Ann O'Maly

Oh I have no doubt that big corporations don't like their harmful products and practices exposed, and employ all kinds of dirty tricks to silence whistle-blowers. I'm under no illusions, Arauna.  I'm also well aware that reputable scientists can produce flawed studies sometimes. What caught my eye was the comment that independent Japanese researchers as well as an Australian governmental authority could not replicate Hayes' findings.

I was merely showing that there may be another side to this controversy.

Quote

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its independent Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) examined all available studies on this topic and concluded that "atrazine does not adversely affect amphibian gonadal development based on a review of laboratory and field studies.".^[10] The EPA and its SAP made recommendations concerning proper study design needed for further investigation into this issue. As required by the EPA, Syngenta conducted two experiments under Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) and inspection by the EPA and German regulatory authorities. The paper concluded "These studies demonstrate that long-term exposure of larval X. laevis to atrazine at concentrations ranging from 0.01 to 100 microg/l does not affect growth, larval development, or sexual differentiation."^[11] A report written in Environmental Science and Technology (May 15, 2008) cites the independent work of researchers in Japan, who were unable to replicate Hayes' work. "The scientists found no hermaphrodite frogs; no increase in aromatase as measured by aromatase mRNA induction; and no increase in vitellogenin, another marker of feminization."^[12]

In 2010, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) responded to Hayes' 2010 published paper,^[13] by stating that his findings "do not provide sufficient evidence to justify a reconsideration of current regulations which are based on a very extensive dataset.".^[14]

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrone_Hayes#Atrazine_research

On 9/2/2016 at 10:36 PM, AllenSmith said:

The Flood argument of a global flood or local event was brought by evolutionist and creationist. .... [et cetera, et cetera]

Allen, your various objections to the idea of a localized flood are dealt with here:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

The author is a Bible-believing Christian.

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

EDIT 

To put this new thread in context, the discussion about Noah's Flood and whether or not it was global, came from here: 

My argument was that the antediluvians mentioned in Matt. 24:39 literally 'did not know' when the Flood was going to take place which supported Jesus' comments that his second presence wouldn't be predictable either. Allen then made several objections to the idea of the biblical Flood being localized. This is where this new thread picks up.

20 minutes ago, Arauna said:

So it seems you are determined to ignore the 2 different Greek words pertaining to "coming"

I don't know who you were addressing, but can you tell me what the tangible difference is between the words 'present' (as in somebody being in another's presence) and 'coming'? Can somebody 'come' and not be 'present'?

26 minutes ago, Arauna said:

For as they were in those days before the Flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark,  and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the 'presence' of the Son of man will be..... This is referring to Jesus's 'presence' - when he is busy ruling - before the final arrival of the destruction to come. Allan also explained this.

And I discussed that the NWT rendering 'took no note' was literally 'knew not' in the original Greek, which puts a whole new light on it, does it not?

25 minutes ago, Arauna said:

But please can you explain to me the following? Who the faithful and discreet slave is ...

Another thread.

28 minutes ago, Arauna said:

"preaching the kingdom in the entire inhabited earth" to all the tribes and nations.

Another thread.

31 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Also go on to explain to me Luke 21: 24 , "and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations* until the appointed times of the nations* are fulfilled."   What is this appointed time of the nations?

Jerusalem's trampling could only begin in Jesus' future - "will be trampled" and not "continue to be trampled."

36 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Who is Michael who "will stand up?"

Another thread.

38 minutes ago, Arauna said:

There are many people out there who want to know what these scriptures mean....

Are you one of them?

How about addressing Holly's Scriptures in the OP? What do you think? Based on the Bible texts, can the timing of Jesus' Second coming, or Presence, be calculated through Bible chronology? 

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

Like an idiot I have been quoting scriptures from the bible to Ann and hoping that she would think about them.... to understand the invisible coming of Christ.... but from her responses I noticed that she has not put thought in them at all.  

Actually, I provided Scriptures to help you understand 1st century Christians believed Jesus was already ruling (invisibly) amidst his enemies in their day, from as soon as Jesus ascended to heaven and sat down at his Father's right hand. - Acts 2:34-37; Eph. 1:20, 21; Heb. 10:12, 13; Rev. 3:21. Did you contemplate these cited texts? 

Quote

Now I understand why - it seems she does not really believe in the Bible as she is questioning the flood.  So to her the Bible is hocus-pocus.

I question a GLOBAL flood. You do see the nuanced distinction between questioning a GLOBAL flood and the flood per se, do you not? 

Quote

I also happened to stumble on a few good programs wherein different scientists depict an ice age and a world-wide flood after the ice age - when it melted suddenly.

Which ice age? There have been a few in Earth's 4.5 billion year history. Did the 'different scientists' date a world-wide flood to the 3rd millennium BCE?

9 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

The proof is on your skeptical side, not ours.

JWs are the only ones who make the claim. Everyone else on the planet doesn't. It's down to JWs to provide the evidence for their claim. Do you have evidence? Copying and pasting swathes of text from WT publications with the occasional assertion nestling within them (along the lines of 'it happened because faith') ISN'T EVIDENCE.

Quote

The calculations you keep implying were gathered by written schemes in scripture. 

So Jesus was mistaken? You can calculate the time of his second presence ... kind of ... after the alleged event ... twice, because they miscalculated the first time ... but the second time is bang on ... honest.

Quote

The WTS has never stated it knows the hour or day of Christ Invisible Second Coming. That Drivel was concocted by you opposers. 

Don't you properly read your own c&p quotes, Allen?

9 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Man’s Salvation [chap. 16 pp. 286-287 pars. 11-12] ...

 

¹² ... However, events on earth since the end of the “appointed times of the [Gentile] nations” have been fulfilling Bible prophecy and prove that the promised “presence” or parousia of Christ in Kingdom power began first about October 4/5, 1914 C.E. Only since then has it been correct to speak of the invisible, royal “presence” of Christ as being in effect. We older folks of seventy or eighty years of age have seen come to reality practically all the things predicted by Jesus Christ in answer to the question submitted to him by his apostles:

[Bold emphasis mine; underlining Allen's]

 

Doofus.

Quote

Another example of your fallacy O’Maly is the ridiculous notion, people in Noah’s Time were unaware of an impending event. Were all those people blind? Did they see Noah building something that people never saw before without asking, what in the world are you doing? The implication is self-evident by Noah’s action of building a boat that would have peaked the curiosity of man. Did Noah keep God's secret? Did people not care why Noah was placing animals in the Ark?

1. JWs believe it was a global flood, right? How did some ancient Australian aboriginal, sitting there with his kangaroo, witness the building of an ark on the other side of the world (which reminds me of another question but we won't go there now)? I don't even think the Egyptians got the memo since they were busy building their pyramids and stuff. Neither did the Chinese, who were apparently oblivious to what Noah was doing and were happily perfecting their exquisite pottery.
2. The phrase in Matt. 24:39 that the NWT and rNWT render "took no note" is literally "not they knew" (check the Kingdom Interlinear) or "they knew not" and uses the same word (ginōskō) as is found in John 17:3, which the NWT rendered "taking in knowledge" but the rNWT now translates as "coming to know." Jesus is telling his disciples that, just like in Noah's day when people (all around the world, right?) didn't 'come to know' when the Flood would be - and Noah himself only got a week's notice (Gen. 7:1-10) - Jesus' second presence will also be unpredictable.

At least no lives were lost but ... all that hard work and investment

LOL. All I'm saying, Arauna, is that you are prejudging and condemning the booklet without having read it.

For everyone's information, Walmart also sells exposés of the LDS church, Scientology, Catholicism and yes, Islam.

33 minutes ago, Arauna said:

the 'coming' ('Parousia' / presence) and the final 'coming / 'erkhomenon'

As I said before, you have to first arrive/come to become present.

Imagine a roll call in a classroom.

The teacher calls, "Arauna?" No answer.

The teacher calls again. Nothing. "I'll note her down as absent ..."

A fellow student says, "Excuse me sir, Arauna is present. She's here." The teacher looks around then quizzically at her. The student continues, "She is present, it's just that she's not arrived at school yet."

Teacher and class go 

On 8/13/2016 at 3:41 PM, The Librarian said:

 

I saw this book for sale on their website and would like to know if the Walton's sell any books similar to this with an anti-Presbyterian theme?

 

I guess this would come close:

On 8/14/2016 at 5:34 AM, Arauna said:

I personally will do nothing about this but I do feel somewhat offended because I know the reasoning in the book (like others before it) is most probably not logical at all, will be full of dogma, and will depend on spreading deception to get its point across. That is what irks me...Walmart being an accomplice in spreading falsehood.

And yet you haven't read the pamphlet. So you have no idea whether there is any truth or logic to what he argues or not.

Iirc, Campbell was moved eventually to write his pamphlets (there's another one I know about) after an encounter with a regular pioneer who made him think about and research his own evangelical beliefs. And don't forget he wrote this booklet in 1990. Some of his criticisms may be outdated as the Org has changed its mind on several doctrines since then. You never know, there may be a teaching or two Campbell and JWs agree on now! 

48 minutes ago, Arauna said:

 

It depends on 'which' return you are talking about. ..... 

 

How many 'returns' do you think Jesus makes, according to Scripture?

15 hours ago, Arauna said:

The Jewish leaders were expecting Jesus around the time he was to start preaching because they asked John the Baptist if he was the Messiah when he started baptizing people. They were reading Daniel - for sure... They knew it was the time for him to 'come'.  When Jesus did not fit the picture they had in mind - the rejected him.

As the Watchtower referenced above stated, "there were many conflicting interpretations of the 70 weeks in Jesus’ day, and none come close to our present understanding." The first chronological application of the 70 weeks to Jesus was made in the 3rd century CE by Julius Africanus.

There were other writings and chronological schemes apart from those in the book of Daniel that were fueling Jewish messianic expectations.

E.g. see the following articles:

http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messiah_14.html#Two_messiahs

http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messiah_15.html

Because ideas and interpretations varied so much, some Jews would have seen prophetic parallels with Jesus as a false messiah - especially when he made provocative statements that shook up the establishment. After all, Jesus wasn't the only 'messiah' knocking around at the time (cp. Acts 5:36, 37).

14 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

So instead of giving us your personal opinion? State your facts to PROVE that Christ hasn’t been reigning in heaven since 1914

It's a matter of historical record that anyone can check for himself - not opinion.

In line with Holly's Scripture texts in the OP, which say Jesus' return cannot be calculated, the onus is on you as a JW defender to prove Christ did return and was enthroned in heaven in 1914. Go on. Give it your best shot.  

15 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

The ironic thing about Pastor Russell. He configured a scheme that was spot on with it’s relevance before it actually occurred.

Baloney. His and his successor's conclusions about the timing of Jesus' presence was retrospective. His ideas about 1914's future relevance in Bible prophecy were wrong. His 'Divine Plan' chronological scheme was all but abandoned after his death, with Rutherford eventually only retaining the date 1914, spiritualizing what were supposed to have been physical events (i.e. the Gentile governments being crushed to smithereens in Dan. 2:44 style), and making some new ill-fated predictions of his own.

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

Why did God give so many prophecies about the timing and arriving of the first coming and dedication of the messiah- and it was fulfilled right on time (70 week prophesy in Daniel).

*** w14 2/15 p. 27 Questions From Readers ***

"Could the first-century Jews have calculated the time of the Messiah’s arrival on the basis of the prophecy of the 70 weeks recorded at Daniel 9:24-27? While that possibility cannot be ruled out, it cannot be confirmed. The fact is that there were many conflicting interpretations of the 70 weeks in Jesus’ day, and none come close to our present understanding."

The application of the '70 weeks' prophecy to Jesus was a later Christian interpretation - not a Jewish one.

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

The other scripture I mentioned above (Ps 110 ) shows that Jesus would be ruling amidst his enemies...

The 1st century Christians believed Jesus was already ruling amidst his enemies in their day, from as soon as Jesus ascended to heaven and sat down at his Father's right hand. - Acts 2:34-37; Eph. 1:20, 21; Heb. 10:12, 13; Rev. 3:21.

2 hours ago, Arauna said:

And this is so: there are two words: parousia (presence) as used in Matt 24: 37 - 39 just like the time of Noah - which was many years when they did not listen to Noah and the word Parousia also means to be "alongside".

The other word used is: "erkhomenon"  in Matt 24:30 which talks of the son of man coming on the clouds with "power" and glory to exact justice on earth. 

A person has to 'arrive' or 'come' first in order to be 'present' or 'alongside.' One cannot be present without having first arrived.

Noah's contemporaries who were caught out by the Flood [literally] "did not know" when it would be, which is the whole point of Jesus likening those days to people not knowing the day and hour of Jesus' parousia.
 

3 hours ago, Gilbert Delcamp said:

[The Great Acceleration graphic]

http://forum.theworldnewsmedia.org/uploads/monthly_2016_08/57c3f74b6ad53_Thegreantacceleration.jpg.023cf9142867bfbd717970896e356de6.jpg

It's funny. I don't remember any of these phenomena mentioned in the Olivet discourse.

9 hours ago, Teresa Morales said:

It's exciting to know that we get to see the fulfillment of this most incredible prophesy, in our own lifetime!   We get to witness the downfall of Satan and his demons! 

How do you know you will see it in your lifetime? The early Bible Students thought they would see it in their lifetimes as has each subsequent BS/JW generation after that. So how do you know that you and your generation will be the one?

And doesn't it bother anyone that the 'Gentiles' are still having their 'times' over 100 years after the' Gentile times' supposedly ended?

9 hours ago, Teresa Morales said:

 For the first and only time in history, all of the signs are occurring

Really? Earthquakes, wars, pestilence, food shortages, persecution, evangelism and lawlessness have only occurred together in the 20th and 21st centuries?

But http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/westtech/x14thc.htm.

9 hours ago, Teresa Morales said:

Why is Satan so angry? Because he knows his time is very short! If it wasn't, he wouldn't have the whole world in chaos... 

Define 'very short.'

Here are some different perspectives:

http://bigthink.com/the-evolution-of-enlightenment/the-world-is-getting-worse-and-other-lies

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/04/28/the-world-looks-like-its-getting-worse-heres-why-its-not/

Actually, this is more representative 

I should think so! This ban was beyond ridiculous. 

And that Muslim lady on the beach deserves a public apology.

4 hours ago, Kurt said:

607 B.C.E. Jerusalem destroyed; exile in Babylon begins

The trouble is, if we take the table of classical historians' figures from the WT article, we end up with those of Berossus (as reproduced in Josephus) and Ptolemy. It's simple math. Working backwards from Babylon's fall, which everyone agrees on ...

539 BCE

+ 17 (Nabonidus)

+ 4 (Labashi-Marduk and Neriglissar combined because Labashi-Marduk's accession year = Neriglissar's 4th year)

+ 2 (Amel-Marduk)

+ 25 (Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in his 18th year and reigned 43 years in total, so 43 -18 = 25)

= ? BCE

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.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Wow! Ann! Much appreciated.

I started to work out a post like yours, but didn't have time yesterday.

It was prepared soon after those 2011 articles came out - pretty much c&p'ed from my files. 

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Just a couple of sections back when Eusebius is reviewing Polyhistor's account, he makes a specific point to note that the beginning of the 70 years must begin with the start of Nebuchadnezzar, not the 18th year. (i.e., 19 years prior to the temple destruction).

Absolutely. This is important, and very often missed/ignored by those JWs who try to find similar '70 years' interpretations among Bible scholars and classical historians: 'Such-a-body from [distant] century also counted 70 years from 607 or 606 BCE just like us, so there is scholarly support for our position.' But actually, 'such-a-body' thought 607/606 BCE was the beginning of Neb's reign - not the year of Jerusalem's destruction, so 'such-a-body' doesn't support the JW position. If memory serves, only those who have been associated with the Watchtower Society in some way count the '70 years' from Neb's 18th year and Jerusalem's destruction

Thanks for expanding on the copyist error problem too - very helpful.

Kurt  - the two links you provided ... well, certainly the first one (I'm less familiar with the second) ... contains much misinformation. If you or anyone wants to know why, please refer to this LINK.

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.

 

This 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*

The OP has changed since the last time I checked in here. 

The somewhat misleading table from the Watchtower article makes it look as if the classical historians sourced the kings' regnal years independently from each other and that's why there are different figures. Yet most readers will be unaware that Berossus is the ultimate source for all of them. 

Polyhistor got his data from Berossus. Polyhistor's works are lost. To get Polyhistor's figures, you have to consult Eusebius.

Eusebius in Chronicon, bk. 1.9 cites Polyhistor, whose source was Berossus, who gives 20 years for Nabopolassar and 12 years for Evil-Merodach.

Eusebius in Praeparatio Evangelica, bk. 9, ch. XL (and in Chronicon) cites Josephus, whose source was Berossus, who gives 21 years for Nabopolassar and 2 years for Evil-Merodach.

Interestingly, Insight Vol. I, p. 453 provides a possible ... um ... insight into why some of Polyhistor's figures (as given by Eusebius) are different:

"Of his [Berossus'] writings Professor Olmstead remarks: ' . . . only the merest fragments, abstracts or traces have come down to us. And the most important of these fragments have come down through a tradition almost without parallel. Today we must consult a modern Latin translation of an Armenian translation of the lost Greek original of the Chronicle of Eusebius, who borrowed in part from Alexander Polyhistor who borrowed from Berossus direct, and in part from Abydenus who apparently borrowed from Juba who borrowed from Alexander Polyhistor and so from Berossus. To make a worse confusion, Eusebius has in some cases not recognized the fact that Abydenus is only a feeble echo of Polyhistor, and has quoted the accounts of each side by side!' He continues: 'And this is not the worst. Although his Polyhistor account is in general to be preferred, Eusebius seems to have used a poor manuscript of that author.' (Assyrian Historiography, pages 62, 63)" [emphasis added]

Could the different figures attributed to Polyhistor be corruptions in the text? It would seem so.

The full quote by Olmstead is available at http://www.aina.org/books/ah.pdf. To punch home the point about all roads leading back to Berossus, Olmstead adds in his following paragraph,

"Summing up, practically all the authentic knowledge that the classical world has of the Assyrians and Babylonians came from Berossus."

As regards the Josephus column in the Watchtower article's table, it's telling that only the figures from Antiquities, X.11 are given, as if these are solely the ones Josephus uses. Nabopolassar's regnal years are omitted in the table presumably because in the midst of that section, Josephus quotes Berossus who assigns 21 years to him. Naturally, Josephus' later book, Against Apion, has regnal years identical to the first Berossus column in the table - indeed, to get these Berossus figures in the table, one has to consult Josephus!

The Ptolemy column matches the Berossus column anyway - with the exception of Labashi-Marduk who reigned less than a year and didn't need counting.

Here is a table that doesn't compare Berossus with a row of historians whose source was ultimately Berossus (other than, perhaps, Ptolemy):

Source: Berossos and Manetho, Introduced and Translated: Native Traditions in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt - Gerald Verbrugghe, John Wickersham, John Moore Wickersham (University of Michigan Press, 2001).



1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

 

Do you mean 1934 CE is significant then?

 

That depends on whether the Dan. 4's '7 times' calculation = (360 days x 7 =) 2,520 days = ('day for a year') 2,520 years is sound hermeneutic, and also depends on whether Luke 21:24 has anything to do with Dan. 4.

If not, then 'no.'

Quote

AllenSmith 8/21/2016 

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

 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.   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.