Spirituality
27 Feb 17
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI think you do care if I believe you, (if it was true) otherwise why would you have posted about it. If shared something like that and people thought I was making it up, I would be disappointed in myself for not presenting a credible account.
So are welcome to believe what you want. I don't care whether you think I'm lying. What I told you was the truth, whether you believe it or not.
The difference here between you and I is that if it was my sister who had been abused in a religious group and someone started posting evidence about similar abuse being covered up and not reported in another religious group, the last thing I would do is attack the person posting the stuff! I would be all over it and certainly be challenging present forum members belonging to that religious group.
Your behaviour just doesn't ring true. If I'm wrong then I apologise but I don't think I am.
Originally posted by divegeesterWow, I asked you whether you thought that the leaders of an organisation should be held liable if individual members in the organization do not report abuse and you automatically assume I support covering up abuse? 🙄
I think you do care if I believe you, (if it was true) otherwise why would you have posted about it. If shared something like that and people thought I was making it up, I would be disappointed in myself for not presenting a credible account.
The difference here between you and I is that if it was my sister who had been abused in a religious group an ...[text shortened]...
Your behaviour just doesn't ring true. If I'm wrong then I apologise but I don't think I am.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIf you are backpeddling on what you posted on page 2, why not say so?
Wow, I asked you whether you thought that the leaders of an organisation should be held liable if individual members in the organization do not report abuse and you automatically assume I support covering up abuse? 🙄
I said: Make the case, if you think you have one: the organizers of a church are aware of allegations that some of their members are committing serious sex crimes against children ~ make the case that there is no obligation for them to report such crimes to the authorities.
And your answer was: "So if individuals in a church are aware of allegations and they don't report it you should hold the organizers responsible?"
If you need to clarify, then clarify.
Originally posted by FMFWhy would I backpedal on asking what I believe to be a legitimate question? My question is crystal clear. Which part of it don't you understand?
If you are backpeddling on what you posted on page 2, why not say so?
I said: Make the case, if you think you have one: the organizers of a church are aware of allegations that some of their members are committing serious sex crimes against children ~ make the case that there is no obligation for them to report such crimes to the authorities.
And your answ ...[text shortened]... report it you should hold the organizers responsible?"
If you need to clarify, then clarify.
I already clarified my position when I said, "If they have first hand knowledge or proof they should report it."
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYour "question" was a dodge. Go back and look. I think you were stalling while you figured out what kind of trolling suited you.
Why would I backpedal on asking what I believe to be a legitimate question? My question is crystal clear. Which part of it don't you understand?
Originally posted by FMFYou know as well as I do that my question was to clarify whether the church leaders had first hand knowledge of the abuse or whether it was only hearsay.
Your "question" was a dodge. Go back and look. I think you were stalling while you figured out what kind of trolling suited you.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYour use of the undefined "first hand knowledge" and "proof" was equivocation and dodging. It's the sort of verbiage thrown in there by defenders of corporate cover ups in cases like these. Were you satirizing the kinds of gimmicks that robbie has used here for years? Was that it?
I already clarified my position when I said, "If they have first hand knowledge or proof they should report it."
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkStill with the evasive language. The case I gave you was clear cut. The organizers were aware of the allegations. What does "first hand knowledge" mean? Anything you want it to mean, I suppose. What does " hearsay" mean? Again, anything you want it to mean. You were stalling, I reckon, until you decided to revisit your cult yarn instead of - as it seemed on page 2 - taking up more or less the same sort of prevarication and equivocation that robbie and galveston75 have used here for years.
You know as well as I do that my question was to clarify whether the church leaders had first hand knowledge of the abuse or whether it was only hearsay.
Originally posted by FMFSpin it anyway you want. I know that I do not stand for any sort of cover ups.
Your use of the undefined "first hand knowledge" and "proof" was equivocation and dodging. It's the sort of verbiage thrown in there by defenders of corporate cover ups in cases like these. Were you satirizing the kinds of gimmicks that robbie has used here for years? Was that it?
Originally posted by FMFIf someone told me that Geester told them that Robbie said that FMF abused someone I would be 'aware of allegations'. But this could just be gossip. First hand knowledge would be if the abused person confided in me about the abuse that they personally suffered.
Still with the evasive language. The case I gave you was clear cut. The organizers were aware of the allegations. What does "first hand knowledge" mean? Anything you want it to mean, I suppose. What does " hearsay" mean? Again, anything you want it to mean. You were stalling, I reckon, until you decided to revisit your cult yarn instead of - as it seemed on page ...[text shortened]... ame sort of prevarication and equivocation that robbie and galveston75 have used here for years.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWell you'd stopped your stalling by page 4, and decided to hack up a wee bit more of your "cult" yarn, so your waffle here on page 7 is neither here nor there... ha ha, as if you really needed to rule out some daft 'X told X told X' scenario in order to make a simple statement - on principle - regarding the obligation/liability of an "organization's leadership" as opposed to the obligation/liability of "individuals"! 😕
If someone told me that Geester told them that Robbie said that FMF abused someone I would be 'aware of allegations'. But this could just be gossip. First hand knowledge would be if the abused person confided in me about the abuse that they personally suffered.
27 Feb 17
Originally posted by FMFKeep telling yourself that.
Well you'd stopped your stalling by page 4, and decided to hack up a wee bit more of your "cult" yarn, so your waffle here on page 7 is neither here nor there... ha ha, as if you really needed to rule out some daft 'X told X told X' scenario in order to make a simple statement - on principle - regarding the obligation/liability of an "organization's leadership" as opposed to the obligation/liability of "individuals"! 😕
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
02 Mar 17
Originally posted by roigamDo you like Galatians and you're still a Jehovah's Witness ?
You are correct. The Law proved that we cannot gain life by works because we cannot fulfill the Law.
It needed a perfect man to fulfill it for us,
That man was Jesus.
(Galatians 3:24, 25) So the Law became our guardian leading to Christ, so that we might be declared righteous through faith. 25 But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a guardian.
Don't mind the Divester. I think he must be in a lot of pain.
Excuse me but it sounds as if you are trying to lure in unsuspecting followers of Christ that you are a disciple of Christ.
You appealed to a Proverb about the way of the righteous growing brighter and brighter as the dawning day. I am afraid if one follows along your JW teaching, rather than more and more light, it will get darker and darker.
Would you like to open up a thread on Galatians to examine if it really compares with the training you receive from the Jehovah's Witnesses teacher's instruction lessons?
Galatians says that Jesus Christ was revealed in Paul. Christ Himself got into Paul and was manifested from within Paul.
"But when it pleased God, who set me apart from my mother's womb and called me through His grace,
To reveal His Son in me that I might announce Him as the gospel ... " (Gal. 1:15,16)
Do you believe that this ONE man - Jesus Christ, can be dispensed into millions of people and down through the centuries ?