eggnog isn't even a witness lady lee. He's a wannabe.
Hmm thanks cantleave. So he doesn't know what he is talking about. Probably never seen an elders manual either
In general, what is the ethically correct response if a minor tells you someone is molesting him/her?
by InterestedOne 84 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
Lady Lee
-
GLTirebiter
Again, what I stated about "two witnesses" does not accord with the standard in criminal investigations that are undertaken by law enforcement, but, in fact, is consonant with theocratic investigations that are undertaken by the body of elders in the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses.
These "theocratic" investigations do not mitigate the legal obligation to report all suspected cases of child molestation. Hearing witnesses and conducting an "theocratic investigation" is not part of the legal mandate to report. Going "beyond what is written" in the law, using an amateur investigation as an excuse to not do what the law requires, is neither scriptural nor lawful.
Neither is it up to the elders to decide whether youths and "unbelievers" are credible witnesses. According to the 1991Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock elder's manual:
"The testimony of youths may be considered; it is up to the elders to determine if the testimony has the ring of truth."
"The testimony of unbelievers may also be considered, but it must be carefully weighed."
Molestation is a criminal matter. It is up to the courts to decide which witnesses are credible, not the elders. The elders' job is to report every case of suspected abuse to the legal authorities. That "we know what's best" attitude is exactly what I meant by "investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury".
Also from the 1991 Flock elders' manual:
"Christians are to pay to Caesar what is Caesar's and should obey the laws of the land in all matters where there is no conflict with God's law."
That is the point I was making: the WT sets its self above the law. They feel empowered to ignore the laws of the land if, in their own judgement, they decide some law should not apply. In this case, that law mandates reporting all suspected cases of child molestation.
It's ironic that they use Matthew 22 to justify ignoring the law. The context of this passage is that the pharisees were trying to get Jesus to say "Don't pay taxes to Caesar, disobey that law". But Jesus' answer says we are obliged to obey both God's law and Caesar's law.
what you and others here need to do is learn how to live quietly and to mind your own business
NO! That would make us culpable for the same offense, ignoring crimes against children! There is both a legal duty and a moral duty to report suspected cases of molesation. Protecting molesters is abetting their crimes, participating in their sins.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." --Edmund Burke
If we do not speak out against those who hide the offenders, then we are tolerating their action. This comes under the "toleration" clause:
"A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do." --US Military Academy Honor Code
-
AK MCGRATH
djegghead~"Actually, what you and others here need to do is learn how to live quietly and to mind your own business and stop thinking that Jehovah's Witnesses need suggestions from you on how their elders carry out their scriptural responsibilities, for we understand both our legal responsibilities toward the superior authorities (i.e., police officers, local law enforcement, and so forth), and our spiritual responsibilities to Jehovah God and to the Lord Jesus Christ, so that we are able to walk orderly and decently toward those on the outside"
@djeggnog-I can't help but wonder what the good Lord would have done in his day, upon learning the religious leaders did not protect the flock from perverts who fondled children, or made these precious sheep touch or perform sexual acts on them. Especially if it was ONE OF THOSE RELIGIOUS LEADERS perpetrating these heinous crimes! If he was pissed at the money changers...look out! I'm only guessing here, but I don't think our King would be none too happy 'bout it, nor turning a blind eye, um i mean "2 witness rule"!!
Your remarks indicate you are one stone cold bastard. AND an elder. Christ! I'd hate to have you as someone to turn to for comfort and encouragement, let alone in a "theocratic investigation". ANYONE who thinks the two witness "rule" is okey dokey needs to have their fuckin head examined! Where the hell is your common sense man!? Where is your love for "God's chosen sheep"? Your compassion? You think the "rule" would be just hunky dorry with you if it was YOUR child? And then, because you love your child and want justice for that loving being of your very own loins, you do what needs to be done outside of the kingdom hall walls and WTBTS "rules", and go to the authorities, in all exhausted hopes that SOMEBODY will genuinely care and do what should have been done in the first place: Make sure this does not happen EVER AGAIN by this person!
You think, "our spiritual responsibilities to Jehovah God and to the Lord Jesus Christ, so that we are able to walk orderly and decently toward those on the outside." is cutting it with Jehovah & Jesus, do you. Man o man, I am going to pull up a chair and nuke some popcorn on your burning ass as I watch the destruction of you loveless, smug hypocrites! You think just because you are in the "Truth" you will be spared the wrath of God? Well, since you believe you are chosen, you have an even greater responsibility to HIM. Is it not so? I like burnt popcorn, so hope you just don't combust.
Have a nice day (drop dead, BA BYE)
-
djeggnog
@djeggnog wrote:
You totally misunderstood the points I was making regarding criminal investigations and theocratic investigations, but I thought I distinguished these two kinds of investigations. Even if the brother(s) or sister(s) were to be cleared in a criminal investigation, theocratic investigations are independent investigations to determine whether there is repentance on the part of anyone accused of such criminal conduct. Not only will criminal offenses be reported to the authorities, but there will typically be a judicial committee empaneled for the purpose of determining what effect, if any, the brother(s) or sister(s) accused of such criminal conduct might potentially have upon the spiritual welfare of the congregation, which is of prime importance.
I don't recall saying a thing about elders taking on the role of detectives or prosecutors or judges in any of the things I wrote. You might enjoy putting words into my mouth because you happen to have an agenda to maintain and you think to make today "thrash an elder day," but I am able to speak for myself without any assistance from you or from anyone else here.
Again, what I stated about "two witnesses" does not accord with the standard in criminal investigations that are undertaken by law enforcement, but, in fact, is consonant with theocratic investigations that are undertaken by the body of elders in the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses.
@GLTirebiter wrote:
These "theocratic" investigations do not mitigate the legal obligation to report all suspected cases of child molestation. Hearing witnesses and conducting an "theocratic investigation" is not part of the legal mandate to report. Going "beyond what is written" in the law, using an amateur investigation as an excuse to not do what the law requires, is neither scriptural nor lawful.
What's wrong with you? You confusing two things. I wrote that "criminal offenses be reported to the authorities," and that "theocratic" investigations do not mitigate the legal obligation to report all suspected cases of child molestation." I didn't say our theocratic investigations into such matters mitigate our duty to report such crimes, did I? It is you that is putting these words into my mouth, words that I did not say.
Neither is it up to the elders to decide whether youths and "unbelievers" are credible witnesses. According to the 1991Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock elder's manual....
You may know that we now have another manual called "Shepherd the Flock of God--1 Peter 5:2," the new Kingdom Ministry School Textbook, which is a copyrighted work. Your mention of the Pay Attention manual to me is immaterial to this topic, and if you should no longer be an elder, you should have already destroyed your copy of this manual since it was only issued to elders, who are actively serving as such.
Based on many of the things you have said to me in this thread, I really don't believe you are scripturally qualified to serve as an elder, and your appointment as such, if it hasn't already, should be rescinded, so that you are deleted as such. If the body of elders at the local congregation had caught wind of the kinds of things that you have said here that are in complete disregard for your appointment as an elder, things that they did not know about your positions on scriptural matters which differ from what they thought they knew about you at the time you were recommended to serve as such, then according to Chapter 3 of the Shepherding textbook, you have to know that you would not be an elder today. As Chapter 12 of this textbook makes clear, child abuse is a crime, and so, in addition to contacting the branch, elders would make clear that it is the absolute right of the victim, and this would include his or her parents or guardians, to report such to the proper authorities since child abuse, sexual or otherwise, is a crime.
Molestation is a criminal matter. It is up to the courts to decide which witnesses are credible, not the elders.
Yes, this is true; this is what I have consistently stated here.
The elders' job is to report every case of suspected abuse to the legal authorities.
This is not true. It is the victim's responsibility to contact the authorities about the alleged crime, not the elders' responsibility to do so, but if one of the elders is requested by the victim to report the alleged crime to the authorities -- and by this I don't necessarily mean the child, but the parents or guardians of the child -- then the elder is free to oblige.
That "we know what's best" attitude is exactly what I meant by "investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury".
I have no idea what you are talking about here, since, as I've pointed out, the elders are not policemen, who are often called as witnesses in a criminal trial, neither are they prosecutors, judges or jurors as all such have roles to play during a criminal trial, if the accused should not otherwise plead guilty or the matter settled without a full-fledged trial.
@djeggnog wrote:
Actually, what you and others here need to do is learn how to live quietly and to mind your own business and stop thinking that Jehovah's Witnesses need suggestions from you on how their elders carry out their scriptural responsibilities, for we understand both our legal responsibilities toward the superior authorities (i.e., police officers, local law enforcement, and so forth), and our spiritual responsibilities to Jehovah God and to the Lord Jesus Christ, so that we are able to walk orderly and decently toward those on the outside. (1 Thessalonians 4:10-12)
@AK MCGRATH wrote:
@djeggnog-I can't help but wonder what the good Lord would have done in his day, upon learning the religious leaders did not protect the flock from perverts who fondled children, or made these precious sheep touch or perform sexual acts on them. Especially if it was ONE OF THOSE RELIGIOUS LEADERS perpetrating these heinous crimes! If he was pissed at the money changers...look out! I'm only guessing here, but I don't think our King would be none too happy 'bout it, nor turning a blind eye, um i mean "2 witness rule"!!
When I wrote that @GLTirebiter "and others here" should 'learn how to live quietly and mind their own business,' I was thinking how their notions as to what the elders need to do when they are handling child abuse matters were rather off-putting since their input is neither requested or necessary. Your mention of the 'two-witness rule' suggests to me that you are confusing the discharge of our scriptural obligations as Christians regarding theocratic matters with the discharge of our ethical/legal obligations obligations toward "the superior authorities" (Romans 13:1) regarding criminal matters. BTW, we do not require a second witness to the alleged offense for it will suffice to have the "second witness" be the victim of the same offense allegedly by the same individual. I just thought you should know.
Your remarks indicate you are one stone cold bastard. AND an elder.
I would suppose you would so opine about the apostle Paul as well, but if you are now living in your last days, then I accept that your opinion will perish along with all of your thoughts. I'm wondering if my saying this reinforces your opinion as to my coldness.
Christ! I'd hate to have you as someone to turn to for comfort and encouragement, let alone in a "theocratic investigation". ANYONE who thinks the two witness "rule" is okey dokey needs to have their fuckin head examined! Where the hell is your common sense man!? Where is your love for "God's chosen sheep"? Your compassion? You think the "rule" would be just hunky dorry with you if it was YOUR child?
What "rule" do you mean? Believe me, our children do not need or require either you and your ilk to protect them from predators. Whatever we cannot do on our own, our God has the power to undo whatever harm should beset them, including the outing of anyone in our ranks that should prove to be a counterfeit Christian (like yourself). If you really want to help us, just leave our children alone, and I don't mean you personally, but pedophiles generally.
And then, because you love your child and want justice for that loving being of your very own loins, you do what needs to be done outside of the kingdom hall walls and WTBTS "rules", and go to the authorities, in all exhausted hopes that SOMEBODY will genuinely care and do what should have been done in the first place: Make sure this does not happen EVER AGAIN by this person!
There is a semblance of justice in this world, but you have to know that this isn't true justice at all. It may make one feel good that an individual has been "put away," so to speak, for 20 years or so for such criminal offenses, but you know as well as I that the harm done to such children cannot be undone, so for true justice, we will all have to wait for the Millennial Reign of Jesus Christ.
@djeggnog
-
dgp
DJEggnog wrote:
you know as well as I that the harm done to such children cannot be undone, so for true justice, we will all have to wait for the Millennial Reign of Jesus Christ.
Does this mean that the harm done to the children will never have happened?
One of the curious things about being all powerful is that, for some reason, there are some things you just can't change. Like the past. What was once, cannot NEVER HAVE BEEN.
I take worldly justice, thank you.
-
DanaBug
What's wrong with you? You confusing two things. I wrote that "criminal offenses be reported to the authorities," and that "theocratic" investigations do not mitigate the legal obligation to report all suspected cases of child molestation." I didn't say our theocratic investigations into such matters mitigate our duty to report such crimes, did I? It is you that is putting these words into my mouth, words that I did not say.
As Chapter 12 of this textbook makes clear, child abuse is a crime, and so, in addition to contacting the branch, elders would make clear that it is the absolute right of the victim, and this would include his or her parents or guardians, to report such to the proper authorities since child abuse, sexual or otherwise, is a crime.
This is the key though. Which happens first? Does an elder report the alleged crime or does he call the branch? See jgnat's post. I'd like to see what you have to say about that.
It is the victim's responsibility to contact the authorities about the alleged crime, not the elders' responsibility to do so, but if one of the elders is requested by the victim to report the alleged crime to the authorities -- and by this I don't necessarily mean the child, but the parents or guardians of the child -- then the elder is free to oblige.
Whose responsibility does it become when the victim confides in someone else? If the victim doesn't ask an elder to report the crime, is he not obligated to report ethically or legally, depending on the state? Would it not be in the best interests of the victim, in most cases, to report the crime even if they don't ask the elder to report so the victim can be protected from the perpetrator and receive appropriate care and potentially stop the perpetrator from molesting more victims?
BTW, we do not require a second witness to the alleged offense for it will suffice to have the "second witness" be the victim of the same offense allegedly by the same individual.
What does that even mean? My reading comprehension is failing me again. Does that mean if it happens again to the same victim then the victim will be believed or if it happens to another child?
Whatever we cannot do on our own, our God has the power to undo whatever harm should beset them, including the outing of anyone in our ranks that should prove to be a counterfeit Christian (like yourself).
This is the exact attitude that harms your children (and by your children I mean all Witness children). God will fix it. How long was it until Anthony Burns was punished for his crimes, how many kids did George Cockerill and Michael Porter molest and for how long before they were outed? Why did it take God so long to out these "counterfeit Christians"?
-
GLTirebiter
(me): The elders' job is to report every case of suspected abuse to the legal authorities.
(djeggnog): This is not true. It is the victim's responsibility to contact the authorities about the alleged crime
The law differs with your claim. No amount of "theocratic" circumlocution changes that fact.
In virtually every state, a person in a position of professional trust is obliged to report suspected child molestation. In most states, that includes members of the clergy (Elders). In many states, that obligation extends to every person, without exception. That is what I have been saying the whole time, and that is the topic of this thread.
I will not tolerate molesters, and I will not tolerate those who obstruct justice by protecting molesters. If you say that makes me "cold", so be it!
-
free2beme
In my own life, I would address the parent and see what is said. Then I would call authorities to investigate. I do not care if this cost a friendship or communication with a family member in the least. I would always report it!
-
djeggnog
@djeggnog wrote:
What's wrong with you? You confusing two things. I wrote that "criminal offenses be reported to the authorities," and that "theocratic" investigations do not mitigate the legal obligation to report all suspected cases of child molestation." I didn't say our theocratic investigations into such matters mitigate our duty to report such crimes, did I? It is you that is putting these words into my mouth, words that I did not say.
As Chapter 12 of this textbook makes clear, child abuse is a crime, and so, in addition to contacting the branch, elders would make clear that it is the absolute right of the victim, and this would include his or her parents or guardians, to report such to the proper authorities since child abuse, sexual or otherwise, is a crime.
@DanaBug wrote:
This is the key though. Which happens first? Does an elder report the alleged crime or does he call the branch? See jgnat's post. I'd like to see what you have to say about that.
What is "the key"? I'll let you read @jgnat's post, but in response to your question, an elder would report the alleged crime to the branch. The reason the victim (that is, victim's family), and not an elder, would be responsible for reporting the crime to the police is because that report made by the elder would be a second-hand, hearsay, report of the elder's interview of the victim. If an elder should be the first to report the alleged crime to the police, then he will have inserted himself into the investigation of the matter and this could cause undue delay in the investigation that ought to be taking place between law enforcement and the victim and not law enforcement and this elder.
In the case of a rape, law enforcement investigators might ask the victim the kind of questions that would tie the accused to the crime that elders would not necessarily ask, things such as whether the victim could recall the color of the shirt and/or the color of the pants the accused was wearing (these items could have the victim's DNA on them), if the victim fellated the man (the accused's DNA found in the victim's mouth after a sexual assault is prima facie evidence of rape), whether the victim could recall smelling any fragrances, like cologne, on the accused's person. Part of my line of work involves probing legal issues that arise in civil matters, not criminal matters, but occasionally the attempt to serve a subpoena on someone or a broker's illegal breaking and entering of someone's home in foreclosure in order to change the locks on the doors of a foreclosed home absent a court order to do so and forcible removal of a former titleholder, who is lawfully in possession of a foreclosed home by police officers or sheriffs without legal authority to do so will lead to criminal allegations being filed and litigated in criminal court. But this is the point I wish to make:
While an elder can be helpful to a victim of a sexual assault or the sexual molestation of a minor in making the initial report to the authorities if the victim and/or victim's family is/are too distraught in the aftermath of the alleged crime to do so, the elder is not a witness to the crime, and investigators need to be able to speak to all witnesses as they must work against the clock to obtain physical and biological evidence of the crime before all incriminating and exculpatory evidence is destroyed, evidence that might either tie the suspect to the crime or exonerate the suspect. If an elder should speak to the victim of a sexual assault or other crime before police investigators do, it is possible that the elder could become instrumental in actually protecting the accused by his deliberately or unintentionally planting ideas into the mind of the victim according the elder's mindset or belief as to what occurred, so that what investigators get upon interviewing the victim is so hopelessly confusing that their investigation becomes derailed due to a lack of probable cause to arrest the accused.
Note that I have said "deliberately or unintentionally" because an elder might be covering his own actions, the actions of another elder or the actions of someone else! The Society would not want elders interfering in such criminal investigations so, contrary to what you, @jgnat and others here with anti-JW biases and prejudices might believe to be important or necessary for an elder to do, or that you or others might believe an elder should do or ought to do in such cases, "you guys" here are amateur sleuths, perhaps you're gotten some of your ideas on crime-fighting and criminal investigation from tv or from the books you've read, but for very sound reasons, the Society has instructed elders to first contact the branch, whose legal department is in a unique position to advise them as to what they should do next. What elders have not been instructed to do though is to first report the crime to the police. While the victim or victim's parents or guardians have the absolute right to first contact law enforcement officials about the alleged crime, the elders are required to first contact the branch.
@GLTirebiter wrote:
Molestation is a criminal matter. It is up to the courts to decide which witnesses are credible, not the elders.
@djeggnog wrote:
Yes, this is true; this is what I have consistently stated here.
@GLTirebiter wrote:
The elders' job is to report every case of suspected abuse to the legal authorities.
@djeggnog wrote:
This is not true. It is the victim's responsibility to contact the authorities about the alleged crime, not the elders' responsibility to do so, but if one of the elders is requested by the victim to report the alleged crime to the authorities -- and by this I don't necessarily mean the child, but the parents or guardians of the child -- then the elder is free to oblige.
@DanaBug wrote:
Whose responsibility does it become when the victim confides in someone else? If the victim doesn't ask an elder to report the crime, is he not obligated to report ethically or legally, depending on the state? Would it not be in the best interests of the victim, in most cases, to report the crime even if they don't ask the elder to report so the victim can be protected from the perpetrator and receive appropriate care and potentially stop the perpetrator from molesting more victims?
You seem to be asking me whether an elder is ethically or legally required to report the alleged crime (since we do not really know that there has been a crime, do we?) to law enforcement officials upon his obtaining knowledge from the alleged victim that he or she has been sexually molested, but what if that elder should unwittingly be filing a false report? The victim of an alleged crime should, in all cases, report the crime to the authorities and then afterward the report regarding the matter may be made to the elders. However, what if this elder to whom such a report is made is merely being used, not by a "victim" at all, and this report should turn out to be based on a lie in furtherance of a scheme to hurt an innocent brother or sister in the local congregation, the real victim? Again, why are the elders instructed to first contact the branch? Well, here's one reason:
What if there is no victim, no perpetrator? Did you not think of this?
What if a teenager, let's say a 14-year-old teenager, should get it into her head that she is going to "punish" the elder that refuses to let her associate with his teenaged 14- and 15-year-old daughters due to a certain incident that occurred involving this 14-year-old teenager involving a theft about which the elder is aware, but about which the entire congregation has no knowledge, by "confessing" to her teenaged confidants while swearing them to secrecy that this elder had touched intimate parts of her body on several occasions when he was driving her home from field service when no one was in the car but the two of them, so that by the time this "confession" came to the attention of the elders, the entire congregation had come to hear of it? Remember all of this resulted from the retaliation of a teenager "scorned" by an elder who only wanted to protect his family and his possessions from someone he thought might potentially be a thief. Maybe the police investigation comes to an end upon there being found no tangible evidence that a crime has been committed, but the life and reputation of this elder in the community has been left in tatters as the late night visits from police detectives and visits to the police station to speak to investigators and assistant district attorneys all take their toll of him.
About 15 years ago, there was a bombing at Centennial Olympic Park on July 27, 1996, during the Olympics being hosted in Atlanta, Georgia, and a man named Richard Jewell, a security guard at Piedmont College there in Georgia, discovered a bag that contained three pipe bombs, and while he was instrumental perhaps in saving many people's lives (although two were killed and over a 100 people were wounded by the explosion), he became a "person of interest" to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who pored through the man's life making it impossible for the man to make a living until he finally got his life back some nine years later upon his being exonerated on April 13, 2005, when a man named Eric Rudolph pled guilty to having been responsible for the 1996 bombing at the park. Everybody thought Jewell to have been responsible. This man was never arrested during the nine years that he fought to get his life back, but at the end of his ordeal, money was all that could be offered him, for his reputation had been ruined.
If a story about the elder's arrest for suspicion of child molestation should appear in the local newspaper, it doesn't go away in the minds of people just because the investigation into the matter fizzles out. Would you like to be involved in the unravelling of all of this when and if the truth finally come to light? Maybe as a result this elder is uprooted and has to move to another city or to another state with his family, find a new house and a new job, a new Kingdom Hall. As a result, he might not ever want to serve as an elder again or his family may not want him to serve in this capacity again. Not just his life, but the lives of his family has been ruined by a lie.
@djeggnog wrote:
BTW, we do not require a second witness to the alleged offense for it will suffice to have the "second witness" be the victim of the same offense allegedly by the same individual.
@DanaBug wrote:
What does that even mean? My reading comprehension is failing me again. Does that mean if it happens again to the same victim then the victim will be believed or if it happens to another child?
What I should have written is this:
BTW, we do not require a second witness to the alleged offense for it will suffice to have the "second witness" be the victim of the same offense allegedly perpetrated by the same individual, but against a different victim.
This is not a case of your having a reading comprehension problem as much as this being a case of my having a proofreading problem. I don't know if you know, but I talk to my computer, but unlike a human being, software doesn't know how to say "Huh!" when something I'm dictating to it makes absolutely no sense at all. <g> I apologize for the confusion, @DanaBug, and thanks for catching that one.
@AK MCGRATH wrote:
Christ! I'd hate to have you as someone to turn to for comfort and encouragement, let alone in a "theocratic investigation". ANYONE who thinks the two witness "rule" is okey dokey needs to have their fuckin head examined! Where the hell is your common sense man!? Where is your love for "God's chosen sheep"? Your compassion? You think the "rule" would be just hunky dorry with you if it was YOUR child?
@djeggnog wrote:
What "rule" do you mean? Believe me, our children do not need or require either you and your ilk to protect them from predators. Whatever we cannot do on our own, our God has the power to undo whatever harm should beset them, including the outing of anyone in our ranks that should prove to be a counterfeit Christian (like yourself). If you really want to help us, just leave our children alone, and I don't mean you personally, but pedophiles generally.
@DanaBug wrote:
This is the exact attitude that harms your children (and by your children I mean all Witness children). God will fix it. How long was it until Anthony Burns was punished for his crimes, how many kids did George Cockerill and Michael Porter molest and for how long before they were outed? Why did it take God so long to out these "counterfeit Christians"?
I didn't say that Jehovah God could fix anything. What I did say was that "God has the power to undo whatever harm should beset" those of our children that become the victims of predators. Read what I wrote again and I think you will then see that this is what I said. If a child should be harmed by a pit bull so that the attack results in the loss of his or her right foot, God is not going to fix the problem, but by means of Christ Jesus under Kingdom rule, He will certainly undo the harm to that child by restoring that right foot to health.
Racial intolerance is something that led to not just the 6,000,000 people of Jewish (Semitic) ancestry being exterminated in Germany, a number that offends the human psyche, but there were some 6,028,000 Poles murdered in Poland, 3,200,000 being of Jewish ancestry and 3,000,000 of which being of Polish ancestry whose deaths were all caused by the political policies forged and prosecuted by Adolf Hitler during World War II. Perhaps you are of the belief that the lives of these 12,028,000 that died some 66 years ago do not deserve to be avenged as much as the lives of the children who were the victims of child predators, and you are entitled to your opinion, but Jehovah has the power to undo whatever harm that has beset all of these victims of man's inhumanity to man, which I am convinced He will do at His appointed time. (Revelation 11:18)
Many will see the salvation of Jehovah when it arrives while others will only get to see "the sign of the Son of man." My hope that you will not continue faithless by blaming God for His not interceding in the affairs of this world to avenge the many atrocities that have been committed against children and adults alike when you would have liked to see such atrocities avenged, for while mankind was created in God's image having the attribute of justice, you have to believe that Jehovah is not a man, but is the almighty God that also knows what is just, and "He will cause justice to be done ... speedily," having reserved the cutting off of all unrighteousness for an appointed time, even if you should think it too late for justice to be done for those victimized by injustice. (Luke 18:7, 8) The "destruction of ungodly men" in our world has been "reserved to the day of judgment. (2 Peter 3:7)
The patience of God waited in Noah's day until the day when that ancient world "suffered destruction when it was deluged with water." (1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 3:5, 6) Clearly, the destruction of that ancient world demonstrates that Jehovah knows how "to reserve unrighteous people for the day of judgment to be cut off, especially, however, those who go on after flesh with the desire to defile it" in our own day. (2 Peter 2:9, 10) In fact, Jehovah "has committed all the judging to the Son" and I have the utmost confidence in Jesus' judgment. (John 5:22)
I hope you are not one of those that would dare ridicule whether or not Jesus' presence has even occurred, which it has, by "saying: 'Where is this promised presence of his?'" (2 Peter 3:3, 4) Regarding the day of judgment, "the vision," the prophet Habakkuk wrote: "The vision is yet for the appointed time.... Even if it should delay, keep in expectation of it; for it will without fail come true. It will not be late. (Habakkuk 2:3) The question is, do you believe this? Do you have confidence in the One that Jehovah Himself has placed His confidence that justice will eventually be done?
@djeggnog
-
cantleave
I think the fact you believe Noah and global flood myth say it all eggnog - STUPID!!!