by Stephanus 23 Replies latest jw friends
We all know how that worked with child sexual abuse cases - because the child was only one witness, unless the alleged perp confessed, he walked (and was even protected from cong. "gossip"!).
Would the same principle apply in a case of "fornication"? Say where a brother and a sister got a little "too close" and "did the nasty", unwitnessed by anyone else? If one confessed to the elders, but the other refused to admit anything, aren't they in the same boat as in child sexual abuse cases?
Now, what if the victim has multiple personalities, does that count as two witnesses? or maybe more!
RR
Now, what if the victim has multiple personalities, does that count as two witnesses? or maybe more!
I forgot to preface my question with: "This is actually a SERIOUS question"
oh? I'd still like an answer!
RR
Would the same principle apply in a case of "fornication"? Say where a brother and a sister got a little "too close" and "did the nasty", unwitnessed by anyone else? If one confessed to the elders, but the other refused to admit anything, aren't they in the same boat as in child sexual abuse cases?
Yup, you are absolutely correct!
If a person admits something to the elders... the elders conclude that the person did it. GUILTYIf a person denies doing anything, and there are not two witnesses, then the person goes free. INNOCENT
Ironically, one person can get a case of the "guilts" and run to the elders and have restrictions placed on them... but the other person who denies doing anything will be sent on his way.
Two completely opposite judgments in a single case.
"Brother Good-Ol-Boy, she is just trying to force me into a situation where I have to marry her!!! I think she is a psycho chick! "
Ironically, one person can get a case of the "guilts" and run to the elders and have restrictions placed on them... but the other person who denies doing anything will be sent on his way.Two completely opposite judgments in a single case.
You anticipated my next question. Just goes to show how crazy the whole thing is, I guess! So, the confessor is charged with gossip/trying to discredit another witness? Or could the confessor be done for the fornication, even if it is not established by two witnesses?
You anticipated my next question. Just goes to show how crazy the whole thing is, I guess! So, the confessor is charged with gossip/trying to discredit another witness? Or could the confessor be done for the fornication, even if it is not established by two witnesses?
Actually, the elders could hold the person accountable for BOTH at the same time... Fornication and Slander.
Here is the logic:
It is all done under the spirit of "Do not bring reproach on Jehover's name."
Just goes to show that there's no "benefit of the doubt" in that crazy, dipshit religion. If normal people made the decision, based on the denial of the second person, that there was no crime, then logically, they couldn't convict the first. In fact, normal people might be moved with compassion for the person who is "obviously seeking attention", and might try to counsel them. The two witness rule kills any good that might come from such an action: the counselling would be aimed at the "lying" - not the very real possibility that there really was a sexual encounter and that the person is hurting over it!
You have to remember, the elders are more conserned with how the bOrg looks, not what is actually going on inside.
I believe Jesus told a story about a cup that was clean on the outside but filthy on the inside. The bOrg is a classic example of this.
Um you are wrong the JWs are nothing like the cup Jesus described, for every one knows they are a sieve.
