Posts by Focus

173

PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

by Focus in

w73 11/15 703-4 questions from readers ***.

do paul's words at 1 corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer?

-u.s.a. here paul was showing the corinthian christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between christians before secular tribunals.

Focus

Kind Friend shared:
> Xandit is correct, you are an idiot!
> Initially, and incorrectly, you stated:

>> So - the summary [of w73 11/15 QFR] is: "YES, YOU MUST NOT TAKE ACTION AGAINST A FELLOW JW - NO EXCEPTIONS".
>> A JW must not involve judicial authorities against a fellow-JW - if the matter is serious enough, and the JW is unrepentant,
>> he/she will be disfellowshiped and then one will not be taking a "Christian" to court if one proceeds. But a JW must not
>> act until the disfellowshiping happens, as the above article makes clear.

> By your own words you later refute yourself, yet you are apparently too stupid to see it!
> After being asked about an instance of a JW witnessing another JW commit a serious criminal wrongdoing
> and whether that JW would be free to report the crime, you answered, "Yes." What does that mean?

I'll tell you - it means that you are a liar. What you have quoted above was NOT the question which you put to me, and you know it. Your question was whether it would be against WT policy (as distinct from counsel) to report it.

Quite a different thing, in a Borg like the Watchtower where eating a sandwich with the wrong person gets you DF'd. Ummm, there was no policy banning that.

You have learned your lessons well, O Deceitful One, from thine Spiritual Mother.

[Spurious reasonings snipped]

> If you don’t understand that then I suppose it must be spelled out with a crayon.
> Alas, there is no crayon feature on this forum! I guess you must reside in your idiocy!

Nice to see we have penetrated your armor, F iend .

LOL!

And those poor molested kids are still there, too afraid to come forth AT ALL because they believe they must go to elders first (A TERRIFYING PROSPECT - Daddy/Uncle is one of them!) before Social Services or the cops. After all, they have heard the stories of what happens behind closed doors.

I always wonder how apologist scum of a certain sort manage to sleep at night. Care to share?

--
Focus
(Highly Unamused Class)

173

PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

by Focus in

w73 11/15 703-4 questions from readers ***.

do paul's words at 1 corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer?

-u.s.a. here paul was showing the corinthian christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between christians before secular tribunals.

Focus

> Silentlambs .. When several of his last posts and newspaper links was brought to this forum - very little interest, even in the number of persons interested enough to click onto the thread.

Maybe they were following it elsewhere: maybe it was a matter of presentation. Don't know - they seem interested now!

In dealing with the press, SilentLambs uses terms like "disfellowshiped" which won't be properly understood - he should be using the understandood "excommunicated" and the emotive "shunned". One needs to know how to feed the machine. The WTBTS does.

> This is exactly how it's done

I know. Shocking how the apologetics try to weave all manner of legalese around precise wording employed by the Great Whore, when the brainwashed R&F stare at it with a glazed look, are subject to arbitrary, inexpert and often malicious local control and manipulation - and take the path they pray is least likely to bring trouble (and a mad, vengeful J-God) down on their poor heads..

F iend and others should be ashamed of themselves for attempting to defend the Spiritual-Fornicatrix on this one.

--
Focus
(I Hope Hell Exists! Class)

25

Gossip Wars!

by ISP in

jw
friends

.. edited by - isp on 4 march 2001 3:18:52

Focus

>Danielle is supposed to be the Bethelite something or rather and Focus and now ISP.

Danie11e@h2O = Danielle(Raider of J-W.com) = PB ( and != Focus)

ISP disposed of below.

> Focus is also focus.

N, o, t !! aka nothing!!!

> fred hall is not the FRED HALL of the old H20 or new H20.

Correct.

> The new FRED HALL is Focus because he got to the old FRED HALL name before the old FRED HALL could claim it.

Only on H2O. I have no idea who the local Hall Troll is. Possibly the original or an imitator. I suspect the original.

Here: http://www.coolboard.com/msgshow.cfm?msg=46025062067734&msgboard=25212130276676

Enjoy Hall's new image!

> Deacon calls ISP Focus, then ISP denies it.

Sounds reasonable until you see ISP come out with some poppycock in support of "F iend", and two of the same persona apparently burst into argument...

Here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=3035&page=2&site=3

> Deacon says that Focus is focus, ISP and Truth Hurts.

No, but the fake kats was "La LDH".

--
Focus
(Have Respect For The Theocratic Arrangements In Place Class)

173

PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

by Focus in

w73 11/15 703-4 questions from readers ***.

do paul's words at 1 corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer?

-u.s.a. here paul was showing the corinthian christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between christians before secular tribunals.

Focus

ISP:

If I didn't quote the article in entirety, it was wholly inadvertent - sorry. Please do so and rectify matters, then! There was nothing selectively included or omitted in what I placed there; it was clearly a contiguous block, apparently complete - and was all that was available to me. Indeed, that the material you quoted that I did not have assists the overall case (as I show below): rather supports what I have just said.

From the material I have:

Of course, the injured party would want to take into consideration whether it would be worth the time and expense

ISP interjected:

> Time and expense are only considerations in a civil suit as you know the state takes over the expense of pursuing criminalactions. [1st emphasis mine]

No, you are WRONG, ISP.

(1) The fact that the WTS states that the individual should consider whether the time etc. is worth it, means just that and no more. If the matter is civil, the considerations may be (much?) more relevant. "Consider the effect of rain on your new suit" does not imply it is raining at present. The advice is blanket advice, not a detailed set of rules for determining the propriety and worthiness of the said items. OK? It is bizarre that you should rely on, or even mention, this!

(2) "only"???? Please, learn what a private prosecution is... the state is under no obligation to take over such cases (and frequently does not). Search for "Stephen Lawrence" on the web or in Usenet, and you will realize your error. Time and expense is very much an issue in such a case. And even when such proceedings are brought by the state (clearly - are you really so naive as to think that there is no time (and therefore expense - or do you really think court attendance fees are compensation?? LOL!) cost for a victim ensnared in some inevitably protracted criminal investigation, with ancillary impairment of their concentration, ability to function and focus, etc.

Face it - if the law is involved, there will be time and expense matters to consider. Or do you think you live in Friend's Cuckoo Land?

There may even be times when Christian brothers conscientiously feel that they could go to court with fellow believers.

If you, ISP, thinks that the quote helps your case, you need to buy a new set of reading glasses. The wording is exactly that often employed by the WTS to cow the Brothers into submission... "There may even be times when you feel you are not doing wrong" is an Old Tune for the Watchtower.

> If you go against the WTS 'instructions' do you recall what the sanction was?

Now I know you are trolling, ISP, and such conduct is unworthy where the matter as weighty as this one.

Leviticus 17:12-15 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.. he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.. For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off. And every soul that eateth that which died of itself, or that which was torn with beasts, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger, he shall both wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even: then shall he be clean.

The adjacently-specified sanction just shows how important is the issue of eating blood, doesn't it? A little temporary loss of privilege, eh? But whoops, for that one you lose your life! LOL!

JT has already addressed this, with excellent directness, and makes an irresistible case that it is not the minutiae of Watchtower wording that matters - but instead the (cumulative) effect of its PERCEPTION in the great unwashed and semi-literate body.

Re-read until understood, please, ISP.

> the WTS has its problems but they are typical of this 'sector'

Rubbish. The scale of the problem in the WTBTS is far greater, because no other large sect has such an absurd closet-mind, stick together, protect the congregation's good name etc. After all, we just need to rely on the much-vaunted WTBTS claim of:

Yes, because you must understand we must have unity, we cannot have disunity with a lot of people going every way, an army is supposed to march in step.

... the words being of Society lawyer and one-time V.P. Hayden Covington, in the Pursuer's Proof, The Right Honourable James Latham Clyde, MP, PC, as representing the Minister of Labour and National Service vs Douglas Walsh, Scottish Court of Sessions 11 1954.

And as to loyalty and obedience .. how many quotes do you want?

And returning to your earlier "defense" - it doesn't matter how small the sanction may be (even assuming the R&F remember precisely what it is within the tossing sea of ever-changing rules and regulations) - if one is OBEDIENT it does not matter one whit. ONE JUST OBEYS.

Move Ahead with Jehovah's Organization.. What, can we say, is the basic principle underlying the movement of Jehovah's living organization? It can be expressed in one word: OBEDIENCE

- 1967WTWR 6/1 p337-8

> But they are no worse/better than the miserable bunch that operate in this 'market'.

And where are the statistics to support this contention, in the absence of a rational argument?

THAT IS DANGEROUS GARBAGE, AS DEMONSTRATED ABOVE. BY SPEWING FORTH SUCH, YOU ARE THE PEDOPHILE'S ALLY. If you still feel the need to toss here, read and refute what JT wrote earlier in this thread. If you can. . JT immediately understood the essence of my position. Are you trying not to, or are you truly unintelligent - or do you have an agenda?

Meditate prayerfully on that before ejaculating further complacency about a matter relating to which complacency is QUITE intolerable into this or any other forum. Thanks for your assistance.

--
Focus
('Taught to HATE by the PROFESSIONALS at HATING, the Watchtower' Class)

Edited by - Focus on 3 March 2001 8:16:54

173

PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

by Focus in

w73 11/15 703-4 questions from readers ***.

do paul's words at 1 corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer?

-u.s.a. here paul was showing the corinthian christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between christians before secular tribunals.

Focus

The Watchtower Society and the Creed of the Jehovah's Witnesses is a CHEAT, a 100% SCAM, a WICKED TRICK, a FILTHY LIE, a BLASPHEMOUS INSULT, a SCANDAL, a FRAUD, a DISGRACE, an ABOMINATION - and a DAMNED OUTRAGE from start to finish.

JT opined:

> Now will you tell us how you really feel- smile

> the particular article you quoted mainly dealt with civil matters and not child abuse [Emphasis added by Focus]

I agree that was probably the intention of the writers. But when you are writing knowing that millions will swallow your pap as if the very hand of God had caused it to be written, breathed through the nostrils of God into you (fools don't know what "inspired" means) and so on, you should get it absolutely right! So if they intended this NOT to apply to criminal matters, they should have said so.

Actually, I think they couldn't have cared less. THEIR ONLY INTENTION WAS:

***************************************
WE DON'T CARE WHAT HAPPENS TO YOU, BUT
DON'T SPOIL THE NAME OF THE WATCHTOWER.
***************************************

> BUT!!!!!!!!! what is does do is create a MINDSET in JW

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!

> This article accomplishes a number of things and is used by any good "Society Man" as ref material when a jw is considering taking a fellow jw TO COURT

.. FOR ANY REASON. EXACTLY.

> 1. It makes the judges look like fools and are in no way qualified unlike the "Volunteer and untrained elders" that JR Brown says runs all the congo around the world

EXACTLY. And the same "sort" or "kind" of judges will preside over suings and prosecutions - they all come from Satan's wicked system of things (teacheth Mother)

> "The judges would be men who were not governed by the lofty principles of God's law and whose consciences were not trained through a study of his Word"
> "Were Christians to take their disputes before such men, they would be 'putting in as judges' men whom the congregation looked down upon as lacking integrity"
> can you see Bro Olsen or Big William Bell standing before a judge who just read that according to the WT he as a judge doesn't allow the bible to gov his life-
> they might not want the judge to see that PC of work from the Writing Dept- smile

I think you are being a bit advanced for "F iend", JT

> 2. Action should only be brought against former members not current members- reason being the person should accept the decision of the elders:

EXACTLY. And the same sort of inaction will be required in criminal as well as in civil proceedings

>"the actions of one of its former members"
>"one who was no longer a part of the Christian congregation"

> 3. they are instillling in thier members that NOTHING should be done if it will make the Org look bad even
> if you have been wronged TAKE IT LIKE A MAN AND GRIND AND BEAR IT

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! And even the most braindead dolt - or sweet, indoctrinated teenager - knows that a criminal prosecution for child abuse against one of God's People will do a lot more damage than a civil action for breach of an ambiguous contract!

> "the injured party would want to take into consideration whether it would be worth the time and expense as well as whether the congregation could still come into disrepute by bringing to public attention"

But don't expect DISGUSTING APOLOGISTS like "F iend" to admit to that, eh?

> 4. Don't you even think about going to court until you have cleared it with the "Volunteer and Untrained Elders" acording to JR

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! And almost any child molestation victim with some common sense would be TERRIFIED of having the elders involved - knowing what would follow. With no certainty of a DFing - the need for a witness, for example. And the untrained nature of the so-called "judges" - as well as there bias, and their not unlikely membership of the WOLF CLASS themselves!

>"after exhausting the intracongregational means"

Quite.

>i recall these 2 white bro back in my congo in NC who tried to do it wt way-- they were business men with big bucks and the
> elders who had to handle the case were 2 uneducated black bros and a third "red neck' white bro
> they knew absolutely NOTHING about contracts and legal documents and legal Jargon
> yet they were expected to try and read thru all that legal stuff and come to a decsion on who was to do what
> and who was in the wrong
> it was a "DAMN JOKE"

But .. didn't the Holy Spirit swoop into the room with a bolt of fizzle-pop - and spark up the electrical gadgets?

> THOSE 2 white bro realized that these clowns despite their Spirit appointment were simply out of thier league
> so they went to court and it was a scene ESP being from a little town, BUT it shows that WT will take Untrained
> men and put them in a position to make decsion and they are totally lost
> i can only imagine what it must be like in some back woods congo in africa or latin america

Please - NC is far less advanced, from what I read anyway. People's thinking ability is largely not a function of geography.

> not to dog the bro there but my point is just cause you "Slept at a Best Western" doesn't make you qualifed to seat
> on cases that the WT calls for it's elders to do

.. or proffer medical advice - even if it does not involve aluminum!

> So after years of having it pounded into thier heads that any problems in the hall are to be handled by the "Volunteer and Untrained elders"
> and if it will make the Org look bad then you need to reconsider, it has layed the Ground work for what would we see happened with the child abuse cases
> bro Jones had his hand down the panties of little mary, the elders meet with him
> he had said he was sorry, they felt that he had works that BEFIT REPENTANCE
> HE WAS NOT df BUT Privately reproved- the sister was told that the elders had handle the matter
> she asked the elders if she could go to the Police, they told her that it was a personal decision, but she needed to consider somethings

Indeed! And using her "Bible-trained conscious [sic]"

> so they got the bound vol out in fact they used w73 11/15 703-4 Questions from Readers
> they EXPLAINED TO HER that this article dealt with Civil cases BUT THE PRINCIPAL was the same

Indeed, they may well be giving sound advice there! In the absence of clear rules to the contrary (i.e. mandating disclosure to authorities, in a criminal 'case'), a judge would look to rules "of that type" was one dealing with interpreting a body of legislation and case law. For example, if a contract says "You must not keep a horse or a donkey on this land" and no more on that subject, but the too-clever tenant keeps "an ass" (Yo! Friend!!), the Judge will likely rule the said ass is of the same kind as the horse and donkey.. - we know how the WTS is about "kind"s... LOL!

This rule of interpretation in this way is referred to as "ejusdem generis" - it sounds fancier in Latin It is the Principle that counts.

To resolve ambiguity, the judge will also look to the manifest intention of the ambiguous-statute-maker. And here, the stressed intention is to protect the good name of the congregation After all - THEY SAID IT! TWICE IN JUST ONE QUOTE! (And - I have other quotes too )

Simply no question about it. Only an ass would argue further.

> in that you will be taking
> your case before a Worldly judge who may not be favorable toward jw and keep in mind how it will affect the name of the congo
> and how hard it will be to go out in service when this hits the papers but sister it is your choice

EXACTLY.

[x] JT has understood.
[x] "F iend" does not wish to understand.

> this is just another example of the "WE DIDN'T TELL YOU NOT TO GO TO COLLEGE" type articles

Correct.

And I am disgusted that Friend has come out of the woodwork to apologize for the scum on this one - AND TEN TIMES WORSE TO QUOTE WTBTS COUNSEL GIVEN TO RAPE VICTIMS (given their disgraceful record here) in support of his legalistic contentions, which disregard the REAL WTBTS and focus only on his make-believe, fairy-tale Society that keeps him warm in bed - while his fellow Brothers are busy molesting kids, knowing that the policies of the WTBTS are as if they were designed to SHIELD PEDOPHILES

Shame on you, Friend. Having the brains to see the FILTHY, PUS-FILLED PAPS OF THE WHORE for what they are - and to continue FEEDING and VENDING the FILTH.

SHAME ON YOU, ""F iend"!

>JT

--
Focus
(Righteous Requirements - Godly Revenge! Class)

Edited by - Focus on 3 March 2001 2:59:47

173

PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

by Focus in

w73 11/15 703-4 questions from readers ***.

do paul's words at 1 corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer?

-u.s.a. here paul was showing the corinthian christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between christians before secular tribunals.

Focus

the injured party would want to take into consideration .. whether the congregation could still come into disrepute by bringing to public attention the actions of one of its former members. If the wronged Christian conscientiously felt that God's name would not be reproached and legal action was definitely needed, he would not necessarily be acting contrary to the spirit of Paul's counsel .. the one wronged would be availing himself of legal help after exhausting the intracongregational means to have the wrong corrected. -Rom. 13:3,4."

TR quoth:
> The WTS cares first and foremost about it's own ass. The implied if not obvious WT law is that no matter what crime happens, it is to be delt within the congregation first.
> This gives credense to the idea that the WTS purpousely harbors pedophiles, as well as other criminals.

[x] TR has understood.
[x] TR has understood perfectly
[ ] "Friend" has understood.

--
Focus
(Allocating Marx to the Brothers Class)

Edited by - Focus on 3 March 2001 1:47:12

173

PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

by Focus in

w73 11/15 703-4 questions from readers ***.

do paul's words at 1 corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer?

-u.s.a. here paul was showing the corinthian christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between christians before secular tribunals.

Focus

Friend:

Focus: "If a JW witnesses another JW commit a murder, is it absolutely required by Watchtower policy for them to right away report what they saw to law enforcement officials?"

> So far as I know, no.

Good. You managed to get the answer correct. Now reply to #2:

"If a JW becomes aware that another JW may have committed a murder, is it required by Watchtower policy for them to report this to any secular official?"

> Now, you tell me, what does your question have to do with Society policy regarding hindering or discouraging the reporting of serious criminal actions?

Are you playing dumb (over and above the level of stupidity required to keep you in the Cult of Fools, that is), Friend? It has every bit as much to do with the matter as did your question - and a bit more too.

Your question was: Are they absolutely required not to whistle-blow in the case of observing a murder? My answer: No. My (first) question was: Are they required to so do? Your answer: No.

We all know that the JW is conditioned to doing what (s)he is told. The endless rule changes, tacking, to-ing and fro-ing, New lighting flashing at epilepsy-inducing frequencies, no one knowing quite where "present truth" lies - all with the fear of disfellowshiping and the mad killer g(G)od swooping down any moment to exact punishment, the worship of mythical purity, repetition, falsification, weasel-wording, "we never said QUITE that"ing, etc. - makes the JW extremely unwilling to use his/her initiative on anything important. It is just too risky for them, poor lost souls.

So, my question is the key one, given that you tacked off with your's. "Are they required to". Not your's - "are they prohibited from".

Try to comprehend the difference between your "prohibit" and the word used by the JW attorney, "discourage", to which I addressed myself. And is the JW, to whom has been repeatedly and incessantly stressed the need for congregational unity (do you really want a dozen quotes on this?) and for not damaging the good name of Jehovah and his congregation, expected that at a time of great stress and trauma going to detect fine constitutional nuances between conflicting Watchtower messages, eh?

That is but one of a range of refutations available to me, but I am so enraged at the audacity of what follows some way further down in your post that I am finding it deucedly hard to be civil to you.

"at least any reprisal resulting from existing Society policy"

WHAT POLICY? The written or the unwritten?? "Spoiling the congregation's name"... How many have we heard of who have tried to put right the wrongs perpetrated by JWs or the WTBTS, and got excommunicated for their pains???

How long will silentlambs last, eh?

Why do so many keep their identity private, eh?

WHY DO YOU KEEP IT PRIVATE, EH, "FRIEND"? LOL!

So save me your pious defense of a WTBTS that DOES NOT EXIST I am dealing with the FILTHY DEPRAVED WHORE that she is, not the mythic legend of your sick fantasy. Got it? I am not as easily fobbed off as some may be by your disgraceful apologia, Friend. Mend your ways, lest you come to a sticky end.

> When it comes to serious crime the Society actually encourages that Witnesses report it to legitimate secular authorities charged with dealing with it. For example:

If the rape happened recently, friends can help the victim get medical help and can offer a safe place to stay. Encourage her to report the rape, but let her make the decisions. She has just come from a situation where she was stripped of all control. Allow her to take some of that control back by letting her choose what to do next.—How to Cope With Rape, Awake! 1993, 3/8: 10. (Emphasis added)

I find it utterly despicable of you to even dream of using such an example, knowing what you do about this subject.

How can the poor JW possibly rely on the burburations of the disgraceful Watchtower on the subject of conduct by the victim of rape when the Watchtower's incredibly shabby record on this subject is almost impossible for an outsider to believe?

Here it is - the FINE ADVICE of LOVING MOTHER of the sort that Friend wants you to follow, dear child:

No. If you don't scream you won't be disfellowshipped.
Prior to January 15, 1964

YES! SCREAM/RESIST OR BE DISFELLOWSHIPPED!!
Watchtower, January 15, 1964, p. 63

No. If you don't scream you won't be disfellowshipped.
Aid to Bible Understanding, 1969, pp. 601, 1371

YES! SCREAM/RESIST OR BE DISFELLOWSHIPPED!!
Awake!, March 8, 1974, p. 14

No. If you don't scream you won't be disfellowshipped.
Awake, July 8, 1980, pp. 5-6

YES! SCREAM/RESIST OR BE DISFELLOWSHIPPED!!
Watchtower, October 15, 1980, p. 7

No. If you don't scream you won't be disfellowshipped.
Watchtower, March 15, 1983, p. 30

YES! SCREAM/RESIST OR BE DISFELLOWSHIPPED!!
Awake!, February 22, 1984

No. If you don't scream you won't be disfellowshipped.
June 8, 1984 (just 15 weeks later)

YES! SCREAM/RESIST OR BE DISFELLOWSHIPPED!!
May 22, 1986, p. 23

No. If you don't scream you won't be disfellowshipped.
Awake!, September 22, 1986, p. 28

YES! SCREAM/RESIST OR BE DISFELLOWSHIPPED!!
(Doctrine not yet in force.. pending flickering new light from the "holy spirit").

So take your pious claims about the sound, caring, wise advice from the Watchtower on the subject of conduct by the victim of rape (who at most times has probably been too terrified to report it at all, given what will ensue at the hands of the elders), F iend, and SHOVE IT WHERE THE SUN DOES NOT SHINE Clear enough?

Truly, you disgust me - unless you are truly a wholly deluded fool who somehow manages to see some good where true wickedness resides (in which case, I pity you, and suggest you seek counselling as a matter of extreme urgency). You may have duped AF and others into believing that you are basically a "good egg" - but I see in your reply something truly FOUL, EVIL, and DESPICABLE.

It wasn't your cousin who lost her life because she repeatedly resisted that armed rapist, believing - poor, sweet. deluded dove - that to do otherwise would bring her into God's disfavor now, was it, """Fiend"""? Get lost, you pontificating bounder!

Why do I ""hate"" (only as per Biblical injunction, do note) you? Because another like her might be reading your filthy spiritual ejaculate, and - fooled by your tone of apparent reason and humility - might stay on within the CULT OF LIES, and die by refusing a blood transfusion - or by complying with whatever other insane WTBTS policy is in force at the time... And his or her blood will be on your hands, """Fiend""".

Nothing personal. But when you solicit for a Depraved Whore, expect
some feedback delivered where it works best.

The Watchtower Society and the Creed of the Jehovah's Witnesses is a CHEAT, a 100% SCAM, a WICKED TRICK, a FILTHY LIE, a BLASPHEMOUS INSULT, a SCANDAL, a FRAUD, a DISGRACE, an ABOMINATION - and a DAMNED OUTRAGE from start to finish.

"Get out of the Foul Whore!!!"

--
Focus
(R-A-G-E Class)

Edited by - Focus on 3 March 2001 1:7:13

173

PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

by Focus in

w73 11/15 703-4 questions from readers ***.

do paul's words at 1 corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer?

-u.s.a. here paul was showing the corinthian christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between christians before secular tribunals.

Focus

expatbrit516 interjected:
> Hi Friend:
> One question for you:
> Are you referring to the WT's formal written policy, or to the WT's informal unwritten policy?

Don't cause Friend too much of an overload, expat... Trying to be a nice guy and a JW at the same time is hard enough for him We wouldn't want him to unravel himself, would we, now?

--
Focus
(Dealing with Doublethinkers Class)

173

PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

by Focus in

w73 11/15 703-4 questions from readers ***.

do paul's words at 1 corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer?

-u.s.a. here paul was showing the corinthian christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between christians before secular tribunals.

Focus

Xandit wrote:
> I realize that talking to you is a waste of breath so I won't waste any more of my time or breath.

And a while later, in a separate post addressed to me, Xandit wrote:
> Wow, you found two cases out of a few billion. That's what I call representative

Do you change your mind so rapidly on every subject, Xandit? It may account for the bipolarity, but the blackwhite and doublethink syndromes you manifest suggest significant damage has already occurred through the cognitive dissonance which you stoically endure.

<b>Just in case</b> anyone is fooled by Xandit's impudent argument by ad hominem and proof by assertion:
(a) however many cases I quoted, he would claim they were unrepresentative;
(b) his use of "two billion" shows either his idiocy or his trolldom or both;
(c) his snipping of all my refutations of him, and exposure of his numerous errors, shows his dishonesty.

One might conclude you are one of Jehovah's Witnesses, Xandit. You seem to be displaying an Intelligence Quotient right in their prime target range

--
Focus
(Edom-Idumea Class)

173

PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

by Focus in

w73 11/15 703-4 questions from readers ***.

do paul's words at 1 corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a christian take to court a case involving a fellow believer?

-u.s.a. here paul was showing the corinthian christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between christians before secular tribunals.

Focus

> If a JW witnesses another JW commit a murder, is it against Watchtower policy if right away they report what they saw to law enforcement officials?

While I could well ask you "at what time" (as WT policy is known to change - if you fail to resist an armed rapist, are you guilty of fornication? - 8 changes on that one), I shall not prevaricate - the answer is "No."

However, it is all in the wording of the question. Don't you enjoy beating your wife?

So, let me ask <b>you</b> a question before you quickly (and incorrectly) convince yourself that I am in error:

"If a JW witnesses another JW commit a murder, is it absolutely required by Watchtower policy for them to right away they report what they saw to law enforcement officials?"

If your answer is "Yes", Friend - provide the citation from WTBTS literature. Take it as a given that under the majority of systems of jurisprudence it is not an offense per se to fail to report the occurrence of a crime about which one has become aware.

And if - despite these fair warnings - you reply "Yes", let me ask you a second question:

"Then why did those scumbag Elders not report it, when they heard the testimony of the victim?"

See the corner you are getting yourself into? LOL!

Don't be too presumptuous with me - "see my error" indeed!

And Friend - "Come out of the Great Whore!". I feel defiled speaking to one who, however reasonable-sounding - peddles filthy, disgusting Spiritual Pornography by day. OK?

--
Focus
(Christian Sanctuary Class)

Edited by - Focus on 2 March 2001 23:33:49