|
Post by rational on May 9, 2019 14:51:52 GMT -5
Are you sure it was a 'little child' or an adult that had just converted? It says “little child” It says little child when jesus was talking about the children but it then changes and says 'little ones' when he is no longer talking about children but is warning about causing new converts (the little ones) to stumble.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 9, 2019 15:08:19 GMT -5
We have seen that theists do, selecting the form of the text based on which will support their current argument/claim. But people experienced in these things seem to agree that the little ones are not the children that would make your claim that god cares about and protects children. Gill's ExpositionAnd whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me,.... Whosoever shall do the, least injury to the meanest person that believes in Christ, who are mean both in their own eyes, and the eyes of others; for Christ is not speaking of little children in age, who are neither capable of believing in Christ, nor are they ready to take offence; but of such as belong to him; his disciples and followers, of whom he is speaking in the preceding verse: it is better for him that a mill stone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea; and drowned there: the allusion is to the drowning of malefactors, by tying a stone, or any heavy thing about their necks, and casting them into the sea. And then there is Zechariah 13:7 There the “little ones” refers to God’s people. Wally, might as well give up. It’s going no where. Rat can’t help himself but he fails to have the Holy Spirit’s guidance! I thought the discussion was about the text in the bible and what the words meant rather than the text in he bible modified by an invisible friend. It does raise the question of whether a divine being would kill someone who causes another to physically stumble.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 9, 2019 17:14:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 9, 2019 17:40:07 GMT -5
Are you sure it was a 'little child' or an adult that had just converted? It says “little child” Yes and he refers to little children when he is referring to those just converted. It could mean a newly converted if he uses those terms. You could be right and it is an actual child, not an euphemism for newly converted.
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 9, 2019 17:43:46 GMT -5
That's pretty much what the workers are advocating too isn't it. That the parents go to the workers first. Or am I behind the times and they are actually telling parents to go directly the the authorities and then the workers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2019 17:52:20 GMT -5
That's pretty much what the workers are advocating too isn't it. That the parents go to the workers first. Or am I behind the times and they are actually telling parents to go directly the the authorities and then the workers. I guess that depends on their policy [ if there is one]. Considering the seriousness of all this, it would be great to learn all friends and workers were au fait with a tangible policy indicating procedure and legalities. Or is it too much to expect ....and history will repeat itself. If there is a policy, would be appreciated to have it posted here.
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 9, 2019 17:55:49 GMT -5
That's pretty much what the workers are advocating too isn't it. That the parents go to the workers first. Or am I behind the times and they are actually telling parents to go directly the the authorities and then the workers. I guess that depends on their policy [ if there is one]. Considering the seriousness of all this, it would be great to learn all friends and workers were au fait with a tangible policy indicating procedure and legalities. Or is it too much to expect ....and history will repeat itself. Nathan posted guidelines somewhere. I don't remember which thread. I thought it was a good start anyway. I'll have to look and see if I can find it. Okay editing to post what Nathan posted in another post in this thread. I'm not sure if it's in place, or only suggestions. Nathan posted: EMERGENCY MEASURES WITH POSSIBLE PERMANENT IMPLEMENTATION.1) Workers must not except in unavoidable circumstances reside in the homes where there are unrelated children or other recognized vulnerable persons staying. Any occasion where it is necessary to stay in homes where such persons reside MUST be reported to and sanctioned by the overseer. 2) Workers who are alone must not stay in the homes where there are single people of the opposite sex. 3) Workers must not frequent or stay overnight in the homes of the Friends whilst the husband or wife of a friend may be absent. A degree of license can be exercised for short visits during the day time etc., where this can be justified. 4) Workers must not be left alone for lengthy periods of time with children. There must be a minimum of two workers present, or at least one other adult. A lengthy period may be defined from the circumstances and in which it can be perceived a risk exists. 5) Workers must as far as possible be provided with separate bedrooms. Where this is not possible and a room is shared, then they must be provided with separate beds. The practice of bed sharing must be allowed except in very extreme cases. 6) Workers must report to the overseer any suspicions of inappropriate behavior by any fellow worker, companion or friend. If any matter of a criminal nature is suspected then steps must be taken to ensure the matter is being reported by someone appropriate to the relevant authorities. THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION 7) Workers should maintain a daily diary in which they record the homes and other places they stay along with any companions. Also, any problems of note encountered must be recorded in the diary. 8) In cases of suspected criminal matters of inappropriate behavior, a relevant entry stating who was contacted and when, must be entered in the diary. 9) Friends MUST be encouraged to report to the overseer any inappropriate behavior shown by a worker. They must also be encouraged if any matters of a criminal nature come to light, they must report the matter to the police or other competent authority. 10) All diaries MUST be handed over to the overseer at a convenient time in the workers’ calendar, e.g. convention time, or when a person leaves the work, or goes abroad, etc. It will be the responsibility of the overseer to issue diaries to the workers in his field. 11) The overseer MUST make provision for retaining these diaries (which can be electronic or conventional) for a period of not less than ten years. The diaries will be invaluable, at least for this period of time, as sources of reference and most particularly in assisting with any future investigations into improper conduct. 12) Overseers MUST make random contact to a number of the members of the laity in his field to ensure everything is okay from a friends’ perspective, during the mission term and/or once the previous year’s diaries have been submitted. Friends must be put at their ease and given the confidence to report any untoward matters. The workers have brought the real world into the homes of the friends through the abusive behaviors of a few. They have devastated the trust placed/misplaced in them by the victims and their families as well as fellow workers. It is now time for the workers to join the real world and implement the foregoing or similar controls in order that the “worldly” tendencies within their ranks are strictly controlled. In preparing the foregoing every attempt has been made as far as is reasonable to preserve the operation of the current worker environment against the primary considerations of protecting children and other vulnerable persons. As this includes workers themselves it is believed that many workers would welcome many of these suggestions even for their own personal comfort and protection. These suggestions are not meant to replace any education programs or reporting procedures, but are to be viewed as a foundation upon which these matters should be founded. Author unknown 2) Someone wrote: This is addressed in the worker guidelines actually as far as acceptable behavior so. (It could fall under your idea of educating everyone about abuse issues) sites.google.com/site/csacodeofc....priate-touching Examples of INAPPROPRIATE contact/behavior, includes but is not limited to the following: • Kisses on the mouth • Inappropriate or lengthy hugs or embraces • Holding minors, above the approximate age of 5, on one's lap • Touching buttocks, genital areas, breasts, knees, thighs or legs • Showing physical displays of affection in isolated areas of the premises such as bedrooms, closets, bathrooms, or other private areas of a home • Sharing a room or bed with a minor or youth. • Going for a walk alone with a minor or youth. • Spending time in a minor or youth s bedroom • Informal wrestling with minors or youths except for legitimate sports coaching, in which case another adult would be present. • Tickling and piggyback rides • Any type of non-professional massage given by an adult to a minor or youth. • Any display of unwanted affection towards a minor or youth. • Remarks that include compliments relating to sexual attractiveness or sexual development • Lifting a child off the ground without parental consent. Some feel that the appropriate age would actually be 2 for workers to be holding kids on their laps. There is also a list for APPROPRIATE touching/interaction with kids. There is a lot of good information in those guidelines for both the workers and families. It would be nice for everyone to know what should be expected when workers are around families, as it protects the workers AND the kids. When people understand established boundaries, it makes interaction a lot easier. Parents would know that they shouldn't place workers into certain situations, and the workers would know that they have some rules which both they and the families they are around need to follow. The following also needs to be added to this list (evidently): 1) no molesting kids 2) no molesting adults 3) whistle-blowers are to be encouraged with NO punishment attached to honestly bringing forth concerns. 4) do not shun whistle blowers 5) do not remove from the work any worker that is a whistle blower
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2019 18:00:43 GMT -5
I guess that depends on their policy [ if there is one]. Considering the seriousness of all this, it would be great to learn all friends and workers were au fait with a tangible policy indicating procedure and legalities. Or is it too much to expect ....and history will repeat itself. Nathan posted guidelines somewhere. I don't remember which thread. I thought it was a good start anyway. I'll have to look and see if I can find it. I think we need 2019 policy put out for Australia/ New Zealand friends and workers. I could be wrong but often I get the impression, the church varies in different parts of the world. When 2 overseers in a big country are at loggerheads ( as was in the USA past) it doesn’t instill much confidence for a worldwide policy on CSA.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on May 9, 2019 18:16:55 GMT -5
Yes and he refers to little children when he is referring to those just converted. It could mean a newly converted if he uses those terms. You could be right and it is an actual child, not an euphemism for newly converted. I think what I’m trying to get across is that it means both! Revelations describes Jesus as having a doubled-edged sword out of his mouth. I believe that was so in many instances in his teachings. Addressing more then one issue/situation at a time. Often using the natural to explain the spiritual. Etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2019 18:18:53 GMT -5
Just saw this on WINGS BUT can’t fnd the policy.
MAY 6, 2019 BY WINGSFORTRUTH2 New Code of Conduct for Workers and Child Safe Policy in South Australia and Northern Territory WINGS applauds the South Australian workers for their recently completed Child Safety programme. WINGS has been advised that Police checks have been completed for all in the SA/NT ministry and all these workers have completed ministry safe training. A SA NT Workers Code of Conduct and a SA NT Child Safe Policy have been shared through all elders in elders meetings and then shared with all who attend the meetings. It appears that this has been well received by all the fellowship members. A clear zero tolerance message has been given by Wayne Dean and Graeme Dalton.
then I read...... ( is this another code, an older one?)
** “It was not known if this Code has been approved or adopted by any overseer, when WINGS published the Code. We understand that guidelines have been issued in South Australia / Northern Territory and by Dale Schulz and Alan Richardson in their fields. In the absence of any statement from other overseers, this Code exists as a guide to good practice for all friends and workers.”
so..,was this ‘code of conduct’ in place in Australia up to recently?? I don’t profess to be an expert on scrutinising such data but for those who are, I wonder if this code of conduct was not respected by even the australian overseer??
Is it too wordy and doesn’t ‘cut to the chase’.
Sexual abuse, of any degree with an underage child (or unwilling adult) - reported to police- the law is executed.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on May 9, 2019 18:19:12 GMT -5
That's pretty much what the workers are advocating too isn't it. That the parents go to the workers first. Or am I behind the times and they are actually telling parents to go directly the the authorities and then the workers. I guess that depends on their policy [ if there is one]. Considering the seriousness of all this, it would be great to learn all friends and workers were au fait with a tangible policy indicating procedure and legalities. Or is it too much to expect ....and history will repeat itself. If if there is a policy, would be appreciated to have it posted here. Aren’t there such recommendations on the CSA website? And have been for some years.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on May 9, 2019 18:19:59 GMT -5
Awww, you posted it as I did mine! Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 9, 2019 20:11:26 GMT -5
If there is a policy, would be appreciated to have it posted here. There is/was a policy prepared for the workers in California in 2006. I have no idea if it has ever been "used", or even if it is still the official policy. I do critique this policy, quite negatively, in my book for primarily the same reasons that the Pope has been criticized for his policy. The policy: My critique will follow.
|
|
|
Post by magpie1 on May 9, 2019 20:20:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 9, 2019 20:24:42 GMT -5
My critique of the above rules:
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 9, 2019 20:28:52 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2019 0:58:04 GMT -5
My critique of the above rules: Thanks Bob for your posts. I need time to digest it. I am a bit confused with the existing documentation that appears to be out there at present. I think we can accept these disgusting individuals who molest are in ‘all organisations’ so don’t understand the need to ignore, hide, playdown, beat around the bush etc in the church of the professing. Put it in the hands of those who are qualified to deal with it. And that is not workers. The dear children.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 10, 2019 5:08:43 GMT -5
Sexual abuse, of any degree with an underage child (or unwilling adult) - reported to police- the law is executed. I would change that slightly: Sexual activities of any degree with an underage child (willing or unwilling) or an unwilling adult should be reported to the police.Many people don't understand that a child's consent is not a defence under the law.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 10, 2019 12:43:04 GMT -5
Sexual abuse, of any degree with an underage child (or unwilling adult) - reported to police- the law is executed. I would change that slightly: Sexual activities of any degree with an underage child (willing or unwilling) or an unwilling adult should be reported to the police.Many people don't understand that a child's consent is not a defence under the law. Normally the law does not allow that a minor may consent -- in other words, a minor's consent is an illegal defense. Actually means the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 10, 2019 12:46:44 GMT -5
My critique of the above rules: Thanks Bob for your posts. I need time to digest it. I am a bit confused with the existing documentation that appears to be out there at present. I think we can accept these disgusting individuals who molest are in ‘all organisations’ so don’t understand the need to ignore, hide, playdown, beat around the bush etc in the church of the professing. Put it in the hands of those who are qualified to deal with it. And that is not workers. The dear children. This is what happens when any organization tries to play investigator, prosecutor, judge, and jury. Importantly, the workers have no legal authority to do anything more to a predator than to kick him out of the Truth.
|
|
|
Post by magpie1 on May 10, 2019 18:10:27 GMT -5
Alan Kitto,told TV's 60 minutes that they were putting together a code of conduct??? What about the one the 2x2s fut together a few years ago?? Didn't work?? All laws and codes of conduct do not heal a mental disorder of Paedophelia-may deter,but there is no cure?? Allow God's He the Holy Spirit to take control- then that is a deterant?? But the 2x2 sect deny the deity of the Holy Spirit,so that won't work either.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 10, 2019 18:54:52 GMT -5
Alan Kitto,told TV's 60 minutes that they were putting together a code of conduct??? What about the one the 2x2s fut together a few years ago?? Didn't work?? All laws and codes of conduct do not heal a mental disorder of Paedophelia-may deter,but there is no cure?? Allow God's He the Holy Spirit to take control- then that is a deterant?? But the 2x2 sect deny the deity of the Holy Spirit,so that won't work either. God can't be expected to do anything about the innate needs of human nature. Check out all the obese people who waddle into church every Sunday.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2019 19:06:54 GMT -5
Alan Kitto,told TV's 60 minutes that they were putting together a code of conduct??? What about the one the 2x2s fut together a few years ago?? Didn't work?? All laws and codes of conduct do not heal a mental disorder of Paedophelia-may deter,but there is no cure?? Allow God's He the Holy Spirit to take control- then that is a deterant?? But the 2x2 sect deny the deity of the Holy Spirit,so that won't work either. CSA is nothing to do with God or a Holy Spirit...having or not having. I think most professing folk know right from wrong regarding this...they do have common sense. Most ( yes there are exceptions) portray a good spirit whatever it’s source.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 10, 2019 22:16:08 GMT -5
Alan Kitto,told TV's 60 minutes that they were putting together a code of conduct??? What about the one the 2x2s fut together a few years ago?? Didn't work?? All laws and codes of conduct do not heal a mental disorder of Paedophelia-may deter,but there is no cure?? Allow God's He the Holy Spirit to take control- then that is a deterant?? But the 2x2 sect deny the deity of the Holy Spirit,so that won't work either. Has anyone convicted or accused of CSA been diagnosed with pedophilia?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 10, 2019 22:47:16 GMT -5
Alan Kitto,told TV's 60 minutes that they were putting together a code of conduct??? What about the one the 2x2s fut together a few years ago?? Didn't work?? All laws and codes of conduct do not heal a mental disorder of Paedophelia-may deter,but there is no cure?? Allow God's He the Holy Spirit to take control- then that is a deterant?? But the 2x2 sect deny the deity of the Holy Spirit,so that won't work either. Has anyone convicted or accused of CSA been diagnosed with pedophilia? To my knowledge, no. Ironically, pedophilia is virtually impossible to diagnose because an actual "professional" diagnosis would require that the pedophile submit to a psychological evaluation, and they're such a despised group that they won't dare put themselves in that position. By the time it progresses to CSA, whether the person is a pedophile is not the point -- it's the illegal act that becomes the "res". Not a "professional opinion", of course, but certainly a justifiable conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 10, 2019 22:55:41 GMT -5
PS: I read a book once that was written by a convicted pedophile. It was quite interesting, because he had been seen by a psychologist and had accepted the categorization of pedophile. His discussion of what it is like to be a pedophile and not be able to ask for "help" is really not possible. You can't lock people up for life if they've not committed a crime, and they don't have the option of ever legitimizing their sexuality -- somewhat akin to being born into slavery.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 11, 2019 7:19:34 GMT -5
Has anyone convicted or accused of CSA been diagnosed with pedophilia? To my knowledge, no. Ironically, pedophilia is virtually impossible to diagnose because an actual "professional" diagnosis would require that the pedophile submit to a psychological evaluation, and they're such a despised group that they won't dare put themselves in that position. By the time it progresses to CSA, whether the person is a pedophile is not the point -- it's the illegal act that becomes the "res". Not a "professional opinion", of course, but certainly a justifiable conclusion. ??? There could be court ordered evaluations of convicted/accused sexual child abusers. One potential problem of classifying every sexual abuser as a pedophile is that the defense is that it is an incurable disease and the courts look at it differently than hebephilia, ephebophilia, or even pedohebephilia. Almost all cases of sexual child abuse are difficult to be discovered in advance unless the abuser has the self awareness to know their weakness and submit themselves for treatment. It is good to remember that pedophilia is a mental illness and it only becomes a crime when acted upon. Pedophilia is a medical condition, much like alcoholism, rather than a moral failing. Nobody chooses to be a pedophile nor an alcoholic. From a Bio Ethics site: In short: pedophilia and child sexual assault are two different things, and conflating them is not a good idea. This is not just a matter of semantics. For one thing, confusing psychiatric disorders (requiring treatment) and sex crimes (which may or may not follow from such disorders) is likely to hamper clear moral reasoning. But more importantly, it may actually increase harm to children.
Consider the following: many people with pedophilia (1) hate their desires, (2) do not act on them for moral reasons (and should therefore plausibly be praised rather than vilified), and yet (3) often do not seek treatment precisely because they are aware that people in general cannot seem to tell the difference between:
(a) feeling involuntarily sexually attracted to young children (not wrong in and of itself), and
(b) molesting or sexually assaulting children (very wrong in and of itself, no matter the reason).
And here’s the kicker: failing to seek treatment for (a) is precisely the sort of thing that makes (b) more likely to happen. So, please, whatever your politics — stop saying Roy Moore has been “accused of pedophilia” (he has not). Say instead: “he has been accused of sexually assaulting a minor.”
The latter, not the former, is a sex crime and a serious moral wrong. If the goal is to protect children from harm, as it should be, then we should stop stigmatizing pedophilia per se and start stigmatizing (or keep stigmatizing) those who actually sexually abuse children for whatever reason, whether they happen to be pedophiles or not.
In other words, non-offending pedophiles should not be stigmatized so long as they do not offend, nor mistaken for sexual abusers. Instead, they should be encouraged to seek treatment for their disorder before they cause harm to children — which will only happen if we can keep clear about the difference between (a) and (b).
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 11, 2019 16:26:23 GMT -5
To my knowledge, no. Ironically, pedophilia is virtually impossible to diagnose because an actual "professional" diagnosis would require that the pedophile submit to a psychological evaluation, and they're such a despised group that they won't dare put themselves in that position. By the time it progresses to CSA, whether the person is a pedophile is not the point -- it's the illegal act that becomes the "res". Not a "professional opinion", of course, but certainly a justifiable conclusion. There could be court ordered evaluations of convicted/accused sexual child abusers. One potential problem of classifying every sexual abuser as a pedophile is that the defense is that it is an incurable disease and the courts look at it differently than hebephilia, ephebophilia, or even pedohebephilia. Almost all cases of sexual child abuse are difficult to be discovered in advance unless the abuser has the self awareness to know their weakness and submit themselves for treatment. It is good to remember that pedophilia is a mental illness and it only becomes a crime when acted upon. Pedophilia is a medical condition, much like alcoholism, rather than a moral failing. Nobody chooses to be a pedophile nor an alcoholic. From a Bio Ethics site: In short: pedophilia and child sexual assault are two different things, and conflating them is not a good idea. This is not just a matter of semantics. For one thing, confusing psychiatric disorders (requiring treatment) and sex crimes (which may or may not follow from such disorders) is likely to hamper clear moral reasoning. But more importantly, it may actually increase harm to children.
Consider the following: many people with pedophilia (1) hate their desires, (2) do not act on them for moral reasons (and should therefore plausibly be praised rather than vilified), and yet (3) often do not seek treatment precisely because they are aware that people in general cannot seem to tell the difference between:
(a) feeling involuntarily sexually attracted to young children (not wrong in and of itself), and
(b) molesting or sexually assaulting children (very wrong in and of itself, no matter the reason).
And here’s the kicker: failing to seek treatment for (a) is precisely the sort of thing that makes (b) more likely to happen. So, please, whatever your politics — stop saying Roy Moore has been “accused of pedophilia” (he has not). Say instead: “he has been accused of sexually assaulting a minor.”
The latter, not the former, is a sex crime and a serious moral wrong. If the goal is to protect children from harm, as it should be, then we should stop stigmatizing pedophilia per se and start stigmatizing (or keep stigmatizing) those who actually sexually abuse children for whatever reason, whether they happen to be pedophiles or not.
In other words, non-offending pedophiles should not be stigmatized so long as they do not offend, nor mistaken for sexual abusers. Instead, they should be encouraged to seek treatment for their disorder before they cause harm to children — which will only happen if we can keep clear about the difference between (a) and (b).
Exactly.
|
|