Jehovah

[Pegg]

Do you have access to the WT library? maybe you can find the articles. The websites reference every quote right down to the page number.

yes, and what they are explaining are the way things were back then. It was a very different society and mentality. The general population of white people did not approve of having black people in their company...how could the society commission a black person to be a door to door preacher among a white population? They would have been putting the black brothers and sisters lives in danger.

It was a fact that most black people could not read and write back then. How would such a person be able to teach another person from books? They couldnt. So its wasnt outright discrimination...it was a matter of practicality.

If a rapist threatened me with a weapon an said if I screamed they would kill me, maybe I would not scream, I can not say how I would act I have not been in that situation, but would I want to live yes and may do what is necessary to save my life. The articles are saying that if a woman does not keep screaming through out her rape she has committed fornication, what do you think about that? I don't judge how rape victims react out of fear and pain, do you?

its a fact that screaming out and putting up resistance is a protection...it is often what can save a woman from being raped because the rapist usually doesnt want to get caught.

And the fact is, if the rapists threatens to kill you, he will probably do it anyway. Many rape victims are killed after they have complied. So why comply in the first place?

Just think about what those vile animals did to the poor Indian woman on the bus some months ago. They killed her anyway!
We had a case here in austrlia recently of a young woman who was raped and then strangled. He threatened to kill her if she didnt comply, he then raped her and strangled her anyway.

Just because a rapist says he will only kill you if you scream doenst mean you should take his word for it.

 

[savagewind]

I think to teach it that way hurts victims who can not scream.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I feel like what I am saying is falling on deaf ears!!!
I will repeat the watchtower taught that if you don't do everything to resist your rapist you have committed fornication! Would anyone like to address this instead of making excuses?
Secondly did you read what it said about black skin? That god can turn black skin white?

 

[Poeticus]

Secondly did you read what it said about black skin? That god can turn black skin white?

Yes, I read that part. You mean the one about the young black child who became nine-tenths white? I found it completely disheartening and became quite uncomfortable reading it. Anything to do with racism, makes me incredibly queasy.

 

[Pegg]

I hope all of you understand that I know 0% (and I mean 0%, as in -100%) about JWs/WT. And, I commend JWs/WT for not holding those racist views anymore. However, if a JWs/WT can clarify more on the topic about a female getting raped and being held accountable for being raped ... I would understand this situation a little bit better. Also, in our diverse and growing world, it has been clearly demonstrated that both men and women can be rape victims as well as perpetrators of rape. Therefore, would the situation of a female being held accountable for fornication if she didn't harshly/vehemently resist apply to a male victim as well?

when the bible was written, the law regarding sexual immorality was very firm. If two unmarried persons committed sexual intercourse, they were to be put to death.
But the situation was different if a woman was forced. The question was how do you know if she was forced or if she was a willing participant. Perhaps she was a willing participant and then because of being caught, she accused the man of raping her to avoid punishment.
The answer was in how she reacted to the intercourse. If she was heard by others screaming out, then that was taken as proof that it was a rape and she wasnt complicit.
But if no one heard any screaming or fighting or she had not visible sign of a struggle had taken place (ie black eye or brusies from being beaten etc), then it was taken as evidence against her that she was complicit and it was an act of fornication.


So 3,000 years later, how do christians view this subject? We view it the same way. If there is no sign of a struggle or attempt to flee, then how do you prove it was a rape and not a consensual act of fornication?

Every women or man who is attacked should never comply with their attacker. If they are knocked unconscious or drugged, then that is different, you cant comply and therefore are not responsible for what happens. But if you fail to put up some sort of defense for yourself, whether its physical or verbal screaming and yelling, then you have complied with the sexual act....even if you dont want it, you've still complied. Why let yourself be used by a rapist? Dont let them get away with it, they do not have the rights over your body so let them know that. Dont comply because you are scared....they'll probably kill you anyway.

thats how i veiw it...some other may feel differently, i cant speak for every JW, but that is what I tell my kids...never comply with something you dont want to happen.

 

[JayJayDee]

Did you not read what it actually said about black skin ?

H, it was a widely held view at the time that the descendants of Ham were the cursed ones and supposed that they had black skin.

The article stated: "Noah declared, prophetically, that Ham’s characteristics which had led him to unseemly conduct disrespectful to his father, would be found cropping out later, inherited by his son, and prophetically he foretold that this degeneracy would mark the posterity of Canaan, degrading him, making him servile. We are not able to determine to a certainty that the sons of Ham and Canaan are the negroes; but we consider that general view as probable as any other.”"

It was this prevailing view in the early days that God's curse led to the outrageous conduct of the Canaanites. It is this view that allowed slavery to be practiced in America, and apartheid to be so strongly entrenched in South Africa for so long. Like other Protestant religions, the Dutch Reform Church held the view that black skinned people were cursed by God and acted accordingly.

As time went on, things became clearer. This attitude has not been the case for a very long time now among Jehovah's people. When we see something is wrong, we change it. Jehovah sees to it that what needs a change in attitude is dealt with at the appropriate time, however. You can't place today's attitudes on yesterday's practices.

What is the situation today?.....

Watchtower 2011 January 15 page 15

 

[Pegg]

I feel like what I am saying is falling on deaf ears!!!
I will repeat the watchtower taught that if you don't do everything to resist your rapist you have committed fornication! Would anyone like to address this instead of making excuses?
Secondly did you read what it said about black skin? That god can turn black skin white?

I'd like to know the title of the watchtower article. And what they are disucssing is not a wt teaching but is being related from somewhere else.
This could be a Newyork post news article for we know. The watchtower often has information from other sources...it doesnt mean that the WT originated the information or agrees with it. Its a 'cut and paste'....we dont even know the title of the article in question. It could be an article entitled "Skin Colour Means Nothing to us" or '"God created the various skin colours because he likes variety"

Watchtower 1904 February 15 pp.52-53
“Can the Ethiopian change his skin?” “What the Ethiopian cannot do for himself God could readily do for him. The difference between the races of men and the differences between their languages have long been arguments against the solidarity of the human family. The doctrine of restitution has also raised the question. How could all men be brought to perfection and which color of skin was the original? The answer is now provided. God can change the Ethiopian’s skin in his own due time. Prof. H. A. Edwards, Supt. of Schools in Slater, Mo., has written for the public press an elaborate description of how Julius Jackson, of New Frankfurt, Mo., a negro boy of nine years, began to grow white in September, 1901, and is now fully nine-tenths white. He assures us that this is no whitish skin disease; but that the new white skin is as healthy as that of any white boy, and that the changed boy has never been sick and never has taken medicines”


Can you get the name of the WT article where this snippet is taken from because i'd like to see it. (post the entire article so we can see exactly whats being said)

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

when the bible was written, the law regarding sexual immorality was very firm. If two unmarried persons committed sexual intercourse, they were to be put to death.
But the situation was different if a woman was forced. The question was how do you know if she was forced or if she was a willing participant. Perhaps she was a willing participant and then because of being caught, she accused the man of raping her to avoid punishment.
The answer was in how she reacted to the intercourse. If she was heard by others screaming out, then that was taken as proof that it was a rape and she wasnt complicit.
But if no one heard any screaming or fighting or she had not visible sign of a struggle had taken place (ie black eye or brusies from being beaten etc), then it was taken as evidence against her that she was complicit and it was an act of fornication.


So 3,000 years later, how do christians view this subject? We view it the same way. If there is no sign of a struggle or attempt to flee, then how do you prove it was a rape and not a consensual act of fornication?

Every women or man who is attacked should never comply with their attacker. If they are knocked unconscious or drugged, then that is different, you cant comply and therefore are not responsible for what happens. But if you fail to put up some sort of defense for yourself, whether its physical or verbal screaming and yelling, then you have complied with the sexual act....even if you dont want it, you've still complied. Why let yourself be used by a rapist? Dont let them get away with it, they do not have the rights over your body so let them know that. Dont comply because you are scared....they'll probably kill you anyway.

thats how i veiw it...some other may feel differently, i cant speak for every JW, but that is what I tell my kids...never comply with something you dont want to happen.

So if they comply because they are scared that means they committed fornication? That is what the articles are saying and they are very clear about that.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I'd like to know the title of the watchtower article. And what they are disucssing is not a wt teaching but is being related from somewhere else.
This could be a Newyork post news article for we know. The watchtower often has information from other sources...it doesnt mean that the WT originated the information or agrees with it. Its a 'cut and paste'....we dont even know the title of the article in question. It could be an article entitled "Skin Colour Means Nothing to us" or '"God created the various skin colours because he likes variety"

Watchtower 1904 February 15 pp.52-53
“Can the Ethiopian change his skin?” “What the Ethiopian cannot do for himself God could readily do for him. The difference between the races of men and the differences between their languages have long been arguments against the solidarity of the human family. The doctrine of restitution has also raised the question. How could all men be brought to perfection and which color of skin was the original? The answer is now provided. God can change the Ethiopian’s skin in his own due time. Prof. H. A. Edwards, Supt. of Schools in Slater, Mo., has written for the public press an elaborate description of how Julius Jackson, of New Frankfurt, Mo., a negro boy of nine years, began to grow white in September, 1901, and is now fully nine-tenths white. He assures us that this is no whitish skin disease; but that the new white skin is as healthy as that of any white boy, and that the changed boy has never been sick and never has taken medicines”


Can you get the name of the WT article where this snippet is taken from because i'd like to see it. (post the entire article so we can see exactly whats being said)

Obviously I don't have the entire article, but you are right it could be taken out of context.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

But it also says "how can all men be brought to perfection and which skin colour is the original?" So what does that say to you?

 

[Pegg]

So if they comply because they are scared that means they committed fornication? That is what the articles are saying and they are very clear about that.

yes, it means they allowed the rapists to have sex with them.

The only way to reject it is to fight it.

 

[savagewind]

yes, it means they allowed the rapists to have sex with them.

The only way to reject it is to fight it.

If someone "allows" sex, it isn't rape

Allowing and consenting are not the same. ...please learn the meaning of words and that words are swords

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

yes, it means they allowed the rapists to have sex with them.

The only way to reject it is to fight it.

That is sick!

 

[Pegg]

But it also says "how can all men be brought to perfection and which skin colour is the original?" So what does that say to you?

well there is not a lot to go on so its hard to say. It mentions the doctrine of 'restitution' which was a Universalist doctrine. The bible students were examining all the various church doctrines which were commonly believed and so it could be that they were discussing this doctrine of restitution.

Here is a reference from our Jehovahs Witness history book. Its states what was happening:

What about other Bible doctrines that were discussed in the Watch Tower and other publications? Did Russell take full credit for uncovering these gems of truth? Explained Russell: “We found that for centuries various sects and parties had split up the Bible doctrines amongst them, blending them with more or less of human speculation and error .*.*. We found the important doctrine of justification by faith and not by works had been clearly enunciated by Luther and more recently by many Christians; that divine justice and power and wisdom were carefully guarded tho not clearly discerned by Presbyterians; that Methodists appreciated and extolled the love and sympathy of God; that Adventists held the precious doctrine of the Lord’s return; that Baptists amongst other points held the doctrine of baptism symbolically correctly, even tho they had lost sight of the real baptism; that some Universalists had long held vaguely some thoughts respecting ‘restitution.’ And so, nearly all denominations gave evidence that their founders had been feeling after truth: but quite evidently the great Adversary had fought against them and had wrongly divided the Word of God which he could not wholly destroy.”

the doctrine of restitution is that something which was lost is regained. It could be that churchgoers back then believed that the original skin color of Adam had been lost and needed to be regained???

 

[JayJayDee]

I feel like what I am saying is falling on deaf ears!!!
I will repeat the watchtower taught that if you don't do everything to resist your rapist you have committed fornication! Would anyone like to address this instead of making excuses?

H, there is certainly a lot of stuff falling in deaf ears around here and they aren't ours. :ignore:

The un bolded part of a 2003 article that was quoted on that site (an apostate site I might add) said this:.....

"Hence, Christian women who are presently coping with emotional wounds resulting from an encounter with a rapist can be confident that Jehovah fully understands the painful feelings they are dealing with. God's Word assures them: "Jehovah is near to those that are broken at heart; and those who are crushed in spirit he saves." (Psalm 34:18) Further help to cope with their trauma can come from accepting the sincere understanding and gentle support of fellow believers in the Christian congregation. (Job 29:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:14) Moreover, the victims' own efforts to concentrate on positive thoughts will help them to experience "the peace of God that excels all thought."Philippians 4:6-9."

[*Footnote] Although this article speaks about female victims, the principles discussed also apply to males who are threatened with rape.

Where is the unloving condemnation?

Secondly did you read what it said about black skin? That god can turn black skin white?

"Watchtower 1904 February 15 pp.52-53


Please note the date of this alleged article and that it was an excerpt, so who knows what else was written in the context that this was supposedly taken from?

It was written almost a hundred and ten years ago! Seriously, if we today held to such thinking, then you could go to town on us.

I really think you need to get over your obsession with making us out to be monsters...please; it makes a fool of you, not us. :foot:

What church in existence has not had to change with the times and make adjustments in their attitudes. Why single us out as if we are the only people on earth who needed to change our thinking on some things? As the "light on the path gets brighter" we see more clearly the way to go, just as it says in the scripture. (Prove 4:18) If we made no adjustments, then you could complain. (I think you would complain anyway)

Why are you so relentless in your attacks on Jehovah's Witnesses? I know its usually personal with opposers, but doesn't there come a time when it all gets a bit tired?
What are you trying to achieve?

 

[savagewind]

Some rapists rape so that they might HAVE a "good" fight. You do not know about victims who fought but were killed. I wonder why? Because they're DEAD.

 

[Pegg]

That is sick!

and i think its sick to allow someone to rape you.

Just think about this..... a man comes into your home and says he's going to rape you and you should let him. Do you just say 'ok thats fine with me'?

I doubt it very much. If that were the case, then there would be a lot more rapes occuring because men would be given even more power to do it. You are basically advocating for allowing men to rape whoever and whenever they want and expecting women to let them.

 

[savagewind]

Watchtower news is one sided. They are expect propaganists.

 

[savagewind]

and i think its sick to allow someone to rape you.

Just think about this..... a man comes into your home and says he's going to rape you and you should let him. Do you just say 'ok thats fine with me'?

I doubt it very much.

How many rapes do you think start with "i'm going to rape you"? I suspect many rapes start out as an attack. Maybe the woman does not even know it is about rape untill it is.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Jay jay I am aware of the dates, I said passed WTs have disrespected gods name by associating it with falsehoods...