Jump to content
The World News Media

Norwegian court: Disfellowshipping was against the law

Jack Ryan

Recommended Posts

  • Views 3.9k
  • Replies 23
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Silly me, I forgot you jw's believe children are committing fornication when they are molested.

Wouldn't be the first time a jw woman got disfellowshipped for being raped.

A Norwegian JW woman, who was sexually abused, was disfellowshipped for fornication. The woman first appealed inside the organization - without success. Feeling injustice, she then decided to sue Jeho

  • Member
13 hours ago, Arauna said:

Playing games?  It does not hide the hate-OCD.

You are the one that is playing games, just as you have been trained by your leaders. They too accuse people of things just to hide their own sins. You use this silly OCD excuse because you are frightened to answer simple questions. If only you knew how sad it makes you look. 

But I'll say again You do not know the difference between serving Almighty God through Christ, or, serving your GB and it's Org. When the GB are gone it will be such a shock to you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
16 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

But it is possible that such decisions of the JW elders also happen.

True - and they will only come to this conclusion when evidence seem to point on this direction. When a person afterwards takes them to court do you think that person had the right heart condition ? Were they sinning and then avoided the consequences of their pattern of deceit?  Not repenting for what they were involved with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

This was the same scheme used in Canada

Article quote:

A new Supreme Court ruling that Jehovah’s Witnesses are free to banish and shun any member they wish, regardless of how they decide to do it, offers a powerful precedent for religious independence in Canada.

I would like to direct your attention how Court in Canada confirmed what WT lawyer David Gnam in UK tried to hide: JW's shun any member they wish. WT lawyer claimed before Court how: Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t use the word “shun” or “shunning”.   But this Court in Canada told The Truth, JW's not only using word shun, but have all rights to practice shunning over members (or ex members) they wish. - 

WTJWorg are so satisfied to use double measures in various court cases, and have no problem about own hypocrisy. Shameful! 

Article continue:

The top court’s decision rejects that view, bluntly refers to his “sinful” behaviour, and says it has no business making legal decisions about it. At issue were two episodes of drunkenness, one in which Wall “verbally abused” his wife, for which he was not “sufficiently repentant,” according to court records.

I don't clearly see how two episodes of drunkenness, one in which Wall “verbally abused” his wife is not something that can be  interesting to police or social  service or some other civil service in state. Drunkenness and abusing other people is something that is punishable in most countries. In his case somebody reported him to JW elders and not to secular authority for his "sinful behavior". If JW church have right, according to Canadian Supreme Court, to make decisions how they will "punish" "sinful behavior" of member, what is that different when some other church doing same according to their "religious beliefs", because as article say: But the Supreme Court has now said once and for all that the courts ought not to interfere in religious discipline.

Well, what is this different to "religious discipline", for example, to cut hand of thief or to stone adulteress because of  their "sin" -The top court’s decision rejects that view, bluntly refers to his “sinful” behaviour, and says it has no business making legal decisions about it. 

But all "civilized world" looks with disapproval when this sort of punishment is common practice in some societies. :))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
57 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Well, that's the prosecutor's perspective isn't it.

Sorry, i am not follow you. Prosecutor's perspective? I made quotes from article that described Court ruling, decisions and explanations, and nothing from prosecutor or his perspective. WT lawyer who defended Organization made "perspectives" and Court made "perspectives". 

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

They are supposed to undermine the truth, when they don't understand scripture law.

With or without understanding, WT lawyers often undermine the truth. 

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Then you question the Watchtower bylaws as though they should be run like a government. Where in scripture can you "prove" such a notion?

With or without scripture. With or without WT published material as "prove", WT Society want to act as theocratic state inside secular state. One popular Bible verse for that, for sure is, when 1st century followers were advised and recommended to go to elder's court of justice and not to secular courts, for their rights or because of lawsuits against fellow Christians. According to WT doctrines and policies, all elders are "equipped" to deal with all and every situation that can happen in "spiritual paradise" aka Organization aka JW Congregation. They formed "Judicial Committees" and other elder's bodies to fulfill various tasks in such process and proceeding. The existence of a "keepers"-brothers who monitoring (don't know English terminology in JW congregation, servant service, stewards or so) at meetings and congresses speaks of such a similarity too. Similarity is visible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Incorrect again, secular law wants to treat the Watchtower as a regular corporation just like you, former witnesses. That isn't going to happen, while God continues to be the instrument of our faith.

Regular or not, WT and other sister companies under GB directive are mix of many various entities in various forms of existence: IT company, Building company, Charity, Educational system, Religion, Civil participant for human and religious (political) rights in secular bodies, Financial company for collecting and multiplying money, and perhaps more.

Yes, WT is specific formation with "Priests and Kings" who wish and hope to take rulership over the Earth aka power over humankind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • … and donchew forget now … the GB now allows Sisters to come to meetings and go out in field service in slacks or Mumus.  Or slacks AND Mumus, if poundage appropriate. Did I ever mention I once dated a Sister that made Mumus out of parachutes? She was an Opera singer, and had a UN diplomatic passport. She was on “speed”, couldn’t blink, and typed 600 words a minute with 100% errors. Occasionally she would get lipstick in her eyebrows.  
    • In my perspective, when the Smithsonian Magazine covers a topic, I am inclined to trust their expertise. As for the shadows here, I see no benefit in entertaining irrational ideas from others. Let them hold onto their own beliefs. We shouldn't further enable their self-deception and misleading of the public.  
    • Hey Self! 🤣I came across this interesting conspiracy theory. There are scholars who firmly believe in the authenticity of those artifacts. I value having conversations with myself. The suggestion of a mentally ill person has led to the most obscure manifestation of a group of sorrowful individuals. 😁
    • I have considered all of their arguments. Some even apply VAT 4956 to their scenarios, which is acceptable. Anyone can use secular evidence if they genuinely seek understanding. Nonetheless, whether drawing from scripture or secular history, 607 is a plausible timeframe to believe in. People often misuse words like "destruction", "devastation", and "desolation" in an inconsistent manner, similar to words like "besiege", "destroy", and "sack". When these terms are misapplied to man-made events, they lose their true meaning. This is why with past historians, the have labeled it as follows: First Capture of Jerusalem 606 BC Second Capture of Jerusalem 598 BC Third Capture of Jerusalem 587 BC Without taking into account anything else.  Regarding the second account, if we solely rely on secular chronology, the ancient scribes made military adaptations to align with the events recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles. However, the question arises: Can we consider this adaptation as accurate?  Scribes sought to include military components in their stories rather than focusing solely on biblical aspects. Similarly, astronomers, who were also scholars, made their observations at the king's request to divine omens, rather than to understand the plight of the Jewish people. Regarding the third capture, we can only speculate because there are no definitive tablets like the Babylonian chronicles that state 598. It is possible that before the great tribulation, Satan will have influenced someone to forge more Babylonian chronicles in order to discredit the truth and present false evidence from the British Museum, claiming that the secular view was right all along. This could include documents supposedly translated after being found in 1935, while others were found in the 1800s. The Jewish antiquities authorities have acknowledged the discovery of forged items, while the British Museum has not made similar acknowledgments. It is evident that the British Museum has been compelled to confess to having looted or stolen artifacts which they are unwilling to return. Consequently, I find it difficult to place my trust in the hands of those who engage in such activities. One of the most notable instances of deception concerning Jewish antiquities was the widely known case of the ossuary belonging to James, the brother of Jesus. I was astonished by the judge's inexplicable justification for acquittal, as it was evident that his primary concern was preserving the reputation of the Jewish nation, rather than unearthing the truth behind the fraudulent artifact. The judge before even acknowledged it. "In his decision, the judge was careful to say his acquittal of Golan did not mean the artifacts were necessarily genuine, only that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Golan had faked them." The burden of proof is essential. This individual not only forged the "Jehoash Tablet," but also cannot be retried for his deceit. Why are they so insistent on its authenticity? To support their narrative about the first temple of Jerusalem. Anything to appease the public, and deceive God. But then again, after the Exodus, when did they truly please God? So, when it comes to secular history, it's like a game of cat and mouse.  
  • Members

    • Pudgy

      Pudgy 2,411

      Last active:
    • Anna

      Anna 5,083

      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
    • Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
    • Most Online

    Newest Member
  • 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.