..right, JW "priests" need not worry about protecting children from child abusers by reporting accusations to authorities because, after all, "there is no legal reason" to.
Sanchy
JoinedPosts by Sanchy
-
85
Newspaper reports: Dutch government will initiate inquiry into child abuse within JW community
by Anders Andersen intoday a dutch newspaper published an in-depth follow-up item on jw abuse issues.. the most interesting part of the article is this:.
the politicians also let themselves be heard.
a month ago the house of representatives voted unanimously in favor of a motion to enforce an independent inquiry into abuse within the jehovah's witnesses, as the organization refuses to initiate it.
-
-
-
85
Newspaper reports: Dutch government will initiate inquiry into child abuse within JW community
by Anders Andersen intoday a dutch newspaper published an in-depth follow-up item on jw abuse issues.. the most interesting part of the article is this:.
the politicians also let themselves be heard.
a month ago the house of representatives voted unanimously in favor of a motion to enforce an independent inquiry into abuse within the jehovah's witnesses, as the organization refuses to initiate it.
-
-
Sanchy
There is no legitimate reason why they are stockpiling a database, that potentially houses hundreds of perpetrators (according to their own published data) while not sending them to police.
#mindblown
-
85
Newspaper reports: Dutch government will initiate inquiry into child abuse within JW community
by Anders Andersen intoday a dutch newspaper published an in-depth follow-up item on jw abuse issues.. the most interesting part of the article is this:.
the politicians also let themselves be heard.
a month ago the house of representatives voted unanimously in favor of a motion to enforce an independent inquiry into abuse within the jehovah's witnesses, as the organization refuses to initiate it.
-
-
Sanchy
In the case of this investigation, as it was with the ARC, the most important details would be:
-How did those in charge of the congregation respond to the accusations?
-Are the religion's policies adequate to protect minors within it's ranks?
-
85
Newspaper reports: Dutch government will initiate inquiry into child abuse within JW community
by Anders Andersen intoday a dutch newspaper published an in-depth follow-up item on jw abuse issues.. the most interesting part of the article is this:.
the politicians also let themselves be heard.
a month ago the house of representatives voted unanimously in favor of a motion to enforce an independent inquiry into abuse within the jehovah's witnesses, as the organization refuses to initiate it.
-
-
Sanchy
You are going around in circles.
They did provide evidence in the form of nearly 300 victims. If the evidence is comprised of mostly 30 to 40 year old exJWs, it really makes no difference.
Yes, victims are indeed " so-called afraid to speak up", which is in itself one of the problems that has plagued the religion for decades and continues to do so.
-
85
Newspaper reports: Dutch government will initiate inquiry into child abuse within JW community
by Anders Andersen intoday a dutch newspaper published an in-depth follow-up item on jw abuse issues.. the most interesting part of the article is this:.
the politicians also let themselves be heard.
a month ago the house of representatives voted unanimously in favor of a motion to enforce an independent inquiry into abuse within the jehovah's witnesses, as the organization refuses to initiate it.
-
-
Sanchy
You first mentioned that they were "hanging their hats on 30 year old cases", which would place the victims, assuming they were 5-15 at the time of the crime, in the lower 40s age range max.
So, even by your assumptions, we are not talking about 60 year olds here.
As mentioned previously, children of JW parents are likely not going to go to RV. Therefore, the pool of victims likely to speak up will mostly be adults, and out of that pool only those with enough courage to speak up against the holy org. So the apologist excuse that the typical victim is an adult and likely exJW is neither surprising nor a valid argument against the systemic issues plaguing the religion's handling of child abuse within it's ranks.
Over the years, Watchtower has reacted to the backlash and somewhat revised some of it's policies for the better (two witnesses can be of different events, don't force victim to personally confront abuser), but as the ARC found, there are still troubling problems. More investigation is needed indeed.
-
85
Newspaper reports: Dutch government will initiate inquiry into child abuse within JW community
by Anders Andersen intoday a dutch newspaper published an in-depth follow-up item on jw abuse issues.. the most interesting part of the article is this:.
the politicians also let themselves be heard.
a month ago the house of representatives voted unanimously in favor of a motion to enforce an independent inquiry into abuse within the jehovah's witnesses, as the organization refuses to initiate it.
-
-
Sanchy
Bobby, I mean, Doubter, said the following: "they have not produced any children, and are apparently hanging their hats on 30 year old cases, then they have not met their burden."
Not true. As Dio said, kids with JW parents would not be allowed to go to RV.
Also, the age of the victims does not matter. They are still victims, and collectively potentially a sign that at some point there might have been a systemic problem within the org. Something that the investigation will look into.
-
51
Don't even try it!
by JTrottigy inthere are many here who think they can infiltrate my web-site.
be warned that we administrators of jwtalk call the listed congregation on your application for membership in our site to verify if they know you!.
some of you have slipped through the cracks and got into our site, but rest assured, we will find you out and ban you!.
-
-
Sanchy
y'all do know this guy is bullshitting, right? -
9
11 new things made illegal in a relationship
by Amelia Ashton ini was subjected to more than one of these whilst married.
a partner should be treated as an equal.
i wonder how that will work out in a jw household?.
-
-
Sanchy
God's people would never be charged with any of these "crimes" as they always apply Bible laws to their lives
...LMAO
-
556
The Watchtower are Right About Blood...
by cofty in... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
-
-
Sanchy
Thanks for the response Cofty. It did seem to me as well that his suggestion of an "eviscerating accident" was baseless.
-
556
The Watchtower are Right About Blood...
by cofty in... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
-
-
Sanchy
@Cofty,
Over on the JW apologist blog "Opposers Dismythed" (ran in part by our own in-house apologist Bobby), someone commented with a point similar to the one you were making on the OP and got a response from the JWs. Here was the comment:
The Israelite were in some cases allowed to eat animals that were found dead, animals that obviously had not been bled (Lev.11:38-40). Also, if an Israelite brought blood from a still living animal to the altar, said blood would have no sacrificial value, only blood from a dead animal would become sacred. In light of this, what would your response be to those that say that blood from an organism that has not died, as is the case with medical blood donated by a living patient, is not the same as the blood from a life that has perished?
and here was the response from the JW apologist:
Anonymous:
The law requiring bleeding an animal before eating it is absolute (Leviticus 17:10-14) and could only mean this would be a domestic either killed by a wild animal, thus bled, or killed by an eviscerating accident, thus bled. However, another law forbids the eating of animals torn by wild animals. (Exodus 22:31; Deuteronomy 14:21) The laws in Leviticus 11:39-40 and 17:5 show that there is no punishment for doing so, but they must be seen as “unclean” and are not allowed to eat the sacrifices while they are unclean. (Leviticus 7:21; 22:1-8) But it is abundantly clear that such things were not to be eaten along with the blood.
Yes, the sacrifice must die in order for the atoning blood to have any value, which further highlights the ridiculousness of comparing transfused blood to Christ’s blood. (Heb 10:29) However, that does not in any way undermine the law that says that blood must be poured out regardless of whether it is used in sacrifice or not. (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17; 7:26, 27; 4:25, 30, 34; 5:9; 17:10-14; 19:26; Numbers 19:5; Deuteronomy 12:16, 23, 27; 15:23; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25) In fact, it is one of the most oft-repeated laws in the Bible. (Leviticus 8:15; 9:9; 1 Samuel 14:32-34; 2 Samuel 23:16, 17; 1 Chronicles 11:18, 19; Eze 24:7; 33:25) Add in all the mentions of the use of blood for atonement and cleansing (I will not enumerate them here,) and the value of blood becomes the most important subject outside the Shema.
But to answer your question clearly, David poured out the water his men brought to him from the cistern that he expressed raving for, calling it the blood of his men, because his men risked their lives, yet not one of them died doing so. (2 Samuel 23:16, 17; 1 Chronicles 11:18, 19)
Also, it is not because the animal is dead that the blood should be poured out. It is because "the life is in the blood." (Leviticus 17:14) Clearly then, the law is about the life of the creature, not the death.
And an animal could easily lose its leg and survive, but that does not preclude pouring the blood out and cleansing it before eating the leg.