plp
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by plp on Aug 3, 2020 10:41:31 GMT -5
All the commands to love. Introducing safeguards does not contradict forgiveness.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Aug 3, 2020 14:04:21 GMT -5
They should be excommunicating the perpetrators. None of this asking for forgiveness rubbish. And the big question, how is the legal representation being bankrolled. If the perpetrator is repentant, excommunication is not a requirement. Putting sound safeguards in place is. Re bankrolling, a post higher up indicated that a family member was paying for legal representation. Sounds fair enough to me. Does repentance come before a guilty plea at court or after a guilty verdict at court?
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Aug 3, 2020 14:04:58 GMT -5
All the commands to love. Introducing safeguards does not contradict forgiveness. There is only one qualified to forgive and that is the victim.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 3, 2020 14:58:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 3, 2020 14:59:06 GMT -5
As Bob explained how can anybody confirm that a person is truly repentant. It may be only words that mean nothing. Sure it was posted that a relative is bankrolling the legal costs. Also mentioned was that person was once a Worker. It seems hypocrisy to me that a Worker can so called be destitute, leave the Work and fairly soon become financial. I have seen a number of cases of this happening. Do they get a bit of a leg up???. Good question, don't expect we will get an answer anytime soon. Absolutely. That's why it's important not to be shy about putting safeguards in. Excommunications take place on those rare occasions when there is clearly no repentance to sin. Re bankrolling legal costs: if a relative or friend wishes to pay that is their prerogative. It's their business alone. There is no problem when people leave the work, that others step in to help get them started whether by gift or loan. I'm sure some come out of the work and really struggle with little help coming their way, while others will have a number of people providing ready and substantial help. There will be no equality on this and never will be. The givers and receivers make their own choices on this. In the meantime, the rest of us are unlikely to get a full accurate picture of what is really going on in any particular case, unless we are close to the recipient. Ironically, there have been occasions where an offending worker has been simply moved from jurisdiction to jurisdiction FOR DECADES regardless of his propensity to reoffend -- and when he was put out of the work, he was assigned to go to meeting in the home of a family with young children. The fact remains, there need to be safeguards against such recklessness by workers as well as the perpetrators. If the friends don't cooperate with the law and report these offenders, then they are themselves offenders for not protecting their children.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 3, 2020 15:01:06 GMT -5
If the perpetrator is repentant, excommunication is not a requirement. Putting sound safeguards in place is. Re bankrolling, a post higher up indicated that a family member was paying for legal representation. Sounds fair enough to me. Does repentance come before a guilty plea at court or after a guilty verdict at court? That's kind of a moot point. The law was not made to grant forgiveness but to protect further victims.
|
|
|
Post by openingact34 on Aug 3, 2020 16:19:01 GMT -5
Absolutely. That's why it's important not to be shy about putting safeguards in. Excommunications take place on those rare occasions when there is clearly no repentance to sin. Re bankrolling legal costs: if a relative or friend wishes to pay that is their prerogative. It's their business alone. There is no problem when people leave the work, that others step in to help get them started whether by gift or loan. I'm sure some come out of the work and really struggle with little help coming their way, while others will have a number of people providing ready and substantial help. There will be no equality on this and never will be. The givers and receivers make their own choices on this. In the meantime, the rest of us are unlikely to get a full accurate picture of what is really going on in any particular case, unless we are close to the recipient. Ironically, there have been occasions where an offending worker has been simply moved from jurisdiction to jurisdiction FOR DECADES regardless of his propensity to reoffend -- and when he was put out of the work, he was assigned to go to meeting in the home of a family with young children. The fact remains, there need to be safeguards against such recklessness by workers as well as the perpetrators. If the friends don't cooperate with the law and report these offenders, then they are themselves offenders for not protecting their children. Do you think this was done casually and carelessly? I saw the workers spend countless hours deep in prayer. What was God telling them about these situations? Would overseer after overseer all coincidentally choose to defy the guidance of God? Clearly that is statistically improbable. Or were they following divine instructions? If God didn't lead them to report the offenders and protect children, is not God also an offender?
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Aug 3, 2020 16:25:34 GMT -5
Does repentance come before a guilty plea at court or after a guilty verdict at court? That's kind of a moot point. The law was not made to grant forgiveness but to protect further victims. I realize that Bob. What I am pointing out is criminals suddenly find a belief in god when they are staring down the barrel of a stiff sentence. The repentance thing is a sham and only skin deep
|
|
|
Post by lemonade on Aug 3, 2020 17:36:51 GMT -5
Most of you seem to think it is ok for a peodophile to be allowed to go to meetings where there are no children. None seem to think they should be kicked out altogether. How do you feel about people with tv in their home being stopped from going to the meetings. Also people who are divorced, remarried, married an outsider or women who wear men's clothing, have short hair or wear make up and jewellery? All these people get kicked out very quickly and everyone thinks the workers have made the right decision. Can't lower the standard, right? But there is a different set of rules for peodophiles?
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Aug 3, 2020 18:06:37 GMT -5
Most of you seem to think it is ok for a peodophile to be allowed to go to meetings where there are no children. None seem to think they should be kicked out altogether. How do you feel about people with tv in their home being stopped from going to the meetings. Also people who are divorced, remarried, married an outsider or women who wear men's clothing, have short hair or wear make up and jewellery? All these people get kicked out very quickly and everyone thinks the workers have made the right decision. Can't lower the standard, right? But there is a different set of rules for peodophiles? There are many instances of workers rules making no sense at all. It seems a prerequisite for the job is a level of irrationality.
|
|
|
Post by openingact34 on Aug 3, 2020 19:17:24 GMT -5
Most of you seem to think it is ok for a peodophile to be allowed to go to meetings where there are no children. None seem to think they should be kicked out altogether. How do you feel about people with tv in their home being stopped from going to the meetings. Also people who are divorced, remarried, married an outsider or women who wear men's clothing, have short hair or wear make up and jewellery? All these people get kicked out very quickly and everyone thinks the workers have made the right decision. Can't lower the standard, right? But there is a different set of rules for peodophiles? Maybe a Bible study could help you figure out what is important to God! Go find all the verses where God denounces or stops child rapists. Then juxtapose that with all the verses which are concerned with: -Clothing -Hair -Divorce -Friendship with unbelievers
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2020 19:31:41 GMT -5
I wonder how many cases are covered up to protect The spouses and children of abusers. I can kind of understand this but of course, it lets the abuser off the hook. Between a wall and a hard place really.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2020 19:37:00 GMT -5
Most of you seem to think it is ok for a peodophile to be allowed to go to meetings where there are no children. None seem to think they should be kicked out altogether. How do you feel about people with tv in their home being stopped from going to the meetings. Also people who are divorced, remarried, married an outsider or women who wear men's clothing, have short hair or wear make up and jewellery? All these people get kicked out very quickly and everyone thinks the workers have made the right decision. Can't lower the standard, right? But there is a different set of rules for peodophiles? I agree with you Lemonade, the Workers make silly rules that interfere in people's daily lives, but when it comes to making important decisions like kicking out Peodophiles, they turn a blind eye. Perps should be kicked out for life never allowed to attend another meeting. If they are destined for Hell so be it.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Aug 3, 2020 19:40:47 GMT -5
Most of you seem to think it is ok for a peodophile to be allowed to go to meetings where there are no children. None seem to think they should be kicked out altogether. How do you feel about people with tv in their home being stopped from going to the meetings. Also people who are divorced, remarried, married an outsider or women who wear men's clothing, have short hair or wear make up and jewellery? All these people get kicked out very quickly and everyone thinks the workers have made the right decision. Can't lower the standard, right? But there is a different set of rules for peodophiles? Generally there is only one of the above offences committed by workers. The rest are committed by the great unwashed. They have never had the balls to deal in a timely manner when one of their own commits a crime.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2020 19:43:25 GMT -5
Most of you seem to think it is ok for a peodophile to be allowed to go to meetings where there are no children. None seem to think they should be kicked out altogether. How do you feel about people with tv in their home being stopped from going to the meetings. Also people who are divorced, remarried, married an outsider or women who wear men's clothing, have short hair or wear make up and jewellery? All these people get kicked out very quickly and everyone thinks the workers have made the right decision. Can't lower the standard, right? But there is a different set of rules for peodophiles? I agree with you Lemonade, the Workers made silly rules that interfered in people's daily lives, but when it comes to making important decisions like kicking out Peodophiles, they turn a blind eye. Perps should be kicked out for life never allowed to attend another meeting. If they are destined for Hell so be it. It appears blatantly obvious, some workers can’t make decisions re booting people that need it but as Lemonade infers ..wanting to protect the standard by looking down on & quoting old middle eastern scripture in regards to jewellery, hair, and superficial stuff! Leaves one wondering what ‘standards’ mean.
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Aug 3, 2020 20:25:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Aug 3, 2020 20:27:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nswelshman on Aug 3, 2020 21:09:01 GMT -5
This is the link to last nights 60 minutes, probably not able to be accessed outside Australia. Thought some Australian Workers might have time to take a look on their Laptops. It is the last story of 3. about 50 minutes into the episode. Plenty of adds, be patient. www.9now.com.au/60-minutes/2020/episode-26 I'm not seeing 3 stories. EDIT: I suck. got it
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 3, 2020 23:23:08 GMT -5
Ironically, there have been occasions where an offending worker has been simply moved from jurisdiction to jurisdiction FOR DECADES regardless of his propensity to reoffend -- and when he was put out of the work, he was assigned to go to meeting in the home of a family with young children. The fact remains, there need to be safeguards against such recklessness by workers as well as the perpetrators. If the friends don't cooperate with the law and report these offenders, then they are themselves offenders for not protecting their children. Do you think this was done casually and carelessly? No, nothing the workers decide is casual, I don't believe. What do you mean by "careless". If you're thinking of caring for the perpetrator, they were not careless at all. If they were caring for the victims and their families - they were OUTRAGEOUSLY careless. Were they caring about the ministry? No, they were only caring for their reputations. I wouldn't calculate a guess. All anyone has to go by is what they did about what God said. Statically improbable -- I think it would be as statistically probable as the overseers policies on televisions. Whether God told them to cover it up or not, we DO KNOW what gets them to stop the practice. Non-clergy reported them to the police. If God CAN lead them, and NEGLECTS to lead them -- that, of course, would suggest God is responsible. Is God faithful to His chosen?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 3, 2020 23:26:13 GMT -5
That's kind of a moot point. The law was not made to grant forgiveness but to protect further victims. I realize that Bob. What I am pointing out is criminals suddenly find a belief in god when they are staring down the barrel of a stiff sentence. The repentance thing is a sham and only skin deep I call that "learning the lesson the hard way."
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Aug 4, 2020 3:41:39 GMT -5
I realize that Bob. What I am pointing out is criminals suddenly find a belief in god when they are staring down the barrel of a stiff sentence. The repentance thing is a sham and only skin deep I call that "learning the lesson the hard way." Yep, and then the main thing they have to remember for the next few years is not to drop the soap in the shower.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2020 4:43:57 GMT -5
Wheres the soap.
|
|
|
Post by Pragmatic on Aug 4, 2020 5:04:47 GMT -5
Yes it does
|
|
plp
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by plp on Aug 4, 2020 5:56:36 GMT -5
All the commands to love. Introducing safeguards does not contradict forgiveness. There is only one qualified to forgive and that is the victim. The victims will reach the point of forgiveness in their own time, if they ever do. People should be very understanding of this. This has no bearing however on whether the perpetrator remains a member of the church. It may have a bearing on where the perpetrator attends church.
|
|
plp
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by plp on Aug 4, 2020 6:11:36 GMT -5
Ironically, there have been occasions where an offending worker has been simply moved from jurisdiction to jurisdiction FOR DECADES regardless of his propensity to reoffend -- and when he was put out of the work, he was assigned to go to meeting in the home of a family with young children. The fact remains, there need to be safeguards against such recklessness by workers as well as the perpetrators. If the friends don't cooperate with the law and report these offenders, then they are themselves offenders for not protecting their children. Should never have happened. Totally wrong decision. What would make it even more worse is if the family with young children were not made aware of the man's past (I've known a case where that happened) Everyone (friends and workers) must never shirk their responsibilities on this. I personally am satisfied that there is a much much higher understanding around these things now than years ago. Things have reached a head on this , albeit it has taken far too long to do so. For instance I personally don't think there will be much moving of pedophiles from jurisdiction to jurisdiction nowadays. Nor cases going on for decades without action. Even if some would shirk their responsibilities I believe there are others who will not now let that happen and will give attention to it tout de suite.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Aug 4, 2020 6:11:36 GMT -5
Tracie seems a bit confused. Her actions are God but her image of God which is basically a white dude on a throne in the clouds is not what God is.
|
|
plp
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by plp on Aug 4, 2020 6:26:45 GMT -5
Most of you seem to think it is ok for a peodophile to be allowed to go to meetings where there are no children. None seem to think they should be kicked out altogether. How do you feel about people with tv in their home being stopped from going to the meetings. Also people who are divorced, remarried, married an outsider or women who wear men's clothing, have short hair or wear make up and jewellery? All these people get kicked out very quickly and everyone thinks the workers have made the right decision. Can't lower the standard, right? But there is a different set of rules for peodophiles? I am OK with your first sentence with the added proviso that the people in the meeting should be approached first to check they are happy with the arrangement - ie each person in the meeting needs to be considered before making that arrangement. Fortunately a number of the past nonsenses and taboos are just that i.e. the past. I think many nonsenses have a way of being quietly phased out over time. it's ages (decades) since i have heard someone being excommunicated on grounds of having a TV. Some mightn't like the existence of the TV but the person is unlikely to be told now to leave (from what I see). Some areas are slower to move on these things of course but with time they evolve, albeit at a slow rate.
|
|
plp
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by plp on Aug 4, 2020 6:41:13 GMT -5
I wonder how many cases are covered up to protect The spouses and children of abusers. I can kind of understand this but of course, it lets the abuser off the hook. Between a wall and a hard place really. It has definitely happened and should never have done so. The abuser needs to face up to his or her actions. You mention spouses and children of abusers. Victims require great support and thankfully nowadays I think there are a good deal of people who would look to support them in any way they can. However, I believe that support should also be offered to spouses and children of the perpetrators as they are also going through a very difficult time. If relatives and friends offer support in whatever way (emotional, financial etc) to them, then I see no reason to criticise it but rather to be glad and supportive of it happening.
|
|