Spirituality
02 Jun 10
18 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd all this because I wanted to know the source of the copied-and-pasted postings of Joseph?
you are unable to ascertain what a source of a post is within the context of an internet forum, on that basis you are able to state that it was not only a Jehovahs Witness, but a paedophile and furthermore claim that it is not only true, but Holy truth. Does that not strike you as drawing conclusions from a non reality, in other words delusional, s ...[text shortened]... , there are various methods which may really help you, chemical castration, counselling etc etc.
I tried to show why it is alwasy a bad idea to keep the source a secret. If it really is the words of a peadophile from the upper hierarchy of JW, then it sould make sense that the source isn't reliable. Don't you get that? Is the words from a paedophile more or less holy than anyone else? What do you think, Robbie?
Nota bene - I don't think you are a paedophile, nor Joseph. This is not a personal attack of neither of you. I don't think that the majority of the JW is paedophiles. But there is certainly a problem within the elders of JW. Right? We have had these kinds of headlines in Swedish Press too. Is a paedophile worth protecting? No. But this is a side track.
The on-track is from where Joseph took his text? Who is the author? Is he reliable? This is the main issue here. If you cannot answer this, but you defend Joseph right to be secretous, then tell us. Straight out. And we have something worth discussing.
18 Jun 10
4 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasyes knowing the source may be important, if you wish to corroborate the source as legitimate, trustworthy, however when someone withholds information from you, for whatever reason, it does not give you the right to assign to them in abusive terms values which have no basis in reality.
And all this because I wanted to know the source of the copied-and-pasted postings of Joseph?
I tried to show why it is alwasy a bad idea to keep the source a secret. If it really is the words of a peadophile from the upper hierarchy of JW, then it sould make sense that the source isn't reliable. Don't you get that? Is the words from a paedophile more h right to be secretous, then tell us. Straight out. And we have something worth discussing.
There is no problems with JWs in any of the congregations, the procedures for dealing with reported cases of paedophiles and paedophilia (either real or alleged) are well known, firmly established and in the public domain.
1. "The elders may be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations to the authorities. If so, we expect the elders to comply."
2. The Watchtower magazine has outlined the following policy: "Depending on the law of the land where he lives, the molester may well have to serve a prison term or face other sanctions from the State. The congregation will not protect him from this."
3. A 2002 memo to all congregations stated: "Our position is that secular authorities deal with crime while elders deal with sin." Even where there is no mandatory reporting requirement, victims or others having knowledge of an incident of sexual abuse must not be discouraged from reporting it.
source wikipedia
why dont you be honest and find the figures for the number of paedophilia cases brought against the catholic church and the protestant denominations as well as the general populace, in the same area covering the same time period and make a comparison, for if you dont, i will.
18 Jun 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieStill Joweph is secretous. He think he has the right to hold the source in secrecy. So if I am somewhat provocative to force him to reveal his source, then I have a point. AS I am provoked in the same manner by people at this debating forums.
yes knowing the source may be important, if you wish to corroborate the source as legitimate, trustworthy, however when someone withholds information from you, for whatever reason, it does not give you the right to assign to them in abusive terms values which have no basis in reality.
There is no problems with JWs in any of the congregations, th ...[text shortened]... he same area covering the same time period and make a comparison, for if you dont, i will.
Yes, I don't know if the source is a PD or not, but Joseph didn't give me a chance to find out either. 'We live in an open socieety, but Joseph live in a closed JW society. Not good, not good. This is one of the criteria I use for a sect. Information is held in secrecy.
I think, as I know your interest in science, that you agree with me on this. 'Open' beats 'close'.
You compare JW with the Catolic church. You might find several accusations from me in that direction too. a PD is bad wherever you find him. An organisation protecting the PD's within the organisation is as despickable as the individual himself. No PD should be protected within the organisation. JW has been accused of this. The Swedish case shows evil within the JW organization. The protocol of dealing with JW within the organisation is not working. Do you agree or not?
IF JW behaves like a sect, then I will treat them as such. If they act openly (like revealing sources in order to have a free debate, then JW is not a sect. The behaviour of Joseph shows that JW is a sect. Agree or not?
Never have I said that JW is a PD sect, however. But there are cases that need to be debated. Agree or not?
18 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasi think i have stated before Fabian, Jehovahs witnesses hold public meetings, open to the public, advertised through a public ministry, encouraging members of the public to visit, we publish accounts and a record of our activities every year etc, how this can be construed as secrecy i do not know and it is tiresome to have to repeat it again and again. The details for dealing with paedophilia i have shown to you is in the public domain. it was published and distributed to members of the public in the watchtower magazine, which has a monthly circulation of some twenty or so million copes. It is freely available in many lands, including Sweden, in Swedish. We have produced articles on how to protect ones child from abuse, articles on internet safety, distributed through a public ministry, to members of the public.
Still Joweph is secretous. He think he has the right to hold the source in secrecy. So if I am somewhat provocative to force him to reveal his source, then I have a point. AS I am provoked in the same manner by people at this debating forums.
Yes, I don't know if the source is a PD or not, but Joseph didn't give me a chance to find out either. 'We live hat JW is a PD sect, however. But there are cases that need to be debated. Agree or not?
as for open beats closed, it is entirely relative, a reed switch for example in combination with a dc motor (my little home project at the moment), relies on magnetism to close the switch and to open it, without which, my dc motor could not run.
what is there to debate, you have your opinions i have my experience of being a witness for the last fifteen years, indeed, as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn noted in his book, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, "How can you expect a man who's warm to understand a man who's cold?"
you see Fabian, you must understand our aversion to debate for it produces strife, you may visit any forum to see this is evident , the Bible itself states,
Let all malicious bitterness and anger and wrath and screaming and abusive speech be taken away from you along with all badness. But become kind to one another, tenderly compassionate, freely forgiving one another just as God also by Christ freely forgave you. Ephesians 4:31-32
19 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by winkDoing good works is a part of it,(being "missional" ), but its not for everyone. Some people are more intreverted.
agreeable, but Satan loses. You're right we should focus on being more missional, and going out into the world spreading the Word of our Lord Jesus Christ. If that's how I read your post right.
Its enough for some people simply to have a clear conciense and percieve the "truth of reality" .
You see mine and the christian mission is not all that different in essence😉
21 Jun 10
Originally posted by karoly aczelAgreed 🙂 The theological arguments do nothing for our fellow man.
Yes Manfred, it would seem a lot of arguements that are pre/anti trinity,(for example), are not really going to do much for the practicle outcomes of the world problems we need to address right now.
Lets try to focus our energies on religous/spiritual problems that actually make a difference in the world, rather than all this ego-posturing.
Manny
21 Jun 10
Originally posted by galveston75Hey G-75 🙂
Hey Manny. But what if it is? What if thinking in that way might just be wrong in his eyes? Hasn't there been many in the past who thought what they were doing in worshipping God turned out to be wrong or even deadly? Remember the ones who came out of egypt and made the golden calf out of there own gold to worship God with?
I'm certianly not judge and ...[text shortened]... him. But again he is the reader of hearts and will be loving in his decisions. Take care...
The only reason I say this is for example the thief on the cross. Jesus never said first understand GOD IN ALL of his glory then you can be with me in paradise. Maybe a lame example but does intellectual right knowledge necessarily please God? How about the Jews of old. They understood God in an orthodoxical sense but their hearts were not in the right place.
Manny
21 Jun 10
I think that we all could find garbage on the internet to back a certain point of view. I'm realizing it gets us no where. I think we could dig up stuff on any group or sect but civil discussion might work. Problem is sides are so entrenched in their position that it's impossible to accomplish anything. I at least want to try and think outside the box try to understand the counter argument for a position. I think the early Christians were more divided on the trinity than some think. I'm just asking the question does believing or not believing in the trinity make the end all for being a Christian? If we don't accent to this perfect code or creed or just don't understand it does that negate us from being a Christian?
Manny
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
21 Jun 10
Originally posted by menace71All God requires is found in Romans 10:9-10...that you believe in His Son Jesus Christ and make Him Lord in your life and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead.
Hey G-75 🙂
The only reason I say this is for example the thief on the cross. Jesus never said first understand GOD IN ALL of his glory then you can be with me in paradise. Maybe a lame example but does intellectual right knowledge necessarily please God? How about the Jews of old. They understood God in an orthodoxical sense but their hearts were not in the right place.
Manny
You are correct in saying that you do not have to be a "theologian" ( my paraphrase) to be saved. However, the more we understand about the bible, that is, that it is God's word, the closer we become in relationship with Him. When we study diligently and we ask Him to reveal understanding to us through His word, the bible says He richly rewards us. In fact it is a promise, and He is faithful.
21 Jun 10
Originally posted by checkbaiterAgreed. I think the struggle is like what the apostle Paul said fighting and wrangling over words that just causes disrepute and is useless for the hearers (or readers) of such. People need to hear the gospel first then the riches of His word will be revealed. Honestly also the trinity who can really understand it? We can ascertain it but to fully understand it? I'm one who believes that God appears to have a triune nature but try to explain it. Analogies break down. Even human logic breaks down. I think this why some dismiss it totally. The JW's dismiss for that reason. I can't fully dismiss it because there seems to be a special nature that God reveals about Himself in the bible. The old testament is riddled with I believe at least glimpse of His nature. The bible seems to contradict at some points. No man has ever seen God yet I believe God showed himself in some form through out history to people.
All God requires is found in Romans 10:9-10...that you believe in His Son Jesus Christ and make Him Lord in your life and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead.
You are correct in saying that you do not have to be a "theologian" ( my paraphrase) to be saved. However, the more we understand about the bible, that is, that it is God's wor ...[text shortened]... h His word, the bible says He richly rewards us. In fact it is a promise, and He is faithful.
Manny
21 Jun 10
Originally posted by checkbaiterActually it says there has to be a "public declaration of this belief". Did Jesus not tell us to preach and teach this to others? If just believeing it was all we have to do, Jesus would have said that. But at James 2: 14, 26 it says we have to do works. What are these works? Jesus not only told what they were but even did them himself as an example. Rom 10:14, 15 is the clue. This "Good News" has to be preached to ones that don't know what Jesus taught. He gave this command to all who want to follow him. He gave no exceptions to this.
All God requires is found in Romans 10:9-10...that you believe in His Son Jesus Christ and make Him Lord in your life and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead.
You are correct in saying that you do not have to be a "theologian" ( my paraphrase) to be saved. However, the more we understand about the bible, that is, that it is God's wor ...[text shortened]... h His word, the bible says He richly rewards us. In fact it is a promise, and He is faithful.
21 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75can i have your car? if you were a real Christian you would charitably give it to me in good conscience that it was going to a needy cause, the need for speed! vroooooooom vroooooooom 😉
Actually it says there has to be a "public declaration of this belief". Did Jesus not tell us to preach and teach this to others? If just believeing it was all we have to do, Jesus would have said that. But at James 2: 14, 26 it says we have to do works. What are these works? Jesus not only told what they were but even did them himself as an example. Rom taught. He gave this command to all who want to follow him. He gave no exceptions to this.
21 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLet's see what has happened here...
i think i have stated before Fabian, Jehovahs witnesses hold public meetings, open to the public, advertised through a public ministry, encouraging members of the public to visit, we publish accounts and a record of our activities every year etc, how this can be construed as secrecy i do not know and it is tiresome to have to repeat it again and agai eely forgiving one another just as God also by Christ freely forgave you. Ephesians 4:31-32
(act 1) At page 4 in this thread our friend galveston75 (if I named him Joseph once or twice, my mistake, I meant galveston75) posted a huge block of text, didn't mention the source, so it was very easily to think that he did write it himself. However I suspected he only pasted-and-copied from somewhere, so I aksed him from where he got it. He blurred something. I showed the effect of hiding the source, it just could be some devilish figure behind, like Hitler or a paedophile, would his words be as valued if it was? He didn't like to answer, so I just provoked him by telling that I knew it was a JW paedophile who wrote it, thus giving him a chance to deny it and unveil the true author.
To hide a source is a bad etiquette among serious debaters.
To paste-and-copy and pretend it his own words is a bad etiquett among serious debaters.
I gave him a chance to correct it, but he didn't want to be corrected. This shows him to be a non-serious debater.
(Act 2) You dear Robbie broke in, defended galveston75, showing everyone that the text per se was not interesting, but me calling the (still unknown) author a paedophile was interesting. And you brought me an uncalled personal attack: "You are sick and need a doctor, make an appointment with a mental health practitioner as soon as you can."
Question: When is an personal attack appropriate? Answer: Never.
Question: When do people use personal attacks as a rethorical method? Answer: When they don't have any arguments to use.
You show here that you think you are above me in seriosity. You are a JW. Does this has to do with anything? Do you try to silence me in exactly the same manner that members of sects are doing? Yes, you are. If you don't like the etiquette 'sect' on JW, then don't act like JW really is a sect. You only bring water on my mill.
(An excuse for your low behaviour might be appropriate now.)
(Act 3) You deny that there are paedophiles within the organisation of Jehowas Witness. You say that it isn't possible, there are protocoll for such a thing. Yet there are numerous cases that there is such a lowlife within JW, even in higher levels of JW. As if some people within JW seems to be a natural behaviour, and are protected by the elder. I can show you many links, but everyone can goole for himself. One of the links, I repeat, is http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/march5/11.23.html. You want more? I can give you a whole bunch of them to you, if you ask for it.
Now, I have demonstrated that there are paedophiles within JW. Why deny it? To protect them? You say that there are such a persons in the catolic church too. Okay, yes. Does that make the pain of the JW victims less severe? "Oh gosh, what elder Smith did to me wasn't so bad after all, because a cardinal did it to his choir-boy too. Better not whining."
Can we agree that there are paedophiles within the Jehovas Witnesses? Do we agree that these cases are hidden from the public?
If JW is a sect or not is decided on the behaviour by the organization. Not by a definition within the organization. So by hide things and deny things is a sigh of a sect. Of any sect. "It's we the good people vs they the bad people." Doesn't matter if the meetings are public, doesn't matter if they have a publication for anyone to read. It's the behaviour within the organization that matters, if it is a sect or not.
Bottom lines:
(*) It is important to show the author of a text not written by oneslf.
(*) There are paedophiles within Jehowas Witnesses.
(*) Personal attacks are always bad rethorics.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
21 Jun 10
Originally posted by galveston75I'm not sure where you see the public declaration, but what I stated still stands. To be saved, God made it easy. Have you ever read The Screw Tape Letters"? It is a fictional but educational book about a demon training another demon on how to discourage a Christian. One of the lessons taught is to teach these Christians to have faith in Christ and....you fill in the blank. There is always the AND something else.
Actually it says there has to be a "public declaration of this belief". Did Jesus not tell us to preach and teach this to others? If just believeing it was all we have to do, Jesus would have said that. But at James 2: 14, 26 it says we have to do works. What are these works? Jesus not only told what they were but even did them himself as an example. Rom ...[text shortened]... taught. He gave this command to all who want to follow him. He gave no exceptions to this.
The great Reformation is based on Faith in Christ alone!
BTW, Jesus did teach salvation in His time while still under Law. But this is the Age of Grace. This was the great mystery(secret) that was kept hidden in God through out all ages. In fact, it says in 1Corinth 2:6-8 that had the god of this world known, he would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.
And yes I agree that after salvation, we should preach the good news to all. We are commissioned and have been commanded to be ambassadors for Christ.