Posts by fulltimestudent

4

Cart Witnessing in Hong Kong

by scratchme1010 in

jw
friends

i was away for a few weeks since i was on a nice vacation in thailand, hong kong and macau.

during my vacationi saw several jws in carts standing by different parts of the cities i visited.. i hong king, however, i noticed that they were a lot more and in a lot more places where i wouldn't think i would see jws with their carts.

they were at the entrance of men's rooms (and not by women's rooms) in public and (what i imagine is) private property (entrances of public transportation places and shopping malls).

fulltimestudent

OrphanCrow : Scratchme, Hong Kong has a history of street vendors that is not seen on mainland China.

If you visit the PRC, you will find that street vendors are quite common. I've had 12 or more visits since the year 2000, and every visit, and in many cities I've noted street vendors. Food may be the favourite item, but clothing and household items are also common, as are things like shoe repairs, bicycle repairs and even clothing repairs, once saw a woman with a treadle sewing machine repairing clothing- all on the street.

\Just last night I watched a Chinese TV show on Australia's SBS called and one of the contestants described how he had made a lot of money through street vending.

On the other hand I know that there can be some harassment, but that could be related to the possibility that its possible that in some areas they need a city licence.

The reason there are no witness carts on Chinese streets, is that JWs do not have legal recognition*, so no 'legal' meetings or activity. ( NB. They also 'banned' in Singapore**)

* See: http://www.refworld.org/docid/45f147082f.html

** Quote: "In 1972 the Government deregistered the Singapore Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses on the grounds that its existence was prejudicial to public welfare and order because its members refuse to perform military service (obligatory for all male citizens), salute the flag, or swear oaths of allegiance to the state.At the time, there were approximately 200 Jehovah's Witnesses in the country; as of 2007 there were approximately two thousand. Although the Court of Appeals in 1996 upheld the rights of members of Jehovah's Witnesses to profess, practice, and propagate their religious belief, and the Government does not arrest members for being believers, the result of deregistration has been to make public meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses illegal." (See - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Singapore) The reasons for the PRC ban are likely to be similar.

8

What were two Chinese doing in Roman London?

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

in the ancient world, people moved around much more than we may have expected, (think of paul's reported journeys and those of his supporters), but the identification of two skeletons in a roman era burial ground, as chinese has surprised historians.. the uk bbc reports: .

dr rebecca redfern, curator of human osteology at the museum of london, told bbc radio 4's the world at one, the find was "the first time in roman britain we've identified people with asian ancestry" and it was "absolutely phenomenal".. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37452287.

fulltimestudent

In the ancient world, people moved around much more than we may have expected, (think of Paul's reported journeys and those of his supporters), but the identification of two skeletons in a Roman era burial ground, as Chinese has surprised historians.

The UK BBC reports:

Dr Rebecca Redfern, curator of human osteology at the Museum of London, told BBC Radio 4's The World at One, the find was "the first time in Roman Britain we've identified people with Asian ancestry" and it was "absolutely phenomenal".

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37452287

6

Where was Jesus (or YHWH) when little children needed them?

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

it is claimed by christians that jesus cares deeply for children, for the gospel says:.

15now people were even bringing their babies to jesus for him to place his hands on them.

and when the disciples saw this, they rebuked them.

fulltimestudent

It is claimed by Christians that Jesus cares deeply for children, for the gospel says:

15Now people were even bringing their babies to Jesus for Him to place His hands on them. And when the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called the children to Him and said, “Let the little children come to Me and do not hinder them! For the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. (Luke 18:15-17).

So why is it then, that this supposed 'Lord of all things', will let little children suffer in any way?

But particularly so, when those who inflict the suffering claim that they are special representatives of Jesus? This is the second post on Father Gerald Ridsdale, and his associates. More horror details have emerged about his torment of young children, how can anyone maintain that 'Jesus cares', when faced with the vicious treatment, sexually and physically of these young children, that this so-called 'saviour of mankind,' has observed without action.

Australia's SBS network reports:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/feature/girls-paedophile-and-cardinal-pell?cx_navSource=related-side-cx#cxrecs_s

In the face of these damning reports, we can conclude that either this Jesus, does not exist, or that he does not care what happened to these children.

It is not a matter of what religion is 'his' religion. It is only about the suffering of small children and the failure of Jesus to take action to protect them.

9

Pity the poor Bible believers - Australian Native People left Africa over 70,000 years ago

by fulltimestudent in

many bible believers accept the genesis documents explanations of human origins.

but the modern science of genomics is making that a very difficult intellectual position to hold.. increasingly, to believe the bible, is to accept superstition over rationality.. three papers published in the scientific journal nature demonstrate the point:.

1. the ancestors of australia aboriginal and papuan peoples left africa around 72,000 years ago.. 2. they arrived in the geological locations we now identify as australia and papua around 50,000 years ago.

fulltimestudent

dropoffyourkeylee : Bible thumpers aside, why were the aborigines so isolated? Did they not have any knowledge of boats? The Chinese and the Polynesians were travelling long distances, why didn't they touch Australia? There must be reasons for this

There certainly are reasons, the problem is that while one could think of possible reasons, it is almost impossible to verify them. Language is one way to attempt to work out how peoples moved, but it's only with the advent of genomics that it became possible to work out relationships. Likely we will never have all the answers as to what occurred.

The native peoples of Australia possible reached the Australian land mass during a period when a land-bridge existed between the Malaysian peninsula, through the Indonesian islands and N.W. Australia. If that occurred some 40,000 years B.P. and later ocean levels rose to the extent necessary to isolate these peoples, then we can see some reasons for the isolation. Aust. native peoples did not (it seems) develop the skills neccessary for large boat building. The earliest Europeans to reach Australia noted the types of water craft used by the native peoples and there does not seem to have been any observed large boats. But, we need to note that these people were not as primitive as some Australians of European descent have described.

A Wikipedia entry offers some of the theories that have been developed to explain the origins of Pacific basin peoples. You can find it at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesians

When the entry speaks of Taiwanese, it does not mean the Chinese inhabitants, but refers to the earlier native Taiwanese people (descendants of whom still live in Taiwan)

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwanese_aborigines) - Its theorised that the Polynesian peoples originated there. Note some similarities in this image:

The original peoples of Taiwan certainly had the maritime skills to make ocean journeys, as you see of some of them in the watercraft they still build.

This diagram illustrates one concept of migration.

and another slightly different concept:

You may also find this reference helpful:

ttps:/ /www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090122141146.htm

Its also important not to conflate time periods. What people did 40,000 years ago is different to what people did 2000 years ago when the Chinese initiated coastal shipping and moving across the South China sea, and one thousand years ago when Polynesians began their voyages.

33

Two Brothers Living Together - Never Dated Girls...

by pale.emperor in

in my old congregation there are two brothers (non related) who are in the early 30s.

they've never dated girls.

they're "best friends".

fulltimestudent

It is JW dogma that gay people can change.

The belief is based (at least) on the letter claimed to have been written by the Apostle Paul to Christian congregation in Corinth, part of which states:

"... Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, ... none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; " (1 Cor. 6: 9-11 NLT)

There seems little doubt that the leadership firmly believes that if you are same sex attracted, you can change, as we note that the top leadership has included people who can be described as same sex attracted, but were (supposed to be) not leading an active sex life.

It is worth noting that 'homosexuality' the English word denoting same sex attraction, and which is now applied to people who are seen as 'gay' whether or not they engage in same sex behaviour.

In biblical times, there does not seem to have been a word to describe a latent tendency toward same sex attraction, but only action words. words describing what people did.

9

Pity the poor Bible believers - Australian Native People left Africa over 70,000 years ago

by fulltimestudent in

many bible believers accept the genesis documents explanations of human origins.

but the modern science of genomics is making that a very difficult intellectual position to hold.. increasingly, to believe the bible, is to accept superstition over rationality.. three papers published in the scientific journal nature demonstrate the point:.

1. the ancestors of australia aboriginal and papuan peoples left africa around 72,000 years ago.. 2. they arrived in the geological locations we now identify as australia and papua around 50,000 years ago.

fulltimestudent

In this video from the Natural History Museum of Denmark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kbRxSzDE4k

Professor Eske Willerslev discusses the conclusions of the studies.

9

Pity the poor Bible believers - Australian Native People left Africa over 70,000 years ago

by fulltimestudent in

many bible believers accept the genesis documents explanations of human origins.

but the modern science of genomics is making that a very difficult intellectual position to hold.. increasingly, to believe the bible, is to accept superstition over rationality.. three papers published in the scientific journal nature demonstrate the point:.

1. the ancestors of australia aboriginal and papuan peoples left africa around 72,000 years ago.. 2. they arrived in the geological locations we now identify as australia and papua around 50,000 years ago.

fulltimestudent

Many Bible believers accept the Genesis documents explanations of human origins. But the modern science of genomics is making that a very difficult intellectual position to hold.

Increasingly, to believe the bible, is to accept superstition over rationality.

Three papers published in the scientific journal Nature demonstrate the point:

1. The ancestors of Australia Aboriginal and Papuan peoples left Africa around 72,000 years ago.

2. They arrived in the geological locations we now identify as Australia and Papua around 50,000 years ago

3. By 31,000 years ago, most of these communities were genetically isolated from each, a situation that allowed a great genetic diversity to develop.

Australia's ABC media cover the story in this overview:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-22/world-first-study-reveals-rich-history-of-aboriginal-australians/7858376

Now think of the intellectual problems for bible believers:

1. The Genesis documents account of a divinity creating humans circa 5000 years ago cannot possibly be true, if it can be demonstrated that humans have been on the earth for a far longer period.

2. The other racial origin myth in the Genesis document, tracing all modern humans back to the family of Noah, must also be discarded.

3. If Luke 17:26 -27 accurately records the words of Jesus, then Jesus believed the superstitious story of a global flood, the destruction of all humans accept Noah's family, and the genesis account of humanities spread after the flood, a story contradicted by the science of genomics.

13

We have our own Gert Wilders in Australia

by barry in

jw
friends

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kreptyyo6l8

fulltimestudent

zeb: The so called 'Family Law Act' has been an unmitigated disaster inflicted on the Australian people by a former Labor Govt. They were warned what it would lead to but the 'feminist'/ new age lobby were too influential to prevent any amendment along the way.

and

The Sydney Branch office of the WT was also warned about the family law act and what it would mean when immature people got married and then wanted out but as we have seen at the ARC the elders of the Branch office were living in fairy land and believed they had no need or responsibility to look into anything not given them by the gb.

I'm rather curious about these statements, so I thought to ask you, if you would care to expand? What is it precisely that you find objectionable?

-------

I've had little to do with the Family Court, except of course, in my own divorce, initiated by my former wife (justified within JW-land on the grounds that I placed her in spiritual jeopardy.).

Essentially, I recall that because it was 'no fault' (not sure if that term is used in Australia) and uncontested, it went through the court with any 'dirty washing' being necessary without adding to the bitterness and name-calling that goes along with leaving JW-land.

---------

Under the prior marriage laws (Before Lionel Murphy's Act) immorality was just about the only grounds for a divorce, and the result was a large number of people continuing to live together with bitterness, or separating without divorce and if entering a new relationship, forced to live together in a de facto arrangement without the 'privileges(?)' associated with the legality (for the relationship) granted by legalised marriage.

In your second post, you seem to suggest that the Aust. Branch Office should have done 'something' about that then new Family laws. I'm not sure, given JW dogma, what they should have/could have done? You posted, "immature people got married and then wanted out" - from my perspective, immature people have always gotten married, and then sought to get out. It's not as if Australia suddenly became unique in this regard.

(Matthew ch. 19 seems to expressly forbid divorce for Christians, however it is unlikely that the text reflects any law-making by Jesus, but is more likely to reflect ongoing changes in the customs of Mediterranean peoples caused by the Emperor Augustus's marriage laws, introduced long before Jesus' public ministry or the writing of the Matthew gospel)

9

The Blood Transfusion Act 1960 - Australia

by OrphanCrow in

australia passed an act in 1960 that allowed doctors to give a blood transfusion, if necessary, to minor children.. i am curious as to whether this act - the blood transfusion act 1960 - is still in effect in australia.

and i would also like to know if any australian jws are aware of this act.

are australian jws still told to resist blood transfusions for their minor children?.

fulltimestudent

My worst fear as a witness was having to deal with one of my children requiring a BT. My love for them would have meant an emotional crisis.

Of course, for a true believer, the alternative is the great fear.

Ignatius, in 110 CE wrote:

"Grant me no more than to be a sacrifice for God while there is an altar at hand"

Why, because he believed:

"Nothing you can see has a real value. ...The greatness of Christianity lies in its being hated ..."

We could argue that he was an adult, but in the persecutions of early Christians, children also decided to die.

So it gets complex.

The Joe witnesses are not the only ones with this problem. This UK Guardian article reports on a Mormon offshoot with a similar atttitude ( but against all medical assistance).

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/13/followers-of-christ-idaho-religious-sect-child-mortality-refusing-medical-help

And some refuse treatmentjust because they feel the treatment itself is punishing, as in the case of Xu Ting, a young Chinese actress.

http://www.shanghaidaily.com/viral/fail/Chinese-Actress-Dies-of-Cancer-at-26/shdaily.shtml

9

The Blood Transfusion Act 1960 - Australia

by OrphanCrow in

australia passed an act in 1960 that allowed doctors to give a blood transfusion, if necessary, to minor children.. i am curious as to whether this act - the blood transfusion act 1960 - is still in effect in australia.

and i would also like to know if any australian jws are aware of this act.

are australian jws still told to resist blood transfusions for their minor children?.

fulltimestudent

These cases are complex. As you likely read, the 17 y.o. young man in one of my cited cases is stating that he will not allow a transfusion to be given to him.

And, in a comparatively short time, when he is of age, it will all be hypothetical.

--------------------

But leaving the JWs to one side,

what do you think of this case? A 6 y.o boy whose case has see-sawed through the legal system has now been (or, his parents have) permitted to refuse the recommended medical treatment and for 'nature' to take its course.

This boy has a brain tumour:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-01/parents-of-6yo-boy-with-cancer-win-court-battle-over-treatment/7805138.

The ABC (an Australian Govt owned, but not controlled, media outlet) version quotes the judge:
In his judgement, Justice Richard O'Brien said his decision was determined by what was in the best interests of Oshin.
"This case is not about parental rights, nor is it about the perceived power of the medical profession. It is not about whether, in a general sense, quality of life is more important than duration of life, nor is it about the relative merits of traditional medicine and alternative or complementary therapies," he ruled.
"It is not about overarching considerations as to the right to life, or the right to a peaceful death, nor is it about a philosophical consideration of the best interests of children generally.
"This case is solely about Oshin Kiszko, and how to determine what is in his best interests as a unique individual child in the specific circumstances which he now faces."
Justice O'Brien said Oshin's relationship with this parents weighed heavily in his decision.
"I am deeply concerned that any perpetuation of the conflict over Oshin's treatment will continue to diminish the ability of his parents to focus their energies solely on the provision of that support and love directly to him when he needs it most," he said.
Justice Richard O'Brien emphasised that his decision did not set a precedent for other cases involving medical treatment of a child.