andits just laughable when you said that bible is not clear on the matter of Blood.

You laughing? I take it you don’t play chess. Just wait, Mr Higgins.

instead of telling me that Myjoe is not clear,nowmyjoe in a desperate bid to create a case where there is none choose to speak for people who dont even share his own view and idea talkless of talking on their behalf(i will touch that briefly)

and after explaning to you and proving to you that the members of jws 'willingly studied and make reseach on their own,can choose to signify their intention to be a full member by baptism'or may choose not to,and that does not stop the person from participating in some aspect of the worship or being greeted as a brother/sister, and therefore if one choose to proceed for baptism,then he or she have accepted the leadership's direction from God,which is different from 'surrendering freedom to choose' as you further put it below;did i mention 'surrender?' but you have just help me to fill in the gap,making the sentence misleading;

this proclamation above on your part after explanations now shows that there is the need to pay moore attention to how you understands,and your standards used in evaluating matters rather than feeding you with more and more facts.

I think the word I used, “surrender”,was appropriate in capturing what you said. You don’t like it? Feel free to change it to: “that people willingly agree to let the church’s leadership hand down decisions in these matters, therefore, they can’t complain.”
It’s the same thing, Barristers, and I wasn’t trying to slur anyone when I used the word I did. And no, you didn’t “prove” anything to me. You merely repeated something I already knew and wasn’t disputing.

let me put something forward here to prove you wrong,andplsdont think that i want you to be convinced,but because your standards used for understanding scriptural matters still need to be known first, then discussed and evaluated to form possibly common grounds with the bible standards, or maybe it may not even be outrightlyneccesarily to try that dialogue .

What standards do you want? When the Bible clearly states that Christians should avoid things strangled, what standard is needed to understand that? That is how you people seek to mystify things when it suits you yet when you are preaching you present a “simple” message for the “honest-hearted”. When you knock on someone’s door to preach to them, what standard do you demand of them to understand “the meek shall possess the earth” that you read to them? Everything I have written here is commonsensical. I have shown you things in the Bible, read the way reason demands we read them. On this thread, there is no single place I have rejected a scripture on the basis that my opinion is superior .But you want me to produce a textbook standard as dictated to me by someone or a group I look forward to for spiritual guidance. You may look for a long time.

But get these straight;

Ok. . .

[b]No member of jws is under coersion of anytype from their leadership not to accept blood, but a member choose on his own wheather to take a blood or accept an alternative blood boosting medications.

this is a decision that a member choose to consider when he/she weigh considering his/her full trust on the bible's inspired guidance on blood issue,

It is not a fight, Barristers, so we may come to an understanding of the matters, yet. You may even prove me outright wrong about one or two things.Now, let’s get things really “straight” and if I am wrong, I have no problem accepting it. Please say.If a Witness accepts blood transfusion and this is known to the elders of his parish (called congregation), will there be consequences or not? I mean, will she be “disfellowshipped” and shunned or not?(I have already asserted that this is what happens.) If yes, you have told a direct lie. If no, I have some explaining to do and I need to update my information since that practice has existed.

here are [b]some scripture that a member on his/her own considers first to make his/her decisions

Is it the case the seven million or so Witnesses, or those of them who have faced a blood situation, individually read Acts 15 and came to the conclusion that blood transfusion is bad, without the church’s leadership having made the decision and handed it down? I don’t think that is what you are saying. You may recall that a collective decision was taken which was handed down by the leadership of the church. You may recall, too, that every Witness carries a special document, drafted by the church’s leadership, printed by the church’s printing press, which informs doctors and medics that in case he gets in an accident and is unconscious no blood is to be transfused unto him under any circumstances.

Now, Barristers, I want you to consider these statements. Imagine you are in Faculty of Humanities at Unilag, abi Maulag, and on entering the exam hall, this question jumps at you as number one:
Which does the JW church preach and say to its members officially?
A. “In the light of Acts 15, blood transfusion is wrong, scripturally prohibited for Christians.”
B. “In the light of Acts 15, each Christian should let his full trust on the bible's inspired guidanceguide him on whether to take blood transfusion or not.”
C. “In the light of the Bible’s guidance such as that found in Acts 15, each Christian should decide for himself in health matters, including blood transfusion.”

The two portions above are meant either to pin you down and stop you from escaping by manipulating words or prove me wrong and get my apology. So answer straight.

your above quote again above,is uncalled for the first place in its entirety,
and nothing appart from a seeming fabricated and a calculated attempt as you make it sound as if someone is being denied an advantange like the one that cause eve to commit the first sin,innorder to discredit the leadership of jehovahswitneses by unfounded allegations which do not even exist,or which the members do not even share or aware of, why do i say that;

1, you are the only one at least on this forum who in your own discretion, accuses the leadership of jws of 'not allowing Christians to decide for themselves in matters of medical treatment when the Bible is not clear on the matter' jumping several issues progresively such as;

How many people do you want? Having company on this thread does not make you right. Anyway, I am not the only one saying anything. You and your comrades have not denied that the church hands down policy in these matters. In fact, you have admitted it and one of your comrades has boasted about it. Your point was that the Witnesses agreed to this way of doing things, having had things explained to them before baptism, not so?

(1)you did not even accept the fact that their leaders are even qualified to lead them in the first place,and maybe the members share the idea with you that they accept the direction of their leadership or not,

I’m not sure I have made the qualification of the JW leadership the substance of any argument here. I only recall differentiating them from Moses and the Bible prophets since they themselves make such distinction. I think the members generally accept the leadership – reason tells us they would not stick there if they didn’t, right? There is a lot to say about the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, how it got its authority, how it maintains absolute CONTROL, how the members are selected and a lot else, but I have not done anything in that direction in this thread. Unless you want to bring it up at this time, tick to the issues already raised.

before

(2)proceeding on blood related matters,

and

(3)the issue that maybe the bible is clear or not

I already explained how we know the Bible is not clear on a matter. I cited my experience with one of your house to house callers on the strangled meat matter. Now, we know the Bible is clear on that. On the other hand, we know the Bible is not clear on, say blood fraction, because the church has changed its doctrine countless times. In coming out with a policy and then reversing itself, and then reversing itself again, the church’s leadership is saying loudly that the Bible is not clear on the matter. In saying that the Bible is not clear on blood transfusion, or at least, blood fractions, I am only reiterating what they themselves have shouted from the rooftops.

When I say the Bible is not clear on a matter, I am not necessarily alleging ambiguities, as you have misunderstood it, but making a concession to the Witnesses and to those – the majority, actually – who hold the opposite view. Here is what I mean. The Bible, in my opinion, and those of many others, says nothing about blood transfusion being wrong. Yet, the Witness’ ruling council have elected to say the Bible says so. Since it does not mention transfusion but it does say something about “abstaining” from blood which the Witnesses interpret as forbidding blood transfusion, the position that perhaps the Bible is not clear on the matter - since there are different interpretations - is automatically a fair one for the unbiased enquirer to start from. To put it differently, if a non-Witness Christian comes to me and say, “Look, there is nothing unclear about this verse. It says nothing about blood transfusion.” I will agree, while conceding to you that it might not be. In cases such as vaccinations and blood fractions, the church’s leadership has long confirmed this position of non-clarity.

or

(4)what constitutes ones acceptance of the bible inspired instructions,and the fact that if Myjoe sees the Bible as a mere textbook filled with opinions or that should not be taken so seriously,orMyjoe's personal belief that the bible is filled with ambiguities, and based on that every other member of jws should accept Myjoe's eye opener at all cost,and that since there are alledgedposibilities that makes the bible ambigous and as such the jw members should now go on to demand that the leadership should denounce belief from following bible counsels found in the bible due to an alledged ambiguity and follow Myjoe's own concept.

You are trying hard to obfuscate what I have said and stagnate the discussion. I will not let you. At least, I will restate what I have said clearly and those reading us can make up their minds. I have shown you scriptures allowing Christians to be guided by the spirit, as Paul was guided by the Spirit in the understanding of matters. Christians are to be guided by the Bible. But where the Bible is not clear, they are to meditate and pray for guidance. Their individual understanding of the Bible based on their study, meditation, prayer and spiritual advancement, should guide them. Some people are more spiritually advanced than others and are bound to see things differently. How is that the same thing as saying that the Bible is filled with ambiguities and should not be taken seriously? I don’t recall using the word “ambiguity”, buthow in any case is ambiguity the same thing as saying something should not be taken seriously?Or that JWs should demand that their leadership stop following the Bible? What you have said is untrue. It is not true. It is false.

But what are you people afraid of in letting the individual Christian’s enlightenment guide him where the Bible is not clear? Seriously, what? Since the Governing Body says it is not “inspired”?Everyday you pray to God, what do you pray for, if not the ability to understand the Bible for your own guidance and the will of God for your Christian life? Even Watchtower makes preachments individual conscience, even though it does not allow it to work.

BARRISTERS: @Myjoe,
Im not a mouth piece of jws,because i have explained my stand earlier,but i need to point some things out;

im revisiting this quote again to draw home some points.

It is a fact that that jws members did not make a complain about their leadership,neither do they complain of any leader or overseers robbing them on their decision-making in matters of medical treatment,and so your cry here as regards the unexisting issue of 'church’s leadership not allowing Christians to decide for themselves in matters of medical treatment' looks very empty and misleading,until you supply us a legitimate issue here,one that can be confirmed,and not the type that was unfounded which you related here earlier this way;(Your-friend's-classmate's-mother-back-in-the-day's)and attempt to shed more light on the matter proved abortive as you declined not to go into detail,only to have an afterthought on mentioning a name but in another encounter when you alledged to be 8 yrsold,to make up the story,while the first one concerning the woman was abandoned by you,

There was no “attempt to shed more light on the matter”. Go read that portion again. You dismissed the story and I said, fine, let it rest, since my point stood well without it. The story was told as an example to illustrate a point. Yes, I refused to go into details about it.If you consider that a victory and want to gloat over it, have fun. But going into the story was not even necessary since the point that brought about the story has not been denied by you – the fact your church’s leadership decides for its members in matters, even where the Bible is not clear. And how can the issue we have been about suddenly become “unexisting”?

so supply a legitimate issue that you can sustain here that the jws leadership was accused by a victim of not allowing him or her to decide in matters relating to blood.i will be glad to see that so that we can continue from there.but as it is now,nothing like that exist.

You are being, as they say, clever by half. Please show me where I said Witnesses are complaining or how that became the issue here. Is “Deeper Life forbids its members from drinking alcohol” the same thing as saying that when a Deeper Lifer chooses to drink the church prevents him? The issue is that Watchtower decided on blood transfusion, vaccinations and organ transplants and all Witnesses were expected to comply. I have stories involving Witnesses and blood I can relate here to illustrate how the church responds when members accept blood, but I won’t bother.Of course, an adult Witness can choose to accept blood transfusion and the church or its agents will not physically prevent the transfusion from taking place like the police would do if it was a government law. That is not what I am saying, Barristers, and I have no doubt you know it. But what happens to the Witness who accepts blood transfusion? Will the church respect his decision as your post might suggest to the ignorant? No. He will be summoned before a panel of elders and told he has violated the law of God as stated in the Bible. He will be “disfellowshipped” and that will result in the loss of all his friends in the church and the chance to fellowship freely with a Christian group he may feel tremendous attachment to. This is what happens.

To reiterate, even though I am sure you got it already, I am sayingthat the Witness was not allowed to arrive at whether blood transfusion breaks God’s law or not through his personal study of the Bible or spiritual enlightenment.

The whole world knows that Witnesses do not accept blood transfusion. They know that this decision was taken centrally since ALL witnesses voice opposition to blood transfusion. The same way I learnt, even as a kid, that there is a policy on people with two wives who become Witnesses – something you have tried to present as a story made up to cover up for another. (I mentioned it to let you know how I first learnt of the policy on polygamous converts, a policy you have not denied exists, leaving one to wonder what your point really is. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, the story is made up. How does that help your argument? Are people allowed to get baptised while having two wives?) Older people may know that the JW once forbad vaccinations and organ transplants. So I don’t know what you are you on about asking me for cases of people who complained about not being allowed to take blood. Perhaps you want to read the woman’s story again and show where I said I was citing it because she complained to me or to anyone about the church’s leadership.

You want a legitimate issue I can sustain? Here is it: Why does the JW’s leadership decide for its members, even in matters on which the Bible is not clear like blood transfusion, vaccination and organ transplants?

Tudór6: Can anybody tell me why this forum looks weird? I mean the layout and colouring. Or I'm not remembering things clearly. This theme hurts my eyes.

Maybe my memory is still bleeped up

Hey, see who is here! Good to hear you are okay after what happened. Now, this NDE matter you are planning should be interesting. I will be reading and contributing to the thread.

He was a strong man. A hard man to the core. He will be missed.

Not that I admired him.

truthislight:

birds of the same feathers flocking together.

All using JW detrators website.

Have a life.

Ola, Nimshi does not even believe in the God you claim to serve but the both of you are here doing the same thing, the work of your master.

He supports muslim or he is a muslim, i dont know for myjoe yet, but time will tell, he is very Good in hiding his antics.

I guess you meant to say “he is very good in his antics” or “he is very good at hiding his true beliefs”. “Antics” may be used to describe what you put on to hide things, not what you hide.

Anyway, I have never hidden my views on matters around here. But from your posts in the other thread and on here, I believe you really mean to know the group I belong to you. Three things.

1. In the community of human beings, people hold differing views. Let me cite the example from the Catholic thread. You, Ihedinobi and Enigma all claim Christianity on Nairaland. I don’t. Yet, on the matter of the “sons of God”, you and Ihedinobi differed, whereas you and me saw things the same way. On the matter of whether the story of everyone coming from a man called Adam many years ago in the Middle East is to be taken as a literal historical account, you and Ihendinobi seem to agree yet Enigma’s views are in all likelihood closer to mine. That is the way things go. That is why there are divergent views on matters in Christianity. And that is why OLAADEGBU AND Nimshi would agree on a particular matter, while disagreeing in many many others. The only place everyone sees things the same way and having differing views is seen as unpardonable is among the JW. That is what we are talking about in the other thread. Of course, you will also find it among several small fringe groups. This approach is neither natural, reasonable nor fair. It is artificial, anti-intellectual and wrong.

2. This is an anonymous forum. What I claim here may not matter as much as you think. I could be a reverend father or a Bethellite or a Shopono priest, for all you know. In any case, I have, like I said, never hidden my views on the forum or declined to answer specific questions.

3. It is not good that you have been raised to believe that everyone ought to “belong to” a group or a belief system. Everyone holds views. But everyone does not belong to a textbook system. Not that I have said in this post that I do or don’t.

^^^ I don't know what you mean. Please explain.

@Rhymz
Please mail the pdf to me at X.

truthislight:

good you did.

But do you want all person to rely on yours only?

Good you did, allow others to do theirs and form their own opinions.

I said the issue was not as blown out of proportion in other country as it was in Nigeria since they had a better understanding of the msg.

Yes, 6000years of human existence what next?

They did not take it to mean that the world would end in 1975.

That you did goes to show that you or those that took it that way dont know what the bible teach. Acts 1:6,7.

That is the more reason you should read your bible and understand it and stop crying for your failure or lack of good bible knowledge/foundation/excape death.

Know the bible for a change.

If someone should show you a prophesy that will fulfill next year and told you the end is near and you really do know what the bible teach will you or should you conclude that the end will come next year?

If someone should tell me that from the bible the world will end next year i will not accept cus i know what the bible teaches.

Kid stuff.

I guess you are happier just left to believe that^^^.

You can take your time. I trust you and yours are doing great.

truthislight:
Beside, ask a JW that is not a Nigerian about the 1975 saga and you will get what i have just written down.

I did. You haven't, it seems.

Edited.

truthislight:
The incident was even a local phenomena since that fever did not gripped other countries like it did in nigeria.

He he.
I guess you are happier just left to believe that and the rest of what you wrote.

Maximus85: Let me put an end to this issue concerning the prediction of the end to this system of things.
YES! In 1925/1975 the GB did PREDICTED based on the situation of things at that period which are very similar to the signs that Jesus told his disciples to watchout for.
They predicted but DID NOT FIX A SPECIFIC DATE. So it will be unjust to castigate the GB for predicting. They came out to apologise. We are not God, we are just IMPERFECT HUMANS, WE ARE IN NO WAY PERFECT. Please let agree it was a mistake to had put people in fear at that time. It wasnt meant to be that way. But there were daunting evidences at that period.

So let us put this issue behind us all forge ahead.

There are many inaccuracies in that^^^. But since I am not keen to go into 1975 here, I will limit myself to the highlighted. The Governing Body did not apologise. In fact, they never do. They just "forge ahead", hoping people will forget and knowing that the vast majority of their followers will. That makes the leadership of the Catholic Church morally superior to yours, since they have on occasions come out to apologise for that church's historical atrocities. If I am wrong, I will like to be corrected, as you show me the issue of Watchtower where the apology over the 1975 prediction or any other prediction or any blunder committed by the church's leadership was contained.

Maximus85:
If you want to hide an info from an average Nigerian...put it in writing. Was i posting in SWAHILI? Have i taged any news agency infallible? May God forgive you.

Your effort to make jest of me by a hackneyed line is laughable. But maybe if you reread the thread and consider your responses you will see who truly has manifested a bewildering incapaity to read text or comprehend their meaning.

You did not call them "infallible" but you ascribed the unique capacity to be trusted with accurate news to them, such that other media outlets must be dismissed offhand. (I doubt you have even realised how assinine that statement was.) That is why I used the word "imply". Did you see that word in my reply? No, it flew over your head. Anyway your question and prayer should be directed at Mr truthislight who it was that made the inference.

truthislight:

congrat myjoe.
Thats a job well done.
Peace

I think your is position is much closer to Mr Obi's than mine, but I realise people like to emphasise differences. I mean, the both of you appear to take the Adam and Abel stories to be literal historical accounts. I don't. Not that there is anything particularly non-Christian about my position, as I doubt Enigma, too, takes the stories as literal and historical.

Mr_Anony:
@Enigma and Ihedinobi;

Ok now I am interested in this thread, please share with us about these sons of God because I have always known them to be angels....and for the benefit of MyJoe as well

Ah! A non-non-Christian is interested. No doubt, even Sir Enigma won't mind hurling some "pearls" now. Thanks.

@ihedinobi
If you have had problems with certain discussants and found the exercise unedifying, my sympathies. I will skip the bit about degrading your family heritage since I respect your strong Christian values. But I will like to say that while I do place considerable value on the Bible, I doubt that the “value of the scriptures” would mean exactly the same thing to you and me. That portion of the Bible is not of any particular importance to me – I highlighted your post because I had thought Christians generally accept that the “sons of God” were angels and you are the first person I recall to hold a contrary view. So if you only discuss these matters in a heavy atmosphere and with someone who shares similar interests, feel free to respond no further. Not that I sought a discussion per se. I just hope to understand why you hold your position. I have no intention to debate or that sort of thing.

Now to answer your question:
I have not paid any particular attention to that verse beyond recollections of what I learnt many years back – you know, Sunday school, children’s Bible and CRK stuff. Now that you have made me to think about the matter, I think those who taught me knew what they were talking about because:
1. The expression “sons of God” used here is used in other verses of the Bible to refer to angels. For example, Job 1:6 and 38:7 – or weren’t the guys in Job angels?
2. St Jude talks about angels abandoning their positions (Jude 6).
3. St Peter talks about “the spirits in prison” and links them with the days of Noah (1Pe 3:19, 20).

@Edit
No no. I didn’t mean that the devil was among them, although, funny enough, that seems to fit in somehow. I’m sure you are familiar with the phrase, “the devil is in the detail”. Just a harmless idiomatic expression stretched a bit.

"The sons of God". Now, that is where the devil would be. Well, it will be interesting to hear Mr Obi's explanation.

^^^ Accepted. It takes humility or a great mind to say sorry.

Genesis 6:1-4(KJV)
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Gen 6:1-4 (NIV)
1 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

Genesis 6 (MSG)
1-2 When the human race began to increase, with more and more daughters being born, the sons of God noticed that the daughters of men were beautiful. They looked them over and picked out wives for themselves.
3 Then God said, "I'm not going to breathe life into men and women endlessly. Eventually they're going to die; from now on they can expect a life span of 120 years."
4 This was back in the days (and also later) when there were giants in the land. The giants came from the union of the sons of God and the daughters of men. These were the mighty men of ancient lore, the famous ones.

No, Mr Obi. I don't find your current position agreeable. But you already considered these verses before adopting it, so it will be interesting to hear your explanation.

truthislight:
How can a protest of an individual action turned to be the "waywardness of the church?"

I had resolved to stop responding to you since you find it very hard to comprehend statements and so end up turning them upside down when responding to them and trying to clear things up will only lead you to find more things to read awry. But I would like to ask: do you see any difference between these two statements:

I think her point is that op opened the thread for people to ask questions about his BELIEFS and not to discuss the infractions or waywardness of the church.

and

I think her point is that op opened the thread for people to ask questions about his BELIEFS and not to discuss the infractions or perceived waywardness of the church.

Ihedinobi:

No sir, I doubt very much that you did. Nowhere in the Bible from Genesis to the Revelations did any spirit or extra-material being of any sort consort with a woman in the sexual way. I am open to disagreement. But I can assure you that such a teaching will not hold up under scrutiny.

OIC. Well, we learn everyday. I will go scrutinise it, then, and see if I find your position agreeable or not.

^^^ For the benefit of anyone reading, I merely responded to what I thought was someone's sincere enquiry about the presence of the matter of JW child abuse in the news. I did not imply that it has anything to do with teaching the Bible or being perfect of disfellowshiping or not disfellowhiping or any of the other stuff that the post above chose to read into it. And I did not imply that the CNN or the BBC are infallible. His co-JW defender, Maximus85, did.

OLAADEGBU:
Panorama on BBC certainly reported it. Check the suggested link below:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/2114320.stm

Thank you. I knew it, but chose to be cautious as I could be getting things mixed up.

OLAADEGBU:
Where have you been looking? The news is all over the place. It no longer pays to bury one's head in the sand thinking that it would all go away.
http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=6499357

Honesty is a rare commodity, Mr Adegbu.

OLAADEGBU:
So you don't what us to post links that back up the allegations against the JW's? Child abuse is no long covered up it is broadcasted on the global news what do you want to say about it? Is it part of what you believe? See the protest against those child abusers in Brooklyn, NY. It is no longer a secret.

I think her point is that op opened the thread for people to ask questions about his BELIEFS and not to discuss the infractions or perceived waywardness of the church. But I guess you are right. These things must come up.

Ihedinobi: This thread was an agonizing read. Is it really Christians who are interpreting 1 Cor 15 like that? And deciding that the Bible backs purgatory? And teaching that fallen angels slept with human women? Terrible!!! This is an awful thread, to put it mildly.

I thought I read that in the Bible someplace?

kieryn: This is what happens to all JW forum it starts of with an objective and ends up being derail. Why cant someone simply share what their beliefs or answer questions without certain people having the need to air out someone dirty laundry, everyone has it we all humans.The OP aim is not to convert but to simply share his belief or answer any question about JW. Whether u agree or not that doesn't matter, take it for what it is their belief and not yours. If you do disagree, agree to disagree.Many people that come to make post (or the people that have these anti-JW websites) already have a strong dislike for JW or are disgruntled ex-JW, do you think that if I want to know what the JW are all about I will ask an opinion from them. When I no their aim is tear the religion down, there's no balance. Everyone has their right to believe and to worship how they like and as civilized people we can be very cordial in sharing our belief w/o tearing each other down. Please let's keep this forum as neutral as possible. Share your belief using the bible since that something we all come to the table with, and stop posting all these websites that are not affiliated with JW.

I actually share the general sentiments of your post. I agree with you mostly.

Josh090: hmm..you do not have any other reliable source apart from the one you posted earlier then! am sorry but i am an ardent follower of foreign media and events especially any related to those of jehovah's witnesses organization and i have not come across such allegations, as such i can not agree with you on the matter of child abuse you're talking about!

So you are an ardent follower of ABC, CNN USA and co.

Anyway, those reports were made years back and any ignorance of them can be excused. But if you are unable to verify the July 2012 multimillion dollar California court case for yourself but prefer to read only the portion earlier mentioned, you cool, boss. As for your agreeing with me, I do not have a need for that.

Maximus85:
IF THE NEWS IS NOT ON BBC OR CNN....THEN FORGET IT.

Years back, I think the BBC reported it, but I'm not sure of it at the moment. But the CNN, ABC and some other US networks certainly did. The recent case in which $28 has been awarded against the church by a California court was reported by several media houses, including the Huffington Post, the Oakland Tribune and MSNBC.

By the way, your assertion that if an incident is not reported by the BBC or CNN it should be forgotten is preposterous. You may wish to reconsider and amend the post.

I don't think logicboy is a troll. Hyperactive and sometimes abusive, yes. But on the whole he is just pushing his views like most other posters. I don't believe he goes out of his way to look for trouble.

Nimshi:
*** You think staunch JWs cannot astutely criticise the JWs? Well, news, 'brother': yes, they can

Right. During my inquiries years back, one of the most valuable materials I ever had access to was put together by a serving JW.

8. Yeah. I guess I missed it somehow. Or maybe I didn’t pay sufficient attention to it and so don’t have it in my long memory.

I have done a bit of reading of the matter and I am quite surprised. That in spite of the fact that the UN alliance matter exposed how hypocritical they can be. You see, I was quite prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt on the UN issue. I thought, “oh, well, perhaps Peloyan (then Awake editor, now late) advised the GB that the affiliation was necessary to enable magazine researchers get information about the UN and the GB believed it.” But this one is on another level. Well, it appears to be.

You may be aware that in Nigeria, respected JW men, including circuit overseers, were involved in the pyramid schemes of 2001. In fact, they were known as “Watchtower lottery” in some places. Now, I just read someone speculating that Watchtower may have invested in Bernard Madoff’s scheme. Whether that speculation is true or not, I will keep an open mind on since it is just a speculation, but the mention of pyramid reminds me of the 2001 debacle.

I have heard some express moral reservations about investment in the stock market and I share their sentiments and would be surprised that a group like the Watchtower would go anywhere near stocks. Still, I understand that most people see nothing wrong investing in the stock market. But military and tobacco? The reports about Watchtower’s investments in military and tobacco companies definitely have some trueness to them. What is not clear to me yet is who knew what and when. There are what look like authentic documents of the US Securities and Exchange Commission with Watchtower listed as shareholders in some of the “questionable” companies. I mean, there are facts that appear to suggest strongly that the Watchtower Society has military and tobacco stocks. It doesn’t look good.

The Rand Cam case appears convincing at first, but I have read a letter purportedly written by the Watchtower Society in which they admit some link to the company but deny having received any contribution from the company and that their name which was listed in error has been removed in correction. Since I have not had sufficient time to go through things with a fine comb, I will put off making up my mind on that matter. However, I find the Riley Trust/Phillip Morris case hard to dismiss. I think thinking JWs will find it disturbing that their church would receive money from a trust that invests in the world’s most renown tobacco company (later changed name to Altrious, I think). And while you can say that it is not Watchtower investing in the cigarette company but receiving the proceeds, would that be a good defence, since the trust exists solely to make money for the Society? Another angle to the investment in Phillip Morris could be that the guys managing the trust bought those shares without Watchtower’s knowledge. Would that also be a good defence since Watchtower magazines counsel Witnesses to know whatever it is they invest their money into? The evidence appears to weigh against the Society, but I have not looked through all the information available and will do more findings before making up my mind on whether Watchtower is guilty of knowingly or negligently investing in smart bombs and cigarettes.

I can't find any JW Lockheed Martin links.

Of course, I am aware that if it was reported that the Catholic Church had investments in a company making weapons – like it was found during the Vietnam War, I think – or one making stuff used for aborting foetuses, the Watchtower and Awake magazines will write about it without trying to mitigate or weigh up anything. But what sickens me in all this – just as much as investing in military industry or tobacco would be – is the fact that the Watchtower Society would carry on big business in this manner while condemning the “greedy merchants” of the world as well as “Christendom’s churches” for doing business with those “greedy merchants”.

@Nimshi
1, 2 & 5. I guess we will disagree on that. But I suspect it’s our definitions of “dangerous” that differ. For example, I don’t go to bed worrying that my uncle and his entire family, or his married children and their entire families, will come to any danger as a result of being Witnesses. I am close to them and I believe they are fine. It is at this basic level that I am considering danger and asserting that the religion is not particularly dangerous. That is at the individual level. For societal danger, I don’t think any beliefs held by the JW pose any danger to the society the way some people’s beliefs have posed danger to babies across Africa. I cited the case of raped babies across Africa earlier. Now, I cited that case as an EXAMPLE of how BELIEFS HELD BY INDIVIDUALS can put a society in danger – nothing more. I still don’t get how you related it to the discussion about child abuse among the JW and concluded that I was sanitising the issue. There is a misunderstanding there, as the statement was not made in the context child abuse among the JW.

Your definition of danger probably differs and is more encompassing. Religious danger to me is Jim Jones and similar stuff. But for you, it’s probably temporary trauma resulting from disfellowshipping and shunning. For example, plaetton asserted in one thread that the religions pose a danger and should be ridiculed – or something like that. He cited the example of people who give 10% of their income to their churches even when their families are in dire financial straits. I think that is their choice and that is it. But that is not how plaetton sees it.

And, yeah, MyJoe’s familiarity with an issue does not impact on its level of danger. Ha.

Now about the new recruits you are concerned about. I agree many of them don’t fully realise what they are getting into. But if they did, what would change? You seriously think that telling someone who has just “found the truth” and has been subjected to the JW’s highly effective insulation techniques will give it up once you tell him that he is going to be disfellowshipped and shunned if he commits “fornication” or is sighted with a stick of cigarette? Or that she will listen when you walk up to her and “your religion is dangerous. You’ve been brainwashed?” You have mentioned that Watchtower invested money in arms and tobacco companies. That would cause outrage in normal people considering the dictates handed down on such matters to the rank and file, but have you seen anyone evince a slight angst here? A Witness reads all you have written here and he is happy that Witnesses are hated and persecuted just like Jesus said.

A couple of years or so back I saw your exchange with a new Witness recruit called Perrito4u. What reaction did you get from her? Once you start, she remembers all the talk about the fact people would try to discourage her and her faith in the religion (which has been sly substituted for God in her mind) is strengthened. She feels “vindicated”. She had been fortified for just the kind of things you were saying. Bear in mind that Perito4u was calm and had some capacity to follow arguments, even though she often gave pre-fabricated responses, unlike most of the ones in this thread who happen to represent the average JW who loses it once you display close knowledge of the church rather than stick to Trinity and heaven where they have verses lined up and love to, as you put it, “play ping pong”.

Look at the angry responses your comments have invited here. I know Witnesses tend to get angry once discussions take this turn. Still, there is no need to hand them just what the leadership of the church wants. The typical Witness reaction as seen here – disowning reason, refusing to consider anything unfamiliar or capable of showing the church in bad light, calling you the devil’s spawn, etc – can’t be prevented, considering what you are dealing with, but you can present your case in such a way that when any thinking person, including Witnesses, comes around he can relate to it. This reminds me of the words of Salvador that it takes a highly elevated spirit or intelligent mind to accept certain truths. I don’t take Witness hate sites seriously because of the manner they go about things. I have read Randy Waters and I think the sort of things he writes will hardly impress any sincere and active Witnesses. You’ve read Franz’s Crisis of Conscience or In Search of Christian Freedom? Now, that is how to present a case. I am not surprised that Randy Waters does not think much of Crisis of Conscience. If these acerbic methods work on anyone, I would be surprised and it would be an exceptional case.

Many new recruits are aware of these things and that has not stopped them. I seriously doubt anyone can “save” them. I’m not discouraging you, though. I may even be wrong. Just stating it the way I see it.

No, I don’t believe that Witnesses are in serious danger and I have a duty to safeguard them and help them get out. Even if they were in danger I doubt I can help them or that it’s a task I’d be hungry to undertake. All I do here is to point out inconsistencies and inaccuracies in arguments where I see them and have the inclination to do so. I then leave things at that. Well, that is all I try to do –opinionating is fine as long as it is not allowed to overshadow facts. I do the same with other faiths and religions since I treat them all alike. If my adult child or brother wants to become a JW, I would try to present facts in a non-judgemental manner and leave matters at that. At the end of the day, we all make our choices. But you do have a different approach – that is your prerogative.

3. Of course, I was talking about the balance of responsibility. Both the leadership and the rank and file are to blame for any folly, no doubt about that. I was making that post from a mobile phone and wasn’t explicating things sufficiently.

4. Ok. I was hearing it for the first time and have definitely read or heard it said that physical structures will not make it into “the new system”.

6. I can’t get the exact quotes right now, but I have a definite recollection of it. It was announced that these things done by some brothers had cost the church money as the society had had to make pay outs. This was at conventions throughout the US that year.

7. Well, that is sad. Anyway, it’s called “protecting the flock”. That individual had to “protect” himself from the danger posed by certain websites and books so he had to get clearance to read a book. Not following the society’s recommendations on the internet and on reading can lead him to leave the church – something worse than death. Why? Because “that is what the Society said!” I would personally not suggest such a book to a Witness or give him links to “anti-Witness” websites, though. Apart from the fact that I am generally respectful of people’s wishes, including those of people who have given up their fundamental right to read and meditate freely, there’s more than enough inside the church’s own publications for anyone who is prepared to pause, to think and to remember. The JW leadership is convicted by its own literature. I know the Watchtower Society’s censorship goes as far as its own publications as it routinely removes articles with the potential to do some damage from its own “comprehensive” library on CD ROMs. But there’s always enough left there.