Scandals abound in Christianity and always have. From sex and money scandals among Pentecostal TV preachers, to child abuse allegations against the Watchtower, to the Vatican pedophile-priest cover-up, it's all over. Corruption in the clergy demonstrates that the men who criticize unbelievers for loving sin should know from personal experience what it's like to enjoy such sins.
So why trust the clergy or believe anything it says?
I can understand some people being scammed by the Christian clergy for a while like I was, but once you know you're being scammed, then the prudent thing to do is to get out like I did. Leave religion and all its corruption and all its lies behind and never return like “The dog turns back to its own vomit,� or "The sow is washed only to wallow in the mud.�
Corruption in the Clergy
Moderator: Moderators
Post #31
[Replying to post 29 by Tcg]
I have no doubt that Christians will find some way to interpret this passage symbolically and for obvious reasons!
That's an excellent point. It seems to me that Christians just don't seem to understand their own "holy" book. If they did understand it, then they would see that they are held to a higher standard. For instance, about a week ago I was reading Revelation 14:1-5. That passage mentions 144,000 male followers of Jesus who were virgins "not defiled" by women. They never have lied and are blameless.Christianity also contends that it has a solution for sin and evil. Not just one that applies to a supposed afterlife, but one that provides an improvement in moral character in this life. The absence of evidence for this claimed phenomenon reveals a problem with this religious claim and thus a problem with religion.Christianity contends that it is the person that is sinful and evil, out of touch with the truth. Sinners lie all the time so why blame the religion when the religion blames the man?
I have no doubt that Christians will find some way to interpret this passage symbolically and for obvious reasons!
-
tam
- Savant
- Posts: 6522
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
- Has thanked: 360 times
- Been thanked: 331 times
- Contact:
Post #32
[Replying to post 31 by Jagella]
That passage doesn't mention male followers at all.
It seems that you are assuming that these are all men because they did not defile themselves with 'women', and so you assume that they must be men who never had physical sex with women. Rather than that they are 144 000 that did not defile themselves (have union with) the woman spoken about in Revelation and her daughters (Babylon the Great and her daughters - these are not literal woman).
Before you say 'for obvious reasons' I would interpret this passage this way, keep in mind that I am a woman. If this passage meant what you seem to be implying, I'd have no horse in this race. (I'm also not one of the 144000 who are taken 12000 from each of 12 tribes of Israel, also listed in Revelation.)
**
I do not listen to the 'clergy' myself. Many - if not most - of them are not listening to Christ, but are instead just following the doctrines of their religions. I listen to Christ. I mean, who else is going to be able to teach us the truth of His Father, than the One who is the Word and Image of God?
My question is more along the lines of why do YOU (in general) listen to the clergy? Why do you listen to their interpretations of the Bible, or to their claims about Christ and about God... when you now believe that these are false teachers, liars, corrupt, etc, and that they do not know Christ or God? So why do you accept that such people could possibly have told or even known the truth about God? I ask, because I have often noticed this about many ex-members of Christianity: they argue against the existence of God, using the interpretation and claims of their former sect or denomination.
(Obviously there are some exceptions to this)
Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
That passage doesn't mention male followers at all.
It seems that you are assuming that these are all men because they did not defile themselves with 'women', and so you assume that they must be men who never had physical sex with women. Rather than that they are 144 000 that did not defile themselves (have union with) the woman spoken about in Revelation and her daughters (Babylon the Great and her daughters - these are not literal woman).
Before you say 'for obvious reasons' I would interpret this passage this way, keep in mind that I am a woman. If this passage meant what you seem to be implying, I'd have no horse in this race. (I'm also not one of the 144000 who are taken 12000 from each of 12 tribes of Israel, also listed in Revelation.)
**
I do not listen to the 'clergy' myself. Many - if not most - of them are not listening to Christ, but are instead just following the doctrines of their religions. I listen to Christ. I mean, who else is going to be able to teach us the truth of His Father, than the One who is the Word and Image of God?
My question is more along the lines of why do YOU (in general) listen to the clergy? Why do you listen to their interpretations of the Bible, or to their claims about Christ and about God... when you now believe that these are false teachers, liars, corrupt, etc, and that they do not know Christ or God? So why do you accept that such people could possibly have told or even known the truth about God? I ask, because I have often noticed this about many ex-members of Christianity: they argue against the existence of God, using the interpretation and claims of their former sect or denomination.
(Obviously there are some exceptions to this)
Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
Post #33
[Replying to post 32 by tam]
In any case my point is that yes, you can come up with many possible ways to interpret a passage in the Bible and, and make it say what you want it to say. But to find the "correct" interpretation you need to go with what's most likely. So I generally interpret the Bible for what it says. I avoid any unlikely or unusual definitions for words, and I carefully examine the context for meaning. I won't interpret a passage figuratively unless it should obviously be interpreted that way. More than anything else I won't whitewash a passage to try to make it look nice. I see you doing that, and I think that's where you're going wrong.
Well, I suppose it's possible that some of them might be women who did not defile themselves by having sex with other women, but it's unlikely that that's what this passage means. For one thing the gender of these virgins isn't specified, and since the Jews were very patriarchal, they are probably men. After all, men normally lose their virginity to women, so if they are said to be virgins not defiled by women, then the most likely and sensible interpretation of the passage in question is that the virgins are men.That passage doesn't mention male followers at all.
It seems that you are assuming that these are all men because they did not defile themselves with 'women', and so you assume that they must be men who never had physical sex with women.
In any case my point is that yes, you can come up with many possible ways to interpret a passage in the Bible and, and make it say what you want it to say. But to find the "correct" interpretation you need to go with what's most likely. So I generally interpret the Bible for what it says. I avoid any unlikely or unusual definitions for words, and I carefully examine the context for meaning. I won't interpret a passage figuratively unless it should obviously be interpreted that way. More than anything else I won't whitewash a passage to try to make it look nice. I see you doing that, and I think that's where you're going wrong.
Then you have "no horse in the race"! You err because you want to be included in a group of men although you are a woman. Women often get left out in the Bible. It's a very sexist book.Before you say 'for obvious reasons' I would interpret this passage this way, keep in mind that I am a woman. If this passage meant what you seem to be implying, I'd have no horse in this race. (I'm also not one of the 144000 who are taken 12000 from each of 12 tribes of Israel, also listed in Revelation.)
I listen to any Christian including yourself. The clergy are leaders, so what they preach is often accepted by their followers.My question is more along the lines of why do YOU (in general) listen to the clergy? Why do you listen to their interpretations of the Bible, or to their claims about Christ and about God... when you now believe that these are false teachers, liars, corrupt, etc, and that they do not know Christ or God? So why do you accept that such people could possibly have told or even known the truth about God?
-
JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 22880
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 897 times
- Been thanked: 1337 times
- Contact:
Re: Corruption in the Clergy
Post #34[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]
PARISHIONERS
An independent 2009 study in Norway concluded that the rate of sexual abuse among Jehovah's Witnesses was no higher than in the general populace. While the media highlights different individual cases and huge settlements, it soon becomes evident that these are never accompanied with comparative studies proving elevated overall rates of sexual abuse amongst the JW population [1].
LEADERSHIP
There is no evidence that the Jehovah's Witness leadership has higher levels of the occurance of sexual abuse against children. Indeed a press release dated November 21, 2007, Jehovah's Witnesses' Office of Public Information stated: "In the United States, over 80,000 elders currently serve in over 12,300 congregations. During the last 100 years, only eleven elders have been sued for child abuse in thirteen lawsuits filed in the United States". The accuracy of these figures have never been contested. The 2015 Australia Royal commission [3] revealed there have been just 5 convictions amongst the leadership in that country over the last 10 years which amounts to one person every 2 years. Thus indications are that the Jehovah's Witnesses leadership have rates of child abuse far below that of those in any comparable organization (whether religious or secular).
CULTURE OF SILENCE
There are those that attempt to explain these rates as being the result of a culture of oppression, poor reporting policy and silencing of victims but this has yet to be proven. While there have indeed been much publicized individual cases, some of which (primarily dating from the 1980s and earlier) were not handled appropriately, the Jehovah's Witness leadership have constantly striven to inform and educate its membership and improvement internal policy [2]. The application of ecclesiastical rules are NOT to the exclusion of the civil authorities as some have suggested. The facts do not support implications that the JW policies create more victims or that their organisation has ever instructed its membership not to report crimes or itself failed to cooperate with authorities with regard to investigations [3].
http://thirdwitness.com/childabuse/Inhouse.html
Unlike many secular and religious organizations, the Jehovah's Witnesses keep a central database of every allegation of sexual impropriety reported to its leadership, whether it concerns parishioners or non-witnesses (ie visitors who might be atheists or belong to other faiths). This is to ensure, among other things that their elders, who are not legal experts, are advise by their legal team on the statutory reporting obligations so the law is obeyed. The JW database includes a wide variety allegations including "sexting" between minors, historic allegations prior to becoming a Witness, cases where the victim does not wish to prosecute, as well as cases that were brought to the attention of the authorities*. It is for this reason the JWs could provide the Australian Royal Commission with a total of 1000 reports made to its national headquarters over a period of 60 years [4]. This figure, which has been grossly misrepresented in the press exists entirely independent of the victims right to report any incident to the police and is done to ensure that local church elders, who are not legal experts, fully comply with any legal requirements that may be applicable in the State in which they reside, as well as to ensure religious procedures are followed for the protection the membership.
* In the case of the 2015 Australian Royal Commission, 400 of the total 1006 incidents where indeed reported to the authorities by the victims
CONCLUSION: Regardless of the unsubstantiated claims of widespread sexual abuse and cover-ups, the facts remain that Jehovah's Witnesses do not have a higher occurrence of sexual abuse of children than society in general. JWs have far fewer cases go to court against their leadership than any comparable organization and there is no evidence that this is due to a culture of oppression or silence. Although the organization has acknowledged the need to improve its communication and policies over the years, it is a gross misrepresentation of the facts to imply the JWs organization has endorsed a systematic discouragement of disclosure, initiated or supported a culture of ignorance or failed at any time to fully cooperate the proper authorities.
[1] Austria with a comparable population of 8,751,820, in 2008 reported 1,806 cases of child abuse, most involving intercourse with a minor.
https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2 ... 154412.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%2 ... _sex_abuse
[2] Jehovah's Witnesses' Scripturally Based Position on Child Protection
https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/legal- ... rotection/
[3] For a detailed analysis of the JW policy on sexual abuse as it stood in the early 2000s see link below. It should be noted that the policies mentioned in this document have since been refined.
http://thirdwitness.com/childabuse/default.html
[4] Australian Royal Commission - Watchtower (Pdf)
https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.g ... tralia.pdf
RELATED POSTS
PARISHIONERS
An independent 2009 study in Norway concluded that the rate of sexual abuse among Jehovah's Witnesses was no higher than in the general populace. While the media highlights different individual cases and huge settlements, it soon becomes evident that these are never accompanied with comparative studies proving elevated overall rates of sexual abuse amongst the JW population [1].
LEADERSHIP
There is no evidence that the Jehovah's Witness leadership has higher levels of the occurance of sexual abuse against children. Indeed a press release dated November 21, 2007, Jehovah's Witnesses' Office of Public Information stated: "In the United States, over 80,000 elders currently serve in over 12,300 congregations. During the last 100 years, only eleven elders have been sued for child abuse in thirteen lawsuits filed in the United States". The accuracy of these figures have never been contested. The 2015 Australia Royal commission [3] revealed there have been just 5 convictions amongst the leadership in that country over the last 10 years which amounts to one person every 2 years. Thus indications are that the Jehovah's Witnesses leadership have rates of child abuse far below that of those in any comparable organization (whether religious or secular).
CULTURE OF SILENCE
There are those that attempt to explain these rates as being the result of a culture of oppression, poor reporting policy and silencing of victims but this has yet to be proven. While there have indeed been much publicized individual cases, some of which (primarily dating from the 1980s and earlier) were not handled appropriately, the Jehovah's Witness leadership have constantly striven to inform and educate its membership and improvement internal policy [2]. The application of ecclesiastical rules are NOT to the exclusion of the civil authorities as some have suggested. The facts do not support implications that the JW policies create more victims or that their organisation has ever instructed its membership not to report crimes or itself failed to cooperate with authorities with regard to investigations [3].
http://thirdwitness.com/childabuse/Inhouse.html
DO JEHOVAH'S WITNESS ONLY REPORT ASEXUAL ABUSE THAN HAS BEEN PERSONALLY WITNESSES BY AT LEAST TWO INDIVIDUALS?
NOTE: THE "THIRD WITNESS" Certain refer to the biblical principle that witness in-house disciplinary measures can only be undertaken when substantiated by two or more witnesses, to be indicative of tolerance if sexual crimes. However this conclusion stems from a misunderstanding of what this rule is and how it is applied. The so called "third witness rule" (a) is an ecclesiastical regulation that has nothing to do with criminal proceedings. In short a JW victim of any crime does not have to produce any witnesses to initiate criminal proceedings. (b) does not have to be satisfied for protective measures to be taken by the leadership in relation to members of the congregation[2]. [/b]
It is absolutely and verifiably FALSE to claim that it is official Jehovahs Witness policy that their members NOT report allegations or suspicions of child sexual abuse to the proper authorities unless the abuse is personally witnessed by two individuals or a confession obtained ?
RECORD KEEPINGFor a more detailed presentation on this point see LINKS
[2] Jehovah's Witnesses' Scripturally Based Position on Child Protection
https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/legal- ... rotection/
So called "third Witness" religious principle explained
http://thirdwitness.com/childabuse/Twowitness.html
Unlike many secular and religious organizations, the Jehovah's Witnesses keep a central database of every allegation of sexual impropriety reported to its leadership, whether it concerns parishioners or non-witnesses (ie visitors who might be atheists or belong to other faiths). This is to ensure, among other things that their elders, who are not legal experts, are advise by their legal team on the statutory reporting obligations so the law is obeyed. The JW database includes a wide variety allegations including "sexting" between minors, historic allegations prior to becoming a Witness, cases where the victim does not wish to prosecute, as well as cases that were brought to the attention of the authorities*. It is for this reason the JWs could provide the Australian Royal Commission with a total of 1000 reports made to its national headquarters over a period of 60 years [4]. This figure, which has been grossly misrepresented in the press exists entirely independent of the victims right to report any incident to the police and is done to ensure that local church elders, who are not legal experts, fully comply with any legal requirements that may be applicable in the State in which they reside, as well as to ensure religious procedures are followed for the protection the membership.
* In the case of the 2015 Australian Royal Commission, 400 of the total 1006 incidents where indeed reported to the authorities by the victims
CONCLUSION: Regardless of the unsubstantiated claims of widespread sexual abuse and cover-ups, the facts remain that Jehovah's Witnesses do not have a higher occurrence of sexual abuse of children than society in general. JWs have far fewer cases go to court against their leadership than any comparable organization and there is no evidence that this is due to a culture of oppression or silence. Although the organization has acknowledged the need to improve its communication and policies over the years, it is a gross misrepresentation of the facts to imply the JWs organization has endorsed a systematic discouragement of disclosure, initiated or supported a culture of ignorance or failed at any time to fully cooperate the proper authorities.
[1] Austria with a comparable population of 8,751,820, in 2008 reported 1,806 cases of child abuse, most involving intercourse with a minor.
https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2 ... 154412.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%2 ... _sex_abuse
[2] Jehovah's Witnesses' Scripturally Based Position on Child Protection
https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/legal- ... rotection/
[3] For a detailed analysis of the JW policy on sexual abuse as it stood in the early 2000s see link below. It should be noted that the policies mentioned in this document have since been refined.
http://thirdwitness.com/childabuse/default.html
[4] Australian Royal Commission - Watchtower (Pdf)
https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.g ... tralia.pdf
RELATED POSTS
Have any legal entities established that the Jehovah's Witnesses systematically seek to "cover up" child sexual abuse cases amongst their membership?
viewtopic.php?p=914050#p914050
Does the existnece of "bad apples" in a religion discredit it entirely?
viewtopic.php?p=1029442#p1029442
Why do Jehovah's Witnesses allow repentant sinners to remain in the faith?
viewtopic.php?p=1060185#p1060185
What measures do Jehovah's Witnesses put in place if an repentant child abuser remains or returns to the faith?
viewtopic.php?p=1060187#p1060187
To learn more please go to other posts related to...
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES , SHUNNING and ... CHILD ABUSE
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Wed Sep 21, 2022 11:41 pm, edited 20 times in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
-
benchwarmer
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2510
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 2337 times
- Been thanked: 960 times
Re: Corruption in the Clergy
Post #35Hi JW, just curious, are Jehovahs Witness leadership considered 'holy/annointed/ordained' or other words to that effect? i.e. Do JWs believe that these leaders have been given any special blessing by God to do their jobs? If not, then of course one can expect that their behavior would be no better or worse than the population at large.JehovahsWitness wrote: CONCLUSION: Regardless of the unsubstantiated claims of widespread sexual abuse and cover-ups, the facts remain that Jehovah's Witnesses do not have a higher occurrence of sexual abuse of children than society in general. JWs have far fewer cases go to court against their leadership than any comparable organization and there is no evidence that this is due to a culture of oppression or silence. Although the organization has acknowledged the need to improve its communication and policies over the years, it is a gross misrepresentation of the facts to imply the JWs organization has endorsed a systematic discouragement of disclosure, initiated or supported a culture of ignorance or failed at any time to fully cooperate the proper authorities.
In the case of Catholics in particular, priests go through a period of formation before coming priests and it is assumed a whole lot of praying, by both the candidate and the leadership that eventually makes them priests, is done. Thus, one could reasonably expect that these priests have been 'vetted' with the help of the Holy Spirit. This is not to say they will be perfect, but they should at least do better than the populace at large given all the time, praying, anointing, etc.
-
JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 22880
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 897 times
- Been thanked: 1337 times
- Contact:
Re: Corruption in the Clergy
Post #36No, we believe all God's people equal. We are all (male or female) considered ordained ministers although roles of leadership are reserved for men. Yes, they must be spiritually qualified as mature Christians (no "better" than their female mature counterparts) but qualified nonetheless.benchwarmer wrote:
Hi JW, just curious, are Jehovahs Witness leadership considered 'holy/annointed/ordained' or other words to that effect? i.e. Do JWs believe that these leaders have been given any special blessing by God to do their jobs?
As I said, it seems that available studies indicate the Jehovah's Witness leadership do have a lower incidents of child abuse than the general population (much lower than 2-5%); my post sited the facts that came out in the Australian Royal commission and facts regarding prosecutions the United States . I only found one study regarding the Jehovah's Witness general population but would welcome any input of studies on that point.benchwarmer wrote: If not, then of course one can expect that their behavior would be no better or worse than the population at large.
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Wed Sep 21, 2022 11:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
-
tam
- Savant
- Posts: 6522
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
- Has thanked: 360 times
- Been thanked: 331 times
- Contact:
Post #37
Peace to you Jaqella,
And you know this is the method required to find the 'correct' interpretation, how? And isn't 'most likely' a bit subjective, and dependent upon you having all the facts?
And in the book of Revelation, a book that is filled with symbolism? I assume you do not think that the book means there will be a literal beast with 7 heads and 10 horns; or that a (large) woman will be sitting atop this beast, holding a chalice filled with the blood of the saints.
SHE is Babylon the Great. SHE is described as a WOMAN. She is also described as an adulteress and as being the MOTHER of prostitutes/harlots (also women). SHE and HER DAUGHTERS are the women that the 144 000 did not defile themselves WITH.
Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?
Some of these were certainly counted among the 144 000 (12 000 from each of 12 tribes of Israel).
I just said that I was not included in that group (as far as I know I am not descended from any of the twelve tribes of Israel).
But Christ has both male and female disciples; both men and women make up His Body/Bride; both men and women will reign with Him in His Kingdom as kings and priests. There is no male or female, free or slave, jew or gentile.... right?
So my discussing this with you has nothing to do with what I want or do not want.
When I said 'listen to', I meant 'believe and/or obey'.
Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
You actually quoted only part of what I wrote, leaving out the understanding I shared of who those women ARE. So there's not really much for me to respond to here, since you did not respond to that.Jagella wrote: [Replying to post 32 by tam]
Well, I suppose it's possible that some of them might be women who did not defile themselves by having sex with other women, but it's unlikely that that's what this passage means. For one thing the gender of these virgins isn't specified, and since the Jews were very patriarchal, they are probably men. After all, men normally lose their virginity to women, so if they are said to be virgins not defiled by women, then the most likely and sensible interpretation of the passage in question is that the virgins are men.That passage doesn't mention male followers at all.
It seems that you are assuming that these are all men because they did not defile themselves with 'women', and so you assume that they must be men who never had physical sex with women.
In any case my point is that yes, you can come up with many possible ways to interpret a passage in the Bible and, and make it say what you want it to say. But to find the "correct" interpretation you need to go with what's most likely.
And you know this is the method required to find the 'correct' interpretation, how? And isn't 'most likely' a bit subjective, and dependent upon you having all the facts?
So I generally interpret the Bible for what it says.
And in the book of Revelation, a book that is filled with symbolism? I assume you do not think that the book means there will be a literal beast with 7 heads and 10 horns; or that a (large) woman will be sitting atop this beast, holding a chalice filled with the blood of the saints.
SHE is Babylon the Great. SHE is described as a WOMAN. She is also described as an adulteress and as being the MOTHER of prostitutes/harlots (also women). SHE and HER DAUGHTERS are the women that the 144 000 did not defile themselves WITH.
Well, the context cannot be that a man defiles himself for having sex with a literal woman, because having sex with one's wife (a woman) does not defile a man. Peter was not defiled because he had a wife. Paul even said:I avoid any unlikely or unusual definitions for words, and I carefully examine the context for meaning.
Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?
Some of these were certainly counted among the 144 000 (12 000 from each of 12 tribes of Israel).
So can you answer the questions raised by your interpretation then? Because there appear to be a few holes in what you claim.I won't interpret a passage figuratively unless it should obviously be interpreted that way. More than anything else I won't whitewash a passage to try to make it look nice. I see you doing that, and I think that's where you're going wrong.
And you know what I want, how?Then you have "no horse in the race"! You err because you want to be included in a group of men although you are a woman. Women often get left out in the Bible. It's a very sexist book.Before you say 'for obvious reasons' I would interpret this passage this way, keep in mind that I am a woman. If this passage meant what you seem to be implying, I'd have no horse in this race. (I'm also not one of the 144000 who are taken 12000 from each of 12 tribes of Israel, also listed in Revelation.)
I just said that I was not included in that group (as far as I know I am not descended from any of the twelve tribes of Israel).
But Christ has both male and female disciples; both men and women make up His Body/Bride; both men and women will reign with Him in His Kingdom as kings and priests. There is no male or female, free or slave, jew or gentile.... right?
So my discussing this with you has nothing to do with what I want or do not want.
I listen to any Christian including yourself. The clergy are leaders, so what they preach is often accepted by their followers.My question is more along the lines of why do YOU (in general) listen to the clergy? Why do you listen to their interpretations of the Bible, or to their claims about Christ and about God... when you now believe that these are false teachers, liars, corrupt, etc, and that they do not know Christ or God? So why do you accept that such people could possibly have told or even known the truth about God?
When I said 'listen to', I meant 'believe and/or obey'.
Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
Post #38
[Replying to post 37 by tam]
I believe my way of interpreting the Bible is the best way to get at what the writers meant. I would not go so far as to say I know it is the best way to interpret the Bible or anything else, but I'm confident that it is a good way nevertheless. My method has the merit of eliminating undue bias and any resulting distortion of the text. What is most likely the correct interpretation can be determined objectively by using the most common meanings of words unless the text indicates that those words should be understood in some other way. Background knowledge is also very handy when getting at the meaning of a text, and that's why I often rely on background knowledge.And you know this is the method required to find the 'correct' interpretation, how? And isn't 'most likely' a bit subjective, and dependent upon you having all the facts?In any case my point is that yes, you can come up with many possible ways to interpret a passage in the Bible and, and make it say what you want it to say. But to find the "correct" interpretation you need to go with what's most likely.
Revelation is a relatively hard book to interpret. It's hard to say in some passages if what is written about should be taken figuratively or literally. For example, does Jesus really have white hair? It's impossible to say. Now, the seven-headed beast is probably a symbol because the number seven is used thirty-five times in Revelation for other purposes, and the seven heads of the beast probably symbolize one of those other things.And in the book of Revelation, a book that is filled with symbolism? I assume you do not think that the book means there will be a literal beast with 7 heads and 10 horns; or that a (large) woman will be sitting atop this beast, holding a chalice filled with the blood of the saints.So I generally interpret the Bible for what it says.
You have the wrong authors, for one thing. Neither Peter nor Paul wrote Revelation. So you cannot justifiably assume their theology was shared by John of Patmos who wrote Revelation. Besides, Paul had an obvious sexual problem, and it is not difficult to see him as seeing sex with women as a defilement. The same goes for Jesus himself who often ranted about the evils of sex.Well, the context cannot be that a man defiles himself for having sex with a literal woman, because having sex with one's wife (a woman) does not defile a man. Peter was not defiled because he had a wife. Paul even said...I avoid any unlikely or unusual definitions for words, and I carefully examine the context for meaning.
Wrong. All twelve apostles were presumably men. The New Testament mentions few if any female leaders in the church, and women were told to be silent at meetings. (1 Corinthians 14:34) So the New Testament is every bit as sexist as the Old Testament.But Christ has both male and female disciples; both men and women make up His Body/Bride; both men and women will reign with Him in His Kingdom as kings and priests. There is no male or female, free or slave, jew or gentile.... right?
Re: Corruption in the Clergy
Post #39[Replying to post 34 by JehovahsWitness]
Here's what Victims 'told not to report' Jehovah's Witness child abuse, a BBC report, has to say about child abuse among Jehovah's Witnesses:
Here's what Victims 'told not to report' Jehovah's Witness child abuse, a BBC report, has to say about child abuse among Jehovah's Witnesses:
While I personally don't know of any child abuse cases among the Jehovah's Witnesses, I have been told by at least one Jehovah's Witness that they would break up a marriage if one of the spouses went "apostate."Children who were sexually abused by Jehovah's Witnesses were allegedly told by the organisation not to report it.
Victims from across the UK told the BBC they were routinely abused and that the religion's own rules protected perpetrators.
One child abuse lawyer believes there could be thousands of victims across the country who have not come forward.
The organisation said it did not "shield" abusers and any suggestion of a cover-up was "absolutely false"
-
JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 22880
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 897 times
- Been thanked: 1337 times
- Contact:
Re: Corruption in the Clergy
Post #40[Replying to post 39 by Jagella]
So? So what?!
No organization can be completely free of this vile crime because most abuse of this kind is interfamilial.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 077#912077
JW
So? So what?!
No organization can be completely free of this vile crime because most abuse of this kind is interfamilial.
I have produced what I have found in the way of studies and they indicate if anything to the contrary.If you have any peer reviewed studies that prove that there is a higher occurance of child abuse within the JWs produce it.
If you have any studies that support the views that our leadership is more likely to be involved in child abuse than the general populace, then produce that.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 077#912077
JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
