Posts by Incognito

16

It Was NOT a Cross or a Torture Stake!

by cameo-d in

a lot of old paintings depict it as a t shape.. this one is c.1490.

.

Incognito

Last week, there was a show on Torture & Death machines I watched a part of. The cross was included as one of those machines. The show was on Discovery channel.

The information presented that the Roman cross was actually 'T' shaped (Tau) and did not actually cross over as is common in the Latin cross, the cross shape we are most familiar.

The stake in the Roman cross was 10 - 12' long with approx. 1/3 buried permanently in the ground, so as to be used for multiple crucifixions. The top of the stake had a tenon (smaller dimensioned protrusion cut from the larger stake) which would fit into a socket (mortise) cut into the centre of a 6’ cross beam (patibulum). In this manner, the cross beam was actually balancing on top of the stake with the mortise/tenon joint securing the two pieces together with no other fastening method needed.

The condemned would be nailed to the cross beam while the beam was on the ground. To hang the beam was simply a matter of hoisting the beam (with prisoner) to the top of the stake and inserting the tenon into the mortise.

Nailing the condemned is usually most effective when done through the wrist, between the larger bones as this area would be able to support the persons weight while less likely to rip as would be likely if nailed through the hands. Nailing the hands would result in more pain but ropes would have had to be used to lash the persons arms to the cross beam for added support.

It was discussed that utilizing a cross beam was far more torturous than fastening the hands straight overhead. As an example, in gymnastics, a gymnast hanging by overhead bar or rings, can comfortably stay hanging longer, than a gymnast doing the ‘Iron cross’ with arms straight out.

They also showed that the feet were normally nailed to the sides of the stake; they had depicted the nails going through the ankles. It said that the crucified would have difficulty breathing so they would often push up using their legs to help exhale. It was stated that this was the cruellest part of the process. By nailing the feet in the manner just described, when the person would push up, injured nerves in both the ankle/feet and wrist/hands would be reactivated, resulting in intense pain shooting through the entire body making breathing part of the torture process.

Described with the physical description of this machine, its location and oriention were planned to give the condemned the most weather exposure (sun, wind etc) to help wear them down.

Gravity was as the main force that caused torture & ultimately death. Since the crucified slumps lower and lower as time passes, a sign fastened to the crossbeam would be located above the condemned persons head.

66

"Nope, we're not a brain-washed." Check these faces (and necks) out!!

by passwordprotected in

those dudes have incredibly long necks.

but we won't hold that against them.. .

what exactly is the little dude getting out of the meeting.. i mean, srsssly.

Incognito

possible said

I think that you have been brainwashed with what is probably different.
That is, the incorrect Trinity doctrine (Jesus is Jehovah), the fundamentalism more than JW, etc.

password never made mention about 'Trinity' or 'Jesus is Jehovah' within this thread. Baggage from other threads, should remain with the appropriate thread, otherwise it appears as though you are trying to single out password and hijack this thread.

The comment about the 'long necks' is simply an observation.

66

"Nope, we're not a brain-washed." Check these faces (and necks) out!!

by passwordprotected in

those dudes have incredibly long necks.

but we won't hold that against them.. .

what exactly is the little dude getting out of the meeting.. i mean, srsssly.

Incognito

Mary,

I think the guy in the picture you posted is supposed to represent a blind person reading Braille.

61

A Secret about DF'ing that Elders will NEVER tell you.

by Amazing in

jw
friends

when i discussed this with some ex-jws in the past, they have pointed out to me that the following is not done in actual pracrice.

of course it is not done in practrice ... that is why i referred to it as a "secret" because elders do not normally disclose such information, either because they fear its effect, or because they have not thoroughly paid attention to the "pay attention" book.

in this post, i am not arguing about actual practice ... rather what the undisclosed, withheld, secretive information is ... and how being armed may allow """some""" jws to relax their conscience.. a secret that elders will not openly tell you.

Incognito

iknowall558 husbnd's elder brother asked : "yeah , but how old is the book?"

I think a great response to that question is: 'A lot newer than the Bible!'

61

A Secret about DF'ing that Elders will NEVER tell you.

by Amazing in

jw
friends

when i discussed this with some ex-jws in the past, they have pointed out to me that the following is not done in actual pracrice.

of course it is not done in practrice ... that is why i referred to it as a "secret" because elders do not normally disclose such information, either because they fear its effect, or because they have not thoroughly paid attention to the "pay attention" book.

in this post, i am not arguing about actual practice ... rather what the undisclosed, withheld, secretive information is ... and how being armed may allow """some""" jws to relax their conscience.. a secret that elders will not openly tell you.

Incognito

It appears that the ‘Pay Attention' paragraph quoted, could open a door for R&F active witness that have continued (and wishes to continue) a relationship with their DFD/DAD relation, a potential way out of criticism from elders. I think this is part of the point of Amazing's thread.

Unfortunately, this was not clearly stated, but Amazing did say:

Once armed with this secret information, you have some power to possibly moderate your relationships with your JW relatives who will listen to you. Underlining : mine.

This statement implies that there remains some sort of relationship albeit it may be a strained one.

Unfortunately, any R&F witness that has continued a relationship, if using the ‘Pay Attention' quote as justification, would then be under criticism (or worse) for knowing what the ‘Pay Attention' book says. As has already been stated, the 'Elders' are the only ones that can use this information to their advantage, as they exclusively are the only ones that rightly have access to this 'secret' book.

A JW relative that is happy to shun, will fight tooth & nail to continue to do so if they feel (written or not) that 'The Society' wants them to do so. Showing them 'older' written WT proof either contradicting or allowing broader interpretation, will not change their mind. Even though the ‘Pay Attention' book may not have been amended and technically still stands, most R&F witnesses would quote current Watchtower articles or latest platform talks as the current requirement. (As per minimus’ last comment)

As Amazing stated, the Watchtower is full of hypocrisy and double-speak. This will in continue in WT land as it has been highly effective and continues to serve them well. If all witnesses knew all of the information that a select few have a 'privilege' of knowing, then those privileged few no longer have special perks and the WT's tight control would be severly diminished.

55

"mass exodus coming up in August 2009".

by hubert in

this was written in the topic...."blood lawsuit goes forward against the org.

conference call sat.

march 28".

Incognito

I have listened to the conference call at Six Screens and I believe Six Screens owner, Rick Fearon is not predicting a mass exodus, but is trying to get one going.

I don’t know where Fearon is getting his numbers from, but he seems to feel that 2.5 million still active Witnesses no longer believe the WT’s drivel and attend only for other reasons including fear or family conformity. He seems to believe that some of these non-believing ‘fence-sitters’ are regularly listening in on his conference site although not necessarily participating. I gather he is attempting to get these off the fence and publicly show that they no longer ‘buy-in’ to the WT message.

He seems to propose DAing as the strongest statement. If there are enough that DA at the same time, this sends an obvious statement to WT and is something both the WT and JW Rank & File cannot ignore. He has proposed the end of the WT fiscal year as the date when this ‘mass exodus’ occurs.

I think Faron realizes that not all will DA & walk out so he seems to have proposed alternate suggestions as to ways that will make a statement (ie: No Service Time, No $ Donations, etc). This way, those not wanting to yet DA, may participate and make a statement without drawing attention and endanger their family relationships. Subsequent published reports from WT should hopefully show a noticeable bloop in August 2009.

Although some will look at this and say it is a waste of time, I think Fearon suggests that doing something is better than nothing. Complaing will do nothing so he has advanced an idea that he feels will at least 'leave a mark' on the WT.

11

Blood Suit

by Kenneson in

jw
friends

"jehovah's witness sues over transfusion".

.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/02/23/jehovah_s_witness_sues_over_transfusion.htm.

Incognito

I re-read the filing PDF. It states that on February 15, 2007, that Dr. Dessen was aware that Ms. Rodriguez was a practicing JW and “has strongly held beliefs against accepting any blood transfusions of whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma”.

If the above statement is true, them my original post stands, but due to some wording within the filing, I now wonder if the Doctor was not actually aware of her position with blood when he agreed to take on this case.

Perhaps she didn’t discuss being a Witness or the blood restriction with him but is instead relying on the Advance Directive she signed upon admission to the hospital on February 19, 2007. The filing seems to stress the Doctor’s relationship with the hospital and needing to follow the hospitals procedures.

Due to the filing naming the Doctor’s wife as a Defendant in the action, I wonder if this Doctor is an employee of the hospital or is in private practice with only Surgery privileges within that hospital.

If the Doctor was not made aware of her ‘unique’ requirements before taking on her case, this would be unfair to him. Just as a patient can decide to pursue another Doctor if the initial Doctor will not abide by the patient’s wishes, then too, the Doctor should have opportunity to decline a case if the patient’s restrictions are not agreeable to the Doctor.

Any Doctor in regular treatment of a patient, would follow standard medical protocol when situations develop. Standard protocol would likely be to administer a blood transfusion for replacement of lost blood from surgery. If her opposition to blood was not highlighted to him when she consulted with him (only 4 days previous), his first thought would probably be to follow standard procedure. This could be done without even consulting the medical chart beforehand, but recording developments afterward.

If she did not discuss her opposition to blood with the Doctor during the initial consultation, I think SHE is then largely responsible for the outcome.

There seems to be inconsistencies to this story. Paragraph XVII states that the Advance Directive was signed and witnessed by a hospital employee on February 19 whereas p. XIX states that this same Advance Directive was provided to Admitting during the Plaintiff’s diagnostic testing two days prior. An unsigned and un-witnessed Directive wouldn’t be provided to admitting so, which is it?

Although, as some of you pointed-out, this filing seems to be filed by the Plaintiff, I can’t see a layperson knowing the wording used or even knowing how to go about such a procedure. Perhaps she has a previous template to follow or a 'Lawyer wanabe' guiding her through ths.

11

Blood Suit

by Kenneson in

jw
friends

"jehovah's witness sues over transfusion".

.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/02/23/jehovah_s_witness_sues_over_transfusion.htm.

Incognito

Regardless of how I feel about the JW Blood Transfusion rules, I believe this patients rights were violated.

Doctors often treat symptoms and disease at the expense of the patient. Ultimately, the patient has to live (or not) with the actions of the Doctor. Part of the Doctor's oath is to ‘Do no harm’.

Although in this case she lived, her belief system was violated and she likely now feels guilty and unworthy of Jehovah’s love. She may carry these feelings for the rest for her life. Although the Doctor was treating a physical ailment, he negatively affected (harmed) her psychologically since the blood issue was a major issue to her.

WE NOW understand the guilt and control placed on her by the WBTS, but think about how we would have felt under similar circumstances when we were indoctrinated JW’s. If any of us had made an informed decision on our medical treatment, discussed it with our Doctor, had he/she agree (presumably), signed the necessary hospital directive forms, yet our instructions were not followed, we would likely be experiencing the same feelings that this woman is.

I think most of us today feel we should have a say as to what treatments we are willing to accept, regardless of the procedure or our reasons for accepting/not accepting a certain treatment.

Although we could argue that she was not properly informed since much of her information likely was provided by the WBTS, part of her Doctor’s job is to review what was medically possible in her condition and should matters require blood, alternative blood treatments, since this was a major issue to her.

If her Doctor could not conscientiously follow her wishes, then he should have been upfront and discussed this with her when discussing her requirements before surgery. She could have then made a decision to allow the Doctor to take whatever steps he felt necessary or she could have decided to search for a Doctor that was willing to abide by her wishes.

Incognito

19

JWs', lying SOBs

by LouBelle in

jw
friends

i was just reading lady libertys' post and i found myself getting angrier and angrier.

the way they can blatently lie.

granted it's not all of them, but it's the ones' in ""power"" and your family (that's what happend to me) .

Incognito

I asked my JW bud why JW's shun. I told them how childish that was. He simply agreed, but said they don't. Who's giving me the bs? Him or about 2000 of you here?

Witnesses rely heavily on technicalities and their own private terminology. They say that they don’t shun as they call it ‘Disfellowshipping’ or being ‘Disfellowshipped’. A rose by any other name….

They will usually become indignant and call you a liar or say you don’t know what you’re talking about if you don’t refer to things in their terminology.

Even the most innocent of words has to be nit-picked apart and as a witness, you are judged if you use the incorrect word.

For example, the Bulletin Board at the rear of the hall can’t be called that. It has to be called the “Information Board”.

A Witnesses place of worship is a "Kingdom Hall" and cannot be called a church as many in the public refer to it.

Being Baptized = being a full fledged Jehovah's Witness member.

As a witness, you can’t say “Good Luck” or “Lucky”.

You can’t say “Bless You” if someone sneezes.

Being a Witness is referred to being “in the truth”. (ie: when meeting someone new at the hall "how long have you been in the truth?")

Not being a Witness is referred to as “being wordly” or a witness with independant thoughts is referred to as having a "wordly attitude".

There are more but it’s too tiring to even think about.

81

Part 2:The Elders Return, Made Decision To Disfellowship Us On Grounds Of..

by Lady Liberty in

jw
friends

dear friends.... "happy tuesday!

" well the saga continues!

i thought we had seen the last of the elders last friday night as most have you are familiar with the story.

Incognito

Hi Lady Liberty & BlackPearl,

Although you may have expected this, it still can be a shock when it is reality. How does it make you feel? Are you guys OK?

Again, as stated previously, the blame is always dumped on you as a R&F member. The Society or the elders never take responsiblity for anything that they did or didn’t do.

From your original post of December 15/07 (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/148880/1.ashx):

I said.."Well regardless, I cannot and will not belong to an organization who harbors pediphiles!!!

As stated previously by DT – “This sounds like a clear statement of disassociation to me.” I agree. How can they disfellowship if you’ve already disassociated?

You may want to appeal and push this issue. You might see this as a waste of time but, at the very least, it provides you further opportunity to get more off your chest, inform more of these elders about WT lies and an occasion to record the proceedings. Of course, you’ll most likely take control of the meeting since you have a strong disposition, are better prepared and have factual information readily available.

A few other items to consider:

You mention being away from meetings for 3 years. Have you been representing yourselves as Witnesses during this time? I’m told that the Society’s current policy is not to pursue punishing the ‘bad deed's’ of walk-away members who are no longer calling themselves or known as witnesses.

If the elders were truly Sheppard’s and looking after your wellbeing (as they like to think of themselves as), why did they not notice the Christmas decorations (that were in plain view and a cause for vandalism) last year?

You may want to contact your local Newspaper regarding a follow-up story to the vandalism of last year. Since you are both known in your community, your neighbors may be interested in how you are currently being treated by the same group who last year vandalized your property.