Posts by defender of truth

14

Aussie Article: The Saturday Paper - Royal commission examines Jehovah Witnesses cover-up

by AndersonsInfo in

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/law-crime/2015/08/01/royal-commission-examines-jehovah-witnesses-cover/14383512002194 .

royal commission examines jehovah witnesses cover-up.

newsaug 1, 2015. martin mckenzie-murray the jehovahs witnesses fiercely literal reading of the bible has distanced them from the law and politics, but the royal commission into child sexual abuse is ending that..

defender of truth

Thank you, Barbara. Keep up the good work!!

This article needs to be bumped to the top for the next few weeks, at least.

28

One of the most important questions.

by Lemonp in

it is enthralling having everything being dragged kicking and screaming into the light of day.

however one of the most important things to ask is this:.

is the rc evidence admissable in other countries and other courts?.

defender of truth

"The whole process that the JW elders engage in, of collecting sexual material from minors...is a process that fits the legal definition of producing and distributing child pornography."

I must disagree with Orphan Crow's claim in the previous post..

If a child were to tell YOU what had happened to them during abuse, and you made notes of what they said, in case the story changes at a later date or you forgot what had happened.. As you may need to do if you were to support a police investigation for instance.. Would that be producing child pornography?

Would a police officer taking a statement from a minor and keeping a written record be producing child pornography..?

Put aside that elders don't support police investigations, and that they should have no need to ask for explicit details and handle these cases themselves, for the moment.

Making notes or records of a child's statement or testimony is not technically producing pornography, is it? Legally, it is not.

This article from a few years back is interesting.

.....

" A Conservative MP is seeking to change the law to close a loophole which allows paedophiles to legally possess written accounts of child abuse."

"Sir Paul wants to amend existing legislation so that written material is treated in the same way as indecent images, for which possession carries a maximum three-year prison term."

The law would be tightly written, he insisted, to cover obscene writing of a nature "that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal".

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19574487

And this following page is just one example showing that there must be a sexual purpose for the writing of the material, in order for it to qualify as child pornography.

https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Law/Offences/Child_Pornography/Definition_of_Child_Pornography

So how exactly would you go about proving that the notes were taken down or read for a sexual purpose?

Just asking.

Accusing anyone of intentionally passing on or producing child pornography is a very dangerous area, and quite possibly slanderous.

And you appear to be claiming that the entire process fits this definition.

I think you are barking up the wrong tree here, this time. But before the flaming starts, I am not defending their policies.

.....

Pornography:

"Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate sexual excitement."

Key phrase here: intended to stimulate sexual excitement.

www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/pornography

3

What I believe to be true- and how I have come to believe it.

by defender of truth in

i apologise if this story has already been posted.. it gave me hope... hope that even those who ignore their doubts and bury themselves can awaken, and become authentic people who just want to make the world a better place.

both man and wife woke up at the same time.. great thoughts on the meaning of life and humanities potential towards the end... www.medium.com/keep-learning-keep-growing/what-i-believe-to-be-true-and-how-i-have-come-to-believe-it-13df821c3ed.

defender of truth

I apologise if this story has already been posted.

It gave me hope..

Hope that even those who ignore their doubts and bury themselves can awaken, and become authentic people who just want to make the world a better place. Both man and wife woke up at the same time.

Great thoughts on the meaning of life and humanities potential towards the end..

www.medium.com/keep-learning-keep-growing/what-i-believe-to-be-true-and-how-i-have-come-to-believe-it-13df821c3ed

8

"Do you realise how inappropriate that is?!"

by stuckinarut2 in

in the australian royal commission enquiry into child abuse and the way institutions handle such is underway.. today the judge said the following in response to the way judicial committees operate:.

(not verbatim...but the gist of his comments are:).

"so a young woman, a suspected victim of abuse or someone accused of a sin, would have to appear before three older men in a 'judicial committee' and relate in detail her ordeal?

defender of truth

In this programme, aired on BBC Radio 4, a victim mentioned that she was asked by the older men "how far apart her legs were", and was asked to show them..

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0612hjs

Inappropriate is not a strong enough word..

39

JW Reaction to Royal Commission Reports

by maksutov in

has anybody confronted any jws with the royal commission reports on the news yet?

i showed my 8-year old daughter a newspaper headline about it, and when she told my jw wife that the jws in australia were in trouble for not reporting over 1,000 child abusers to police, her response was "oh, really?

well, i don't know what the rules are over there.

defender of truth

They would probably have to search for "Jehovah's Australia'' though, if they were to see all of the results.

You could send a link like this to any JW's you know, if are not df'd that is, perhaps just saying "have you seen all these stories about us?"

www.bing.com/news/search?q=jehovahs+australia

754

Theists, why does God allow suffering..

by The Quiet One in

..specifically, the suffering of animals.

you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.

i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.

defender of truth

Was ancient life really free from sickness and suffering?
"Fossils of ancient creatures have been found that show tell-tail signs of severe injury, infection and disease. Some animals are known to have perished in mud pits, volcanic explosions, and global natural disasters. Fossils have even been found of animals that died giving birth.
All evidence indicates that ancient life was exactly as it is today - brutal, violent, painful, and short. This, Jehovah's Witnesses must believe, was the perfect creation of God."www.jwbeliefs.com/jehovahs-witnesses-believe-animal-suffering-and-death/
Has anyone used this page to reason with a JW?Please let us know if you have, or would consider doing so.

754

Theists, why does God allow suffering..

by The Quiet One in

..specifically, the suffering of animals.

you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.

i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.

defender of truth

Excellent points, StrongHaiku.

So, Christian theists, the best response you can give (or that anyone can give on their behalf) is basically:

My God loves his creation, and would undoubtedly prevent his creatures from dying in horrific and drawn-out ways IF it were for the best, but He has decided that this is the best way for so many of His creatures to cease to exist.. Starvation, disease, cancers, and even mass extinction.

And anyone who defines allowing these things as unloving and callous, only needs to realise that this hypothetical loving God may be all-wise, all powerful, and wants to show love for His creation..

Yet He is helpless, and subject to the very laws that He established, in the universe He created.. laws which somehow prevent Him from curing cancer in animals , for example.

Sounds logical to me..

754

Theists, why does God allow suffering..

by The Quiet One in

..specifically, the suffering of animals.

you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.

i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.

defender of truth

It wasn't my work, Cofty, but I wish it had been.
It's like a Quick start guide to the whole topic.
Here it is again for any just joining us:www.jwbeliefs.com/jehovahs-witnesses-believe-animal-suffering-and-death/

754

Theists, why does God allow suffering..

by The Quiet One in

..specifically, the suffering of animals.

you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.

i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.

defender of truth

Caleb:

"They would rather argue over issues to ignore the fact that they aren't doing anything. "

I am doing something to help prevent suffering of animals.

Now then, this is an excellent point:

"The only convictions that need to be changed are the ones that tell you that beliefs are more important than actions and that we need to alter other people's minds instead of doing something to make the world a better place."

I could not agree more (in principle).

Jehovah's Witnesses are just one religious group that promote and spread such harmful and life-wasting convictions, that someone's charitable works and care for defenseless creatures are irrelevant if they don't share the same religious beliefs.

Atheists and agnostics can discuss their beliefs with anyone, without fear of offending an imaginary deity, or being slaughtered at Armageddon.

Jehovah's Witnesses cannot even discuss how their loving God can care for his creation and yet allow animal suffering. Not without fear of Jehovah and his coming judgement. There is always a thought stopping response like "who am I/who are you to question God"..

This thread is here to help people to think about the God they are devoting their lives to, and the God they would die for, or cut off all interaction with their loved ones for.

Is it logical to believe in the construct of a loving God that has allowed animals to suffer, and go extinct even, for billions of years.. Take a look at the evidence.

More to the point, is it logical or sensible to shun family and friends or die for this loving, personal theistic God, who surely does not exist?

People whose lives, and even close family relationships, revolve around their religious beliefs, need to be given the chance to at least take a look at this issue.

Freedom of mind, freedom to think and act as you want to, and freedom from religious doctrines that control so many of mankind..

That is my dream.

Then the whole of mankind can focus on the really worthwhile goals of, as you said, making the world a better place and working to prevent suffering.

Millions of JW's, and their children, will never even have the mental freedom to change the world for the better, or dedicate themselves to worthwhile charitable works.

Threads like this one are here to help people think, to perhaps encourage some towards freedom from religion, or at least freedom of mind.

I'm sorry if you feel that the thread was a waste of time.

754

Theists, why does God allow suffering..

by The Quiet One in

..specifically, the suffering of animals.

you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.

i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.

defender of truth

I strongly recommend using this page as a simplistic reference point when talking to JW's..

Please let us know their thoughts, if any..

www.jwbeliefs.com/jehovahs-witnesses-believe-animal-suffering-and-death/