Posts by konceptual99

95

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

by DATA-DOG in

with all the legalese being tossed around, and the expert manipulation on the part of the wtbts, who can explain why the "two witness" is being perverted by the wtbts?

i don't care if you're a bible believer and want to approach this from a biblical standpoint, or if you simply use logic and reason.

how would you explain this subject to a j-dub, or even a non-dub?.

konceptual99

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?

We have regularly seen WT apologists say that the elders are not policemen in response to critics about their handling of child abuse allegations. The subsequent comment is often to make some point about the victim/family being free to go to the authorities. The claim is based around trying to differentiate between secular and religious roles and responsibilities.

The reality is that no person regardless of their stance is asking or expecting the elders and WTS to act in the role of the police or secular authorities. As far as the critics are concerned the simple way forward is to do what is needed to get the authorities involved and then the elders can do whatever they want from a religious standpoint. Those who support the WTS current policies and procedures believe the WTS does enough and individuals have to take more personal responsibility for raising allegations with the authorities.

As for your reply to OTWO - I don't know why you are arguing with him. Neither of you want the WTS to act in a secular role. The point of contention seems to be determining what, if any, responsibility the WTS has to support secular involvement when allegations of criminal activity are made to elders. Why the WTS can treat a child abuse allegation the same as some act like vandalism of a KH and just call the police seems to be an odd inconsistency.

31

I wrote to Mr. Angus Stewart regarding the "inactive" status claims made by the Watchtower at the ARC

by EdenOne in

this is the email i have just sent to mr. stewart angus, who has been conducting the questioning of the jw leaders during the australian royal commission dealing with child abuse cases among the jehovah's witnesses, concerning the claims made that a jehovah witness who wishes to walk away from the organization can simply become inactive and avoid being shunned:.

dear mr. angus stewart,

i have followed with interest the videos of the arc regarding the jehovah's witnesses in australia.

konceptual99

too was considering writing a letter to the ARC - though my tack was going to be slightly different. I was thinking of writing something along the lines of someone who leaves and joins a different church could be disfellowshipped as well.

It's not disfellowhipping. It's disassociation by one's actions. It might seem a trivial difference but it's there so the WTS does not face any claims of preventing freedom of worship. It's the same reason as why military service is disassociation by one's actions - to prevent the WTS from facing issues with the government for stopping people performing military service.

Typical WT legalese - claim anyone is free to join the military or another church without disciplinary action from the congregation whilst putting a clause in so that the net result in terms of shunning is the same and turn the responsibility for this back onto the person.

95

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

by DATA-DOG in

with all the legalese being tossed around, and the expert manipulation on the part of the wtbts, who can explain why the "two witness" is being perverted by the wtbts?

i don't care if you're a bible believer and want to approach this from a biblical standpoint, or if you simply use logic and reason.

how would you explain this subject to a j-dub, or even a non-dub?.

konceptual99

That is only your opinion. That is how I see it. Obstruction of justice is crime. Are you accusing watchtower of obstructing justice?

I would suggest that in some cases, probably a small minority historically, this could well have been the case if you were able to look at every example worldwide through the last 100+ years.

More realistically, I think that the evidence demonstrates time and time again that the culture of deference to organisational hierarchy, coupled with some mistaken view of protecting Jehovah's name publicly has repeatedly led to allegations of sexual abuse not making it to the authorities.

Where the WTS interpretation of how to handle the two witness biblical principle has prevented further internal investigation and action, the allegation still has not made it to the secular authorities.

In all of these cases justice has been obstructed to some extent even if not by wilful and criminal intent.

95

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

by DATA-DOG in

with all the legalese being tossed around, and the expert manipulation on the part of the wtbts, who can explain why the "two witness" is being perverted by the wtbts?

i don't care if you're a bible believer and want to approach this from a biblical standpoint, or if you simply use logic and reason.

how would you explain this subject to a j-dub, or even a non-dub?.

konceptual99

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

What does this mean?

And who is the "one" that you implicate in your statement?

For goodness sake FM.... what a stupid question.

95

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

by DATA-DOG in

with all the legalese being tossed around, and the expert manipulation on the part of the wtbts, who can explain why the "two witness" is being perverted by the wtbts?

i don't care if you're a bible believer and want to approach this from a biblical standpoint, or if you simply use logic and reason.

how would you explain this subject to a j-dub, or even a non-dub?.

konceptual99

That is not necessarily wrong but what is a fact is that Watchtower is not authorized to enforce secular law and it is also a fact that Watchtower does not have the power or authority to administer secular justice.

No one expects them to be so, There is zero problem with letting the WTS handle it's own pastoral and internal disciplinary processes any way they like within the law. They could make it so much easier if they simply told, even helped, anyone coming to them with a potential crime to go to the right authorities to get the secular, legal and criminal aspects handled properly. They can handle any internal matters themselves anyway they like then.

The problem, as has been repeated ad infinitum, is that there is an historical issue with reported incidents getting to the attention of the authorities and still a matter of debate if changes to policy really makes a material difference to this.

Nobody wants them to be policemen. They simply need to get the real ones involved as required and feck off back to their back rooms to run their little JCs.

95

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

by DATA-DOG in

with all the legalese being tossed around, and the expert manipulation on the part of the wtbts, who can explain why the "two witness" is being perverted by the wtbts?

i don't care if you're a bible believer and want to approach this from a biblical standpoint, or if you simply use logic and reason.

how would you explain this subject to a j-dub, or even a non-dub?.

konceptual99

Let me clarify my question...

If an accusation was made by one person to the congregation they would not accept the word of a single witness.

If the alleged victim went to the police and they investigated, found the allegations to be true based on forensic evidence and prosecuted then this would be accepted as a second witness and judicial action taken.

I believe this is the case but I can't recall where I have seen this documented and could be wrong.

They also treat another allegation by another person as a second witness but this has been a change made to policy over time.

Of course, the historical problem has always been that the allegations are made firstly to the elders. They don't take action and no report to the authorities is made so nothing happens.

It all boils down the the WT approach on being proactive. The simple thing would be to ensure any allegation gets reported which puts the onus on the authorities to access the risks, investigate and protect the victim. They can then await the outcome of the secular process to determine if the "scriptural" parameters are met.

Instead they want to limit their response as far as possible. They only report when they legally have to. They are not proactive in ensuring the authorities are involved. Instead of co-operating with the authorities and implementing change they tweak the processes to make things appear better but do nothing to change the cultural norms endemic to the organisation of a patriarchal, top down, controlling environment.

95

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

by DATA-DOG in

with all the legalese being tossed around, and the expert manipulation on the part of the wtbts, who can explain why the "two witness" is being perverted by the wtbts?

i don't care if you're a bible believer and want to approach this from a biblical standpoint, or if you simply use logic and reason.

how would you explain this subject to a j-dub, or even a non-dub?.

konceptual99

They do accept forensic evidence now don't they?

49

ARC Case Study 54 - Witness List published for 10 March 2017

by jwleaks in

http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.

.

konceptual99

Yes Data-Dog how dare in a legal proceeding legal details come into play

Of course legal details and minutiae are important however the WTS gets in this to obsfucate, distract and elongate the legal argument. They argue one way and the opposite way to suits their purpose. It's not progressive, it's obstructive.

Years ago the WTS was pushing for freedoms that we take for granted. Now they are doing everything they can to justify iron age laws in the modern world.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

konceptual99

On your point of redemption. Supposedly Jesus' death provided the means for that redemption. The mechanism has been in place for 2000 years. To hold off implementing it for 2000 years is simply callous.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

konceptual99

Firstly I didn't agree to a plan.

Secondly my point is not about infants. It's about the illogical position you've taken to explain away the endless suffering that takes place to all humankind (supposedly all God's children), suffering that you would not permit a child of yours to endure for even a small amount of time, let alone countless lifetimes.

Even if one was to accept, for the sake of argument, the issue of universal sovereignty then there is still no logical answer as to why God keeps going and going and going with his game of billy big bollocks with Satan.

I sucked the illogical side up for years and years. Since waking up I've not heard anything even remotely logical to explain this mad situation the Bible creates.