Originally posted by galveston75He is never able to substantiate any of his claims, he once claimed that the elders of
I've asked Manny before to show me some kind of proof, any kind that Rutherford made that statement. I still have never seen him come up with proof of his accusation.
Jehovahs witnesses are greedy and corrupt, when asked for evidence, he produced
nothing. I think he believes his own propaganda.
2 edits
Originally posted by galveston75I see the wolves are are still howling dear Gman, hard to argue with the empirical
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
In the United States alone, over 4K
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses'_handling_of_child_sex_abuse
As of 2007 only 11 JW's.
evidence though, isn't it, oh dear Gman, why you persist is a testimony to your infinite
patience. I have joined chess.com , simply to play a little blitz, how refreshing an
experience it is without all this incessant bickering and petty squabbles.
Originally posted by galveston75As of 2007 only 11 JW's had been successfully sued according to the Jehovah's Witnesses' Office of Public Information. And yet in 2007 alone in just one case the JW organization settled out of court with 16 victims. How many cases had there been where the perpetrators or victims has been disfellowshipped before cases came to trial? How many cases never came to trial over the decades [just like in the Catholic church] because of the way cases were handled or victims were treated by the JW organization? Were these 'JW cases' too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses'_handling_of_child_sex_abuse
As of 2007 only 11 JW's.
Originally posted by FMFIn a previous thread on this same topic some months ago, both JWs here admitted that the procedure requires two witnesses to the 'act' before the perpetrator can be properly accused of a crime. I would guess 2 witnesses to a sex crime would be a very rare occurrence .. maybe Im wrong.
As of 2007 only 11 JW's had been successfully sued according to the Jehovah's Witnesses' Office of Public Information. And yet in 2007 alone in just one case the JW organization settled out of court with 16 victims. How many cases had there been where the perpetrators or victims has been disfellowshipped before cases came to trial? How many cases never came to t ...[text shortened]... ses were handled or victims were treated by the JW organization? Were these 'JW cases' too?
Originally posted by Rajk999All I was asking was if he had any evidence that child abuse is any more or less prevalent among members of the Catholic church than it is among the general population, or indeed among members of the JW organisation?
In a previous thread on this same topic some months ago, both JWs here admitted that the procedure requires two witnesses to the 'act' before the perpetrator can be properly accused of a crime. I would guess 2 witnesses to a sex crime would be a very rare occurrence .. maybe Im wrong.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf you don't want incessant bickering and petty squabbles don't post in the forums. It's not rocket science, play chess don't post. I find it a little strange that after 5 years and 1576 (yep, i checked) pages of posts you should suddenly feel the need to complain.
I see the wolves are are still howling dear Gman, hard to argue with the empirical
evidence though, isn't it, oh dear Gman, why you persist is a testimony to your infinite
patience. I have joined chess.com , simply to play a little blitz, how refreshing an
experience it is without all this incessant bickering and petty squabbles.
Originally posted by Proper KnobYou are absolutely correct, what a great idea.
If you don't want incessant bickering and petty squabbles don't post in the forums. It's not rocket science, play chess don't post. I find it a little strange that after 5 years and 1576 (yep, i checked) pages of posts you should suddenly feel the need to complain.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf this tail-between-the-legs mode you're in was brought on in any way by the few home truths about your behaviour that I handed you a week or so back, please note that I intended my candour to help you mend yourself rather than send you skulking off. 😀
You are absolutely correct, what a great idea.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCharles Taze Russell: The Crook
He is never able to substantiate any of his claims, he once claimed that the elders of
Jehovahs witnesses are greedy and corrupt, when asked for evidence, he produced
nothing. I think he believes his own propaganda.
Russell was also sued by the U.S. department of Agriculture in 1911 for falsely claiming that the wheat seeds he was selling would produce 10 times more yield than normal seeds. Of course, they didn't. He sold what he called "miracle wheat" at sixty dollars a bushel to credulous farmers, the fraud being eventually stopped by the federal authorities, who made him refund the money (Leslie Rumble, Radio Replies, 2:1,352).
In 1911 the Brooklyn Daily Eagle published a caricature of Russell and beneath it this question: "If Pastor Russell can get a dollar a pound for miracle wheat, what could he have got for miracle stocks and bonds as a director in the old Union Bank?" Russell sued the Eagle for libel. The Eagle won the case. Russell had begun by preaching the "Millennial Dawn." His followers then became known as "Millennial Dawnists." Soon Russell adopted the title "Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society." In 1896 this was changed to "Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society." For a time he thought the "People's Pulpit Association" sounded better. In 1914 the name became "International Bible Students' Association." Russell died in 1916.
Manny