Jump to content
The World News Media


JOHN BUTLER

Recommended Posts


  • Views 14.4k
  • Replies 224
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm just trying to be fair, and I believe the truth is the truth and a lie is a lie no matter who says it.

That's true. You can. That's the nature of social media. You could tell the truth, and no one needs to believe you. I could tell the truth, and no one needs to believe me. Someone could just as easily

Perhaps that was the reason I didn't suggest his book was proof. I think I purposely worded it something like this: Why would I be speaking of "proof" if my whole point was based on how we near

Posted Images

  • Member
On 5/17/2019 at 5:15 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

Well, I do. I tracked her down and addressed her post, both on her forum and mine.

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/05/misrepresenting-jw-child-abuse-policy.html

The difference is, SHE is saying CONGREGANTS are not told, the Org is saying PARENTS are told. 

So she is not telling lies or misleading anyone, you are TTH. 

As I've mentioned before, grandparents and others are quite often responsible for children in the congregation. I've known people bring other people's children to meetings. There was even a mother in my ex congregation that would drop her children at the front door of the KH, because the mother was Dis/fed but she still wanted her children at the meetings. She was obviously there to pick the children up at the end of the meetings. But her three children were there without parents, being looked after by other congregants. Yes a strange arrangement, but the mum is now back in the Org. 

So i still ask, why are the GB and Elders still protecting Pedophile  ?  The Apostle Paul wasn't frightened to make things known about people. 

Why do the Elders not announce it directly from the platform. After all it seems they do a 'talk' about it weeks later.

It is all too obvious that the GB and it's JW Org do not follow Bile principles. 

The GB and it's Org are actually frightened of reality.

When you look at the Bible accounts of the early Christians, what they did, what happened to them, how they 'obeyed God  as ruler rather than men', it shows that they had complete trust in God through Christ. 

The GB are just old men living a comfortable lifestyle, not prepared to go to the limits that early Christians did. 

I do sometimes wonder if God looks down and thinks that no one on this earth is taking Him seriously enough. 

Reminds me of when the Nation of Israel was frightened to go into the Promised Land, so God gave them 40 years in the wilderness.

It certainly seems like the GB and it's Org is in a wilderness, but totally lost with no guidance. 

Unfortunately it is all run from America. It's all about business and legality. Americans love to sue each other. Big money earner. Hence the GB / Org is frightened to be totally honest about those who are 'members'.  

If you cannot see how far away from true Christianity the GB and it's Org is, that is because you are not a true Christian.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

As I've mentioned before, grandparents and others are quite often responsible for children in the congregation

Maybe, just maybe, juusssstttttt maybe,.....the parents will tell the grandparents.

At any rate, I cannot run these things by Alexandra. After a furious exchange, in which she was more shrill even than you, she blocked me. 

That makes three. Four, if you count Lloyd, who did not block me on Twitter, but did ban me on his website. These people do not like dissent. I have never been rude to any of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Maybe, just maybe, juusssstttttt maybe,.....the parents will tell the grandparents.

At any rate, I cannot run these things by Alexandra. After a furious exchange, in which she was more shrill even than you, she blocked me. 

That makes three. Four, if you count Lloyd, who did not block me on Twitter, but did ban me on his website. These people do not like dissent. I have never been rude to any of them.

TTH, you do come across as, A.sarcastic, and B. thinking of yourself as someone special.... You are an author, and deny it as you might, being an author serves you two purposes, it earns you money and gets you recognition. 

Now maybe, just maybe, those people that you disagree with know exactly you reasons for disagreeing with them, and maybe they don't 'take the bait' that you want them to. You do tend to make it known that you use most of your interactions for content in your books. Doing so also makes you seem less honest, or at least have less honest intentions. It's like saying, "the only reason I'm talking to you is to use you in my book to earn me money". For my part, if you use me in any of your books I think it's funny, but to some people that have a more serious outlook they may find it offensive. (I think Billy child finds it offensive that you use comments off here in your books :) ). 

As for your idea of 'parents telling grandparents' yes but that could be seen as gossip and that can be seen as 'causing a division in the congregation'. Surely you can understand that if people in the congregation start accusing others of being a pedophile, that would cause upset. You still haven't answered my question of 'Why can't it be announced directly from the platform ?  Or is it because of the problem of being sued. If the pedophile knows that the parents in their  congregation have been told then said pedophile will be aware that it will be spread around anyway, even though according to JW 'rules' it shouldn't be spread around. It really makes a comedy show of all of it.  The Org needs people like the Apostle Paul in every congregation. Get everything out in the open. Wash the inside of the dish or bowl before trying to clean the outside, as Jesus said.

Probably nothing new here for your book sorry :) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

You do tend to make it known that you use most of your interactions for content in your books. Doing so also makes you seem less honest, or at least have less honest intentions. 

Most of the New Testament is in the form of letters written to someone else. Those recipients, too, could have voiced similar complaints. I just find I write better when I am responding to a specific person or group of persons. I don’t deliberately set them up. I just write after the fact. Paul did too, apparently.

As for money, I haven’t make enough yet to offset the outgoing expenses. Maybe that will change someday—I too, have a light bill—but I have resolved that the two most recent ebooks of opposition in Russia and in the West will always be free in some electronic format. That does not mean that other formats will be, or even that every ebook format will be, though it is so now. I would be surprised if I ever make any serious money, though if I do I will buy me a Cadillac-ac-ac-ac-ac.

As for recognition, no matter how many people read these books, it is not enough. To my knowledge, both are the largest (and perhaps only) significant compilations of relevant subject matters.

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I think Billy child finds it offensive that you use comments off here in your books 

Billy finds everything offensive. Anyone who makes any comment on social media meant to be public is fair game for rebuttal.

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

You still haven't answered my question of 'Why can't it be announced directly from the platform ?  

Until the late 70s, it was standard practice that anyone reproved would have that fact announced publicly—the reproof, not the wrongdoing that triggered it. At that time it was reasoned, that since a reproved person is such because he has been seen to be repentant, and the goal therefore become his healing, will he really be helped to recover by being exposed to everyone as a “practicer of sin?” 

(“Reprove before all onlookers those who practice sin, as a warning to the rest.” 1 Timothy 5:20)

The “onlookers” was taken to mean not the whole congregation but those who knew of the wrongdoing, which might be just two or three. Only in cases where the wrongdoing was known or would soon be known to everyone would the reproof be made public. I think the policy you object to is just an application of the above, with the added caution that those who would truly need to know, parents of minors, would be notified. They could be trusted to pass it along to anyone who might need to know, such as a guardian.

Don’t forget that this only is for those deemed repentant—cut to the heart and with expressed resolve to turn around. Rarely, if ever, are we speaking of forcible rape here, but some lesser form of molestation.

Any degree of premeditation or grooming would cast serious doubt on any claim of repentance. This would almost certainly be the case with rape, and these ones are generally disfellowshipped, not reproved. When that happens, the same ones here that claim disfellowshipping is horribly cruel and excessive claim, in this case, that it is only a slap on the wrist and means nothing at all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
14 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

WDS

Right off the bat, she demanded a retraction and apology. She had not charged that we have no policy, she said. She had a point. She had not said it, but the implication was plain as day.

However, she shot back that she had not implied it, either. I responded that had she but included the online paragraph, even to criticize it, her vows of pure honesty would be more believable, for it is clearly the most relevant writing on her topic.

At that, she fired off a couple of zingers and then blocked me. If you want to block, just block. From my point of view, that is the sure sign of a desperation—to throw a new charge and then block any reply. 

Of course, JWs have mechanisms that amount to blocking, too. The difference is that we don’t pretend otherwise. There comes a time when you simply have to muzzle some people:

(“It is necessary to shut their mouths, because these very men keep on subverting entire households by teaching things they should not for the sake of dishonest gain.” Titus 1:11)

These folks, on the other hand, are constantly on the prowl for JWs to engage with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

@TrueTomHarley Do you believe ANY of the cases, from ANY country in this earth, that say an Elder was allowed to keep his position and status and his conduct was kept hidden, so he was able to abuse more children or abuse the same child on a regular basis ?  Do you actually believe that this did happen in some cases ?  Or are you saying that the JW Org is so so so clean and so well organised that those things would / could never happen ? 

Honest reply in as few words as possible please. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Most of the New Testament is in the form of letters written to someone else. ........ I just write after the fact. Paul did too, apparently.

I found this interesting. Did they, (Bible) Writers of Private Letters to someone, were Inspired to wrote text about something, or did they just made Description (Fact, Advice, Lesson, Judgement etc.)  about something what people of those time has done? ..... Just as you TTH doing today. Do you find yourself Inspired for writing books? 

 

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

will he really be helped to recover by being exposed to everyone as a “practicer of sin?” 

Question has their place, of course.  But then, we can ask in similar manner - If exposing the name of a sinner to public is not pedagogically  sustainable,  in same logic somebody can argue how excommunication is also questionable method to bring someone back to right path.

 

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

the added caution that those who would truly need to know, parents of minors, would be notified. They could be trusted to pass it along to anyone who might need to know, such as a guardian.

This is something strange. Elders, as legal body, are authorized to tell to particular individual or few of them, The Confidential Information. After that this individual or few of them, according to my understanding of your words, could be trusted  to pass it along to anyone... Strange thing again.

How does non authorized individuals ( rank and file members) can be in same category, in such Delicate issue, as Elders who, supposedly, have all important information about case and was faced with matter in wider range? 

 How is possible that congregants have to believe and trust HearSay information from second hand, from Brother (or Sister :)))) aka Parents who are not The Elder/Elderessa . 

 

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Rarely, if ever, are we speaking of forcible rape here, but some lesser form of molestation.

? ....confused about meaning.

 

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

ones here that claim disfellowshipping is horribly cruel

Crime we talking about (sexual crimes and child molestation) are cruel. To put such one in hand of Justice is not cruel. If that including Report to police, DFD from church or Fired from job looks as normal reaction of society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

    • Pudgy

      Pudgy 2,380

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • JW Insider

      JW Insider 9,694

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • xero

      xero 2,295

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,669
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Miracle Pete
    Joined
×
×
  • 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.