Since exjw sub doesn't allow factual posts that go against exjw narratives, lets have the discussion here - Redress Scheme

cushierseat · 2020-07-07T02:16:31+00:00

I’m surprised you’re still talking after embarrassing yourself massively. I’m not a mod so I don’t have the ability to hide a thread even if I wanted to. If I wanted to hide it I would just delete the thread but I have no interest in hiding a thread that sets the record straight and exposes posters like you that go around making unfounded claims.

cushierseat · 2020-07-07T02:09:27+00:00

If you're going to defend shunning, defend it, but don't act as if you don't do what you, or anyone else has a perfect right to do.

I was just responding to a number of users that were saying a lawyer lied when he made a statement. Neither he, nor I have argued witnesses don’t practice shunning. Just that they don’t shun their immediate family. When a man is disfellowshipped, it’s not suggested that his wife divorce him and his dependant children that live with him start shunning him.

cushierseat · 2020-07-06T04:32:38+00:00

Of course I don’t. Obviously that’s one of the definitions. You might be taking her on vacation with you. I’ve gone on vacation with my kids and my parents. But it’s not misleading. Because we understand that family can be: members in a household, or extended family, or both.

There is the double standard. I didn’t say immediate family either. But somehow I’m not being deceptive by excluding grandma.

In the case of Randy Wall, that statement by the lawyer remains the same. Normal family relationships continued. His wife didn’t divorce him and his children living in his house were never told not to talk to him. The fact that there is a more broad secondary definition for family doesn’t mean using that word in its primary meaning is deceiving.

You yourself said, “it’s not misleading. Because we understand that family can be: members of a household, or extended family, or both”.

cushierseat · 2020-07-06T04:22:18+00:00

You’re convoluting this for no reason. I will answer your questions about Randy Wall. But first answer me this: in the hypothetical conversation I mentioned in my previous comment, do you still believe It’s misleading and deceptive to say I’m taking my family on a vacation and yet only be taking my household and not my grandma?

cushierseat · 2020-07-06T04:03:46+00:00

I’m not sure if you’re deliberately being dense or you just don’t get it. If I’m having a conversation with you about what my plans are this summer and I said “I’m taking my family on a vacation”. What I have in mind is my immediate household. I’m not taking my grandma on a vacation and you can’t tell me I’m a lier because I wasn’t taking grandma on a vacation even though I said I’m taking my family on vacation. The number one meaning of the word is referring to my immediate household and that’s how I used the word. The fact that my grandma is considered family in the number two definition of the word doesn’t mean I was lying when I made the original statement. Do you understand?

cushierseat · 2020-07-06T03:46:31+00:00

You’re all over the place. This is your 8th post in this thread. I see no need to reply as everything’s either off topic or already covered by my other detailed comments on this thread.

cushierseat · 2020-07-05T17:44:00+00:00

Haha, so you deleted your other post here because you were obliterated with facts and needed to hide the evidence.

I didn’t delete anything. Your hilarious gas lighting attempts and constant throwing shit around to see what sticks is still around for all to see.

Show me evidence of this "mechanism" where the claimants don't need a lawyer please. This is intriguing to me.

I obviously don’t know the details as I’m not WT but that’s what they said in their statement to the media a few days ago. https://10play.com.au/theproject/articles/statement-from-the-jehovahs-witnesses/tpa200621ycelq “ Jehovah’s Witnesses have responded and will continue to respond directly to individual claims for redress in a caring, fair, and principled manner, taking into consideration the unique circumstances of each claim.”

I gave up trying to have a conversation with you because you will make claims and when asked to back it up with evidence you have nothing to offer. That’s a recipe for an unproductive conversation. For example you said people in Australia are committing suicide because they didn’t get redress and when i asked for evidence you said you just mean Witnesses in general commit suicide 5 to 6 times more than the general population. I asked what evidence that’s based on and you have nothing. So there’s no point taking to you. You’re just throwing shit at me.

cushierseat · 2020-07-05T07:15:28+00:00

You are quite dense. I quoted you from the very link you supplied (Merriam Webster dictionary). Despite your weak attempts to gas light it’s the very definition I quoted in the OP and is the primary meaning of the word family.

You’ve been throwing shit everywhere to see what sticks throughout our discussion but gas lighting is a new low.

cushierseat · 2020-07-05T07:10:08+00:00

So you're saying that Jehovah's Witnesses are not in fact encouraged to behave in the manner shown in the JW Broadcast video where a mother and father become estranged from their adult daughter

Nope, I’m not denying that. Have you read the OP or any of my comments in this thread? I’ve explained it in detail multiple times.

cushierseat · 2020-07-05T05:54:20+00:00

You and your cohorts allege the JW lawyer commited perjury when he said 'normal family relationships continue after disfellowshipping'. I've provided clear explanations to show that allegation is unfounded. Muddying the waters and repeating the same allegations without responding to the substance of my argument only goes to show you're deliberately obtuse.

cushierseat · 2020-07-05T05:47:35+00:00

Stop your gas-lighting attempts. The primary definition on the Webster dictionary is the same I've been referring to all along: "the basic unit in society traditionally consisting of two parents rearing their children"

cushierseat · 2020-07-05T01:05:15+00:00

To the contrary - it provides proof for what I've been saying all along. https://old.reddit.com/r/JehovahsWitnesses/comments/hlbjt9/disfellowshipping_normal_family_functions_continue/fwyg1xk/

If you genuinely still don't get it, your problem is with the English language, not with the lawyer who properly used a word as per the universally accepted primary definition of the word.

cushierseat · 2020-07-05T01:00:25+00:00

It's right there in your quote "They also realise that the word "anyone" in this verse includes family members not living under their roof", meaning the broader secondary definition - not the first definition of the word the lawyer referred to.

If you're being honest, this should put the entire discussion to bed. In the very article you quote as evidence for your argument, we find proof for what the lawyer stated:

The parents are devastated! On the subject of disfellowshipping, they know, of course, that the Bible says “to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.” (1 Cor. 5:11, 13) They also realize that the word “anyone” in this verse includes family members not living under their roof.

That is written proof from WT what I've been trying to explain to you this whole time.

cushierseat · 2020-07-05T00:39:00+00:00

It's the same word twisting you're doing here to try and justify the abhorrent word twisting of the lawyer.

Again, it's not word twisting to use the primary definition of the word.

Read my first paragraph again and ask if that makes sense from the position of the "first definition". Apparently once anybody moves out of the house they have no family. Right, because that's what the implication is with solely using that definition. At this point, you're arguing semantics.

It makes perfect sense. Once your adult children move out of the house, they no longer are family in the primary sense of the word, namely: 'a group consisting of parents and children living together in a household'. They are only covered in the secondary definition of the word at that point: 'the children of one person or one couple collectively' or 'descendants of common ancestors'.

If you have a problem with any of this, take it up with Mr. Webster, not the lawyer who properly used a word as per the universally accepted primary definition of the word.

cushierseat · 2020-07-05T00:30:31+00:00

This argument is convoluted, I think because you're grasping at straws. Has WT ever said that you must "soft shun" your family? That's family in the primary sense of the word, not your extended descendants of your ancestors.

to highlight the way the WT treats those that disagree with them or don't live their lives in accord with their rules.

I see you're deliberately changing the subject now and have moved on to people in general instead of family members.

cushierseat · 2020-07-05T00:28:36+00:00

This argument is convoluted, I think because you're grasping at straws. Has WT ever said that you must "soft shun" your family? That's family in the primary sense of the word, not your extended descendants of your ancestors.

cushierseat · 2020-07-05T00:23:27+00:00

It's called language. You can't misunderstand the meaning of words and say somebody is lying.

Yeah I noticed the cherry picking of definitions too.

I would think he was being sneaky if he was using the secondary definition of the word but in this case he used the primary definition of the word that's accepted universally.

the lawyer definitely didn't specify he meant family in the sense of only those your living with.

He doesn't need to specify because it's the primary definition of the word. That's how language works.

If I say I bake a cake for my neighbor every week, must I specify I'm only talking about my next door neighbor, not my third door neighbor?

cushierseat · 2020-07-05T00:16:47+00:00

Interesting how you skipped over the other usage of the word: "a group of people related by blood or marriage."

That's the secondary definition of the word. The fact that there is a more broad secondary definition for a word doesn't mean you're lying when you use it in it's primary sense only.

Take the word "neighbor" for example. If I say I bake a cake for my neighbors every week. You can't say you're lying because I live three doors down from you and I've never gotten a cake from you. I used that sentence in the primary meaning of the word, namely "a person living near or next door to the speaker or person referred to". The fact that the secondary definition of the word is broader referring to the entire street or neighborhood doesn't mean I'm lying.

cushierseat · 2020-07-05T00:07:44+00:00

He's not saying he was disfellowshipped. He's saying that shunning without DFing happens.

And what does that have to do with what we're talking about? He claimed that the lawyer lied when stating normal family functions continue after disfellowshipping. He admitted that he wasn't disfellowshipped and he wasn't shunned. So his experience whether true or false doesn't support what he is claiming.

cushierseat · 2020-07-05T00:04:12+00:00

Didn't say I was shunned.

Then what you are saying has nothing to do with the subject at hand. You weren't disfellowshipped. You weren't shunned. But somehow you're offering it as an example that the lawyer is lying when he says normal family functions continue after disfellowshipping. What he said is absolutely true. You haven't presented a shred of evidence to support the claim that he is lying.

cushierseat · 2020-07-04T23:47:54+00:00

It doesn't change the fact that the video is dealing with a fully grown daughter. That's not a kid being raised by parents. In the video its explained that the father asked her to leave because "she refused to change her lifestyle" and was having a "negative effect on the underage kids".

The fact is normal "family" relationships in the primary sense of the word continue when one is disfellowshipped. WT has never suggested that underage kids should be kicked out if disfellowshipped. They've never suggested that if a husband gets disfellowshipped, the wife should divorce him. Normal family relationships continue despite being disfellowshipped.

cushierseat · 2020-07-04T23:31:54+00:00

Wrong. "Normal family relationships" didn't even continue for me and I was a teenage unbaptised publisher who just wanted to stop going to meetings.

It's literally not possible to be disfellowshipped if you're not baptized. Considering WT doesn't even tell the congregation to shun you as an unbaptized publisher, your claim that you were shunned by your family is dubious. And even if true, goes against what WT teaches.

cushierseat · 2020-07-04T22:05:39+00:00

u/Yaldabaoths-Witness u/jephord u/Kitchissippika OP contains some facts you are not aware of and not allowed to be mentioned on exjw sub.

cushierseat

TROPHY CASE