StrongHaiku

Joined

• started 0 topics
• posted 314 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by StrongHaiku

• 
  39

  Rodney Spinks' Performance

  by maksutov in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  it seems like there has not been as much discussion here about the rc testimony on day 6 (4th august) as there has been about previous days.

  i was quite surprised by rodney spinks' testimony, which was a marked contrast to the bungling and inarticulate testimony of the elders that appeared before him.

  spinks seemed reasonably co-operative, and a lot more willing to concede points than anyone else has been.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  StrongHaiku

  One thing I would hope comes out of this hearing is that, as part of deliberation/recommendations, they require the Organization to collect ALL material (confidential or not) on their policies of abuse in detail, consolidate it into one book/document, and provide it to ALL of the R&F. There needs to be a full disclosure to all members and the RC should try to make that requirement. And, further, that documentation would reviewed by the RC (or some future secular/impartial board) to ensure compliance.

  One can dream...
• 
  13

  Why is the GB so concerned with the well-being of the accused in matters of sexual abuse?

  by paradisebeauty in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  i'm reading some documents from the royal commission and i don't get it, why so much concern for the accused and his reputation???

  i'm starting to think maybe some gb members have things like this in their past, because a normal human being would not take the side of a sexual predator over a child....united states branche x e c u t i v e o f f i c e sto watch tower societyaustraliagsc/as january 21, 1999 no.

  176sit is understood that if the law requires elders to report cases of child abuse, they should complywith the law and do so.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  StrongHaiku

  paradisebeauty - I do not agree. God is concerned with us all, that is why He sent Jesus, to save us!

  Not sure if you are being serious or not, but if you are, we have plenty of evidence that God is more concerned with this name than with human beings. If he exists, he may be concerned with people, but it is a lower priority compared to the vindication of his name. Otherwise, he would have probably developed a better loop-hole for salvation that did not necessitate the killing of a human being (e.g. Jesus).
• 
  49

  I sent this to Angus Stewart this morning (Easter Standard Time)

  by Viviane in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  i just sent this email to angus stewart:.

  i hope this email finds you well.

  i would like to say thank you for your work on the royal commission, particularly in your handling of the jehovah's witnesses elders and experts during questioning.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  StrongHaiku

  Viviane, your correspondence to Mr. Stewart both made me laugh and cry. Nicely done. Thanks. I really needed a bit of joy today.
• 
  13

  Why is the GB so concerned with the well-being of the accused in matters of sexual abuse?

  by paradisebeauty in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  i'm reading some documents from the royal commission and i don't get it, why so much concern for the accused and his reputation???

  i'm starting to think maybe some gb members have things like this in their past, because a normal human being would not take the side of a sexual predator over a child....united states branche x e c u t i v e o f f i c e sto watch tower societyaustraliagsc/as january 21, 1999 no.

  176sit is understood that if the law requires elders to report cases of child abuse, they should complywith the law and do so.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  StrongHaiku

  None of what they do should come as a complete surprise. The God of the Bible is very clear on the idea that it is "His Name/His Reputation" that is the most important thing over anything else (including human life). He states his pronouncements are "infallible". You then has an Organization that is absolutely convinced that they represent this God.

  By necessity, the GB is required to insure that they align with God's priorities (especially when it comes to reputation/name).

  From that premise you can make a number of hypothesis of what the GB may or may not do next and how they think - e.g. that whatever the GB does in response to these scandals, it will be to protect their/God's reputation/name over doing the correct moral, ethical, and legal decisions and actions.

  Therefore, there is no big leap to show how such an Organization consistently continues to put their/God's reputation/name, the need to seem infallible, and that they are the sole representative of God on earth over the needs of humanity.
• 
  24

  RC: an emotional trigger?

  by sparrowdown in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  is this rc triggering any painful memories for anyone else?

  .

  for me, it's stirring up all the emotions of what it felt like dealing with assholes like this.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  StrongHaiku

  One of the things these hearings have done is remind me that these people (including my family) do not hold the moral high-ground. One of the biggest mistake I made over the years was thinking that they did. And, believing that they did really broke me.

  There is not a minute of an hour of day of the year that I do not feel the after-effects of having been in this religion. Not content with taking everyone I loved taken from me, they have left me damaged to the point that I often have difficulty navigating through life and relationships. I often find myself "trying to be happy" as opposed to "being happy". I am often filled with guilt, regret, depression, and, at times, have felt suicidal. I'm still trying to fix all of the things these people broke.

  I am an atheist, but this sentiment stands - "May they rot in Hell along with their attorneys..."
• 
  37

  Watershed moment???

  by sparrowdown in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  will this rc turn out to be the beginnings of a watershed time in wbts history?.

  do you have any thoughts regarding this?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  StrongHaiku

  I think one benefit, at least, is that future lawyers in civil lawsuits can use the deposition to identify possible weaknesses in the JW case and improve their own arguments. If I was an attorney working on a civil lawsuit on behalf of a JW who has been sexually abused, I would be taking furious notes and really paying attention. The RC has all but laid out the template and playbook for those who will choose to take the Organization to court in the future.
• 
  13

  Will there be a Service Meeting part on how to handle sex abuse questions?

  by Zoos in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  every week there is some sort of demonstration on how to offer the latest magazines or monthly offer.. will hq prepare the flock for the inevitable flood a questions about the abuse scandal or will the poor sheep be left to navigate that field on their own?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  StrongHaiku

  If they put together a part for the Service Meeting more people may realize that this is a real problem and that the Organization is acknowledging a problem. If they don't do a part, elders will get fielded with these questions as they happen. I believe it will be the latter and not the former. What I imagine the Organization doing is putting together some talking points so that the elders can discuss these with the R&F on a need-to-know basis.
• 
  18

  Confidentiality. Confidentiality. Confidentiality. RC Hearing Day 5

  by passwordprotected in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  confidentiality.

  how many times does ron de rooy state the importance of jehovah's witnesses being confidential?.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qucn5azi5gk&index=17&list=plpq6kz-aghvqbadlzmqn26dvmpzddxlui.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  StrongHaiku

  I will say it again (to quote another poster), "The problem with JWs is that you have to first explain their own beliefs to them before you can debunk them."

  Just watching the latest stream....

  Time after time and after time, the Royal Commission has to explain to the JW elders/representative what their own beliefs are using their OWN documents and even using the Bible. The RC then walks them down the path step-by-step to show them that their belief and policies are immoral, harmful, unethical, absurd, illogical, etc.

  And...they still don't get it...
• 
  26

  Was this the garden of Eden/Noah's flood?

  by little_Socrates in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101208151609.htm.

  jeffrey rose, an archaeologist and researcher with the university of birmingham in the u.k., says that the area in and around this "persian gulf oasis" may have been host to humans for over 100,000 years before it was swallowed up by the indian ocean around 8,000 years ago.

  rose's hypothesis introduces a "new and substantial cast of characters" to the human history of the near east, and suggests that humans may have established permanent settlements in the region thousands of years before current migration models suppose.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  StrongHaiku

  I fear that in about 2,000 years, archeologists are going to dig up my comic book collection, and will conclude that "Spiderman" was real cause the story takes place in New York...
• 
  24

  Why I believe in God. Why I don't believe in God.

  by The Rebel in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hi i am delighted to be apart of the community.. having left the witnesses one of my first challenges was my believe in god.

  naturally.. i have concluded that i am alive and conscious.

  now my intuition tells me god exists, but my analytical thinking tells me god does not exist.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  StrongHaiku

  CalebInFlorida - Accepting G-d does not mean rejecting analytical thinking.

  I would agree. Accepting God does not mean rejecting analytical thinking completely. However, what it does say is that one can be a strong analytical thinker in one topic (e.g. cosmology, biology, etc.) but not use analytical thinking on pet beliefs. In other words, we can be really smart in some areas and really dumb in others and that does not make us entirely smart or dumb.

  CalebInFlorida - Just ask the Roman Catholic priest that developed and introduced the big bang theory, Georges Lemaître. Do you know how many atheists I’ve spoken to who have no idea that a theist developed this now widely embraced theory?

  Sure. It is possible to use analytical thinking to develop a demonstrable and testable hypothesis in one area and still be wrong (and illogical) in another area or discipline. The idea of the big bang originated with a theist, but it did not graduate to a scientific theory until we had evidence. There are a number of theists who have developed (and continue develop) very useful hypothesis and theories in various disciplines of science. However, I have yet to see one of them develop a testable hypothesis on the existence of God with the same rigor and analytical thinking (backed with evidence) as they develop other hypothesis and theories.