Sometimes I think you guys deliberately miss the point because you think it's funny, or something.:jump:
Megachurch Punishes Woman for Seeking Divorce from Child-Porn-Watching husband
- Thread starter Tinark
- Start date
Sometimes I think you guys deliberately miss the point because you think it's funny, or something.:jump:
Tinark
Active member
It demonstrates the corrupt and creepy practices of some right-wing churches and the cultish mindset involved in such megacurches, and the extraordinary lack of perspective they have.
See Mars Hill Church for another example of an extremely creepy cultish megachurch.
See Catholic Church sex abuse scandals.
See the many other sex abuse cover-ups in other cultish fundie churches.
The problem is endemic - many of these organizations are corrupt at their very core and a danger to children (or at least do not seem to have protecting children very high on their priority list).
The Village's leadership was more concerned about someone "breaking" one of their ridiculous "covenants," as opposed to wanting to get authorities involved with someone addicted to kiddie porn.
All the apologies in the world won't answer one question: What the hell is wrong with these people?
All the apologies in the world won't answer one question: What the hell is wrong with these people?
Making up things to protect your false accusation is not going to work.
And this shows that the family tried to cover the issue up, how, exactly?
The same thing that is wrong with everyone else.
Meanwhile, the evolutionists are far more interested in besmirching Christians than they are in defeating crime.
Tinark
Active member
Cover up is probably not the right word, but it is clear that they did not deal with it with a level of seriousness that the situation warranted.
Many of you fundies believe that Josh's actions deserve execution. Do you think the situation was dealt with appropriate, befitting of someone deserving of execution, given that we know he abused at least one more child a full year later after the parents discovered the "problem"? Given that children around him were not adequately protected from a repeat sex offender, giving him opportunity to offend again and abuse more children?
The most basic level of responsibility would be to make sure Josh is completely isolated from children and has no further access to them after his offenses first came to light until a trained/qualified psychiatrist who provided him treatment believes that he is no longer a danger/threat to children.
The parents failed to protect those children from his repeat offenses after learning about his prior offenses, and in that respect they are partly responsible for the subsequent abuse.
You think? Taking the boy to the police is the exact opposite of "covering it up."
How about you apologize for slander?
Oh. So when one set of lies doesn't work, you think an even stupider set of lies will help you?
I tell you what: If you can find one "fundamentalist" who is willing to defend the notion that a 14-year-old boy should be executed for inappropriate contact with a younger girl, I'll leave you alone for a year.
How about first you apologize for slander. :up:
HisServant
New member
The all have issues when power is concentrated on a single individual... the RCC has the Pope.. Mars Hill had Driscoll... I was involved in a fundie church that ended up being very cultish around the pastor and I was ostracized when I started questioning things (5 years later they booted him.. fyi).
Anyhow, a Presbyterian form of government is the only way to go, as long as the elders step up and be their own men and not rubber stamp or cow-tow to the pastor.
Tinark
Active member
"Inappropriate"? Are you kidding me? He molested some sisters while they were _sleeping_ and molested another while he read her a story while she sat on his lap. Multiple offenses against at least five victims.
You also can't seriously be oblivious to repeated calls from others on this board to execute those who sexually abuse children. The cheerleading that happens when a child sex abuser is beaten to death or shot at and killed, etc.
Nope.
You find someone who thinks the Duggar kid should have been executed and my offer stands.
I'm one of them, idiot. There's a vast gulf between the Duggar case and something that brings the death penalty.
Tinark
Active member
Good observations - the danger is increased dramatically when there is concentration of power among the leaders, especially one or few individuals, where questioning the leaders is highly discouraged, etc.
These characteristics certainly do not apply to all or most churches. But they do apply to enough of them to be a concern.
Tinark
Active member
And what is the gulf? Spell it out, please.
The issue affects all corners of society. Evolutionist's are only interested in addressing the problem when there are Christians involved. Christians want a solution that will reduce the crime rate for the entire society.
You're a lying troll, Tinny. :loser:
Hypocrite.
You really sure you wanna go there?:freak:
Tinark
Active member
Apologize for calling you a "hypocrite"? You viewed a family friend who happened to be a cop the same as "the police". Furthermore, this family friend was only alerted a year after the first offenses came to light, after yet another offense. You therefore failed to consider relevant facts, the very same accusation you laid out against Granite. The term is appropriate.
Evolutionists are willing to talk about anything rather than face up to the facts.
Evolutionists hate reading.
You can call me whatever you like, retard.
