Srecko Sostar

8 hours ago, Many Miles said:

I think the current GB realizes it has a compilation of messes on its hands that can only accrue problematically. It's trying to dig itself out. But the fear is the pile is too deep. Ultimately the 1914 thing will implode on itself. Just a matter of time. Ultimately the blood policy will implode on itself. Just a matter of time. I think the society is looking for an exit ramp. Too many problems, too many informational sources. It'll only snowball.

I see that @Anna upvoted this comment, and she replied me how I was looking at the matter wrongly. What is the difference between this and my comments Anna? The snowball is rolling and getting bigger.

11 hours ago, Pudgy said:

As usual, Georgie, as always you have missed the point.

I am sure everyone who comes here fully understands the symbolism …

…. but many hate how it has neen consintamtly been misapplied as a tool to manipulate the Brotherhood, to maintain ecclestical power to keep the money waterfall flowing.

Remember it was Aaron that misrepresented Jehovah by making the Golden Calf,  declaring

“This is Jehovah your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt!”.

He convinced the Jews to contribute tons of gold to the project.

Someone should have searched his tent.

There is a reason that above the circuit or district level there is ZERO accountability for contributed funds to the Brotherhood.

I have carefully considered your agenda driven perspective, and what I see is a classic case of Stockholm Syndrome.

You gave me an excellent new perspective through the example of Aaron and the Golden Calf and the Stockholm Syndrome.

That is why I commented before that the spiritual condition of JWs is in great danger.

They agree to have Modern Aaron (GB) tell them who and what YHVH is. They have come to love their Kidnappers, they depend on their words so much and most JWs cannot leave them, cannot escape.

2 hours ago, Anna said:

A lot of speculation there.

My speculations are optional. They can become effective if you take them seriously. But it is mostly an option of one's free choice.
In contrast, speculations coming from GB are dangerous at the start. To forbid the wearing of beards in Rutherford's time was nothing more than distancing, by those who caused the schism, to break any resemblance to Russell.

Later, the leadership of WTJWorg found excuses for the ban in the appearance of some "worldly" people who participated in various social movements of the society. They claimed that wearing a certain model of hairstyles and external appearance of the face (beard in men in this case) should be avoided because this way JW can be mistakenly identified with, for example, rebels in society.

At the same time, wearing suits and ties and flawless hair and shaved face, GB has never identified with a certain number of corrupt politicians and businessmen who are dishonest. For some reason, they forgot to mention that detail when they were giving advice to their followers about their appearance.

I agree that it is nice to see neat and tidy people (with or without beard). But we don't live in a perfect world, whatever that means.

2 hours ago, Anna said:

The message was clear: give us a black and white answer, because this policy, that it was up to the elders, was causing divisions. Over what? Over beards! So the logical conclusion was to remove any "supposed" cultural barriers which caused the beard issues and let everyone know that to beard or not to beard is ok world wide for every male and in all responsible positions.

The Spiritual Slavery that reigns within JW followers requires a "clear and unequivocal answer/instruction" as to what is allowed and what is not allowed with a beard. That demand for "answers" from GB is actually a reflection of the devastating spiritual condition of the flock in so called true Christianity aka JW Church.

If so many people in WTJWorg are unable to have/achieve unity in diversity and freedom of choice over something the Bible has never questioned, then there is no "salvation" for all of you either literally or figuratively. You, JWs, are unfortunately condemned to total dependence on a few men who are not even capable of knowing right from wrong. WTJWorg cannot reform itself for the better.

I agree with @Pudgy, WTJWorg is run by accountants and lawyers.., and by religious leaders who willingly, voluntarily agree to falsehood.

45 minutes ago, Anna said:

Yes, that was really weirdly worded. Makes no logical sense. What did they mean? It's one of those mind games/word salads that makes you scratch your head. 

Well, didn't GB tell you a long time ago: Don't think and conclude logically, because our instructions will not look/be logical.

It is quite possible that there are a number of men in JW congregations who wear beards. Because of this, they cannot be excluded, but they are rather "unused" for various functions within the Church. In the chronic shortage of "manpower" for "congregational positions of responsibility", it is possible that this change is aimed at this target group.

It is also possible that some who wear beards have put themselves in that position on purpose, for the reason that they do not want to be burdened with any responsibilities in the Organization.

Also, a certain number of PIMO members (physically inside, mentally outside) chose to wear a beard just to stay connected with the congregation only for free social contacts (because they are not excluded), and on the other hand, so that they cannot be held accountable because they are in the category "spiritually weak individuals".

Changes are made because the Organization is in trouble, not because God has loosened the reins of His Chariot.

11 minutes ago, George88 said:

Could this be a matter of perception rather than a rule? Who can assert that God wore a beard, just like the angels?

The answer to that is simple to give. View all illustrations in WTJWorg publications. Angels have beards. Jesus has a beard. If Jesus and the angels are the image of the invisible God, then YHVH also has a beard.
Another reason for this is that no one from the WTJWorg Art Department has ever seen the angels or Jesus before and after he ascended into heaven, yet they portray them as if they saw them wearing beards.

So, the perception of the "guardian of the doctrine" and the artist set the rule.
WTJWorg publications have Jesus without a beard in the past and Jesus with a beard after doctrine have changed.

The GB has allowed what the Bible has never forbidden. Truly unprecedented! GB's personal arbitrariness in forbidding believers to wear beards came because of the alleged alignment with the "heavenly chariot"??

Can anyone in their right mind believe this? As if to say, "The angels have started wearing beards, or have for a while, so it is time to level the playing field for JWs on earth too". 

How a GB member explains the turnaround in doctrine? Yes, you read correctly, this is about doctrine. Like every other instruction and order published in the WTJWorg.

So we have these elements that prompted the GB meeting and its discussion:

1. frequently asked questions about beards (implying that JW men want to be like people in the world who wear beards by choice) Why is this question important to JW men, anyway?

2. doctrinal change is related to the "scene of this world is changing" (i.e. adapting to the "low" standards of this "satanic" world, which is "getting "worse" by the day, is an acceptable price for the coexistence of "believers" and "non-believers") How about firm GB claims, "We shall never change" our doctrine/rule about this and that?

3. responsible people from politics and business wear beards (i.e. the external differences between those who "serve "God" and those who "serve "Satan" are to be eliminated)They compare themselves to the people of the "worldly elements" who, they say, will be destroyed because they are "God's enemies".

The instruction manual for the new doctrine reads:

A JW person should not take a stand for or against a new doctrine. Although some JWs have faithfully followed the former prohibition against wearing beards, no one should regret this today, because it is an indicator of spiritual immaturity. And most importantly, JWs should not have their own opinion on this new issue of beards, nor should they promote anything that contradicts the new GB instructions.

We can conclude that the elders should have prevented any promotion of beards in the past. From now on, they should prevent any attempt to promote the regular shaving of the beard.

We also conclude that this is just a preparation to finally allow the sisters to wear pants whenever they want.

 God bless you all with this new ...something.

On 12/13/2023 at 7:37 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

On 12/13/2023 at 7:19 PM, George88 said:

Here is something for your contemplation.

*** g91 10/8 p. 4 The Secret Wounds of Child Abuse ***
The Secret Wounds of Child Abuse
 

Take a good look at the article and the DATE it was published, before and after the more recent activities by the government. Perhaps had they paid attention to some of the Watchtower articles, they might have done something about it sooner, and not when the U.N. made it a political sticking point in 2013.

Then after you read the article, refute it if you can.

The article you presented cites many secular sources, hence the "human perspective", which WTJWorg alarms its members against, in general.

A few Bible quotes do not make WTJWorg an expert on child abuse. You have not actually contributed any arguments that would elevate the "spiritual help" of the Society over the professional help provided by a professional secular institution.

The Bible does not even mention what types of violence against children were known, visible in biblical times. Nowhere (as far as I know) does the Bible explicitly condemn (sexual or other) violence against children, nor does it give specific insight into how such children can be helped.

6 hours ago, George88 said:

11 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If you want to provide evidence that Tamara was a minor at the time of the rape, and that the crime thus falls under the CSA according to today's criteria, please go ahead.

So, what you are saying, incest through rape should not be considered CSA. Now Tamar's age should be inconsequential to the act.

However, can you refute the articles, that is my main point.

Incest Under the Law

Sexual relations between family members who are not spouses, formally known as incest, is illegal across the U.S. because of the harm that it can cause to family relationships. States also recognize that children from incestuous relationships tend to struggle with genetic defects, which is another reason for prohibiting incest. Laws may prohibit sexual relations not only between blood relatives but also between certain people who are not blood relatives, such as adopted parents and children, stepparents and stepchildren, and foster parents and foster children. Close cousins are covered, but distant cousins may not be, unless they live in the same household like siblings. Meanwhile, some states outlaw marriages between close relatives, even if they do not involve sexual relations.

Incest often can be charged as a violation of a different law, such as child abuse, child molestation, rape, or statutory rape. A prosecutor can choose which type of charge to bring. Also, if a relationship does not technically qualify as incest under the definition in that state, the prosecutor may be able to charge the defendant with a different sex crime instead.

Pursuing an Incest Charge

Consent

Consent is not a defense to incest.

A prosecutor can bring an incest charge against someone who knowingly engaged in sexual relations with the type of person covered by the incest law. If they tried to engage in sexual relations, but no intercourse actually happened, a prosecutor might bring an attempted incest charge. A defendant cannot defeat a charge on the basis that the other person consented. If the other person did not consent, the defendant might face a rape charge as well, which could lead to much more serious penalties. If the other person was below the age of consent, the defendant might face a statutory rape charge in addition to the incest charge.

If the people in the encounter were close in age, the prosecution typically can bring charges against each of them. If one person is much older than the other, such as a parent and a child, only the older person may face charges. They may be viewed as a perpetrator and the younger person as a victim. If both people were under the age of majority, the prosecution might bring the case in juvenile court.

There are few defenses in these cases, other than challenging whether the incident happened. One procedural defense that may arise is the statute of limitations. Sometimes a long time passes between the incident and its discovery. Like most crimes, incest is subject to a statute of limitations, which requires the prosecution to bring charges within a certain period after the crime occurred. A defendant may get the case dismissed if they can successfully show that the statute of limitations has expired.

Statute of Limitations

Incest is generally subject to a statute of limitations and may not be charged if too long a time has passed since the occurrence.

Penalties for Incest

Incest is often charged as a felony, as are crimes like rape and statutory rape that are related to it. This means that a defendant who is convicted may face years in prison. If it is charged as a misdemeanor, the defendant may spend several months in jail. Also, the judge may order the people involved in the incident to be separated. A child of a parent convicted of incest may be taken away and placed in foster care. If a conviction of a sex crime accompanies the incest conviction, the defendant may need to register as a sex offender.

https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/other-crimes/incest/

6 hours ago, George88 said:

However, can you refute the articles, that is my main point.

The article does not answer the topic, whether JWs are discriminated against in the Netherlands.

4 hours ago, George88 said:

You previously mentioned child abuse and the lack of awareness about it in ancient times. Have you now shifted your focus? I asked whether you consider "incest" to be a form of child abuse, and you have since changed the topic.

If you want to provide evidence that the Bible directly, clearly talks about CSA (CSA according to today's criteria) and lists it as something God forbids, please go ahead.

21 hours ago, George88 said:

What age do you think Tamar was when Amnon violated her? There is a belief that even at the age of 18, people in ancient times would still be regarded as children. I find it hard to believe that Tamar was actually that old. However, my true outrage lies with the actions of Amnon and the instigator, Jonadab.

If you want to provide evidence that Tamara was a minor at the time of the rape, and that the crime thus falls under the CSA according to today's criteria, please go ahead.

What to Know

Prosecute is most often used to refer to bringing legal action against someone else, and is related to the Latin word for "pursue." It is often confused with persecute which means "to harass, torment, or punish, especially for one's beliefs." If you find yourself frequently one the wrong side of prosecution, you might end up feeling persecuted.

https://nos.nl/artikel/2501440-rechter-onderzoek-seksueel-misbruik-jehova-s-getuigen-geen-discriminatie

It is not visible on the computer either (wired). Maybe it's actually "new technology". :)))

10 hours ago, George88 said:

This is also a guess by former members who have argued it over the internet. How many governments allow you personally to see their internal documentation? Now be honest!

WTJWorg is not government!

10 hours ago, George88 said:

So, if a brother violates his sister, it's incest and not "child sexual abuse." It seems stranger coming from you to think that way. It also seems you are making an inference to age and marriage to justify the act of rape.

Since the complete story is not mentioned in scripture aside from the act itself, how would you know what process was taken aside from Amnon's outcome by Absalom?

A marriage between Tamara and Amnon would be incest by today's moral standards. In the culture of the Jews of that time, it would have been normal. Rape is another part of the story of Tamara and Amnon, so I don't know how you came to the conclusion that it is something I approve of. Rape as a crime has nothing to do with whether people are related or not. You are strange when you draw wrong conclusions about my comments.

The problem that arises from the fact that the Bible is silent is a problem that is not mine. I have the right to my interpretation, regardless of whether my opinion is wrong or right or something else. The positive side is that I do not impose my point of view on anyone, and on other side, GB implements its interpretations as a dogma that you JWs are obliged to obey.

30 minutes ago, George88 said:

I am leaning towards placing my trust in what you say. Many individuals believe they have suffered injustices 30 years later and are now seeking compensation with the help of highly skilled lawyers. Why didn't they take action earlier instead of waiting until the dollar sign appeared? The situation is truly disheartening.

Certainly one can have a conversation about that, why didn't they sue WTJWorg earlier.

16 minutes ago, George88 said:

If researchers were able to investigate and provide solutions for understanding the problem in 1991, why didn't the governments do the same?

We can guess. But we can speculate as to why WTJWorg has secret files on perpetrators and victims that go back even further (as much as 70 years). They have not published any articles about it or what they have done to help the children.

21 minutes ago, George88 said:

What age do you think Tamar was when Amnon violated her? There is a belief that even at the age of 18, people in ancient times would still be regarded as children. I find it hard to believe that Tamar was actually that old. However, my true outrage lies with the actions of Amnon and the instigator, Jonadab.

At that time, close relatives could marry (in young age too), as is evident from Tamara's words. Today, they would call it incest or similar. 
Furthermore, Absalom kept secret what happened and did not allow Tamara to report the crime to the "authorities". A long-standing practice of JW elders. Here they found a pattern of behavior?

Absalom (the third party) takes matters into his own hands after two years. Why did he wait so long? He had his reasons.

Why are you surprised that the modern victim stifles the event within herself because very often she does not have the support of others in the congregation or even in the family, so she decides years later to disclose the facts to the police and the court.

Jonadab is a trickster like some JW religious leaders today. What is there to be surprised about. David could have had information about the event, which I have no doubt, but he did nothing. It is significant from the question in paragraph 26; Then Absalom said, “If not, please let my brother Amnon go with us.” And the king said to him, “Why should he go with you?”

So, again, a historical example, pattern of how they (GB) can  "biblically legalize" similar acts today in WTJWorg at the highest levels of church authority. Hush up.

10 minutes ago, George88 said:

Here is something for your contemplation.

*** g91 10/8 p. 4 The Secret Wounds of Child Abuse ***
The Secret Wounds of Child Abuse
 

Take a good look at the article and the DATE it was published, before and after the more recent activities by the government. Perhaps had they paid attention to some of the Watchtower articles, they might have done something about it sooner, and not when the U.N. made it a political sticking point in 2013.

Then after you read the article, refute it if you can.

The article you presented cites many secular sources, hence the "human perspective", which WTJWorg alarms its members against, in general.

A few Bible quotes do not make WTJWorg an expert on child abuse. You have not actually contributed any arguments that would elevate the "spiritual help" of the Society over the professional help provided by a professional secular institution.

The Bible does not even mention what types of violence against children were known, visible in biblical times. Nowhere (as far as I know) does the Bible explicitly condemn (sexual or other) violence against children, nor does it give specific insight into how such children can be helped.

12 minutes ago, George88 said:

ex-members

As far as I understand from the video, ex-JWs in this case are not people who theologically disagree with GB, but victims of pedophilia who became ex-JWs due to treatment within the congregation.

1 hour ago, George88 said:

The Dutch government's attempt to restrict the activities of the Watchtower organization is unjust and warrants legal action.

What you write is incorrect. The government deals with victims of pedophilia because WTJWorg does not deal with the needs of JW victims within its own ranks, but deals with making the Organization look like the best religion.

You forget that Richard Asche stated in a deposition that WTJWorg is concerned with the spiritual protection of its members, and that government institutions should be concerned with the physical protection of JWs.
Apparently, JW elders are not trained to provide emotional and psychological help and any other professional support to victims of pedophilia. Victims in the Netherlands gave their statements confirming that WTJWorg has no ability or willingness to provide professional help to victims.

Given that WTJWorg publications very often speak against "secular" institutions of any kind and do not encourage their members to seek the help of psychologists or psychiatrists in hospital institutions, it is clear that the objection made by WTJWorg is unjustified and hypocritical.

WTJWorg is a very strange creation. They preach that they will be "persecuted" by world authorities, institutions and other people who "hate" them because of Jesus and that this is one of the proofs that they are the true religion. On the other hand, they don't want to be "persecuted", so they constantly go to court and file lawsuits more and more frequently. They are absurd in their theology and in the way they try to solve their problems.

12 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

For the entire Law has been fulfilled in one commandment, namely: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” . . .

If I understand these words at all, it would mean that no one should stand between the patient and his choice of treatment, especially if his life depends on it. Putting in a religious doctrine the kind of prohibition in which one's own life is endangered (in the case of pregnant women, two or more lives are at stake) is different and more dangerous than forbidding some JW to go to war in which they will violate God's commandment "Thou shalt not kill".

In the second case, a person loves another so much that he is ready to give his life so that the other does not die.

In the first case, the person who threatens his life because he refuses treatment actually hates himself. And if you hate yourself, how will you love another?

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

Jay Franklin was three when he had a blood transfusion, 18 when he discovered by chance that it infected him with hepatitis C, and 40 when he died in October waiting for a federal government apology to “tainted blood” victims that never came.

GB behaves similarly, when they say that they do not bother to apologize for bad doctrines and instructions. It is a contagion that affects the "mighty men".