leavingwt: Paul also used the law. Law is what governs us, even if you don't like it (just try to do something against the law and you will quickly find out). Law governed the nation of Israel - and it was the Mosaic Law which tried Jesus. Jesus never said "Law is bad" or "forget law", he criticized the Pharisees for their wrongful interpretation. Law is a HUGE part of the bible.
Commands are synonymous with the term "Law" - the 10 Commandments were later detailed into the Mosaic Law. Jesus' greatest commandments should be viewed at the "Greatest Laws", since there are direct consequences for them not being followed.
Lastly, I have been drawn into this law conversation by a flagrant comment that could not be left uncorrected and it has expounded from there.
johnnyc
JoinedPosts by johnnyc
-
193
Deceptive or just wrong?
by johnnyc ini have been virtually non-stop studying everything i can get my hands on with regards the wtbts, and "apostate" literature and information.
in all honesty, 80% at least is non-sense and over critical.
however, i do find about 20% (if i have to create a percentage reference) is appropriate in its line of reasoning and questioning.
-
-
johnnyc
-
193
Deceptive or just wrong?
by johnnyc ini have been virtually non-stop studying everything i can get my hands on with regards the wtbts, and "apostate" literature and information.
in all honesty, 80% at least is non-sense and over critical.
however, i do find about 20% (if i have to create a percentage reference) is appropriate in its line of reasoning and questioning.
-
-
johnnyc
Mary: His extra activities are posted everywhere - including Youtube - check it out, easy to search, and there are many different videos.
-
193
Deceptive or just wrong?
by johnnyc ini have been virtually non-stop studying everything i can get my hands on with regards the wtbts, and "apostate" literature and information.
in all honesty, 80% at least is non-sense and over critical.
however, i do find about 20% (if i have to create a percentage reference) is appropriate in its line of reasoning and questioning.
-
-
johnnyc
AuldSoul: Why don't you then quote for me a legal source that supports what you are saying? I've given you a reference, so give me one back. I'm not sure what your point is, as what you are saying is not correct.
Here is the definition at law.com - so go ague to someone who doesn't know better.
case law
n. reported decisions of appeals courts and other courts which make new interpretations of the law and, therefore, can be cited as precedents. These interpretations are distinguished from "statutory law," which is the statutes and codes (laws) enacted by legislative bodies; "regulatory law," which is regulations required by agencies based on statutes; and in some states, the common law, which is the generally accepted law carried down from England. The rulings in trials and hearings which are not appealed and not reported are not case law and, therefore, not precedent or new interpretations. Law students principally study case law to understand the application of law to facts and learn the courts' subsequent interpretations of statutes. -
193
Deceptive or just wrong?
by johnnyc ini have been virtually non-stop studying everything i can get my hands on with regards the wtbts, and "apostate" literature and information.
in all honesty, 80% at least is non-sense and over critical.
however, i do find about 20% (if i have to create a percentage reference) is appropriate in its line of reasoning and questioning.
-
-
johnnyc
leavingwt: Thank you for at least wishing me well. I respect that more than you know.
-
193
Deceptive or just wrong?
by johnnyc ini have been virtually non-stop studying everything i can get my hands on with regards the wtbts, and "apostate" literature and information.
in all honesty, 80% at least is non-sense and over critical.
however, i do find about 20% (if i have to create a percentage reference) is appropriate in its line of reasoning and questioning.
-
-
johnnyc
btw, I keep trying to add paragraphs and things - how the heck do you guys do that??? Can I place HTML right in the "post"?
-
193
Deceptive or just wrong?
by johnnyc ini have been virtually non-stop studying everything i can get my hands on with regards the wtbts, and "apostate" literature and information.
in all honesty, 80% at least is non-sense and over critical.
however, i do find about 20% (if i have to create a percentage reference) is appropriate in its line of reasoning and questioning.
-
-
johnnyc
sweetstuff: I can totally respect what you are saying, and I agree that the WT's viewpoint of how they don't want you studying material or question things not originating with them is way overboard - if not simply wrong. You are one of first people who posted without trying to ram something down my throat about what some book said or some wacky fanatic theory. ("Awakened at Gilead" was cool too)
-
193
Deceptive or just wrong?
by johnnyc ini have been virtually non-stop studying everything i can get my hands on with regards the wtbts, and "apostate" literature and information.
in all honesty, 80% at least is non-sense and over critical.
however, i do find about 20% (if i have to create a percentage reference) is appropriate in its line of reasoning and questioning.
-
-
johnnyc
Here is some good info for you (from Wikipedia): Case law (also known as decisional law or judicial precedent) is that body of reported judicial opinions in countries that have common law legal systems. It includes courts' interpretations of statutes, and also constitutional provisions and administrative rules. Published court opinions include precedents, or rules governing future court decisions. Common-law upholds the fundamental English legal system, which is the jurisdiction to make laws. Additionally, constitutional law continues the case law of people's human rights. Case law is a method of deciding cases based on recorded decisions of similar cases.
-
193
Deceptive or just wrong?
by johnnyc ini have been virtually non-stop studying everything i can get my hands on with regards the wtbts, and "apostate" literature and information.
in all honesty, 80% at least is non-sense and over critical.
however, i do find about 20% (if i have to create a percentage reference) is appropriate in its line of reasoning and questioning.
-
-
johnnyc
AuldSoul: What you said is nonsense. You almost have to have a law background here, not to be a stickler, but if the Court decides a specific matter relating to a word definition, that word definition is carried forward as law until specifically challenged/heard otherwise by a higher court. That is why either the Plaintiff or Defendant could have appealed the one specific point of that definition all the way to the Supreme Court, and then they could have come back to their case to have an answer/decision made - to which that answer/decision is only good for the specific case at hand and merely a "guide" for other cases (in reference). But the specific definition made by the court can be separate from the greater decision (describing it as basic as possible here)
-
193
Deceptive or just wrong?
by johnnyc ini have been virtually non-stop studying everything i can get my hands on with regards the wtbts, and "apostate" literature and information.
in all honesty, 80% at least is non-sense and over critical.
however, i do find about 20% (if i have to create a percentage reference) is appropriate in its line of reasoning and questioning.
-
-
johnnyc
leavingwt: Now you really will think I sound like an attorney - but - "Mind Control" has been legally defined, and it does not include something that can be passive. (hearst v. new religious movements) That case defines: unless a religion purposely employed mind control techniques, their actions cannot be considered "Mind Control" per a legal term. Since there is no other case which has overturned this, this is what we call "Case Law", and gives the best clarity we have on the subject. Don't argue with me, but since Law governs us, that is just the way it is. Sorry, but this trumps your book.
-
193
Deceptive or just wrong?
by johnnyc ini have been virtually non-stop studying everything i can get my hands on with regards the wtbts, and "apostate" literature and information.
in all honesty, 80% at least is non-sense and over critical.
however, i do find about 20% (if i have to create a percentage reference) is appropriate in its line of reasoning and questioning.
-
-
johnnyc
Deputy Dog: Nice Ronald Regan quip...but that has been done. Have you ever worked for a big company? You cannot effectively do anything in a publishing house of hundreds of employees (including different departments) without having a serious plan to do such. Whereas I agree that a person can be controlling without purposefully planning such, you can't get that across in an atmosphere like Bethel without large scale planning. So again, if you want the society to be guilty of "Mind Control" efforts, you'd better have more than just an accusation. I do agree they have been severely wrong.....much more wrong than they even admit to....but mind control - nope. Someone from Bethel would have said something by now, and I am sure we would have heard that from Franz. Im just trying to keep a "real" sense about everything. In truth, I think many of you have traveled too far left, and it shows. You should try to remain more balanced, and you will have far greater appeal to people "looking" outside the org. You guys turn many off who might venture out to look at "WT alternatives" based on fanatic reasonings.