Who can explain why the "Two Witness" rule is wrong, in the simplest term?

by DATA-DOG 95 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • EdenOne
    EdenOne

    The leadership of the JWs claims that the "two witness rule" isn't even a matter of interpretation - that the rule is so clearly laid out in the Bible that needs no "interpretation" or doesn't allow for a different interpretation other than that that is made by the WTS.

    If that is the case, please tell me where in the Bible is clearly written that two separate witnesses to a similar incident (example: two individuals alone, in separate events, saw a JW smoking) can be considered as "two witnesses". Isn't this a matter of INTERPRETATION?

    Or please tell me where in the Bible it says that two elders who are spying from a car observe a JW woman walk in and later walk out of the house of a man to whom she is not married with, and thus "witness" that she has committed sexual misconduct? (Actually, that being the case, how to justify that Samson spent the night at the house of a prostitute in Gaza? - Judges 16:1) Is this not the case of INTERPRETATION?

    F***ing hypocrites.

  • OrphanCrow
    OrphanCrow

    I have been thinking a little more about the two witnesses being required in death penalty cases.

    In the context of the JWs being an religion based on archaic laws, that rule makes sense in their religious framework. They view disfellowshipping as a spiritual death and, as a literal death as well - ie...you will die forever instead of live forever if you are not a JW. They condemn the sinner to death.

    What the retention of the two witness rule does is expose the cruel ideology of the JWs: if you don't behave, we have the power to 'kill' you.

    Disfellowshipping is a death sentence. That is how harsh the judicial system of the WT is.

    *to add...with all that said, the two witness rule is all about whether or not the offender/sinner will be disfellowshipped. It has nothing to do with establishing guilt - it has to do with the harshness of the punishment. If you put the scripture in context, it goes on to say that matters other than those that require the death penalty, are simply taken to the priests to decide

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman
    Nowhere in there does it say that two witnesses are required to establish guilt in all cases.


    That is correct. Guilt is a verdict. In this hypothetical case, the testimony of 2 witnesses was necessary to establish the truthfulness of the accusations of idolatry.

  • OrphanCrow
    OrphanCrow
    Fisherman: In this hypothetical case, the testimony of 2 witnesses was necessary to establish the truthfulness of the accusations of idolatry.

    Exactly. That is how serious 'God' viewed those who dissented from the ways of the culture being established at the time. Anyone who didn't follow the same ways were to be put to death. Loyalty was prized and disloyalty was punished with the most serious punishment of all - death.

    And then the scripture goes on to speak of other judicial matters - the matters that are common to all societies. Ones that don't require death penalty (disfellowshipping).

    Disfellowshipping/death was the punishment for not believing in the same god. Death isn't mentioned for the other sins/crimes.

    And that reveals how cruel the WT actually is. They disfellowship for any and all perceived minor sins/crimes. They stone the sinner. They have perverted the original meaning of the law.

    And, they are using that law to take secular law decisions into their own hands. That isn't cool. They have no authority to do so.

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot
    OrphanCrow - "...they are not authorized to administer secular justice..."

    Or even remotely qualified, FTM.

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman
    What does what "one" expects from the wachtower have anything to do with what may not be necessarily wrong.
    What does this mean?

    Let me put it to you this way. Who is "expecting Wachtower to be so"? And what does this have anything to do with my statement to on the way out that what he said was wrong may not necessarily be wrong?

  • Giordano
    Giordano

    A lot of this discussion is bullshit like the two witness rule being applied to sexually abused minors.

    Lets get real. Here in part is what happens:

    during January 2009-December 2010. There were 16 female and nine male children, who presented with history of vaginal, anal, or anogenital penetration by penis. All children were in the age group of 4-11 years. All the girls were premenarchal. One 11-year-old girl was mentally retarded.
    After providing acute emergency care, parental informed consent was obtained for detailed anogenital examination and necessary surgical intervention. All children were examined in the operating room under sedation in supine-frog-leg position for documentation of anatomic findings. [1,2] Requisite body swabs were obtained to complete the medicolegal formalities. Details of genital, anorectal, and sphincteric injuries were noted. Photographic evidence was also recorded. [1] Severity of injuries was judged by perineal tear classification. [3]
    Nine children who had no anogenital injuries (AGI) were excluded from the study. Similarly, eleven other children having first and second degree injuries were managed nonsurgically and were also excluded from the present study.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3760308/

    Those children having first and second degree injuries who were managed nonsurgically still had bruising. Those that had no traumatic injury were still emotionally traumatized.

    The idea we need to have two witnesses to a crime like this is laughable. The idea that the WTBTS feels that two witnesses takes precedence over reporting a crime is despicable.

    Even Jesus, who spoke about the two witness rule as fit and proper felt strongly about the treatment of children.

    Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

    — Matthew 19:13-14

    “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” And he took the children in his arms, placed his hands on them and blessed them.

    — Mark 10:13-16

    People were also bringing babies to Jesus for him to place his hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

    — Luke 18:15-17

    Do you think that a JW sexually abusing a child.....might be considered a 'hindrance'?

  • EdenOne
    EdenOne
    Leviticus 5:1 -" If someone sins because he has heard a public call to testify and he is a witness or has seen or learned about it and he does not report it, then he will answer for his error."

    In ancient Israel, guilt for any case of misconduct needed not be established BEFORE it was reported to the authorities. It was a sin to "learn about it" and then "not report it" to the authorities. The Watchtower fails to apply this simple principle to allegations of sexual child abuse in the congregation.

    The Elders in the congregation only have to "learn about it" in order to report it to the proper authorities. No "two-witness rule" is outlined here in order to REPORT. The proper authorities that have jurisdiction on a CRIME of sexual child abuse aren't the religious authorities within the Organization, and not the legal department at Bethel. Those authorities are the POLICE and the CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES and the COURTS. Sexual child abuse is both a sin AND a public crime. The elders may deal with the sin, but they don't need to establish the credibility of the allegation, nor seek the confession from the accused before they report the allegations to the police.

    The WTS is so obtuse, that even relying in 2.000+ year old obsolete law systems, they FAIL in following them. And the only reason is this: They put their assets, their reputation and "good name" above the well-being of the victims and the protection of their children and of the community at large.

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman

    And when the two witness rule is spoken about - it is referencing the death penalty.

    No, show one case in the Bible showing the testimony of one witness -referencing any penalty.

    2cor13:1

    deutb19:15




  • Fisherman
    Fisherman

    WT only uses the "2 witness rule" to adjudicate church matters, but they comply secular law.

Share with others