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

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.

12

fromBarbara Anderson/charities commission child abuse inquiry UK

by zeb in

jehovah’s witnesses “child safeguarding policy” (great britain, ireland, uk) – 2017. analysis of the child safeguarding policy of jehovah’s witnesses in the united kingdom and the republic of ireland [2017].

by barbara anderson.

2013’s “watch tower bible and tract society of britain and congregations of jehovah’s witnesses in the united kingdom and ireland child safeguarding policy” (wtb&ts of britain’s csp) document was considered to be the official watch tower policy until the release on january 1 of the 2017 “child safeguarding policy of jehovah’s witnesses in the united kingdom, etc.,” (csp of jws in the uk).”.

konceptual99

Also, I've just noted that a known sexual abuser may not have a position of trust or responsibility but the restriction on having "privileges" has been removed. These include things like pioneering, volunteer work at events and so on.

If anything this new statement is even more open to someone slipping the through the net than before.

How is it that the WTS is able to produce something that once again actually says nothing of substance and clarity?

12

fromBarbara Anderson/charities commission child abuse inquiry UK

by zeb in

jehovah’s witnesses “child safeguarding policy” (great britain, ireland, uk) – 2017. analysis of the child safeguarding policy of jehovah’s witnesses in the united kingdom and the republic of ireland [2017].

by barbara anderson.

2013’s “watch tower bible and tract society of britain and congregations of jehovah’s witnesses in the united kingdom and ireland child safeguarding policy” (wtb&ts of britain’s csp) document was considered to be the official watch tower policy until the release on january 1 of the 2017 “child safeguarding policy of jehovah’s witnesses in the united kingdom, etc.,” (csp of jws in the uk).”.

konceptual99

Statement #16 (which was #17 in the old 2013 Policy) has been completely rewritten. It reads: “A person who has engaged in child sexual abuse does not qualify to receive any privileges or to serve in a position of trust or responsibility in the congregation for many years, if ever.”

The 2013 Policy Statement #17 doesn’t state “if ever” and is a bit different: “A person known to have abused a child in the past, and who continues to pose a risk to children or is not irreprehensible, does not qualify [underline mine] to serve in a position of trust or responsibility in the congregation.-1 Timothy 3:1-7, 10; Titus 1:7.”

Interesting pick up Barbara. On the face of it, it would seem that the WTS has changed the policy so that an abuse never can serve in a position of responsibility but in fact there is still an opening. Now there is a qualification that the prohibition is only applied to those known abusers who continue to pose a risk or are not irreprehensible.

Who decides the risk posed by a known abuser? Who is qualified or authorised to determine this? I suspect an arbitrary ruling by WT Legal will be the order of the day rather than any professional or secular assessment.

So Witnesses here in the UK - there is still every chance that someone with a proven history of child sexual abuse could end up being an elder or MS in your congregation and you will not have any knowledge of it at all.

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

CS - So when a father abuses his child is this permissible and acceptable either because the father has an absolute right to do as he pleases with his child or that Jehovah has the right to allow any amount of suffering to the child?

This argument that somehow the carrot of a future everlasting existence mitigates all the pain, suffering and premature death present in the current one is one of the most sick and illogical examples of cognitive dissonance that we bought into as Witnesses.

How can behaviour that sickens me as a father be continually and willingly tolerated by a God that has the power to put a stop to it? How much death, pain and suffering has to be permitted before it proves Satan a liar? Exactly how much of this shit do the innocents have to endure before God is happy that he has won the argument?