Maximus85:
Satan is here on this thread to make the Jws here go against each other but it wont work. Truelight, you were the first poster to insult on this thread. At that point i doubt if you are a jw. And if you are, you should know better that no matter how angry they make us, we must remain respectful in our teachings/preaching.
I intentinaly left some issues unattended to because they'll only lead to more arguments. Lets not allow satan here. They know the truth but they dont want to accept it. The Bible said that in this situation, we should let them be and we should go in search for those that are ready to listen and accept the truth. Being a Jw is not easy but its a sacrifice we must make. Jesus gave his life, so why can't we endure the hatred and insults?

I saw a post where this guy was putting down atheists for “using the F word”. Obviously, it’s Jehovah’s Witnessically ok for Mr truthislight to insult as long as he does not use the F word.

BARRISTERS: @ Myjoe
i know that you are responding to truthslight, but calling someone a fool here will also spark the same thing that happened in other tread, and you know that im equal to the task here to respond to insult in a more ridiculous ways too, because i surport the jws,even though im not one yet, i think it will benefit the other users to read why's something happened and how it happened from the bible itself as a guide instead of degenerating the way we have engaged ourselves in the other tread!

Except for the highlighted part, that^^^ is a reasonable post, and I acknowledge your point.

If you go through my history of posting you will toil to find any insults or even little statements of rudeness. But then some people make it clear to you there is a certain way they want to be treated, and it's a dereliction if you do not do what is proper under the circumstances. This guy was twisting my words out of shape in the other thread, accusing me of preaching abortion even though I never said anything about the subject. You saw nothing wrong in that, as you did not remonstrate with him or even tell him to hold it that there are better ways of handling things like you did when the made his fraction post. I gave a calm response and simply moved on. What did he do? He went round the section looking for some of my old posts and throwing his tripe at them and turning my posts upside down wherever he comes across any. Don't you think he has spoken clearly about how he wants to be addressed if I am to get him off my back?

And, oh, you have been calling people fool on the thread long before I showed up. Olodo, I understand, means the same thing as fool.

**Edited**

truthislight:

artful dodger.

Why not let the readers deduce that for themself?

Slippery guy.
Lol

artful dodger.

Why not let the readers deduce that for themself?

Slippery guy.
Lol

You are a fool. Since you wanted people to “deduce that for themself”, why did you hack out a misleading summary of the post? I merely asked you to substantiate your summary by highlighting the portion you supposedly got your “de-convert” and “effective” statements from.

Is that what you find so “slippery”? I think not. You simply lifted some artful and slippery statements from Barristers without even having a clue what they mean.

BARRISTERS:
where are your primary proofs from the U.N that it does not change, give us one!other than those calculated fabrications from the opposers 'meant to tickle ears because thats what people wants to hear' ?
before then, lets have some clarity here;

Lol.

***

“Opposers”: The JW affiliated itself as an NGO with the UN. This is hypocrisy.

JW: We affiliated as an NGO because we needed to access a library. We withdrew when the conditions for affiliation changed.

“Opposers” (letter): Oga UN, did the conditions for affiliation change between 1991 (time of joining) and 2001 (time of withdrawal)?

UN: (letter): No, the conditions for affiliation did not change between 1991 and 2001.

“Opposers”: The UN says the conditions affiliation never changed. You lie! Here’s the UN’s letter.

Barristers: Where is your primary proof there was no change? Give me one! Forget calculated fabrications from opposers.

***

Watchtower is the one saying there was a change in conditions. The onus is on the Watchtower to prove that such a change took place. Asking “opposers” to prove a negative (that there was no change) is senseless. It’s like I say you were at the Bar Beach this morning and you tell me you were not. Now, I can go on and on asking you to prove that you were not there, but the onus is primarily on me to prove you were there. So even without the UN letter you are self-servingly calling “fabricated” is not needed to prove wrongdoing against the Watchtower. It only confirms what was already known since Watchtower has not provided proof that there was a change.

I sincerely tried but it’s hard to make any sense out of your post up there. Stephen Bates, a JW “opposer”? Really? You won’t even make a good lawyer! Lawyers do many of these things you do but they got some style. You want to destroy a witness you produce evidence. Besides, you only go after a witness if his evidence is being relied upon. What you wrote up about Bates, the award-winning former religious affairs correspondent of The Guardian (not News of the World or The Sun) sounds like desperation. The Guardian (UK) is one of the respected newspapers and will not lend its pages to anyone to carry out some religious war.

Anyway, I never said Stephen Bates was a good person or a bad person. Destroying him does you no good since I have not attempted to rely on his “evidence.” I said he wrote an article on Monday and you withdrew on Tuesday. That shows Watchtower is lying and you have bought the lie that they withdrew because of some imaginary change in requirements. Please address that one.

I can barely make out a few words in those forms you have pasted to try to confuse the issue but all you have said about signature only shows you have bought misinformation. Your signature talk is to divert attention (permit me use of your favourite phrase, while building a premise for it) since the names of Ciro Aulicino, Robert Johnson and Lloyd Barry (Governing Body member) all appeared in the UN registry. They didn’t tell you that? So what is this nonsense about signature or no signature?

In fact, your signature talk is the most nonsensical thing I have read in a while. What is your point – that Watchtower was not affiliated since its officials did not have to sign the applications it freely collected, filled and submitted? You say there was no signature required in 1991, what about subsequent years when renewals were made? Check the renewal form, the December 1999 one, you pasted again. I believe I see “signature” there.

And what conspiracy theories are you hyperventilating about? Nobody has accused the Watchtower of making money from its UN affiliation. You are saying that they were not required to make yearly payments, just renewals. So?

djmummy: Been reading thru this thread and I have to say...BEWARE OF APOSTATES...Jehovah's witnesses have a very thorough method of spreading the good news and that is door to door...that's what Jesus ordered that's what they follow.
On this forum MANY lies are spread

Another lie. But you must be new around here, as it has been demonstrated conclusively in this section of Nairaland that Jesus never preached from house to house and never ordered anyone to preach that way. In fact, he forbade it. But, then, you can prove your statement is not a lie by showing us the corroborating verse. You don’t have to debate or something. Just show the verse and go. One will do.

BARRISTERS: @djmummy
yeah, Apostatates do not have two heads, only one!

Lol.

i've got their time! and let them come now!!!, thanks for your advice but im not going back! it must be a finished project, i 've got to kick some ass on this page as many time as possible!

You think you are kicking bottom? Here is a simple task for you. Ask someone you trust and believe is capable of some objectivity – he should be a non-JW and a non-Catholic. Don’t let him know you are BARRISTERS. Let him read the thread, starting from where BARRISTERS came in and then tell you what he thinks of the character BARRISTERS. That should help you.

BARRISTERS: @MyJoe
Myjoe, you know that you can easily fall into what you accuse people of, and may i say that you should stop imposing your own reasoning skill on someone else! there is no way an objective reader will read what transpired above between us,without you programming the brain of such reader that you will not be laughed here!,
in a court you cant sustain the argument to convince a judge because you would have been commited to ''court pleadings'' bearing those statements.

i dont have anything against you but your attack of these jws is noteworthy,and i can say that arguing on their issues strenthens me a lot, i knew they may not like my way of some insults but icant help it, it comes authomatically, so i dont even trust mu next post, im not a jw yet, and thats it!

if you doubt that you are the right one in the statements that ensuied above, can we put it on another tread? and let people put their response and be our judge,later we count! because you cannot be your own judge, do you agree? let me know first!.

You are strange, Barristers. I set out a conversation without inserting words to even “explain” yet you accuse of me of “imposing” my “reasoning”, “programming” and doing what I accuse you of which is comprehensive dishonesty? The only thing I did was to highlight the entire sentence, including the part I accused you of covering with your finger – is that what you call programming, highlighting a sentence?

Like I said earlier, you make allegations without bothering to build a premise for them. First, you copied and pasted the post where you alleged I said I would de-covert you. Then you provided a link to it. Now you want to open a thread and take it away from context – doesn’t matter really. You don’t know the meaning of “speculate all you like about imaginary motive I have” but you believe the objective reader is with you. Ok, you want to satisfy yourself - go ahead and open this unnecessary thread to convince yourself of your obtuseness! Reminds me of the tortoise proverb again. You don’t need my agreement to open anything. I will be reading the thread. Since it is such a senseless idea and the thread will be such a useless one, I will only comment if someone lies against me or misrepresents me as you and your comrade are wont.

Looking at the statement again and taking your highlight into consideration, maybe you did actually make an honest mistake in reading my statement. You are a very dishonest person but I will give you the benefit of the doubt on it and I think I am right. You know, there was a time in the other thread when I thought you were better than Mr truthislight, such that on an occasion when his obtuseness led him to twist what I wrote, I told him I was sure you would understand what I wrote. Now I realise I was wrong. You’re just as dense as him. I wrote a sentence describing any motive I have to de-convert you as being imaginary and speculative and you understand it to mean that I want to de-covert you. Was there anything in the thread that led to that reading?

This will not be the first time I am saying that you read and accuse me of things in a hurry. A more patient, more sensible or more intelligent human being would have noted there is no comma between “motive” and “I have” and avoided the error you have fallen into. Not that you need to get to considering the comma before realizing what I meant, but it should have helped you resolve any quandary. You have a dirty mind and are always on the lookout for something to hang the other person with. You have attacked stories without basis even though you have also told stories which others have taken the point you were trying to make out of rather than go into irrelevancies. You have read statements wrongly even though others have read yours patiently to understand them properly. You have declared victories even though you have not made a single good argument.

Really, I think you are just irredeemably dense. Discussing with you is tiresome when one has to keep stopping to explain the meaning of “dish out” or “reason” or “any imaginary motive I have”.

Show me where I have gone out of my way to attack the JW. You Witnesses have such an exaggerated sense of importance. You really think I care about them? I don’t. Any post of mine you will find in Nairaland mentioning JW was responding to another post that, in my opinion, contained a misunderstanding or a lie. And you will always find specific reference to the matter being addressed rather than general statements putting down the Witnesses. But since you say I have “attacked” them, you should be able to produce the proof.

truthislight:

you have started bringing up oladegbu lies here.

That is what desperation can do.

Is that what you were ask to bring?

You forgot to add “slippery”.

Of course, you can’t read properly. In fact, you are a fool. Did I quote Olaadegbu or The Harp of God, Zion’s Watchtower and the Proclaimers’ book? Someone says the JW never said the world would end in 1914 and that they never changed their teaching on 1914 and I provide evidence from your literature that they did both and you are asking me if that is what was asked. Explain what was asked, you grounded rat.

Someone is now asking for “scanned copies” and saying day was not lifted along when the sentences were lifted from paragraphs. That's probably a more clever route, why don’t you try it? This is what I was responding to, you fool:

BARRISTERS:
jws did not claim that there would be end in 1914 , jws did not change on that

truthislight: @myjoe

^^^^
what system and style of approach to deconvert new convert were you suggesting here to nimshi?

Have you seen your life?

"Yes, nimshi should not say things in such away that will end up fortifying the faith of the new JW cus he will say that he had been warn that he will be pesecuted!"

"That the anti JW web sight uses that style and it is not effective"

in other words he should be more subtle in his approach.

Who does such if not satan?

I'm certain you closed your eyes where I explained I neither saw a dire need or duty nor had the inclination to change anyone's views. Never mind, since you have problems reading and understanding what it says.

Please highlight the portion of that post where I suggested a system and approach to Nimshi and implied it would help to de-convert anyone or where I said hate sites were not effective and at what.

truthislight:

How can you even imagine for once that i relied on you support?

I knew you the first time you came debating with

If you can remember, i told you that you came for a fight.

And here you are doing just that.
Lol

You talk randomly, so you do say anything. Go back there and bring out the fight I fought. And what do you call fighting here if not what you and your beloved Barristers are doing? No, I don't imagine you relied on my support. You just stand at the ringside of threads cheering anyone that appears to support a JW idea and insulting anyone who appears not to. For you, it's automatic. You have neither break nor common sense.

Your church joined UN as an NGO. Write a constructive paragraph either defending or rationalising that.

Your church has paid out millions to victims of child s.exual abuse. Write an argument on that.

BARRISTERS: @true2God
1914 stands no doubt about that,jws did not claim that there would be end in 1914, jws did not change on that,no apologies,it marks the last days!!! but the issue is that you said that the calculation is wrong! then give us the right calculation.

you dont have any? and you dont have proof on the day and hour?

i wonder how your illiteracy will help you to translate this one now!

Wrong. It was preached that Christ’s presence (last days) began in 1874 and would end in 1914 along with the Gentile Times. It was only in 1925 they CHANGED to saying that 1914 was now the beginning of the parousia. Here:

***

Page 235 of The Harp of God:
"This date, therefore, when understood, would certainly fix the time when the lord is due at this second appearing. Applying the same rule, then, of a day for a year, 1335 days after 539 A.D brings us to 1874 A.D, at which time, according to Biblical chronology, the Lords presence is due…[/b]The searcher of truth can find an extensive treatment of this question in volumes 2 and 3 of ‘Studies in the Scriptures’.”

And, here, the [b]Zion’s Watchtower of 15 July 1894, page 1677:
“We see no reason for changing the figures – nor could we if we could. They are, we believe, Gods dates and not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble.”

And then, here is the Proclaimers book, pp138-9 10, talking about the year 1925:
“A real milestone was reached, therefore, in 1925, when The Watch Tower of March 1 featured the article ‘Birth of the Nation.’ It presented an eye-opening study of Revelation chapter 12. The article set forth evidence that the Messianic Kingdom had been born – established – in 1914, that Christ had then begun to rule on his heavenly throne, and that thereafter Satan had been hurled from heaven down to the vicinity of the earth. This was the good news that was to be proclaimed, the news that God’s Kingdom was already in operation.

truthislight:
You were once advising nimshi not to be two forward cus that will archive less or have less impact.

What impact do you expect to have?

To destroy people faith?
Who does such work if not satan?

Show me where I advised him about any impacts. Again you read amiss. I advised him not to lead anyone to think anything. Drop facts and leave things that way. But like I said earlier, you can't comprehend such higher ideals. All you know is "pro-JW" and "anti-JW. That's the prism with which you see the world. It's shame for an adult. A waste of a mind.

truthislight:

Hmmm!

What is the value of this?

To you, none, since I did not write it supporting some JW idea. You are too far gone. Too confused. It's far easier to slouch on than try to think things through.

If i am "truth is light" why do you expect my to bend the truth?

You are a chamealeon.

The person you who gave you that word, the one you are licking his backside and saying people cannot talk to outside of here, doesn't even know what it means. But you really feel dazzled by any colours around here? By my guest.

truthislight:
Guy,
You are very slippery.
You are more dangerouse than you partners in crime.
You are very subtle.

Yeah. Except when I appear to support your JW ideas. Keep repeating the above, you hear?

Nimshi: Barristers: one man, barristers; lol. What passes for your brain has been fried by years of JW propaganda.
May be Satan the Devil (hehehe) made you a JW to give JWs a really, really bad name; just look at the nonsense oozing from all over you.
Barristers: Time registered: July 08, 2012 | Time spent online: 1 day & 12 hours | Last seen: 3:31pm

Has to be. Never met anyone this odious.

JWs don't take blood or what? Just say JWs don't donate blood. JWs who need human blood products use them all the time; like, a certain Haemoglobin Factor which JWs use ;-) The problem is that JWs like to reap where they've not sown: they deplete the supply but are not allowed to replenish it. Shame on you. That's not moral. It's not even Christian.

The way it works is, you don't take the whole. Break it into four, don't take any part. But break each of those four parts into 2 (that is, whole into 8 ) and viola! you can take it. So, you can take part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7 and part 8 - separately. Someone was educating me on "fractions" in another thread. To him, 1/4 is a fraction, but 1/8 is not! But once you gather all the eight parts, you end up with the whole. And, of course, without the whole, there would be no 1/8. But, hell! Who are you trying to educate? How many JW even understand these fractions and the implications? Even far more obscure are the real reasons the church had to come out with the policy allowing these fractions.

BARRISTERS: it will be recalled that after the terror attack to the twin towers in 2001, everything changed, including therequirements for all NGO's the 2002 requrement came with political affiliatins, at that point, jws returned the UN LIBRARY TAG, and resigned using their library facilities. no yearly payments or anything, only gaining entrance to the facilitiy, period!

You are lying. I doubt Jehovah sent you to do that. Three quick points to demonstrate that you are lying:

1. On Monday October 8, 2001, Stephen Bates wrote an article in The Guardian of London exposing the membership as an associated NGO. Two days later, Watchtower’s applied to the UN to withdraw its membership. This withdrawal was done and is dated Tuesday October 9, 2001.

2. Access to UN Library was never at any time contingent upon any affiliation with the UN. There was no change requiring NGO's to become associated in order to gain a library card. There are hundreds of UN libraries worldwide and they can be accessed by anyone.

3. The criteria for association with the UN did not change between 1991, when Watchtower joined, and 2001, when they withdrew.

Note: The original Guardian article, the withdrawal materials, e-mail exchanges between Bates and Watchtower, and a UN document stating that there has been no changes in its membership requirements, are all in the public domain. This unthinking duo can equally go ahead and deny or simply leave the issue and reach into the gutters for more abuses. But again, anyone can research further and make up their own minds. No, I am not leaving the issue, and Barristers is wont to think. He denies, I paste the stuff on here.

BARRISTERS: @Myjoe

sho! good boy, im enjoying your write-up now,at least you are coming out of your shell more real now, it allows me to have full knowledge of who you are.

You are getting knowledge of nothing. How can someone who lacks basic thinking skills acquire the right knowledge from a write-up, no matter how well-written?

My problem with you here is that you were so sure that the church had paid out millions of dollars! see a confirmative sentence you used below;


only to come out with a tag less than a million below (788,000D) twisting what you earlier said that they have paid out millions by using the word 'believed to run into millions''why cant you use the word the way it sounds later but you choose to exegerate,figure below is less than a million sir,

was watchtower indicted in this particular matter? do they admit? was an elder involved? was there duplication of same case in that suit?
my own reseach up there was that of catholic priests,
Also, it was mentioned that undisclosed amount, which shows that it does not surport your claim of paying millions, 788,000D,is less! watchtower never paid millions and that is a fact!!! you said i ommited it, but could not fix 'undisclosed' you saw there after your seach!!!you see your life?

now that you have denied this below, go to page 5 of the other tread! see where you said it again!

so are you ready now! because there is more i ve got to engage you and the trio with. confirm first!

Highlighted is a dumb question – Watchtower never admits anything. Poor Maximum85 thought they do about their predictions and got himself into trouble with Mr truthislight who has now accused him of misrepresentation. They have paid out millions yet they never admitted anything. And who’s talking about elder? You are the one making issues out of the fact priests were accused and only 11 elders were accused, and that they only abuse girls at JW while the Catholics abuse boys.

So it was only the “believed to run into” portion that you read? Again you cover a portion with your finger hoping and praying to Jehovah no one will notice. Why did you not comment on the portion where it said the church announced it in a conventions in US about the payouts running into millions it had been forced to make? I expected you to, at least, say it is “concocted”. Okay, so you admit the $788,000 case was in the article. Now, $788,000 is closer to $1m than half a mil. If that is the only case ever in which the church has paid out money, I would only be guilty of an exaggeration, not an outright lie. But the fact would remain that you ignored it in the Wiki article you lifted from, thus misleading the unwary reader into believing that only the Catholic Church has paid out money while the JW is clean. In any case, I am not exaggerating, as anyone will find when they research the matter.

@Hitler pictures
We get characters like you every now and then. There was one a couple of years back posting nude pictures and labeling a respected lady in the section. Mr truthislight, the ringside cheerleader who claps happily for anyone who supports a JW idea, still thinks you are good rep of his church. Pity.

You gotta be kidding me! A repudiation of an intention to de-convert equals a threat to do so?

There is a proverb nuclearboy used to relate about a tortoise that said he was going to disgrace himself. People pleaded with him to turn back but nothing would make him change his mind. So they let him go on to disgrace himself.

Nimshi:
And you have rather poor reasoning skills.

Maybe it’s not just reasoning challenges he has. Take your time to go through the conversation below and decide if this is simply a spiritually blind, small minded, confused, drunken and insane guy who will go to any extent in the hope of tarring someone, probably praying to Jehovah when posting, to blind everyone and make his lies stick or if there are mind problems involved.

****

Barristers

why are you angry, i want you to de-convert me and my co-travellers!!!thats what you said on the other tread, so for your information, we have a long way to go here, you will continue to react and react to my findings and declarations on the forum,because i want you to de-convert me!!!are you ready?

MyJoe

For anyone reading, I have never entertained the notion of converting or "de-converting" Barristers, any member of the JW, or any member of any religion or faith group and I have never expressed such around here. But since Barristers claims I wrote something in a thread, he should be able to find the thread and the post and reclaim some credibility.[b]

[b]Barristers

now that you have denied this below, go to page 5 of the other tread! see where you said it again!:

Here:

MyJoe: What I meant should have been clear to any objective minded person of average intelligence. And I hope you tone down your attacks after this post. Speculate all you like about imaginary motives I have to denigrate your wonderful religion and de-convert you and your co-travellers, but if you come back at me in that manner I will assume a change of tone is in order. Have a nice day.

***

Somebody once told someone that the Bible could be used to prove anything. To “demonstrate” that, he opened to a verse, covered a part of it with his finger and asked the other fellow to read. The fellow read the verse aloud, “There is no God.” That was some kind of joke, of course, because once he removed his finger, it said “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God”. That is what Barristers does seriously here in his wretched efforts to sustain his campaign of lies against me, using the highlight function, and hoping and praying no one will notice.

After reading the above, my first thought was of his comprehension - perhaps his comprehension problems are just as bad as that those of Maximus85 who looks at text and sees what is inside his own head and Mr truthislight who doesn’t even take a good look before rushing off to click the reply button and type an unthinking response attacking you if you said what appear to be against the JW or praising you if you appeared to support them. But no. What we have here is deliberate, depraved, slimy lying. A repudiation of an intention to de-convert equals a threat to do so!

I asked him to reclaim his credibility but he sank it further.

But he came back with this:

BARRISTERS:
now to reclaim my credibility(not from myjoe)but from onlookers, lets go on a journey here, on this link, page 5, post 22 (count from up towards bottom, around the middle myjoe's post with time 5:16. 3rd Aug.)https://www.nairaland.com/984261/what-does-jehovah-witness-watchtower/5

when you come back from the journey, can you pronounce a liar with a loud voiceeeeee?

I’m having second thoughts. Maybe he has serious comprehension problems, then. Or he’s too plastered from whatever he has been smoking.

Deep Sight:

SHADDAP! I have ALWAYS been a baby. And only babies inherit the kingdom o' Gad. . . hic. . . need to finist off this brandy, an get more polite. . . hic. . . .

jayriginal:

Lol.

Sweetnecta:
I discussed it and continue to. I don't find anything wrong with it for those who do it. I dont because I am a hawk, not shy and never been intimidated by woman. I dont like turkey or lamb. But its permissible so I dont find it wrong for those who eat them.

Yeah. I wonder why cousin marriage being permitted by the Quran or by anyone should be an issue with the MacDaddy or for anyone.

@Purist
I think it's good you opened this thread. Much of the name-calling and vilification he attracts is not justified. I'm not particularly sure why he's such a ban magnet since a lot of posters equally hurl abuses around here. I believe he can do without the abuses, though - hopefully when he becomes a man, as opposed to his current boyhood. While I don't buy or support his atheism, I think Phillip is quite logical in a lot of his criticism of the religions. He can be extremely illogical on occasions, though. Now, that would be fair enough.

**Edited**

Nimshi:
MyJoe: your patience is commendable.

Thank you. It is not usually proper to descend and join the likes of Barristers. But I think it was necessary to call him out earlier on his shocking manipulation of facts.

BARRISTERS: @Myjoe
why are you angry, i want you to de-convert me and my co-travellers!!!thats what you said on the other tread, so for your information, we have a long way to go here, you will continue to react and react to my findings and declarations on the forum,because i want you to de-convert me!!!are you ready?

Ok, you have shown that you have crase and I see you are determined to sustain a campaign of lies against me. Obviously, you don't know what you are doing to your reputation in this section. But if you still have hopes of being taken seriously, please demonstrate (1) that I am angry (2) that I ever said anything about converting or "de-converting" you or any other person on this forum. For anyone reading, I have never entertained the notion of converting or "de-converting" Barristers, any member of the JW, or any member of any religion or faith group and I have never expressed such around here. But since Barristers claims I wrote something in a thread, he should be able to find the thread and the post and reclaim some credibility.

**Edited.**

I see you don’t have the common sense or maturity to leave the other thread to continue with its relative sanity but would import it here. You have never shown any maturity, anyway – boasting that “I knocked off OLAADEGBU on Trinity” and so on. And so you will have to bring the marriage story here to, hopefully, tar me. I don’t need to deny your misrepresentations. I will post the link to the discussion for anyone to read the thread and make up their minds. Here is it.

It is not the first time your blind rage is leading you to tell direct lies in this thread, so I should not bother asking you where I indicated interest in pursuing a discussion and then “faded in oblivion” from the “Bible discussion.” You are yet to substantiate your claim that I was shy to disclose anything about my religious views after I challenged you to. It doesn’t matter to me what you think of me on an anonymous forum. Really, it doesn’t matter. Outside of here, I doubt it would. Yes, it’s an anonymous forum. While my core beliefs are known to those who have cared to read or know, I will leave those who have elected to sweat over the matter and break their beaks crooning about it to keep at it. We now know your religious affiliation, your sexual orientation and your profession, and that you are married and have kids who are well behaved. In your opinion, I have not declared any of these. Maybe when you get to number 10, by which time you would have revealed your name, family tree and blood group, we will know you are serious. The way your anger is currently out of control, I guess anything should be expected from you.

The story of the only Witness paedo case I have personally witnessed was not told for you (the one your blind rage has driven you to say I was likely living with the person and quickly added that I had “not denied” something that had not been alleged, all after previously saying it was a made up story). I specifically told it to show that when cases of paedophilia are clearly established, the church takes action. It was not meant to praise the church as you have hastily or deviously concluded. It takes nothing away from the two issues of disclosure and the two-witness rule.

I paid keen attention reading the portion where you talked about your “private investigation”. You went talking about “privileges” which no one has said anything about. I was sincerely hoping to read from you that the church now makes disclosures to all the PARENTS in any parish (called congregation) where there is someone with a history of paedophilia so I would clap for them for finally having the courage to change the policy and do the right thing. I just read the Wiki article on the matter, the one you have been lifting portions of and giving your large print treatment, and I think good progress has been made since I last read up on this matter. I like the bit that the offender can’t go out preaching in the house to house without being chaperoned – for what that is worth. But the issue of disclosure remains – your clever employment of the empty phrase “would be declared to appropriate people necessary” does not blind anyone.

You know of a case where elders called the police themselves after offenders refused to make a report? Share it. I have read stories where elders clearly manipulated victims into keeping things hushed up. That sounds like the Nigerian case of the child that got missing at an expressway church (not JW). Fairly common behaviour among religious folk, I guess. While such parents and guardians should be blamed for letting themselves fall for it and while most of the victim stories I have reviewed are mostly a failure of parenting in my opinion, a church’s policy can go a long way in improving things or making them bad.

It’s a shame you didn’t reveal any policy of disclosure to parents. The current policy is that parents are not informed there is a paedophile in their midst, while the paedo himself is asked to place certain limits on himself. Read your Wiki article again. Then read some more. This exchange is fruitless, and you are better left to wallow in your rage and exult in your fool’s paradise. In your imagination and according to your church’s doctrine, you are more moral than me because you are a Witness. Stale gist. I expect you to read this post, ignore facts, and come back with conjectures and invectives. I believe those reading us read further and get the facts beyond your excessive efforts to muddy the issue. I have already exposed your hypocrisy in manipulating facts and dragging the RC church, the JW’s favourite object of pillory, into a thread about the JW.

I am responding to your earlier posts primarily because of the portion you asked me to substantiate my allegations that your church has made payouts since that concerns the veracity or otherwise of my claims, and hence my integrity. The rest of your post is mostly screaming invectives in two languages and making allegations directed at my person rather than the issue, allegations you somehow believe will stick just because you make them even without building any premise for them.

I have consistently declined to post links or copy and paste in this thread even when people demanded BBC and CNN and you will not stampede me into doing anything. Your church has not denied that it has made payouts – it has admitted that much in conventions in the US as I stated earlier. You believe that’s a lie? You will believe what you like. This matter is public knowledge. The matter of payouts believed to run into millions made to 16 victims is stated in the same Wiki article you yourself have already invested with credibility by lifting from it. As is a case involving $788,000 or so. Yet you have desperately turned around to accuse me of “forcing lies” about what you are not aware of on you in stating that you know about payouts.

There have been payouts which your selective use of facts has kept you too hamstrung to admit. There have been other court cases involving payouts – your attempt to pass off the eleven cases involving only elders as eleven cases involving the whole church notwithstanding. Anyone interested in the above can copy and paste your link to JW and child abuse cases in the previous page. My primary reason for getting involved with you in this thread and pooh-poohing your post was because you skipped all these, picked the one case where the Witnesses were awarded money and contrasted that against a truckload of material against the RC even though they are in no way a subject of discussion in thread and even though there is also a lot of material against the JW on the matter online. I don’t need to engage the issue to do this. If I was engaging the issue I would match you in copying and pasting truckloads of info. I had only one point – that since both churches have been accused in the matter and have paid out money, one does not have a moral high ground over the other. Anyone who follows that link of yours will establish this fact. Further reading will help them further. So I have accomplished my aim of calling you out on your egregious posts. It doesn’t matter what you spout in your blind rage and I have not even asked anyone to take anything from me. I have invited them to make their own findings, hear from the critics, the victims and their families, the media and the Witness’ spokespersons and make up their minds, as this thread hardly does justice to the subject of child abuse among the Witnesses.

Show me where I have praised your church to the valleys, much less the high heavens. Saying that they don’t ordinarily condone things like child abuse is a statement of fact, nothing more. I have no reason to praise or defame your church – I explained that to your one of your comrades earlier. Do you know what truth and objectivity is? If I said a particular highway robber has a policy of not attacking pregnant women, am I saying he is a good person or just stating a fact? If a notorious street brawler rescues a child from a burning house, should we ignore it because he is ordinarily not a nice person?

But truth and objectivity are things you are clearly incapable of comprehending, hence your belief that everyone must spout his affiliation or ideology and defend it at the expense of truth. That is why you would interpret my statement of fact concerning the Catholic Church’s decent act of owning up for its misdeeds as saying that they are necessarily decent. You remind me of a friend who was accused of being “stingy” for “mising” paper even after she had explained that she was only concerned about the trees. Her accuser, like you, lacked higher thinking and simply had no concept of environmental sustainability. Yeah, another story for you to attack and bend out of shape.

BARRISTERS: forumites;
How do you recognise an iiresponsible man?, one of the factors that can be deemed 'irresponsible' cam stem from 'using or alligning oneself selfishly with the best part of an event or that of a person' only to dump the event or persons embarrasing side.

A review of Myjoe's surport for Catholics goes thus (from the other tread as a refference only)


Myjoe as Catholics mouthpiece above holding brief for the catholic against his alledged rigid style of the witnesses. changed after being confronted with embarrassing huge mess of his dear catholic that is not rigid,see below;





further expose to the catholics mess, Myjoe was uncomfortable at all only to betray his promise of ''I have no desire to engage this issue'' to put these below together;



he was more pained that no one is challenging me, but choose to do that briefly before handling the batton to anyone as soon as possible.

going by analysis in America alone, 1 elder out of a total of 54 jws church was accused, a similar discription of these is Lagos which may fall within the range of 50-60 church of jws,that is to say that the whole lagos state only one jw elder, was accussed, while other 53 churches elders of jws are free of accusations. and in 50 states of America, 40 churches approx. do not have that accusations at all.This is due to The GB being rigid.

now lets see the UNRIGID OR FLEXIBLE system of the catholics that Myjoe is irresponsibly shying away from;

[size=14pt]The John Jay report indicated that some 11,000 allegations had been made against 4,392 priests in the USA. This number constituted approximately 4% of the 110,000 priests who had served during the period covered by the survey (1950–2002). The report found that, over the 52-year period covered by the study, "the problem was indeed widespread and affected more than 95 percent of the dioceses and approximately 60 percent of religious communities."[/size]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sexual_abuse_scandal_in_the_United_States#Number_of_allegations

now, which one is better? the rigid GB style or the catholics embarasing type!

You should be embarrassed at that ^^^. How can you be so dishonest as to cut a portion I said I have no desire to engage an issue and paste and link it with an unrelated portion from another thread? You sound so hysterical, you deserve some pity, as you lash out like a wounded beast in one of them dragon movies. I certainly would not like to be your wife and kids when you are angry.

Do you rub your brain cells together, at all? Let’s say I am the “mouthpiece” of the Catholics as you have now decided to croon, again, does that automatically mean I am wrong and you are right? If I was their spokesman, which I am not, I doubt I have been an embarrassment for them as you have been for the JW with your incoherent arguments! You keep repeating that I was arguing alone, does that make you right? So no one is challenging you. A lot of nonsense gets spewed around here. Sometimes people can’t be bothered to challenge you – it doesn’t mean you are right. Besides, you speak for a closed group that most people know nothing about its inner workings and so they usually don’t know how to respond to you guys. Again, that doesn’t mean you are right. The way to get people to take you seriously is to calm down and engage the issues. Not when you scream "contaminated reasoning" without showing the particulars for the statement by picking up a single argument of mine and deconstructing it.

That I am not engaging the substantive issue of child abuse by trying to convince anyone about it does not mean I will not respond to your direct lies and misrepresentations, either of MyJoe or the issue at hand.

Maximus85:
Note, Barrister has no reason to manipulate anything. You are just a typical Nigerian. They intentionally turn a deaf hear to the truth. James 1:22 says that you should be a doer of the word, and not hearers only, DECEIVING YOURSELVES WITH FALSE REASONING. With all the evidence given, that JW doesn't support child abuse, you are still not convinced. What is your gain? As for us the JWs we will continue doing what 1 Peter 3:15...defending our faith with mild temper and deep respect.

So this is your reading of the exchange. That I am a typical Nigerian who has refused to be convinced that the Witnesses don’t support child abuse in spite of copious evidence brought forth. Well, we do know that reading and comprehension aren’t your strong points.

BARRISTERS: @Myjoe
Beeni, you are his mouthpiece kee! Abi ki lowa buru nibe? gboranmi-deleru, why must you be the one feeling the pinch? i dont need the information from you, catholic or not, i still maitain that he is a catholic, i dont need to give you my reason for that conclusion ok? you are here denying in absencia! he is a catholic ok? until proven otherwise! this denial from you is uncalled for broda-gboranmi-deleru-ajiundo-doko!

Im putting it to you that you dont have morals or religion you can boast of,so you dont have a business in the religion forum when you celebrate vices and failures . if someone says you are not a responsible man,you know what that means,not an insult,but being shy about yourself or who you are can really be a serious matter!

you should know that im not like the jws you normally engage,i dont have a boundary,so if you want it softly, im there, and if you want it hot,ehn-hen Mo-wambe, i dey, keep your words to yourself!

Blind demented rage.

Prove that it is not blind rage that drives you to join the league of those inanely having premature ejacu.lation over my beliefs by providing a link to the thread where you asked me direct questions about them and I was shy about myself. Your rage even drove you to say you don’t know if I’m straight or gay – possibly with a view advising me to withdraw from “sexuality forums” the way you would have me withdraw from “religion forums”. Not that not declaring any affiliations or beliefs has anything to do with one’s morality as you shallowly infer. To insinuate that having JW or religion makes a man moral and being without it makes another immoral contains zero rationality. It is idiocy, apologies to Enigma.

In attempting to pontificate on morality, you sound like a cripple attempting football of the American variant. Morality flows from the heart and permeates our thoughts, speech and actions. It is not something you learn from the pages of Watchtower and Awake. And it can certainly not be acquired through being promised eternity in earthly paradise, heaven, 72 virgins, or through being frightened with damnation in hellfire or slaughter at Armageddon. No, these have not necessarily made people moral. We cannot become moral by declaring that we are. And we cannot become immoral merely because someone puts it to us in blind rage that we are.

There is nothing new about your declaration that I have no morals - Witnesses believe just that about all non-Witnesses, even though there is zero basis for such an idea. You consider yourself moral yet you labelled someone with a religion he has not professed to you just so you can drag that church into a thread about Witnesses and hopefully cover up the allegations against the Witnesses. You are moral yet you read facts selectively and manipulate facts, mentioning only the one case where money was awarded to your church. I don’t hold forte for the Catholics – their historical atrocities are well documented but they have repeatedly acknowledged and apologised for them, something the JW leadership does not have the decency to do. That the RC church has serious problems with child abuse, nobody has ever denied, and one doesn’t have to wonder what you hope to gain by dragging it here when the thread is not about the RC church and no Catholic person has challenged you.

Of course, you are like other Witnesses. You are trained to do all the talking while the other person listens meekly. Once you start, an average person has nothing to say in response because you are trained and he isn’t. You love it this way. But once you meet someone who asks serious questions or shows deep knowledge about your church and its beliefs, a different personality comes to the fore. Ehen, so let’s say I am Ola’s “mouthpiece”. What does that mean – that I am wrong and you are right?

I know the Canadian case. And I also know of others. I believe you know them, too, and are aware that the church has paid out millions of dollars. The California case you falsely accused me of making a meal of even though I only mentioned it in passing without bothering to provide a link to it or copy and paste it in large prints as you are wont is just only one of them.

By the way, you seem to think everyone understands Yoruba.

For the benefit of those who are reading, this matter is not one I am wont to beat the Witnesses over the head with – although those who do are justified in doing so since the Witnesses do same to others. I think the child abuse cases are primarily a problem of the individuals involved but there are certain matters that cannot be wished away. To be sure, it is inaccurate and wrong for anyone to say the JW condone child abuse. I also don’t think it is proper to blame the church for the failure of parents and guardians to go to the police. What is faulty are the procedures by which the church handles matters. When I was a student, a Witness chap in his 30’s not far from where I lived was said to have raped a child – the child had screamed about the matter and the case was public knowledge. (This guy had done a lot of bad things in his past, including armed robbery and ritual murder, as revealed in his own private conversations. I was happy for him when he became a Witness, hoping his life would turn around. So you can imagine how bad I felt on hearing he had done child rape). The church wasted no time in setting up a panel and “disfellowshipping” and shunning him. Fine. That shows the church does not condone it.

But what the JW critics and some other observers remind us is that once this guy moves to a new location, the church’s policy says it should not be disclosed to parents in the new congregation that he has the problem of paedophilia. And then there is the two-Witness rule, which ensures that a rapist walks free if the child does not produce two people that witnessed the act. This rule is obviously well-intentioned, as it is meant to protect people against false accusations and serve the course of justice. But it has enabled some rapists to escape. Is it good or bad? You make up your mind.

I only spoke on top this matta to set some facts straight when it appeared some people were unaware of it, or denying it, with some even asking for BBC and CNN. Like I already said, I am not interested in fruitless back and forth arguments over a serious matter that involves lives. I think it is a shame that people would deny or reduce events surrounding child rape. It is also a shame if anyone exaggerates the problem to score points against the Witnesses. My hope is that all the pressure that been brought so far will, if nothing else, compel the JW leadership to overhaul its child abuse policy and do the right thing.

Rotfl. So asking you to shut up - as you should have - provokes you and brings out the gutter language in you. He he. Olaadegbu's mouthpiece ke. Your selective reading and shocking manipulation of facts had nothing to do with him - you merely picked him as your anchor and cheaply labelled him an RC without knowing that or caring if he was one to get your message out. And twisting what I said about your church's level of decency to mean that the Catholic people are necessarily decent just suits you fine. Witnesses awarded money, indeed. Celebrate in large prints. Ignore cases where they've been ordered to make payouts.

Anyway, I have no desire to engage this issue, so I will leave you to it and leave the reader to read and learn. Network, indeed. Did you bother to review my history and relationship whth Nimshi on the forum before saying that? No. So you say you want to engage Nimshi on this. Ever heard the saying that you should be careful what you wish for? Lol.

Ola is not even a Catholic, but you had to call him one to enable you dig up that church's Augean stable to, hopefully, overshadow the JW's considerable child abuse problem. A typical case of "You be thief!" "Ehen, you, nko, you no be thief?" - something NL Muslims have elevated to an art.

Ola is a Deeper Life member. Now, dig up the DCLM's child abuse cases by parish and archdiocese to finally shut up Ola after your victory over him in some Trinity thread.

I have not read the posts above properly but I have skimmed portions of them. This is typical JW hypocrisy in full blast and it would have been better if Barristers had shut up than post this.

Facts: The RC and the JW churches have both had child abuse problems. It is clearly more serious in the Catholic Church - but there are over a billion Catholics as against 7million JW. Both churches have been accused of coverups and putting church's reputation above victims' interest. Both have made out of court settlements and court-ordered payouts. So where is the moral high ground? Is it the fact a Cardinal has admitted the problem as enlarged by Barristers somewhere above, something the JW leadership do not have the decency to do?

To be sure, I agree that the mistakes of an individual should not be blamed on his church wholesale and I am careful about apportioning blames in this matter, but the JW has no moral high ground here and Barristers should shut ug. Anybody who wants to understand the problem of child abuse in both churches should disregard the jaundice above and do their research with an open mind.

is that clear now, so you can see that jwschristian org. only guides members to follow and not force anybody here because every member reads and understands this before willingly accepting to follow what is written inside their own bible,of which myjoe is making it to look as if the members have a secret oath, but we can see now that what you term as depriving of God giving freedom is due to what you termed as 'to determine from reason' of which members agreed to follow the same rules that govern the first century christians.read again for clarity before you starts to say 'acts as free men' or your earlier bible verse that you quoted but could not sustain,this one below has encapsulate that and it has also given an extent to its vaidity,read;

You are deploying words here to serve a purpose. You are contradicting yourself. Or not being forthright – depending on how you mean these words. What do you mean by “only guides members to follow”? If they only give broad guidelines, why are there serious repercussions for default? Do you really believe these contradictions you are writing? You already agreed that the leadership of the church decides for the rank and file in these matters (with the explanation that members willingly agreed to this arrangement at baptism) why do you now make it sound as if members gather to discuss these things and reach a decision like the Athenian democrats? Might it be case, or am I misunderstanding you, that members once gathered in large auditorium, read the Bible and understood that blood fractions are bad, later met and read the Bible and understood that they are okay, and later met and ....?If you mean it like the Beroean Christians, is a Witness permitted to examine the scriptures for herself and dissent and remain in good standing with the church or is the examination only permitted to followed a pre-programmed path?

And –this takes us right back to the heart of the issue – is it really “what is written inside their own Bible” or what the leadership of the church says is currently written inside their own Bibles, since we know it may change before long? See, again, Awake of September 8, 1956, and Watchtower of November 1, 1961, p669.


I have said or implied nothing about an oath – I don’t know where you got that from. And I have not cited a scripture I did not sustain.Mentioned the scripture.But it seems you are still at a loss about the “freedom” verse.Let me break it down further. Paul said Christians are to be “free men”. At least, you saw the verse yourself. It’s inside the Bible. This does not mean that Christians are free to engage in immoral conduct – of course, Paul could not have meant that. What he was talking about then? It is something called “Christian freedom”. There is a book of that title. Christian freedom is a concept I believe will be completely alien to you, since the brand of Christianity you are defending here is all about “Don’t's.” “Don’t. . . blood transfusion”; “don’t . . . your aunty’s birthday or your boss’ son’s naming ceremony”; “don’t. . . religious literature, other than ours”; “don’t . . .your grandmother’s thanksgiving service;” “don’t. . . TV if they are showing boxing or wrestling”; “don’t. . . .” Christian freedom simply means what Paul said – that nobody dictates to you in these personal matters that your understanding of scripture and level of spiritual enlightenment ought to guide you on, especially if the Bible does not clearly forbid it. No, I am not “diverting” or derailing. I am explaining “act as free men” since you either don’t understand it or have not understood the application I sought to make of it.

Maybe you want to expound on “the same rules that govern the first century Christians”, using Bible references.I don’t think you are following any rule that governed first century Christians. You should certainly not be compared to them. If we were talking about the Bishop of Rome or any of the other popes who claim apostolic succession, I would ask that we examine the claim in the light of scripture. But for the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, that issue does not arise for examination since the body does not claim apostolic succession or divine inspiration. Its only claim to leading the true religion, the reason seven million people follow them as the mouthpiece of God and the guardians of the world’s sole fountain of truth, is because they study the Bible very much and, in their own opinion, they follow its tenets more than anyone else.

The first century Christians had the inspired apostles with them. Even then, I already reminded you that Paul was not the in habit of making constant reference to Jerusalem. He was led by the spirit for the most part. And he advised the Christians to do the same and not let anyone rule their Christian lives.The first century Christians had their Christian freedom to choose medical treatment, to eat what they liked, and to act in Rome as the Romans do, while being mindful of stumbling anyone and knowing their limits as people who were not of the world but followers of Christ.

Watchtower is not in anywayguity of anything here other than your misconception which i have treated above,except if you can be honest to appologise,but i dont even think they will need your apology.

Are you reading what you are writing? If so, please show me something to apologise for, for I can be honest enough to apologise. Watchtower decides for its followers in personal matters – that much you have admitted – with the explanation that the individual studied and freely agreed to this system before baptism. I then asked if the Watchtower admits that decisions on blood transfusion and vaccines are made centrally or if it tries to make it look like the individual’s own (like you yourself have done prompting me to raise the questions earlier), and you are asking me to apologise?

“Can be determined from reason” simply means that.I thought “reason”, as used there, was clear enough hence I saw no need to explain it. By reason, I mean that which the majority of people will find agreeable before any biases are introduced. For example, I was appealing to reason (which the known canons of interpretation just like most laws draw from) when I said you cannot pick a single sentence in a verse and call it “not literal” while taking the rest of the verse as literal. Reason tells us that taking what is not yours without permission is bad. Reason tells us that an elderly man producing a pocket knife from his pouch and slaughtering 42 kids for making fun of him is bad. It is because reason tells us that that Barristers will agree it is bad before any biases, for example, “it happened inside the Bible with a man called El. . .”, is introduced.

That is what I mean by reason – that which can be objectively determined by thinking people. By reason I do not mean “Myjoe’s reason and understanding” as you have misunderstood it. If I mean my own view I would refrain from the using the word “reason” and call it opinion. If I wrongly label my own opinion as reason you can point this out and show where the error is. Now, reason dictates to us that individuals are free to make their own decisions, especially where these are personal decisions bordering on health. I’m not sure I understand the other things you have written or appreciate the inferences that you have made.

I have explained what I mean by your people being deprived of their “God-given freedom” as stated in the Bible. You erred when you say that is due to “determine from reason” and I hope you can see that already. There is no misconception. Or is there? Okay, let’s treat what you call a misconception and then some other matters arising from your post:

BARRISTERS:
paul distinguished 'those that are outside' saying that the christians 'will need to get out of the world'(1 cor 5:10) which hereinafter means that 'a proffesedchristian that is called a brother, is not in the same category in anywaywhatsover with those outside the christian faith whose judjementpaul refers to God,butpaul signify apportioning some measure of discipline to anyone who clearly violates what he wrote to the christians (1 cor 5:11).

the only thing that can make someone says that this is not clear to him can be traced to a 'distorted' understanding.

It would appear the Governing Body of the Watchtower Society has a “distorted understanding”, then. In the following issues of The Watchtower and Awake magazines, the church’s leadership changed its understanding on the use of blood fractions five times in less than 10 years, demonstrating that the Bible is not clear on the matter.
Blood Fractions
* Not Allowed– aw56 09/08 p20
* Allowed– w58 09/15 p575
* Not Allowed– w61 09/15 p557
* Allowed– w61 11/01 p670
* Not Allowed– w63 02/15 p123-4
* Allowed– aw65 08/22 p18
The Awake of September 8, 1956, in banning blood fractions, attributed it to Scripture. Here: "Certain blood fractions, particularly albumin, also come under the Scriptural ban." – aw56 09/08 p20. See also w61 11/01 p669

Shortly afterwards, we all know the scripture said something else – the opposite. Is the Bible clear on this matter to you, Barristers?

@Myjoe,

Im touching this part again because you have rejected buiding logical common grounds earlier,when we both agree on bringing issue on one-by one to be meaningfull,but you only copy part of a discussion built to a level and want me to buy it, below are part of your reply, just to remind you,

Sorry, I’m not sure I am with you here. You asked a direct and directed question thus:

BARRISTERS:
before i proceed here, do you agree that it takes 'more than just mere thinking like others' to be involved in managing Gods people?
i dont need questions please, but give a yes or no, because, this is the area that actually defines the role of leadership of Gods people.
dont answer with questions pls.

And I responded thus:

MyJoe:
Yes. It would take more than merely thinking like everyone else.

Please explain what the problem is here.

Your earlier response above confirms that you are not interested in logical building of a topic for discussion despite my plea for a meaningfull discussion that can also benefit others, and that assertion was echoed lately where someone who is not even a jw's (ubenedictus) observe and said this below;

im pointing this earlier process out so that when i start adressing the issue the way it merits your suited well ways here,itshould'nt be a surprise.

If you have anything to say, I think you should get on with it. Imagining yourself preparing one of them cases, you chose the preliminary preliminaryobjection option – abandoning the main issue to “destroy” a story even while admitting the point I sought to make by it. You were within your bounds to do that, but if you then omitted to address the main issues properly, I am not responsible for that. Now it appears that points occur to you or, far more likely, you just found the JW publications dealing with the subject and you are here making excuses and saying that is how it suits me. But your excuses are not necessary since I am not in any contest trying to win medals and so won’t find any problem with any order you respond.Besides, I am not even making effort to convince anyone of the initial issue thehomer was punching about - that the Witness takes instructions from the centre even in personal matters the way people of other Christian groups don’t – you and the others already agreed to that.

What has Ubenedictus’ observation about the fact frosbel listed many issues at a go to do with this? But I understand why you love Ubenedictus’ post – Witnesses usually can’t take what they dish out.Of course, the thread was opened to find fault – it says so in the title and one would have expected anyone who doesn’t have a stomach for faultfinding to stay off it. Now, there is nothing wrong with finding fault as long as the faultfinder has the decency to retain his honesty and the highmindedness to maintain objectivity - even the Bible says there is a time for everything. JWs spend much of their waking lives finding faults and discrediting those it calls “false religion”. If memory serves me right, I saw a thread you opened in this section to find fault with churches.And what is wrong with taking to task a group that asserts that the rest of us are marching to the slaughter? But if it’s any consolation to anyone, I am not here to find faults. I only made a clarification and have fsubsequently responded to the issues as they arise.

I don’t agree that I have refused to follow issues logically. A lot of issues have since come up that I have deliberately skipped or glossed over. But certain matters can’t be treated in this way if the discussion is to benefit others. While I have brought in points that help to address the issue as I see fit – and will continue to do so - I have stayed focused on the point all along. However, if you think this discussion has not been as streamlined as much as you would have preferred it and you think I am responsible for this, bear with me and try to respond to the issue or issues the way you can. But I doubt you have been less guilty of anything you accuse me of.

now back to your earlier claim,


inadressing this issue above again from this particular direction that you choose;
we should have build up the foundation of:
what constitutes jws as an orgaisation,
their leadership..Annoited or not,members who are called brothers/sisters,
then their beliefs and those that seemed to be unclear to you must have been built up in discussion between myself and you,and that can also serve as a reference without complicating matters,even for onlookers here.
but since you refuse that, and you choose to deliberately enter into the heart of the discussion,then i will only assume that you only read about jws,but could not have the patient to examine their ways before you form a conclusion, so;

Again, an afterthought. You could have built your argument on these blocks as you want and I won’t have stopped you. I don’t see how they would have helped but it’s your call. If you expected me to ask you what constitutes the organisation or the “anointed” and the others you mentioned, sorry. I know what constitutes the “anointed”– remember I once asked you in passing if you know why the number of “anointed” now goes up every year instead of going down and how this is related to the great purge at Brooklyn in 1980.

And I know what constitutes the JW, the sources of its doctrines, and how the leadership manages to retain CONTROL and unquestioning loyalty. And it is my prerogative to respond to your posts in ways that best address the matter and get my point across. I have had the patient to examine the JW’s ways; whether you agree or not does not matter. What would is if you show a single factual error I have made.But maybe you will when you answer the specific questions I posed earlier today.

based on clear instructions which he or she belived, an instruction being agreed upon durind the first christian era;

In a conference occurred in 49 C.E., in which the apostles and older men of Jerusalem who served as a central body of elders for all Christians held a discussion. In this discussion, Jesus’ half brother James brought to the council’s attention certain essential things that he deemed important to include in their decisions, in particular, "to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood." (Acts 15:19-21)

He referred back to the writings of Moses, which reveal that even before the Law was given, God had disapproved of immoral sex relations, idolatry and the eating of blood, which would include eating the flesh of strangled animals containing blood.
There are two different issues that are sorted out;

1,Among the Christian gatherings were the jewish law teachers,[b]who still canvassed the need for non-jews known as gentiles to get circumcised as it used to be before under the law,so as to be to be reconcilled to the christianfaith,and it was noted this way;
Acts 15:23-25;
23 They wrote this letter by them:

The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,

To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law” —to whom we gave no such commandment—

but

A formal declaration in verse 16-17 evidently showing that the gentiles or non-jews have been reconciled with God and circumcision's burden which they trouble the non-jews with is now unneccesary,this way (bold)

Acts 15:19 and
19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God,
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:

verse 15 above shows the extent of the burden,that is the circumcision, but were they given outright freedom?no, how we knew this can be read in later part of verse 28 '' than these necessary things''

pronouncing the content of verses 29 ' these necessary things':

29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.[g] If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

looking at the greek meaning of abstain as used in the context will not mean the same thing with myjoe's own meaning;

ἀπέχομαι

apechomai

ap-ekh'-om-ahee

[size=14pt]to hold oneself {off}[/size] that {is} refrain: - abstain.

so,a true christian accept this as inspired direction from God throungh his servants/leaders.

[/quote]
Many Christians – spanning Catholics to evangelicals, African churches to Mennonites, do not agree with the explanation of Acts 15 as banning blood transfusion. The theologians and scholars I have read on the subject offer differing perspectives that make sense to me just as much as Watchtower’s may make to you. Now, I am not saying all this because I think the majority must be right, but just to remind you that there are differing views on that verse. But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Watchtower is right – afterall the church has been consistent in maintaining that blood transfusion is wrong so the Bible may actually be clear to them on the matter. So let’s say that the Bible is clear on that one. Let us move to an area where things are clearly not clear, yet, the church goes ahead to legislate.