Yes Outlaw because computers never glitch. It is always that I am an idiot correct.
ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
by jwleaks 347 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
OUTLAW
Yes Outlaw because computers never glitch. It is always that I am an idiot correct.....RO
Or maybe..
A lot of us had the same problem and Simon told us how to avoid it..
-
LoveUniHateExams
NO ANSWER EVER WOULD BE SOMETHING YOU ACCEPT - except that you continue to dodge the question, not really giving me an answer.
I'll try again, what good reasons are there to shun disassociated people (including victims of child abuse who've chosen to disassociate)?
(Remember that disassociated people may still live by bible standards, not 'sinning', etc.)
-
Richard Oliver
Because Jehovah's Witnesses believe that one dedicates their lives to Jehovah and then symbolize that dedication in water baptism. Jehovah's Witnesses do believe that as a united people they too have dedicated the organization to Jehovah God and for the advancement of the work that he provided those that profess to be his witnesses to be. When one chooses to stop identifying themselves as a member of that organization formally, there has to be actions to protect those that continue to want to associate with that organization from any possible bad influence. Because Witnesses cannot read hearts and fully understand why people want to formally leave that organization they have made a policy that all individuals who take that step must be treated the same. That is why there is no announcement of why someone DA themselves or was DF, because that may not be the full reason why someone chose that or why the elders decided that the person was no longer repentant, the only important part is that the announcement is made that they are no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses. These individuals may be very good and fine people, but no one can read or know the full story of why someone chose to make that decision of the formal removal of themselves from that organization. The reason stated in the formal letter may not be the real and true reason and may want to encourage others to leave or they may not, again it is something that no one can know for sure. And again it is a policy that anyone regardless of the reason, including if they are a victim of child abuse, is treated in the same way, again because no one can fully know why they chose to do so.
it is also the fact that Witnesses do not believe in interfaith activities. Witnesses who get baptized after they were part of another religion is encouraged, not sure if required, to formally remove themselves from the other religion. Witnesses believe that formal removal of a religion's rolls releases them from that religion's policies and guilt before God. So they have a formal way of removing people who don't want to be witnesses anymore.
Again it doesn't matter, what the answer is, you won't accept it as being a valid one.
-
LoveUniHateExams
it doesn't matter, what the answer is, you won't accept it as being a valid one - I accept that it's valid, in that it is an answer.
But hang on a sec ... it's a ridiculous answer that's made serious in the context of child abuse.
Should JWs change their rule to shun disassociated ones?
-
Richard Oliver
I feel that as a private organization they can make any rules that they want as long as it is not illegal. Should they change it? maybe. Do I think that they will? I won't hold my breath. I don't believe that it is made better or worst in the context of child abuse. It appeared during the testimony during the ARC the commission felt that it was made lighter. Again this is my thoughts on it. The GB reasoning may be completely different than mine. I may be right or I may be wrong but it is my opinion just like you have your opinion.
-
Richard Oliver
Also do you honestly think that if the GB said that JWs can speak with DA ones that all of a sudden every single witness who has a family member who is DA will talk to them. Remember to many witnesses they will still see it as that person has rejected not Jehovah's Witnesses but their faith in God. We are seeing where family relations are strained because some voted for Trump and others in the family didn't, where family members won't talk to each other.
-
dubstepped
OH MY Non-existant GOD! Please find where I even discussed child porn. You attributed things to me in another thread that I never said. You are an utter and total fraud, making desperate nonsensical arguments.
Vs 12 above shows you have no place judging those outside. Why do you shun those outside then?
Holy fuck, you are incoherent. Few of your arguments make sense. You just throw as many words up as possible and hope something sticks, and you are owned time and again and just change the subject.
-
Richard Oliver
I am sorry Dubstepped. I thought you were one of the ones that said that Watchtower says that child porn is not child abuse. I apologize to you.
-
LoveUniHateExams
Should they change it? maybe ... I don't believe that it is made better or worst in the context of child abuse
I studied with JWs and got baptised before their in-house problems with child abuse came out (1992-95). The Catholic Church was already well-known for having child abuse issues - priests often failed to tell the police as they regarded what went on in the confession box as outside the law. And the Watchtower ripped into them because of this.
Now, in the early 21st century, it has come out that the Watchtower has a massive child abuse problem of its own, that it mishandles allegations of child abuse (by applying the 'two witness rule' to child abuse), and that it only tells the proper authorities if reporting is mandatory (what ever happened to being proactive?).
Mr Stewart gave Geoffrey Jackson a way out, an opportunity to stop applying the two witness rule when Stewart found a scripture in the OT that said if a man forced himself on someone else's girl in a field, then only the man should be put to death if the girl didn't scream (unlike attempted rapes in a city - the girl had to scream otherwise she'd be put to death, too). What this means is that two witnesses weren't needed if a rape occurred in a field (i.e. in private). Seeing as child abuse also occurs in private, Mr Stewart asked Jackson if the two witness rule should not be applied in cases of child abuse. Jackson said he'd like to ask Jesus the answer. Later, after the first Commission, and from the safety of his ivory tower, he said that Stewart's scripture didn't apply to child abuse.
Thoughts?