Posts by EdenOne

47

Article: Reveal News-California court guts child abuse ruling against Jehovah's Witnesses

by AndersonsInfo in

http://www.revealnews.org/article/california-court-guts-child-abuse-ruling-against-jehovahs-witnesses/.

california court guts child abuse ruling against jehovahs witnesses.

topics: religion / religion and government .

EdenOne

The court must decide what's LEGAL, not what's MORAL. I understand the court's decision to drop the charge on the legal duty to warn. I understand that the legal ramifications and unclear boundaries of such duty are too complicated. It would open an unimaginable legal can of worms, and no doubt the court didn't want to establish jurisprudence in that direction. But no doubt the Watchtower had the moral obligation to take reasonable measures to alert the new congregation about the danger lurking within. It baffles me the letter of recommendation from the first congregation not only failing to mention the child molestation case, but even mentioning that he was good with children. I think the legal team of Candace Conti made a mistake when they put all their chips regarding punitive charges on the faillure to warn, rather than also base their case on the faillure to supervise the field service activity.

Eden

26

Wife wants a Family Study after the special talk...but initially refuses Bible only study.

by garyneal in

my wife asked me to attend the special talk with her because she wants to attend something like this as a family and feels that she "enjoys worshipping together" as a family.

i have not been to church for at least a year and have pretty much abandoned the practicing of my faith but i can remember how i used to want to have a church going family so i obliged.

i feel kind of apprehensive about doing these things because she wants the kids and i to be on our best behavior and has even fussed at me for playing tablet games during other talks.

EdenOne

Here's the reason:

"Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization, not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret the Bible. For this reason the Bible cannot be properly understood without Jehovah’s visible organization in mind." (The Watchtower; 10/1/1967; pp. 587)

"We have the opportunity to show love for our brothers who take the lead in the congregation or in connection with Jehovah’s visible organization worldwide. This includes being loyal to "the faithful and discreet slave." (Matthew 24:45-47) Let us face the fact that no matter how much Bible reading we have done, we would never have learned the truth on our own." (The Watchtower; 12/1/1990; pp. 19)

*** w81 2/15 p. 17 Do We Need Help to Understand the Bible? ***
From such experiences it can be seen that Jehovah God caused the Bible to be written in such a way that one needs to come in touch with His human channel before one can fully and accurately understand it. True, we need the help of God’s holy spirit, but its help also comes to us primarily by association with the channel Jehovah God sees fit to use.—1 Cor. 2:6-10.

Eden

47

Apostasy Trial on YouTube - Undercover spycam part 1

by RayPublisher in

for only the second time in internet history, a video recording of a secret jehovah's witness apostasy trial has been published online on the jwstruggle youtube channel.

follow isaac's story here:.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se9rh6qux0o&feature=youtu.be.

EdenOne

I recorded mine in audio with a professional recorder - but it was so long, that only the first 90 minutes got recorded. The whole thing took more than 3 hours.

Eden

205

Hi Everyone. Answer to prayer countdown...

by Stumpy in

jw
friends

i've been lurking for about 3 months now and thought i'd better finally sign up.

you have all been an immense help to me as i have come to realize that this isn't the truth so i want to say a great big thank you!

what a crazy, emotional ride it is to finally face the truth about the doubts that i have carried for many years.

EdenOne

Oh, and guess what Circuit Assembly part I was just assigned...

Don't forget to take a barf bag with you. You'll surely feel sick.

Eden

105

LATEST NEWS: CANDANCE CONTI VERIDICT READY - WT LOST!!!!!!!

by Viva la Vida in

jw
friends

i'm not an expert but that is my understanding of this: .

opinion filed.. (signed published) the judgment against defendants on the negligence count is affirmed.

the judgment against watchtower on the cause of action for punitive damages is reversed with directions to enter judgment for watchtower on punitive damages.

EdenOne

"We hold that defendants had no duty to warn the Congregation or Conti’s parents that Kendrick had molested a child, but that defendais can be held liable for failing to limit and supervise Kendrick’s “field service,” a church-sponsored activity where members go door-to-door preaching in the community. Kendrick had unsupervised access to Conti during field service that he used as opportunities to molest her. Because breach of the alleged duty to warn was the sole basis for imposition of punitive damages on Watchtower, we reverse that portion of the judgment, with directions to enter judgment for Watchtower on the punitive damage claim. The compensatory damage award is affirmed."

Seems to me that Ms. Conti's legal team made a mistake here, when they based their claim for punitive damages solely on the duty of the Watchtower to warn (the court disagreed it had said duty), and not also on their negligence to supervise Kendrick's field service activity. I presume that, if the claim had been based on the latter, the Watchtower would have lost that as well. No doubt the Watchtower dodged a finantial bullet - for now.

edit: thank you cappytan

Eden

105

LATEST NEWS: CANDANCE CONTI VERIDICT READY - WT LOST!!!!!!!

by Viva la Vida in

jw
friends

i'm not an expert but that is my understanding of this: .

opinion filed.. (signed published) the judgment against defendants on the negligence count is affirmed.

the judgment against watchtower on the cause of action for punitive damages is reversed with directions to enter judgment for watchtower on punitive damages.

EdenOne

I wonder what does the underlined part means?

Opinion filed. (Signed Published) The judgment against defendants on the negligence count is affirmed. The judgment against Watchtower on the cause of action for punitive damages is reversed with directions to enter judgment for Watchtower on punitive damages. The parties are to bear their own costs on appeal.

New trial on punitive damages? Or ...?

Eden

233

What is BELIEF ?

by EdenOne in

stemming from the 'absentheism' thread, an old question came to my mind.

what exactly is "belief"?.

is it the same to ask: "do you believe in god?

EdenOne

Ok, got it, thanks for finding that out, Cofty.

I'm reposting with that part of the quote edited out:

I understand the need that rationalists have to jump at anything that resembles theism. As put by Jeffrey Tayler in an article in Salon, rationalists feel they no longer should keep quiet about religious nonsense:

"nonbelievers are no longer keeping mum about the rank stupidity embodied in Christianity. A virgin birth? A rib-becomes-woman? A man walking on water? The vicarious redemption of “sin” through a cruel and unusual act of human sacrifice? All these fantasticalities offend thinking, sane individuals. No one should expect us to accept the truth of such fantasticalities or to allow dogma arising from them to determine discourse on how we live, which laws pass, and whom we marry, without fierce resistance."

Agreed. However, there are limits. Just as there should be intolerance to religious hate speech, there shouldn't be room for anti-religion hate speech. Plus, because rationalists tend to value education, exactitude and ethicals in higher regards than their religious fellow humans, they should be the ones that set a better track record when discussing these matters in a civil, thoughtful way.

Look! The proponent of this thread isn't attempting to tell you or anyone else how to live life; it's not about to pass any law that will affect your life; isn't indoctrinating anyone into a religion; isn't doing anything to discriminate people on the basis of religious belief. He's not even a theist, of all sins! So, tell me why the heck you feel so self-entitled to be rude to other people just because they hold a different view from yours? If you feel some crime is being committed against reason, the remedy is to reason further, not to insult. If you feel that the discourse isn't honest, correct it with honesty. If you detect dogmas that don't merit immunity to disproof, fight dogmas with open-mindedness, not scorn. And surely, pick your opponents more wisely.

If reason is used to advance the enjoyment of life, I'm a rationalist too. But if reason is but a flag, used merely to win debates and an excuse to be insulting to others, you're a disgrace to your own cause.

Eden

233

What is BELIEF ?

by EdenOne in

stemming from the 'absentheism' thread, an old question came to my mind.

what exactly is "belief"?.

is it the same to ask: "do you believe in god?

EdenOne

You can't possibly assert anything about evidence or knowledge regarding a thing you can't define.

Except belief?

It's used by the WT quite often

Ah, the ex-JW flavor of ad hitlerium fallacy!

Eden

233

What is BELIEF ?

by EdenOne in

stemming from the 'absentheism' thread, an old question came to my mind.

what exactly is "belief"?.

is it the same to ask: "do you believe in god?

EdenOne

I understand the need that rationalists have to jump at anything that resembles theism. As put by Jeffrey Tayler in an article in Salon, rationalists feel they no longer should keep quiet about religious nonsense:

"nonbelievers are no longer keeping mum about the rank stupidity embodied in Christianity. A virgin birth? A rib-come-woman? A man walking on water? The vicarious redemption of “sin” through a cruel and unusual act of human sacrifice? All these fantasticalities offend thinking, sane individuals. No one should expect us to accept the truth of such fantasticalities or to allow dogma arising from them to determine discourse on how we live, which laws pass, and whom we marry, without fierce resistance."

Agreed. However, there are limits. Just as there should be intolerance to religious hate speech, there shouldn't be room for anti-religion hate speech. Plus, because rationalists tend to value education, exactitude and ethicals in higher regards than their religious fellow humans, they should be the ones that set a better track record when discussing these matters in a civil, thoughtful way.

Look! The proponent of this thread isn't attempting to tell you or anyone else how to live life; it's not about to pass any law that will affect your life; isn't indoctrinating anyone into a religion; isn't doing anything to discriminate people on the basis of religious belief. He's not even a theist, of all sins! So, tell me why the heck you feel so self-entitled to be rude to other people just because they hold a different view from yours? If you feel some crime is being committed against reason, the remedy is to reason, not to insult. If you feel that the discourse isn't honest, correct it with honesty. If you detect dogmas that don't merit immunity to disproof, fight dogmas with open-mindedness, not scorn. And surely, pick your opponents more wisely.

If reason is used to advance the enjoyment of life, I'm a rationalist. But if reason is but a flag, used merely to win debates and an excuse to be insulting to others, you're a disgrace to your own cause.

233

What is BELIEF ?

by EdenOne in

stemming from the 'absentheism' thread, an old question came to my mind.

what exactly is "belief"?.

is it the same to ask: "do you believe in god?

EdenOne

Either you can't read or won't read, Viviane. Go back and read that it wasn't me that was asking for a definition of "god". That is the sort of thing that should be asked to a theist. It's nonsensical to be insistingly asking to a non-theist like me to define a god. It's stupid and obtuse. For the empth time, I don't know.

But I get it. You need a definition given by a theist so you can then debunk it. But when a non-theist asks you to logically explain how come your so-called absence of belief in deities that stems from lack of evidence for their existence is in itself different than a belief proper, what I observe is some sort of broken record, headless chicken attitude.

Eden