Will someone please talk to me?

[Curious George]

I'll be reading on my cell phone for most of today, but will not be on to type. Even if you just want to ramble, I will be reading. Take care, talk to you later.

 

[savagewind]

My father was a working man. He was smart and capable but he never went to college. He was also quiet and so I do not know much about him. He was a part time alcoholic. That means he would go months and even years without drinking but if he started he would not stop. I do not know how many times he went to rehab. He had no friends, same as me. What I mean is I have friends but they don't know me and I do not see them much.

My mother had lots of friends. She had friends from when she was young. She kept them for her whole life. I think that is my fondest memory of her.


Godspeed and thank you for talking with me.

 

[savagewind]

How many years is it now that religious leaders have taught the people "Jehovah hates"?

See here please; Matthew 12:36,37 And I say to you, that every useless word that men may speak, they shall give for it a reckoning in a day of judgment; For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.

People teach God hates sin, but loves the sinner. It is how they think they are getting away with calling YHVH a hater.

There are scriptures the JWs use to justify their teaching of hate.
Psalm 11:5, Psalm 45:7 and Proverbs 6:16
there is also Psalm 5:5, Zechariah 8:17

If it is true these scriptures mean YHVH is a hater then what does this mean please?:
Habakkuk 1:13
Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrongdoing. Why then do you tolerate the treacherous? Why are you silent while the wicked swallow up those more righteous than themselves?

I have already said those who come mocking are not those who are mocking the righteous. The ones described at 2 Peter 3:3 are those coming who are mocking Israel by their declaration "Jehovah hates".

When the scriptures say it it means hating Jehovah. It is possible to hate Jehovah.

Why would Almighty God allow anything Almighty God hates? I do not think it is possible.

 

[savagewind]

Such a message conveys the thought it is possible for love to hate. I think it is not possible for love to hate and that is what those scriptures are about.

 

[savagewind]

How do I know? The writer of Peter (or Peter, I don't care) could see the mockers developing. He could not see and did not wish to see people behaving foolishly (saying nananananana - that is a taunt) and why would he write about that?

It might be possible (I think it is) that he did not write "in the last days" but that it means "for the last days". It is one of the causes. Seeing that the "will come" (it seems) can also mean bring or accompany.....

.... they are saying "where is this promised presence of his" But they are not as if mocking that they don't believe it. They are saying it because they want what is his. There is a scripture about assassins going after the inheritance. That is what that is about imo.

Do you want me to look it up?

 

[savagewind]

I can see it. I am not sure what to call it. They want Jesus to come. What will the Jesus that they want to come do? He will destroy "the wicked". I know we are all wicked. Does anyone not know that?

Their saying "where is his presence?" is the same as saying "when will he destroy the wicked?". Isn't it? I think it is.

They have the mockers saying the last part but I don't think it is what the mockers say. I think it is what the writer says.

For things like these people actually ridicule me, but I don't blame them. If they had not ridiculed me for my difference of opinion I would not have found you who asked me about my mother. It was an interesting thought adventure. Thanks mom! Thanks C. George.

 

[savagewind]

I can see two scenarios.

I am not referring only to the witnesses. It is about everyone who teaches God will destroy the wicked.

Scenario one is nothing ever happens and religion with it's belief in God sinks further and further into the mire.

Scenario two is religion actually causes a heavenly attack by their constant verbal offensive toward that which should not be charged. It seems to me false teachings in the name of God are bait for God to act.

I see the world betting on Scenario number one. I believe this one will bring the World down with it. It is easy to imagine. Basically it is what we know.

I think the biblical warning is all about scenario two. Are there any more possibilities?

JWs teach that God will put it into the heart of the UN, as if it had a heart, to destroy religion. But it is not god doing it. It is me who is doing it. Is that what you mean Sir George?

I'm not worried.

Wouldn't another scenario be nice? Is there one? I don't see why not.

 

[savagewind]

I absolutely did not call the people of the UN heartless. The UN which is not a person, isn't even a beast, doesn't have a heart. Thank God, huh?

Maybe that which existed and which went into the abyss (I'm not looking it up) and then came out is the assumed heaven's authority on Earth. Do I have to say who?

 

[JayJayDee]

Well I am very outspoken, one of my sister asked me, if one of them became a JW would I be happy with that, I told them no, I wouldn't be happy with you joining any organisation that treats it's child abuse victims like crap. I suppose if the time comes I could ask them those questions.

Hello Horrible, just reading your comments makes me a little sad. I hope you know from reading the posts here that what is being said about JW's is fiction. The accusations being made are the product of distorted imaginings.

And we do not treat 'victims of child abuse like crap'.

The elders in the congregation are not the police. When an accusation of child abuse is reported, they must do what needs to be done according to scripture. If it is proven that abuse has taken place (one person's testimony cannot provide "proof", Deut 19:15) then the abuser will be reported to the proper authorities and will face a court to judge his guilt or innocence.

Child abusers do not wear a sign around their neck indicating that they are law breakers, so it is a very difficult thing to "prove" legally.
If you accuse someone falsely, you are also breaking the law. It is a dilemma, no doubt about it, but we have to abide by Jehovah's laws and he will see to it that ALL lawbreakers are punished. (Heb 4:13)

I am a thorough researcher and welcome any questions you may have about the activities of Jehovah's Witnesses and the scriptural basis for all our beliefs.

The governing body are guides and shepherds, feeding the flock as Jesus instructed. They are not the masters of our faith, but the providers of spiritual nourishment. (Matt 24:45; John 21:15-17) To what extent we feed on that 'food' and benefit from it, is up to us. No one stands there with a big stick making us 'eat'.
But we cannot 'feed' from two tables. (1 Cor 10:21, 22) That is what Christendom does and why she is divided into literally thousands of sects. They want to have their 'ears tickled'. (2 Tim 4:3, 4)

Knowing that there are only two categories of people in this world when the judgment comes, should motivate people want to make sure that what they believe is truth. This is the devil's world....nothing is as it appears.

The deceiver is out to steer people onto the wrong road. If he could incite men to hate the truth enough to put the son of God to death, what do you imagine he's still doing with great success? He can make black look white; evil look good, and vice versa.

Before you draw conclusion, especially based on the sour opinions of others, please consider all things carefully.

Go to the source and ask your questions, not to opposers who distort everything to justify their own stance. :ignore:

We welcome questions, but not just baseless accusations and embellished, one sided stories.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Hello Horrible, just reading your comments makes me a little sad. I hope you know from reading the posts here that what is being said about JW's is fiction. The accusations being made are the product of distorted imaginings.

And we do not treat 'victims of child abuse like crap'.

The elders in the congregation are not the police. When an accusation of child abuse is reported, they must do what needs to be done according to scripture. If it is proven that abuse has taken place (one person's testimony cannot provide "proof", Deut 19:15) then the abuser will be reported to the proper authorities and will face a court to judge his guilt or innocence.

Child abusers do not wear a sign around their neck indicating that they are law breakers, so it is a very difficult thing to "prove" legally.
If you accuse someone falsely, you are also breaking the law. It is a dilemma, no doubt about it, but we have to abide by Jehovah's laws and he will see to it that ALL lawbreakers are punished. (Heb 4:13)

I am a thorough researcher and welcome any questions you may have about the activities of Jehovah's Witnesses and the scriptural basis for all our beliefs.

The governing body are guides and shepherds, feeding the flock as Jesus instructed. They are not the masters of our faith, but the providers of spiritual nourishment. (Matt 24:45; John 21:15-17) To what extent we feed on that 'food' and benefit from it, is up to us. No one stands there with a big stick making us 'eat'.
But we cannot 'feed' from two tables. (1 Cor 10:21, 22) That is what Christendom does and why she is divided into literally thousands of sects. They want to have their 'ears tickled'. (2 Tim 4:3, 4)

Knowing that there are only two categories of people in this world when the judgment comes, should motivate people want to make sure that what they believe is truth. This is the devil's world....nothing is as it appears.

The deceiver is out to steer people onto the wrong road. If he could incite men to hate the truth enough to put the son of God to death, what do you imagine he's still doing with great success? He can make black look white; evil look good, and vice versa.

Before you draw conclusion, especially based on the sour opinions of others, please consider all things carefully.

Go to the source and ask your questions, not to opposers who distort everything to justify their own stance. :ignore:

We welcome questions, but not just baseless accusations and embellished, one sided stories.

If a child goes to a person in a position of trust saying so and so has raped me, you report the accusation to the police, the elders are not trained to notice signs of an abused child or to do investigations into whether or not a child has been raped, THEN go to the police only if there are more than one witness or if the accused confesses.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

And are you telling me all those victims who have come out are lying about nothing being done about their abuse? I don't think so

 

[JayJayDee]

If a child goes to a person in a position of trust saying so and so has raped me, you report the accusation to the police, the elders are not trained to notice signs of an abused child or to do investigations into whether or not a child has been raped, THEN go to the police only if there are more than one witness or if the accused confesses.

And are you telling me all those victims who have come out are lying about nothing being done about their abuse? I don't think so

No, I am not saying that at all. Please read my reply again.

"Nothing" is done about child abuse that cannot be substantiated by witnesses. How many child abusers carry out their abuse in public? It is a very difficult thing to "prove" unless there is physical evidence. Touching a child inappropriately is a hard thing to "prove". Unless there is more than one victim, the elder's hands are tied. Nonetheless, the 'accused' will be monitored by them at all the meetings.

I am saying that unless it can be "proven", scripturally, and legally speaking, the elders cannot act on hear-say any more than the designated legal authorities can. There must be proof and then action is taken on that evidence. What do you realistically expect the elders to do? They are not the police.

To accuse someone without proof and then take action is as wrong as the abuse itself.
An abuser then has the added satisfaction of being able to sue for wrongful accusation and defaming of his reputation. It's not the outcome anybody wants, but God will deal with him in his own time.

Any who are victims of child abuse can take action through the legally recognized authorities, and are in fact encouraged to do so if there is compelling evidence. We do not harbor child abusers. Nor are we in the business of gossiping. It is a case of "innocent until proven guilty"....would you have it otherwise?

I would not be involved in an organization that conducted itself any other way.

 

[Curious George]

No, I am not saying that at all. Please read my reply again.

"Nothing" is done about child abuse that cannot be substantiated by witnesses. How many child abusers carry out their abuse in public? It is a very difficult thing to "prove" unless there is physical evidence. Touching a child inappropriately is a hard thing to "prove". Unless there is more than one victim, the elder's hands are tied. Nonetheless, the 'accused' will be monitored by them at all the meetings.

I am saying that unless it can be "proven", scripturally, and legally speaking, the elders cannot act on hear-say any more than the designated legal authorities can. There must be proof and then action is taken on that evidence. What do you realistically expect the elders to do? They are not the police.

(emphasis added)
I think that is her point. If they are not the police then they are not equipped to handle the situation. Any alleged abuse should be reported to the proper authorities. And the proper authorities are not the Elders, or the Rabbis, or the Bishops, or the Guru's or any other form of religious leadership. Anyone who hears of abuse and takes no action to involve the people who can actually investigate does a disservice to not only the child, but the entire community.

You do not have to falsely accuse anyone. You only have to call the PROPER authorities and let them know there was an allegation- not an occurrence.

 

[savagewind]

Any who are victims of child abuse can take action through the legally recognized authorities, and are in fact encouraged to do so if there is compelling evidence

There is almost never compelling evidence except for the testimony of the child. What is compelling evidence, according to the organization? And is your viewpoint the same as the group's viewpoint that evidence is first needed for the child's parents to go to the police? Why isn't the abused one's words enough?

 

[savagewind]

If there is enough evidence to convict the governing body say go ahead, bring it to the police. If the elders can see there is not enough evidence to convict they must discourage the parents going to the authorities because someone might get sued. Whose side are you on anyway?
__________________

 

[JayJayDee]

(emphasis added)
I think that is her point. If they are not the police then they are not equipped to handle the situation. Any alleged abuse should be reported to the proper authorities. And the proper authorities are not the Elders, or the Rabbis, or the Bishops, or the Guru's or any other form of religious leadership. Anyone who hears of abuse and takes no action to involve the people who can actually investigate does a disservice to not only the child, but the entire community.

You do not have to falsely accuse anyone. You only have to call the PROPER authorities and let them know there was an allegation- not an occurrence.

And that is the recommendation. It is a criminal offense that needs to be reported to the proper authorities. Congregation elders are shepherds who can only give scriptural counsel. It is not their place to report abuse unless the parties concerned wish them to do so.

In times past, these cases were not handled well and victims were often put through an interrogation in the courtroom that made them victims all over again. The court case was often worse than the actual crime. Sometimes the victims or their families did not wish for them to be put through that.

Thankfully things are handled with more care and with allowance for the sensibilities of the victim these days. But it was not always so.

As spiritual counselers, elders can only advise victims in accord with the laws of the land and the laws of God.
Where the abuser is a member of the congregation, the victims will sometimes go to them for advice first. The advice they are given is in accord with the Bible's recommendations.

If it needs to be reported to police, then it is the responsibility of the victim and their family will do this.

 

[savagewind]

As spiritual counselors, elders can only advise victims in accord with the laws of the land and the laws of God

The law of God the elders have used is the two witness rule. The only witness is the child many times so the elders have discouraged reporting it. Everyone knows it is not their job to report it. And if nothing comes out in the investigation it is probably not the elders right to make it public that there was a complaint.

But do you agree it is wrong for the elders to discourage the family from reporting it even if there does not seem to be any compelling evidence?

 

[JayJayDee]

The law of God the elders have used is the two witness rule. The only witness is the child many times so the elders have discouraged reporting it. Everyone knows it is not their job to report it. And if nothing comes out in the investigation it is probably not the elders right to make it public that there was a complaint.

But do you agree it is wrong for the elders to discourage the family from reporting it even if there does not seem to be any compelling evidence?

If there is "no compelling evidence", then even a police investigation would be pointless.
They cannot operate on hearsay either. It is the victim's word against the perpetrator's.

If more than one victim is involved then they may have a case. This would involve inappropriate touching, not rape. There would be verifiable evidence of rape even if there is only one victim. (provided of course that medical evidence was collected after the event or that a doctor certifies that rape has taken place.)

It is up to the family to decide whether or not to report abuse, not the elders.

 

[Curious George]

If there is "no compelling evidence", then even a police investigation would be pointless.
They cannot operate on hearsay either. It is the victim's word against the perpetrator's.

If more than one victim is involved then they may have a case. This would involve inappropriate touching, not rape. There would be verifiable evidence of rape even if there is only one victim. (provided of course that medical evidence was collected after the event or that a doctor certifies that rape has taken place.)

It is up to the family to decide whether or not to report abuse, not the elders.

pop quiz JayJay:

Little kid comes to you says they were raped. Do you call CPS? Call the police? Tell the kids parents? tell the elders? or all of the above?

 

[JayJayDee]

pop quiz JayJay:

Little kid comes to you says they were raped.

A small child would probably not even know what rape was so unless they were related to me in some way, I don't really think they would tell me. But if it came to my attention, I would report it.

Do you call CPS? Call the police? Tell the kids parents? tell the elders? or all of the above?

Probably all of the above. But the elders would be a first port of call for JW's as they are trained counselors and would help in the process if necessary. It is a harrowing thing for a victim to bring a pedophile to justice. Thankfully the process is softened now so that video evidence can be presented and the child does not have to face their attacker. This was not always the case in times past.

I believe some parts of America have a sex offender register and actually identify pedophiles publicly so that if they reside in neighborhoods where children are at risk, their residences are signposted.
We have nothing like that here in Australia.

Pedophilia is a form of mental illness, it is not an 'evil' act necessarily in the eyes of the perpetrator. They are often victims of child abuse themselves. Sexual attraction to children is as "natural" for them as it is for heterosexual men to be attracted to women.
The majority of acts of pedophilia are perpetrated by a family member or friend, not a stranger. Those in positions of trust are particularly reprehensible.

The fact that they act out their sexual fantasies is where they cross the line and break the law. Their victims are almost always too young and vulnerable to resist them.

Most of them get their appetites from websites that promote child pornography and pedophilia. I cannot understand why these sites are not shut down. Perhaps it is just too big a problem? The number of people arrested and charged with viewing and downloading child pornography is astounding. People you would never imagine to be involved with such things...judges, teachers, lawyers, pastors and priests...people with a good standing in the community. This is what makes it such a sinister subject.

Only God knows the extent of it and he will judge them accordingly.