I'm a 'dead and loving it' apostate.
(Only the older British posters will know what I'm talking about, but Dutchie's picture always reminds me of Aqua Marina from Stingray.)
Posts by dmouse
-
38What kind of Apostate are YOU?
by SYN inthat's right, what class of apostate do you fit into?
personally, i'm of the faithless (i'm close to being an athiest) and indiscreet (no explanation needed) class.. are you of the enviable smurf apostate class?
or perhaps even the haunted second-hand furniture apostate class?
-
-
-
14
Are the disassociated NOT to be shunned now?
by comment inrado vleugel pointed out on another thread that the current response to "do you shun former members?
" on the jw-media.org site represents a more hardline viewpoint as far as treatment of disfellowshipped family members.
once it said, "disfellowshipping does not sever family ties.
-
-
dmouse
Do you believe that you are the only ones who will be saved?
No.
Yet -
Watchtower 1989 9/1 19 - 7:
Only Jehovah's Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the "great crowd," as a united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer, have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil. (Revelation 7:9-17; 2 Corinthians 4:4)
The weird thing is, JWs believe BOTH points of view simultaneously!
It just depends on who is asking the question as to which answer they give.
The public get the 'happy happy joy joy' version while the erring JWs get the 'blood 'n' thunder' version.
-
14
Are the disassociated NOT to be shunned now?
by comment inrado vleugel pointed out on another thread that the current response to "do you shun former members?
" on the jw-media.org site represents a more hardline viewpoint as far as treatment of disfellowshipped family members.
once it said, "disfellowshipping does not sever family ties.
-
-
dmouse
It is more deception I'm afraid, meant to lull members of the public into thinking Witnesses are reasonable.
The latest Kingdom Ministry on this issue states in paragraph 1:
'First, let us review what the Bible says on this subject, the principles of which apply equally to those who are disfellowshipped and to those who disassociate themselves'
-
9
Disfellowshiping: The WTS Tightens Its Control
by Rado Vleugel inin this article i show that the watchtower leadership has hardened its standpoint on disfellowshipping.
they turned their standpoint from "disfellowshipping does not sever family ties" towards "quit mixing with them".
the evidence can be seen if you compare the statements on the jw-media.org website in the beliefs-frequently asked questions section before july 2002 and the hardened statement in july 2002. screenshots of both statements are displayed on watchtower information service.. .
-
-
dmouse
Thanks Rado, that's really helpful.
Does anyone know of a really good article that refutes the scriptural basis for the JW practice of disfellowshipping?
I mean, I think shunning is awful but there does seem support for it in the bible which is their authority for how they act.
-
4
DFing + Typos on WBTS site
by dmouse ini was looking at the jehovahs witness website for the infobyte about disfellowshipping, the one which said that disfellowshipping does not severe family ties.
i think it was in response to the question 'do jehovahs witnesses split up families?
i wanted to compare it with the latest km article which says of a disfellowshipped person 'former spiritual ties have been completely severed.
-
-
dmouse
I was looking at the Jehovahs Witness website for the infobyte about disfellowshipping, the one which said that disfellowshipping does not severe family ties. I think it was in response to the question 'Do Jehovahs Witnesses split up families?' Or something like that.
I wanted to compare it with the latest KM article which says of a disfellowshipped person 'Former spiritual ties have been completely severed. This is true even with respect to his relatives, including those within his immediate family circle...'
Anyway, I havent found it yet. I wonder if they removed it because it was an obvious contradiction.
What I did find was evidence of shoddy proofreading. When I did a search for Dfing a list of eight possible selections came up. This was one of them:
God's fatherly discipline, can take many forms. One is his arrangement to exclude from the Christian congreatgation a person who no longer wants to live by God's standards.
(Oh yeah? Who says? Don't they mean those who will no longer toe the party line?)
Also, on the main page, was this link:
View DisfellowshippingPracticing a Bible Standard.
Now, I don't know about American usage, which may be different from ours, but in the UK practice with a c is a noun while practise with an s is a verb. So it should be 'practising a Bible Standard. '
Not that spelling congregation incorrectly or misusing nouns and verbs is proof of anything, except perhaps the dumbing down of bethelites, I just thought it was interesting.
Edited because cutting and pasting from Word loses half the punctuation.
Edited by - dmouse on 20 July 2002 8:59:17
-
-
-
dmouse
Isn't it Jar ass?
-
52
BRITISH MP CALLS FOR GOV. INQUIRY into abuse
by hawkaw inbill bowen just emailed this to me and i wasn't too sure if had been posted.
this is very significant.
if anyone has helen's email or the email of the minister she wrote too asking for the enquiry, please post them.. hawk.
-
-
dmouse
I have just emailed this to Patricia Hewett, our MP for Leicester West:
There has recently been much debate about monitoring paedophiles in the community.
Even before the murder of Sarah Payne, the government was coming under pressure to do more to protect children from known sex offenders.
The Home Secretary, David Blunkett, acknowledges that sexual crimes cause great concern among the public.
"When children are the victims, the sense of outrage is particularly strong," he says.
"We are determined to take every opportunity of building on and strengthening the steps already taken to protect the public from these offenders."
When the Sex Offenders Act came into force in 1997, it created a register of sexual offenders, giving the police the power to monitor paedophiles.
I am personally opposed to a Sarah's law, as I believe that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. I strongly believe that the proper authorities should be informed and given the power to monitor child abusers.
However, I wish to bring to your attention a recent Panorama program on the BBC, which discussed the handling of child abuse issues among the Jehovah's Witness religion. I was shocked to discover the extent to which this group shields paedophiles from the police, due to their secretive nature and 'us versus them' attitude.
Are you aware that this religion keeps a register of sex offenders of its own, at its headquarters in Brooklyn? The database covers sex offences known about in both the U.S. and Europe, including the UK. It is likely that many of the names on it are not known to the police.
I am writing to you today to express my concern that a potential threat exists where paedophile activity is kept hidden from the proper authorities. Indeed, it is a policy of the Jehovah's Witnesses that sex offenders among them are required to go door-to-door evangelising! It is possible that such people are looking for their next victim, and also possible that their predilections are unknown to the police.
It has come to my attention that another MP, Helen Clark Member of Parliament for Peterborough, has tabled an early Day Motion in the House of Commons calling for an immediate enquiry into the allegations of child sexual abuse amongst members of Jehovah's Witness congregations.
I fully support this motion and hope that you will give her your full support too, for the safety of all the children in our community.
Edited by - dmouse on 19 July 2002 5:10:12
-
11
Are you satisfied?
by dmouse ini have spoken to some jehovahs witnesses who are not aware that i no longer believe in the religion.
there was shock and unhappiness about the panorama program, and concern about what they would have to face in the door-to-door ministry.
those that have been out report no real problems.
-
-
dmouse
I agree Matty, many witnesses are VERY confused. This is made worse by the attitude that nita6368 mentioned, that they feel above the law. The talk on Sunday, which preceeded the reading of the letter, was all about how Jehovah's justice was superior to man's! I was speaking to an old JW friend about the peadophile elder in Warwickshire who had been found guilty in a court of law and sentenced to two years prison. She said that she knows someone in the congregation involved and the brothers are still convinced that he is innocent!
I could see the conflict in her face. Basic human instincts to protect children are being subjugated to protect the good name of their religion.
No wonder they are confused!
I'm not saying the fight is over, but that we should shift our balance to respond to the enemie's tactics.
To win this fight we must analyse and adapt!
Edited by - dmouse on 18 July 2002 17:8:20
-
11
Are you satisfied?
by dmouse ini have spoken to some jehovahs witnesses who are not aware that i no longer believe in the religion.
there was shock and unhappiness about the panorama program, and concern about what they would have to face in the door-to-door ministry.
those that have been out report no real problems.
-
-
dmouse
What I'm asking is - are children as safe as they can be in the congregations NOW? Have we succeeded in our primary objective of ensuring children's safety?
And, have our reasons for pursuing the scumbags reponsible for all the pain they have inflicted changed?
I'm not suggesting that we drop the issue, only that the issue has changed?
-
11
Are you satisfied?
by dmouse ini have spoken to some jehovahs witnesses who are not aware that i no longer believe in the religion.
there was shock and unhappiness about the panorama program, and concern about what they would have to face in the door-to-door ministry.
those that have been out report no real problems.
-
-
dmouse
I have spoken to some Jehovahs Witnesses who are not aware that I no longer believe in the religion. There was shock and unhappiness about the Panorama program, and concern about what they would have to face in the door-to-door ministry. Those that have been out report no real problems. The only comment related to me was that one householder casually remarked that child abuse is everywhere, why should JWs escape?
The general consensus of opinion in our neck of the woods is that child abuse had been a problem caused by some Elders not following the Societys directions. The Societys policy has been refined over the years and is now very strong and these problems should now decline. They view the situation in a similar way to God using surrounding nations to chastise His chosen people the Israelites. (BTW, is there a link somewhere that deals with the JW argument that some faults in the Organisation dont mean that God doesnt use them, because Israel had faults but God still used them?)
The old JW conditioning came to the fore one-sided reporters twisting things due to influence from apostates, and victims who are suing the Society just for money or spite. I was told that the Society tried to give their side of the issue in letters and such but the reporters werent interested, they just wanted to get a juicy story.
What came over very strongly was that the opinion that the Organisation has always tried to do the right thing; it was some isolated brothers who failed. The conversation several times turned to doing things Jehovahs way, and they always equated that with following the Organisations policies the two things are the same in their minds, the Organisation = Jehovah. The failure came from some Elders not doing things Jehovahs way.
So, some very good things have occurred over the last few months. The societys policy on child abuse has been strengthened and a much more realistic attitude to the problem is disseminating through the congregations. The problem is out in the open so paedophiles are going to find it much more difficult to hide. It seems that child abuse will now almost certainly be reported to the police for their investigation. I hope that this spirit of Glasnost prevails. If it does then I think that their policy is as effective as it can be under the circumstances. The two witnesses rule is now only relevant when it comes to handling discipline within the congregation. I dont give a hoot if a paedophile loses his privileges at the hall as long as the bastard goes to prison for his crimes and children are protected.
Obviously the Society has some culpability in this issue; after all it was their agents, the elders, which screwed up. But we all know that they will slip away from the problem and allow the elders to take the fall. I am angry that once again the criminal masterminds at the head escape justice yet again. BUT heads have rolled, changes have been made, and advice from bethel seems to encourage the elders to do the right thing. It also appears that there may have been new letters to bodies of elders, the elders in my hall met to discuss something from the society after Sunday's meeting. Does anyone know what these new letters might contain?
I would like your opinions on this:
Bearing in mind that regular Jehovahs Witnesses are just as disgusted at child abuse as the next person and zero tolerance is setting in, what are our reasons for pursuing this issue now? Have we not achieved what we set out to do? Are you or are you not satisfied that children are now as safe as they can be in the congregations?