Fisherman

Joined

• started 155 topics
• posted 5,295 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Fisherman

• 
  26

  Is Jehovah God guilty of the Sin of Omission ?

  by smiddy in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in genesis ch.1&2 god warns adam that if he ate of the tree of knowledge of good and bad he would die .theire was nothing said about anything else.. you would expect humans would just die of old age like adam and eve did.. the wages of sin is death the bible tells us .so if he disobeyed jehovah god he knew he would die .. what he never knew and neither did any other human to come after him was just how many ways death would come to humans.. death by creatures that were created by god venomous creatures ,snakes spiders etc.,marine creatures sharks etc., bacteria /viruses etc.,insect carrying diseases such as the mosquito that causes thousands of deaths to children under 5 years old even today with malaria.,wild animals etc,.leprosy that even existed under theocratic rule in the nation of israel.. then their is the indignties humans go through in old age ,loss of bodily functions , mental capacity ,alzheimers ,neurological diseases that effect young and old.that reduce people to almost live not much better than a vegetable .

  natural disasters not to be excluded because these are in the control of god to afflict mankind or not.. the list of afflictions that humans have to suffer through before they die , from a loving god just boggles my mind.. and i have only scratched the surface of indignities humans have faced before they die.. so i ask the question is god jehovah guilty of the sin of omission ?

  or did he act out of vengeance for their disobedience and wanted to inflict greater punishment upon them.for disobeying him.. what are your thoughts ?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  lie they chose to believe

  Adam was not thiseved
  

  
  
  
• 
  13

  What is it like at Warwick Bethel?

  by nevermind in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  from reading about people's first and second hand experiences about working at wt world headquarters back in the 70s and 80s era, the hypocrisy and lovelessness caused many bethelites to quit even before their term ended, some even leaving to never again return to a kingdom hall.

  that, coupled with open access back then at bethel to the literature of watchtower's early days can easily open the eyes of any rank and file jw to the society's occultish beginnings.

  fast forward to the warwick bethel today.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  Richard, what Powers does ARC have?
• 
  182

  The Danger of Settlements

  by Tech49 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.

  conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.

  i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  Richard Oliver, in Califorina, penitent confessions of Catholic child abusers are protected from disclosure under California State law. But JW child abuser communications to elders in a jc setting are not protected in California. Is that right?
• 
  182

  The Danger of Settlements

  by Tech49 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.

  conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.

  i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  Tech, businesses and large entities do not get to decide whether or not to setlle case except those that are self insured. They have delegated that decision to the insurance company that covers them from commercial general liability. For insurance companies, they don't look at whether or not Plaintiffs have a case. It is cheaper to settle and usually isurance companies offer some money with a stipulation agreement stating no admission of liability in essence saying here go away. Settlements establish no precedent except that an entity can be sued. And large companies with deep pockects are the entities that lawyers find are worth suing. As RO stated wt has a very large legal team and a law firm suing wt may have to tie up its entire office doing so, having to devote all time and resources to one case. Also to consider is that challenging someone legally may wind up costing you money or something else as you never know how thi ngs will turn out legally.
• 
  182

  The Danger of Settlements

  by Tech49 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.

  conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.

  i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  States can legislate laws that govern child abuse reporting and States can also legislate laws that that qualify cp privilige; cp privilege is a Priviledge and not a Right, Rights are guaranteed, they cannot be revoked, Privlidges can be revoked.Priviliges can be subject to qualification and may be licensed such as the privilege to operare a motor vehicle. Bergers decision states that cp is based on the 1st Amendment, he did not say that cp is guaranteed under the 1st Amendment. Berger also did not determine that all cp circumstances qualify; they are subject to the purpose of the communication and the role the minister is taking at any instance. Therefore, there is legal grounds to challege cp privilege.

  Richard Oliver pointed out that Watchtower cp privilege has not been decided by California Supreme Court, such decision legally establishing a legal precedent in all jurisdictions in the State of California. Lacking such decision, any other California state court decision can only be used as case law in the jurisdiction where the decision was made and subject to acceptance in other jurisdictions. Therefore, the only Precedent that can legally matter statewide affecting wt cp is one from SCOC.

  But even if California was to recognize WT cp privilidge, California can still pass laws mandating clergy to report child abuse. And that applies to other states also such as in the Fessler case where wt argues that wt does not have a paid clergy while clergy is being mandated to report child abuse under the related state statute; and whether or not doing so violates Berger's decision, has not been decided by the Courts.

  What is interesting is that wt is believed to have subpoenable information, confidential or not, about child abusers, which, has or has not, is or is not, will or will not, affected, affecting or will affect the safety of children.
• 
  182

  The Danger of Settlements

  by Tech49 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.

  conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.

  i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  How can California dictate to the church how they should practice cp. Shouldnt all religions be recognized equally under cp in every state as defined by Burgers decision? Since cp is the subject matter of a Federal Court as it relates to the 1st Amendment, why hasnt wt taken the case to federal court?
• 
  182

  The Danger of Settlements

  by Tech49 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.

  conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.

  i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  Double post
• 
  182

  The Danger of Settlements

  by Tech49 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.

  conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.

  i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  some states don't, the latter being the minority.

  That seems unconstitutional.

  
  RO, why doesn wt apppeal to a higher court claiminng confidentiality?

  Watchtower has been prepared to turn over the documents as well,

  If they do, it violates confidentiality. Even if Zalkin agrees to a protective order.

  
  

  Each state has their own laws on child abuse, reporting and priest-penitent privilege.

  Appears to conflict with Federal law. Why hasn't wt taken it to SCOUS.
  
  
• 
  182

  The Danger of Settlements

  by Tech49 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.

  conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.

  i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  RO: It appears that state law is violating the 1st amendment when confidential comunications have to be disclosed by Court Order. What is your opinion?

  RO: ARe you saying that WT disclosed confidential information about all child abuse cases they have on file to Zalkin in comliance with a Court Order?
  
• 
  182

  The Danger of Settlements

  by Tech49 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.

  conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.

  i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  But the conflict is this. Wt cannot disclose child abuse communications as per US law. It violates US law. But by the same token any state can pass laws requiring wt and every other religion (or it would be unconstitutional) to report communications protected by US law under the First Amendment to local authorities in-spite of US law mandating such communications from being disclosed.

  And where do you draw the line? Should attorneys also be required to report child abuse under a protected setting? Suppose a child abuser went free and he molested again?