That is a very good idea Orphan Crow, but I don't know if anyone in the ex JW community has the expertise or ability to do that. Perhaps we in the ex JW community could work with organizations already in place to help them connect with victims.
LisaRose
JoinedPosts by LisaRose
-
16
Does the .Org have the gall to ignore the RC?
by Lemonp ini have been mulling over the options that the wt has to take in regard to child abuse.
in my mind there are the following ones:.
1. overhaul their entire system, and apologize to all abuse victims.
-
-
-
10
The pedophile is in better position than the apostate
by opusdei1972 ini know that in english there are better pages exposing the organization, but here i updated the page (in spanish) with an article untitled "la organizacion jehovista oculta el abuso sexual" (the jehovist organization hides sexual abuse) based on the last news on "child abuse" in australia, and quoting watchtower's articles in which you can note how in this organization, the penitent pedophiles are in better position than the "apostates" who denounce the organization's absurdities .. http://jehovismo.com/.
for instance, i quoted the watchtower 1997 jan 1 p.29, where it is said that it is permitted for the penitent pedophile to preach door to door:.
if he seems to be repentant, he will be encouraged to make spiritual progress, share in the field service, even have parts in the theocratic ministry school (the watchtower, january 1, 1997).
-
-
LisaRose
I have suspected for years that being a male, especially an elder or a relative of an elder, means you are much less likely to be disfellowshipped for sexual immorality than if you are a woman, especially if you are not related to an elder. For example, a young girl is disfellowshipped for "heavy petting, her boyfriend, an elders son, is reproved.
It doesn't seem to make a difference if the immorality involves children, unless it becomes known to the congregation. This is very disturbing and tells you a lot about how women are viewed in the organization compared to men. Female sexuality seems to be feared and detested, men, especially elders are given leniency, and are questioned far less.
They had something eons ago from the "questions from the reader" that stated if an elder had confessed to a serious sin many years prior nothing needed to be done, as his continuing service as an elder proved that God had forgiven him. There seemed to be no consequences for basically lying by omission, hiding their sin and deceiving the congregation by being a hypocrite. Certainly no "out" like that was available to women.
The Jehovah's Witnesses certainly is a man's world.
-
65
Richard Dawkins espouses Militant Atheism: "Mock them, Ridicule them." Attack Religious People with Insults!
by MagicMItchJensen inrichard dawkins has said frequently if we don't agree with religious or spiritual people we need to "insult them!
" tell their their out of their "fucking gourds!
" and make sure you really show them how stupid they are for believing in something they can't prove!".
-
-
LisaRose
According to evolution birds are the defendants of reptiles. Driven by the need to escape predators on the ground the adapted to the air by developing wings. How does a lizard decide it's time to grow wings? Did one fall off a cliff one day and magically sprout wings? Science would clearly say no. So how many lizards tried to fly off cliffs before their subsequent generations began to show signs of wings? Surely every lizard that tried to fly failed or died trying? How did they pass on the adaptive gene process? And the ones that didnt die, how many times in their life span did they jump off "flyable" heights that genetic memory was passed on to the following generations who followed suit with the same dead end results?
That is not how evolution works at all. No lizard decided he needed wings and then grew them, that would indeed be silly. No evolutionary change happened because of a perceived need on the part of the organism, it's all just minute changes to DNA, over millions of years and generations, that eventually let to the variety of species we see today
Evolution happens entirely by chance because of mutations in the DNA. Any mutation in the DNA of an organism that give that organism a better chance of survival will be more likely to be passed down to successive generations. Most mutation are very small, incremental changes
Your lizard did not sprout wings, however a lizard could have had a mutation that gave him some change that made him better suited to his particular environment at that time. That change was not a fully developed wing, but something that later developed into a wing, after many more mutations and many more generations. There were probably gliding animals before actual winged animals.
How exactly wings evolved is a matter of debate among scientists, but there is enough evidence linking winged creatures to their non winged ancestors to know for a fact that wings did in fact evolve.
For more information see http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html
The most difficult question about the origin of flight is "Why?". "Why" questions are the most difficult ones to ask when they concern evolution; evolution does not ask "why?" Evolution has no sense of future; the here and now is the only place where evolution occurs. It is imperative to keep this in mind when considering the origin of flight. Lineages of organisms are not designed for some future purpose; they are changed by opportunities to which they can respond and by the selective processes that their environment imposes on them. Evolution is limited by developmental and genetic constraints. If an adaptation is useful to a lineage, chances are that it will be preserved. If an adaptation is co-opted from a previous use to a new use, it is called an exaptation. The only scientific way to approach why flight evolved in a group is to first figure out how it evolved; what the temporal sequence of exaptations and adaptations was.
Wikipedia is avery good resource for answers to questions on evolution. I found the information above by typing "how did wings evolve". -
37
Watershed moment???
by sparrowdown inwill this rc turn out to be the beginnings of a watershed time in wbts history?.
do you have any thoughts regarding this?.
-
-
LisaRose
It's hard to say. Being in another country makes it a bit easier for US JWs to ignore. I imagine it will have more of an impact in Australia and the UK. I do think it will have some impact here, and they have had quite a bit of negative things lately, so not good for them. It could be the tipping point, the one thing that starts the exodus. It would sure be nice, wouldn't it?
-
5
What is a "Royal Commission"?
by AndersonsInfo in.
https://youtu.be/a0f2g7ink9u.
royal commissions- what the *bleep* do i know about them?royal commissions seem to be called into anything nowadays but do you know what they actually are?.
-
-
LisaRose
It sounds a bit like a congressional hearing the U.S..
A Royal Commission is a major ad-hoc formal public inquiry into a defined issue in some monarchies. They have been held in theUnited Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Saudi Arabia. A Royal Commission is similar in function to a Commission of Enquiry (or Inquiry) found in other countries such as Ireland, South Africa, and Hong Kong.
A Royal Commissioner has considerable powers, generally greater even than those of a judge but restricted to the terms of reference of the Commission. The Commission is created by the Head of State (the Sovereign, or his/her representative in the form of a Governor-General or Governor) on the advice of the Government and formally appointed by Letters Patent. In practice—unlike lesser forms of inquiry—once a Commission has started the government cannot stop it. Consequently governments are usually very careful about framing the Terms of Reference and generally include in them a date by which the commission must finish.
-
14
Aussie Article: The Saturday Paper - Royal commission examines Jehovah Witnesses cover-up
by AndersonsInfo inhttps://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/law-crime/2015/08/01/royal-commission-examines-jehovah-witnesses-cover/14383512002194 .
royal commission examines jehovah witnesses cover-up.
newsaug 1, 2015. martin mckenzie-murray the jehovahs witnesses fiercely literal reading of the bible has distanced them from the law and politics, but the royal commission into child sexual abuse is ending that..
-
-
LisaRose
Gormless is the absolute perfect definition of that person. Any bit of individuality, intelligent thought and integrity and have been sucked out of him by the Borg, leaving an empty husk of a man, who can only respond to questions with Watchtower double speak. -
449
Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific
by LAWHFol ini have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
-
-
LisaRose
Explain to me what is unscientific about not believing something because you have yet to see any evidence it exists?
Is lack of belief in the tooth fairy unscientific?
Is it unscientific to not believe in Unicorns?
Is it unscientific to say you do not believe in Buddha?Do you believe in Buddha? If not, is that unscientific?
If I ever saw scientific evidence of the existence of God, then I would believe she exists, until then I don't see thpoint.
If you can honestly answer these questions, then we can have a discussion.
-
16
Back again!!
by Sweetp0985 inback again since about 10yrs ago.
last year attended the international convention in new orleans and was feeling some type of way afterwards.
went to a couple of meetings and then the thrill was gone.
-
-
LisaRose
It is sometimes inviting to go back to the comfort of the familiar. Obviously there are good parts of the JW experience, the fellowship (sometimes anyway), the feeling of belonging, etc. Of course there are all kind of negatives too, or you wouldn't have left.
I have read that people tend to be risk adverse, they fear a negative outcome more than they desire a positive experience. Advertisers use this to their advantage in selling everything from life insurance to security services, the Watchtower uses it too. Our brains are hard wired to that particular thought processes, what if they are right? What if they are right? Better be safe than sorry. But your brain is actually tricking you, seeing the risk as more than it is and minimizing the odds of it being wrong.
So don't accept your brains first, fear based response. What are the odds they are right? Really, anybody can take the bible and make some correlation to current events, and pretend some insider knowledge, it's not hard. People have been doing that since the bible was written. The question is, what makes the Watchtower any different than any other doomsday cult? It's shaky interpretation, based on a date for the fall of Jerusalem that is not supported by the facts. No bible scholar believes Jerusalem fell when the Watchtower says it did.
The Watchtower thought the end would be 1897, 1914, 2925, 1975, and now still says the end is soon. Why would anyone think they are right this time? Don't fall for it.
-
104
Do you feel vindicated by the exposure of the WT Society in Australia? It seems like a feeding frenzy on here! I love it. You?
by Wasanelder Once inare you pleased with the exposure of the society in australia?
do you feel personally vindicated by it?
do you think it gives you credibility with others now that all the things you said were going on, actually are documented?
-
-
LisaRose
Hell to the yeah! It's what we have all known for years, it's nice to see people outside of the ex JW community seeing the religion for what it is, a sham that doesnt care about the sexual abuse of children. They can try all they want, there is no explaining this away. -
40
Is the two-witness rule really unreasonable?
by stillin ini'm picturing a situation in which a savvy 12 year old doesn't like the house rules that mom's new husband has put into place.
or something along that line.
i can certainly agree that protection of children is paramount, but who protects the real victim in those cases?
-
-
LisaRose
Nobody wants to see someone accused of such a thing if it's not true, but on the other hand child sex abuse is devastating to a child, that is why the situation must be evaluated by professionals. The JWs act as if there isn't two witnesses to the act nothing can be done, which is ridiculous.
A lot of things can be taken into consideration, the child can be evaluated by a psychologist who specializes in child abuse, other people in the family can be interviewed, the accused can be interviewed. That is why the authorities should be contacted no matter what. They have the experience and knowledge not to be taken in by the lies of the typical pedophile.
Even in cases where they don't have enough evidence to pursue a criminal case, the elders are not helpless to act. They have a great deal of authority in the congregation, so why don't they use it? They can put restrictions on the individual involved without revealing anything publicly. No contact with unrelated minors, no field service without an elder, etc. They can warn parents in the congregation that they need to be extra careful, admitting a pedophile is among them without revealing a name. But instead they continue to pretend it doesn't happen to them which allows pedophiles to continue to prey on the children in the congregations.
If there is proof or a confession they should be disfellowshipped no matter how sorry they act and only allowed back under very tight restrictions. And they should never, ever be an elder again, these are innocent children, you don't risk it.