General Chat

A group of Christadelphians were holding a 'Bible exhibition' in an empty shop so I popped in for a look. One of them started telling me that the Bible is God's word, and perfect, so I challenged him about one of his beliefs and showed him the chapter and verse which said so. He then told me that there was a missing comma. Talk about closed minds!!!!

Jess - I assure you I'm not here to argue - I'm just pointing out that when approached by anyone who preaches about an all-loving god I have to question it - and haven't yet come across anyone who can explain the scenario I described. I was simply saying that my approach usually means that those preaching don't linger. Jan - 'sins of the fathers' - My point really was that if the action you describe is taken by the parent and does result in the kind of damage I describe it's the child who reaps the consequences not the parent. I can wholly accept that the consequences of foolish, malicious or negligent actions might justifiably be visited on the perpetrator, but for an innocent child, or many innocent children in the case of poverty and starvation, to have to reap the punishment seems totally abhorrent in a world supposedly overlooked by a god of love (of whatever creed or denomination). He / she or they don't have the freedom of choice on which we are supposed to base our decisions in life or necessarily the resources to improve their lot. Helen x

Sins of the fathers.... In today's language, perhaps we would talk about the consequences of our actions affecting our children. For instance, a pregnant mother these days is advised to avoid alcohol, smoking and other types of drugs because they have consequences for her unborn child. Listen to those who have survived domestic violence, abuse, alcholic or otherwise addicted parents - many have their lives forever scarred and some unfortunately go on to perpetuate the same mistakes within their own family. And there are examples of parents who drive without due care and attention with the result that accidents happen and others, including their own children, are hurt. Very often today it seems that people are unable or unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions. Every action in fact has to have a consequence - we don't live in a vacuum - and on the positive side, a smile is the simplest way of making someone's day better! Jan

Jess Funny that, I did wonder if she might have been Plymouth Brethren? If she was, she certainly would NOT have been trying to convert you, just passing on her certainties to you. I take the point re the JW's policy on Child Abuse. The last thing I want to do is to DEFEND their policy. However, theirs is a policy which is backed up by law - someone has to be convicted of paedophilia before you can call them one, and a Court Case would require witnesses to the event (virtually impossible) or two or more accusers. And JW are certainly not the only religion which covers up and defends child abuse - the C of E, the RC, and many others have always made strenuous efforts to cover up for any of their officials suspected of such a thing. It is the subject of a thread all of its own. OC

Discuss by all means, please dont get into an arguement though, will you , or i'll delete. The lady that came and spoke to me wasn't actually a JW, she wore a little head scarf- and i believe her to be a member of an organisation called the Plymouth Brethren, (although i live miles and miles from plymouth!) jes

I can understand why people do not accept what I have said but just Google SILENT LAMBS and see the website set up to help such ones. There was a TV programme in the UK last yr about this. Read the following letter: 12-31-00 Watchtower 25 Columbia Heights Brooklyn, NY 11201 Dear Brothers, I am writing to resign as an elder and Presiding Overseer effective the date of this letter. I bear no ill will or malice toward anyone in the congregation or the Body of Elders. In my twenty-plus years of special service I have enjoyed many privileges, of which there have been many fond memories. So, it is with sadness I must make the following statement: I simply cannot agree with an organizational policy that as an elder I am required to enforce. This policy, in my opinion, has harmed thousands, is leaving many unprotected, and provides refuge to outright criminals. I am referring to Watchtower policy to keep information about pedophiles confidential. Pedophiles are protected by a code of silence and in many cases remain, Ministerial Servants, Elders, Pioneers, Circuit, District Overseers, members of the Bethel Family, etc., while their victims suffer in silence or face sanctions. This policy is unethical and immoral in my opinion. As an elder, I am instructed (1994 Elder School) if it is one person’s word against another and not two witnesses to the wrong, no action would be taken and no authorities would be notified. The victim? Cautioned to keep silent or face discipline within the congregation that could go as far as being disfellowshipped for slander. This policy was again stated to the public in The Watchtower 1995, 11/1 pages 28-29 in the Article, ”Comfort for Those With a Stricken Spirit”, under the heading, “What Can Elders Do?” it plainly states: “If the accusation is denied, the elders should explain to the accuser that nothing more can be done in a judicial way. And the congregation will continue to view the one accused as an innocent person. The Bible says that there must be two or three witnesses before judicial action can be taken. (2Cor.13:1; 1 Tim. 5:19) Even if more than one person “remembers” abuse by the individual, the nature of these recalls is just too uncertain to base judicial decisions on them without other supporting evidence. This does not mean that such “memories” are viewed as false (or that they are viewed as true). But Bible principles must be followed in establishing a matter judicially.” Does this offer comfort to those with a stricken spirit? How often are there witnesses with “supporting evidence” to an act of child molestation? If two different persons recall abuse by one pedophile, how could he be viewed as “an innocent” man? How hard would it be for a person with the disposition to molest children to deny the act when accused? The 3-14-97 Letter to Bodies of Elders, page 2, paragraph 5, states: “It may be possible that some who were guilty of child molestation were or are now serving as elders, ministerial servants, or regular or special pioneers. Others may have been guilty of child molestation before they were baptized. The bodies of elders should not query individuals. However, the body of elders should discuss this matter and give the Society a report on anyone who is currently serving or who formerly served in a society-appointed position in your congregation who is known to have been guilty of child molestation in the past.” Paragraph 6 continues at the end: “this information is not to be made available to those not involved.” The only way a person within the organization can be guilty of child molestation is by confession, conviction by a court of law, or by the mouth of two witnesses who were there for the same event. For the individual who meets this criteria, the above information states the “body of elders should not query individuals” and “this information is not to be made available to those not involved.” For those who do not meet the above criteria, as in the case of a victim who accuses a person of molesting them, the code of silence is even more strictly enforced. What about potential victims, parents of children who do not know of these accusations? They are left in the dark without any knowledge that their children could be exposed to an accused sex offender on a regular basis. These directives make the Watchtower organization a pedophile paradise, where children can be freely molested, as long as there is not substantial evidence or two witnesses to the same event, pedophiles are protected by Watchtower policy which is enforced by the Body of Elders. How often are there witnesses to an act of child molestation? How can there be evidence of molestation, when 90% of the time the crime is reported weeks or sometimes years later? How many pedophiles will tell the truth, knowing if they do they could go to jail? Does the fact that the average pedophile will molest seventy children in his lifetime and is never convicted of a crime mean we should allow them anonymity within our organization? Due to this organizational policy, we have become saturated with pedophiles holding positions from top to bottom within our organization, in my opinion. In my forty-plus years in the organization, I have yet to find one congregation that did not have serious problems with children being molested. The most incriminating fact lay with it not even being a matter of record, as in many cases when it is one word against another, not one word is recorded within the congregation file. Watchtower policy gives no direction in this regard. When elders call or write the Service Department for home office direction on how to handle matters involving child molestation, they are instructed that they will have to make the decision locally as to whether it should be taken care of judicially. The Service Department in effect lets local elders make the decision and as a result, the locals will take the responsibility if anything goes wrong. Thus protecting the Watchtower legally. How often will local elders in effect, “take care of a fellow accused elder,” protecting him from a judicial meeting using technicalities as an excuse? But when it comes to the victims, they are discredited, humiliated, and told to be silent. There is a silence of the lambs, the little ones, who look to You and Bodies of Elders for protection, but instead are crushed and ostracized by an organizational policy when they needed help the most. The Watchtower is protected; the pedophile is protected, too bad for the silent lamb. How bad is it? With this policy you will allow one out of three “witness children” to be molested in their lifetime, in my opinion. I can no longer serve as an elder in an arrangement that promotes unethical and immoral behavior toward children. I refuse to support a pedophile refuge mentality that is promoted among Body of Elders around the world. Criminals should be ousted, identified, and punished to protect the innocent and give closure to the victim. Each day that passes, more children are being molested, and victims suffer as abused lambs with a shepherd who seems not to care. For myself, I feel I can trust no one within the Watchtower organization with my children. If my children were to accuse a pedophile of molestation, all he would have to do is deny it and as a father I would be silenced with the threat of disfellowshipping if I were to try to say something (slander of a perceived innocent man) in a way of warning to protect others who may be in harms way. I state for the third time, this is wrong it is unethical and immoral to not protect children. It is my sincere hope that this letter will result in an adjustment to completely overhaul Watchtower policy to address this

When anyone talks to me about their religion - whatever it might be - I always ask them to explain to me why their god - whoever that might be - allows a child to be born, through no fault of their own, with multiple handicaps, which mean that the life of that child is limited from day one until they die. No freedom of choice given by any god to that child. Nobody has been able to tell me the answer yet? Nearest I can find - the sins of the fathers etc. - what kind of a god punishes a child for whatever mistakes his/her father or mother made? Beats me.......usually beats them too:) Helen x

In any organisation, whether religious or otherwise, you will get your fanatics, cranks, genuine, caring, thoughtless types. Because every individual is different it is personalities that dictate how they behave. I know that JW's to some may be annoying, but they feel it is their duty to tell people about the future promises god has in store for the world, as they would put it - least of all getting rid of the badness of this world. There are some who put this across in totally the wrong manner and that cause unhappiness. They ARE christians. They believe wholeheartedly in God and Jesus and are genuinely very dedicated people, this dedication though sometimes causes situations like described above. I have found that there is no need to be unkind or even rude like some I know have been in my area to them when they call. As has been said above, they feel so strongly about their beliefs that they need to tell people about them. Who of us would cope with giving up so much of our time to do this when life is so busy and hectic anyway? How many of us could say we would also find it easy to call on people that we don't know and talk to them knowing that there is a possibility we would face unwelcome comments? I often feel a polite no thank you, I have my own beliefs and wouldn't be changed etc etc is fine. I actually have found the JWs in my locality pleasant and so don't feel the need to be so direct. Just my opinion and definitely not intended to offend any body.

You will probably shoot me down here, but at one time I decided to actually look into the Witnesses religion and yes I found some problems with it BUT I have to say, more decent kind hard working honest people you couldnt wish to meet. Im sorry but to say they wouldnt report a child abuser is just not true. You may be getting confused with Catholics there. It is a difficult way of life to keep and Im not up to it and as I say I have some questions. I remember my mother looking at the books I had on a table when I was looking into this and saying 'Who is this Jehovah anyway' She didnt realise that was the name God gives himself in the Bible and that priests in the distant past had removed in all but I think 2 places because they thought the name too holy for humans to speak. (Just in case any of you also wondered!) But they are not hypocrites like so many religions. They dont judge you on how much money you have and they are always willing to help whether it be practical or emotional. And if you do actually read properly their beliefs it certainly makes a lot more sense than a lot of the airy fairy unbelievable stories of other 'Christian' churches. Elaine, they do believe in an after life but not as we are told by the main stream. Their belief is that earth was the paradise God made for us and that when the time of the end comes (as in St Johns revelations) then the dead - who are unconscious - will come back to life to live in Paradise again. People were meant to live forever - if you actually read Genesis it does support this - and lost that privilege because they believed they knew better than their maker. Hence humans have been given 'their time' to show that they can rule themselves (and look what a mess theyve made!). Im not a Witness, but I can see that the theory/facts they state do in fact have good back up from the Bible. And how many people have actually read that, really read it, in organised main stream religion. Sermon ends here!

Just came back to this thread I did not intend to cause Any upset to anyone on here. It is just that my mother was a Jehovah’s witness my father was not. I have been brought up to Respect all religions. Alan I would be interested to know where you have got your information from? Sorry Alan just read last part of your post. It would be up to the individual person if they informed the police most would and then answer to Jehovah, even he would not want any one to let a child be harmed in the way you have described. My mother left after 23yrs because none of her family joined, she would have no one in paradise with her from her family. To this day her friends who are Jehovahs witness still come to her home to visit her and my father they have not disfellowshiped her or any others that have left.

Only just got in, to find that I have unintentionally caused some upset on this thread. I am sorry if anyone felt I was overstepping the mark, in expressing my view that Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians. I thought I was just giving my opinions & beliefs like everyone else. It was certainly not my intention to 'peddle bigotry'. But if it came over like that, then will you all please accept my sincere apologies? Please don't delete Jess. This is a great thread encouraging us all to talk about a fascinating & deep topic- ps, did you get the wall finished??? Oh & for those quoting me, my name's Denise!

had I better delete this , or can you folks go on discussing sensibly? its all quite interesting actually!!

Alan, I said a loud 'Ouch!' at your comment to What the Dickens about 'peddling bigotry ) because of her assertion that JW's are not Christian. With respect, because of the informal understanding of the term Christian, I think a misunderstanding has arisen. The term Christian is commonly used to describe good, kind, decent folk with Christian values. In fact the New Penguin Dictionary says that this is the informal use of the word. Mainstream Christianity defines a Christian though as one who accepts that Christ is the son of God and one of the three persons of the Trinity. Jehovah's Witnesses do not subscribe to this belief (although you have to question them closely to know this ) Good people, and sincere in what they believe, I wouldn't doubt. But what What the Dickens was saying is that JW's are not Christians in the accepted theological sense. I think your charge of bigotry therefore is a bit harsh and, again with respect, unfounded. It isn't a criticism, or a reflection on a person's character, to say that someone is not a Christian. The world is full of lovely people who are not Christians, we all know that. And sadly there are believing Christians who's ways do nothing to attract people to their churches. Understandably, we're apt to use the word Christian to describe good living people, regardless of whether or not they are a committed subscribers to mainstream Christian beliefs. Joy.

LDS [ Mormons] & JW's are totally different religions

I,m glad that at least one other person doesn,t condemn JWs out of hand. Not absolutely sure of my facts, but aren,t these the same people who gave us our LDS ancestor site? XXX re below. thanks Alan. i,m wrong again.XXX Happy days

Well if that is the case Alan, how can anyone follow such a 'religion'? Unbelievable! Debby

When my children were toddlers they used to run around the garden 'in the buff'. One day JW's came to the door, just as the children opened it to play naked in the garden - JW's just looked at me and virtually ran off!! Another time, a couple of Mormon 'elders' (evangelists) came round. I invited them in because I really wanted to know the history of the religion. They said they'd tell me next time, but in the meantime they knelt and prayed............biiig mistake, I had 6 cats at the time - their trousers were covered!! Next time they didn't tell me about Smith etc either, so I was pretty peed off - told them they obviously didn't know the basic history of their religion, and asked them to leave. Also think evangelists are on a par with cold callers - calling just as I'm about to eat, listen to the radio etc. maggie

For those who do not know what I mean by disfellowshiping, I will explain it. Once you are baptised, you are expected to associate mainly with JW's. If you decide to leave the group of your own free will, you will be catergorised as DISASSOCIATED. If you break any of the rules such as smoking, sex, drug taking, attending ANY church service of another religion, letting it be known that you do not accept a teaching/doctrine of the group and MANY more things, you will be called to account for it. Disfellowshipping and Disassociation have the SAME punishment. Your name will be read out at the meeting and all will be told that you are no longer one of Jehovah's witnesses. From the MOMENT that is done, NO JW will ever speak to you, acknowledge your existence, be in the same room with you if it can be avoided. That includes Husband's & Wives. Normally a divorce follows if one partner leaves the group. to do so, means that THEY will suffer the same punishment. They are told to inform on anyone that breaks the rules. Jehovah's Witnesses are obligated to disclose private medical or other information when they feel their leadership should know about a member who secretly gets a blood transfusion, etc. Quite a number have lost their jobs by telling their elders of hospital private information and then being caught doing it by hospital staff. Having said that, if a JW is found to be an abuser of children, they will NOT inform the police as to do so would bring the reputation of the group into question. They are instructed to hush it up. Infact, if your child is abused by another JW and YOU inform the police, YOU will be disfellowshiped for 'breaking ranks' Just Google SILENT LAMBS and see what comes up.

Vanda I think it is part of their religious duty to do this, however, yes, I do grudgingly admire them for their persistance. The problem for me is - I have in the past accepted the literature they hand out. It is complete and utter gobbledegook, it just does not make sense (to me). They make sweeping statements and based on those sweeping statements, make even more...you have to have faith to believe the huge gaps in their reasoning, and of course, I havent got faith! OC

Jehovah’s witness knock at our door trying to save Us, giving us the chance of Coming back to a better world. And what do most of us do Try to get rid of them as quick As possible. Lol Would you spend your days Walking streets trying to save People that you do not know, Only to receive insults and doors Slammed in your face. I for one would not but then again I am not a Jehovah’s witness. I do however admire there determination.