Jump to content
The World News Media

Watch Tower Ups Pressure on YouTube & Facebook To Hand Over Infringers’ Details


Recommended Posts

  • Member
2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The German Court, representing persons of legal stature who have both oars in the water, pronounced it absolutely false.

Has the German Court read the magazines?

See the anointed in Wt's heaven below, posted under the fair use act for teaching purposes only, as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law, and freely obtained from Google's images.  

 

2 hours ago, Witness said:

FECRIS falsely claimed that the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that “there is a difference between men and women who receive the heavenly calling from God, in that only women ‘must receive a change of nature,’ but not men,

Can you spot a female among them?  Now, if the court wants to argue that men also receive a "change of nature" by becoming clones, well...that is true.  Yet, they are still men, while not one woman can be distinguished from the group of male clones.  Putting both oars in the water to understand Wt's twists, takes some critical thinking.  I doubt the German Court will invest the time to untwist Wt's deception.  That goes for all the points I have made above.  

8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Dear Tom, when GB members call listeners on JWTV and in literature; "Trust Us because JHVH and Jesus have full trust in Us...", don't you think how GB statement is enough twisted (distorted) and how GB lives in their twisted world with twisted reality they constantly creating in JW Church

 

Who Goes to Heaven? | Bible Questions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 1.4k
  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I just found this on JW Org. What Does the Bible Say About Revenge? The Bible’s answer   Even though a person may feel justified in taking revenge, doing so goes against the Bible’s counsel: “Do not say: ‘I will do to him just as he has done to me; I will get even with him.” (Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. , footnote) The Bible contains advice that has helped many overcome a desire for reve

In all four cases, either YouTube or Facebook are asked to hand over “all identifying information, including subscriber registration information” including their “name(s), address(es), telephone number(s), [and] any electronic mail addresses” associated with the allegedly infringing accounts. You Tube and Facebook could easily avoid this. They only need to declare themselves a kind of religion and appoint their employees or volunteers as clergy. They could then invoke the priestly privilege

Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. After filing a lawsuit against the creator of the 'DubTown' Lego stop motion series, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, the supervising body and publisher for the Jehovah’s Witness religious group, has yet more alleged infringers in its sights. In addition to targeting more YouTube users, Watch Tower is attempting to find out the identities of people posting its songs to Facebook. As the owner of various co

Posted Images

  • Member
4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Any statement by any person represents “ideology.”

In your world of your reality, does this statement also apply to GB and doctrines they promote?

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Introvigne would allow all law-abiding faiths to exist. FECRIS would not.

According to GB interpretation of Bible text, GB would not allow any faiths (in this system of things nor in the any future system), that is not under WTJWorg, to exist. 

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Introvigne himself obviously doesn’t agree with Jehovah’s Witnesses in all things, maybe in none of them. Otherwise, he would be one. He is not. He is Roman Catholic. What he is is a voice calling for tolerance between religions.

WTJWorg GB is not voice for religious tolerance between religions. They also stifle any religious tolerance within their own church toward those who have different interpretations of the biblical text.

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The United States [bipartisan] Commission on International Religious Freedom denounces the “anti-cult” ideology (of which FECRIS is a foremost part) for its “pretension to standing as the final arbiter of religious truth.”

How is this different from the WTJWorg organization and its teachings? GB claims to be the only mediator / channel for the communication of truth between God and people on earth today. They preach that they are the only true religion / truth in the world.

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

... FECRIS will not let stand. So it is that they presume to stand “as the final arbiter of religious truth.” 

GB stand on same position.

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

I am of the opinion, and @Witness also spoke about it, that the German court did not deal with reading and interpreting the WTJWorg editions (published for the public and the one for internal use) which speaks of the disputed elements. WTJWorg, I presume, simply made a statement in court that FECRIS was telling lies and slandering. Does FECRIS have studious investigations and knowledge/insight of WTJWorg such as ex-JW? It takes decades of working, reading, and linking events so that one can see what GB is teaching, how it changes instructions, and how the various BOE bodies and individual elders operate in a variety of circumstances. 

In ARC various depositions of JW elders + GB member we see good picture how "truth"  becomes a lie.  But such a lie works wonders. It liberates.... and fulfills Jesus' statement: "You will know the truth (will see the true face of your religious leaders) and the truth will set you free."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
7 hours ago, Witness said:

Has the German Court read the magazines?

What on earth is wrong with you? This is FECRIS, the spinner of defamation against Jehovah’s Witnesses, being tried before the German Court. Do you really think they would have provided no evidence to back up their claims? You probably served as their advisor. 

Of course the Court saw whatever FECRIS deemed useful for them to see. The Court looked it over, and declared it irrelevant or insufficient to justify FECRIS’s defamation..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

According to GB interpretation of Bible text, GB would not allow any faiths (in this system of things nor in the any future system), that is not under WTJWorg, to exist. 

What a stupid statement!

“Interpretation of Bible text” is not what is on trial here. What—we are all required to interpret Bible text in a certain way? 

Jehovah’s Witnesses are a ‘one true faith” religion. There are many ‘one true faith’ religions. As such, they are known to criticize other religions, as all ‘one true faith’ religions criticize other religions. It is a valid read of the Scriptures that any perusal will suggest just might be true—that there is one true faith.

But if they would “not allow any faiths” they would call for violence against them. They would try to get politicians to pass laws against them. Instead, the “weapons” of Jehovah’s Witnesses are words only. Tell them ‘no’ and they go away.

Joel Engardio has stated how Witnesses provide a fine example, perhaps our last hope, of how groups with strongly polarized views can yet co-exist peacefully.

There is a difference between criticizing and disallowing. The back of a cigarette package contains a very strong warning agains smoking. Does that mean people are not allowed to smoke?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
47 minutes ago, WyattEarp said:

Seems to me the point is being missed in this debate. How can it be compared, when one side is defamed? Does anyone bear responsibility? Does social media need to make adjustments in today's world of social misinformation. We just need to look here.

    Hello guest!

 

Of course. When an NGO makes defamatory statements 53% of the time, and those statements, through the influence of their Russian VP, goes on to cause gargantuan injustices in that land, one would hope they would somehow be leaned upon to make good. Whether that will happen or not I am not so sure. We are dealing with different jurisdictions, after all. 

The credibility of FECRIS suffering a serious setback is the most tangible development so far. Whether it moves into anything of greater consequence is anyone’s guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Does FECRIS have studious investigations and knowledge/insight of WTJWorg such as ex-JW?

Is the pope Catholic? Of course they do. It is the clearing-house anticult organization of French government sponsorship, and its VP is the driver of anti-JW narrative in Russia.

The German Court looked it over and judged that Jehovah’s Witnesses were being defamed. It was not their mission to make any judgment upon the faith itself. Doubtless it reasoned that, in the event that Jehovah’s Witnesses are unorthodox, even weird, one can easily solve the problem by not being one of them, and if one already is, to quit and go elsewhere. It’s a big world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

What on earth is wrong with you?

With me? Almost nothing is wrong. :)

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Do you really think they would have provided no evidence to back up their claims?

What is wrong withe their "evidence"? Do you have some link, that we be able to look at those "evidences"? 

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

“Interpretation of Bible text” is not what is on trial here.

No, it is not. But you mentioned M.I. tolerance about religious ideologies. And we are witnesses how WTJWorg teachings promote how religious coexisting is not future for human society, but contrary, that all religions, except JW religion, will be destroyed by JW God. Well, is it question of simplified  "interpretation" or is it JW doctrinal, cultural and social standpoint?  

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

But if they would “not allow any faiths” they would call for violence against them.

Not necessary. And not in this circumstances we living now. But in "New World", GB members gave interpretations (spoken and written), how they will get power and be delegated, by God JHVH, that they as Kings and Priests will be able to do such things. Today, GB is able and in power to complete spiritual sort of "punishments".

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

French government sponsorship, and its VP is the driver of anti-JW narrative in Russia.

The German Court

 .... triangle of historical friends and enemies

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
9 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

you mentioned M.I. tolerance about religious ideologies. And we are witnesses how WTJWorg teachings promote how religious coexisting is not future for human society, but contrary, that all religions, except JW religion, will be destroyed by JW God. Well, is it question of simplified  "interpretation" or is it JW doctrinal, cultural and social standpoint?  

The group Introvigne heads, CESNUR, (Center for the Study of New Religions) is roughly the opposite of FECRIS, the latter which, if they had their way, would ban them all as “cults.” “New religion” is the scholarly term for any group originating in relatively recent times. Scholars deliberately choose “new religion” over “cult” to avoid the incendiary overtones of the latter word. Non-scholars favor “cult” because they are intolerant and wish to make it as hot as possible for the “new religions.”

One might think of Introvigne (who I know nothing of personally) as a modern-day Voltaire. Voltaire (probably you know) is from the 17th century, and is considered founder of the Enlightenment. He was a fierce critic of organized religion, particularly the Judeo-Christian variety. He was also firmly deist, that is, he never doubted the existence of God, and he came to be much distressed that his body of work was used as a stepping stone into atheism—breaking free of God altogether. His dream was that there be religious tolerance, that all religions should get along peaceably. It never occurred to him to change them internally or to mush them into one incoherent whole. He just wanted them not to wreak violence upon one another. 

Early in his life a dispute with a French aristocrat caused Voltaire to flee to England. While there he noted how there were dozens of religions, many (maybe all) claiming to be the one true path (people took religion more seriously then), yet they all co-existed without rancor. (In his native France, the Roman Catholic Church was torturing those professing other faiths on the rack.) It never would have occurred to Voltaire that a faith calling itself the one true faith was doing violence to any other one. Virtually all of them were doing it. It is a uniquely modern concept to think a religion regarding itself as the true path does violence to the others.

Voltaire’s “Letters from England” conveys his amazement and delight that here was a country, so different from back home, where people could worship as they pleased without anyone trying to ban them or beat up on them. He sets himself up as a chump interviewing a Quaker, just about as weird a religion as one could envision backed then—they ‘quaked’ when they became filled with spirit. He paints himself as though a devout Catholic thoroughly scandalized by Quaker beliefs, gives dialogue with one in which the Quaker ties him in knots, before summing up with how you just can’t talk sense with a fanatic.

It never occurred to Voltaire that the Quakers should change—he was just delighted that, given their “weirdness,” they could coexist so easily with the rest of society. In short, “intolerance” had nothing to do with doctrines or beliefs within a religion. He took for granted that internally each religion would be sufficiently different from other religions. If they were not, there would not BE separate religions—they would all blend into the same. It didn’t matter to him if Quakers were weird; if you conclude they are, don’t be one, would have been his obvious conclusion, just like it should be today with anyone concluding JWs are weird. 

Being a strict religion, serious about their beliefs, there would be severe internal strictures for any Quaker doing a 180 and leaving his faith. This was of no concern to Voltaire, who personally had no use for any of the established religions. Whatever strictures a departing Quaker would encounter would be more-or-less human nature: turn your back on previously cherished beliefs and you will of course find yourself on the outside looking in as regards those still holding true to those beliefs. It only adds “fuel to the fire” that the Christian scriptures can so easily be read that way. It’s the same with JWs today. It’s the same with most of the “new religions” that FECRIS labels as “cults,” as it seeks to homogenize religions, extracting whatever teeth they have to make them stand out from others, and mush them all into one that doesn’t stand for much or anything other than putting a God-face on humanist endeavors.

Voltaire’s firm deism, his belief in God, stems from what the Jehovah’s Witness organization has called the “Book of Creation.” It stems from the observed design of creation, and from what he called first cause, the utility that created things are put to. He rejected any “book of revelation,” that is, any sacred scriptures from any source that would attempt to explain the creator. But he also famously, after years of soul-searching, declared insoluble the “problem of evil.” There is undeniably a God, and there is undeniably evil. He could not reconcile the two, though he was the foremost thinker and deist of his time.

To say that rejecting any revelatory information on God is foolish might be going too far, but it certainly is self-defeating. He yearns with all his heart to discern the problem of evil, yet he confines his gaze to where the answer certainly will not be—in the book of creation. There is only so far that book will take you. His aversion is quite understandable, given the horrendous abuse practices by the religions of his day, but it was still self-defeating as for discerning the problem of evil or any other aspects of God’s personality.

If there is an answer to the “problem of evil,” it will be found in the new religions. Of course, my view is that it will be found specifically within the the tenets of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Indeed, the wording may differ, but “Why is there evil?” is a staple of each of their basic study guides almost since their founding. Mainstream religions have so homogenized their views, so eager not to be out of step with intellectual or scientific trends, that they have modified their own foundation to the extent that the problem of evil cannot be solved. FECRIS gets around the issue by ignoring it. There is no answer to such questions, they maintain, forget about them. Focus on making the world a better place now. Nevermind arcane spiritual concerns that will distract from how we must, in the words of the Beatles, “come together.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
58 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The group Introvigne heads, CESNUR, (Center for the Study of New Religions) is roughly the opposite of FECRIS, the latter which, if they had their way, would ban them all as “cults.”

I really appreciated your insights here and in several previous posts. A lot to think about. I started following CESNURs doings about 15-20 years ago. Especially when the WTS took a strong interest in them too, and when the WTS attended some CESNUR-sponsored seminars.  CESNUR definitely has offered a more balanced view to those who think every NRM will produce another Jonestown, and a view which many persons need if they are on either extreme, defending or opposing NRMs. But I have also noticed some opportunism in CESNUR, perhaps even in the hope of funding, support for favored authors and publications, etc. I have listened to some speeches and interviews with Massimo Introvigne and have respect for what he is trying to do and promote, but less and less respect for the shallowness of his knowledge and research. Although CESNUR has finally acknowledged that there are additional dangers with cults, which they barely admitted in the past, they still push a very biased agenda to defend most of them, and tend to ignore when politics and NRMs can create a lethal mix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

But I have also noticed some opportunism in CESNUR, perhaps even in the hope of ... support for favored authors and publications,

I would love to be one of them, and I have more than once contacted certain ones—Introvigne, Folk, and Chrysiddes. They all ignore me.

I don’t hammer at their door, nor do I take their non-response personally. I tend to think that they wish to maintain a scholarly detached independence. Whereas I unambiguously champion a certain New Relgion, they stand in defense of them all, and thus may wish to keep any specific apologist at arm’s length.

Or maybe they have just concluded that my books suck. That certainly was the case with Dear Mr. Putin. Damage control after such a debacle to present the new and improved Don’t Know Why We Persecute is anything but a slam-dunk. You must persuade people who perhaps have previously written you off to give you another look. That’s why someone should have told me that Dear Mr. Putin sucked;

image.jpeg

The one whom I have hammered at his door to no avail (as much as 5 or 6 times cumulatively) is George Chrysiddes. The reason for added persistence here is that we had an email correspondence. On Twitter, I came across his saying to someone that he wished he knew a real live rank-and-file Witness. “Here I am,” I said like Isaiah, and we had some nice chit-chats. He faithfully read Tom Irregardless and Me, commenting via email as he did so, and wrote what is far-and-away the more original review of it (under his informal pen name Ivor E Tower).

It’s the last I ever heard from him. Maybe he too, read Dear Mr Putin and concluded it stunk. (Of course, its always possible that all of these guys have read Don’t Know Why and have concluded that it stinks, too—yikes!—but that is a scenario I prefer not to entertain. I gave it my best shot.)

My second book, No Fake News, stunk, too. Maybe that was a turn-off for George even before Dear Mr. Putin.  It was written too hastily, too sloppily. Even after sinking some time in a rewrite, I have removed it. Not sure right now if it will ever see the light of day again. I have several other irons in the fire ahead of it, so that for all practical purposes, that one is not in the fire. Or if the fire is literal, maybe it is.

Any day now (I’ve been saying this forever) Don’t Know Why will be in Amazon print. Just now I cannot make Word behave to do the bells and whistles version with fancy headers and whatnot. If I settle for a simplified version, I am fine, and I just may have to do that. The one who does my covers referred me to someone who wants $285 to format it just so. It’s not unreasonable at all, yet I think I’ll draw the line. I spend enough as it is and I’m self-published. I may have to settle for a certain rough-hewn look, which is certainly reinforced anyway by my many battles with proofing. To proof it professionally can cost thousands.

Alas, nobody likes me. Even Liebster blocks me. I probably can patch that up, and will someday. Most likely they came along whilst I was bickering with some villains and were scandalized. Or maybe they, too, read Dear Mr Putin and thought it stunk, so that I became to them “an indiscreet brother.”

Only the Librarian likes me (that old hen). I may be a bad pupil, but I am her pupil, and she doesn’t forget that. Oh—and I have Cesar in my back pocket, too. But then, who doesn’t?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The group Introvigne heads, CESNUR, (Center for the Study of New Religions) is roughly the opposite of FECRIS, the latter which, if they had their way, would ban them all as “cults.” “New religion” is the scholarly term for any group originating in relatively recent times.

It is well known that JWs do not consider themselves as a cult. But they are not considered self to be a “new religion”, also,  because they claim their roots go all the way back to Abel. The cooperation between CESNUR and WTJWorg is based on which premise? That the JWs are a “new religion” but not a cult, however, also with a strong belief that they originated from the faithful Abel, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, which put them in the "oldest religion in the world?
It follows from this collaboration with CESNUR that WTJWorg is willing to put JW in the status of a “new religion” because of opportunism, and thus renounces its supposedly unique origins dating back to the first days of man’s origin.

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If there is an answer to the “problem of evil,” it will be found in the new religions. Of course, my view is that it will be found specifically within the the tenets of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The question of evil is not only a theological question, but also a philosophical one. From the aspect of the interpretation of the Biblical writings we come to the idea that the so-called "universal question aka issue" about which (1,2, or 3 "issue" or questions in WTJWorg theology about evil*) has long been answered by both humans and angels and by the Only Begotten Son. Well, the JW doctrine of why evil exists and why God allows it to this day and to an unknown day in the future is neither a satisfactory nor a solid doctrine. It is "light" that sometimes is in collision to other Bible records and events and even to some promises made by writers in God's name.   

*The Issue That All Creation Has to Face  - 

    Hello guest!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Voltaire (probably you know) is from the 17th century, and is considered founder of the Enlightenment.

Are Voltaire's texts a recommended read for JW members?

Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share





×
×
  • 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.