Jump to content
The World News Media

Ann O'Maly

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    839

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    6

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Ann O'Maly

  1. Ann O'Maly
    Oh, 10, 20 years ago, authorities and institutions knew enough to handle abuse allegations properly. Much of the mishandling from this time is often due to bad policy. Seeing as elders are lay-people, all that is needed, rather than handle it in-house, is to report an allegation to the police or child protection bodies - i.e. to those professionally trained to investigate and protect. The appeal court upheld the order that Watchtower produce their key documents relating to this case, but they did set aside the amount for monetary sanctions against them for non-compliance. But Watchtower will face sanctions if they still do not produce. I wonder: Do you feel the same about lawyers who have litigated against the Catholic Church for their child abuse cover-ups and crimes? What about those lawyers who have brought child abuse cases against the Boy Scouts of America, foster/care homes, schools? Are these lawyers self-centered, attention-seeking, money-grubbers too? When Zalkin has gone after all those non-JW sexual abusers and abuse-enabling institutions, was he doing it purely for self interest? Or do you feel differently - that other institutions are getting their just deserts and that the lawyers are trying to gain some much needed redress for the victims?
  2. Ann O'Maly
    Actually, the evidence shows the opposite - that the elders knew Kendrick had molested his step-daughter. This was why the court found Watchtower and Fremont Congregation negligent in their duty of care toward Conti. In the November 15, 1993 letter from the congregation to Watchtower, the elders classified the Kendrick/ step-daughter 'incident' as "child abuse" which reflects what they testified to in court, i.e. that they did not believe Kendrick's claim it was 'inadvertent' or 'accidental' touching. Their disbelief of Kendrick's story is also reflected in their removal of Kendrick as a ministerial servant. The elders also testified that they were supposed to be 'keeping an eye' on Kendrick's interactions with children during congregation activities thereafter. If this claim is true (other testimony casts doubt on it, however), then it suggests they suspected Kendrick may act inappropriately with children again. The police did take it further because Kendrick was convicted of misdemeanor child molestation as a result. Like you, I am familiar with the case and have read all the transcripts and submitted evidence. I have it all stored on my computer, so if you need your memory refreshing on anything, just say.
  3. Ann O'Maly
    These were Jesus words. The disciples present would have understood that it was indeed actually him, not a vision or some other type of manifestation. The form in which he presented himself was appropriate for the occasion. And Jesus' words "a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you see that I have" - how would the disciples have understood this? That was not what I was suggesting, of course. I had in mind the term 'Mighty God' - as in Isa. 10:21 and Jer. 32:18 - applying to the 'only Potentate.' It looks like your next response is one of 'throwing in the towel' and pretty much saying that holy spirit will have to reveal to me the 'truth' as you see it so I can align with your, or present JW, interpretation. Yes, I understand the official JW concepts of earthly and heavenly resurrections for Christian-era Christians, but I question the validity of two separate destinies on scriptural grounds. (Acts 17:11, anyone?) So far, the questions that are as yet left hanging in the air are: Given that Paul likened Abraham's being declared righteous by faith to 1st century Christians' being declared righteous by faith, on what basis is there a tangible difference between being 'declared righteous as Jehovah's friend' (understood to be one Christian group of prospective recipients of God's saving grace) and 'declared righteous for life' (understood to be another group of Christians who are recipients of God's saving grace now and into eternity)? If all true Christians in the 1st century had been promised one kind of everlasting reward, how and when did that change? And the sidebar that keeps being sidestepped: How would the disciples have understood Jesus' words "a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you see that I have"? Anyway, if those questions provoke further private thought, reflection and research, even if one doesn't feel like discussing them at the moment, it's all good.
  4. Ann O'Maly
    The resurrected, glorified body that Paul talks about - fit to live in the 'new heavens and new earth.' Unfortunately, some churches have over-emphasized the intermediate 'heaven' bit and parishioners have gone away with the impression that an ethereal existence in 'heaven' will be believers' final state - a concept that is more Gnostic in flavor than Christian. These links will give you a quick overview and maybe help answer your other question about God's purpose: https://www.gotquestions.org/intermediate-state.html http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/intermediate-state.html https://exlibris1.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/the-intermediate-state-in-the-new-testament-history-of-interpretation/
  5. Ann O'Maly
    According to the Bible, it was to be a home for His creation and humans were to take care of it. No. I don't think all 'Christendom' believes that anyway. Maybe some churches do, if they also believe heaven is believers' final destiny and the earth will be destroyed by fire. Mainstream Christianity teaches that heavenly existence is the intermediate state, not the final one. The intermediate state is a little akin to the JW concept of being 'in God's memory' - the state between physical death and resurrection. Sounds a bit 'gnostic' to me. No. ---------- (From another post.) Ed Dunlap wrote that one, I understand.
  6. Ann O'Maly
    That the Jesus they knew and loved had indeed been resurrected. Jesus exhibited the same spirit that he displayed at John 16:12-13. No need to subject his already buffeted disciples to terrifying manifestations such as those experienced earlier by Daniel when confronted with a spirit being (Da.10:8-9). Jesus did not find it necessary to overwhelm them with proof that he had been resurrected in the manner required to move the insolent Saul as later recorded at Acts 9:3-9. You've not really answered the question. How would Jesus' disciples have understood him when he said, "it is I myself; touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you see that I have"? Well now, this presents a conundrum: How to harmonize Jesus' words with Paul's. But Heb. 11:16, 39, 40? In any case, we are still discussing Christian-era Christians. To be clear on who 'only Potentate' refers to when writing my comment. Paul's term 'flesh and blood' is to be understood as an idiom describing man's present, corrupt-ed/-ible, mortal body, as opposed to the spirit-generated, incorruptible, immortal resurrection body. He's not saying that resurrected believers will no longer be human ... otherwise 'resurrection' (lit. 'standing up again') wouldn't be an appropriate word to describe what's supposed to happen. But continuing this line of discussion will lead us too far off topic about whether a subset of Christian-era believers will have a different sort of everlasting reward to other Christian-era believers. If all true Christians in the 1st century had been promised one kind of everlasting reward, how and when did that change? Compare Jesus words at Matt.16:17: "flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father in the heavens did" How does Jesus' response to Peter's conclusion about Jesus being the Christ help answer my question? Or are you suggesting there was some divine revelation in post-biblical times?
  7. Ann O'Maly
    How would the disciples have understood his words in Luke 24:39, then? Jesus was a man who, by the call of God, lived again - Acts 2:22-24, 1 Tim. 2:5. As for all the other examples in the Bible of resurrections and the conclusions you draw from these: As you know, these people did not enjoy a resurrection like Christ's. His resurrection was something new, and Christian believers who died before his Presence would have to wait until his Presence before they could enjoy a resurrection like Christ's. I question whether the subject to whom "the one alone having immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see," refers is Jesus, but rather to the "only Potentate" (Mighty God) because Jesus has been seen by man and the only one inherently immortal is God. The passage doesn't make sense otherwise. It is not obvious or clear to me from scripture that there are two sets of true Christian believers in this 'Gospel Age' that have different destinies. Again, if all true Christian believers in the first century had one destiny, and this was when the inspired Bible canon was closed, how did two different destinies for true Christian believers come about?
  8. Ann O'Maly
    Daniel was made the chief of the Magians (Dan. 2:48) but he isn't considered worshipper of false gods. The motive of the 'wise men' was a benevolent one - to pay homage to the new Jewish king and give him valuable gifts fit for his royal status (which evidently helped save Jesus' life later on). One of the points of Matthew's account is to contrast the attitude of prominent Gentiles (who may have had little knowledge of God's ways but went to great effort and expense to show their respects and generosity toward God's son) with that of the hostile Jewish establishment. To attribute the appearance of the star to the Devil is jumping to conclusions - there could be various alternative explanations and many hypotheses have been offered, including one that has God being behind the star. It has to be noted that the evil in this story is placed squarely on Herod alone.
  9. Ann O'Maly
    Of course.
  10. Ann O'Maly
    The video gives very flimsy reasons for JWs avoiding Christmas celebrations. A more scholarly analysis of the historical and biblical reasoning used to support December 25th as a possible date for Christ's birth can be found here: http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/58/58-2/JETS_58-2_299-324_Simmons.pdf The author concludes: "Neither the History of Religions Theory nor the Calculation Theory can adequately account for the origin of the Christmas date. Therefore, transmission of the date of Christ’s birth by tradition from the apostles and holy family cannot logically be ruled out. Moreover, since the traditional date of the nativity is fully consistent with various chronological indicators left for us in history and the Gospels, we have every reason to accept it as the true source and origin of the Christmas date." Both celebrations were for wealthy rulers who saw themselves as divine so people would be celebrating the birthday of a god. 99.9% of those today who celebrate a birthday do not think they are a god. (OTOH, the Bible teaches that Jesus is divine.) Pharaoh's birthday was recorded because it was integral to the outworking of Jehovah's purpose regarding Joseph. Herod's birthday was recorded because it tells us how an innocent man was unjustly executed because a woman held a bitter grudge, and it just so happened to be on that day that she took the opportunity to do away with him. Jehovah does not make any comment or instruction against birthdays. The recorded accounts are separated by hundreds of years and were incidental to the bigger stories. Dogs are never mentioned in the Bible in a positive manner either. Do JWs avoid dogs? There is no mention of ancient Hebrews and early Christians celebrating wedding anniversaries either. Moreover, the Bible never commanded that wedding anniversaries should be celebrated, although there are instances in the Bible where weddings themselves are celebrated. Logically, then, we are not meant to observe wedding anniversaries. Therefore, do JWs avoid celebrating wedding anniversaries? Wedding rings, the days of the week and many months of the year are of pagan or 'false religious' origin. And piñatas. *** g03 9/22 p. 23-4 The Piñata—An Ancient Tradition *** "We found that for many people in Mexico, the piñata has lost its religious significance and is considered by most to be just harmless fun. ... "... A main concern is, not what the practice meant hundreds of years ago, but how it is viewed today in your area. Understandably, opinions may vary from one place to another. Hence, it is wise to avoid turning such matters into big issues."
  11. Ann O'Maly
    Neither was he (John 20:17). I was thinking more of Luke 24:36-43.
  12. Ann O'Maly
    You meant 1 Cor. 15, of course. One can have a 'heavenly' (heaven-sourced, spirit-generated) body without having to be in the location of heaven to enjoy it. Besides, Jesus said his post-resurrection body was, in some way, material (Luke 24:39; cp. 1 Cor. 15:50).
  13. Ann O'Maly
    The illustration of the tourists is not really analogous. "IMAGINE that an experienced guide is leading you on a tour of a wondrous and beautiful city" Jesus. Fine. "Would the premature ideas and eager questions of the tourists cast doubt on the reliability of their guide? Hardly! Similarly, although God’s people sometimes try to work out details of Jehovah’s purpose before it is time for the holy spirit to guide them to such truths, it is clear that Jesus is leading them." That's not quite how it's been in the Organization, though, has it? I suggest that it has been more like a scenario where some of the more dominant tourists start guiding the other tourists, loudly and authoritatively explaining details about the city's features that are a mishmash of fact and falsehood. The experienced guide is shaking his head, trying to speak above the few dominant tourists and waving the group back on track but they're all wandering off after the loud, 'knowledgeable' ones. Eph. 4:14, 15.
  14. Ann O'Maly
    Tenuous? Hardly. The whole (alleged) distinction between being 'declared righteous for life' versus being 'declared righteous as Jehovah's friend' is centered on the two destiny concept. Given that the vast majority of Christian believers over the past (nearly) 2000 years are dead and awaiting resurrection ... somewhere - some to 'heavenly' immortality and others to 'earthly' probation-pending-permanence (as WT teaching goes) ... the discussion about resurrection is very much on topic. Are they contemplating a resurrection to heaven? Or just the resurrection per se?
  15. Ann O'Maly
    "A main concern is, not what the practice meant hundreds of years ago, but how it is viewed today in your area. Understandably, opinions may vary from one place to another. Hence, it is wise to avoid turning such matters into big issues." - g03 9/22 p. 24
  16. Ann O'Maly
    How does 1 Cor. 15 support the idea of two different destinies for Christians? Why would one, who is rewarded with a 'heavenly' body, only be able to enjoy their new life in heaven? The point Paul was making was that the present body is corruptible and perishable, whereas the resurrection body will endowed with incorruptibility and immortality. -------------- That's a given. Earnest and prayerful scriptural research may lead to new perspectives that are at odds with one's previous understanding. The question still remains: on what scriptural basis is the idea that Christian believers have two different destinies. If all first century Christians were (for the sake of argument) heaven-bound, where does the idea come from that there would be a subset of Christian believers who were not heaven-bound? After the 'inspired' Bible books were written, finalized and canonized, what changed? There is nothing there that even hints there will one set of Christian believers being rewarded in heaven while another set of Christian believers get rewarded someplace else. All the Ephesian believers were called heirs in Christ (1:11) and given the holy spirit as a token of that future inheritance (1:13,14). Again, how do you come to that assumption? Sure. But we are talking about the vision given to John. To be faithful to the vision's details at Rev. 7, the 'great crowd' are in the same location as the angels, four living creatures and elders. What textual warrant is there to arbitrarily remove them to somewhere different? I agree you have to see the whole picture. The thing is, we are seeing different pictures - or rather, yours has some pieces of the puzzle jammed into the wrong places, imho
  17. Ann O'Maly
    Oh for goodness' sake! It's bunkum!
  18. Ann O'Maly
    The ones who inherit the earth are the same ones to whom "the Kingdom of the heavens" belong, who will "see God" and "will be called sons of God," surely (Matt. 5:3, 8-10). Or was Jesus addressing two classes of people in the audience listening to him that day? (Eoin, this was the reason for that question.) Also, to be able to inherit something, doesn't one have to be an heir? Contextually, according to the vision, the 'great crowd' are in the same location as the angels, elders and four living creatures. So where would that be? The tribulation was on earth. The 'great crowd' has come out of it and taken their place in the peaceful presence of God and the heavenly court - according to the details of the vision. You've read different destinies into the text. There is nothing in Jesus' words that suggests two destinies. Two groups, yes, but cp. Eph. 2:11-18, especially noting v. 14. No mention of whether the destiny is heaven or earth here. Where else would humans have been bought from, irrespective of final destiny? But Rev. 7:9 has the 'great crowd' being comprised of people "out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues" too, and yet you used this to argue for an earthly group. How does Rev. 5:9 argue for a heaven-bound group? Can one not rule 'over the earth' while on the earth? Cp. Gen. 1:28. Please see my and Eoin's exchange(s). I've yet to reply to his latest post. The scripture says nothing of the location here. The following verses (as you quoted) have heaven and earth being gathered together in Christ. It doesn't indicate that some Christian believers will have their everlasting reward in one or the other location.
  19. Ann O'Maly
    "Consequently, holy brothers, partakers of the heavenly calling [or 'invitation'], consider the apostle and high priest whom we acknowledge—Jesus." - Heb. 3:1 Is this a call/ invitation to heaven, or a call/ invitation from heaven? When Jesus gave his Sermon on the Mount, was his believing audience composed of those who had two different destinies or just one destiny?
  20. Ann O'Maly
    *Tingtingtingting* Aaaand predictably they discuss the 'sun-god' Tammuz-Nimrod connection and have bought into other Hislopian pseudo-history, ladies and gentlemen. The video should be re-titled, "Shocking but mostly hooey."
  21. Ann O'Maly
    A more scholarly discussion: KURT M. SIMMONS - THE ORIGINS OF CHRISTMAS AND THE DATE OF CHRIST’S BIRTH
  22. Ann O'Maly
    Oh goody. It's the annual 'let's perpetuate half-truths, non sequiturs and debunked myths about Christmas origins' campaign. ?
  23. Ann O'Maly
    Why should there be two different destinies in the first place - especially for Christian believers? What is the scriptural support that there are two different destinies for Christian believers? (These questions are for anyone.)
  24. Ann O'Maly
    Maybe you missed my first question to you? How is it obvious Abraham's destiny and that of first century Christians differ? Anyway, need to catch up with the rest of this thread now ...
  25. Ann O'Maly
    How is it obvious Abraham's destiny and that of first century Christians differ? He was born in the time before Jesus and Christianity, yes. But how does your conclusion follow that his and Christians' destinies are different?
×
×
  • 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.