Ann O'Maly

What was the purpose of the conference?

3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

However, I would not go as far as to say that many of them feel the way you stated below.

Well, let's say it was enough of an issue among the JW ranks to warrant it being officially addressed.

3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Quite true, but are you referring to marriage in a general sense or amongst Jehovah's Witnesses?

Both. That's why teen marriages are discouraged among JWs as well as generally in western society.

3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

However, many of the usual archive pics have pretty positive comments as well, so I have no reason to suspect hypocrisy.

Do you think JWs would post negative comments about their photographed theocratic activities on a JW board? 

3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Hypocrisy is an extremely stressful course to pursue

Indeed it is for those with a conscience and those who are forced by circumstance to maintain the facade until they are in a position to escape. The stress can, at times, be so intense that it even leads a young one to consider (or actually commit) suicide.

3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I think it is worth noting that this trauma is not just an experience that Jehovah's Witnesses go through when deciding to reject the religion of their families. It can also be experienced by those who leave a strong religious background to become Jehovah's Witnesses. I have seen some pretty difficult times experienced, for example, by Jewish, Muslim, Hindu  as well as Roman Catholic youths who have decided to become Jehovah's Witnesses independent of their families.

Absolutely. I think other religions' negative attitudes toward JWs is partly due to the perception that JWs are a high control group that distances its members from the wider community (unless it's to evangelize). Additionally, any religious belief system that views itself as the only true path to God is going to react badly if a family member defects to another religion. But as the Awake! once said:

"No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family." - http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102009251

This also holds true for those wishing to leave the JW religion, and yet this is the agonizing choice many young JWs are faced with.

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I would need to hear the whole talk to evaluate that assessment.

Be my guest. https://youtu.be/dEJ9BGDpHOw?t=3h57m28s

It makes no difference to his suggestion that parents blackmail their child into baptism by withholding permission for him/her to get a driving permit.

He said it before in a previous talk: https://youtu.be/AKVMFGfh0uc?t=58s. Apparently he used this tactic on one of his own sons.

15 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

A view of many who are not Jehovah's Witnesses presumably. 

A view of many who are JWs too. I guess that is why the GB has responded by promoting child baptisms* and addressing the misgivings parents and their children have. See http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011441 - box on p. 6, 'Should My Child Put Off Baptism?'

15 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Young people who sincerely dedicate their lives to Jehovah do not plan to fail in fulfilling their promise.

Of course they don't. Just as a teen who gets married does not plan for their marriage to fail. But [bleep] happens.

15 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

The many photos shown on this jw-archive of young people enjoying theocratic activity seem to bear this out.

Do you think they would post photos on a JW board of themselves looking miserable? Lol.

15 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Certainly in my own experience, many young people I know, baptized at an early age, are living happy, productive, well balanced, and successful lives, quite convinced that their early decision has led them to the "best life ever".

Maybe so. There are also lots of young people who wear a painted-on smile when at the meetings and in service but are secretly unhappy with the so-called 'best life ever.' They often end up on ex-jw forums relating how trapped and scared they feel, and asking for advice on how to leave without getting kicked out or losing their family and friends. I've seen countless examples during my online life.

--------

* Even advocating blackmailing them into baptism. See excerpt: Anthony Morris III, Sunday final talk, 2015 Convention - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MreJ8tLYIso -

On 5/4/2016 at 4:05 AM, Gregorio Alberto said:

QUESTION: Would you really allow your baby to die because of this WT instruction?

No. For one I do not see a situation where a baby would need a blood transfusion. ...

Yikes! Maybe you need to do some research.

On 5/4/2016 at 4:34 AM, Gregorio Alberto said:

QUESTION: Since blood is not taken in as food to digest, but as life sustaining fluid, is it not clear that transfusion is different from eating?

Of course it is not the same thing as eating. Never once does the WT say that it is.

WT begs to differ.

*** w69 6/1 pp. 326-327 Godly Respect for Life and Blood ***
Some persons may reason that getting a blood transfusion is not actually “eating.” But is it not true that when a patient is unable to eat through his mouth, doctors often feed him by the same method in which a blood transfusion is administered? Examine the scriptures carefully and notice that they tell us to ‘keep free from blood’ and to ‘abstain from blood.’ (Acts 15:20, 29) What does this mean? If a doctor were to tell you to abstain from alcohol, would that mean simply that you should not take it through your mouth but that you could transfuse it directly into your veins? Of course not! So, too, abstaining from blood means not taking it into our bodies at all.
 

*** w63 2/15 p. 124 Carry Your Own Load of Responsibility ***
Someone may argue with you that the Scriptures are referring to the “eating” of blood but that blood is not taken into the digestive system during a transfusion. True, but the fact is that by a direct route the blood serves the same purpose as food when taken into the stomach, namely, strengthening the body or sustaining life. It is not the same as a vaccine given to a healthy person to ward off a disease. Blood is given to a weak or sick person to build him up, just as food is given to nourish him.
 

*** w51 7/1 p. 415 Questions From Readers ***
Many say receiving a transfusion is not like eating blood. Is this view sound?
A patient in the hospital may be fed through the mouth, through the nose, or through the veins. When sugar solutions are given intravenously, it is called intravenous feeding. So the hospital’s own terminology recognizes as feeding the process of putting nutrition into one’s system via the veins. Hence the attendant administering the transfusion is feeding the patient blood through the veins, and the patient receiving it is eating it through his veins. After all the artful contrivings and reasonings and quibblings are over, the bald fact remains that a goodly quantity of one creature’s blood has been deliberately taken into the system of another. That is what is forbidden by God, regardless of method.
 

Rather than watch 2 hours of video, can you briefly outline why Petra may not fit into JWs' common view of archaeology/chronology?

If people are anything like me, they'll have a corner stuffed full of plastic bags that have been collected and saved over the years.

All it takes is altering our habits in that we remember to take some bags with us when we go shopping so we can reuse them to death. The demand for new plastic bags and wastage will plummet which has to benefit an environment already swamped with plastic. 

I kinda feel sorry for the bag manufacturers, though.

On 5/4/2016 at 11:46 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

I am having trouble understanding how baptism could be viewed as a contract in a secular legal sense in that elements could be regulated and possibly enforceable by the state.

I am making a comparison. 

-If secular law puts restrictions in place to protect minors from making unalterable decisions, 

-If dedication to God and baptism as a JW is the most weighty decision and vow a person can make - even more serious than getting married or signing up for a mortgage, 

-If the consequences from changing one's mind, contravening a scriptural law or doing something that the org disapproves of can result in the child being an outcast and shunned by extended JW family and friends, 

-Then the ethics of baptizing JW children is highly questionable. 

I understand that other religions baptize their young but, as you noted, the meaning of baptism, allowed ages and church discipline varies widely. The main concern is what happens to a baptized child member if he sins.

E.g. the LDS church baptizes children of 8 years old and they also excommunicate minors, unfortunately. In contrast with both the JWs and the LDS church, while the Catholic church baptizes infants (and later confirmation is permitted from about age 7), there is no excommunication for minors. This is the Church's position on a minor committing one of the worst sins a Catholic can make:

Objectively, procuring an abortion remains an intrinsically evil act and a very serious sin.  Yet with regards to subjective guilt as well as canonical penalties, these are reduced if an excusing or diminishing factor presents itself.

In the case of this seventeen-year old girl, the most obvious diminishing factor is that of age. The Church doesn’t feel that a minor should be subjected to severe canonical penalties.  Thus canon 1324, §1, 4° states: “The perpetrator of a violation is not exempted from penalty, but the penalty prescribed in the law or precept must be diminished, or a penance substituted in its place, if the offense was committed by: […] a minor who has completed the sixteenth year of age.”  In other words, someone between the ages of sixteen and eighteen who procures an abortion can’t be excommunicated, either for abortion or for any other offense, but rather some lesser penalty or a penance must be substituted in its place.  For anybody under the age of eighteen is exempt from latae sententiae penalties, and in keeping with canon 1323, 1°, anybody under the age of sixteen is exempt from any canonical penalty whatsoever.

http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/canon_law_101.html

Releasing a magazine that scapegoats homosexuals as pedophiles is hardly being 'proactive' against child abuse. 

I only saw The Librarian's response after I hit submit.

Duly noted, sir. 

2 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

For these, apparently so:

2Pet.3:15-16. "our beloved brother Paul also wrote you according to the wisdom given him, speaking about these things as he does in all his letters. However, some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction"

OK. Apparently you are trying to say that some interpretations kill faith while (I presume) other interpretations strengthen faith? Am I understanding you right? If so, why didn't you say so in the first place?

Assuming that the interpretation is pretty much sound, isn't that the scaffold upon which faith hangs?

6 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Why not? It's of more interest than watching soap operas right?

Huh?

6 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

As for the necessity for human detritus to corroborate God's word of truth .....not required.

Compare  2Thess. 2:13 "..when you received God’s word, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of God.."

But the Beroeans. And Luke.

Are you a "naive person" that "believes every word" (Prov. 14:15)?

*** g00 3/8 pp. 26-27 True Faith—What Is It? ***
Faith or Credulity?
Much of what passes for faith today is in reality credulity—a readiness to believe without a valid basis or reason. Credulity is often built on the shifting sands of emotion and superstition. This is not well-founded faith because it has no reliable basis for belief.
Credulity could cause one to jump to conclusions that may be out of harmony with Bible truth. Accordingly, the Bible warns against unfounded faith: “Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps.” (Proverbs 14:15) The apostle Paul wrote: “Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) The Bible does not promote credulity. It does encourage faith based on evidence.
 

24 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

So, are you saying that without artifacts to corroborate, the Bible is not true?

No. I said:

"If the Bible is not true, faith in it will not lead to everlasting life either."

9 hours ago, Annie Frendon Savino said:

Sadly the CQC inspection does not reflect that.

The CQC inspection is looking at whether the home is working in accordance with governmental regulations and thereby reflecting current best practice. The same criteria applies to 'worldly' homes as well. 

The problems at Jah-Jireh Wigan weren't centered around the general ethos but were these:

Quote

The breaches of the regulations were in relation to staffing levels, medicines management, safety of the premises and monitoring the safety and quality of the service. -  INS2-2453310514.pdf

 It's good to see that improvements have been made since. 

The report had lots of positive comments too. 

13 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I'm not playing Ann O'Maly. Your meaning is not clear and my response depends on which is true.

The 1968 WT quote wasn't clear enough?

13 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

The context includes  "Any reasoning based on this view would not reflect matters as Jehovah's Witnesses see things. It may, however, reflect matters as non-Witnesses or ex-Witnesses would see things."

This was summarized in your preceding statement:

"This is not an assessment that one of Jehovah's Witnesses would make."

13 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

e.g. Witnesses do not view:  baptism as a "rubber-stamp";  dedication as a "commitment"  Those who are not dedicated Jehovah's Witnesses often use these descriptions.

'Rubber-stamp' - I meant it in the same metaphorical way as a wedding ceremony officially 'rubber-stamps' a relationship as being committed and permanent.

'Commitment': 

Quote

Synonyms
adhesion, allegiance, attachment, fidelity, constancy, dedication, devotedness, devotion, faith, faithfulness, fastness, fealty, loyalty, piety, steadfastness, troth - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commitment

*** w79 10/1 p. 27 par. 20 “The Keys of the Kingdom” and the “Great Crowd” ***
These [of the 'sheep' class] come under the obligation to commit themselves to Jehovah’s Fine Shepherd, Jesus Christ. They show their commitment by “consecrating,” or dedicating, themselves to Jehovah through Christ. 

Yes. You are playing with words.

12 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Wrong!

Bible truth does not depend on the corroboration of decaying artifacts. 

Oh dear. If Bible truth does not depend on the corroboration of decaying artifacts, why do the Org. and other Bible believers go to great pains to provide historical evidence for biblical accounts and characters?

See for example:

• http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2012403 - History, Not Myth.
• The Awake's 'A Book You Can Trust' series beginning 11/2010

And there are too many other examples to list.

12 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Faith in Aesop's Fables will not lead to everlasting life.

If the Bible is not true, faith in it will not lead to everlasting life either.

13 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Not me! 

2Pet.3:15-16. [snipped]

So there's fallacy in them there arguments!

I don't follow (again). You said that biblical interpretation is the gallows upon which faith hangs. I asked for clarification and if you thought interpretation kills faith. Now you've backtracked. 

6 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

The life of the JW organisation or the life of the  witness?

Stop playing.    You know full well the answer to that question.

9 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I see you quoted me out of context on the subject of baptism.

How so?

9 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

May I ask are you speaking as an ex-Witness or a non-Witness?

Technically neither.

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

No. Of course they haven't.

BUT the scenario you paint is too trivial to illustrate the point you are hoping to make.

 I see my point hit home.

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

This is not an assessment that one of Jehovah's Witnesses would make.

Really? Doesn't baptism rubber stamp a vow with God to do His will and work along with the JW organization for life?

*** w06 4/1 p. 22 ‘Go and Make Disciples, Baptizing Them’ ***
The Two Baptismal Questions
  On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?
  Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization?
 

*** w68 5/15 p. 307 par. 16 “Fear the True God and Keep His Commandments” ***
No dedication to Jehovah is acceptable with a time stipulation attached. One cannot say he will serve for a certain period of time only. Rather, it is a lifetime promise, and the one coming before Jehovah God is expected to keep that promise.

Has this view about a lifetime commitment changed?

Surely, without artifacts to corroborate Bible history, you might as well have faith in Aesop's Fables, right?

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

More like the gallows.

Bible interpretation kills faith? Is that what you're saying?

On 4/24/2016 at 11:04 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

I don't believe that Jehovah wants me to base my faith on the fading artifacts and conflicting interpretations of humans grappling with these at best, incomplete records no matter how persuasive they may seem.

I think I'll discard all the crumbling, dusty secular "evidence" for everything, including 539 BCE, interesting though it is. Then I can construct a view based on the word of God alone. If there are some apparently corroborative features in the secular field, then fine. If not, then fine too. That element will not arbitrate on what I believe anyway.

Questions (open to all):

1. If there were no artifacts to corroborate Bible history, on what would your faith be based? 

2. Biblical interpretation is the scaffold upon which faith hangs, is it not? 

Thank you, Hugh! 

The medal should really go to JW Insider, though. 

On 4/28/2016 at 9:50 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

For me, there is a wider issue here around baptism of minors.

Absolutely. Particularly in the JW faith, a baptism is a lifelong contract - not only with God, but with a religious organization. With contract law, generally speaking, a minor can void a contract without legal repercussions.

http://contracts.uslegal.com/contract-by-a-minor/

There are also protections in law to prevent those lacking capacity to enter into long-term binding contracts, e.g. being able to marry. JWs have likened baptism to a kind of marriage and being far more important than the day of one's wedding. If dedication and baptism have this level of gravity, does a 12 year old, say, have the capacity and maturity to make so binding and irrevocable a commitment as this? The minor cannot void this contract without serious and traumatizing repercussions. Is that fair?

Another consideration is that when one is disfellowshipped, the relationship with a religious organization is broken. The relationship with extended family and friends is a separate thing, no? 

To illustrate:

Andre works at his local Walmart. His whole family shop there all the time and have done so for years. One day Sophia, his niece, is caught shoplifting. She's been going through a bad patch but this is her first offence. Nevertheless, Walmart press charges and she gets convicted of a misdemeanor. Walmart also bans her from the store for a year. For Sophia this is a wake-up call. She has grown up a lot and been acting responsibly. She shops at Target now.

Andre and his family stop all contact with Sophia. They don't respond to her emails and texts other than that one time when they reminded her she is banned from Walmart and has a misdemeanor conviction so they are not supposed to communicate with her. When Andre and his wife had their wedding anniversary, they invited the whole family round to celebrate - except Sophia. Andre even invited some of Sophia's long-time friends. When Sophia asked why she wasn't invited, they said that, until the Walmart ban is lifted and she regularly shops there again, they cannot in good conscience associate with her.

Have Sophia's family and friends acted reasonably?

On 4/28/2016 at 6:51 AM, djsqueeze said:

Yes, it is  minor, but that minor should understand the consequences of their actions and that there are consequences for their actions. Everyone else needs to follow the principles as outlined.

Sure.

If a child has misbehaved, he needs discipline/correction. Sometimes there need to be additional sanctions (e.g. grounding, withdrawal of his money allowance for a set time). That's normal, good parenting.

If a child has committed a misdemeanor or felony offence, the justice system will mete out sanctions appropriate for the age and crime, perhaps restitution, and a program of rehabilitation so he doesn't reoffend.

But in both those instances, extended family and friends can remain in contact with him. They can visit, write, and speak to him. If he's not in juvy, he can even socialize with them. A supportive network of family and friends can be invaluable in turning that kid around.

Not so with a disfellowshipped minor. The 'sin' may not even be some contravention of biblical morality or a crime but only that his beliefs have changed - as they often do as children grow. Whatever the case, he is mixing with all the people he and his family know at the KH but, while they are enjoying free interaction with each other, he is being shunned. If this dynamic is psychologically damaging to an adult,* how much more so for a child? 

----

* https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beyond-bullying/201309/the-silence-shunning-conversation-kipling-william

21 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

you’ll find others that speculate on the accession year to be 603BC, 605BC.

There is no speculation about 605 BCE being Neb's accession year. The year is supported by all the available evidence.

On 4/25/2016 at 10:07 PM, Allen Smith said:

Well, the exaggeration is in the hyped up "Babylonian Chronicle"

And now we're back to your mistaken understanding which I already corrected a few posts ago.

On 4/25/2016 at 10:07 PM, Allen Smith said:

And as for historians, look them up, Just as the insinuation implies, too me they are all wannabes, since known of you have learned chronology the right way.

We get it. There are no historians you can name who believe 603 BCE was Neb's accession year after all.

On 4/25/2016 at 0:01 AM, Allen Smith said:

It would be NO different if a historian thought 605BC was Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year. That would make Neb rushing home from Carchemish in 606BC.

I hope that was a typo, otherwise you're having Neb rushing home (not from Carchemish, but from 'the area of Hamath') to claim the crown a year before his accession year!

Your screenshot of 'problems' with Jehoiakim's 3rd year and Daniel's 3 years training have long been resolved.

On 4/26/2016 at 11:45 AM, Shiwiii said:

so is Jesus a true god or not?

The question sets up a fallacy of the excluded middle. That's why I quoted Ps. 82.

Here I'd like to acknowledge those who pointed out that 'gods' here refer to humans - you're right. I should have checked beyond my old, brief scribblings when looking for a quick reference to post. 

18 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

I didn't imply it, you did.

I was referring to your unambiguous statement here:

On 4/23/2016 at 11:21 PM, Allen Smith said:

According to the Babylonian chronicles, Nebuchadnezzar was rushing back to Babylon from Carchemish.

The assumption was yours.

And I still would like you to name the historians who attest to Neb's accession year as being 603 BCE. I don't want to see wannabes. I want to see bona fide historians.