Posted on 11/24/2004 7:56:32 AM PST by hawkaw
Your screen name says it all. You are a sham. Get your facts straight before showing your intelligence.
There is little point arguing with you. You have a job to do online combatting the organizations's adversaries. Since JW's are strongly discouraged from using the internet as it would lead to unsupervised social contacts with "worldly" people (the point where people leave the JW's is when they learn that despite what the "Watchtower" tells them, "worldly" people aren't any worse than them. That there are tons of wonderful "worldly" people out there so leaving the JWs doesn't mean being all alone in a world full of cruelty and evil.) either you are ignoring the authority of your church or you are acting at its behest.
Thanks for posting the thread.
What interests me is that usually JW disinformation types online try to pose as non-JWs who just think their organization is getting a bad rap. It fails because you can't really hide a lifetime of totalitarian indoctrination. There are too many buttons to be pushed. Jerri more wisely acknowledged up front that she was one.
Have a nice Christmas time.
For her to say she kept her children in that environment because someone else told her to is total BS.
There was this woman who sued a church for "allowing" the abuse of her sons when she had let them sleep in bed with the old man, a known and convicted child molestor.
It must be pick on Sam day.
Why'd you excavate this old thread?
I thought this was a new incident.
Why'd you excavate this old thread?
I wondered if anyone was still around...
Acutally, I'm a JW trying a new method of door-knocking...
NOT!:)
That's kinda what prompted my question.
NOT!:)
Hmmm OK
But we'll have to keep an eye on you for a while, just in case.
HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE! ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!
Okay, I think I'm okay. No, I'm not. I did have a couple of friends who were growing up. They were okay guys and never bothered anyone.
My question is if there are only 144,000, what happens to the other 5 million of them or so?
yeah back in November 2004.
youre a little late to jump in.
Was she aware of his past at the time? If so, she should have been thrown in jail and charged as an accomplice.
I am unable to help you there.
As far as I know their set up is like the Masons. If you want to know about their beliefs, you gotta talk to them.
I realize that.
Aw gee, but it was so nice of you to respond.....
This was an old thread. Yes, the woman knew. She got her $3 million too.
Serious question: Why are you here? I thought JW weren't allowed to vote to be politically active because this is a found of allegiance to someone or thing other than God.
These are all serious questions:
Do you vote?
Do you encourage or discourage others to vote?
Why are you at FreeRepublic? Do you just come here for the dialogue or do you consider yourself politically active?
No offense meant, so please don’t take any.
I am unable to help you there.
As far as I know their set up is like the Masons. If you want to know about their beliefs, you gotta talk to them
True. But that's fine for now.
Still pulling the JW routine of twisting the truth and blaming the victim ?
You know as well as I that the priority of the JW organization is NOT to protect the children. It is to protect the 'scriptural headship' of the father over his family. Had they caught him pulling the child's pants down their response would have been to lecture the wife on how if she had been more loving and supportive her husband would not have been driven to this and since he has assured them it will never happen again the subject is closed. But she will have to undergo more counselling on fulfilling her wifely duties.
I wasn't.
Man, this is the last time I bring up an old thread:).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.