hi, my name is leacy and i am 41 years old.
i live in california.
i attend the rancho santa margarita congregation.
So, you're looking for a JW brother who is:
So, nothing about personality, character, interests (hobbies), etc.
Your shopping list would be a better fit for Tinder, you know, looking for a one night stand? I wouldn't expect such criterias when seeking for a husband!
we get old because jehovah had to prove to all the angels that his way of ruling was the best?
that's the sorriest argument the watchtower has come up with.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/11hz_jqjkjo.
But to the devoted, their suffering is only temporary, per the scriptures.
Temporary suffering is still suffering. It is still a serious punishment. Why inflict suffering at all when God has the power to prevent it entirely?
Would you say that waterboarding isn't bad just because the pain stops once it's over? The person may not be dead or physically handicapped, but they still endure intense suffering. In fact, by that logic, one could argue that waterboarding is a loving way to extract information—since other forms of torture leave permanent scars or disabilities.
But we all recognize that argument as absurd. Suffering is suffering, whether it is temporary or not.
So my question remains: Why allow the just to suffer at all?
we get old because jehovah had to prove to all the angels that his way of ruling was the best?
that's the sorriest argument the watchtower has come up with.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/11hz_jqjkjo.
This thread makes it seem like the issue lies with Jehovah’s Witness teachings, but the real problem is actually the Bible and Christian beliefs.
No matter how you explain it, the core idea boils down to this:
God created humans with everlasting life. Humans sinned. As a result—due to principles established by God—humans now suffer and die. And not just those who originally sinned, but every generation afterward, for thousands of years. Today, billions of people continue to suffer and die.
If we step back and look at the big picture: billions of humans have endured suffering for thousands of years. By comparison, historical figures judged as monsters—like Genghis Khan and Hitler—caused significantly less harm in scope and scale. And yet, in their time, they had their reasons, their justifications, and millions of people agreed with them. Even so, history has rightly condemned them as monsters.
Yet, when it comes to God allowing human suffering and death, this same fundamental evaluation is often ignored.
Some will argue: "He's not directly hurting or killing people, He’s just allowing it to happen." To that I say: If you have the power to stop something and choose not to, you are just as responsible as if you had done it yourself.
As for: "It a consequence of humans rejecting him in the first place!" As far as I can see, among those who suffer, billions have devoted their lives to God, praying, obeying, and following His commandments as best they could based on information available to them. Yet He still lets them suffer. If suffering is a punishment, then what was their crime?
2025-01-15-ages for ministerial servants and elders.. see page 2. .
https://pdfupload.io/docs/1b0b5c00 .
https://imgbox.com/p3a9yjmr.
I know of at least three brothers who do not want to become elders, not due to a lack of capacity or availability, but due to a lack of agreement with the teachings. The problem with JWs is that you are not allowed to disagree with teachings that aren't even central to to the religion. In the meantime, the religious leaders prefer to look down on thousands of brothers which they see as "incapable" rather than seeing things for that they are: These brothers are silently protesting! And what we see today, is that, rather than address the real issue, they turn to younger, more manipulable ones so that they can parrot whatever they want them to.
i have been lurking around here for years.
i'm not a witness, but my in-laws are.
my wife grew up in it but was never baptized.
awhile ago i said on here i would like to show how wrong the jehovahs witness organisation is , in that they will not accept the testimony of a victim of sexual crime where the victim has no other witnesses to the crime.
i faced this with helping my ex wife for about 15 years in exposing her father , an elder, to the jw org.
his raping of her over years and they believed him.. so therefore the perpetrator knowing of the organisations stance can easily deny and therefore be free to pretend to serve as an innocent jw still mixing with the congregation ,and also i have witnessed an accused perpetrator of child molestation witnessing at my next door neighbors house in field service with a child of another family even though the elders knew of the accusations against him.
the deliberate weaponization of the rule. - Vidiot
But, they DO NOT WANT THE AUTHORITIES INVOLVED. - Biahi
The weaponization happens when they don't get the police involved and Biahi is 100% right! Before, the elders could literally disfellowship someone who reported the abuse to the authorities.
Since 2019, however, they've updated their policy to instruct elders not to prevent anyone from reporting abuse. Clearly, they wrote this because, before, they actually did prevent victims from reporting!
Since 2019, they changed the rules instructing elders not to prevent anyone from reporting abuse. This change shows they used to actually prevent victims, through disciplinary actions, from going to the police!
Also, that change doesn't go far enough. Elders can still talk victims out of reporting. One elder might not say anything, but another might pressure the victim to safeguard Jehovah's reputation and see their experience as some holy martyrdom!
The elders aren't capable, either physically, legally or competently to collect the necessary evidence. - Anonymous
They should alert the police and let them investigate, then base their actions on what that investigation reveals. - TonusOH
Absolutely right!
Way I see it, the problem at its core is not the two-witness rule, but how JWs do involve the police or, for the very least, advise the sexual abuse victims to do so.
awhile ago i said on here i would like to show how wrong the jehovahs witness organisation is , in that they will not accept the testimony of a victim of sexual crime where the victim has no other witnesses to the crime.
i faced this with helping my ex wife for about 15 years in exposing her father , an elder, to the jw org.
his raping of her over years and they believed him.. so therefore the perpetrator knowing of the organisations stance can easily deny and therefore be free to pretend to serve as an innocent jw still mixing with the congregation ,and also i have witnessed an accused perpetrator of child molestation witnessing at my next door neighbors house in field service with a child of another family even though the elders knew of the accusations against him.
I noticed that two people downvoted my comments. Could you explain why?
I mentioned that I agree with the "two or more witnesses" rule and emphasized that physical evidence should also count as a second witness. Considering that, since recent years, JWs also accept witnesses to seperate events, I really don't see the problem with my position.
Are you suggesting that, for example, if a stepdaughter accuses her stepfather falsely, you would automatically believe her without requiring corroborative evidence or a second witness?
This kind of blind belief is exactly why innocent people sometimes end up spending decades in jail!
awhile ago i said on here i would like to show how wrong the jehovahs witness organisation is , in that they will not accept the testimony of a victim of sexual crime where the victim has no other witnesses to the crime.
i faced this with helping my ex wife for about 15 years in exposing her father , an elder, to the jw org.
his raping of her over years and they believed him.. so therefore the perpetrator knowing of the organisations stance can easily deny and therefore be free to pretend to serve as an innocent jw still mixing with the congregation ,and also i have witnessed an accused perpetrator of child molestation witnessing at my next door neighbors house in field service with a child of another family even though the elders knew of the accusations against him.
I, for one, agree with the JW's position of requiring more than one witness to convict someone of a crime. However, I also consider physical evidence, such as videos and DNA testing, to be acceptable forms of witness. I'm not sure the JW agree with this.
As for Deuteronomy 22:25-27, it is part of the Mosaic law, which was superseded by Christian teachings in 2 Corinthians 13:1. In my opinion, the latter is superior in this instance. If you respect the Mosaic law so much, then you would agree with the idea of marrying a rape victim to her rapist, as stated in Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
https://www.christianpost.com/news/evangelicals-oppose-removal-of-tax-status-in-canadian-proposal.html.
the proposed change will revoke charitable status of canadian churches who have an anti-abortion position, and will not give tax exemptions to organizations whose sole claim is to promote religion, which is the basic claim for all jw related entities in canada.
this will be interesting!.
Harm people more than they do benefit them.
Although I believe they were harmful to me, I must admit that my parents do better within the JW community than they do outside of it—and they genuinely tried! Both of them were separately disfellowshipped, and they weren’t doing better then than they are now.
I believe that specific harmful teachings, shunning in particular, should not be allowed though as this goes against the very freedom that non-for profit organization benefit from and is actually harmful to the public.
https://www.christianpost.com/news/evangelicals-oppose-removal-of-tax-status-in-canadian-proposal.html.
the proposed change will revoke charitable status of canadian churches who have an anti-abortion position, and will not give tax exemptions to organizations whose sole claim is to promote religion, which is the basic claim for all jw related entities in canada.
this will be interesting!.
As much as I don’t agree with religions in general, they do meet the requirements for non-profit organizations:
If you take that away from religions based on opinions, you’ll also take away people’s ability to form communities and organize. It infringes on their freedom.
On the other hand, I believe that specific hate speech should be identified as such and be dealt accordingly, case by case. For instance, the practice of shunning, or when you hear one religious group call for the demise of other groups.
