Anna

I get the feeling TTH is like a clever drugs dealer.  The clever drugs dealer gives away small quantities of drugs to get people started on taking them regularly. Then when the people need the drugs, the dealer starts charging them money for them. 
Perhaps TTH is giving away 'samples' of his 'works' just to get people 'hooked' on his books. Then, he will start charging high prices. This time next year he'll be a millionaire.  

@JOHN BUTLER
I wanted to know why you were so upset over this conversation we had about the two witness rule:
 
 

Obviously there are some who push the boundaries and think it's ok as long as there is no actual intercourse/oral sex involved. You know, they rationalize.... a bit like Clinton, when he said he wasn't being unfaithful to his wife because oral sex isn't really sex.
The WT wouldn't have printed this unless it was a problem.

You need to use the complete phrase: "sexual immorality requiring judicial action"

If some don't know anything abot it, they will by now, or at the latest in July.
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-may-2019/
 

adjective: permissive
1. allowing or characterized by great or excessive freedom of behavior. "the permissive society of the 60s and 70s" synonyms: liberal, broad-minded, open-minded, nonrestrictive, free, free and easy, easygoing, live-and-let-live, latitudinarian, laissez-faire, libertarian, unprescriptive, unrestricted, tolerant, forbearing, indulgent, lenient; More  
No, Jehovah Witnesses have never been permissive or tolerant towards immorality of any kind. Anyone practicing these things is disfellowshipped.
 
 
 
 

I can try to move the CSA centric posts here to there, but they will sort themselves by the time of the post and might cause some confusion there too as they "interleave" with the original posts, there. I'll look to see if it might improve things.
OK. I moved them. This will effect posts by @Witness, @Srecko Sostar, @Anna, @JOHN BUTLER, @TrueTomHarley

Moved a bunch of posts from another thread to here. This will effect posts by @Witness, @Srecko Sostar, @Anna, @JOHN BUTLER, @TrueTomHarley, @Shiwiii.

Yes, Shiwiiiiiii, let’s go at this again:
I repeat, the problem is solved. Where law requires it, elders report & any concern that might make members reluctant to do that has been removed.
Where is it not required? If, with all the worldwide outrage over CSA, you cannot get it mandated, then it is time to give up all hope and admit that the world you have chosen will never rise above the civilization where it finds roots—ancient Greece, where CSA was an enshrined practice in society.
Moreover, when confronted with an issue with obvious legal implications, I know of no other scenario where consulting with one’s attorney first would be spun as an evil, as it is when BOE’s speak with WT Legal first. This is done, not to evade law, but to ensure compliance with it. Unless there has been human error, JWs always act in compliance with law, but the outrage over CSA (and the disillusionment with religion) triggers reinterpretation of law to present it that they did not.

Same answer I gave to John:
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-may-2019/love-justice-face-of-wickedness/
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-may-2019/comfort-victims-of-abuse/

I don't see a problem there at all. The two witness rule is irrelevant when it comes to reporting to the police, as has been mentioned several times already. The two witness rule is only for elders handling the issue.

Still waiting to hear about the new IICSA inquiry here in UK. They are so busy looking into so many other organisations.
https://www.iicsa.org.uk/ 

Of course. This demand for public apologies is largely a PR event. It is worth noting that when Australia apologized and opposers praised that apology to the heavens because they thought they could thereby embarrass JWs, the victims nonetheless rejected it as ‘too little, too late.’
I think it also fits in well with a certain legal strategy in that it constitutes a clear admission of guilt, thereafter better enabling lawsuits. Few things are done for the noble ‘window-dressing’ reasons that are given.

Sorry i find some of this funny, but of course it isn't funny from God's viewpoint.
Any true Christian, well in my opinion, would not even enter such a place of 'entertainment'. 
But then I don't even drink alcohol and never go into pubs / bars, as i see no need for any on it.  
 

Lap dance all you want, Jack. You have moved on, so it is hardly your concern.

People should be concerned about how these things look Jehovah not just to men.  If we get the mind of Christ, we would see the seriousness of this lawless act.   Some scriptures that shed light of this kind of behaviour are:
1 Thessalonians 5:22-24 King James Version (KJV)
22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.
 
(Psalm 97:10) 10  " O you who love Jehovah, hate what is bad. He is guarding the lives of his loyal ones;. . ."

(1 Peter 4:3, 4)" For the time that has passed by is sufficient for you to have done the will of the nations when you carried on in acts of brazen conduct, unbridled passions, overdrinking, wild parties, drinking bouts, and lawless idolatries. 4 They are puzzled that you do not continue running with them in the same decadent course of debauchery, so they speak abusively of you."
 
(Proverbs 13:19, 20) . . . 20 " The one walking with the wise will become wise, But the one who has dealings with the stupid will fare badly."

 

It says: "Depending on the facts of the actual situation, this COULD constitute sexual immorality". In other words if the actual situation involved intercourse/oral sex, then that would constitute sexual immorality.......(and would be grounds for divorce).

It says: "Depending on the facts of the actual situation, this COULD constitute sexual immorality". In other words if the actual situation involved intercourse/oral sex, then that would constitute sexual immorality.......(and would be grounds for divorce).

Some parents are guilty of  encouraging children to delay baptism because they have no confidence in the child's ability to live up to their baptism, and some pressure children to get baptized before they learn the truth and make their own decision.

I'm going to have another go at this.
I do not think that 'TrueTom vs the Apostates!' is a great book in its writing. It is adequately written. It gets the job done. It is even a little haphazard in its organization. Another person might do it better.
However, it is a great book in that it is the only one of its kind. And it should not be. There should be more, but there are not. I am convinced that there are many friends and onlookers who need such material. Maybe there shouldn't be, but there are.
@JW Insider, more than any single person, helped me in my writing of it. His input was very slight, no more than a sporadic word or two on occasion, sometimes publicly, sometimes not. Where I was too aggressive or undiscerning, his observations put me back on track. Where I was flat-out wrong on a few things, he bluntly corrected me and thereby made my work more effective. He knows where I am coming from. Where I ignored him I afterwards came to realize why I shouldn't have.
Whether it is wise for him to carry on at such length as he does here I do not know. But I do know why he does it and why he does it the way he does it. I respect him for it, and I cannot detect an ill motive. That is not to say that he might not be loony, but in my case, he has proven more valuable than he knows.

so what DID you see?

But the cops might be immoral too, or even pedophiles also.Who knows. Would create a bigger problem.
 

Yes, I noticed that too. I think this is the same pattern of reasoning as in AW 7/09 "Is wrong to change your religion".