If the GB gets something wrong in their interpretation they rely on the brothers to not obey them and make the GB aware of their "mistake"...
Wow.,,just..,wow
Like 607 perhaps??????
okay, i know the royal commission hasn't started yet.
but i'm confident enough that he will be telling some whoppers.
so i thought i'd be the first to get a thread started for something that will begin... very soon now!.
If the GB gets something wrong in their interpretation they rely on the brothers to not obey them and make the GB aware of their "mistake"...
Wow.,,just..,wow
Like 607 perhaps??????
guys what the hell is going on, how can jackson say there were no isrealite women judges!!!
!how many jewish women judges are there?cdidnt maclellan check up om that one, would have thought he'd know!
!
caleb: do you know about when he said that?
About half an hour ago
i thought at the end, stewart made brilliant use of scripture (about establishing fornication or other sexually immoral practises) how, in such a clever way stewart used scripture to point out that some one could basically stake out someone's house to see if a person stayed over night be they homosexual or heterosexual............that on the basis of a sort of stakeout, the two witness rule was ambivalent yet it prevailed.
due to sufficient suspicion.. and therefore why did this "suspicion" not prevail with child sexual abuse.
Also, one thing they have not brought up is the total INAPPROPRIATENRSS of 2 untrained ol guys pouring over the details of a sexual assault PERIOD.In a letter Nevermind in person.
Its come up again and again survivors tell stories of men in jc getting off on it.
AN NO F#'#"";" HEADSHIP HAS NOT STOOD THE TEST OF TIME ITS BEEN TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF OVER AN OVER AS THIS RC PROVES
i thought at the end, stewart made brilliant use of scripture (about establishing fornication or other sexually immoral practises) how, in such a clever way stewart used scripture to point out that some one could basically stake out someone's house to see if a person stayed over night be they homosexual or heterosexual............that on the basis of a sort of stakeout, the two witness rule was ambivalent yet it prevailed.
due to sufficient suspicion.. and therefore why did this "suspicion" not prevail with child sexual abuse.
Agreed, just posted same on another thread!
KERPOW!
Angus 1
Jackamo 0
guys what the hell is going on, how can jackson say there were no isrealite women judges!!!
!how many jewish women judges are there?cdidnt maclellan check up om that one, would have thought he'd know!
!
Thanks Caleb, I knew you sould come to my rescue!(and my sanity!) I think ol'Angus will be waiting a while for those scriptual refs!
Can't believe he had the nerve to say "some people take scripture out of context!".These characters take the whole BIBLE out of context!!
okay, i know the royal commission hasn't started yet.
but i'm confident enough that he will be telling some whoppers.
so i thought i'd be the first to get a thread started for something that will begin... very soon now!.
KAPOW! ANGUS1
JACKSON 0
SO circumstantial evidence is ok for adult sins (ie adultary) but not CHILD SEXUAL ASSULT. STOP GIVING THE OLD FLANNEL JACKSON!
guys what the hell is going on, how can jackson say there were no isrealite women judges!!!
!how many jewish women judges are there?cdidnt maclellan check up om that one, would have thought he'd know!
!
what question would you ask geoffrey jackson, as a member of the governing body of jehovah's witnesses, to answer?
.
jw leaks.
Is'nt that wife of yours a bit young for you?