Posts by wizzstick

201

I am glad to have found the true religion

by A Believer in

jw
friends

it really is great.

i remember browsing this forum the day after i had joined it, and their was a knock on the door.

i thought it was one of my package from ups but instead it was two sisters.

wizzstick

How about this one, can you using the bible show scripturally the bible condemn rape and slavery? Spoiler alert you cannot. They are not treated as moral issues. that is your bible there buddy, pretty sick for being the highest level of morality man has...

Here
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102011251

Let's see what the WT says in the last couple of paragraphs:

The End of Slavery
As is the case with every Bible-related question, the issue of slavery must be considered in context. A careful examination of the Scriptures reveals that God deplores the mistreatment of humans.
Such an examination also reveals that the kind of slavery practiced by God’s people in the Bible is not the cruel and abusive slavery that is envisioned by most people today. And the Bible shows that God will deliver us from all forms of slavery in due time. Then, all mankind will enjoy true freedom

So let's take that one by one:

the issue of slavery must be considered in context

The WT bullet point in the article says:

The maximum time that any Israelite would have to serve as a slave was six years.

Below is an example of context that the WT leaves out. If a person got married whilst he was a slave and had children, he could go free in the 7th year but his wife and children would remain slaves. If he wanted to stay with his family then he would be a slave.

Forever.

Hmmm...either split up the family or be in slavery forever. Why don't the WT highlight that?

Exodus 21: 1-6

1 These are the judicial decisions that you are to convey to them:

2 “If you buy a Hebrew slave,+ he will serve as a slave for six years, but in the seventh year, he will be set free without paying anything.+ 3 If he came by himself, he will go out by himself. If he is the husband of a wife, then his wife must go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children will become her master’s, and he will go out by himself.+ 5 But if the slave should insist and say, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my sons; I do not want to be set free,’+ 6 his master must bring him before the true God. Then he will bring him up against the door or the doorpost, and his master will pierce his ear through with an awl, and he will be his slave for life.

Not very nice is it?

They also leave out the next bit of Exodus 21:7-11.

Why do they? Maybe because if shows how a female:

Could be sold into slavery by her Dad
Wouldn't go free after 6 years
Could be made a concubine (clue - for sex)
Could be sold on
Could be given to the master's son as a wife
Could be taken by the master as another wife.

7 “If a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not go free the same way that a slave man does. 8 If her master is not pleased with her and he does not designate her as a concubine but causes her to be purchased by someone else,* he will not be entitled to sell her to foreigners, for he has betrayed her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he is to grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife for himself, the sustenance, the clothing, and the marriage due+ of the first wife are not to be diminished. 11 If he will not render these three things to her, then she is to go free without paying any money.

This is absolutely misogynistic. The girl (that's what we're talking about here - probably about your age A Believer) has no say about being sold into slavery, being made a concubine, sold on, given to his son, taken by the master as a wife.

This is wrong. We know that treating people like this is wrong. That's the context that is missing here.

Let's take a look at another statement in that article:

the kind of slavery practiced by God’s people in the Bible is not the cruel and abusive slavery that is envisioned by most people today

Another passage they didn't mention.

If you beat your slave and they die there and then, you get punished. But if you beat them and they die a few days later they are not to be avenged - why? Because the slave was brought with the owners money.

Exodus 21:20

20. “If a man strikes his slave man or his slave girl with a stick and that one dies by his hand, that one must be avenged.+ 21 However, if he survives for one or two days, he is not to be avenged, because he is someone bought with his owner’s money.

This is utterley wrong for two reasons.

1. God is allowing beatings. This is acceptable to him. This is just wrong, wrong, wrong. Why is it that we're more imperfect than ever yet know beating a fellow human is wrong. But back then God didn't say beating a fellow human was wrong.

2. Beating someone and they subsequently die after a few days is ok...as they were bought with the owner's money.

Lastly, here's a cheery reminder of how some slaves were acquired by Israel.

By force.

Deuteronomy 20:10-14

10 “If you approach a city to fight against it, you should also announce to it terms of peace.+ 11 If it gives a peaceful answer to you and opens up to you, all the people found there will become yours for forced labor, and they will serve you.+ 12 But if it refuses to make peace with you and instead goes to war with you, you should besiege it, 13 and Jehovah your God will certainly give it into your hand, and you must strike down every male in it with the sword. 14 However, the women, the children, the livestock, and everything that is in the city, all its spoil, you may plunder for yourself,+ and you will eat the spoil of your enemies, which Jehovah your God has given to you.

So they can give this city 2 options.

Option 1:

Open the doors and be our forced labour voluntarily.

Option 2:

Besiege the city. Kill all males and take the women, children and livestoock as plunder.

So A Believer - still feel that the WT gives a balanced view of slavery with all the context?

8

so let me get this straight, apostate christianity....

by nowwhat? in

put together the bible canon, came up with the name jehovah.

spread the basic christian message across the globe.

got rid of all the false gods of the roman empire and gods of other nations as well.

wizzstick

Haha.

Yes - it's a great inconsistency.

I remember when we did the 'All Scriptures' book at the mid-week meetings and it talked about how the Church had assembled the NT. I was shocked.

I'd been taught that the death of the Apostle John marked the time when wolves entered the congregation and it became apostate Christendom. So how could God use apostate Christendom to assemble the Bible? But apparently he did.

Of course that opened up a heap of problems for me. If God used them then, couldn't he have used them at other times over the past 2,000 years. What about now? Surely there would be nothing more important than assembling the Bible. So if he could use them for that, then he could use them to do other things.

It's a hole in the WT's 'we're the only true christians since the 1st century' doctrine.

44

Update to UK “Child Safeguarding Policy”

by wifibandit in

a known poster on this site (anon) says:.

i have just received a text from an elder i've known for decades in my circuit who has some sympathy for my feelings and who is aware of the arc, the uk charity commission, etc., etc.

here it is verbatim, and my reply.

wizzstick

I have been involved in child welfare through sport for many years. Every adequate Child Welfare policy emphasises one key point...
If you become aware of an allegation of child abuse you WILL contact the police or social services. If a child doesn't want you to contact the police you will still contact the police. You should also inform the child welfare officer of your local club or national sport governing body. However this is secondary to your requirement to inform the police or social services.

Of course they should be doing this.

It's simply the right thing to do.

44

Update to UK “Child Safeguarding Policy”

by wifibandit in

a known poster on this site (anon) says:.

i have just received a text from an elder i've known for decades in my circuit who has some sympathy for my feelings and who is aware of the arc, the uk charity commission, etc., etc.

here it is verbatim, and my reply.

wizzstick

In addition, a congregation member who learns of child abuse may choose to report the matter to the secular authorities.

Why couldn't the WT have phrased that like this:

In addition, a congregation member who learns of child abuse should be instructed to report the matter to the secular authorities. Elders will assist such a one if needed.

A report to the police or other appropriate authorities will be made immediately by the congregation elders if it is determined that a child is still at risk.

What?

How do you determine whether a child is at risk of child abuse when you have no training to do so?

If the child expresses to the elders discomfort in discussing the matter in the presence of a parent, and the parent agrees, then the child may be gently told that he or she may choose an adult companion other than a parent, with whom he or she feels comfortable speaking about the matter, to be present during the discussion

Way too much is expected of a child here.

What if they are uncomfortable but can't express this?

During the investigation process and any subsequent congregation judicial committee hearing, a victim of child sexual abuse is not required to make her allegation in the presence of the alleged abuser.

Thank goodness that's been changed! At last!

But why are they assuming a victim will be a 'her'?

A person who has engaged in child sexual abuse does not qualify to receive any privileges or to serve in a position of trust or responsibility in the congregation for many years, if ever

This is wrong. It should be a permanent ban.

My take on this is that it seems to be an attempt at saving their asses given the ongoing Charity Commission investigation. At least the horrific act of getting the abuse victim to talk about the abuse in front of the abuser is finished.

But overall it still doesn't go far enough.

36

Noah a Preacher of Righteousness?

by Spoletta in

during the watchtower study today, i browsed genesis and looked for evidence of noah ever preaching to anyone.

from what i could glean from the scriptures, it was a foregone conclusion that noah's family would be it on the ark.

(unless they towed some rafts behind) my wife says that building the ark could be considered a witness of his faith to the wicked world, but that seems kind of lame to me.. so, should i just assume that god decided not to give anyone else a chance for redemption?

wizzstick

It took him forty years to build the Arc, but by the time he finished, the people were so wicked they were beyond redemption.

Nice but as I said earlier:

So there was only going to be food for the the animals and 'you' which, from V.18, means Noah and his family. No consideration was made for extra food for any who might repent.
There was never any hope for pre-flood mankind. It was a forgone conclusion that God would wipe them all out. Noah's preaching wasn't of hope - it was a judgment message.

No provision for food - meant they were always doomed.

Lovely God you worship. Getting someone to preach for no reason.

36

Noah a Preacher of Righteousness?

by Spoletta in

during the watchtower study today, i browsed genesis and looked for evidence of noah ever preaching to anyone.

from what i could glean from the scriptures, it was a foregone conclusion that noah's family would be it on the ark.

(unless they towed some rafts behind) my wife says that building the ark could be considered a witness of his faith to the wicked world, but that seems kind of lame to me.. so, should i just assume that god decided not to give anyone else a chance for redemption?

wizzstick

If Noah did warn the world, the world obviously chose to ignore his warnings, because the Bible teaches that the world was taken by surprise when the flood came.

Thanks Blondie - interesting read.

The writer misses the same point. Noah was told to take food for only the animals and 'you' - him and his family.

God obviously decided that they'd be the only ones who would survive, so what would be the point in 'warning' people even though if any repented there was no food in the Ark for them?

36

Noah a Preacher of Righteousness?

by Spoletta in

during the watchtower study today, i browsed genesis and looked for evidence of noah ever preaching to anyone.

from what i could glean from the scriptures, it was a foregone conclusion that noah's family would be it on the ark.

(unless they towed some rafts behind) my wife says that building the ark could be considered a witness of his faith to the wicked world, but that seems kind of lame to me.. so, should i just assume that god decided not to give anyone else a chance for redemption?

wizzstick

Genesis 6:

18 And I am establishing my covenant with you, and you must go into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you.

21 For your part, you are to collect and take with you every kind of food to eat, to serve as food for you and for the animals.

So there was only going to be food for the the animals and 'you' which, from V.18, means Noah and his family. No consideration was made for extra food for any who might repent.

There was never any hope for pre-flood mankind. It was a forgone conclusion that God would wipe them all out. Noah's preaching wasn't of hope - it was a judgment message.

When I was in the process of leaving an elder came round and tried to use the story of Noah and his preaching work to encourage me. When I pointed out about there only being enough foood for Noah and family he went very quiet!

14

Name one Watchtower date that they got correct

by FatFreek 2005 in

it was the year 2011. remember that one?

surprise, surprise -- it wasn't one of their predictions.

it was from one of their competitors, harold camping.. "religious leaders sometimes predict tragic worldwide events to warn mankind and gather followers.

wizzstick

They got the 1922 horn-blowing in Cedar Point Ohio right.

Whilst the roller coasters were whizzing by - God thought this was the place to do a trumpet blast from.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/8zsWYEiIIPI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>

14

Name one Watchtower date that they got correct

by FatFreek 2005 in

it was the year 2011. remember that one?

surprise, surprise -- it wasn't one of their predictions.

it was from one of their competitors, harold camping.. "religious leaders sometimes predict tragic worldwide events to warn mankind and gather followers.

wizzstick

In answer to the OP title:

Name one Watchtower date that they got correct

Not one. Every single prediction and piece of speculation they've had went unfulfilled. Nothing they've ever said would happen has happened.

They will go down in history as a text book example of a false prophet.

14

Name one Watchtower date that they got correct

by FatFreek 2005 in

it was the year 2011. remember that one?

surprise, surprise -- it wasn't one of their predictions.

it was from one of their competitors, harold camping.. "religious leaders sometimes predict tragic worldwide events to warn mankind and gather followers.

wizzstick

Most of the JWs I've spoken to immediately say 1914, adding that no other religion was able to pinpoint that date except them. They were very proud of that accomplishment.

It's always worth bearing in mind two points on this.

1. They expected armageddon that year. They believed the last days began in 1799, 1914 was the endpoint.

2. They expected things to finish in October 1914. In June 1914 Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated then on August 4th, 1914 WW1 really began. There was no similarlity between their predictions and start of WW1. They pinpointed nothing.

The whole 1914 thing is a classic case of serendipity - a "fortunate happenstance". The WT has eaten out on it ever since.

I wonder how many of our parents/grandparents/great grandparents came in because 'they got 1914 right'...