Jump to content

Jack Ryan

Leo K. Greenlees

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Jack Ryan -
b4ucuhear -
43
8182

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Of course! What in the world is so controversial about that?

In Western law, it is called, “presumed innocent until proven guilty.” In common parlance, it is “refrain from gossiping.”

I sort of miss the times when outright gossip did not form the stuff of headlines

Unless I am missing something, that is because he was not. 13 years is what it looks like from the article.

He is removed when an apparently creditable accusation surfaces. It is shocking, perhaps, that he might do such a thing, but it appears pretty uncontroversial in the way it was handled.

And sometimes you wish that there was more differerentiation in “molestation.” At present, anything from a hand on the inner thigh or rear end to outright rape is described (and sometimes deliberately confused) as “molestation.” None of those actions are great, of course, but there is a substantial difference between them.

It's exactly the attitude TTH displays here -- "Oh, molestation is no big deal!" -- that has gotten JW leaders in deep doo doo, and is the source of the extreme disgust about them shown by so many people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, AlanF said:

"Oh, molestation is no big deal!"

That was not the impression TTH gave me. Nor do I think that's the attitude of JW  leaders. I think it's ignorance of how child sexual molestation really works, and naivete regarding "repentance" is what has caused all the doo doo.to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Anna said:

That was not the impression TTH gave me. Nor do I think that's the attitude of JW  leaders. I think it's ignorance of how child sexual molestation really works, and naivete regarding "repentance" is what has caused all the doo doo.to happen.

Look beneath the surface, Anna.

Your last post was excellent and well describes the attitude shown by TTH and so many elders, including and especially the Governing Body. "We abhor child molestation! But not as much as we abhor public exposure of anything that makes us look bad."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@b4ucuhear  Quote " I agree with you on that, since I know a number of brothers who have been disciplined for child molestation in various congregations.  All of them have been faithful brothers for many years now without incident.  But a potential problem with that type of weakness is the rate of recidivism that can accompany that type of behaviour.  Naturally, there are some very thorny legal issues associated with appointing a person with such a history and whether he would even potentially offend again."

I wonder if those brothers are in the 20 year long DATABASE that the GB are refusing to hand over to the authorities. 

If you KNOW A NUMBER OF BROTHERS WHO HAVE BEEN DISCIPLINED FOR CHILD MOLESTATION,  then shouldn't you go to the Police or authorities with your information as @Anna likes to tell people to do. After all if they 'have been disciplined for it', then they must have done it. 

The plot thickens. And @TrueTomHarley says not many JW's do it. 

Child Sexual Abuse and Homosexuality, and still trying to pretend that the JW Org is clean. 

Remember Jesus saying 'First clean the inside of the dish, then the outside will also be clean'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

The plot thickens.

The reason that you have been likened to Butler is that he had the same wont for overstatement, the same near hysteria on the topic, the same resilience to any mitigating factors, the same shrillness at any comparison of JWs to “the world.”

In his case, he was subjected to horrendous child sexual abuse by the British orphanage system. Yet he never (here) spoke a word against them—he took all of his rage out on Jehovah’s Witnesses that he joined much later, persons having nothing to do with his history.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

It's exactly the attitude TTH displays here -- "Oh, molestation is no big deal!" 

He has said or indicated nothing of the sort. This is completely your emotional take. 

This is yet another example of the Master of Rationality completely throwing that quality out the windows in pursuit of his ends.

The trouble with critical thinking is that those who espouse it the loudest invariably assume that they have a lock on the stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anna said:

That was not the impression TTH gave me. Nor do I think that's the attitude of JW  leaders. I think it's ignorance of how child sexual molestation really works, and naivete regarding "repentance" is what has caused all the doo doo.to happen.

Quote @Anna Nor do I think that's the attitude of JW  leaders.

So what exactly is the attitude of the GB and it's lawyers for not handing over the complete 20 plus years of Database concerning Child Sexual Abuse accusations ?  After all shouldn't they 'obey God as ruler rather than men' and wouldn't God want His name cleared ?  Wouldn't God want justice for the victims? So it would not matter about what laws of men were in place. 

What is the attitude of the Australian Bethel brothers for not apologising to victims ?  The Australian government apologised and people of different religions agreed with the apology, but not the JW Org. 

What was the attitude of the UK Bethel brothers / solicitors when they refused to hand over the information to the Charity Commission ? Even though later they had to hand the info' over.

What did Jesus say ' If you are conscripted to walk one mile, then walk two miles'.

Why can't your GB actually take note of what Jesus was teaching here ? 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Comment :- 

@TrueTomHarley   Quote " The reason that you have been likened to Butler is that he had the same wont for overstatement,... "

Oh come on then, show me my overstatement word for word.  Just as John Butler did I try to write the truth as I know it. Unfortunately he got disfellowshipped for it here. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anna said:

Quote

 

    22 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Come on! We all know (at least, non-trinitarians do) that the Bible's use of "holy spirit" is just a metaphor for God's power, or better, just God. So saying that "holy spirit did this and that" means "God did this and that".
    So are you claiming that God did not know about pedophilia, or that Greenlees was a homosexual pedophile?

I thought I already gave you an answer to that, that of course God knew, and therefor Greenlees couldn't have been appointed by God using holy spirit.

 

Very good! But the Watchtower Society claims that Greenlees, other GB members and all elders are appointed by God, thus contradicting the fact that Greenlees was not. If Greenlees was not, then the rest were not either.

This is simple logic. Why do you refuse to accept it?

Quote

 

    22 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Most Christians claim to follow the directions in the Bible, and you certainly don't accept that God directs them, metaphorically or directly.

Claiming one thing and actually doing it are different. And we have already established God is not deceived.

 

The point is that the mere claim that one is following the directions in the Bible in no way means that one is actually following those directions.

The proof is in the pudding, and the JW organization's 'pudding' proves that it often does not follow the directions. Hence it is not what it claims: God's earthly representative.

Quote

 

    22 hours ago, Anna and AlanF said:

        Since God used holy spirit, his force, to inspire people to write down His directions, when appointing overseers, elders do so according to those directions. Doing so correctly is contingent on the honesty of the one being appointed, and the astuteness of those doing the appointing. If the person actually qualifies, then it can be said they were appointed by holy spirit as per Acts 20:28 "Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God...."
        Read more   

    Once again, by that reasoning the Pope has been appointed by God.
    Read more   

If the Pope qualifies by doing God's will according to the Bible, seen and unseen by human eyes,  then yes.

 

Deliberately missing the point again.

The point is that, despite the Pope's and many other leaders of 'Christendom's' claims to be appointed to their positions by God, and to speak for God, you and all other JWs reject those claims. Why? Because according to your beliefs, despite their claims, they are not doing God's will according to the Bible.

Once again the point here is that old Tom, Dick and Harry can claim to be doing God's will, but that claim in no way means that they are actually doing God's will. Their actions prove or disprove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AlanF said:

Your last post was excellent and well describes the attitude shown by TTH and so many elders, including and especially the Governing Body.

The reason why I said what I did in that post was to highlight that "a little molestation" leads to "big molestation" unless the "little molestation" is stopped. What happened to me was nothing really. It did not traumatize me, and I was on good terms with my uncle. I doubt I would ever think of bringing something like that to the police, and my mum obviously didn't think it warranted it either. And to let you know, my mum was a tigress when it came to protecting me. Then in my reply to you I said:

3 hours ago, Anna said:

I think it's ignorance of how child sexual molestation really works, and naivete regarding "repentance" is what has caused all the doo doo.to happen.

I mentioned that elsewhere too. No one thinks child sexual molestation is ok. And no one thinks "a little molestation" is ok either (that is why I said something, and that is why my mum handled it). If my uncle had been a Witness, and not my uncle, my mum would have gone to the elders and told them what happened.The the perpetrator would have probably made some excuse, or shown remorse,  got a warning and a slap on the wrist. He would probably never dare to do anything like that to me again. The pertinent question is, would he do something like that to someone else? And if he did, would that someone else report it? And if they didn't report it would the "little molestation" lead to "big molestation"? That is the problem. I have no idea if my uncle molested someone else. He was my aunts second husband and had grown children. It probably didn't cross my aunts mind. I don't think it crossed anybodies mind, that other children could be in danger. Its because that's not how these things were generally perceived or understood. I am not making excuses. That's just how it was. In a similar manner, elders in those days were not aware that others could be in danger. They probably thought that a warning was enough to ensure it would not happen again. We now know the likelihood of something like that happening again is high. 

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

"We abhor child molestation! But not as much as we abhor public exposure of anything that makes us look bad."

Yes, unfortunately it does appear that way. But to be fair, I would put both on the same plane. Child molestation is abhorred as much as the accusation of being tolerant of it, or hiding it. Especially  when felt it is not justified (the accusation).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TrueTomHarley said:

Quote

 

    3 hours ago, AlanF said:

    It's exactly the attitude TTH displays here -- "Oh, molestation is no big deal!"

He has said or indicated nothing of the sort. This is completely your emotional take.

 

I think you're so blinded by your Watchtower blinders that you don't see your comments for what they are -- abhorrent to anyone with moral decency. Note this one:

<< And sometimes you wish that there was more differerentiation in “molestation.” At present, anything from a hand on the inner thigh or rear end to outright rape is described (and sometimes deliberately confused) as “molestation.” None of those actions are great, of course, but there is a substantial difference between them. >>

As Anna explained, in principle there is no difference between "a hand on the inner thigh or rear end" and outright rape. All are violations of law, and of New Testament principles for sexual misconduct, and all are forms of molestation -- despite your protests to the contrary. The 'minor' violations, if not checked, inevitably lead to major violations.

Your obvious attempt to minimize some forms of molestation is saying exactly, "Molestation is no big deal!"

That's exactly what JW leaders have always done, and continue to do, and is why they're in such trouble with the Law and molestation victims.

Quote

This is yet another example of the Master of Rationality completely throwing that quality out the windows in pursuit of his ends.

I think you need to go back to square one on what constitutes morality.

Quote

The trouble with critical thinking is that those who espouse it the loudest invariably assume that they have a lock on the stuff.

Coming from someone with a demonstrably defective moral sense and little critical thinking ability, that's rich!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Forum Statistics

    62,096
    Total Topics
    116,896
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,535
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    Benjamin G
    Newest Member
    Benjamin G
    Joined




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.