IICSA: survivors speak of influence of religion

[xero]

16 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Incorrect - I have spoken to people from these ' inspired churches' who make up a lot of things as they go along and say they are inspired by god's spirit.  Usually these inspired things are closer to spiritism than the Bible.  The Bible is our "inspired" source.

You know I read widely from other religions as well and John MacAuthur's take on the charismatic groups and the way they handle scripture (1st 5 minutes) explains well what's happening in these churches.

 

 

[Arauna]

13 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

JWs do not believe in miracles,

If any kind of " inspired expression" is a miracle - which is what you infer - then I feel sorry for you.... because Satan can "inspire many things too.

[Anna]

On 2/27/2021 at 7:45 AM, Thinking said:

The elders didn’t screw up Anna..it was the way things were done back then...their hands were tied....we have to acknowledge that...our policies have changed because of the ARC....

The whole world screwed up. It was because the way things were done back then, that the ARC had to be set up. There are no loopholes in Jehovah's law, however, because of loopholes in secular law we were not able to do things properly.   Arauna is right when she says that years ago there was no effective secular system in place whereby children were protected from CSA. This had become such a massive problem, so much so that it could no longer be ignored, and finally (!) secular authorities are addressing this "what had been a hidden problem for centuries (probably). And yes, I agree completely that thanks to the ARC our policies have changed. Like you, I watched all of the sessions (live). I also have experience of how one case was handled in our congregation. I would say it was typical of how many other cases were handled too. It was all about not bringing reproach on Jehovah's name, and a misapplication of 1 Corinthians 6:7. But the WT never advocated that this scripture applied to serious matters such as CSA, it always applied it to business dealings.  But somehow the brothers applied it to everything, including CSA. This is WHY it had to be clarified in the May 2019 WT study article: "Should the Christian who reported it feel that he has brought reproach on God’s name? No. The abuser is the one who brings reproach on God’s name". 

 

[Arauna]

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

walks through a wall and the like. 

I think you are mixing up the word inspired with being a spirit being. Not the same

[Anna]

@Thinking Here is a 2002 letter to the body of elders. 13 years before the ARC hearing.

2002 child abuse letter to BOE.pdf

Edit: I want to add that what the ARC mainly achieved is transparency in the congregation. Before, it was only the elders that received specific guidance and policies. The publishers were largely ignorant of how they were to handle abuse when it happened. Members were guided on how to avoid and prevent abuse, which was great, but since the abuser works very carefully, and cleverly, in many instances it was not enough, the abuser deceived everyone. And then not everyone applied the guidance either. 

Now all members of the congregation can be on the same page with regard to how to handle sexual abuse when it happens. N.

[xero]

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

One of most indicative "miracles" is to be "inspired by God (HS)". GB deny every possibility that individual or group of people can be "inspired" by God today. 

Not just the GB. If you've read any of John Macarthur, or Gleason Archer (Old Testament Introduction), the issues behind inspiration are discussed and match up 100% w/that of the WT's handling of what is considered "inspired". Both of these would have called JW's a "cult", and yet when it comes to how one considers what is and what isn't scripture and how to tell if some novel statement made outside of scripture these are in agreement.

I don't think you've done your homework on this. You need to go back and do your homework.

[Srecko Sostar]

6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Yes, in my case, it is warranted

 

6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Those doubts were self-inflicted

Well, in case of (when people are in) "doubts" you think how that state is "self-inflicted".

In your "case" you explained your position with "self-warranted" which is why you are allowed to do things you would not otherwise approve of (allowed) others.

6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

since I'm dealing with NOT one but two standards of Bible understanding. in order to set the record straight, I separate myself from all.

Do these standards you mention have a name by which they can be distinguished?

[Srecko Sostar]

7 hours ago, xero said:

Not just the GB. If you've read any of John Macarthur, or Gleason Archer (Old Testament Introduction), the issues behind inspiration are discussed and match up 100% w/that of the WT's handling of what is considered "inspired". Both of these would have called JW's a "cult", and yet when it comes to how one considers what is and what isn't scripture and how to tell if some novel statement made outside of scripture these are in agreement.

I don't think you've done your homework on this. You need to go back and do your homework.

For example; When Moses wrote “under inspiration, things like - ”don’t murder", or when he wrote that "soldiers can have captive virgins and take them if they want but they have to kill all her family before", - I wonder if passing/adoption/writing such regulations requires only influence of "inspiration" or can it be done/achieved in another way, without inspiration. 

 

[Pudgy]

 

 

..... inspiration is where you find it.

When attacked by the Japanese Empire, the United States was faced with an enemy that was determined to control half the World, and to slaughter anyone that resisted that effort.

.... whole nations, if necessary.

The Allied invasion of Japan to destroy their war machine would have taken One Million American lives, and Four Million Japanese lives, not counting wounded which could be easily four times that on each side.

..... counting the cost of that inspired the development of the atomic bombs, which ended the war in the Pacific.

The United States is still awarding "Purple Hearts" manufactured in 1945, and never used.

Women since time not memorialized have changed allegiances when they marry ... and it's easier if all their bridges to the past have been burned.

... and better than being in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in early August, 1945, when to save 5 million lives, 250,000 men, women, and children were incinerated.

In a world where the Jews were surrounded by relentless determined and evil enemies, who were trying to destroy them in wars of attrition, and wipe them off the face of the Earth, Jehovah's instructions to take the virgins of the enemy, and destroy their families was practical, just, and reasonable.

.... those that think otherwise are living in a Winnie-The-Pooh cartoon.

 

 

 

 

[xero]

6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

For example; When Moses wrote “under inspiration, things like - ”don’t murder", or when he wrote that "soldiers can have captive virgins and take them if they want but they have to kill all her family before", - I wonder if passing/adoption/writing such regulations requires only influence of "inspiration" or can it be done/achieved in another way, without inspiration. 

 

If you're serious about understanding OT issues relative to inspiration/issues which today we consider to be wrong, you should read Paul Copan's "Is God a Moral Monster". There are multiple issues to be considered. Hyperbole, numbers of individuals involved (modern textual analysis of texts), allowance of activities vs promotion of the same. I've had a few email exchanges w/professor Copan and he's been quite helpful in all this.

But we're back again to cases of historical inspiration as recorded in text, vs possible inspiration today and how to scripturally determine whether it's warranted today (scriptures actually argue against this "need") and when it was warranted (and why, and how validated) in the past.

It's been my experience, however that there's a lazy man's approach to all this which John MacArthur touches on in the 1st five minutes of his discussion of his recent book "Strange Fire". It's worth your time to at least listen to the 1st five minutes.

 

[xero]

1 hour ago, Pudgy said:

 

 

..... inspiration is where you find it.

When attacked by the Japanese Empire, the United States was faced with an enemy that was determined to control half the World, and to slaughter anyone that resisted that effort.

.... whole nations, if necessary.

The Allied invasion of Japan to destroy their war machine would have taken One Million American lives, and Four Million Japanese lives, not counting wounded which could be easily four times that on each side.

..... counting the cost of that inspired the development of the atomic bombs, which ended the war in the Pacific.

The United States is still awarding "Purple Hearts" manufactured in 1945, and never used.

Women since time not memorialized have changed allegiances when they marry ... and it's easier if all their bridges to the past have been burned.

... and better than being in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in early August, 1945, when to save 5 million lives, 250,000 men, women, and children were incinerated.

In a world where the Jews were surrounded by relentless determined and evil enemies, who were trying to destroy them in wars of attrition, and wipe them off the face of the Earth, Jehovah's instructions to take the virgins of the enemy, and destroy their families was practical, just, and reasonable.

.... those that think otherwise are living in a Winnie-The-Pooh cartoon.

 

 

 

 

I'd say this is a redefinition of what most biblical scholars refer to when they use the term "inspiration". It also is clear that more homework ought to be done before flippantly deciding one knows all one needs to know about the processes of and the reasons for inspiration proceeding from God vs inspiration proceeding from w/in.

[Srecko Sostar]

26 minutes ago, xero said:

If you're serious about understanding OT issues relative to inspiration/issues which today we consider to be wrong, you should read Paul Copan's "Is God a Moral Monster". There are multiple issues to be considered. Hyperbole, numbers of individuals involved (modern textual analysis of texts), allowance of activities vs promotion of the same. I've had a few email exchanges w/professor Copan and he's been quite helpful in all this.

But we're back again to cases of historical inspiration as recorded in text, vs possible inspiration today and how to scripturally determine whether it's warranted today (scriptures actually argue against this "need") and when it was warranted (and why, and how validated) in the past.

It's been my experience, however that there's a lazy man's approach to all this which John MacArthur touches on in the 1st five minutes of his discussion of his recent book "Strange Fire". It's worth your time to at least listen to the 1st five minutes.

 

.. how they approached truth ... 

... word of god as something outside of them ....

.. they approach the truth of god as something inside them ...     

... subjectivity leads to all kinds of mistakes ...

-----------------------------

Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.”[c] 39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. - John 7

In which version is it possible to make more mistakes?

When are you "guided, lead by the spirit" (GB claim they are guided)

or

when are you "inspired by the spirit" (GB claim they are not inspired)?