Originally posted by robbie carrobieToo little time to read up on the testimony of a victim of sexual abuse from your organisation, yet plenty of time to post in these forums. You have no intention of reading any victims testimony, let's not pretend otherwise.
No I had to work all day, I will get round to it if I can, your allegations of a cover up are nonsense and refuted, your allegations of 1800 victims of sexual abuse are nonsense and refuted , you are nonsense. I think that is an excellent summation of what has transpired.
Originally posted by FMFThe bible answers that for us. Either one is for God and his kingdom 100% and teaches what the bible says 100% or their not. "A little leaven ferments the whole lump" right? True we are not judges on what is in a persons heart but their actions and teachings usually give the answers to that.
[b]Paul said to the elders of the congregation in Ephesus: “From among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things.” And Peter wrote in a letter to several congregations: “There will also be false teachers among you.” So false teachers may come from inside the congregation. These false teachers are apostates.
One of the Christians on this forum ...[text shortened]... eliefs ~ is sonship. To your way of thinking, is sonship a "false teacher"? Is he an "apostate"?[/b]
"Jehovah is an exacting god demanding exclusive devotion". He does not have or allow gray areas when we represent him and in our worship to him.
If sonship is truly doing this, Jehovah's spirit will be working with him and the fruits or results will show. Are they?
Jesus said many will say: "did we not do all these things in your name, etc, etc, and yet Jesus will disown them".
So I am not a judge on sonship's heart and what his motives are, nor am I a judge of anyone's heart here. I wish that all here have good intentions when representing their god, but I try to follow what is told to me in the bible with it's warnings. If one is not doing exactly as the bible says, I have to conclude that he is an apostate and then follow the strong recommendation to avoid them from the bible.
I have failed on this at times and I'm trying to be faithful to those commands.
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75So? For example, sonship ~ is he "for God and his kingdom 100%" and does he "teach what the bible says 100% or not"?
The bible answers that for us. Either one is for God and his kingdom 100% and teaches what the bible says 100% or their not.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie'NOW THE FACTS '
This is not only inaccurate its misleading and entirely dishonest. Its clear that you have not read the commissions published reports and get your information from disreputable sources.
Now the facts
CAS Part 2: Historical Child Sexual Abuse
Available findings on historical child sexual abuse data
[b]F2
Since 1950, the Jehovah’s Witness org ...[text shortened]... orities require that it be reported by elders, the elders report
the matter to the authorities.
They may be facts to someone brainwashed by the watchtower society like you.To anyone else they are only quotes from
'Submissions on behalf of the Watchtower Tower bible and tract society of Australia'
And anyone else would also look at
'Submissions of senior counsel assisting the Royal Commission'
and
'Submissions on behalf of BCG'
1 edit
Originally posted by biffo konkerPublished by the Royal commission and lifted directly from its website. Also one quotation from a Daily telegraph article was cited praising the brothers because they were free from artifice. Get your facts correct duffo plonker.
'NOW THE FACTS '
They may be facts to someone brainwashed by the watchtower society like you.To anyone else they are only quotes from
'Submissions on behalf of the Watchtower Tower bible and tract society of Australia'
And anyone else would also look at
'Submissions of senior counsel assisting the Royal Commission'
and
'Submissions on behalf of BCG'
Originally posted by Proper KnobOn the contrary I have had very little time and that was spent as you can see refuting your ludicrous allegations.
Too little time to read up on the testimony of a victim of sexual abuse from your organisation, yet plenty of time to post in these forums. You have no intention of reading any victims testimony, let's not pretend otherwise.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf child sex crimes took place, and JW leaders knew about them at the time, but they did not inform the authorities, how can these cases possibly be described as anything other than cover ups?
your allegations of a cover up are nonsense and refuted...
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut it is titled 'Submissions on behalf of the Watchtower Tower bible and tract society of Australia'
Published by the Royal commission and lifted directly from its website. Also one quotation from a Daily telegraph article was cited praising the brothers because they were free from artifice. Get your facts correct duffo plonker.
Nothing at all to with facts.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou've refuted nothing you loon, other than I should have put the word 'alleged' in a sentence.
On the contrary I have had very little time and that was spent as you can see refuting your ludicrous allegations.
The facts of the case are that zero matters of child sexual abuse were ever passed onto the secular authorities. Here you are hiding behind a legal 'technicality' to justify this like some snivelling, greasy politician.
3 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobFirst of all they were not the victims of sexual abuse of our organization. This is another value born of nothing but pure ignorance and prejudice. They were victims of sexual abuse by members of their own families or people close to it. From the royal commissions published report.
Too little time to read up on the testimony of a victim of sexual abuse from your organisation, yet plenty of time to post in these forums. You have no intention of reading any victims testimony, let's not pretend otherwise.
The two cases investigated to some extent fell inside the Commission’s Terms of Reference, but they both, to some extent also fell outside those Terms of Reference, as will be elaborated upon in more detail below. A significant point that should be made about these cases is that they could not purport to be representative of all of the issues that require investigation and the way they are now addressed by Jehovah’s Witnesses. First, because of the introduction of mandatory reporting in some Australian states; second, because with the passage of time more has been learned about dealing with such matters, and responses have changed since the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. Third, the cases highlighted the circumstances of only the two individuals concerned.
Child sexual abuse is a matter of concern to any right thinking parent or adult, and to see it only as an “institutional” problem would be to miss an essential truth: that much abuse occurs within families. The reasons why one person within a family might abuse another vary. That is not to say that institutions cannot be helpful in addressing the problem, but it helps to put the response of institutions into context.
Lets read that again, the two cases submitted fall both within and without the commissions terms of reference. The abuse in those cases was not institutional as have been ignorantly asserted but took place within a family.
Will Proper Knob tell the forum why he has once again FAILED to make the distinction between institutional abuse and abuse that has taken place within a family?
To date he has been force
1. to retract his tabliod allegations of 1800 victims of sexual abuse because he knows practically next to nothing about the contents of the files which formed the basis of his now discredited claim.
2. To retract his assertion of a cover up when it was pointed out that these same files demonstrate that 400 cases were reported to the secular authorities making a mockery of his ludicrous claim.
3. And now a failure on his part to be able to discern the difference between institutional abuse and abuse carried out among family members or persons close to that family.
Oh dear taken apart again, piece by piece.
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knob400 cases made it to the secular authorities as the brothers recognize the right of parents to report such matters in accordance with Australian law or did you not read,
You've refuted nothing you loon, other than I should have put the word 'alleged' in a sentence.
The facts of the case are that zero matters of child sexual abuse were ever passed onto the secular authorities. Here you are hiding behind a legal 'technicality' to justify this like some snivelling, greasy politician.
Jehovah’s Witnesses regard child abuse as both an abhorrent sin and a crime. Jehovah’s Witnesses consider it is the right of the victim and/or the victim’s parents to report. The reporting of the crime to the secular authorities by victims or their parents is not discouraged. Elders report such matters to the secular authorities in those States where it is required by law to be reported (mandatory reporting). Regardless of reporting requirements, an elder can report a crime to secular authorities if he believes there is a risk to a child.
The decision to take away that right from a victim or the parents of a child must be left to the legislatures of each State or the Federal Parliament. The consequences of doing so may be thought to be good or adverse. It may reveal more cases of abuse, in which case the question will be whether the governments will provide the resources to ensure that such matters will be investigated and followed through (only 20% of the matters reported in Queensland could be followed up, according to the testimony of Mr Davies) On the other hand, victims and their families may hesitate to seek the assistance of ministers out of fear of the consequences of coming (hence the need for anonymity in some cases of reporting)
Recognition of the right of the adult survivor to make the decision whether to report is important or the adult survivor may feel disempowered and further traumatised.
If a child is unable to report the matter to the secular authorities and the parents are unable or unwilling to do so, then an elder may feel compelled to report the matter to the authorities, particularly if he believes there is a risk to a child. Furthermore, it is apparent from the number of cases where the secular authorities have been involved that reporting to the authorities by Jehovah’s Witnesses takes place.
As was acknowledged in the Commission, there are times when victims may wish to have their matter dealt with confidentially within the faith. To deny them that opportunity may disempower the victims and may lead to further traumatisation.
My goodness look at the brothers considered and reasoned approach and lets contrast it with your one dimensional, bull in a china shop, smash and grab tabloid journalism.
robbie, almost every word of your post above is simply a copy paste from "Submissions on Behalf of Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia"
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2649236-Submissions-on-Behalf-of-Watchtower-Bible-and.html
Why don't you copy paste some texts about the what happened to the victims and what actions JW leaders took over the decades in question?
Originally posted by FMFHummmm, do I hear the constant grumblings of apostasy that refuses to acknowledge God's organization? Anything said against Jehovah's design's either in heaven or on earth will himself one day be standing face to face against the full wrath of Jehovah. Not a good prospect for a weak, frail human to face....
robbie, almost every word of your post above is simply a copy paste from "Submissions on Behalf of Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia"
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2649236-Submissions-on-Behalf-of-Watchtower-Bible-and.html
Why don't you copy paste some texts about the what happened to the victims and what actions JW leaders took over the decades in question?
Are you prepared for that day?