LOL @ OUTLAW
New May Awake! Am I being unreasonable or does this sound crazy!?
by toweragent 41 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
wha happened?
Tacking? Seriously what does that have to do with an organization that is supposedly led by God. Is the coomunication from heaven that marginal?
-
wasblind
I could be wrong. But I think in a sly way this goes further than the issue of rape. It goes for kids
claimin' they been molested and why didnt they holler out loud
It's an Indoctrination of a reasonin' point against the molestation charges at large
So the sheep can start to have questionable doubts about the victim not the perp
This is a ploy to protect the perps
-
sd-7
"Therefore, a victim who was unable to scream but otherwise did all she could under the circumstances can leave matters in Jehovah’s hands."
I think we should bear in mind the exact wording of this most recent ('03) quote. It doesn't say that the woman is not guilty; it says she can leave matters in Jehovah's hands. So this actually doesn't say the woman is not guilty for being raped. If anything, it's a code for saying she will get a judicial committee where "Jehovah" (ie. three elders) will determine whether or not she was actually raped.
If she didn't scream, there is nothing in this sentence that really says she's in the clear (just as there is nothing in the sentence that really says she isn't in the clear, either). Two factors are put before what will surely be a committee: (1) did she scream? (2) If she did not scream, did she otherwise do all she could under the circumstances? If the answers to both are 'no', then it is theoretically possible and maybe even likely that some elders would DF her. I'd like to think that most wouldn't, but I do believe some most certainly would.
Either way, would there really be a point in her screaming in an abandoned field? It's abandoned. Who's going to hear you scream? Will they call the rapist in to testify that he heard her scream? What's the point in this quote? Just to tell them they should scream, which implies to me, at least, that the same rule is in effect, but they just can't (or don't) overtly spell it out as they used to.
--sd-7
-
-
straightshooter
Never get a taxi. This proves that getting a taxi is dangerous and can result in spiritual harm. If one goes to a strip club, is it ok if one screams when problems arise. Hence the WTS implies to stay far away from a taxi.
-
wha happened?
I could be wrong. But I think in a sly way this goes further than the issue of rape. It goes for kids
claimin' they been molested and why didnt they holler out loud.
The GB has trouble discerning between sex with two consentual adults, with a child who was molested. I remember watching a program where an elder was interviewed in Australia, and he refered to an adult male, having sex with a child as a sexual act.
To the GB it's all the same. The further encouragement to leave it in Jehovahs hands is a way of telling dubs, not to complain. Because even if they feel they have a cause for complaint, they aren't supposed to
-
Cadellin
Here's one (more) thing that really annoys me about JW doctrine: They are quick to point out that we are not under Mosaic Law, so literal Sabbath-keeping is no longer needed, along with all of the animal sacrifice, etc. And yet, anytime they need a law or even a "principal," where do they turn? The Mosaic Law!
This was recently seen in the WT article that discussed aspect of IVF and frozen embryos. To be artifically inseminated with sperm from a man who is not the husband is to render the woman guilty of fornication, according to Mosaic law ("You should not give your seed to another woman," or something like that--from Exodus or Leviticus or Deut.)
So the Mosaic Law is defunct except when the WT wants to use it to maintain control over the reproductive powers of its adherents. The mandate for women to scream when threatened with rape is just one more example...
-
sd-7
Excellent connection, Cadellin. Under Watchtower Law, the 'slave' just determines which parts of the Mosaic Law are still in force and which are not, rather than letting the New Testament handle that. You can't get a tattoo, based on a "principle" of the Law, but you have to shave your beard, going against the very next verse in the Law. When it becomes so arbitrary, you see very clearly that it's subject to personal opinion, to the whims of a few men.
--sd-7
-
trujw
I hope this isn't wrong to say but in reference to Cadillan the less children these psychos have the better. I am still surprised they are not encouraging children as many as possible to grow in membership