In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit

[Srecko Sostar]

On 8/10/2019 at 11:23 PM, Outta Here said:

Without getting bogged down in semantics here, there is no real difference between the two words

I just have listen about new suit against WT Society and reporter of KOAT TV reported how WT spokesperson said: 

"Jehovah's Witnesses abhor child abuse as a sin and crime. Our policies on child protection ..."

Well, i believe how he know what he speaking about or he was instructed to tell this from WT lawyers. Sin and crime are two different words in JW organization. 

[Evacuated]

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Sin and crime are two different words in JW organization

Of course they are, but their meaning (dare I say...) overlaps.

The key to understanding is to consider against who the crime or sin is committed. The word sin is traditionally viewed by those of the soulical world as relating to the violating of God's laws or standards, whereas the word crime is understood by many of that same designation as referencing a violation of the requirements or laws of the secular state.

Really, in the spiritual world there is no difference between a crime and a sin as any violation of God's laws or principles constitues a crime or sin. To sin is a criminal act.

But we have no problem in speaking the language of the world if that is what they understand.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

On 8/12/2019 at 4:12 PM, BillyTheKid46 said:

Sorry about that. I keep forgetting you take people's words literally when my words were to be used as ultimately. I guess you are one of those that use the "young literal bible" to exploit word for word, ideology. You've been here long enough to know what people are actually saying Srecko. Don't spoil it!

In the 7th grade I was taught how to diagram sentences to be able to ascertain exactly what a sentence was really saying.

How should your words be used ultimately?

And when you say "Don't spoil it!",  what do you mean?

What is "it"?

If I printed out what you say, should it ultimately go in the filing cabinet .... or ultimately go in the shredder?

As one guy in the Army from Alabama once said ... "Spreek Engrich Thoops."

 

 

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

9 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

 I guess to stupid people as yourself, I would have to consider writing things in some other language in order to be understood. Once again, your idiocy in grammar is such an idiotic way to prove you as ignorant and unintelligent. Retire as a half-idiot, not a blathering one.

You are a truly amazing person, Billy ... with your own words you continuously prove against yourself of what you accuse others.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

As many things are , Billy, it is available on YouTube ... just type in "Diagramming Sentences."

Being able to analyze EXACTLY what a sentence was saying, and be able to prove it .... whether or not the writer intended it to be that way or not ... has served me well my entire life, since the 7th grade.  After a while you develop instantaneous analytical skills when reading ambiguous text. or even in normal conversation.

.... and although I did not count then, there are PERHAPS a hundred videos teaching someone how to diagram sentences.

 

 

 

[Srecko Sostar]

13 hours ago, Outta Here said:

The key to understanding is to consider against who the crime or sin is committed.

against who .... is the key for understanding 

As i understand teachings of Bible (and perhaps teachings of JW Organization too), everything that is against "our neighbor" is also against God, because all people was made in the image of God. Well, doing something against That Image of God is same as doing something against Origin/Author of Image. In that relations i do not know how "the key" you talking about, making issue to be more understandable. We can go further with this. If human doing something that is bad for nature and animal world, we can say also how this is against God also, because He is Creator and  Author of that Nature. 

13 hours ago, Outta Here said:

Really, in the spiritual world there is no difference between a crime and a sin as any violation of God's laws or principles constitues a crime or sin. To sin is a criminal act.

If that is as you say, why GB and JW Lawyers complicate this issue? If JW Elders want to Judge only sins (specific list of things that are not crimes in the eye of Secular Authorities) than let them to handled such sins. Perhaps this idea can be some sort of New Policy until some "New Light" would bring more Clarifications on Issue. :)) But when something inside JW Organization happen what is not just "a sin", would it be "key" to call Secular Authorities to deal with it?

If, there is no difference between a crime and a sin, as you suggest in comment, than JW Organization have no need for Judicial Committees of Elders. All can be handled by Secular Authorities. :))

In both way of reasoning, something not working well in JW "Spiritual Paradise". I am expecting that future (with new generation of overlapping lawyers) bring some positive results on this. :))

[Srecko Sostar]

14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I don't recall, where the Watchtower has incarceration cells for the wicked. 🤫

In minds, spiritual cells :))))

[Evacuated]

5 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

JW Organization have no need for Judicial Committees of Elders. All can be handled by Secular Authorities

I don't follow your (presumably) reasoning that if crime and sin are synonymous then Secular Authorities could handle all "judicial matters", unless your are presenting it from a soulical perspective.

Do you therefore think that the secular definition of sin and crime is the same as the sacred and that sacred and secular authority is synonymous in these matters?

[Srecko Sostar]

 

37 minutes ago, Outta Here said:

I don't follow your (presumably) reasoning that if crime and sin are synonymous then Secular Authorities could handle all "judicial matters", unless your are presenting it from a soulical perspective.

Do you therefore think that the secular definition of sin and crime is the same as the sacred and that sacred and secular authority is synonymous in these matters?

I just made few way of possible reasoning on issue. And as result, each of this different views on matter can, may bring various outcomes on handling with JW people who done something that this religious organization not allow.

As we see from various statements made by JW Representatives, this "sin - crime" issue is also "foggy" to them... Or it is not?!  They said how Elders are to deal only with "sin" and Secular Authority to deal with "crime". But in cases of child abuse, it is obvious how such differentiation in 1) Terminology and in 2) Division of duties (among Elders and Worldly Officers) is bad for victims. Don't you agree? If victims suffer because Administrative Ideology and rules and protocols, than people in charge must CHANGE what they now doing. As Jesus said, when your animal falls in into a pit or into a hole at Sabbath - would you brake Sabbath Law and provide help or waiting for next day? Jesus was obviously showed "rebellious" solution :))) Would you allow for Children to wait on some Clark in JW Office to find time and way how to solve this problem?! Do you think that GB need to change attitude and brake "Sabbath Law" about this?! I hope you will say: no, on first and yes, on second.   

[Evacuated]

On 8/15/2019 at 8:27 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

As we see from various statements made by JW Representatives, this "sin - crime" issue is also "foggy" to them... Or it is not?!  They said how Elders are to deal only with "sin" and Secular Authority to deal with "crime". But in cases of child abuse, it is obvious how such differentiation in 1) Terminology and in 2) Division of duties (among Elders and Worldly Officers) is bad for victims. Don't you agree? If victims suffer because Administrative Ideology and rules and protocols, than people in charge must CHANGE what they now doing. As Jesus said, when your animal falls in into a pit or into a hole at Sabbath - would you brake Sabbath Law and provide help or waiting for next day? Jesus was obviously showed "rebellious" solution :))) Would you allow for Children to wait on some Clark in JW Office to find time and way how to solve this problem?! Do you think that GB need to change attitude and brake "Sabbath Law" about this?! I hope you will say: no, on first and yes, on second. 

More complicated stuff!

I presume you are trying to make a case for the need to speed up action in the case of Child Abuse crimes??? If that is the case, then it is a worthy cause, regardless of context. And one I agree with wholeheartedly, across the board.

However, I don't think I could really comment on your hypothetical generalities unfortunately.  Specific cases from a host of backgrounds where they have been brought to light in a legal context, appear to have been commented on extensively in the public domain by those qualified to do so. Where there are genuine reasons for criticising the handling of such cases and these have been dealt with, then presumably these instances have then been handled as appropriately as possible by the correct authorities? Any exposure of mishandling in specific cases then serves to inform all parties presumably.

Quite how you have managed to morph a discussion on baptism questions into one on handling of Child Abuse allegations would be an interesting study in itself, but not one I have the inclination to unravel at this point of time.

Anyway, if the topic manages to get back on track and any further points meriting discussion appear, I will be back. But for now, excuse me if I turn to other areas of interest. 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Every account I have read about where Catholic Priests molest children, its always boys .

ALWAYS boys.

This leads me to believe it is a homosexual problem FIRST.

[JW Insider]

9 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Catholic Priests molest children, its always boys .  ALWAYS boys.

I think this is based primarily on two factors. One is the fact that many priests choose the profession because they are already homosexual. Rather than live a life of scandal, they believe that the priesthood is a kind of penance for their proclivities, and that it's a sacrifice pleasing to God which will draw them closer to God and away from their tendencies. Of course, this rarely works. Especially because of the second factor: the most available and vulnerable victims of their proclivities are young males in priest-run Catholic schools, and of course, "altar boys."

But nuns who run Catholic schools for girls are more likely to sexually molest girls.

Also, all reports about "general" abuse by priests also include girls. A wikipedia article on the topic includes references in support of plenty of abuse of girls: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases

Here are a few excerpts:

Cases of child sexual abuse by Catholic priests, nuns and members of religious orders in the 20th and 21st centuries have led to many allegations, investigations, trials and convictions as well as revelations about decades of attempts by Church officials to cover up reported incidents.^[3] The abused include mostly boys but also girls, some as young as three years old, with the majority between the ages of 11 and 14.^{[4][5][6][7] . . .} 

The Gillard Government instituted the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in 2013.^[56][57] The Commission reported that 7% of all Catholic priests in Australia were "alleged perpetrators of child sex abuse;" the children's average age at the time of the abuse was 11.5 for boys and 10.5 for girls.^[58] 

In August 2006, Father Charles Henry Sylvestre of Belle River, Ontario pleaded guilty to 47 counts of sexual abuse of females, aged between nine and fourteen years old, between 1952 and 1989.^[82]

On May 11, 2019, Polak issued an apology on behalf of the entire Catholic Church in Poland.^[150][151] The same day, Tell No One, a documentary detailing accounts of sex abuse by Catholic Church clergy in Poland, went viral, reaching 8.1 million viewers on YouTube by May 13.^[152] Among many, the film featured a priest known as Father Jan A., whose case is being reviewed by the Diocese of Kielce, who confessed to molesting many young girls.^[150] The film also alleges that Rev. Dariusz Olejniczak, a priest who was sentenced for molesting 7-year-old girls, was allowed to continue working with young people despite his conviction^[150] O

Female victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests tended to be younger than the males. Data analyzed by John Jay researchers, shows that the number and proportion of sexual misconduct directed at girls under 8 years old was higher than that directed at boys the same age.^[176]

https://cruxnow.com/church-in-europe/2019/05/15/polish-lawmaker-panned-for-excusing-priest-who-abused-girls/

"newsweek/2010/04/14/what-about-the-girls". thedailybeast.com. Retrieved 14 September 2014.

Cartor, Cimbolic & Tallon (2008) found that 6 percent of the cleric offenders in the John Jay Report are pedophiles, 32 percent ephebophiles, 15 percent attracted to 11 and 12 year olds only (both male and female), 20 percent indiscriminate, and 27 percent mildly indiscriminate.^[358]

The statistical analysis shows that more homosexual men in the priesthood was strongly correlated with more overall abuse and more boys abused compared to girls.^[371][372]