Child Abuse Among JWs.

Originally posted by FMF
I know you don't respect the poster of the OP but do you think that http://www.religioustolerance.org is some kind of hate blog run by "haters" and "liars", yes or no?

I do not know what motivates them, do you?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have made my statement you may make reference to that.

You haven't made anything approaching an unequivocal statement about galveston75's deeply troubling claims. Was he right to say what he said or wrong? Be clear.

Originally posted by FMF
You haven't made anything approaching an unequivocal statement about galveston75's deeply troubling claims. Was he right to say what he said or wrong? Be clear.

sigh, again,

I myself find nothing objectionable about the statement, if indeed not only that two
witnesses cannot be established, nor even one , with the exception of the victim
then who else is there to go to the local authorities unless the victim themselves
actually tell someone, indeed, you will now explain how anything other than the
victim informing a local authority or the elders or anyone else for that matter will
work in a position where there are no witness but the victim and the perpetrator of
the crime.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I do not know what motivates them, do you?

You have repeatedly claimed that the content of the OP has no validity. I am not talking about the OP poster. I am talking about the OP content. Are you claiming the writers of the web site are "haters" and "liars"?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I myself find nothing objectionable about the statement, if indeed not only that two witnesses cannot be established, nor even one , with the exception of the victim
then who else is there to go to the local authorities unless the victim themselves
actually tell someone, indeed, you will now explain how anything other than the
victim informing a l ...[text shortened]...
work in a position where there are no witness but the victim and the perpetrator of
the crime.

Well, while you may find "nothing objectionable" about the statements made by galveston75, but they would surely make anyone who is not purely interested in defending the organization feel genuinely concerned about how such an approach would end up with the extent of the issue being downplayed and disguised.

Originally posted by FMF
You have repeatedly claimed that the content of the OP has no validity. I am not talking about the OP poster. I am talking about the wrote the OP content. Are you claiming they are "haters" and "liars"?

no i have claimed that the OP has publicly admitted to attempting to utilise an emotive
subject to defame others casting serious doubt on the content of any of his posts, for
clearly he cannot b trusted, Whether that extends to any third parties remains to be
established, although i myself will have serious reservations about the content of their
'findings', for clearly the OP will use those sites which are sympathetic in perpetuating
his self confessed hatred and will more than likely be as biased in the same manner.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
...you will now explain how anything other than the
victim informing a local authority or the elders or anyone else for that matter will
work in a position where there are no witness but the victim and the perpetrator of
the crime.

But your fellow JW said that in order to prevent false accusations that there must be two witnesses and that if another cannot be found then the wisdom of the elders and knowing the facts and situations would lead them to a decision on how to proceed". Was he right or wrong to state that this was the JW policy?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no i have claimed that the OP has publicly admitted to attempting to utilise an emotive
subject to defame others casting serious doubt on the content of any of his posts, for
clearly he cannot b trusted, Whether that extends to any third parties remains to be
established, although i myself will have serious reservations about the content of th ...[text shortened]... tuating
his self confessed hatred and will more than likely be as biased in the same manner.

But this does not address the content of the OP. If you are no longer claiming that the writers of http://www.religioustolerance.org are "haters" and "liars" then why don't you address the content of the OP?

Originally posted by FMF
Well, while you may find "nothing objectionable" about the statements made by galveston75, but they would surely make anyone who is not purely interested in defending the organization feel genuinely concerned about how such an approach would end up with the extent of the issue being downplayed and disguised.

I have given reasons as to why i dont find it objectionable, yet you make no reference
to those, nor to anything else other than the Gmans statement, are you sure your
really interested in ascertaining the reality of the matter, i seriously dont think you are,
otherwise you would make reference to the reasons and/or other sources provided and
if yoyu are not seriously interested in establishing the reality, as you claim, really what
are your motivation, for clearly it cannot be concern for any victims, for the matter
has been thoroughly addressed to bbar with reference to two witnesses and to publicly
available sources, again, which you seem uninterested in making reference to. You
have evaded in fact the very reasons that were proffered, in every instance. Now if
you are really wasting my time, like i think you are, then I am sorry i have better
things to do than remonstrate with you when clearly you are uninterested in
anything but arguing for its own sake.

either make reference to the full scope of available sources or stop wasting my time.

Originally posted by FMF
But this does not address the content of the OP. If you are no longer claiming that the writers of http://www.religioustolerance.org are "haters" and "liars" then why don't you address the content of the OP?

it was not intended to address any content of the op, now for the fourth time? it was
intended to demonstrate the now validated assertion of lying and hatred as a
motivating factor in posting the content in the first instance i have
addressed every statement that i felt was relevant, again, now for the third time.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it was not intended to address any content of the op, now for the fourth time? it was intended to demonstrate the now validated assertion of lying and hatred as a
motivating factor in posting the content in the first instance i have
addressed every statement that i felt was relevant, again, now for the third time.

OK, so now, why don't you address the content of the OP?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have given reasons as to why i dont find it objectionable, yet you make no reference
to those, nor to anything else other than the Gmans statement, are you sure your
really interested in ascertaining the reality of the matter, i seriously dont think you are,
otherwise you would make reference to the reasons and/or other sources provided and ...[text shortened]... and to publicly
available sources, again, which you seem uninterested in making reference to.

If what galveston75 said, and you appear to endorse, is true, then satisfying those requirements that the two of you claim exist - the 2 witnesses and this thing about "the wisdom of the elders and knowing the facts and situations would lead them to a decision on how to proceed" - is clearly a procedure that would underestimate the extent of abuse.

Originally posted by FMF
If what galveston75 said, and you appear to endorse, is true, then satisfying those requirements that the two of you claim exist - the 2 witnesses and this thing about "the wisdom of the elders and knowing the facts and situations would lead them to a decision on how to proceed" - is clearly a procedure that would underestimate the extent of abuse.

what 'seems' and what is reality are two distinct entities, the two witnesses has already
been addressed yet you make no reference to it. It has been duly noted that despite
the plethora of publicly available evidence, referenced on the forum and any reasons
given to the statement that you 'seem', to find objectionable, you are uninterested in
discussing any of them in all sincerity, have a good day FMF I have some serious
business to take care of.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what 'seems' and what is reality are two distinct entities, the two witnesses has already been addressed yet you make no reference to it.

I am trying to make reference to it, robbie. But you are obfuscating. You either endorse what galveston75 claimed or you should state that it was wrong. Was he right to say there must be two witnesses? Yes or no, robbie? Was he right to say that the decision on how to proceed in an abuse case depends on the wisdom of "the elders"? Yes or no, robbie? His version of JW policy quite clearly is a recipe for downplaying the actual extent of abuse, meaning that the sexual abuse that we already know exists may not be the true picture. Do you endorse or distance yourself from galveston75's version?

Originally posted by FMF
I am trying to make reference to it, robbie. But you are obfuscating. You either endorse what galveston75 claimed or you should state that it was wrong. Was he right to say there must be two witnesses? Yes or no, robbie? Was he right to say that the decision on how to proceed in an abuse case depends on the wisdom of "the elders"? Yes or no, robbie? His version ...[text shortened]... may not be the true picture. Do you endorse or distance yourself from galveston75's version?

I can find NO reference where the Gman stated that two witnesses are a prerequisite,

1. But if this person did not repent or satisfy the congregation and it wanting to protect
the individuals in it, then the authorities could be notified buy the victim.

2. The reason the Bible wants 2 witnesses is to prevint false accusations. If another
cannot be found then the wisdom of the elders and knowing the facts and situations
would lead them to a decision on how to proceed.

not one of these statements makes the assertion that there needs to be two
witnesses, Now if could point out where the Gman does state that two witnesses are
a prerequisite, then ill be more than happy to address your 'serious', concerns.

at present i need to go to work.