Hey Jim,
Thank you for clearing up this issue. You have been a calm voice in this storm.
Andee
Update from Ray Franz
by Amazing 50 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
emancipated
Great, thanks for clarifying.
-
minimus
Amazing, thank you so much for your unbiased comments. It also shows that Ray respects you and your approach. Thank you for setting the record straight once again!
-
kenpodragon
Just a thought, why would any of us ever be upset with anything Mr. Franz did. We do realize he was never guided by God, right? In doing so, he had as much right to make a mistake as any of us.
My thought
Dragon
-
jwsons
profile | register | active | rated | members | stats | search
Navigate directly to forum area...Child Abuse discuss the physical and emotional abuse of children within the WTS All Forums
Child Abuse
Bible vs JW 2-witness rule< Prev | Next >
Live Chat: eyegirl, Cowboy, ring, scootergirl & bittersweet Author Topic: Bible vs JW 2-witness rule Read 163 times Be the 1st to rate this thread Ray Vic Franz ????
Bible vs JW 2-witness rule Jun 8, 2002 01:00
Senior Member
United States of America
Posts: 93
Since: Jun 8, 2002 Advertisement
Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts
Crossan, John Dominic$29.95$9.95The Watchtower and its apologists keep insisting that the Bible gives them no choice but to insist on two witnesses to an act of molestation before they can do anything beyond filing a report with headquarters. There is very clear teaching in the Bible that the two-witness principle does not apply to this type of situation. Here's the text:
23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death-the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
Deuteronomy 22:23-27This is in the same book of the Bible as the two-witness principle. Let's focus on that second paragraph, 25-27. What's the situation? A woman is raped out in the country. There are no witnesses to the event. It is compared to another crime which rarely has witnesses, namely murder. Because there are no other witnesses, nobody who even could have seen it happen, or even have been close enough to hear if the woman had screamed for help, the man is to be put to death.
If the two-witness rule applied in such cases, that is, if two other witnesses besides the victim or even one other were required, it would not be possible to put the man to death for raping a woman when there are no witnesses. Contrary to the anti-biblical fantasies of the WBTS, it was not only possible, but mandatory under Old Testament law.
As Jesus said to another group of wilfully ignorant religious tyrants, so I say to the WBTS leadership: "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God."
Re: Bible vs JW 2-witness rule Jun 8, 2002 01:31
Emperor Class
United States of America
Posts: 2534
Since: Sep 5, 2001wow...good essay. Consider this in addition tho: does the Scriptures say "..witnesses to the ACT" or ..."witnesses to the MATTER"?
Maybe it's only me, but I see a big difference. And that's using the NWT Bible even yet.
BEFORE YOU TRY AND REMOVE THE STICK FROM MY ARSE, REMOVE THE TELEPHONE POLE FROM YOUR OWN ARSE.
Re: Bible vs JW 2-witness rule Jun 8, 2002 02:00
Jedi Member
Posts: 1095
Since: Jul 5, 2000welcome, robert. I agree with dungbeetle. Great essay. Intelligent thoughts. Here's another thought too. I've read phrases such as these: .."By his death, Christ 'released those under law." .... and.... "Chrsitians are not under the Mosiac law" over and over in wathtower literature. Yet, the watchtower will use the mosiac law scriptures to justify themselves further victimizing victims.
"Air baths are good for preventing colds.. What you do is strip naked mornings and evenings and then bob up and down for a while."~ Golden Age Feb 10 1926 31
Group air bath,anyone?
Re: Bible vs JW 2-witness rule Jun 8, 2002 08:33
Jedi Member
Posts: 1492
Since: May 28, 2001I concur, Robert_V_Frazier. Very good point! Re: Bible vs JW 2-witness rule Jun 8, 2002 10:01
Senior Member
United States of America
Posts: 93
Since: Jun 8, 2002To Somebody: Yep, it's definitely hypocritical to teach that as "Christians", the JW's are not under the O.T. law, yet invoke Deuteronomy every time the issue of child abuse comes up. Without a syllable about whether or to what extent O.T. law applies today.
But if they want to appeal to Moses, Moses will leave them twisting slowly in the wind!
To Dungbeetle and Blondie: Thanks for the kind words. I've been posting for a long time on the JW forum at CARM. Been lurking here quite a bit too. Glad to be here!
Re: Bible vs JW 2-witness rule Jun 8, 2002 14:11
Senior Member
Posts: 141
Since: Mar 25, 2002Welcome Robert....although you are not a JW, you most certainly bring salient points to the forum. Makes me think of how Jesus, as a youngster, because of his godly wisdom, gained favor in the eyes of God and 'men'. Fortunately the converse is true. People can spot unmitigated hypocrisy. Thanks for shining one more flashlight under their rock. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=29698&site=3
Edited by - jwsons on 11 October 2002 1:25:16
-
ros
Thanks Amazing.
Not that most could not see through the ruse, but thanks.~Ros
-
GermanXJW
Before we ended the call, Ray noted that in his entire 40 years of fulltime service (from age 19 to age 59 when he resigned in 1980 from the Governing Body) he never once dealt with a case of molestation, pedophilia or incest and that such a case was never presented to him at anytime, nor did it ever come up or get discussed.
I wonder about Greenless and Chitty - both names of former GB members are mentioned regularly on the grapevine in connection with homosexuality and child molestation. Either this rumors are not true or there is some misunderstanding about Ray Franz's definition of molestation.
-
Perry
Ray noted that in his entire 40 years of fulltime service (from age 19 to age 59 when he resigned in 1980 from the Governing Body) he never once dealt with a case of molestation, pedophilia or incest and that such a case was never presented to him at anytime, nor did it ever come up or get discussed.
Amazing,
I found the above statement, to stretch my imagination a bit. The part that I have particular trouble with is, "nor did it ever come up nor get discussed".
Your quote of him makes it appear that Ray never had a conversation about pedophilia in all his 40 years of service. Do you think this would be confirmed by Ray if he was asked to elaborate?
I certainly am indepted to Ray for his two famous works and in no way wish to attack him. However, the 20 some odd thousand cases on file must surely stretch back prior to 1980. Given his travels and position, surely he would have at least been asked for guidance by Elders that have historically had a hard time deciphering WT policy.
Was the above a direct quote or did you summarize a bit?
-
hawkaw
Thanks Jim. I completely trust you on this and believe this to be fact. And I also think you really went above the call of duty to talk to Mr. Franz about it all.
One thing I noted was this:
During our discussion, Ray brought up his phone call with Bill Bowen last night. He noted that he explained the same issues to Bill in the same way, trying his best to convey his intent on this issue. He sounded like the phone call went well.
I am glad the call went well and this name calling has stopped. I know Bill is out for a while but I am glad that the both men did the right thing and talked about it - one on one - in a better way.
This is all about getting a policy changed to protect kids inside and out side the Borg and a little retribution for the victims so they have help and are not alone. A lot of you have done a lot of work on this and now, hopefully, this will move forward from here.
hawk
Edited by - hawkaw on 11 October 2002 8:29:49
Edited by - hawkaw on 11 October 2002 8:31:8
-
Amazing
Hi Perry:
I found the above statement, to stretch my imagination a bit. The part that I have particular trouble with is, "nor did it ever come up nor get discussed". ... Your quote of him makes it appear that Ray never had a conversation about pedophilia in all his 40 years of service. Do you think this would be confirmed by Ray if he was asked to elaborate?
What I wrote is a direct quote of what he stated to me. I did not ask it, but he volunteered it. In my own life, the subject was never discussed until the mid-1980s, when the world in general was starting to "more openly" deal with the issue, and the courts and laws were becoming tougher on pedophiles.
I certainly am indepted to Ray for his two famous works and in no way wish to attack him. However, the 20 some odd thousand cases on file must surely stretch back prior to 1980. Given his travels and position, surely he would have at least been asked for guidance by Elders that have historically had a hard time deciphering WT policy.
One would think that is the case, but according to what he clearly stated to me, he was never approached about the subject, nor did it ever come up. Other comments above ask about Greenlees and Chitty. It was my impression (not sourced from Ray Franz) that these two men were involved in homosexual conduct. Some have sugested that Greenlees was involved in child fondling. Evidently, Ray did not have anything to do with this issue, or he would not have stated to me what he did. So, I have to believe that these stories about Ray being on the Judicial committees that removed Greenlees or Chitty are either not true, or that the JC was held for other allegations than child fondling.
