Jump to content
The World News Media

Jehovah's Witnesses under pressure over handling of sexual abuse claims


Ann O'Maly

Recommended Posts

  • Member
On 8/19/2016 at 11:56 AM, JW Insider said:

Yes. I already considered the possibility that Allen Smith is your brother or even that Allen is your sister or grandmother. I even thought of using the expression "your twin" in an ambiguous way so that it would cover a few other possibilities.

Yes, your missing the point of jumping to conclusions. There seems to be a pattern of that here. The fact that you stipulate the WTS hide things, is not congruent to scripture. No different than jumping to conclusions just because you state your an ex-bethelite. Just  because you were at the Bethel House, doesn't make you an expert. You weren't privy to all the inner workings of the Bethel House. So your exaggeration is not different than any other person here that criticizes the WTS. I don't expect you to defend the WTS, but then again, don't lie about them either. That's what you do when you agree with "thespians" here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 5.7k
  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yes, this is true of JWs and true of so many other organizations too. One might argue that the reputation of the organization is even more critical among JWs because we are dependent on reputation for

What has that to with the price of beans? Again, instead of having a rational discussion about how the Org. has historically dealt with and presently deals with child abuse allegations, you resort to

Jehovah's Witnesses under pressure over handling of sexual abuse claims Organisation faces fight to prevent Charity Commission examining its records of abuse claims aft

Posted Images

  • Member
2 hours ago, JWTheologian said:

There seems to be a pattern of that here.

Agreed.

2 hours ago, JWTheologian said:

The fact that you stipulate the WTS hide things, is not congruent to scripture.

Strange. I assume that you would stipulate that Brother Jackson was telling the truth at the ARC. Then you are also stipulating that WTS hides things, since he admitted as much. Welcome to the club. Of course, it's not even wrong to hide some things. There is often a good purpose for confidentiality and sometimes even secrecy. My concern about the topic at hand is that hiding some things for the purpose of saving a reputation can hurt it in the long run. This is based on Jesus' words:

(Mark 4:22) 22 For there is nothing hidden that will not be exposed; nothing is carefully concealed that will not come out in the open.

If we really love the brotherhood, then we will candidly and honestly admit and address both the good and the faults, too. This will help us improve faster, and move on from embarrassing situations that have recently come to light.

2 hours ago, JWTheologian said:

Just  because you were at the Bethel House, doesn't make you an expert.

That's correct. You'd be jumping to conclusions if you thought that it did. You'd be jumping to conclusions if you thought that I thought that it did.

 

2 hours ago, JWTheologian said:

You weren't privy to all the inner workings of the Bethel House.

That's absolutely correct.

2 hours ago, JWTheologian said:

So your exaggeration is not different than any other person here that criticizes the WTS.

You'd be jumping to conclusions if you thought I was exaggerating. I can only tell as much as I've learned. After all, I wasn't privy to all the inner workings of the Bethel House. There might be much more to tell, but that's for someone else to tell if they wish. I can only relate what I've learned. I should add that I have held back from telling many, many stories and experiences that you might apparently find unbelievable. I think if people knew some of the things I could tell from personal experience that many of us would have a healthier view of Jehovah's overall organization. We'd be more humble, and our message could be even more appealing to many people. But it's not true that everyone is ready to respond positively to true information that humbles us and makes us even better appreciate Jehovah's work with us.

2 hours ago, JWTheologian said:

I don't expect you to defend the WTS, but then again, don't lie about them either. That's what you do when you agree with "thespians" here.

There are times when we need to agree with the "thespians" (actors). You probably remember (from a previous post you responded to) that Charles Taze Russell published this idea in the very first issue of the Watchtower. We all know about the good that the WTS does, and the good name that it still holds around the world. But many of the persons who complain about certain processes and systems of doctrine do so because they sincerely believe something should change. Almost every change that has been made in recent years has been a change that some persons somewhere had brought up previously in a complaint or a question or sometimes even from someone who "raised a stink" over the way they were personally or conscientiously "hurt." When these things are considered humbly, we often find ways to improve. Not all of them of course, but in just a few of them. These are the topic areas that I am also interested in, because I love the international brotherhood, and I want to see what is "approved" become evident. Here's one way to put it:

(1 Corinthians 11:18-19) 18 For first of all, I hear that when you come together in a congregation, divisions exist among you; and to an extent I believe it. 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident.

According to the Bible, then, even divisions and sects can serve a good purpose when we are humble enough to learn from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Strange. I assume that you would stipulate that Brother Jackson was telling the truth at the ARC. Then you are also stipulating that WTS hides things, since he admitted as much. Welcome to the club. Of course, it's not even wrong to hide some things. There is often a good purpose for confidentiality and sometimes even secrecy. My concern about the topic at hand is that hiding some things for the purpose of saving a reputation can hurt it in the long run. This is based on Jesus' words:

Then, you are injecting your personal view on how the Society should work. When God entrusted a Prophet, did that make that Prophet Perfect? What you are suggesting is to trust the words of men, just like you can’t seem to understand the trust and faith belongs to Jehovah, not with men that make insinuations of what the Society has or hasn’t done, or what it should or shouldn’t do. That would only demonstrate the lack of faith one has, and that’s the kind of behavior you continue to suggest, is acceptable. Therefore, how humbling is it in the eyes of God, when we demonstrate lack of faith by not allowing Gods Holy Spirit make the adjustments needed to answer a complex situation that NOT even secular governments, religions or institutions have been able to solve.

Mark 7:8 Context: Tradition and Worship

8You have disregarded the commandment of God to keep the tradition of men.

The ultimate answer, is we need Gods government to succeed this broken system, not prolong it by mindless ideology. Then we run the risk of presumption, such as thinking someone like me, wouldn’t know the bethel house and its inner function.

Singling out the WTS for the purpose to cause outrage is by no means a solution. Exaggerating statistics is by no means a solution. Promoting incompetence is by no means a solution. Promoting gods Laws unacceptable is by no means a solution. Yet, this are the things you agree with.

Only true witnesses understand and know the past of certain things that have occurred. Having to debate with a bunch of thespians (Actors and Actresses) that by far get their information from apostasy sites that are loaded with fabrications, serve no purpose to disregard Gods commandments.

 

 

 

We are in no position to decide who is best qualified to receive Gods Holy spirit. Making such a claim defeats the purpose of scripture. Wasn’t that the presumption made by the Pharisees with Jesus? Then, if God has found an imperfect human to entrust him to dispense the spiritual food at the proper time, then God is entrusting that same individual with shepherding the whole flock. Who are we to impose our own will above Gods? By being suggestive.

You know more than anyone should know about trust issues of the 80’s

Example Response from the WTS:  "It is not within the province of the Society nor of the elders to tell individuals what they should do when working in employment requiring them to maintain confidentiality. Each one will have to be responsible for his own actions before Jehovah. It is necessary to preserve one's relationship with Jehovah and to protect the organization, but each one will have to bear his own load of responsibility in this area. The Scriptures plainly teach that there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed and no one can indefinitely continue to deceive Jehovah, his organization or their congregation with which he might be associated. The decision to reveal confidential information concerning possible wrongdoing on the part of a person claiming to be a Christian ultimately rests with the person who has come to know of it." [1987]

You know the WTS was always being sued for frivolous things back in the 80’s

819 F.2d 875

93 A.L.R.Fed. 737, 56 USLW 2007

Janice PAUL, a/k/a/ Janice Perez, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC.,
Defendants-Appellee.

No. 85-4012.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 7, 1986.
Decided June 10, 1987.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Watchtower can shun ex-Jehovah's Witnesses in the case titled "819 F. 2d 875 - Paul v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York Inc"and referring in turn to Cf. Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 99 S.Ct. 3020, 61 L.Ed.2d 775 (1979); Turner v. Unification Church, 473 F.Supp. 367 (D.R.I.1978), aff'd, 602 F.2d 458 (1st Cir.1979)

So it is the proposition that is lacking discernment.

It would be no different to think, let’s say the Australian government wouldn’t adhere to international laws that pertain to the SORNA, 42 USC §16911 legislation.

People here think that a sex act that has no conviction is not registrable. The USA has such laws and those laws are respected by the international community. What they don’t understand is, the courts have discretion on how to handle a certain case. The Police Department can retain information on a suspected sex offender, or those considered to be a danger to the public that have not gone through the system. The police department hold a mandatory public information list for such matters. But it’s senseless to explain that to a clueless person.

Victorian Consolidated Acts

Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004

No. 56 of 2004

S. 6(6)(b) amended by

No.55/2009 s.48(2)

 

 

 

c) he or she is a registrable offender only

because he or she is subject to a sex offender

registration order and that order is quashed

on appeal

 

 

 

So, unless you know the law, it would be pointless to search the internet for a quick response to win an argument. It would also be disingenuous to suggest who hide things when all the facts are not revealed. But sometimes, we tend to misunderstand other people spoken words, Like in Bro. Jackson case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
5 hours ago, JWTheologian said:

The ultimate answer, is we need Gods government to succeed this broken system, not prolong it by mindless ideology.

I agree with much of what you have said in your post. The areas where we disagree the most have been discussed earlier and I have no need to discuss them with you any further until you have tried to answer the scriptural reasons that were brought up at the time. Besides, those discussions mostly touch on subjects that are not of much concern in this current topic.

Consider:

*** w95 6/15 pp. 21-22 “Sacred Service With Your Power of Reason” ***
Slaves of God and Christ, Not of Men
13 Elders have to allow those under their care to use their power of reason. The members of the congregation are not slaves of men. “If I were yet pleasing men,” wrote Paul, “I would not be Christ’s slave.” (Galatians 1:10; Colossians 3:23, 24) In contrast, the Pharisees wanted people to believe that it was more important to gain the approval of men than that of God. (Matthew 23:2-7; John 12:42, 43) The Pharisees took it upon themselves to become moral dictators who formed their own rules and then judged others by how well they measured up. Those who followed the Pharisees were weakened in the use of their Bible-trained conscience, in effect becoming slaves of men.
14 Christian elders today know that the flock is not principally accountable to them. Each Christian must carry his or her own load. (Romans 14:4; 2 Corinthians 1:24; Galatians 6:5) This is as it should be. Indeed, if members of the flock were to be slaves of men, obeying simply because of being monitored, what would they do when those men were not around? Paul had reason for joy over the Philippians: “In the way that you have always obeyed, not during my presence only, but now much more readily during my absence, keep working out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” They were truly slaves of Christ, and not of Paul.—Philippians 2:12.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
30 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

*** w95 6/15 pp. 21-22 “Sacred Service With Your Power of Reason” ***
Slaves of God and Christ, Not of Men
13 Elders have to allow those under their care to use their power of reason. The members of the congregation are not slaves of men. “If I were yet pleasing men,” wrote Paul, “I would not be Christ’s slave.” (Galatians 1:10; Colossians 3:23, 24) In contrast, the Pharisees wanted people to believe that it was more important to gain the approval of men than that of God. (Matthew 23:2-7; John 12:42, 43) The Pharisees took it upon themselves to become moral dictators who formed their own rules and then judged others by how well they measured up. Those who followed the Pharisees were weakened in the use of their Bible-trained conscience, in effect becoming slaves of men.
14 Christian elders today know that the flock is not principally accountable to them. Each Christian must carry his or her own load. (Romans 14:4; 2 Corinthians 1:24; Galatians 6:5) This is as it should be. Indeed, if members of the flock were to be slaves of men, obeying simply because of being monitored, what would they do when those men were not around? Paul had reason for joy over the Philippians: “In the way that you have always obeyed, not during my presence only, but now much more readily during my absence, keep working out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” They were truly slaves of Christ, and not of Paul.—Philippians 2:12.

 

 

I think there's been new understanding about this, JWs are to obey the elders even if they are wrong:

[wt 4/1/2007 p.28, par.8-9] 8 We obey the elders not only because we are directed to do so in God’s Word but also because we are persuaded that they have Kingdom interests and our best interests at heart. We will certainly be happy if we willingly accept their leadership.

9 What, though, if we are not convinced that in a certain case the elders’ direction is the best way of doing things? That is where submission comes into play. It is easy to obey when everything is clear and we agree, but we will show that we are truly submissive if we yield even when we do not personally understand the direction provided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The areas where we disagree the most have been discussed earlier and I have no need to discuss them with you any further until you have tried to answer the scriptural reasons that were brought up at the time. Besides, those discussions mostly touch on subjects that are not of much concern in this current topic.

Due diligence with interpretation would therefore constitute discernment with wisdom. Aside from that, it has always been the criteria for the WTS to teach those to follow God’s Law with the proper context and intended view. Exact knowledge of bible truth has not changed.

 

If not we run the risk of overstepping our personal view to satisfy our own needs, Not God’s commands.

 

Insight Volume 2

 

Thus, although God had not given a detailed law code, as he later did with the Israelites, men were not without some means for determining right and wrong conduct. Idolatry, for example, had not yet been specifically condemned by a stated law. Nonetheless, as the apostle Paul shows, such practice was inexcusable inasmuch as God’s “invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship.” The venerating and rendering of “sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created” was against all reason. Those following such an empty-headed course would thereafter deviate into other unrighteous practices, such as homosexuality, changing “the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature.” Again, even though no specific law had been given, such practice was obviously contrary to the way of God the Creator, as the very structure of the male and female manifested. Man, having been originally made in God’s image, had intelligence sufficient to see these things. Hence, he was responsible before God if he went contrary to God’s way; he was sinning, ‘missing the mark,’ even without a specifically stated law to charge him with guilt.—Ro 1:18-27; compare Ro 5:13. [p.223]

 

(1 Corinthians 14:1)

 

14 Pursue love, yet keep striving for the spiritual gifts, but preferably that you may prophesy. 2 For the one who speaks in a tongue speaks, not to men, but to God, for no one listens, but he speaks sacred secrets by the spirit. 3 However, the one who prophesies builds up and encourages and consoles men by his speech. 4 The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up a congregation.

 

Any other discussion we have had on this topic, involves mistaken identity. Why would there be a need for a discussion on that. Are we to understand, if an insinuation is rendered? Then we must accept that JWinsider, HollyW, Ann O’maly are one and the same person?

 

Psalms 75: 5-7

 5 Do not exalt your strength up high

Or speak with arrogance.

 6 For exaltation does not come

From the east or the west or the south.

 7 For God is Judge.

He puts one man down and exalts another.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
Quote

AllenSmith 8/21/2016 

I believe that’s what I said with lesser words.

xD It's nothing like what you said.

On 8/22/2016 at 2:33 PM, AllenSmith said:

Ann O’maly: What's 'all me'? After sifting (MISSPELLED) out all the raving, this was the sum of your post.

Ann O’maly: I cannot understand the gobbledegook (MISSPELLED) you just wrote there.

Bzzzt.  facepalm.gif Aww and you'd done so well catching one in the other post. Never mind. Thanks for playing.

Quote

Shameful display of intelligence.

I suppose you think a display of ineptitude is virtuous.

I see that you, as 'Allen' have nothing more to further the discussion. It looks like your alter ego has submitted something worth addressing, however. ...

On 8/21/2016 at 6:35 AM, JWTheologian said:

The ultimate answer, is we need Gods government to succeed this broken system, not prolong it by mindless ideology.

For heaven's sake, whatever 'God's government' is supposed to do in the future, we are talking about children's welfare in the here-and-now. Finding ways to better protect them or to better deal with allegations of abuse is not 'mindless.' 

James 4:17 . . .if someone knows how to do what is right and yet does not do it, it is a sin for him.

Besides, 'God's earthly organization' is representative of or an extension of 'God's heavenly government,' is it not? The spirit-directed Org. should be a trailblazer in children's safeguarding and its responses to abuse allegations, providing a shining example to 'worldly' institutions, right? Instead, it has been embarrassingly far below the higher 'worldly' standards.

Quote

Singling out the WTS for the purpose to cause outrage is by no means a solution.

I've asked (Allen) several times for suggestions on how the Org., and institutions in general, can improve their policies and procedures; or how to protect children in the congregation if the abuser doesn't get disfellowshipped and remains a member. No sensible answer is forthcoming from either of your identities so far. Responses such as 'God will sort it out' and 'Stop picking on us - we're not the only ones with a problem' aren't good enough. 

Quote

You know the WTS was always being sued for frivolous things back in the 80’s

Allegations of child abuse are not 'frivolous,' and if Watchtower or its' agents reported a suspected incident of abuse to the appropriate secular authorities in good faith, there would be no legal cause for the accused to sue them for breach of confidentiality.

Your quotation, purportedly from a Watchtower letter about a query over confidentiality, was in regard to a JW insurance salesman revealing the urine test result of a fellow JW and prospective client which indicated he was a smoker. Nothing to do with the issue of reporting a crime to the police.

The court case you cite was to do with a lawsuit over being shunned - likewise irrelevant to the question about what should and shouldn't be divulged and to whom when suspected child abuse comes to light.

Quote

 

Victorian Consolidated Acts

Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004
No. 56 of 2004
S. 6(6)(b) amended by
No.55/2009 s.48(2)

[You missed an important bit. Let me fix that for you. Bold emphasis is mine. ~Ann]

  (6)     A person ceases to be a registrable offender if

        (a)     his or her finding of guilt in respect of the only registrable offence that makes him or her a registrable offender for the purposes of this Act is quashed or set aside by a court; or

S. 6(6)(b) amended by No. 55/2009 s. 48(2).

        (b)     his or her sentence in respect of that offence is reduced or altered so that he or she would have been a person described in subsection (3)(b) had the amended sentence been the original sentence; or
 

c) he or she is a registrable offender only
because he or she is subject to a sex offender
registration order and that order is quashed
on appeal

 


SEX OFFENDERS REGISTRATION ACT 2004 - SECT 6

Who is a registrable offender?

    (1)     Subject to subsections (3) to (6), a registrable offender is a person whom a court has at any time (whether before, on or after 1 October 2004) sentenced for a registrable offence.

- http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/sora2004292/s6.html (Bold emphasis mine.)

To be 'sentenced,' a person has to go through the judicial process and found (or pleaded) guilty, i.e. the authorities have taken action. Your (Allen's) statement remains erroneous.

Quote

So, unless you know the law, it would be pointless to search the internet for a quick response to win an argument.

... like you have, for example. 9_9

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 8/23/2016 at 7:01 PM, AllenSmith said:

Yes, the topic is about a child taking the WTS to court for not having been protected 40 years ago against child sexual abuse.

Your math is off. The abuse of 'A' was about 25 years ago. Anyway the point remains about how to best safeguard children and address abuse allegations in the here-and-now.

Quote

Your PERSONAL OPINION is the WTS fails as a Whole. That all the elders and organization are corrupt and are always hiding things.

That is your personal opinion of my personal opinion, but it is not my personal opinion. 

The courts' and ARC's findings, based on the evidence presented by all parties (and not on my personal opinion, btw), is that the Org. has had a woefully inadequate set of child abuse policies and procedures which, in practical terms, has focussed on protecting the Org's image, on protecting the alleged abuser's 'right to confidentiality' at the expense of the victim's welfare, enabled abuse to continue, and victims who disclosed to be further traumatized. The Org. needed to improve its attitude and approach, which it has to a limited extent over the years, but it still fails in key areas.

Quote

When did the WTS state it was a perfect organization?

Is not the Organization spirit-directed? 

If the holy spirit directs, does it direct imperfectly? I.e. is it the holy spirit's (God's) fault when the spirit-directed Org. gets things wrong?

If it isn't the holy spirit's fault that the Org. has made mistakes, and if the holy spirit directs perfectly, has the Org. been ignoring the spirit's direction?

If the Org. has been ignoring spirit-direction, it wasn't being directed by holy spirit.

Sure, the Org. is made up of imperfect people, but those imperfect people make grand claims about how wonderful they are and how they are the only ones being directed by God's holy spirit to act and teach a certain way.

Quote

 In Australia, out of 1006 alleged cases in 65 years only 2 were confirmed to be credible by the courts.

I think you are confusing the Commission with civil court.

Quote

You keep implying all 1006 cases are about child sexual abuse, but the proven facts contradict your own findings.

(Give me strength. Talk about delusional.) So you do believe Watchtower inflated its own figures and included other sexual 'sins' in its list of child sexual abuse cases? Lolol. Smh.

Quote

If not, then the evidence would prove the WTS would be no different than any other religious organization or government that gets more than the alleged cases are per year.

Isn't this what you originally claimed in the second post of this thread?

"No different than any other religion that is dealing with a worldwide problem." - AllenSmith, 8/12/16

So which argument are you going with? Do you think the Org. is better than other religions at safeguarding children, or 'no different from any other religion'?

Quote

Again, with the wordplay to bolster your deception. I didn’t state child abuse was unimportant, I said in the 80s the WTS would be sued for trivial things. Such as the ones, I pointed out to JWinsider.

;) I'm glad to see you've finally dropped the 'JWT is my brother' charade.

Quote

 

If you notice. O’Maly criticized me for NOT putting the complete content in display of the Victorian Laws of 2004 Even though he fails to recognize the laws own words;

c) he or she is a registrable offender only
because he or she is subject to a sex offender
registration order and that order is quashed
on appeal

That doesn’t mean a conviction, it means a court can order this action if He or She is convinced a person can be a danger for the public, or a single person such as in cases of restraining orders. The “words” ONLY BECAUSE and SUBJECT then become relevant to the discretion of the JUDGE. However, that still has nothing to do with the right of any police department to retain information on a suspected sex offense.

 

facepalm.gifThis is why you should follow your own counsel about not searching through legal websites for a quick response to win an argument. You have completely misunderstood its content. 

 (6)     A person ceases to be a registrable offender if—

... (c)     he or she is a registrable offender only because he or she is subject to a sex offender registration order and that order is quashed on appeal.

In other words, if a person who, due to having been convicted and sentenced for a registrable offense was court ordered to be on the register, later has that court order overturned on appeal, s/he ceases to be a registrable offender. 

*Sigh*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
12 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

O’Maly: has had a woefully inadequate set of child abuse policies and procedures which, in practical terms, has focused (MISSPELLED) on protecting the Org's image ...

Bzzzt, bzzzt, bzzzt. You are out of the game. Not only have you cheated (I had originally spelled it 'focussed') but both spellings are correct.

I didn't bother to read any more in your post. I've spent way too much time on your drivel already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

    • luis

      luis 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • JW Insider

      JW Insider 9,695

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • MC

      MC 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Pudgy

      Pudgy 2,381

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,669
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Miracle Pete
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.