charles darwin was a gift to humanity.. he was a brave and brilliant man who revolutionized our understanding of life on earth.. since leaving the cult of jehovah's witnesses, he has become one of my personal heroes.. thank you charles darwin..
I too admire Darwin. I took this picture of grave of Darwin's daughter Annie in Malvern couple of years ago. It was Annie’s death that finally ended his ability to believe in god. He was unable to bring himself to attend the funeral. He brought her here in the hope water treatment might save her.
it seems like we are all getting pigeon-holed into a category that may or may not be applicable to us.
personally, i am a "d" but i am sure there are a few (though statistically insignificant) who would otherwise fall into an "o" or other category.. it just seems like society needs to label us in the l g b t q c g d communities.. rub a dub.
The never-ending merry-go-round of politically correct speech.
i gotta say, i wasn't particularly impressed with peterson in his debates with sam harris - way too much waffling about 'the spirit of the logos' xd.
but here is a nice, interesting discussion with douglas murray.. i think there's mutual respect between the two men.
during the debate with harris in london, peterson reached across and adjusted murray's mic.
He has been an outspoken opponent of identity politics in elite colleges.
of course, there are many crackpot theories about all sorts of things.
we hear about them,look into them and laugh.however, once in a great while, somebody presents a cogent and feasible thesis backed up by scholarship and history.watch this video presentation and present your rebuttal (or agreement) for discussion.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uqg8w7ezuq&t=268s.
The simplest explanation is that the stories are loosely based on an actual 1st century Rabbi. Gospel writers like Matthew spun his biography to show he was the promised Messiah so we have lots of OT parallels written after the fact.
of course, there are many crackpot theories about all sorts of things.
we hear about them,look into them and laugh.however, once in a great while, somebody presents a cogent and feasible thesis backed up by scholarship and history.watch this video presentation and present your rebuttal (or agreement) for discussion.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uqg8w7ezuq&t=268s.
i gotta say, i wasn't particularly impressed with peterson in his debates with sam harris - way too much waffling about 'the spirit of the logos' xd.
but here is a nice, interesting discussion with douglas murray.. i think there's mutual respect between the two men.
during the debate with harris in london, peterson reached across and adjusted murray's mic.
Peterson never uses five words when he can use fifty. When he is finished you still have no idea what he actually thinks — which, of course, is the whole point.
i find people railing against the so called “two witness rule” puzzling.
i think its a complete and total non issue.
for those that protest, argue or advocate for change in that rule, why?
Heydog — It is not about a lack of training and honest mistakes in the past. It is about thousands of cases where victims were pressured not to report abuse so as to protect the organisation's reputation.
The Royal Commission uncovered more than 6,000 examples — not one of them had been reported despite some Australian states having mandatory reporting laws.
The organisation has paid out huge sums of money in recent years to compensate victims for its own neglect.
Many western countries DO NOT have mandatory reporting laws. The UK has no mandatory reporting law for example. Some US states have no mandatory reporting laws. Only some Australian states have mandatory reporting laws.
‘Internationally, few countries appear to have mandatory reporting laws covering child abuse.’ - Report by NSPCC
There is a good case to be made against mandatory reporting but it depends on organisations who work with children having a willingness to do things properly. The Watchtower have become the poster-child of how to do things badly.
Please stop trying to excuse this problem as being just an example of improving attitudes in society in general. The watchtower have been outstanding in their ineptitude in this matter.
Where mandatory reporting does not exist they have not improved one bit. The manufactured atmosphere of trust that exists in an organisation like the Watchtower, combined with an inordinate desire to protect its reputation results in a perfect environment for child abuse to prosper.
i find people railing against the so called “two witness rule” puzzling.
i think its a complete and total non issue.
for those that protest, argue or advocate for change in that rule, why?
Heydog. The WT policy and procedures on child protection don't work in practice in far too many cases.
The Australian Royal Commission proved that much beyond all doubt. It was beyond embarrassing. I'm afraid that, like many well-intenioned JWs, you have a naive perspective that confuses theory and practice. Literally thousands of victims — many of them abused by abusers who were known to be such by elders — can testify to the fact that it does not work. The organisation has paid out countless millions in compensation and hush money in recent years in a vain effort to cover over past failings.
You lived in a state with mandatory reporting laws. In many states and many countries this is not the case. The first directive of WT policy is ‘don’t bring reproach on Jehovah’s name’. This has consistently trumped child-welfare.
You looked for ways to get around the two-witness rule — well done. Frequently the organisation has used the rule as a way to protect its reputation.
The Watchtower’s record in protecting children and in dealing with cases of abuse is no better than the Roman Catholic Church. In recent years the Vatican has been forced to take steps to acknowledge their past failings, apologise to victims and change their ways — The Watchtower remains defiant.
If local elders are doing better now than past generations that is despite the leadership of the Governing Body.
i find people railing against the so called “two witness rule” puzzling.
i think its a complete and total non issue.
for those that protest, argue or advocate for change in that rule, why?
Heydog - Thank you for your post. I don't agree with all of your comments but I appreciate you presenting the other side.
there are many honest men serving as elders and ministerial servants who care about children and doing the right thing for them and are not interested in simply protecting their fellow elder or their own position
I agree with this. The problem is that the current policies and procedures are woefully inadequate to deal with those who are malevolent.
just want to introduce myself and let you know that this site is working and is a big help to lots of jws with doubts.
i've been lurking for about a year, the first couple of times i was frightened and literally shaking visiting an apostate site but it's the only place i can come to for sanity.
the religion has become a nut house.
Hi Supergirl welcome to the forum. Thank you for sharing your story.
