Biggest Problem in Congregations / 2 ...

Biggest Problem in Congregations / 2 witnesses

Posted in the Jehovah's Witness Forum

First Prev
of 5
Next Last

“Family comes First”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#1 Dec 19, 2012
By far the most problematical situation in congregations is the inter-personal relationships between members. PO's spend much of their time shepherding weak ones who have been *stumbled* by the behaviour of others.

Although witnesses are united by their perceived pesecution by the "outside world", the narrow bubble in which most of them exist only heightens their awareness of each others failings.

Cliques and factions will always exist in tight-knit groups. Quarreling and back-biting is just as rampant in congregations of Jehovah's witnesses as it is anywhere else. Maybe even more so.

JW's can sing their Kingdom Melodies and talk on and on and on about the great love that they have for one another, but the fact remains that they gossip and carp on about one another simply because they have little else to talk about.

Maybe when Paul asked that 2 or 3 witnesses be called to testify against wrongdoing that's what he had in mind. 2 or 3 witnesses who agreed with one another that such and such a person had become a malicious gossiper or backbiter? Someone who was absolute poison? Isn't that a more likely scenario than 2 or 3 witnesses observing a child being sexually abused?

“Paradise Earth”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#2 Dec 19, 2012
Mikronboy wrote:
By far the most problematical situation in congregations is the inter-personal relationships between members. PO's spend much of their time shepherding weak ones who have been *stumbled* by the behaviour of others.
Although witnesses are united by their perceived pesecution by the "outside world", the narrow bubble in which most of them exist only heightens their awareness of each others failings.
Cliques and factions will always exist in tight-knit groups. Quarreling and back-biting is just as rampant in congregations of Jehovah's witnesses as it is anywhere else. Maybe even more so.
JW's can sing their Kingdom Melodies and talk on and on and on about the great love that they have for one another, but the fact remains that they gossip and carp on about one another simply because they have little else to talk about.
Maybe when Paul asked that 2 or 3 witnesses be called to testify against wrongdoing that's what he had in mind. 2 or 3 witnesses who agreed with one another that such and such a person had become a malicious gossiper or backbiter? Someone who was absolute poison? Isn't that a more likely scenario than 2 or 3 witnesses observing a child being sexually abused?
No one expect you to say nice things about Jehovah's Witnesses.

But what is your problem with needing "two witnesses" to establish guilt?

Do you think it is right that a person should be punished based solely on one person's accusation?

I mean who does? Do you?

“Family comes First”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#3 Dec 19, 2012
Aneirin wrote:
<quoted text>
No one expect you to say nice things about Jehovah's Witnesses.
But what is your problem with needing "two witnesses" to establish guilt?
Do you think it is right that a person should be punished based solely on one person's accusation?
I mean who does? Do you?
Answered here http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
Remnant143999

Albuquerque, NM

#4 Dec 19, 2012
Aneirin wrote:
<quoted text>
No one expect you to say nice things about Jehovah's Witnesses.
But what is your problem with needing "two witnesses" to establish guilt?
Do you think it is right that a person should be punished based solely on one person's accusation?
I mean who does? Do you?
Why should anybody be punished for any thing? No elder is without sin! Can a non-baptised jw be subject to the two wtness rule,consisting of only males without sin?

“JWs PREACH LIES!”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#5 Dec 19, 2012
Aneirin wrote:
<quoted text>
No one expect you to say nice things about Jehovah's Witnesses.
But what is your problem with needing "two witnesses" to establish guilt?
Do you think it is right that a person should be punished based solely on one person's accusation?
I mean who does? Do you?
Punished?

Why would a wicked organization punish others?

“New one man.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#6 Dec 19, 2012
Aneirin wrote:
<quoted text>No one expect you to say nice things about Jehovah's Witnesses.

But what is your problem with needing "two witnesses" to establish guilt?

Do you think it is right that a person should be punished based solely on one person's accusation?

I mean who does? Do you?
That's how they get out of accountability for child abuse. Well if two people didn't see it, it didn't happen.

Cover your ears, close your eyes and scream: bad thoughts out good thoughts in. bad thoughts out good thoughts in. bad thoughts out good thoughts in.

“Paradise Earth”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#7 Dec 19, 2012
MixedMedia wrote:
<quoted text>
That's how they get out of accountability for child abuse. Well if two people didn't see it, it didn't happen.
Cover your ears, close your eyes and scream: bad thoughts out good thoughts in. bad thoughts out good thoughts in. bad thoughts out good thoughts in.
Notice how she donesn't answer the question:

Do you think it is right that a person should be punished based solely on one person's accusation?

“New one man.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#8 Dec 19, 2012
Aneirin wrote:
<quoted text>
Notice how she donesn't answer the question:
Do you think it is right that a person should be punished based solely on one person's accusation?
Notice the snarky non jw retort?
But again we are back to the problem (REGARDLESS WHAT THEY SAY THE POLICY IS) people are discouraged from going to the police, which is where they should go and the police have the ability to get lie detector tests, do background checks and other things that would aid a single witness.

If someone calls the police and says I just saw my neighbor kill a guy on the sidewalk, that's only one witness.

The judicial system does not work so cut and dried as you would have it.

If one witness and only one witness with no other evidence available, there may be some cases where it would hold up, but generally it takes more than just an eye witness account. But that doesn't mean it has to be two eye witnesses.

And people aren't 'punished' on accusation alone.

“A VERY BAD MAN”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#9 Dec 19, 2012
MixedUpAmyJoLibelingAughra wrote:
Notice the snarky non jw retort?
There's nothing snarky about it; it cuts to the substance of the matter, which you avoid like a plague every time the topic comes up.

Why is that?

Troll: If someone calls the police and says I just saw my neighbor kill a guy on the sidewalk, that's only one witness.

Reply: There's also a dead body. And a gun. With fingerprints. And clothing with powder residue.

Or, to put another way, EVIDENCE, which can be a second witness. Which you already know.

Troll: The judicial system does not work so cut and dried as you would have it.

Reply: That depends on the circumstances. However, the judicial system also works on a number of underlying principles, among the most important of which is the proposition that a person accused of a crime is innocent until PROVEN guilty. And, the unsubstantiated claims of a single person rarely results in conviction. It may not be enough to do more than cause an individual to be questioned informally.

You, on the other hand, imagine that just because an accusation is made that an individual should be treated as though they are guilty. Such is totally out of harmony with both the presumption of innocence in a secular setting, and the substantively similar presumption under the so-called two-witness "rule," [really, just a common-sense biblical principle that happens to form the basis of the presumption of innocence principle in secular justice].

Troll: If one witness and only one witness with no other evidence available, there may be some cases where it would hold up, but generally it takes more than just an eye witness account.

Reply: Imagine that.

Troll: But that doesn't mean it has to be two eye witnesses.

Reply: You're right; in fact, "two witnessses" does NOT mean two living EYE witnesses.

Troll: And people aren't 'punished' on accusation alone.

Reply: Nor should they be.

So why do you ex/antiJW libelers continue to revile the JW sect for having a requirement - straight from scripture - that more than a single unsubstantiated allegation is required before congregation action can be taken?

“Paradise Earth”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#10 Dec 19, 2012
MixedMedia wrote:
<quoted text>
Notice the snarky non jw retort?
But again we are back to the problem (REGARDLESS WHAT THEY SAY THE POLICY IS) people are discouraged from going to the police, which is where they should go and the police have the ability to get lie detector tests, do background checks and other things that would aid a single witness.
If someone calls the police and says I just saw my neighbor kill a guy on the sidewalk, that's only one witness.
The judicial system does not work so cut and dried as you would have it.
If one witness and only one witness with no other evidence available, there may be some cases where it would hold up, but generally it takes more than just an eye witness account. But that doesn't mean it has to be two eye witnesses.
And people aren't 'punished' on accusation alone.
Notice how she CONTINUES to avoid answering the simple question. All she does is rant a bunch of wild accusations as some kind of smoke screen diversion.

Now again:

Do you think it is right that a person should be punished based solely on one person's accusation?

“Family comes First”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#11 Dec 19, 2012
Aneirin wrote:
<quoted text>
Notice how she CONTINUES to avoid answering the simple question. All she does is rant a bunch of wild accusations as some kind of smoke screen diversion.
Now again:
Do you think it is right that a person should be punished based solely on one person's accusation?
>>>Complex question, trick question, multiple question or plurium interrogationum (Latin, "of many questions") is a question that has a presupposition that is complex. The presupposition is a proposition that is presumed to be acceptable to the respondent when the question is asked. The respondent becomes committed to this proposition when he gives any direct answer. The presupposition is called "complex" because it is a conjunctive proposition, a disjunctive proposition, or a conditional proposition. It could also be another type of proposition that contains some logical connective in a way that makes it have several parts that are component propositions.<<<

“New one man.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#12 Dec 19, 2012
Aneirin wrote:
<quoted text>Notice how she CONTINUES to avoid answering the simple question. All she does is rant a bunch of wild accusations as some kind of smoke screen diversion.

Now again:

Do you think it is right that a person should be punished based solely on one person's accusation?
I avoided nothing. Your question is ridiculous. No one is punished on the accusation of one person.
Before one can be punished they have to be found guilty.

“New one man.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#13 Dec 19, 2012
FH Chandler wrote:
<quoted text>There's nothing snarky about it; it cuts to the substance of the matter, which you avoid like a plague every time the topic comes up.

Why is that?

Troll: If someone calls the police and says I just saw my neighbor kill a guy on the sidewalk, that's only one witness.

Reply: There's also a dead body. And a gun. With fingerprints. And clothing with powder residue.

Or, to put another way, EVIDENCE, which can be a second witness. Which you already know.

Troll: The judicial system does not work so cut and dried as you would have it.

Reply: That depends on the circumstances. However, the judicial system also works on a number of underlying principles, among the most important of which is the proposition that a person accused of a crime is innocent until PROVEN guilty. And, the unsubstantiated claims of a single person rarely results in conviction. It may not be enough to do more than cause an individual to be questioned informally.

You, on the other hand, imagine that just because an accusation is made that an individual should be treated as though they are guilty. Such is totally out of harmony with both the presumption of innocence in a secular setting, and the substantively similar presumption under the so-called two-witness "rule," [really, just a common-sense biblical principle that happens to form the basis of the presumption of innocence principle in secular justice].

Troll: If one witness and only one witness with no other evidence available, there may be some cases where it would hold up, but generally it takes more than just an eye witness account.

Reply: Imagine that.

Troll: But that doesn't mean it has to be two eye witnesses.

Reply: You're right; in fact, "two witnessses" does NOT mean two living EYE witnesses.

Troll: And people aren't 'punished' on accusation alone.

Reply: Nor should they be.

So why do you ex/antiJW libelers continue to revile the JW sect for having a requirement - straight from scripture - that more than a single unsubstantiated allegation is required before congregation action can be taken?
My point exactly there is other evidence.

I don't give a rats ass what the org does or does not do within the cong as applies to punishing someone.
But if a child says so and so abused me they (whomever was told) need to get on the phone and call the police.

“Family comes First”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#14 Dec 19, 2012
MixedMedia wrote:
<quoted text>
I avoided nothing. Your question is ridiculous. No one is punished on the accusation of one person.
Before one can be punished they have to be found guilty.
Yes indeed.>>Any leading question which complicates an issue by over simplification is fallacious..<<

“Paradise Earth”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#15 Dec 19, 2012
MixedMedia wrote:
<quoted text>
I avoided nothing. Your question is ridiculous. No one is punished on the accusation of one person.
Before one can be punished they have to be found guilty.
So then you agree that one witness is not enough to punish somebody.

Then why are you criticising the Bible for requiring two witnesses?

“New one man.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#16 Dec 19, 2012
Aneirin wrote:
<quoted text>
So then you agree that one witness is not enough to punish somebody.
Then why are you criticising the Bible for requiring two witnesses?
The only place that would be a balanced question is in the KH.
Who is punishing whom and for what? It's not all black and white.

I do not criticize the bible for requiring two witnesses. I think it's unbelievable that the org thinks they are in a position to 'punish' anyone.

So if the org wants to have one of its rules be they need two witnesses to punish someone, go for it.
But as 'god' as my witness, if the accusation is child molestation, punish or don't, but call the POLICE. If the parents have not done so call them yourself. Anyone Everyone who is made aware of such a thing should be calling the police. It will then be their job to determine if a crime has been committed. It is NOT the orgs.

“A VERY BAD MAN”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#17 Dec 19, 2012
Milquetoastboy wrote:
Yes indeed.>>Any leading question which complicates an issue by over simplification is fallacious..<<
You try to play it off as a "leading" question - when it is not - because the question actually cuts to the heart of the matter, and defeats your blame-shifting nonsense.

“A VERY BAD MAN”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#18 Dec 19, 2012
MixedMedia wrote:
<quoted text>
The only place that would be a balanced question is in the KH.
Who is punishing whom and for what? It's not all black and white.
I do not criticize the bible for requiring two witnesses. I think it's unbelievable that the org thinks they are in a position to 'punish' anyone.
So if the org wants to have one of its rules be they need two witnesses to punish someone, go for it.
But as 'god' as my witness, if the accusation is child molestation, punish or don't, but call the POLICE. If the parents have not done so call them yourself. Anyone Everyone who is made aware of such a thing should be calling the police. It will then be their job to determine if a crime has been committed. It is NOT the orgs.
Or, put another way, if the accusation is child molestation, then the accused is guilty, regardless.

Does that hold true for any and all molesters, or just molesters who label themselves JWs?

“New one man.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#19 Dec 19, 2012
FH Chandler wrote:
<quoted text>Or, put another way, if the accusation is child molestation, then the accused is guilty, regardless.

Does that hold true for any and all molesters, or just molesters who label themselves JWs?
Reading comprehension not your strong suit?
No you can't put it that way.
If the jws want or don't want to punish someone in their group based on one witness accusation that is up to them.
However they don't get to decide if a law of the land has been broken, they should leave that to the authorities.
And no, an accusation does not make them guilty.

“New one man.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#20 Dec 19, 2012
FH Chandler wrote:
<quoted text>You try to play it off as a "leading" question - when it is not - because the question actually cuts to the heart of the matter, and defeats your blame-shifting nonsense.
It does not. Ask the same question in the secular world and watch the jaws drop in disbelief as you try to make it sound like you are serious.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Attn: Forum 2 min Alank 12
My first Jehovah's Witness meeting. 3 min Alank 112
Jesus was DEAD and Alive AT THE same time! - Jaded 4 min the Mad JW 338
My dilemma(leaving Jehovahs Witnesses) 5 min Alank 423
A Trinity Discussion for Bobby 5 min Yakub 5,151
Jorge/Allan says NO to 15 second youtube to set... 7 min Alank 19
>>> "WITH" <<< John 1:1 (Jul '17) 9 min the Mad JW 137
F&DS are doing the marking for those to survive? 3 hr knowsnothing 257
Why do we fight? Do we really hate others? 18 hr Alank 482
More from around the web