https://www.apfdigital.com.ar/despachos.asp?cod_des=392562.
"jehovah's witness of st. helena convicted of abuse was captured .
paraná, oct 13 (apfdigital) .
Diogenesister : St. Helena is crawling with JWs.
St Helena (the island in the Atlantic) is crawling with JWs. But this is referring to Santa Elena (St. Helena) in Argentina. Note the reference to Entre Ríos (the province where Santa Elena is located) and the 'ar' suffix to the websites.
matthew 5:41 (nwt) "...and if someone in authority compels you into service for a mile,* go with him two miles.".
a member of the roman occupying forces could command a local to carry their pack for a mile.
the local was thus pressed into a form of military service.
Anony Mous, I was not suggesting your claim (that someone with a criminal record due to refusing military service was barred from serving in certain capacities) was anal, but that doing so was perverse. I would appreciate a reference in the Elders book if you happen to know it.
I also lived in a country that had mandatory service, and agree it was expected you would refuse any demanded service unless a court sentenced you to it. I remember arguing that I could pay a fine instead of imprisonment as I was guilty of the charge (refusing military service) but was told we (JWs) needed to present a united front. However, although it is now treated as a matter of conscience whether one accepts civilian service, the principle that a Christian cannot support the armed services (or any nonneutral organization) has not changed. The principle is not that you cannot do demanded service for government in civilian duties, that is what Matthew 5:41 is about. The implementation of the principle was that you could not do civilian duties in lieu of joining the armed services. It is an important distinction. What has changed? I suggested that since the '70s and '80s the variety of government responses to conscientious objectors has clouded whether compulsory civilian duties are in lieu of military service, and so it becomes a matter of conscience.
matthew 5:41 (nwt) "...and if someone in authority compels you into service for a mile,* go with him two miles.".
a member of the roman occupying forces could command a local to carry their pack for a mile.
the local was thus pressed into a form of military service.
NotFormer : How do the JWs get around this?
Earnest responds.
NotFormer : Stop defending your evil organisation!
matthew 5:41 (nwt) "...and if someone in authority compels you into service for a mile,* go with him two miles.".
a member of the roman occupying forces could command a local to carry their pack for a mile.
the local was thus pressed into a form of military service.
Anony Mous : the idea that somehow it’s okay to pay your taxes but not aid in the military is backwards.
AM, I accept most of what you say, although it is new to me that a criminal record due to "neutrality" would bar one from having certain responsibilities. That's anal. But on the matter of taxes, some conscientious objectors (not JWs) have refused to pay the proportion of their taxes they believed went towards the military. I considered that but concluded that Jesus' statement on tax (Matthew 22:17-21) settled any reservations about what the tax might be spent on.
NotFormer : In most countries, civilian service in lieu [of military service] can be things like building roads, etc.
Jesus was not talking about doing something in lieu of military service. I gave the example of Simon of Cyrene who was compelled (ἠγγάρευσαν) to carry Jesus' stauron, the same word (ἀγγαρεύσει) Jesus used at Matthew 5:41. This was not in lieu of an alternative. If you do some work in lieu of military service, you are recognising your obligation to perform military service and substituting some other work. As Anony Mous points out, this is the viewpoint the Watchtower held and nothing was acceptable in lieu of military service, including paying a fine. In 1996 it was made clear that it is a matter of conscience whether or not one accepts work instead of military service. The conscience of the great majority has since allowed them to perform alternative service, but that is human nature for you. The principles have not changed, but with the variety of governmental responses to conscientious objectors and the fact that many young men didn't understand the nuances of refusing alternative service, the issue is more that of conscience than a clear scriptural mandate.
matthew 5:41 (nwt) "...and if someone in authority compels you into service for a mile,* go with him two miles.".
a member of the roman occupying forces could command a local to carry their pack for a mile.
the local was thus pressed into a form of military service.
NotFormer : The WT hypocrisy in this matter is that they concede "legitimate service" and yet they sent thousands of people to prison by refusing "civilian service in lieu".
There is a difference between "legitimate service" as a form of tax, and civilian service in lieu of military service. Not everyone feels about it the same way, but some (including myself) feel that accepting alternative service in lieu of military service recognises an obligation to the military. Some conscientious objectors during the second world war were willing to work as stretcher-bearers, ambulance drivers etc. Others held the view that doing so was effectively enabling those in the armed forces to be soldiers instead of attending to the wounded and dead. Essentially, it is a matter of conscience and each must carry his own load.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/jehovahs-witnesses-head-to-court-on-abuse-in-care-inquiry-victims-feel-a-kick-in-the-guts/hwjsnshi5vfv7ghjztr63goseu/.
"by bill hickman of rnz.
the new zealand branch of the jehovah’s witnesses is going to court in an attempt to have the church made exempt from the abuse in care inquiry today.. in the high court at wellington, lawyers for the church are seeking a declaration that the church is not responsible for the care of children or vulnerable people in new zealand.. abuse survivor advocate and former church elder shayne mechen said the church was trying to use a technicality to side-step its inclusion in the inquiry.. .
Section 17.4 of the New Zealand Royal Commission of Inquiry gives the definition of what "in the care of faith-based institutions" means. It refers to where a faith-based institution assumed responsibility for the care of an individual and ...
Subsection (ba) for the avoidance of doubt, a faith-based institution may assume responsibility for the care of an individual through an informal or pastoral care relationship. An informal or pastoral care relationship includes a trust-based relationship between an individual and a person with power or authority conferred by the faith-based institution, where such a relationship is related to the institution’s work or is enabled by the institution’s conferral of authority or power on the person:
As the "authority or power" of all elders is conferred either directly or indirectly by the faith-based institution of Jehovah's Witnesses, I cannot see that exemption from the Inquiry will be granted.
could a member please direct me to the current jw funeral talk or outline for a deceased jw.
members of my wife's family will be attending such meeting for their deceased piece of shit father and i would like them to be prepared for what they can expect.
nothing good, or what they would be hoping for i would surmise.. for the love of cheeses..
matthew 5:41 (nwt) "...and if someone in authority compels you into service for a mile,* go with him two miles.".
a member of the roman occupying forces could command a local to carry their pack for a mile.
the local was thus pressed into a form of military service.
This is discussed in an article If You Are Impressed Into Service in the February 15, 2005 Watchtower. The primary points are :
Matthew 5:41 was not referring to either military service or conscription in the sense that one is conscripted into miltary service as a member of the armed forces. It was more like a form of tax whereby compulsory work could be demanded from the population on a regular or exceptional basis. An example would be Simon of Cyrene who was "impressed into service" to carry Jesus' stauron (Matthew 27:32).
are there among you, dear friends, a specialist in american associations from around the 1950s -1970s and a little more?
to find out from what years in the usa the first subsidies were granted to religious congregations and other non-profit or charitable associations?
why this question is that i just thought that there is perhaps a link between doctrinal clarifications over the years and government innovations to support or subsidize these supposedly charitable religious organizations or certain qualified ngos?
slimboyfat : It still leaves the question why wait until 1962 though?
I believe that one of the primary motivations for the change in understanding of Romans 13:1 in 1929 (that the "higher powers" referred to Jehovah God and Jesus Christ) was to do away with the ambivalence during World War I whether it was necessary to obey the government in a time of war.
In the Watchtower of April 15, 1929 there is an article "God of Battle" with a section "The Christian and War" where it asks (para.21) :
But suppose the nation in which the Christian has his earthly domicile enacts a law compelling all persons within certain ages to perform military service, put on the uniform and go to war and use the instruments of destruction to kill. What shall he do ?
Of course the answer given is that the true Christian obeys the law of God, and six weeks later in the June 1 & 15 Watchtowers it was made clear that the "higher powers" did not refer to governments (and thus no compulsion to obey them). This meant that during the Second World War there was no confusion as to whether the governments had to be obeyed in time of war as there had previously been.
So while Fred Franz may have been eager to change the teaching once Rutherford died, there was a Korean War going on from 1950 - 1953 which meant the draft continued with the Selective Service Act being continually extended to 1953, 1955, 1959, 1963, 1967, 1971 and 1973. By 1962 the Eisenhower doctrine of "massive retaliation" demanded more machines and fewer foot soldiers. The Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 demonstrated beyond doubt that foot soldiers were obsolete on the international stage. The articles in the Watchtower in the following months (November 1 & 15, December 1) reverted the understanding of the "superior authorities" to refer to governments.
This is all just conjecture on my part, but I think it is reasonable that some or all of this was a consideration in the timing of the articles on Romans 13:1.
from what little coverage i can find, that’s not behind a paywall:.
this person is the epitome of the evil elder.
truly evil.
