstepped - got it! Yes, a definite smirk :)
http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
.
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?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2017/mar/09/in-russia-the-persecution-of-jehovahs-witnesses-begins-all-over-again.
in russia, the persecution of jehovah’s witnesses begins all over again.
giles fraser.
This is the Forum 18's article (Febuary 2017) concerning the possible liquidation of the JWs in Russia:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2017/mar/09/in-russia-the-persecution-of-jehovahs-witnesses-begins-all-over-again.
in russia, the persecution of jehovah’s witnesses begins all over again.
giles fraser.
Anony: Also note that the Guardian is a derivative of the JW press releases on the topic. There isn't much substance as to the reason Russia has come to that decision nor the historical or contemporary religious rights in Russia or the fact that pretty much all extremist religions (including many Christian and Islamic denominations) have similar bans.
I concur with you. This is a fluff piece with WT roots.
This is the website I visit to get detailed reports on what is happening inside Russia with the JWs:
Forum 18 publishes details of all the religious court cases inside Russia, including many of faiths other than the JWs.
Where the JWs have really fell afoul of the law in Russia is by insisting on telling others that their religion is bad and that the JWs is the only right one. That is strictly prohibited in Russia but the JWs just can't keep their hateful views to themselves.
The most recent update from Forum 18 reports this:
The number of prosecutions under Criminal Code Article 174 to punish individuals for exercising the right to freedom of religion or belief appears to be increasing. Since the new Criminal Code came into force on 1 January 2015, Article 174 criminal cases are known to have been launched or to have been underway against 19 individuals in 20 cases (see full list below, compiled from court records and other information).
Of these 20 known cases: five have ended in convictions (3 Muslims, 1 Jehovah's Witness, 1 Seventh-day Adventist); one trial is currently underway (Muslim); and five cases are still being investigated (2 Muslim, 1 Jehovah's Witness, while atheist Aleksandr Kharlamov is facing two investigations – see list below). In nine known cases, Article 174 cases were launched but were then closed down, with the individuals instead fined under the Administrative Code.
http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
.
Fisherman, you invalidate yourself. Every time you try to defend the indefensible, you do a fine job of invalidating yourself.
(i wanted to put this in the child abuse section of the forum!).
we have seen that during the march 2017 broadcast, m stephen lett has openly praised children who get baptised as young as 10!.
so lets summarize why it is wrong to push child baptism (not far off "infant baptism" that jws condemn other churches for).
Listener: When they discussed those disassociating as being an adult or close to adulthood they were probably being correct. That is the absurdity of the situation.
How is an 11 year old going to dissassociate or even have the comprehension of what that is? Just imagine the reaction of the parents to say the least.
That's true. But O'Brien claimed that those who disassociated had made their baptism choice when they were adults or approaching adulthood. He wasn't talking about the age at the time of disassociation - he was talking about their age at the time of baptism.
http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
.
dubstepped: Did anyone else notice the accidental cutaway to Angus laughing at them? I loved that.
I missed that...oh, please, when did that happen? What was being discussed?
I might have to watch the whole thing again just to see that
