two witness ruling ? (page 13)

Big Tex

Pedophiles practice a form of fornication (etc.) no?

Okay, I'll regret this because it's just another waste of time from you, but I'll play along for the sake of discussion.

So then, the Bible's stay on fornication (etc.) are what must apply for anyone to prove that they are acting in line with Jehovah in any proper sense.

Indeed. Another random sentence that strikes me as a cut and paste job of two different sentences and thoughts. However, can you tell me what Jehovah's Witnesses' stance is on fornication? What are the standards of proof they demand to prove one committed fornication?

If someone claims to be a JW and does NOT act in line with Jehovah's spirit and standards, they are using the name of Jehovah in vain. Jehovah will not be their friend, He will be forced to act against them in His own way and time.

In other words, a child brutally raped must "wait on Jehovah"? And the offender will "have to face Jehovah at Armageddon"? Is that what you're trying to say?

Jehovah is NOT one to be mocked.

Spike I gotta tell you, you're doing a helluva job of mocking your god.

You refuse to defend what you claim is your faith. You refuse to provide any Biblical support whatsoever to your assertions. What you don't seem to understand, or comprehend, just making a statement doesn't make it true or accurate. Just because the Society make a claim in one of their silly magazines, doesn't make it right, true or accurate.

If you were reading this thread and your posts were from a Catholic, trying wildly to defend how the church protected pedophile priests, you would be crowing in triumph as proof that the Catholic religion is false because not one time could this person make any defense whatsoever, much less from the Bible.

This it the type of exchange that would be shouted from the platform as proof that the Catholic religion is part of Babylon the Great.

Chris

Spike Tassel

Thanks, Chris, for your interesting viewpoints. I hadn't expected anything like that. If you read my replies carefully on Pages 6 and 7 here, I am not interested in defending any practice [WT or otherwise] which is not soundly based on Bible principles. If there is a "WT two witness ruling" which in conflict with my "2-witness principle" understanding presented in my Post 488, point 1 on Page 6 here, then it would seem to be unsound, to say the least. You and I have different injustices to endure, certainly, but Jehovah doesn't allow us to be tested beyond what we each can bear, though I've thought otherwise and been through quite a few agonizing, sleepless nights, as you have had, no doubt. May justice come so that even we may acknowledge it as such!

Big Tex

Very well then, what is your "two witness principle" as it relates to child abuse?

Spike Tassel

Here's what I said using that phrase:— 1) I believe that the "2-witness principle" is fundamentally about truth and rejecting slander and false charges. Corroboration/ substantiation is generally possible once trust is established. Even in this, principles such as found at Proverbs 20:5 (regarding counsel as deep waters) and Proverbs 22:6 (about training according to one's need) must be applied for spiritual healing and reconciliation to take place.

When it comes to cases of child abuse [and by extension, any other spiritually-damaging situation], I believe that each party must be addressed individually according to their needs.

The errant-JW pedophile's underlying issues need to be addressed so that he can take proper responsibility for his [assuming the pedophile's male] actions, which would be along the lines of a 12-step AA-type program but with a JW-perspective. A compassionate elder who has familiarity with conducting Bible studies in a penal setting would be ideal, I would think.

The victimised child needs all the love and reassurance that it was not his [assuming the victim's also male] fault. A restraining order [or the like] should be placed upon the pedophile [according to the circumstances] until he has been proven to have fully repented.

Others in the environment should receive the proper so that they are not enablers regarding any abusive treatment.

The abuser likely does not relate well socially in many of his other behaviours and dealings. These need to be followed-up so that he can properly access a good relationship with Jehovah, so that his prayers are no longer hindered.

Big Tex

Do you support the Witnesses' threats and retaliation against the victim and the victim's families if the abuse is reported to the police?

Pistoff

When it comes to cases of child abuse [and by extension, any other spiritually-damaging situation], I believe that each party must be addressed individually according to their needs.

What exactly does this mean? What is the need in a situation of alleged child abuse? To find the truth, or as close as possible.

Elders are NOT qualified to investigate child abuse charges, PRECISELY because they have the same fuzzy ideas you do about investigation. They want to follow the ideas of desert wandering nomads whose job it was to protect the men's reputations.

Thousands of cases of real abuse happened and were prosecuted on the evidence presented by the victim only; of course, they were investigated by men and women who had lots of experience with it, and were NOT bound by or informed by ancient tribal means of investigation.

Face it, spike; the witnesses do NOT require 2 witnesses for EVERY charge, like fornication, apostasy or smoking. That makes child sexual abuse the exception; that is called unequal application of law.

Do you have personal experience of what happens when a serious charge, one that could be or was prosecuted by police, but only one witness was present? Tex does; I do.

You are so completely out of your league in this matter.

P

Spike Tassel

Chris (Post 12830)

Do you support the Witnesses' threats and retaliation against the victim and the victim's families if the abuse is reported to the police?

Threats and retaliation are worldly, fleshly methods. They do not reflect a correct application or understanding of Galatians chapter 5. Jehovah says that He will repay, so it is not up to any humans to exercise a "vigilante justice". There must be compassion to the "effectively"-fatherless boy, in line with James 1:27 [Jack J. Blanco's Clear Water paraphrase there reads:— "Genuine Christianity is the kind that looks after the needs of others, especially suffering orphans and widows. This is the kind of religion that our heavenly Father is looking for in all of His people."]

This applies to all elements in your question. If someone is that far lacking in self-control [or, self-imposed discipline for the sake of others, and wholesome and healthy living, according to Galatians 5:23, Blanco's paraphrase], I reason that the offender ought to be given remedial therapy in line with my Post 542 above. Blanco's paraphrase of James 1:26 applies to such an offender:— "Now if anyone thinks he's a good Christian and can't control himself or what he says, he's only fooling himself. His Christianity is worthless."

1 Corinthians 6 must also be adhered to, in its entirety. It is about containment and overcoming of the problems, and healing for all.

Big Tex

I'm still trying to wade through all the Witness-speak to understand what you're viewpoint actually is. You use so many words without saying anything at all, it's very difficult to ascertain what you really are trying to say.

Am I correct in saying that it is your belief a child must present 2 eyewitnesses to prove they were abused? And if the offender refuses to confess, is it your viewpoint that it is permissible for the victim to report the crime to the police?

And if the offender is convicted, does that qualify in your view, as the needed proof to require the elders to take judicial action against the offender?

Spike Tassel

Chris (Post 12832):— Am I correct in saying that it is your belief a child must present 2 eyewitnesses to prove they were abused?

Regarding the child needing to present …, No

Chris (Post 12832):— And if the offender refuses to confess, is it your viewpoint that it is permissible for the victim to report the crime to the police?

Based on freedom of choice, Yes

Chris (Post 12832):— And if the offender is convicted, does that qualify in your view, as the needed proof to require the elders to take judicial action against the offender?

Assuming a fair trial, Yes

OUTLAW

Spike Tassel..

Grow some Balls and answer my question..

Reniaa and Spike Tassel..

I have a question for both of you!................Do you feel you need the Protection,the WBT$ provides for Pedophiles?

Reniaa has consistantly ignored this Question..No matter how many times I have asked it of Her/Him..

Spike and Renia,I await your reply..

...........................LOL!!...OUTLAW

I starting to feel like spammer..

...............LOL!!...OUTLAW

two witness ruling ?

Share this