by stillin 40 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Let's rephrase the question - Are JCs reasonable to begin with?
The above question in the OP becomes moot once the correct answer is given to this question.
Edit : Child abuse needs to be dealt with be legal authorities, not church leaders of any kind. Since the organization stubbornly refuses to accept that, they are now getting their just desserts by nations that are far better socially evolved than a 19th century end-times religion.
d4g
And your point is???
Is the two-witness rule really unreasonable?
The "two-witness" policy is one we find mimicked in one way or another in judicial systems of every developed society on planet earth. Essentially it means one thing: corroboration. That is to say, if an allegation is made it cannot be acted on punitively unless there is corroboration. So insofar as this single issue is concerned, I think it reasonable.
Yet corroboration is only one of many facets of a robust and fair judiciary, and in relation to children in particular. As pointed out by previous posters, it takes specialized training to investigate allegations of child abuse. This training is not a prerequisite for Watchtower appointed elders. Yet proper training in this field is not only essential to sorting out any fact or fiction of the initial allegation, it is secondarily essential for protection other children who have exposure, ,like the kids next door or down the street.
Watchtower goes on and on about following Jesus, yet the biblical Jesus would have folks love their neighbors as they love their own self. Yet when it comes to allegation of child abuse Watchtower fails to take the simple step of encouraging victims (or their guardians) to report to secular authorities trained to investigate, that is if local law does not require Watchtower appointees to make the report. This gap in Watchtower policy turns advice from the biblical Jesus on its head.
It shouldn't matter. Because the org and elders should have the brains and humility to step aside when someone comes to them with criminal allegations.
They should contact the police and let then start working on it then deal with their fantasy spiritual JC bullshit later.
At the crux of all this is their arrogance to day elders are not legal experts but to still turn it first into a congregation matter where it has the potential to keep a molester free from jail. Dumb ass elders shouldn't even have to decide two witness matter or the like, because at thay point it should be a police investigation.
It was pretty reasonable in the iron age....not so much in the 21st century.
Actually, eyewitness testimony is far less reliable than forensic evidence.
You can't compare apples to oranges. Children making false accusations are extremely rare. In fact, most lies are to cover over being abused because of the immense guilt and shame. Humans naturally try to avoid pain.
What about adults? It depends on the situation. We can't assume that every adult who accuses someone of abuse is lying. We also cannot automatically find the accused guilty. That's why we have "innocent, until proven guilty."
This is where evidence comes into play. You can have multiple witnesses ( rare in child sexual abuse ) or one witness, plus a confession, or forensic evidence which should be considered as a second "witness."
This is one MAJOR reason why Eldubs ( and anyone working with children) should report any and all accusation of abuse. Time destroys forensic evidence, just as time can alter the memory of an event. It's very important to act quickly. Even though you have a small window to gather forensic evidence, the chances of this happening would increase if every JW knew that reporting immediately was "Jehovah's" direction.
That's the saddest part of all. The GB have a golden microphone atop a golden dias. They can instantly change this situation with just one letter, or article, or 144,000 Club broadcast, but the don't. Why? That is the real question, but I digress.
Just imagine if every JW child knew that they could report to the Eldubs and the matter would immediately be passed on to the "Superior Authorities." The instances of an abuser having multiple victims would plummet. After some time, the predators would realize that KH's are not a Pedo-paradise anymore.
The WTBTS needs to re-think its faulty/ultra-literal interpretation of the "two-witness" rule. I highly doubt they have ever considered forensic evidence as a "witness."
Perhaps we expect too much from people who believe God gave answers to the nation of Israel with magic rocks?
DD
Sure it is, it defies logic, something the bible seems to us to have lack of.
if you study the situation of who the two witness rule applies to and why you will find it did not apply to everyone.
this again, is a rule for the 'special' chosen nation, lol, not everyone else on the outside, we do not have to follow by the laws of a people we do not belong to, God never said we did. Jesus never said we did.
someone on here has a pretty good explanation of that whole biblical situation comes from.
The so-called "two witness" rule is a demonstration of how far lacking in Biblical scholarship and just plain logical thinking the JW religion is.
The rule (Deut. 19.15) uses an idiomatic expression requiring not two but "two witnesses or more." It is often repeated in the New Testament as "two or three witnesses."
This idiom is understood in the Jewish list of 613 Mizvot (Commandments) not as requiring at least two people to witness a crime but instructing Jews "not to decide a case on the evidence of a single witness."--Mizvot 227.
Two points of difference exist in how this is applied by Jews that shows how far off the target the JWs are in trying to apply this command from the Mosaic Law.
This commandment means that no judicial case should be concluded or finalized without thorough investigation. The idiom is neither asking for a literal number of witnesses nor is it speaking about establishing the validity of an accusation. It is about settling a case and requiring that justice be done in the sense that regardless of the charge and the opinion of the majority, no one should be judged adversely without due process and sufficient evidence to support any final decision.
In other words an accusation is not enough to decide a case. There must be evidence to support every conclusion made by judges.
Second, any reference to the application of this commandment in the New Testament is merely referring to the principles involved. The New Testament makes it very clear that Gentile Christians are NOT obligated to observe the Mosaic Law or meet any of its demands as a requisite for salvation.
The Greek text reveals an attempt to keep the Jewish idiom intact, often retaining the "two or three witnesses" expression. Again as this is an idiomatic expression, it is not literal. It is a reminder of not running to quick judgment without sufficient evidence. But one thing it is also not doing is discussing how to judge the validity of an accusation of a victim in a case, though sadly this is how it is often used by JW elders.
It's appearance in 1 Timothy 5.19 is evidence that its application is not meant to be taken at face value by Christians. It is stated in a context of applying lessons from two other commandments from the Mosaic Law, with verse 18 making reference to not muzzling an ox and verse 20 referencing the statement in Deuteronomy that carrying out judgment should be enough to strike fear in the hearts of criminals. All three verses, 18-20, are not enforcing the Mosaic Law upon Christians. Instead they are calling to mind lessons from the Law on carrying out justice. Therefore it is not right to impose and enforce a literal "two witness" rule.
