The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I may actually have already posted this, so apologies in advance if I have...
Well, I suppose it was inevitable really; after months of ranting in a sustained manner, I simply had to turn my attention to religion sooner or later. After all, anyone who has had the misfortune to be trapped in the same room as me whenever the subject has turned to religion and faith will know of my rather strong views on the matter (or at least they will do if they've ever managed to decipher my slurred and incoherent speech and not been put off by the stench of wine emanating from my festering gob...)
I confess that I've been looking for an excuse to talk about this for some time and recently I have been given an opportunity. 1 night a week for the last 3 weeks I have invited two young gentlemen into the flat where I live. They have stayed for about an hour and a half each time and when have gone, all three of us are left feeling tired and yet sated and satisfied. Yes, I'm talking about Mormons.
For anyone who doesn't know about the Mormons (or the Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints to give them their full title), they are members of a church founded in America around about 1820 by a bloke called Joseph Smith. Their basic beliefs are that Joe was a prophet in the fine traditions of the Old Testament (no, he didn't go round causing plagues of locusts or smiting his enemies with holy fury; even if he had done, 19th Century America had more pressing issues such as wiping out the natives and stealing their land to notice any vaguely biblical disasters...). He also had possession of a set of gold plates. Whereas you or I may think "Hmmm...I could get a few quid for these", Joe said that the inscriptions on them were in fact books of the Bible that never actually made the final draft, and had been buried in America since then. These inscriptions formed the basis of the book of Mormon, which in turn is the basis of their religion. And that, aside from the fact that they're really good at tracing family trees so that they can baptise their ancestors (does this involve digging them up and baptising them? Surely a body is pretty much soluble after a couple of hundred years underground; would you let yourself get baptised in the same water as 3 dozen dead and dissolved relatives?), is pretty much all you need to know about the Mormons.
Like Jehovah's Witnesses, they also seem to feel the need to go door-to-door and preach the word of Moroni (the angel who enlightened Joe Smith). Unlike Jehovah's Witnesses, they are a fairly affable bunch with none of the hellfire and damnation (and, let's face it, total misery) of the Witnesses. I was very welcoming of them, which quite naturally scared the hell out of them as they are used to having doors slammed in their face and abuse thrown at them. It was actually nice to have them round as the JW have quite possibly marked my house with a big black cross since their last visit (the poor woman is quite possibly still having to attend three prayer meetings a day to overcome the horrible memory of "...that satanic man who told me that the founder of our great church was a con- man with convictions for fraud!". Which he was by the way...)
Anyway, I won't presume to bore you with the details of the debates that have ensued from their visits. Needless to say that I'm enjoying being educated about their religion and they are having to put up with being educated about my views on life, the universe, and everything. What I will presume to bore you with is something that has been playing on my mind since their last visit. The two gentlemen who've been coming to argue with me are both polite and tolerant young men. They have listened attentively to my arguments and been respectful of my views despite the fact that are in flagrant breach of the rules that govern their lives, and because of this I have shown them the same courtesy when listening to their arguments.
So how come religion is one of the largest bastions of intolerance and ignorance in the known world? What causes it to develop from 2 polite young men talking reasonably to someone who doesn't accept their point of view to an autocratic institution that breeds ignorance and fear of any beliefs that differ from it's own? I really don't understand how it can happen.
What further confuses me is that despite the fact that religions have been schisming, spasming, and splitting pretty much since they began, literally billions of people choose to place their faith in them. Essentially, people are handing over a portion of their lives to an intangible concept which, even if you accept it's existence, has representatives on earth who act in their own self interest and not that of their followers. Now maybe it's just me, but I don't get it.
Take the Catholic Church as an example (oh, in case you're a Christian of any sort, I'm not being biased against you. The Muslim faith also split into two distinct branches, the Sunni and the Shi'a. I'm not going to go into detail about them as A: I don't know much about the differences between the two, and B: I'm not stupid enough to make the same mistake that Salman Rushdie did...). The Catholic Church as it is now is the result of 2000 years of infighting, backbiting, self-aggrandising politicking, and general unpleasantness and intolerance. You disagree? Okay, well let's take a look at a few examples...
Firstly, despite what you may have been taught, the church was not the sole source of spiritual enlightenment and comfort until some German anti-Semite nailed a piece of paper to a door and started the first of the many Protestant faiths (which have also split and proliferated like horny mice in a grain store). The first major split (not counting the power struggle between Paul and Jesus’ brother James that took place after Jesus’ death. Oh, and the numerous minor battles between different small sects of Christians) occurred way back in 313AD. It was called Arianism, and it led to the mutilation, maiming and murder of hundreds of thousands of people as both sides attempted to have their point of view accepted as the one true way. And can you guess what it was about? Was it perhaps an argument of whether Christ existed? Or about the nature of the relationship between God and the Devil (and maybe even Bob)?
Nope. It was about the word "and".
I'm serious. A holy war was waged over one of the most common words in the language. Catholics believed that there was the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost and they were three separate and distinct entities who existed simultaneously. Arians said that there was Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (notice that there is one less "and"). God is the main man, he sent his Holy Spirit from heaven and inhabited a man who was the son. In other words, the three cannot exist at the same time.
Frankly, if I'd died over something as trivial as that I daresay I would have been somewhat annoyed...
And it doesn't stop there. In the ninth century the church split once more into Eastern Orthodox and Western Catholic (and yes, the churches of the East have themselves split repeatedly). And lest anyone think that these holy wars are a relic of history, I would invite you to consider the Protestant-Catholic split in Ireland, the Christian-Islamic conflicts that are scarring Nigeria, the Sudan, and various parts of Africa, or the Hindu-Moslem tension in India. I'm sure it's not a revelation when I say that the biggest cause of worldwide strife is conflicts between religions that supposedly preach peace and brotherhood.
When we take these various splits into account, there are something like 50 major religions and countless minor cults that all claim to preach the true word of God. The only thing they seem to hate more than the works of the Devil are religions whose views differ from their own by about 3 words in paragraph 8 of page 106. AND PEOPLE ACTUALLY TRUST AND BELIEVE THEM!!
Apologies again if what I'm saying causes offence, but doesn't anyone else think that it's about time we consigned these outmoded and outdated methods of thought control to the dustbin of history? I accept that we do need some sort of receptacle for our faith (I've often commented on how mankind seems to have a God-shaped hole in their head; we all seem to need a religion to fill it) but could we not perhaps spend some time pondering our own individual thoughts on the nature of the universe rather than relying on a set of religions that seek to keep us from thinking for ourselves and serve no purpose other than their own glorification? At least then any future wars over religion will actually be down to something people genuinely believe in rather than principles that have been imposed on them by a church that is no longer relevant.
Well, I suppose it was inevitable really; after months of ranting in a sustained manner, I simply had to turn my attention to religion sooner or later. After all, anyone who has had the misfortune to be trapped in the same room as me whenever the subject has turned to religion and faith will know of my rather strong views on the matter (or at least they will do if they've ever managed to decipher my slurred and incoherent speech and not been put off by the stench of wine emanating from my festering gob...)
I confess that I've been looking for an excuse to talk about this for some time and recently I have been given an opportunity. 1 night a week for the last 3 weeks I have invited two young gentlemen into the flat where I live. They have stayed for about an hour and a half each time and when have gone, all three of us are left feeling tired and yet sated and satisfied. Yes, I'm talking about Mormons.
For anyone who doesn't know about the Mormons (or the Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints to give them their full title), they are members of a church founded in America around about 1820 by a bloke called Joseph Smith. Their basic beliefs are that Joe was a prophet in the fine traditions of the Old Testament (no, he didn't go round causing plagues of locusts or smiting his enemies with holy fury; even if he had done, 19th Century America had more pressing issues such as wiping out the natives and stealing their land to notice any vaguely biblical disasters...). He also had possession of a set of gold plates. Whereas you or I may think "Hmmm...I could get a few quid for these", Joe said that the inscriptions on them were in fact books of the Bible that never actually made the final draft, and had been buried in America since then. These inscriptions formed the basis of the book of Mormon, which in turn is the basis of their religion. And that, aside from the fact that they're really good at tracing family trees so that they can baptise their ancestors (does this involve digging them up and baptising them? Surely a body is pretty much soluble after a couple of hundred years underground; would you let yourself get baptised in the same water as 3 dozen dead and dissolved relatives?), is pretty much all you need to know about the Mormons.
Like Jehovah's Witnesses, they also seem to feel the need to go door-to-door and preach the word of Moroni (the angel who enlightened Joe Smith). Unlike Jehovah's Witnesses, they are a fairly affable bunch with none of the hellfire and damnation (and, let's face it, total misery) of the Witnesses. I was very welcoming of them, which quite naturally scared the hell out of them as they are used to having doors slammed in their face and abuse thrown at them. It was actually nice to have them round as the JW have quite possibly marked my house with a big black cross since their last visit (the poor woman is quite possibly still having to attend three prayer meetings a day to overcome the horrible memory of "...that satanic man who told me that the founder of our great church was a con- man with convictions for fraud!". Which he was by the way...)
Anyway, I won't presume to bore you with the details of the debates that have ensued from their visits. Needless to say that I'm enjoying being educated about their religion and they are having to put up with being educated about my views on life, the universe, and everything. What I will presume to bore you with is something that has been playing on my mind since their last visit. The two gentlemen who've been coming to argue with me are both polite and tolerant young men. They have listened attentively to my arguments and been respectful of my views despite the fact that are in flagrant breach of the rules that govern their lives, and because of this I have shown them the same courtesy when listening to their arguments.
So how come religion is one of the largest bastions of intolerance and ignorance in the known world? What causes it to develop from 2 polite young men talking reasonably to someone who doesn't accept their point of view to an autocratic institution that breeds ignorance and fear of any beliefs that differ from it's own? I really don't understand how it can happen.
What further confuses me is that despite the fact that religions have been schisming, spasming, and splitting pretty much since they began, literally billions of people choose to place their faith in them. Essentially, people are handing over a portion of their lives to an intangible concept which, even if you accept it's existence, has representatives on earth who act in their own self interest and not that of their followers. Now maybe it's just me, but I don't get it.
Take the Catholic Church as an example (oh, in case you're a Christian of any sort, I'm not being biased against you. The Muslim faith also split into two distinct branches, the Sunni and the Shi'a. I'm not going to go into detail about them as A: I don't know much about the differences between the two, and B: I'm not stupid enough to make the same mistake that Salman Rushdie did...). The Catholic Church as it is now is the result of 2000 years of infighting, backbiting, self-aggrandising politicking, and general unpleasantness and intolerance. You disagree? Okay, well let's take a look at a few examples...
Firstly, despite what you may have been taught, the church was not the sole source of spiritual enlightenment and comfort until some German anti-Semite nailed a piece of paper to a door and started the first of the many Protestant faiths (which have also split and proliferated like horny mice in a grain store). The first major split (not counting the power struggle between Paul and Jesus’ brother James that took place after Jesus’ death. Oh, and the numerous minor battles between different small sects of Christians) occurred way back in 313AD. It was called Arianism, and it led to the mutilation, maiming and murder of hundreds of thousands of people as both sides attempted to have their point of view accepted as the one true way. And can you guess what it was about? Was it perhaps an argument of whether Christ existed? Or about the nature of the relationship between God and the Devil (and maybe even Bob)?
Nope. It was about the word "and".
I'm serious. A holy war was waged over one of the most common words in the language. Catholics believed that there was the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost and they were three separate and distinct entities who existed simultaneously. Arians said that there was Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (notice that there is one less "and"). God is the main man, he sent his Holy Spirit from heaven and inhabited a man who was the son. In other words, the three cannot exist at the same time.
Frankly, if I'd died over something as trivial as that I daresay I would have been somewhat annoyed...
And it doesn't stop there. In the ninth century the church split once more into Eastern Orthodox and Western Catholic (and yes, the churches of the East have themselves split repeatedly). And lest anyone think that these holy wars are a relic of history, I would invite you to consider the Protestant-Catholic split in Ireland, the Christian-Islamic conflicts that are scarring Nigeria, the Sudan, and various parts of Africa, or the Hindu-Moslem tension in India. I'm sure it's not a revelation when I say that the biggest cause of worldwide strife is conflicts between religions that supposedly preach peace and brotherhood.
When we take these various splits into account, there are something like 50 major religions and countless minor cults that all claim to preach the true word of God. The only thing they seem to hate more than the works of the Devil are religions whose views differ from their own by about 3 words in paragraph 8 of page 106. AND PEOPLE ACTUALLY TRUST AND BELIEVE THEM!!
Apologies again if what I'm saying causes offence, but doesn't anyone else think that it's about time we consigned these outmoded and outdated methods of thought control to the dustbin of history? I accept that we do need some sort of receptacle for our faith (I've often commented on how mankind seems to have a God-shaped hole in their head; we all seem to need a religion to fill it) but could we not perhaps spend some time pondering our own individual thoughts on the nature of the universe rather than relying on a set of religions that seek to keep us from thinking for ourselves and serve no purpose other than their own glorification? At least then any future wars over religion will actually be down to something people genuinely believe in rather than principles that have been imposed on them by a church that is no longer relevant.
Page:
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> Light wrote:
> There have been claims that it was fraudulent and that he was
> convicted of fraud and/or extortion and various other things.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens /Delphi/6444/miracle_wheat.htm
> Be sure to read the link in the middle of a paragraph that takes you
> to a watchtower article.
>
> Whilst I admit that I take all personal sites with a pinch of salt,
> the information on this one I have seen on others. Plus it fits with
> what I heard (either read in a paper or saw on TV) ages ago.
I'd refer you to the 6 links I posted earlier in this thread that deal with the miracle wheat case (among other things). 2 of them are entirely independent, though I'd say the remainder are biased heavily against JW.
Fact is, the JW version of events reads like the rose-tinted half-truths one would expect from the organisation that was founded by this man. They are very careful not to mention that Taze Russell lost the case that he brought. Instead they concentrate on the fact he wasn't convicted. But if he was the plaintiff, how could he be? I'd again refer you to my earlier post concerning things like David Irving losing his libel case.
>
> It is the same site that mentions the belief of 1874 as the year
> when
> Christ and the apostles returned to earth. Except that teaching was
> from Barbour, and after Russell and Barbour parted company in late
> '78 / early '79. He then revised it to 1914 after further study. Now
> he was wrong on that account as has been seen, but since then it has
> been seen that it wasn't a second coming on earth at that point but
> in Heaven and I'm now going off topic.
>
> Not by me! Well clearly Jesus never arrived on earth in 1914. JWs by
> studying the weeks of years prophecies concluded that this 1914 that
> they arrived at was not on earth but in heaven.
Right. So in other words, people had to rely solely on faith?
>
> My point there was that the sources that discredit Russell have no
> real basis, and are mainly down to either complete and total
> ignorance or are by excommunicated witnesses who have a grudge.
>
> No real basis apart from legal records?
>
> What legal records? As I have pointed out, from what I have been able
> to see even from Russell haters was that there are no convictions.
No, there weren't. As I explained, he sued a newspaper for libel over the his miracle wheat claims. He lost. In other words, he said a newspaper was telling lies about his miracle wheat (they said Taze Russell was a fraudster). The court didn't convict the newspaper; that is to say, the court agreed with the newspaper that Taze Russell was behaving fraudulently.
>
> Stop a second. That is WRONG. Jehovahs Witnesses do not and will not
> cover up abuse, it has happened at a local level by individuals,
> working on their own "initiative". When protocol is
> followed the police are contacted and so is the JW legal department
> in the HQ, AKA Bethel.
>
> So how come the head of the JW church in the US point blank refused
> to answer questions about how the church deal with abuse, and how
> the
> emphasis is on dealing with it within the church? How come in every
> child abuse trial involving JW they have been evasive and
> obstructive?
>
> Evasive and instructive in what way?
By refusing to admit that there was any child abuse ever within the church, and when pressed on whether he would approve the handing over of child abusers to be dealth with by the authorities, he stated that there was no reason why the church couldn't deal with it.
>
> There is no head of the JWs in the USA. There is no head anywhere.
> Perhaps you are referring to J. R. Brown? It is run by a committee
> known as the Governing Body. Anyway, on the JW website there are
> articles regarding the policy.
Yeah, my bad; he was in the US when interviewed and I seem to recall he was American.
>
> I'm not for one minute denying that there have been cases of child
> abuse, and neither will witnesses.
>
> There is no emphasis on dealing with it in the church, if someone
> reports abuse, elders look into the matter. If there appears to be
> any sort of basis to the allegations then congregational action will
> be taken, the member will be expelled from the congregation.
>
> "However, even if the elders cannot take congregational action,
> they are expected to report the allegation to the branch office of
> Jehovah's Witnesses in their country, if local privacy laws permit.
> In addition to making a report to the branch office, the elders may
> be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated
> allegations to the authorities. If so, we expect the elders to
> comply. Additionally, the victim may wish to report the matter to the
> authorities, and it is his or her absolute right to do so."
>
> That's what they say. I think that sounds a fair policy. So does Dr.
> M. Ruth Infante a psychiatrist and psychopharmacologist who has said
> "I think that's a very good policy, that the elders would
> essentially take charge of the situation of reporting the abuse to
> the authorities if there is no adult in authority, any other adult in
> authority to do that, to protect the child."
>
> The job of the elders is not to take over and do a parents job, but
> to look after the congregation. But still they do not neglect what I
> would consider a moral responsibility to look after the child.
>
> Yes there have been problems, but if that policy had been followed
> then there wouldn't have been would there?
>
> As I once read "to say that the policy is not followed perfectly
> is a far cry from saying that there exists a policy to affirmatively
> minimize, or hide, this problem. The policy that Jehovah's Witnesses
> have on how to handle cases of child abuse is without equal in the
> religious community."
>
> Consider this:
>
> At least 20% of women and 5% to 10% of men experienced some form of
> sexual abuse as children.
> Peak age of vulnerability is 7 to 13.
> Men commit 90% of sexual abuse.
> Family members account for 33% to 50% of abuse against girls and 10%
> to 20% against boys.
> Source: David Finkelhor, sociologist at University of New Hampshire
>
> If child abuse were that widespread amongst JWs then you would expect
> a far larger number of cases.
All of which is very well, but I'm not saying it's widespread. I'm saying that, when it does happen, past evidence suggests that the JW organisation will connive to keep the abuse from reaching the attention of the authorities, and if it does, they close ranks to protect the abuser.
> Light wrote:
> There have been claims that it was fraudulent and that he was
> convicted of fraud and/or extortion and various other things.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens /Delphi/6444/miracle_wheat.htm
> Be sure to read the link in the middle of a paragraph that takes you
> to a watchtower article.
>
> Whilst I admit that I take all personal sites with a pinch of salt,
> the information on this one I have seen on others. Plus it fits with
> what I heard (either read in a paper or saw on TV) ages ago.
I'd refer you to the 6 links I posted earlier in this thread that deal with the miracle wheat case (among other things). 2 of them are entirely independent, though I'd say the remainder are biased heavily against JW.
Fact is, the JW version of events reads like the rose-tinted half-truths one would expect from the organisation that was founded by this man. They are very careful not to mention that Taze Russell lost the case that he brought. Instead they concentrate on the fact he wasn't convicted. But if he was the plaintiff, how could he be? I'd again refer you to my earlier post concerning things like David Irving losing his libel case.
>
> It is the same site that mentions the belief of 1874 as the year
> when
> Christ and the apostles returned to earth. Except that teaching was
> from Barbour, and after Russell and Barbour parted company in late
> '78 / early '79. He then revised it to 1914 after further study. Now
> he was wrong on that account as has been seen, but since then it has
> been seen that it wasn't a second coming on earth at that point but
> in Heaven and I'm now going off topic.
>
> Not by me! Well clearly Jesus never arrived on earth in 1914. JWs by
> studying the weeks of years prophecies concluded that this 1914 that
> they arrived at was not on earth but in heaven.
Right. So in other words, people had to rely solely on faith?
>
> My point there was that the sources that discredit Russell have no
> real basis, and are mainly down to either complete and total
> ignorance or are by excommunicated witnesses who have a grudge.
>
> No real basis apart from legal records?
>
> What legal records? As I have pointed out, from what I have been able
> to see even from Russell haters was that there are no convictions.
No, there weren't. As I explained, he sued a newspaper for libel over the his miracle wheat claims. He lost. In other words, he said a newspaper was telling lies about his miracle wheat (they said Taze Russell was a fraudster). The court didn't convict the newspaper; that is to say, the court agreed with the newspaper that Taze Russell was behaving fraudulently.
>
> Stop a second. That is WRONG. Jehovahs Witnesses do not and will not
> cover up abuse, it has happened at a local level by individuals,
> working on their own "initiative". When protocol is
> followed the police are contacted and so is the JW legal department
> in the HQ, AKA Bethel.
>
> So how come the head of the JW church in the US point blank refused
> to answer questions about how the church deal with abuse, and how
> the
> emphasis is on dealing with it within the church? How come in every
> child abuse trial involving JW they have been evasive and
> obstructive?
>
> Evasive and instructive in what way?
By refusing to admit that there was any child abuse ever within the church, and when pressed on whether he would approve the handing over of child abusers to be dealth with by the authorities, he stated that there was no reason why the church couldn't deal with it.
>
> There is no head of the JWs in the USA. There is no head anywhere.
> Perhaps you are referring to J. R. Brown? It is run by a committee
> known as the Governing Body. Anyway, on the JW website there are
> articles regarding the policy.
Yeah, my bad; he was in the US when interviewed and I seem to recall he was American.
>
> I'm not for one minute denying that there have been cases of child
> abuse, and neither will witnesses.
>
> There is no emphasis on dealing with it in the church, if someone
> reports abuse, elders look into the matter. If there appears to be
> any sort of basis to the allegations then congregational action will
> be taken, the member will be expelled from the congregation.
>
> "However, even if the elders cannot take congregational action,
> they are expected to report the allegation to the branch office of
> Jehovah's Witnesses in their country, if local privacy laws permit.
> In addition to making a report to the branch office, the elders may
> be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated
> allegations to the authorities. If so, we expect the elders to
> comply. Additionally, the victim may wish to report the matter to the
> authorities, and it is his or her absolute right to do so."
>
> That's what they say. I think that sounds a fair policy. So does Dr.
> M. Ruth Infante a psychiatrist and psychopharmacologist who has said
> "I think that's a very good policy, that the elders would
> essentially take charge of the situation of reporting the abuse to
> the authorities if there is no adult in authority, any other adult in
> authority to do that, to protect the child."
>
> The job of the elders is not to take over and do a parents job, but
> to look after the congregation. But still they do not neglect what I
> would consider a moral responsibility to look after the child.
>
> Yes there have been problems, but if that policy had been followed
> then there wouldn't have been would there?
>
> As I once read "to say that the policy is not followed perfectly
> is a far cry from saying that there exists a policy to affirmatively
> minimize, or hide, this problem. The policy that Jehovah's Witnesses
> have on how to handle cases of child abuse is without equal in the
> religious community."
>
> Consider this:
>
> At least 20% of women and 5% to 10% of men experienced some form of
> sexual abuse as children.
> Peak age of vulnerability is 7 to 13.
> Men commit 90% of sexual abuse.
> Family members account for 33% to 50% of abuse against girls and 10%
> to 20% against boys.
> Source: David Finkelhor, sociologist at University of New Hampshire
>
> If child abuse were that widespread amongst JWs then you would expect
> a far larger number of cases.
All of which is very well, but I'm not saying it's widespread. I'm saying that, when it does happen, past evidence suggests that the JW organisation will connive to keep the abuse from reaching the attention of the authorities, and if it does, they close ranks to protect the abuser.
Light wrote:
> Notorious Biggles wrote:
>
>
> 2 words; miracle wheat.
>
There have been claims that it was fraudulent and that he was convicted of fraud and/or extortion and various other things.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens /Delphi/6444/miracle_wheat.htm
Be sure to read the link in the middle of a paragraph that takes you to a watchtower article.
Whilst I admit that I take all personal sites with a pinch of salt, the information on this one I have seen on others. Plus it fits with what I heard (either read in a paper or saw on TV) ages ago.
> It is the same site that mentions the belief of 1874 as the year
> when
> Christ and the apostles returned to earth. Except that teaching was
> from Barbour, and after Russell and Barbour parted company in late
> '78 / early '79. He then revised it to 1914 after further study. Now
> he was wrong on that account as has been seen, but since then it has
> been seen that it wasn't a second coming on earth at that point but
> in Heaven and I'm now going off topic.
>
> Erm...and how do you know it was a second coming in heaven? Can that
> be proved?
>
Not by me! Well clearly Jesus never arrived on earth in 1914. JWs by studying the weeks of years prophecies concluded that this 1914 that they arrived at was not on earth but in heaven.
>
> My point there was that the sources that discredit Russell have no
> real basis, and are mainly down to either complete and total
> ignorance or are by excommunicated witnesses who have a grudge.
>
> No real basis apart from legal records?
What legal records? As I have pointed out, from what I have been able to see even from Russell haters was that there are no convictions.
>
> Stop a second. That is WRONG. Jehovahs Witnesses do not and will not
> cover up abuse, it has happened at a local level by individuals,
> working on their own "initiative". When protocol is
> followed the police are contacted and so is the JW legal department
> in the HQ, AKA Bethel.
>
> So how come the head of the JW church in the US point blank refused
> to answer questions about how the church deal with abuse, and how the
> emphasis is on dealing with it within the church? How come in every
> child abuse trial involving JW they have been evasive and
> obstructive?
Evasive and instructive in what way?
There is no head of the JWs in the USA. There is no head anywhere. Perhaps you are referring to J. R. Brown? It is run by a committee known as the Governing Body. Anyway, on the JW website there are articles regarding the policy.
I'm not for one minute denying that there have been cases of child abuse, and neither will witnesses.
There is no emphasis on dealing with it in the church, if someone reports abuse, elders look into the matter. If there appears to be any sort of basis to the allegations then congregational action will be taken, the member will be expelled from the congregation.
"However, even if the elders cannot take congregational action, they are expected to report the allegation to the branch office of Jehovah's Witnesses in their country, if local privacy laws permit. In addition to making a report to the branch office, the elders may be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations to the authorities. If so, we expect the elders to comply. Additionally, the victim may wish to report the matter to the authorities, and it is his or her absolute right to do so."
That's what they say. I think that sounds a fair policy. So does Dr. M. Ruth Infante a psychiatrist and psychopharmacologist who has said "I think that's a very good policy, that the elders would essentially take charge of the situation of reporting the abuse to the authorities if there is no adult in authority, any other adult in authority to do that, to protect the child."
The job of the elders is not to take over and do a parents job, but to look after the congregation. But still they do not neglect what I would consider a moral responsibility to look after the child.
Yes there have been problems, but if that policy had been followed then there wouldn't have been would there?
As I once read "to say that the policy is not followed perfectly is a far cry from saying that there exists a policy to affirmatively minimize, or hide, this problem. The policy that Jehovah's Witnesses have on how to handle cases of child abuse is without equal in the religious community."
Consider this:
At least 20% of women and 5% to 10% of men experienced some form of sexual abuse as children.
Peak age of vulnerability is 7 to 13.
Men commit 90% of sexual abuse.
Family members account for 33% to 50% of abuse against girls and 10% to 20% against boys.
Source: David Finkelhor, sociologist at University of New Hampshire
If child abuse were that widespread amongst JWs then you would expect a far larger number of cases.
> Notorious Biggles wrote:
>
>
> 2 words; miracle wheat.
>
There have been claims that it was fraudulent and that he was convicted of fraud and/or extortion and various other things.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens /Delphi/6444/miracle_wheat.htm
Be sure to read the link in the middle of a paragraph that takes you to a watchtower article.
Whilst I admit that I take all personal sites with a pinch of salt, the information on this one I have seen on others. Plus it fits with what I heard (either read in a paper or saw on TV) ages ago.
> It is the same site that mentions the belief of 1874 as the year
> when
> Christ and the apostles returned to earth. Except that teaching was
> from Barbour, and after Russell and Barbour parted company in late
> '78 / early '79. He then revised it to 1914 after further study. Now
> he was wrong on that account as has been seen, but since then it has
> been seen that it wasn't a second coming on earth at that point but
> in Heaven and I'm now going off topic.
>
> Erm...and how do you know it was a second coming in heaven? Can that
> be proved?
>
Not by me! Well clearly Jesus never arrived on earth in 1914. JWs by studying the weeks of years prophecies concluded that this 1914 that they arrived at was not on earth but in heaven.
>
> My point there was that the sources that discredit Russell have no
> real basis, and are mainly down to either complete and total
> ignorance or are by excommunicated witnesses who have a grudge.
>
> No real basis apart from legal records?
What legal records? As I have pointed out, from what I have been able to see even from Russell haters was that there are no convictions.
>
> Stop a second. That is WRONG. Jehovahs Witnesses do not and will not
> cover up abuse, it has happened at a local level by individuals,
> working on their own "initiative". When protocol is
> followed the police are contacted and so is the JW legal department
> in the HQ, AKA Bethel.
>
> So how come the head of the JW church in the US point blank refused
> to answer questions about how the church deal with abuse, and how the
> emphasis is on dealing with it within the church? How come in every
> child abuse trial involving JW they have been evasive and
> obstructive?
Evasive and instructive in what way?
There is no head of the JWs in the USA. There is no head anywhere. Perhaps you are referring to J. R. Brown? It is run by a committee known as the Governing Body. Anyway, on the JW website there are articles regarding the policy.
I'm not for one minute denying that there have been cases of child abuse, and neither will witnesses.
There is no emphasis on dealing with it in the church, if someone reports abuse, elders look into the matter. If there appears to be any sort of basis to the allegations then congregational action will be taken, the member will be expelled from the congregation.
"However, even if the elders cannot take congregational action, they are expected to report the allegation to the branch office of Jehovah's Witnesses in their country, if local privacy laws permit. In addition to making a report to the branch office, the elders may be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations to the authorities. If so, we expect the elders to comply. Additionally, the victim may wish to report the matter to the authorities, and it is his or her absolute right to do so."
That's what they say. I think that sounds a fair policy. So does Dr. M. Ruth Infante a psychiatrist and psychopharmacologist who has said "I think that's a very good policy, that the elders would essentially take charge of the situation of reporting the abuse to the authorities if there is no adult in authority, any other adult in authority to do that, to protect the child."
The job of the elders is not to take over and do a parents job, but to look after the congregation. But still they do not neglect what I would consider a moral responsibility to look after the child.
Yes there have been problems, but if that policy had been followed then there wouldn't have been would there?
As I once read "to say that the policy is not followed perfectly is a far cry from saying that there exists a policy to affirmatively minimize, or hide, this problem. The policy that Jehovah's Witnesses have on how to handle cases of child abuse is without equal in the religious community."
Consider this:
At least 20% of women and 5% to 10% of men experienced some form of sexual abuse as children.
Peak age of vulnerability is 7 to 13.
Men commit 90% of sexual abuse.
Family members account for 33% to 50% of abuse against girls and 10% to 20% against boys.
Source: David Finkelhor, sociologist at University of New Hampshire
If child abuse were that widespread amongst JWs then you would expect a far larger number of cases.
BTW, Light, I have mailed you.
Right....
[email protected]
I'll reply as and when I can; if you don't get one for a while, I'm not ignoring you! Just busy.
[email protected]
I'll reply as and when I can; if you don't get one for a while, I'm not ignoring you! Just busy.
Maybe people pick and choose because the religion allows them to choose how they show their faith to it, in their own personal way, and using their own common sense and experiences to dictate how they should do so themselves ?
Gah! Sorry Hobbo; I just plain forgot. I'll try and get one set up today, work permitting.
Light wrote:
> Anyway, if people did follow the Bible word for word, they would be a
> mess of contradictions. As we've already seen in our discussion,
> people pick and choose which parts of those books should be obeyed.
> Therefore, not one religion since the dawn of time has actually
> followed all of the precepts set out in whatever holy book they have.
> To put it another way, communism is a marvellous idea on paper. But
> it doesn't work in real life. Neither, in my opinion, does religion.
Hehe. That's a very simple point to answer, but I'll wait for the email addy. *HINT*
> Anyway, if people did follow the Bible word for word, they would be a
> mess of contradictions. As we've already seen in our discussion,
> people pick and choose which parts of those books should be obeyed.
> Therefore, not one religion since the dawn of time has actually
> followed all of the precepts set out in whatever holy book they have.
> To put it another way, communism is a marvellous idea on paper. But
> it doesn't work in real life. Neither, in my opinion, does religion.
Hehe. That's a very simple point to answer, but I'll wait for the email addy. *HINT*
*Prods Light*
Ahem. Email addy?
Ahem. Email addy?
Notorious Biggles wrote:
>
> Yes I thought as much myself. Light's apparently anti religion tirade
> seems rather intolerant to me. Fact is with nearly every religion, if
> it is followed as it is set out in the various holy books, be it the
> Bible or the Koran etc then people would get on a whole lot better.
Intolerant? Hm...sorry that you think that, but I've been at pains to point out that it is the organisations and not the individuals that I'm criticising. I'm not sure why criticism of organised religion makes me intolerant. Does your defending it make you intolerant of humanism? I don't think so. So why level the accusation?
Anyway, if people did follow the Bible word for word, they would be a mess of contradictions. As we've already seen in our discussion, people pick and choose which parts of those books should be obeyed. Therefore, not one religion since the dawn of time has actually followed all of the precepts set out in whatever holy book they have. To put it another way, communism is a marvellous idea on paper. But it doesn't work in real life. Neither, in my opinion, does religion.
>
> Yes I thought as much myself. Light's apparently anti religion tirade
> seems rather intolerant to me. Fact is with nearly every religion, if
> it is followed as it is set out in the various holy books, be it the
> Bible or the Koran etc then people would get on a whole lot better.
Intolerant? Hm...sorry that you think that, but I've been at pains to point out that it is the organisations and not the individuals that I'm criticising. I'm not sure why criticism of organised religion makes me intolerant. Does your defending it make you intolerant of humanism? I don't think so. So why level the accusation?
Anyway, if people did follow the Bible word for word, they would be a mess of contradictions. As we've already seen in our discussion, people pick and choose which parts of those books should be obeyed. Therefore, not one religion since the dawn of time has actually followed all of the precepts set out in whatever holy book they have. To put it another way, communism is a marvellous idea on paper. But it doesn't work in real life. Neither, in my opinion, does religion.
Notorious Biggles wrote:
2 words; miracle wheat.
>
> It is the same site that mentions the belief of 1874 as the year when
> Christ and the apostles returned to earth. Except that teaching was
> from Barbour, and after Russell and Barbour parted company in late
> '78 / early '79. He then revised it to 1914 after further study. Now
> he was wrong on that account as has been seen, but since then it has
> been seen that it wasn't a second coming on earth at that point but
> in Heaven and I'm now going off topic.
Erm...and how do you know it was a second coming in heaven? Can that be proved?
>
> My point there was that the sources that discredit Russell have no
> real basis, and are mainly down to either complete and total
> ignorance or are by excommunicated witnesses who have a grudge.
No real basis apart from legal records?
>
> For the record, Judge Rutherford, or "Judge" Rutherford as
> he was referred to on some sites was a lawyer, then public prosecutor
> for Boonville, Missouri. On occasion he served as a special judge in
> the Eighth Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri.
>
>
> Stop a second. That is WRONG. Jehovahs Witnesses do not and will not
> cover up abuse, it has happened at a local level by individuals,
> working on their own "initiative". When protocol is
> followed the police are contacted and so is the JW legal department
> in the HQ, AKA Bethel.
So how come the head of the JW church in the US point blank refused to answer questions about how the church deal with abuse, and how the emphasis is on dealing with it within the church? How come in every child abuse trial involving JW they have been evasive and obstructive?
2 words; miracle wheat.
>
> It is the same site that mentions the belief of 1874 as the year when
> Christ and the apostles returned to earth. Except that teaching was
> from Barbour, and after Russell and Barbour parted company in late
> '78 / early '79. He then revised it to 1914 after further study. Now
> he was wrong on that account as has been seen, but since then it has
> been seen that it wasn't a second coming on earth at that point but
> in Heaven and I'm now going off topic.
Erm...and how do you know it was a second coming in heaven? Can that be proved?
>
> My point there was that the sources that discredit Russell have no
> real basis, and are mainly down to either complete and total
> ignorance or are by excommunicated witnesses who have a grudge.
No real basis apart from legal records?
>
> For the record, Judge Rutherford, or "Judge" Rutherford as
> he was referred to on some sites was a lawyer, then public prosecutor
> for Boonville, Missouri. On occasion he served as a special judge in
> the Eighth Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri.
>
>
> Stop a second. That is WRONG. Jehovahs Witnesses do not and will not
> cover up abuse, it has happened at a local level by individuals,
> working on their own "initiative". When protocol is
> followed the police are contacted and so is the JW legal department
> in the HQ, AKA Bethel.
So how come the head of the JW church in the US point blank refused to answer questions about how the church deal with abuse, and how the emphasis is on dealing with it within the church? How come in every child abuse trial involving JW they have been evasive and obstructive?
Page: