lentaylor71

google translation from article in Sweden, - https://www.expressen.se/dinapengar/jehovas-vittnen-kraver-25-miljoner-av-staten/
25 000 000 SEK = cca 2.400.000,00 EUR (2.800.000,00 US Dollar)
 
Jehovah's Witnesses demand 25 million from the state
Published 9 Jul 2020 at 17.00
 
Jehovah's Witnesses have been denied state funding for several years. 
Last year, the government overturned the decision - and now the organization is demanding SEK 25 million in compensation. 
After being denied state subsidies twelve years in a row, the government last year approved the organization as eligible to receive grants for denominations. 
The reason was a ruling by the Supreme Administrative Court which ruled that the practices of Jehovah's Witnesses - such as denying blood transfusions - do not in themselves constitute sufficient grounds for denying state subsidies. 
Requires SEK 25 million
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that their rights under the European Convention have been violated. 
Jehovah's Witnesses are now applying for damages of nearly 25 million in compensation for the years without support, as evidenced by documents produced by News Agency Siren. 
The claim, which has been sent to the Chancellor of Justice, applies to both financial and non-pecuniary damage. Jehovah's Witnesses also include legal costs to claim their case.

We in NewZeland as of today from 12 miday are returning to Lock down 4 as for new outbreak of COvid 19, we be in for a longer haul .The video meeting has increased atanded and from local and cross section of congregations.

We in NewZeland as of today from 12 miday are returning to Lock down 4 as for new outbreak of COvid 19, we be in for a longer haul .The video meeting has increased atanded and from local and cross section of congregations.

We in NewZeland as of today from 12 miday are returning to Lock down 4 as for new outbreak of COvid 19, we be in for a longer haul .The video meeting has increased atanded and from local and cross section of congregations.

And what if you were baptized before they changed the wording (from dedication to Jehovah to dedication to organization)?

Question: how does a membership contract apply to a minor? Wouldn't such contracts be null and void - if not illegal because a minor can't sign such a contract?

They have no shame. They are literally rewriting the bible to make it say what they want.

Here is an example:
 

A disfellowshipped person is completely SHUNNED. AND any person that leaves the JW organisation is completely SHUNNED.
Grown up children are asked to leave the family home. Grown up children that do not live at home are completely SHUNNED. 
Any person can walk into a Kingdom Hall as it is for public to visit and listen to talks, BUT a person that is being SHUNNED will not be spoken to by anyone, and they are made to feel dirty and evil. They are put to shame by everyone else in the hall. It's horrible and definitely not Christian. 
But JW legal dept will of course believe that deliberately lying is part of serving God. Yes, it's called 'spiritual warfare', and they are told it is right. 
How low the JW Org has sunken. What shame it brings on God Himself. 

Western Mail (Wales, UK), Tuesday, November 6, 2018 - FRONT PAGE
An elder member of a Jehovah’s Witness congregation subjected a girl to years of sexual abuse, a court has heard.
Thomas Brian Jenkins, 74, appeared at Merthyr Crown Court on Monday charged with 20 counts of indecent assault against a girl in the 1970s.
The alleged abuse began when the girl was 12 years old and continued until she was 14.
Jenkins, of Landor Road, Redditch, Worcestershire, denies indecently assaulting the girl by touching her genitals on “dozens of occasions".
Opening the case for the prosecution, Timothy Evans said the abuse began shortly after the girl moved to a village in Powys with her family, who were Jehovah’s Witnesses, and became involved with the local congregation.
Mr Evans said Jenkins, an elder member of the congregation, would take the girl, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, and her older brother out in a car to knock on people’s doors.
“The defendant would get someone going out house to - turn to page 4
Jehovah's Witness denies 20 historic sex attack charges

But if someone has a mental disease aren't you supposed to forgive and help?
It would seem logical that if a fellow Jehovah's Witness were to be afflicted with a mental disease, we would feel inclined to tolerate their indiscretions, and to offer them support. However, the Bible has provided us with a mere principal, that the holy spirit has evidently directed us to understand as meaning that we should distance ourselves, and even act as if the mentally ill person does not exist. You are surprised you say! Well, let's see what God's word says about how God treated those that were far less perfect than just the regular imperfect ones of us.
In Leviticus 21:17-24, we read the following:
“Tell Aaron, ‘No man of your offspring throughout their generations who has a defect may approach to present the bread of his God. 18 If there is any man who has a defect, he may not approach: a man who is blind or lame or has a disfigured face or one limb too long, 19 a man with a fractured foot or a fractured hand, 20 a hunchback or a dwarf, or a man with an eye defect or eczema or ringworm or damaged testicles. t 21 No man of the offspring of Aaron the priest who has a defect may approach to present Jehovah’s offerings made by fire. Because he has a defect, he may not approach to present the bread of his God. 22 He may eat the bread of his God from the most holy things u and from the holy things.v 23 However, he may not come near the curtain, w and he may not approach the altar, x because there is a defect in him; and he should not profane my sanctuary, y for I am Jehovah, who is sanctifying them.’”z
Clearly, the same can be said for those who have mental defects. Just as they should not come near the curtain, or approach the altar of the lord, they should not come near us or approach us.
- oveja negra

FWIW, I believe Jesus was much more likely nailed to a two-piece stauros. If so, it would have looked like a "T" or a "t" or a "+".  Since it's more likely, it's therefore my personal preference to think it was a "cross" in the typical sense. But its physical appearance is not important to the overall understanding of the Bible. It's even less important to the understanding of what the symbolic meaning of the "cross" should be to Christians.
The fact is that it could have been an upright pole. That's a piece of information very few people know about, and it might be good to point that out to people just so such facts might "jar" them into realizing that not everything we grew up believing is necessarily so. (This is true of those who grew up on Watchtower doctrines, too, as several surprising changes to those doctrines should have recently made clear.) We should keep in mind that there are always new facts to learn and some of them will be more important than others.
I think Anna is right that the WTS chose the idea of an upright stake to differentiate itself from Christendom, or perhaps almost as likely, to differentiate itself from Bible Students who followed Russell.
The scripture in John 20:25 could be an important piece of evidence. The Watchtower has used exactly such types of scriptural evidence to adjust other doctrines in the past, even the very recent past. It might also be important to note that the WT publications rarely imply that we know for sure. It's usually not very dogmatic on the point. But I have to admit that in these discussions of whether it was a one-piece or two-piece stauros, the John 20:25 scripture is rarely mentioned, which implies that the WTS realizes this evidence is damaging to the theory.
But we also have to give the WTS position a fair shot before dismissing it as impossible. For example, what if it was thought for years that stauros had been a single upright pole, and Christendom had always pictured it this way. Let's say that a new organization called the Watch-Tau-er came along and said it was in the shape of the letter "Tau" (T). There was a ton of archaeological evidence against them but they pointed out that this verse in John 20:25 says nails and appears to refer only to the hands. The established church and many fundamentalists would come along and say that the Watch-Tau-er was misinterpreting this and the reference was to the nails, plural, but that one of these nails was stuck in the hands and one was stuck in the feet. Or that multiple nails could have been used and still they were stuck in the hands on an upright stauros. Taking any stand against the norm results in a lot of defensiveness for the position that might seem obvious, but is really based on a preconception or bias from the majority, and from having seen 1,000 pictures that showed the same thing.
However, where some Witnesses make a mistake is to say that there is no evidence that the cross ever was associated with early Christians until 300 years, or even 400 years after the first century CE. In fact, there is probable evidence that it was already associated with Christians as early as the very next century after Jesus Christ. There is excellent and, to my mind, unimpeachable evidence that the two-piece cross was in use as early as 200 years after the first century. If something of that time period is discovered in multiple places 200 years after the first century, we don't automatically assume we have discovered the first instance that evidence, but assume that it's evidence of a developing usage, and that there were very likely some earlier instances of it yet undiscovered.

Wikipedia shows a simple staurogram on an oil lamp from Caesarea, now at a museum in Israel, that could have come from the 300's CE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staurogram#/media/File:Nahsholim-Tel-Dor-3187.jpg
This was one of the pieces of evidence that made me think that some Christians, especially those with Jewish family backgrounds, might have found staurogram designs to be preferable to the type of graven imagery apparently forbidden in the Mosaic Law.
There is also early imagery like this:
The graffiti is dated to the late second century, likely within 100 years of the book of Revelation. It shows a man looking up to a donkey on a cross and says in Greek: “Alexamenos worships god.”
It's polemic, of course, depicting Jesus as a donkey. The book that @indagator recommended by Frank Shaw, discussed elsewhere, helps explain why Jesus was depicted as a donkey. The word for donkey seems to be a bit like onomatopoeia, like calling a donkey a "hee-haw" or "Eeyore". In Coptic the word for "donkey/ass" was EIO and the divine name known to have been used by Jews and evidently Christians and even pagans for the Jewish God was IAO [Ya'o/Yaho], the equivalent of "Yah" or "Yaho" [cf. Jah, Jaho, Jahowa].
Jewish and perhaps even Christian writers changed the names of pagan gods slightly so that they would sound insulting. (Compare Beelzebul, "Lord of the High Place," to Beelzebub, "Lord of the Flies."). The similarity between a word for "donkey" and the Jewish God's divine name made it a prime candidate for the same type of derision. And the Jewish name for Jesus contained both the divine name "Yaho" and the connected word for "Savior" or "Salvation." (Yaho-shuah/Joshua/Jesus means "Jehovah [Yaho] is Salvation.")
It was not because of the legend that "Your Savior will come riding on the back of a donkey" is the reason for the cross on the back of so many breeds of donkeys:

@JW Insider your information is fantastic but you are way above me on all of this. I'm such a simple man, BUT so are so many people.
My point being made is, so many people are 'simple' 'down to earth' 'not highly educated' 'not having all these Bible aids' and in honesty not capable of being able to do such research. Will none of you people understand ? Will none of you realise how much responsibility your GB has ? 
You GB sends you out to preach to people that have no knowledge or understanding of God's word. In fact as time goes on many people now have no knowledge of anything and some can barely read or write properly. Yes even here in the UK. 
You may say, it isn't the GB that sends you out, it is God through Jesus Christ. Yes of course it is, but the GB are the ones that 'feed' you the information that you should 'feed' to others. Hence the GB have people's lives in their hands. Your lives and the ones you preach to. 
If, as can be seen on the topics here, it is proved the GB tell lies, make mistakes, get things wrong. How is this being guided by God?  You  are going out with lies, false information, false hopes in some cases. Is this really how God and Jesus wants the work done ?

Having read through all the comments and had a good laugh, i am now more convinced than ever of the GB not being the FDS.
It seems some people need to hang on desperately to the 'cliff edge', being frightened of losing their 'faith' in thier GB. 
The points are quite simple. The NWT is a 'readable' bible. It uses 'readable words'. The translators have a very great responsibility to God and to 'men'. Yet at John 20 v 25, it chooses to use the words HANDS and NAILS, both in the plural. I am sure it the translators felt it would be right, they would have used the word 'wrists' if that word was also a meaning of the original 'cheir' 
Another point I have just noticed and this may be important. in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greeks Scriptures.
In the GREEK writing, the word for hands at John 20 v 25 is different to the word for hands at Acts 12 v 7. 
I looked and looked at this to be sure I was right, and it is different. I do so wish I could read Greek and Hebrew. 
So back to the picture and the John 20 v 25 scripture..... And another question/s. Is the GB trying to persuade / convince people of things that they themselves do not even know for sure ?  if so is that even a spiritual thing to do ? 

@Outta Here Quote "I fail to see the relevance of your GB jibes in this.They are like a sort of phonic tic that keeps appearing in your postings, regardless of subject matter."
I am proving that the GB are not the 'faithful and discreet slave' and therefore they cannot give the true spiritual food at  the right time. 
Myself and others on this forum are showing quite clearly that the GB very often get things wrong. it is only people such as yourself that worship the GB by not questioning them, that cannot see truth in front of your own eyes.  
Myself and others here have shown that the GB at times deliberately 'get things wrong' or more likely, deliberately tell lies. They deliberately make misquotes trying to prove false points. 
That is not just the opinion of one person (myself) but of many ex Jw's and current JW's. 

Before I retired (90% pay cut ... ) I used to cash my paycheck and offer it ALL to God.
I would toss the whole wad of cash into the air, and whatever God needed ... he took.
Whatever fell back to Earth, was MINE!

No. Donations have no relevance as to whether a person is counted as a Witness or has any particular assignment or privilege in our organization. (Acts 8:18-20) In fact, most donations are made anonymously. Each Witness donates his time, energy, and resources to our worldwide work according to his own desire and circumstances.—2 Corinthians 9:7.

Dec. 2018 WT's Shocking advice re: domestic violence

It is very interesting that Watchtower always paints an abusive or violent mate as being an unbeliever. They always make it about the wife converting the unbeliever into a JW, and that will somehow fix the problem. There is no reality in these articles. They never talk about the abusive mate who is a JW, perhaps and elder or MS. It is totally fabricated scenarios that perpetuate the fairytale of happy JW marriages.
They forgot to mention the abusive "brothers" that have beaten their wives to death. One of the two witnesses at the Russian Supreme Court hearing last year was a woman who had enough of the abuse and left her JW husband. She was not going to hang around until he killed her. The fact that she was dfd for divorcing the asshole and remarrying served as proof that the JW religion is extremist. From a women's rights perspective, it is indeed extremist and deadly.

There is someone online (not Jack) who is doing his darndest to stir up trouble over this, mostly by cherry-picking statements and presenting them without context. I wrote up a post on it on my blog and here:
It is ever the pitfall of zealots that they are so eager to prove a point that, in their haste, they will grab something that proves just the opposite, yet continue to gloat as though have found the smoking gun. Such was the case when atheists at Friendly Atheist tore their hair out over “some truly horrific advice to women in abusive relationships,” from the December 2018 Watchtower magazine. They were to stay in them no matter what!
Well, that does sound truly horrific and there were many who immediately condemned the scoundrels who would give such a vile command. Others went to the article first, where they discovered that it says nothing of the sort. 
IsnÂ’t this just atheists depriving women of the right to choose? It is ironic because they generally claim to be champions of that right. The article makes clear that a woman always has a choice, that she need not be railroaded into an action just because it is societally popular.
Some leave amidst these very trying circumstances. Some stay. Either action works from the congregation’s point of view. They have the right to choose. How is that the Watchtower ‘urging them to stay with an abusive mate no matter what,’ the accusation of the atheists? If a woman wants to try to salvage a marriage, what business is that of theirs? It may be an unwise decision, or it may be the best decision she ever made, but either way, it is her decision.
Given the staggering cost of family breakup, emotional, mental, financial, and long-lasting damage to the kids, if a woman decides to stick it out more than athiests approve, with a view towards salvage, who is to say she is crazy? Possibly reading this post are veterans of two, three, four, or more failed relationships who wish they had put more effort into a given one. If she pulls it off, she has gained something very good.
These are not short-term hookings-up that we are speaking of, latching on to some loser that you cut loose as soon as you see what he is. These are marriages of years or decades’ duration. In some cases, they never used to be abusive but they have become so due to who knows what factors? Dignify the woman as having the judgement to decide, based upon history, pressures affecting her man, and factors only she might know, as to whether he should be jettisoned or not.  If the lout has to go, he goes. Just don’t let some third party push you into it. The choice is always hers.
It is as though the grumblers cheer at the breakup of a marriage, oblivious to the damage left in its wake. It is as though they would prevent one from trying to repair theirs. Let her try if she wants to, or even put up with one far from ideal, if that be her choice. Sometimes when you are between a rock and a hard place, you donÂ’t assume or let the atheists tell you that the hard place is really a bed of roses. It isn't always that way. I mean, it is not exactly as they will be around to repair the damage, is it?
Okay, granted, they like marriage over there in the JehovahÂ’s Witness world. Until fairly recently, everybody did, and considered family the bedrock of society. Witnesses consider it a divine institution. That doesnÂ’t mean others have to, but surely it means Witness women should be allowed to. They let their view be bound by biblical injunctions. Adultery is the one acceptable ground for ending a marriage, but even then, it does not have to be; it is always possible for the innocent mate to exercise his or her right of choice and forgiveness.
Several decades ago the Witness organization took note, as did all of society, of the increasingly visible ne’er-do-wells who, while they might not be unfaithful, were nonetheless ugly to live with. It took another look at 1 Corinthians 7, a chapter that deals with marital matters, and sometimes people are surprised at how it says a husband and wife both owe each other sex (no, not ‘on demand’ – don’t even go there) and should not be depriving the other of it. Specifically, they looked at verses 12 and 13: “If any brother has an unbelieving wife and she is agreeable to staying with him, let him not leave her; and if a woman has an unbelieving husband and he is agreeable to staying with her, let her not leave her husband.” 'Maybe a marriage mate’s conduct says he is ‘not agreeable,’ regardless of what his words say,' they reasoned.
For some time, therefore the guidance for women (or men) in not-so-hot marriages is that there are three conditions that any one of which might justify separation sans tongues clucking: if there is extreme physical abuse, if there is willful non-support, and if there is absolute endangerment of spirituality. It is at once apparent that much in is the eye of the beholder, so from time to time Watchtower publications revisit the subject, so that congregation members are guided by what they signed on for in the first place, and not unduly influenced by what is all the rage elsewhere. If the bad egg must be fried, let him fry. A woman always has that right. But she neednÂ’t feel railroaded into that choice by a flood of outside pressure.
Any Witness woman knows this, because she has read and considered the entire article, not just the cherry-picked paragraph, and she has taken into account how it fits into her overall framework of knowledge. You almost begin to think what causes the steam to emit from atheist ears is another possible benefit of the woman’s forsaking her right to leave: Maybe the ‘unbelieving’ husband will become a believing one. How is that a bad thing?  If the guy makes it as a Jehovah's Witness, he will have made significant inroads against what makes him such a loser in the first place. 
Read the entire article here.

 

They keep taking this video down because it shows their depravity and inculcation of hate in the youth.
Radicalized Christianity
 

Whatever happened to old Charlie, anyway? Did he ever get off KP duty?

I believe you. I personally know a few who did similar things. There is no doubt about it that 1975 got blown up out of all proportions. That is why those who knew their Bible, and put that as precedent over what anybody else said (including the president of the society at the time) call it trusting your own instincts if you like, didn't get burned. But I understand that it must have been very difficult if the majority saw it differently than you. Moral of the story? Trust the Bible and no man. Lesson learned. We've got to move on.
I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Anna:
Oh yeah ... I had forgotten about THOSE crazy years ... because I never believed any of that .... but I did get caught, BIG TIME, in the "1975" fiasco, even though during the run-up to 1975 I openly ridiculed it ... right there at the end, I reasoned, in the fall of 1974
"How could I be right, and everybody else ... people I respected, loved  and cared about .... everybody ... be WRONG? ( About the end coming in 1975)."
It did not seem probable to me that EVERYBODY (In the Truth) was wrong so I quit the best job I ever had, in Zaire, the Congo, to be back home with my Mom and Dad in Virginia, when "the END came".
To this day, Brothers and Sisters "swear" that never happened .....  but in the  Watchtower, March 15, 1980 issue , paragraphs 17 and 18 ONE TIME admitted that they did say that ... in the book "Life Everlasting - In Freedom of the Sons of God".
I did not find out about that "soft admission of culpability" until Mr. Google and I became good friends, many, many years later ... but long before that I learned to trust my own instincts over that of anything the Society said or published.
If they are wrong, only we down here at the bottom have to pay the price for their error.
If they permanently screw up our lives ... they pay no price whatsoever.