Megachurch Punishes Woman for Seeking Divorce from Child-Porn-Watching husband

[BOLCATS]

So? Does any of this reduce the harm done to his victims? Does any of this support the notion that it needn't be taken very seriously when the first allegations arose? Does any of this support the notion that the children around him did not need protection from him after the allegations arose, which allowed him to repeat his sexual abuse several more times and harm additional lives?

Regardless, I assume we agree that the church was extremely wrong-headed to place the woman in the OP under "discipline", tried to prevent her from getting a divorce, and tried to claim she wasn't allowed to quit her membership?

The question is do we judge a 14 year old child under the same standard as an adult and call him a sick pervert and such? Let's call Stevie wonder a sick pervert as well for what he did as well. He sings about begging his brother not to tell his mom "weren't you playing doctor with that girl? Please don't tell and I'll give you anything in this whole wide world".

When I first heard this story, I thought what ???? Kids are known to do this, at least they used to.

 

[Tinark]

The question is do we judge a 14 year old child under the same standard as an adult and call him a sick pervert and such? Let's call Stevie wonder a sick pervert as well for what he did as well. He sings about begging his brother not to tell his mom "weren't you playing doctor with that girl? Please don't tell and I'll give you anything in this whole wide world".

When I first heard this story, I thought what ???? Kids are known to do this, at least they used to.

No, teenage boys are not known (very often) to fondle the breasts and vaginas of their 5 year old sisters while they sit in their lap and their 9 year old sisters while they sleep, you lunatic.

 

[Tinark]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...porn-watching-husband-or-face-discipline.html

Not strictly so. They, for example, were aware the guy was hooked on child porn but still insisted his wife "patiently submit to our leadership" and got extremely upset when she started divorce proceedings. Bottom line, they knew what he'd admitted to, and still were more concerned with her "submitting." There's so many skewed priorities in this story it's hard to know where to begin.

I really don't know how people can think like this or justify their behavior. This whopper, for instance:

"...we have been perplexed by your decision to file for an annulment of your marriage without first abiding by your covenant obligations to submit to the care and direction of your elders...this decision violates your covenant with us—and places you under discipline."

As though she's the one with a problem. Perplexed? What is there for these "elders" to be confused about?

Good find - this clearly lays out the church knew about his kiddy porn use before they sent her the e-mails and placed her on "discipline".

 

[Granite]

If they knew all the facts when they "circled the wagons" they were way out of line. Anything else?

Considering that's the exact point I'm making and that you re-phrased it perfectly...no.:chuckle:

 

[BOLCATS]

No, teenage boys are not known (very often) to fondle the breasts and vaginas of their 5 year old sisters while they sit in their lap and their 9 year old sisters while they sleep, you lunatic.

What is playing doctor then in your mind?

 

[Granite]

Ah-hah. THIS article notes that the woman is a missionary for the church. If true, that means, in some capacity, she works for them even in only a church-y sense. Possibly she receives financial support from them. So that should be figured in to the pastor's response.

Still defending nothing. But this helps it make a lot more sense that the op's article. If she was on the church's mission staff, that's a very different matter (from the church's perspective) from her just being the average Sunday morning pew member -- she was on staff.

Their missions page.

http://www.thevillagechurch.net/outreach/short-term-trips/

No "ah-ha" moment here, the article I cited from The Daily Beast made it clear they were missionaries. If anything the article you found paints the church in an even more unflattering light, if that's even possible.

 

[Tinark]

What is playing doctor then in your mind?

This is not "playing doctor", not even close. 14 years old (and 15 years old) is well past the age at which boys are sexually aroused and can achieve orgasm and sexual gratification. What he clearly did was sexual assault for purposes of sexual gratification. Playing doctor is not done while one of them is sleeping. It is not done when there is a 9 year age difference.

 

[Town Heretic]

Suggestion for a rebrand on the thread title:

Meagerchurch Punishes Woman for Seeking Divorce from Child-Porn-Watching husband

 

[The Barbarian]

As usual, the evolutionist doesn't care about the crime; his only concern is how much he can bad-mouth Christians.

Pedophilia isn't a Christian trait, Stipe. Those guys weren't defending the husband because he was a pedophile. They were defending him, because they thought the woman should tolerate it, and accept her husband as the master.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Pedophilia isn't a Christian trait, Stipe. Those guys weren't defending the husband because he was a pedophile. They were defending him, because they thought the woman should tolerate it, and accept her husband as the master.

Oh my the sky has fallen, i agree with you barbie.

Their "rules" about headship and dominance is taking more importance to them than her husband being a pervert.

 

[Stripe]

Pedophilia isn't a Christian trait, Stipe. Those guys weren't defending the husband because he was a pedophile. They were defending him, because they thought the woman should tolerate it, and accept her husband as the master.

Tinny isn't concerned about negating the crime; he is solely interested in denigrating Christians.

 

[musterion]

No "ah-ha" moment here, the article I cited from The Daily Beast made it clear they were missionaries.

The o.p., as posted, did not, and I did not see where Patheos mentioned it at all.

 

[musterion]

Oh my the sky has fallen, i agree with you barbie.

Their "rules" about headship and dominance is taking more importance to them than her husband being a pervert.

They appear to be trying to deal with them as totally separate issues. Which they can't.

 

[Granite]

The o.p., as posted, did not, and I did not see where Patheos mentioned it at all.

I wasn't referring to the OP--I was referring back to the link I provided before you found yours.

 

[Granite]

Anybody else catch the Duggars last night? Saw some highlights this morning. Feel like I need to take a shower for about a month.

 

[musterion]

Anybody else catch the Duggars last night? Saw some highlights this morning. Feel like I need to take a shower for about a month.

I have no idea who they are.

 

[Granite]

I have no idea who they are.

You're a better person for it.

 

[Kdall]

Anybody else catch the Duggars last night? Saw some highlights this morning. Feel like I need to take a shower for about a month.

I didn't realize just how depraved the whole Josh situation was until yesterday. It's beyond a "normal" molestation case, which is bad enough. But he took it to a whole other level

 

[TrakeM]

wow, this says more about u than... u might admit

I have gone without sex for years and years... The body doesn't like that, but are we to just give in to the body? Gee, I thought Christianity required a little better than that..

oh yeh, you are probably not a Christian... forgot who I was addressing..

But Christian or not, the truth doesn't change (from one person to the next)

moral laws apply to all

also of interest is the fact that the longer you go without indulging that kind of "desire" the less u think about it.. I can barely remember... and when u do think about it.. it is not just "thinking" with your body as it were... In other words, the body starts kind of agreeing with the mind (that knows better)


+

I see nothing wrong with consensual sex between adults or porn, but I do believe in morality. The old testament says you must murder in cold blood anyone who openly opposes your religion (deuteronomy chapter 13). My moral standard is therefore greater than that of the bible, but that's not saying much.

Morality is not about hating gay people or avoiding porn. Morality is about how we treat the poor, those who openly disagree with our beliefs and opposing corruption and greed. That's a higher standard than that of the bible. That demands more than just not watching porn.

The old testament supports a concept of morality indistinguishable from that of ISIS or Boko Haram. No thanks, I'd rather continue to live my life as a decent human being with morals than live as a christian.

 

[Caledvwlch]

Evolutionists hate reading.
You can call me whatever you like, retard.

This is an evolution thread?

You are a special little boy, you know that Stripe?