Posts by Bobcat

44

Those who WERE or ARE Elders (Re: Molestation Coverup)

by dontplaceliterature in

i'd like to hear from those who are currently elders or were formerly elders on your honest feelings about the charges brought against the society and their general policy in handling these matters.

do you think that the society handles child abuse accusations fairly?

or, do you think their policy is abusive?

Bobcat

Marvin, thank you. (And others too.)

In the years I had dealing with judicial cases, this particular type of sin never came up. Or at least I was never aware of it. But judging from others comments it might not be a surprise that I never became aware.

Some others have mentioned km school where the Society would have write in rules (for the flock book) that certainly looked like it was protection for them.

One example was to never mention the Society in Judicial paperwork. It was odd because everything about a judicial case involved following their instructions. I used to wonder what would happen if an elder on a JC would refuse to sign his name to the forms.

44

Those who WERE or ARE Elders (Re: Molestation Coverup)

by dontplaceliterature in

i'd like to hear from those who are currently elders or were formerly elders on your honest feelings about the charges brought against the society and their general policy in handling these matters.

do you think that the society handles child abuse accusations fairly?

or, do you think their policy is abusive?

Bobcat

Marvin said:

Why it has restrained itself from coming out and telling the Witness community that it is the right and moral thing to report such suspicions to the police for sake of protecting all children, whether Witnesses or not.

Marvin, this is getting closer to what I was asking about in the other thread about protecting children. Unfortunately, your sentence, which I copied, appears to have been intended as a question, and seems to be an unfinished thought. I'd really like to know what you think here. Why can't they come out with this position? What stands in the way? I know you said "power" in the other thread, but in what way? What would happen that they would view as bad if they did take that position?

Thanks

12

Duty to Protect (children, followers, customers....)

by skeeter1 in

i was out shopping this weekend, reading of candice conti too.

there's a few walmarts nearby in skeeterville.

one nearest me is pretty safe, but the other is closer to the interstate and jail, and you always feel wierd at it.

Bobcat

Skeeter1, thanks for attempting to answer.

Maybe I should explain my question a little more.

The Society says they have a 'spiritual paradise.' That is why I said in the question above, they wish it could be exactly like that. I know it isn't. And in nearly 40 years of being a Witness, I have not seen any organized attempt to become evil. But all that is not what I was asking about.

What I am trying to understand, for example, in this case, what principle(?) or status or whatever, do they feel is so important that they have to expend their effort/expense to defend? I know the Society would prefer that Ms. Conti wasn't abused. I'm sure they wish Mr Kendrick didn't exist. I know they do not want to lose money. But nobody going into a lawsuit wants to lose money.

So what are they trying to protect (besides their physical assets) by taking this rather unpopular position in this lawsuit? Is it a legal position? Is it a constitutional right? Or something else? That is what I'm trying to understand.

12

Duty to Protect (children, followers, customers....)

by skeeter1 in

i was out shopping this weekend, reading of candice conti too.

there's a few walmarts nearby in skeeterville.

one nearest me is pretty safe, but the other is closer to the interstate and jail, and you always feel wierd at it.

Bobcat

Question - What is the real motivation for the Society in all this?

I know they do not want children abused.

I know they do not want pedophiles in the congregations.

I'm asking this in all seriousness.

33

why jesus never tempted with sex?

by criticalwitness in

i mean really whats the number one reason a dub gets kicked out the org?

one of stongest natural desires and he was supposed to be a full fledged human all desires and everything i mean satan tempted him with food but no sexual pleasure?

and was he attracted to women?

Bobcat

OldGenerationDude said:

The Christian text of Hebrews 4:15 states that Jesus "was tempted in every way that we are, except without sin."

Good catch.

Here are the wilderness temptation accounts. They indicate that there was possibly more temptation in the wilderness than was elaborated on:

Mt 4:1-3: "Then Jesus was led by the spirit up into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil. 2 After he had fasted forty days and forty nights, then he felt hungry. 3 Also, the Tempter came and said to him: ..."

Mk 1:12, 13: "And immediately the spirit impelled him to go into the wilderness. 13 So he continued in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan, and he was with the wild beasts, but the angels were ministering to him."

Lk 4:1-3: "Now Jesus, full of holy spirit, turned away from the Jordan, and he was led about by the spirit in the wilderness 2 for forty days, while being tempted by the Devil. Furthermore, he ate nothing in those days, and so, when they were concluded, he felt hungry. 3 At this the Devil said to him: ..."

Luke's account ends by saying, "So the Devil, having concluded all the temptation, retired from him until another convenient time." (4:13) So there was more to come.

One of the things that would need to be taken into account is Jesus' perfection. Not that it was impossible to tempt him. But he would have had perfect control of his thoughts and feelings. Here are a few verses that might lend some insight to that:

Gen 2:25: "And both of them (the still perfect Adam and Eve) continued to be naked, the man and his wife, and yet they did not become ashamed."

Gen 3:16: "To the woman he said: "I shall greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy; in birth pangs you will bring forth children, and your craving will be for your husband, and he will dominate you." (Indicates a change would take place in the relationship between men and women due to sin.)

1Tim 1:8-10: "Now we know that the Law is fine provided one handles it lawfully in the knowledge of this fact, that law is promulgated, not for a righteous man, but for persons lawless and unruly, ungodly and sinners, lacking loving-kindness, and profane, murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, manslayers, fornicators, men who lie with males, kidnappers, liars, false swearers, and whatever other thing is in opposition to the healthful teaching." (Implies that "a righteous man" is not normally prone to the sins listed, and thus, does not need laws to restrict him.)

Jude 6, 7: "And the angels that did not keep their original position but forsook their own proper dwelling place ... So too Sod′om and Go·mor′rah and the cities about them, after they in the same manner as the foregoing ones had committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use ..." (Jesus was in the heavens when this took place with the angels. So he may have already been strengthened by his resistance at that time. Thus, the devil may have seen fit to concentrate on other areas that he felt he may be more successful at.)

There might be other verses that touch on this. These came to mind.

The title of the thread assumes (whether intentionally or not) that Jesus should have had the same feelings that any warm-blooded man we know of would have. But he may have had an inner self-control that is hard for any of us to fully comprehend.

Take Care

22

Quotation marks ...

by compound complex in

the [human] creation itself also will be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of god.romans 8:21.

[period within close of quotation marks].

quotation marks can be used to indicate 'alleged' or 'so-called'.

Bobcat

Thumbs up to compound complex!

"Ditto"!

And thank you.

22

Quotation marks ...

by compound complex in

the [human] creation itself also will be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of god.romans 8:21.

[period within close of quotation marks].

quotation marks can be used to indicate 'alleged' or 'so-called'.

Bobcat

Compound Complex saith: (I'm in my KJV mood)

The sheep were noticeably stressed. It must've been a very big "cat".

The only problem here is that you neglected to cite your source. (I kiddith)

But I did have a question: When the quoted word is the last word of the sentence, does the period stay out of the quotes (as in the example above)?

Take Care

45

The great crowd has no mediator. Jesus is only the mediator for the 144K

by blond-moment in

jw
friends

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft-ey9qodgw.

Bobcat

Old Goat said:

They're afraid of clearly stating that they've dropped some views. Notice that in the recent books on the prophecies that they dropped pages and pages of previous explanations? But they never say, "all that was crap. We know it. You know it." If they're to remain a vital religion they need a sort of Statement of Theology Secundum.

They won't do that, of course. They aren't brave enough to put issues that openly. They are reactionary.

We're witnessing a theological shift among Watchtower writers. There seems to be at least two parties. It would serve them well if they wrote their own verse by verse or chapter by chapter commentary on the bible. ... I doubt they'd ever do it. Fear and a very narrow view will keep them from it ...

Based on what I see in their recent "Isaiah," "Acts," and "Jeremiah" commentaries, I have to agree. They seem to be moving away from the detail and analysis you would see in an academic commentary. (The older pubs were somewhat closer to this style.) The current style is easier to mold in the direction one wants. From their standpoint, their current style much better suits them.

Another problem for the WT is that (imo) they have weeded out of their writership the logical thinkers. So they are stuck with a cadre of company/yes men. The publications they put out now show a lack of dynamic thinking. And any lateral thinking is strictly proscribed.

"The fact remains, on this issue the Watchtower is misrepresented on boards like this."

And there is actually no way to get around 'misrepresenting them,' as you say. Their own ambiguity and their own contradicting beliefs ensure that anyone trying to argue with them will fall short - in their mind. They have come up with explanations attempting to cover the shortfallings of their own doctrines. So, if you point out that the great crowd doesn't have a mediator, they simply point to bylaw 1.2.3 which explains how that works.

Some here can point to Scriptures such as Jer 31:31-34, Mt 26:27, 28, and 1Cor 11:25, 26, that clearly link the new covenant, Jesus' death, and forgiveness of sins. So in their minds (mine included), having a great crowd that is not in the new covenant, and yet gets forgiveness of sins, is not a possible scenario.

Another problem I see is that numerous terms have been redefined by the WT so that it becomes almost impossible to mount any arguement without reverting to using the very terms that they coined. (i.e. meanings that they apply to such) You see that here (not just in this thread) with "The Faithful Slave Class," "Other sheep," "Little Flock," and so on.

It is much like trying to reason with someone suffering from paranoid delusions. You can never convince them that they are wrong. And any reasoning that doesn't agree with them puts you in the camp of the enemy. And yet, one could understand the difficulty someone with a mental illness has. But the WT doesn't suffer from that. As you said, it is a matter of holding power. And holding to a double standard. Any mistakes they make are simply the 'new light' process. Any mistakes anyone else makes is a teaching of lies. This unabashed double standard engenders anger in others. And rightly so.

And yet I see a possibility over and above all this. (Luke 11:29, 32)

Take Care

10

Why Did Watchtower Leaders Think Organ Transplants Were Evil?

by Bubblegum Apotheosis in

the light is suppose to be progressive, moving us two steps forward, and hopefully none back.

jehovah does not test us, or try to trip us up with strange un-biblical teachings.

i can remember how the merits of avoiding blood, were in full swing during the heavy metal big haired days of the 1980s.. we were told how lucky we were, that we would not be contracting "hiv-aids", "hep-c" some other rare blood disorders, this made us look like we were ahead of the paradigm, this even made sense and we felt good about it.

Bobcat

Blondie said:

"BTW, the human body does not ... replace the cells with the cells of the organ receiver."

Please forgive my ignorance on this subject, but how would cells in a donated organ be replaced (or are they)?, seeing how it has been cut off from the original owner.

Thanks, and Take Care

38

NEW LIGHT in latest Watchtower!!!

by The Searcher in

literally hundreds and hundreds of quotations like the one below have been made, to "prove" that only the heavenly -hopers are "sons of god".

(type in 'spiritual sons of god' in cd rom).

"jehovah forgives the error of the other sheep on the basis of jesus shed blood of the covenant.

Bobcat

Blondie quoting WT:

"Jesus' "other sheep" will not become sons of God until the end of the thousand years."

This idea fails on several fronts.

John 3:36: "He that exercises faith in the Son has (not will eventually get) everlasting life"

John 6:27: "Work, ... for the food that remains for life everlasting, which the Son of man will give YOU"

John 6:47: "Most truly I say to YOU, He that believes has everlasting life"

John 6:54: "He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I shall resurrect him at the last day"

John 10:28: "And I (Jesus) give them everlasting life"

John 17:1, 2: "Jesus ... said: "Father, ... glorify your son, ... you have given him authority ... that, ... he may give them everlasting life"

In all these, everlasting life is equated with believing in Jesus, not with passing a final test. Also, Jesus is given authority to give everlasting life. But since he hands the Kingdom back to his Father at the end of the 1000 years, this could not be true if everlasting life was only granted after the ensuing test.

If humans only become God's children after the 1000 years, why would Jesus say this:

Luke 20:34-36: "Jesus said to them ... but those who have been counted worthy of gaining that system of things and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. 36 In fact, neither can they die anymore, for they are like the angels, and they are God's children by being children of the resurrection"

AnnOMaly said:

"Saying that we are God's children, can appropriately call Him 'Father,' without being adopted is like saying the meek can 'inherit' the earth without being 'heirs.' "

Right On!

Galatians 4:7 says: "So, then, you are no longer a slave but a son; and if a son, also an heir through God."

As Paul shows, being an "heir," that is, one who inherits, depends on being a son (or child).

***************

There is no contradiction in the WT position. The wording they use is little more than a public relations ploy. The (false) idea that only the 144,000 are sons of God is part of the very foundation of the WT power structure. And they know it. And they will cast off you and me and anyone else to maintain their position - just like the Pharisees did. (John 11:48-50)

Take Care