Posts by Paulapollos

76

YOU TUBE My Jehovah's Witness Story: Raped By a Circuit Overseer

by Lady Lee in

interesting story.

this fellow needs encouragement to go to the police.

the co was later promoted to do .

Paulapollos

Hi TT,

thanks for your response. I totally understand the fact that your heart goes out to him, as does mine. As I said, I am not commenting on whether it happened or not. I don't know. But my point was actually more fundamental than that. Just before I re-iterate it, I want to make this clear – I don't accept that elders should be involved in investigating abuse cases at all. It should go to the authorities, to protect the victim and accused, and the elders too.

But the point is that in many cases, proof one way or another is difficult to ascertain. It's not black and white, not open and shut. Sometimes, charges are not brought, and the victim feels justice is not done. So, in the case where:

an elder is accused, and proof to convict him in a criminal case is not available, what should be done?

What of an elder who is accused on more than 1 occasion, sometimes years apart, but no criminal case can be brought?

In short, this is what I am asking – on this site, we are automatically and rightly on the side of the victim. Our natural concern means we often side with the person making accusations, even with lack of evidence. And so, we criticise the Society's policy on child abuse. So I ask : what should the abuse policy be, including handling the instances I mentioned above? That's not just directed at you, but all who are interested.

Love to all

PP

76

YOU TUBE My Jehovah's Witness Story: Raped By a Circuit Overseer

by Lady Lee in

interesting story.

this fellow needs encouragement to go to the police.

the co was later promoted to do .

Paulapollos

Hi, I thought I would throw in my ignorant twopence here. " Not believing this story is Rude at best. We should always believe victims until proven false."

Twinkletoes

I have to say that I find this statement a little difficult to square with the principles I was brought up with. Please don't get me wrong here - I'm not commenting on THIS particular case (I doubt very much he is lying). I'm not sure whether that was what Twinkletoes meant? If so then I apologise. But as a rule, even in child abuse cases, how can it ever be sound in practice to state that we should automatically believe the accuser? Is it not an underpinning tenet that a person is "innocent until proven guilty"? Is not the burden of proof actually upon the accuser? I understand of course that it is ridiculously hard for a child to provide evidence of abuse - the age of the child, the immaturity, the fact that these despicable acts take place in seclusion, and so on and so forth. I am absolutely sure that the experts on this board can enumerate these difficulties more fully, and in no way am I excusing this vile crime.

But I still do find it hard to understand how we can square our natural and rightful instinct to protect the vulnerable, with the demands of "justice". Is it not more true to say that the position of the law, and indeed people in general, should be expected to be"impartial" - an accuser should provide evidence and proof of the act/crime before any determination can be made?

I wonder if I might ask a question related to this. In cases where some brother, lets say an elder, is accused of abuse, and the elders cannot "prove it" (even though, in my opinion, they should automatically report it to the proper authorities, so an impartial and exacting investigation can be done), what should be done?

Should the elder be removed? Should he be left alone? What exactly would most people consider to be appropriate?

I am going to say this with gritted teeth, because I think everyone who knows my story knows my view of the organisation. But.........in the above situation, what would be the appropriate action for the organisation to take? Should action be taken, and if so, what? This is a genuine question.

And, I wonder, in the case of two separate cases, where the guilt of the person can not be established, what should the organisation do to the elder?

I ask because I wonder, and I hope no-one will take my questions as a ludicrious "defense" of the Society. I know some of you have been abused, or know of ones who have, so I want to ask your opinions. I hope no-one takes this post the wrong way - it is not a defense of the Society, nor am I trying to be insensitive to child abuse victims - I want justice for them too.

Love to all of you

PP

62

Your favorite JW'isms...."Brother leave it in Jehovah's hands" Post yours.

by UnConfused in

bring back the memories.

Paulapollos

"Don't bring reproach on Jehovah's name".

It's pretty hard to do that of a person who says of himself:

"I am Jehovah....forming light and creating darkness, making peace and creating calamity, I Jehovah am doing all these things." and "If a calamity occurs in the city, is it not also Jehovah who has acted?"

PP

190

What's your personality type? Myers-Briggs test

by frankiespeakin in

take this 72 yes/no question test to find out.. http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp.

Paulapollos

Your Type is
ENFJ

Extraverted	Intuitive	Feeling	Judging
Strength of the preferences %
1	100	12	1

144

Bane admits that Christians are to abstain from "eating blood".

by moshe in

from an earlier topic-.

"moshe, ready for another biblical smackdown?.

christians.

Paulapollos

How ridiculous that a group of people should frankly read a portion of scripture, take it out of context, and apply it in a way that has cost hundreds, if not more, lives.

Once again, the Society show that sound Biblical scholarship, textual integrity, and cultural awareness are absolutely unimportant to them - rather, what is important is that the Society "show themselves" to be "different to Christendom", by coming up with interpretations of Scripture that make them stand out from their co-religionists. It doesn't seem to matter how many lives are ruined, or how unsound and fundamentally idiotic such positions are - all that matters is that the Societys' claim as the sole arbiter of truth, and the ethnocentrism and exclusivity of the Society is reinforced. And if people do die? Well, they'll get resurrected, so...........that's the kind of heartless attitude they engender.

I have to say that the whole idea of blood fractions reminds me of the petty legalism of those who used to believe that actions under the law could earn God's favor. The whole notion of legalism means that in reality, you end up making more and more laws, more and more "principles", for more and more hypothetical situations. Beware the leaven of the Pharisees, indeed.

PP

144

Bane admits that Christians are to abstain from "eating blood".

by moshe in

from an earlier topic-.

"moshe, ready for another biblical smackdown?.

christians.

Paulapollos

Outlaw,

I think you win!

PP

144

Bane admits that Christians are to abstain from "eating blood".

by moshe in

from an earlier topic-.

"moshe, ready for another biblical smackdown?.

christians.

Paulapollos

Wasblind,

I didn't notice all of the "um yeahs" but now you mention it......

1) Constant repetiton of "Um yeah" and other "street slang" refrains

2) A fascination with a comic book character

3) The "superb rap" that Bane did to Outlaw (I think it was Outlaw)

4) An underlying obsession with wrestling ("Laying the smackdown") and musclemen ("Bane")

5) Gratuitously awful English ("I be SCRIPTURIZING!!")

Lol, has anyone taken a guess at how old and inexperienced in life Bane is? I have a feeling he may be in his late teens- not that that is anything to be ashamed of, O Mighty Apostate Destroyer and Glorious Scripturizer, Lord Bane! Lol

PP

144

Bane admits that Christians are to abstain from "eating blood".

by moshe in

from an earlier topic-.

"moshe, ready for another biblical smackdown?.

christians.

Paulapollos

Is it me, but did Bane really say:

"I be doing some SCRIPTURIZING....", and then later post a video of rick astley, masquerading as wrestling?!!!!!!

Lol

PP

60

Why are you here, Bane?

by dgp in

jw
friends

i was wondering.

not that i have anyone in mind (except for bane).

what motivates an active and zealous jehovah's witness to come to a website like this one and insult everyone for being apostates, et cetera?

Paulapollos

Thinkaboutit,

That is absolutely hilarious!

PP

60

Why are you here, Bane?

by dgp in

jw
friends

i was wondering.

not that i have anyone in mind (except for bane).

what motivates an active and zealous jehovah's witness to come to a website like this one and insult everyone for being apostates, et cetera?

Paulapollos

Perhaps the following excerpt from page 57 of "The Authoritarians" could shed a little light on why Bane is here? (Italics mine)

"How good, how moral are you, compared to other people? (You get to say what is “good” and “moral.”) As I mentioned in chapter 1, if you’re an average human being, you’ll think you’re a better than average human being. Almost everybody thinks she’s more moral than most. But high RWAs typically think they’re way, way better. They are the Holy Ones. They are the Chosen. They are the Righteous. They somehow got a three-for-one special on self-righteousness. And self-righteousness appears to release authoritarian aggression more than anything else.

Chronically frightened authoritarian followers, looking for someone to attack because fighting is one of the things people do when they are afraid, are particularly likely to do so when they can find a moral justification for their hostility. Despite all the things in scriptures about loving others, forgiving others, leaving punishment to God, and so on, authoritarian followers feel empowered to isolate and segregate, to humiliate, to persecute, to beat, and to kill in the middle of the night, because in their heads they can almost hear the loudspeakers announcing, “Now batting for God’s team, his designated hitter, (their name).”

Thus in the experiments done on this subject, if you know how highly people scored on the Dangerous World (fear that the world is getting worse, and will soon slip into the abyss) scale,and if you know how self-righteous they are, you can explain rather well the homophobia of authoritarian followers, their heavyhandedness in sentencing criminals, their prejudices against racial and ethnic minorities, why they are so mean-spirited toward those who have erred and suffered, and their readiness to join posses to ride down Communists, radicals, or whomever.

Why is this better than the Freudian explanation? Because you can’t predict anything with that. But once we have those fear and self-righteousness scores, we can predict rather well who, in a sample of people, will show authoritarian aggression. So we do have to try to control fear, not pump it up, and also appreciate the cruel contradiction that the people who feel holiest are likely to do very unholy things
precisely because they feel holiest."

PP