'If you reason something out; you will be influenced to make the proper decision'

by UnshackleTheChains 3 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  UnshackleTheChains

  Take a look at Watchtowers reasoning in the first video from 46 minutes to 56 minutes regarding the 2 witness rule. The scripture the Watchtower representative refers to is perfectly fine in relation to situations within context.

  But how can the 2 witness rule be applied to a sexual assault or child abuse allegation when only the victim and the perpetrator were present when the crime took place? How can the 2 witness rule be applied if the perpetrator denies the allegation?.

  Angus Stewart from the Australian Royal commission also puts across his point in the 2nd video about reasoning things out.

  See if you can spot the difference

  Remember

  'If you reason something out; you will be influenced to make the proper decision'
  

  https://youtu.be/kSZ0qifTSOk
  

  https://youtu.be/dJE4_xGHs8E
  
• 

  wifibandit

  The w99 10/15 article "You May Gain Your Brother" shows in their own words how they misapply

  Matthew 18:15-17.

  
  

  and

  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ODPx2k9Z4
  
• 

  UnshackleTheChains

  Wifibandit

  Thankyou for bringing our attention to this particular Watchtower. The above paragraph even makes a lot of sense.

  Now it certainly begs the question. Why didn't Brother Breaux remind his audience of this information?

  The November broadcast is a classic example of - Information control!

  The point where the paragraph says...... they may have experience in the field at issue and be able to establish whether what occurred was truly wrong...made me chuckle.

  When it comes to serious crime, you REALLY need individuals with experience in the field. You won't find that at a JC.
• 

  cha ching

  I remember that article WIFI, the WT is always going back and forth in their strategies.... like a snake.

  In the recent court case of Padron vs. WT, in San Diego, the judges called it estoppel:

  the principle that precludes a person from asserting something contrary to what is implied by a previous action or statement of that person or by a previous pertinent judicial determination.