today a dutch newspaper published an in-depth follow-up item on jw abuse issues.. the most interesting part of the article is this:.
the politicians also let themselves be heard.
a month ago the house of representatives voted unanimously in favor of a motion to enforce an independent inquiry into abuse within the jehovah's witnesses, as the organization refuses to initiate it.
Bobby, I mean, Doubter, said the following: "they have not produced any children, and are apparently hanging their hats on 30 year old cases, then they have not met their burden."
Not true. As Dio said, kids with JW parents would not be allowed to go to RV.
Also, the age of the victims does not matter. They are still victims, and collectively potentially a sign that at some point there might have been a systemic problem within the org. Something that the investigation will look into.
there are many here who think they can infiltrate my web-site.
be warned that we administrators of jwtalk call the listed congregation on your application for membership in our site to verify if they know you!.
some of you have slipped through the cracks and got into our site, but rest assured, we will find you out and ban you!.
i was subjected to more than one of these whilst married.
a partner should be treated as an equal.
i wonder how that will work out in a jw household?.
God's people would never be charged with any of these "crimes" as they always apply Bible laws to their lives
...LMAO
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
Thanks for the response Cofty. It did seem to me as well that his suggestion of an "eviscerating accident" was baseless.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
@Cofty,
Over on the JW apologist blog "Opposers Dismythed" (ran in part by our own in-house apologist Bobby), someone commented with a point similar to the one you were making on the OP and got a response from the JWs. Here was the comment:
The Israelite were in some cases allowed to eat animals that were found dead, animals that obviously had not been bled (Lev.11:38-40). Also, if an Israelite brought blood from a still living animal to the altar, said blood would have no sacrificial value, only blood from a dead animal would become sacred. In light of this, what would your response be to those that say that blood from an organism that has not died, as is the case with medical blood donated by a living patient, is not the same as the blood from a life that has perished?
and here was the response from the JW apologist:
Anonymous:
The law requiring bleeding an animal before eating it is absolute (Leviticus 17:10-14) and could only mean this would be a domestic either killed by a wild animal, thus bled, or killed by an eviscerating accident, thus bled. However, another law forbids the eating of animals torn by wild animals. (Exodus 22:31; Deuteronomy 14:21) The laws in Leviticus 11:39-40 and 17:5 show that there is no punishment for doing so, but they must be seen as “unclean” and are not allowed to eat the sacrifices while they are unclean. (Leviticus 7:21; 22:1-8) But it is abundantly clear that such things were not to be eaten along with the blood.
Yes, the sacrifice must die in order for the atoning blood to have any value, which further highlights the ridiculousness of comparing transfused blood to Christ’s blood. (Heb 10:29) However, that does not in any way undermine the law that says that blood must be poured out regardless of whether it is used in sacrifice or not. (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17; 7:26, 27; 4:25, 30, 34; 5:9; 17:10-14; 19:26; Numbers 19:5; Deuteronomy 12:16, 23, 27; 15:23; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25) In fact, it is one of the most oft-repeated laws in the Bible. (Leviticus 8:15; 9:9; 1 Samuel 14:32-34; 2 Samuel 23:16, 17; 1 Chronicles 11:18, 19; Eze 24:7; 33:25) Add in all the mentions of the use of blood for atonement and cleansing (I will not enumerate them here,) and the value of blood becomes the most important subject outside the Shema.
But to answer your question clearly, David poured out the water his men brought to him from the cistern that he expressed raving for, calling it the blood of his men, because his men risked their lives, yet not one of them died doing so. (2 Samuel 23:16, 17; 1 Chronicles 11:18, 19)
Also, it is not because the animal is dead that the blood should be poured out. It is because "the life is in the blood." (Leviticus 17:14) Clearly then, the law is about the life of the creature, not the death.
And an animal could easily lose its leg and survive, but that does not preclude pouring the blood out and cleansing it before eating the leg.
because their are so many different god`s worshiped in the world today and none of them have made themselves known to us in this 21st century for all of mankind to see and verify .. all of the gods worshiped today are from hundreds and even thousands of years ago derived from ancient writings and texts in languages that are no longer in use today.. that of course brings up problems of another sort translating an ancient language into its modern day equivalent.. and nobody is in total agreement that such translations are accurate or correct anyway.. and their is no god coming to the rescue of translators to say which is the right interpretation.
they are mute.. i`m not just talking about christianity/ judaism either, the same goes for all non christian religions too.. its a total cop out to say one must have faith to believe in god .
"faith, belief in religious doctrines divine truth without proof" and no verification from any god christian/islam/judaism or otherwise ..
Venus wrote: "This means His role is only to recreate provisions for enjoyment of life. Then He goes into silence till the need arises for next recreation. That means He is interested only in doing favors to His children, and not interested in our response—gratitude/ingratitude, honor/dishonor"
It's interesting how humans have to come up with excuses for why God seems to be completely missing in action. The result is convoluted God(s) that act irrationally and make no sense.
i know of three situations i saw myself.
the first one was when i lived in arcadia.
all the people i use names on are dead and gone so no probs.
Yes. A close family friend that was never married. He is now an older man, lives alone in a retirement community, is frail in health and waiting for paradise to fix everything.
I'm guessing Poopie is referring to the Supreme Court case Watchtower just won in Canada, the one vs Mr. Wall
i am interested in the approach this forum takes to money.
apart from sex, (which i am quite relaxed about) it seems to me that wealth is the surest divider between those who are moral, and those who are not.. it seems jesus thought so, also.
luke 16:19-31 kjv describes well enough his dusty attitude to the rich who do not succour the poor.. and this world has many poor: so many, it might seem that we can do nothing about it, and twist his words; 'the poor ye shall have always with you, but me, ye shall not have always.
Well, I meant in terms of the actual logistics of such a redistribution.
For instance, how do you redistribute real estate property equally? Do houses bigger than what can be afforded by a $16k salary get demolished so that everyone live in an equally sized living unit?
What about other material possessions such as electronics. Is it fair that some have an iPhone X while others have only a flip phone?
i am interested in the approach this forum takes to money.
apart from sex, (which i am quite relaxed about) it seems to me that wealth is the surest divider between those who are moral, and those who are not.. it seems jesus thought so, also.
luke 16:19-31 kjv describes well enough his dusty attitude to the rich who do not succour the poor.. and this world has many poor: so many, it might seem that we can do nothing about it, and twist his words; 'the poor ye shall have always with you, but me, ye shall not have always.
Let us take all the world's wealth, and divide it equitably amongst all the world's people. And let us take all the world's annual production, and divide it equitably amongst all the world's people.
SecondRate, I scanned through most of the comments but im not sure I understood one thing: How exactly do you propose this redistribution of wealth be carried out?
