The Protect the Children Sham (page 5)

AlanF

To amac:

So what if someone has an agenda? The point is whether their criticisms are valid.

: There's two sides to everything, and if someone is disposed to one side of the argument every single time, it makes others wonder, even more so, what the other side of the story is.

True enough. But no one I'm aware of is saying that anyone should blindly accept the claims of critics. Indeed, good critics put out all of the reasons for their criticisms precisely so that others can examine them. And they often go to great lengths to allow, and often encourage, the other side to refute the criticisms.

But what do you see with regard to criticisms on this forum and in the media about the mishandling of child molestation by the JW organization? Do you see false accusations being made by critics? Or do you see a great deal of personal stories put up on this board, and on the silentlambs board? What have you personally done to see if the criticisms are valid? And what do you see the Society doing to refute criticisms? Rather than going into a detailed refutation, they simply ignore all details and make a blanket denial that anything is wrong. Then they begin to beat up on whistleblowers. Who do you think is more credible? Those who put a lot on the line and set forth details of their criticisms in public? Or those who circle the wagons, attack critics and refuse to answer questions?

AlanF

HildaBingen

Mr F say:

:The Governing Body (in the guise of Russell, Rutherford, Knorr & Franz, and the post-1971 Keystone Kops) has certainly prophesied.:

It depend on what you mean.

:They might not have claimed that their prophecies originated with themselves, but they certainly claimed that their prophecies originated with God.:

Where did the wt say dat dee prophecies dat dey was prophesying was deirs?

:They all claimed or claim to be God's exclusive spokesmen to mankind. They all claimed or claim that their teachings should be obeyed as if God himself were speaking. No exceptions, for to disobey is to "go against the arrangement of God".:

What you been smoking? They say no such thing.

:Thus, when they made predictions based on anything at all, they made them in God's name. That is one definition of prophesying. That is exactly what the Old Testament prophets did, with the possible exception that they claimed that God spoke directly to them in rather obvious ways. But Rutherford explicitly claimed that angels gave him lots of information that he merely passed on to the JW community. And the others have always claimed that God "directs" them, not just by their passively reading the Bible, but in an unspecified but clearly active way. Thus, the Governing Body today claims inspiration, although they don't use the word "inspiration". They use the word "direction", but the way they use it, it's a distinction without a difference.:

You, dear boy, need to go back and get your money back for that koine 101 class you took. The governing body do not claim to be inspired. they are guided by god spirit. And God directs governing body like he direct all christians.

:Another definition of prophesying comes straight from Watchtower literature. A prophet, according to the Insight book, is one who claims to speak in God's name. That claim can be true or false, and so a prophet can be either true or false. Because the Watchtower Society's leaders have taught many false things while claiming to speak in God's name, they are -- by their own definition -- false prophets.:

The wt has not taught false things. Maybe they have missapprehended the truth at times. But so have all humans. Calling wt false is like calling Ptolemy's geocentric theory false. It is not false.

Are you that dense?

bchapp

Another way to say dat is the truth does not change but our understanding of it can and does.

So when you go out in service do you say "this is the truth" or "this is our understanding of the truth?"

"If the truth hurts most of us so badly that we don't want it told,
it hurts even more grievously those who dare to tell it." (Judge Ben Lindsey, 1869-1943)

HildaBingen

:So when you go out in service do you say "this is the truth" or "this is our understanding of the truth?":

When I go in fs, I open my bible and preach Jesus and the kingdom of God. That is truth. Jesus is truth and his word is truth. Jesus is the way, truth and life (John 14:6). Everything else is window dressing. For this mystic, the sum total of Christian doctrine as laid out in God's bible is truth. That is what I tell people.

Celia

AlanF vs. HildaBingen....
Open-clear mind, common sense and intelligence vs. JW apologist...

Very enlightening.

Have you read the messages on SilentLambs site lately ?
Here is a good one, or very sad one...

Date:
15 May 2002
Time:
03:10:40
Comments
YOU ARE A SICK INDIVIDUAL, jw'S ARE A FORCE FOR GOOD AND ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE I KNOW THAT STAND UP FOR TRUTH THE BEST THEY CAN. NEXT YOU'LL BE ATTACKING THEM ON THE BLOOD ISSUE OR THEIR NUETRALITY STAND, BUT OFFERING NOTHING BETTER, JUST HATRED AND CRITISM ABOUT THE FAITHFUL SLAVE. YOU'LL ONLY LOSE, YOU'RE FIGHTING THE WRONG PERSON.

Will Power

Where did the wt say dat dee prophecies dat dey was prophesying was deirs?

Notice how the part of the brain that affects discernment starts to break down when a Loyal wt defender is confronted with something uncomfortable.
Their record speaks for itself and everyone who dares to say that they did not prophesize in god's name should find out first who they are defending. What's that one? These are god's dates not ours, we couldn't change them if we wanted to! teehee

HildaBingen

Dear will:

:These are god's dates not ours, we couldn't change them if we wanted to! teehee:

You miss the point again. Let me see if I can simplify for you, babe.

Mr F claimed that the wt said the prophecies they speak about are "their prophecies" (his exact words). Now you say that the prophecies or dates are not "theirs" but God's. That is the point this mystic was trying to make. Is it all clear now, dear? The wt has no prophecies.

herbert

Trollette said;

: Have you not heard about prople getting diseases from blood transfusions or were you sleeping during all these years? I do not take blood in any form.

I note that you avoided my question which was about how the WTS's policy protects against disease. I really am uninterested in your own stand on blood since that is irrelevant to WTS doctrine.

The point is that your beloved Society's rules offer zero protection from diseases transmitted by blood because it approves of a JW accepting any part of blood. Thus, it can take no credit for supposedly protecting its followers through its teachings. Your clumsy attempt to muddy the waters is very typical of WT Legal.

As usual, the WTS wants to have its cake and eat it too - it claims that JWs don't accept blood transfusions. That is correct in the sense that they don't take transfusions of whole blood. However, the WTS has succeeded in associating transfusions with blood borne disease as opposed to the blood itself. Transfusions themselves have become the bogey man as opposed to the blood itself. By allowing the medical uses of all blood parts in some form or other the GB affords JWs no protection from diseases transmitted by blood. Further, since their new teachings violate their own understanding of Acts 15 then they put people's health at risk without any basis in scripture or in medical science. That is criminal irresponsibility and amounts to issuing medical advice without having medical qualifications. Not only that but this "advice" is enforced by shunning. This is all done in a cowardly attempt to disguise the fact they very clearly do not speak for God.

Face the facts Hilda-the-Trollette - you have no argument and your obfuscation is just plain lying. Lives are at risk from insane medical directives and predatory pedophiles and all you can do is try to save those old buffoons who think they speak for God. As AlanF says, one would think that your own self-interest would make you press for change. But, it may already be too late for that - in your case I confess that I hope it is.

Herbert

Celia

). Now you say that the prophecies or dates are not "theirs" but God's. That is the point this mystic was trying to make

Hilda,
So........... God is lying ? God is making false prophecies?
And God told the Watch Tower leadership that they should make the same false prophecies ?
Very confusing stuff !

LB

The wt has no prophecies.

Hmmm then I wonder why they've referred to themselves as prophets over and over. So often they had to change the meaning of the word prophet to mean teacher

The Protect the Children Sham

Share this