by DATA-DOG 95 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
smiddy - The ARC into child sexual abuse case 54 ,they need to be made aware that the 2 witness rule is not a 2000 year old scriptual requirement but actually a 4000 year old law given by Moses Deut.17:6
The archaic Mosaic law was repeated in the New Testament as applicable to Christians. This occured 2000 years ago. It's right in their with the Christain law about shaving the head of a woman who speaks up in the congregation without authority.
The two witness rule is not wrong as such but JWs interpretation of what or who those two witnesses should consist of is wrong and is not consistent. The organization generally require that there be two witnesses but they go further in saying that they must be eyewitnesses (in most but not all cases) and credible witnesses.
The two witness rule is used by the JWs only as part of their own internal judicial system, to establish sin for disciplinary action of the one committing the sin but has a number of negative consequences.
Their own two witness rule leaves them with the dilemma of not being able to report an accusation (unless required by law) when they cannot take any action themselves. It not only looks hypocritical but allows the law of the land to trump their own laws.
--------
Angus Stewart pointed out at the hearing yesterday that Geoff Jackson said there may be room for circumstantial or co-oberating evidence to be considered (as a second witness), for instance, the trauma suffered by a victim. He asked if it had even been considered and since no change had been made to the two witness rule, Stewart's deduction was that Jackson was incorrect in saying that there may be a role in the first instance. The two puppets at the hearing had no idea as to whether it had been considered or not.
15 “No single witness may convict another for any error or any sin that he may commit. On the testimony of two witnesses or on the testimony of three witnesses the matter should be established.
Two Witnesses is a valid principle, but not required to be taken literally in every occasion, either in the Bible or Watchtower doctrine.
For instance, Watchtower does not force an adult rape victim to confront the rapist, even though Matthew 18 says that should be the case.
Matthew 18:15,16 "Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone.
Deuteronomy 22 shows that if a girl is raped and no one was there to help her, hence no two witnesses to the rape, her rapist could still be found guilty and put to death.
Deuteronomy 22:25-27 “If, however, the man happened to meet the engaged girl in the field and the man overpowered her and lay down with her, the man who lay down with her is to die by himself, and you must do nothing to the girl. The girl has not committed a sin deserving of death. This case is the same as when a man attacks his fellow man and murders him. For he happened to meet her in the field, and the engaged girl screamed, but there was no one to rescue her."
Each of these Scriptures are directed at adults and not children.
Since there is leeway in how to apply this principle, then there is no doubt that when a child's safety is at stake, every precaution should be taken to protect the child from the first indication of danger.
The two witness rule is used by the JWs only as part of their own internal judicial system, to establish sin for disciplinary action of the one committing the sin but has a number of negative consequences.
Of course child sexual abuse is a crime and not a sin , so Elders who are informed of an allegation of sexual abuse against one of the children in the congregation regardless of whether it was committed by a fellow member or a non member , it should have been reported to the appropiate authorities when it came to their notice. regardless of whether a mandatory rule of law applied or not.
It was a moral responsability on their part which they failed to do.
OrphanCrow, Woh, never thought in this angle. Yes, that is the right context.
Precisely !
And both Dorks just could not get it could they .......................
Who can explain why the "Two Witness" rule is wrong, in the simplest term?
Sexually Molested JW Child.....2 Witnesses Required..
Vandalism.....Broken Window at a Kingdom Hall..
No Witnesses Needed!.....CALL THE POLICE!!
The ancient Hebrews had developed their own anarchic laws and approach to difficult social situations, mankind since then has advanced far and beyond in establishing appropriate social behaviors and judging what should to be done in a balanced, fair and empathetic way.
Unfortunately there are some power seeking men today who think what was written in the bible is beneficial for humanity today because they think those writings were inspired and divinely sanctioned by god himself.
Emulating the social moral and behavioral standards of the 2000 year old ancient Hebrews is bound to create problems for humanity today, for their laws were based on ignorance and a lack knowledge.
Cite one case example or a hypothetical case example and we can examine the case together objectively -if you want.
Or you can analyze the case without me.
Cite one case....Fisherman
How about 2 JW NutCases?..
Richard Oliver & Fisherman..
: a crazy or very strange person
