Sorry, mate, our good friend Scholar JW did a better contest !
That is la logical fallacy. You didn’t falsify what I said. It is not about the chess player, it’s about the game.
this can be confusing because the wts has adjusted from not having a clergy class to not having a "paid" clergy class.. "a congregation of brothers precludes having a proud clergy class that honors itself with high-sounding titles and elevates itself above a laity" wt 6/1/2001 p. 12, pp 11. still same idea in 2021 wt october, p. 20, pp.
7, but 2022 in the wt publication, frequently asked questions about jehovah’s witnesses, page 13, the wts inserts "paid" in front of "clergy perhaps to shore up their current statement in secular courts they have clergy, just not paid) "following the model of first-century christianity, jehovah’s witnesses have no clergy-laity division.
all baptized witnesses are ordained ministers and share in the preaching and teaching work.
Sorry, mate, our good friend Scholar JW did a better contest !
That is la logical fallacy. You didn’t falsify what I said. It is not about the chess player, it’s about the game.
this can be confusing because the wts has adjusted from not having a clergy class to not having a "paid" clergy class.. "a congregation of brothers precludes having a proud clergy class that honors itself with high-sounding titles and elevates itself above a laity" wt 6/1/2001 p. 12, pp 11. still same idea in 2021 wt october, p. 20, pp.
7, but 2022 in the wt publication, frequently asked questions about jehovah’s witnesses, page 13, the wts inserts "paid" in front of "clergy perhaps to shore up their current statement in secular courts they have clergy, just not paid) "following the model of first-century christianity, jehovah’s witnesses have no clergy-laity division.
all baptized witnesses are ordained ministers and share in the preaching and teaching work.
Haha, that’s called “shifting the goalposts”. 😀
No it is not. Not at all. The law is so crafted. And legal conduct cannot be construed as breaking the law for example invoking the 5th or not consenting to a warrantless search does not constitute concealing criminal conduct, it is rights afforded by law. If you get a summons and there is a conflict between the factual part and the accusatory part, there is legal grounds for dismissal. It is the law, it is not wrongful conduct.
this can be confusing because the wts has adjusted from not having a clergy class to not having a "paid" clergy class.. "a congregation of brothers precludes having a proud clergy class that honors itself with high-sounding titles and elevates itself above a laity" wt 6/1/2001 p. 12, pp 11. still same idea in 2021 wt october, p. 20, pp.
7, but 2022 in the wt publication, frequently asked questions about jehovah’s witnesses, page 13, the wts inserts "paid" in front of "clergy perhaps to shore up their current statement in secular courts they have clergy, just not paid) "following the model of first-century christianity, jehovah’s witnesses have no clergy-laity division.
all baptized witnesses are ordained ministers and share in the preaching and teaching work.
They receive a paid allowance, meagre I agree, but an allowance nontheless.
Not as a clergy class. Everyone gets a n allowance.
this can be confusing because the wts has adjusted from not having a clergy class to not having a "paid" clergy class.. "a congregation of brothers precludes having a proud clergy class that honors itself with high-sounding titles and elevates itself above a laity" wt 6/1/2001 p. 12, pp 11. still same idea in 2021 wt october, p. 20, pp.
7, but 2022 in the wt publication, frequently asked questions about jehovah’s witnesses, page 13, the wts inserts "paid" in front of "clergy perhaps to shore up their current statement in secular courts they have clergy, just not paid) "following the model of first-century christianity, jehovah’s witnesses have no clergy-laity division.
all baptized witnesses are ordained ministers and share in the preaching and teaching work.
They want it both ways. They want to be clergy when protecting themselves from the courts. But, when making their sales pitch to the gullible, they claim to have not have a clergy class.
Not at all since the word can have dubious meanings.
this can be confusing because the wts has adjusted from not having a clergy class to not having a "paid" clergy class.. "a congregation of brothers precludes having a proud clergy class that honors itself with high-sounding titles and elevates itself above a laity" wt 6/1/2001 p. 12, pp 11. still same idea in 2021 wt october, p. 20, pp.
7, but 2022 in the wt publication, frequently asked questions about jehovah’s witnesses, page 13, the wts inserts "paid" in front of "clergy perhaps to shore up their current statement in secular courts they have clergy, just not paid) "following the model of first-century christianity, jehovah’s witnesses have no clergy-laity division.
all baptized witnesses are ordained ministers and share in the preaching and teaching work.
paid" in front of "clergy perhaps to shore up their current statement in secular courts they have clergy, just not paid)
JW elders are not paid and are not clergy like the clergy of christendom either and the term paid clergy does not have to imply that JW have an unpaid clergy. It could simply mean that JW don’t have a clergy and that their ministers don't get paid as the clergy of christendom does. JW have stated on Court that they don’t have a clergy class. However, the law has applied the term clergy to JW elders when the law defines the term as any ordained minister, rabbi, or priest. The term can also mean the paid clergy of christendom. That’s what the Courts and legal proceedings are for, to interpret the law.
ivy hill congregation of jehovah's witnesses is currently suing the pa department of human services.
it requests "a declaration that its elders are entitled to" clergy privilege, or, in the alternative,.
to the extent that the clergyman privilege is determined to exclude its elders on the basis that they are "members of [a] religious organization[] in which members other than the leader thereof are deemed clergymen or ministers," the court declare the statute to be unconstitutional.
WTS is being deceitful, hiding behind the label "clergy." at the same time saying they are not a clergy.
The term clergy used in laws may represent all ordained ministers of a religious system including JW Elders that are not clergy as JWs view themselves, or it could mean the clergy of aka “Christendom” which the JW claim they are not part of. It is up to the Courts to interpret the law and apply the laws with the term clergy to the JW. That is not being deceitful.
at the 2021 annual meeting, samuel herd revealed new light and claimed the anointed will all have passed away before armageddon.
it has since been revealed that while they will die before armageddon, there will be some anointed still around that will witness the start of the great tribulation.. so the question is, how many years until the existing members of the governing body have passed away?.
im not a doctor, but based on their age and various stages of obesity, im thinking 10- 15 years- give or take, sounds about right.. with that in mind, the great tribulation could be announced any day.. the new understanding has now freed the org from the burden of having to identify a particular generation in relation to the date of armageddon.
Can you elaborate?
Hi Ozzi,
Does everybody goes to heaven?
ivy hill congregation of jehovah's witnesses is currently suing the pa department of human services.
it requests "a declaration that its elders are entitled to" clergy privilege, or, in the alternative,.
to the extent that the clergyman privilege is determined to exclude its elders on the basis that they are "members of [a] religious organization[] in which members other than the leader thereof are deemed clergymen or ministers," the court declare the statute to be unconstitutional.
Most often, confession is not sought within the congregation. More often, an accusation is made a 3rd party, the accused confesses or doesnt. This does not seem to meet the threshold of privlieged communication, but IANAL
Ecclesiastical communications involving the adjudication of sin are protected. The JW religious system is a legal church and they consider communications by congregants involving sins (which may also be crimes) as ecclesiastical. Because the entire church process from the accusation of sin to the church proceedings in their judicial committees and further process involving other religious authorities up at the watchtower is defined as part of religious beliefs and practice by the JW religion, such communications can be considered as protected by the government.
A person goes to the. church to accuse someone of sin. A person goes to the police to accuse someone of a crime. However, mandatory reporting laws compel church authorities to report specific conduct to law enforcement and if they don’t they are breaking the law. But if they do the church can also be violating confidentiality protected by law—which is also breaking the law. Eliminate then the laws that protect criminal’s confidentiality to church and why stop there, eliminate confidentiality between criminals and lawyers.
If the government wants to dissolve church confidentiality and church jurisdiction over sins that are crimes or the human right for spiritual help, the reconciliation with God etc. That is that. But that is a breach of the separation of church and State. By the same token, the government can assume the role of the church like in theocratic governments of the middle east and dictate morality and prosecute immorality.
So the government is protected by 2 concurrent laws, one that abolishes the confidentiality rights of criminals in a church and another that by the same token protects the confidentiality rights of criminals in a church. On the other hand the same criminal enjoys confidentiality with his lawyer. Don’t be a minister or a lawyer if you want to help people or be a minister or a lawyer if you want to help people.
at the 2021 annual meeting, samuel herd revealed new light and claimed the anointed will all have passed away before armageddon.
it has since been revealed that while they will die before armageddon, there will be some anointed still around that will witness the start of the great tribulation.. so the question is, how many years until the existing members of the governing body have passed away?.
im not a doctor, but based on their age and various stages of obesity, im thinking 10- 15 years- give or take, sounds about right.. with that in mind, the great tribulation could be announced any day.. the new understanding has now freed the org from the burden of having to identify a particular generation in relation to the date of armageddon.
how did I , how did WE ever believe this stuff ?
Ozzie
Because the logic is so convincing. It still is if we think about it.
ivy hill congregation of jehovah's witnesses is currently suing the pa department of human services.
it requests "a declaration that its elders are entitled to" clergy privilege, or, in the alternative,.
to the extent that the clergyman privilege is determined to exclude its elders on the basis that they are "members of [a] religious organization[] in which members other than the leader thereof are deemed clergymen or ministers," the court declare the statute to be unconstitutional.
those secular systems are having their eyes opened.
Secular law doesn’t have jurisdiction to define ecclesiastical confidentiality which according to JW is within disclosing penitent confession to other church authorities for further church process. Secular law only protects penitent communications to be disclosed and used as evidence against the penitent based on a rules for evidence standard. The legal doctrine is that someone going to a minister for spiritual help should be legally free to do so without fear of being prosecuted. This human basic need to get spiritual help would be denied if spiritual healers would betray confidentiality to law enforcement for criminal prosecution.