It could've been worse. They could have asked Vincent Toole to attend but I guess they already had good cause not to ask him.
ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
by jwleaks 347 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
ZAPPA-ESQUE
The woman whom Jesus engaged at the well was a total outcast from the society of her time ......and Jesus did NOT ignore / shun her - Now go and study her account again in detail Olivier and Fishpaste !
-
freddo
RO
Three times (or more) for emphasis? Have you fallen asleep at the keyboard pressing re-send every hour?
-
Richard Oliver
I would say personally say that the person chose to disassociate or formally remove themselves as a witness. I would indicate that Paul said not to even eat with a man that was once called your brother. I would also indicate that Jesus stopped his association with Judas when he excused him from the lord's evening meal before his betrayal of the Christ. I would also indicate that ultimately it is a choice that someone makes if they want to shun a person or not, in reality a person can find a legitimate excuse if they want to speak with someone who is either DA or DF. I would also indicate, that even though I am not associated with a congregation right now because of my sexuality, that in my decades of experience I have never known someone who was DF for speaking with someone who was DF or DA. I may be living in a fantasy world and that is probably my own experiences but that is what I have seen, including a number of DF and DA family members that my immediate family did speak with while I was growing up.
I agree that they should have articulated the stand of Jehovah's Witnesses better and to be quite honest most anything would have been a better response than what was given. I think that they should have expected that as a question and had prepared it better or put it in their opening statement so that they could have pointed to the statement.On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Mitchell Rosen <[email protected]> wrote:I would say personally say that the person chose to disassociate or formally remove themselves as a witness. I would indicate that Paul said not to even eat with a man that was once called your brother. I would also indicate that Jesus stopped his association with Judas when he excused him from the lord's evening meal before his betrayal of the Christ. I would also indicate that ultimately it is a choice that someone makes if they want to shun a person or not, in reality a person can find a legitimate excuse if they want to speak with someone who is either DA or DF. I would also indicate, that even though I am not associated with a congregation right now because of my sexuality, that in my decades of experience I have never known someone who was DF for speaking with someone who was DF or DA. I may be living in a fantasy world and that is probably my own experiences but that is what I have seen, including a number of DF and DA family members that my immediate family did speak with while I was growing up.
-
berrygerry
Richard Oliver
Everything that i stated is correct you may not agree with my conclusion but that is what the law is. So are you saying that you feel that teenagers should be arrested and prosecuted for child pornography?It is the f'ing law, moron.
http://globalnews.ca/news/2393868/alberta-teens-sharing-intimate-images-of-under-age-girls-could-face-charges/
Every time your perv elders look at these images to decide another perv JW's degree of guilt, those elders are also committing a criminal offense.
Rev 18:4, buddy.
-
fastJehu
Richard Oliver
I would say personally say that the person chose to disassociate or formally remove themselves as a witness. I would indicate that Paul said not to even eat with a man that was once called your brother. I would also indicate that Jesus stopped his association with Judas when he excused him from the lord's evening meal before his betrayal of the Christ.I would indicate, that Jesus doesn't excused Judas from the lord's evening meal.
(Luke 22:19-23) 19 Also, he took a loaf, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: “This means my body which is to be given in YOUR behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” 20 Also, the cup in the same way after they had the evening meal, he saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in YOUR behalf. 21 “But, look! the hand of my betrayer is with me at the table. 22 Because the Son of man is going his way according to what is marked out; all the same, woe to that man through whom he is betrayed!” 23 So they started to discuss among themselves the question of which of them would really be the one that was about to do this.
That's, what the bible says in Luke.That's, what the WT-leaders tell the JWs:*** it-2 p. 130 Judas ***
If the bible doesn't fit into there doctrine - the bible is the "problem".
Luke’s presentation of this incident evidently is not in strict chronological order... -
fastJehu
Richard Oliver
I would say personally say that the person chose to disassociate or formally remove themselves as a witness. I would indicate that Paul said not to even eat with a man that was once called your brother. I would also indicate that Jesus stopped his association with Judas when he excused him from the lord's evening meal before his betrayal of the Christ.That's, what he really said:
(1 Corinthians 5:911) 11 But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.
Nothing about a lovely person - leaving the religion. Not one word.And nothing about the word "once" (once called your brother. Paul speaks of the present here - not of the past).
-
Richard Oliver
I would say personally say that the person chose to disassociate or formally remove themselves as a witness. I would indicate that Paul said not to even eat with a man that was once called your brother. I would also indicate that Jesus stopped his association with Judas when he excused him from the lord's evening meal before his betrayal of the Christ. I would also indicate that ultimately it is a choice that someone makes if they want to shun a person or not, in reality a person can find a legitimate excuse if they want to speak with someone who is either DA or DF. I would also indicate, that even though I am not associated with a congregation right now because of my sexuality, that in my decades of experience I have never known someone who was DF for speaking with someone who was DF or DA. I may be living in a fantasy world and that is probably my own experiences but that is what I have seen, including a number of DF and DA family members that my immediate family did speak with while I was growing up.
I agree that they should have articulated the stand of Jehovah's Witnesses better and to be quite honest most anything would have been a better response than what was given. I think that they should have expected that as a question and had prepared it better or put it in their opening statement so that they could have pointed to the statement.On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Mitchell Rosen <[email protected]> wrote:I would say personally say that the person chose to disassociate or formally remove themselves as a witness. I would indicate that Paul said not to even eat with a man that was once called your brother. I would also indicate that Jesus stopped his association with Judas when he excused him from the lord's evening meal before his betrayal of the Christ. I would also indicate that ultimately it is a choice that someone makes if they want to shun a person or not, in reality a person can find a legitimate excuse if they want to speak with someone who is either DA or DF. I would also indicate, that even though I am not associated with a congregation right now because of my sexuality, that in my decades of experience I have never known someone who was DF for speaking with someone who was DF or DA. I may be living in a fantasy world and that is probably my own experiences but that is what I have seen, including a number of DF and DA family members that my immediate family did speak with while I was growing up.
-
Richard Oliver
I would say personally say that the person chose to disassociate or formally remove themselves as a witness. I would indicate that Paul said not to even eat with a man that was once called your brother. I would also indicate that Jesus stopped his association with Judas when he excused him from the lord's evening meal before his betrayal of the Christ. I would also indicate that ultimately it is a choice that someone makes if they want to shun a person or not, in reality a person can find a legitimate excuse if they want to speak with someone who is either DA or DF. I would also indicate, that even though I am not associated with a congregation right now because of my sexuality, that in my decades of experience I have never known someone who was DF for speaking with someone who was DF or DA. I may be living in a fantasy world and that is probably my own experiences but that is what I have seen, including a number of DF and DA family members that my immediate family did speak with while I was growing up.
I agree that they should have articulated the stand of Jehovah's Witnesses better and to be quite honest most anything would have been a better response than what was given. I think that they should have expected that as a question and had prepared it better or put it in their opening statement so that they could have pointed to the statement.On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Mitchell Rosen <[email protected]> wrote:I would say personally say that the person chose to disassociate or formally remove themselves as a witness. I would indicate that Paul said not to even eat with a man that was once called your brother. I would also indicate that Jesus stopped his association with Judas when he excused him from the lord's evening meal before his betrayal of the Christ. I would also indicate that ultimately it is a choice that someone makes if they want to shun a person or not, in reality a person can find a legitimate excuse if they want to speak with someone who is either DA or DF. I would also indicate, that even though I am not associated with a congregation right now because of my sexuality, that in my decades of experience I have never known someone who was DF for speaking with someone who was DF or DA. I may be living in a fantasy world and that is probably my own experiences but that is what I have seen, including a number of DF and DA family members that my immediate family did speak with while I was growing up.
-
sparrowdown
What's going on is Brother Richard having a stroke he seems to be repeating himself?