Community Chapel, Seattle Wa

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Why? Why should such severe accusations be public but skepticism of such be private?

In case the accusations are true, for one thing. If they are true, open skepticism amounts to disregard for a wounded sheep - quite contrary to the heart of a shepherd.

In this case, the alleged victim was also quite insistent on protecting the alleged perpetrator's. As an outsider, I have no idea who this man is - he could be pastoring in my community for all I know.

Surely a discreet investigation of the accuser's claims could have been conducted before openly challenging her - what harm would come from that?

I despise false accusations of abuse, but I also despise the blame the victim mentality that is rampant throughout Christendom. Way too many shepherds feasting on leg of lamb.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Stonewall

In case the accusations are true, for one thing.

In case they are false then what? They are already public. And how are we to know they are false if nobody is allowed to be skeptical? IF the accusations are public then it stands to reason skepticism should be public. Thats how we get to the truth, not by burying questions. skepticism is a good thing. False accusations are not. Being skeptical does not mean being harsh or insulting either. Paul welcomed open skepticism by the Bereans when they checked everything he said against the word

If they are true, open skepticism amounts to disregard for a wounded sheep - quite contrary to the heart of a shepherd.

No they don't. Prove open skepticms amounts to disregard for anything. That would ONLY be true IF and only IF we all knew they were true. Then in that case, that is not skepticism. There are skeptics ONLY because they DON'T know what is posted is true.

In this case, the alleged victim was also quite insistent on protecting the alleged perptrator's identity secret.

That's nice but that does not tell me why skepticism should be private and not open. This is not Nazi Germany. BTW the alleged perpetrators identity was discovered.

As an outsider, I have no idea who this man is - he could be pastoring in my community for all I know.

I still don't see how this requires skepticism to be hidden..hush hush...let's not see if a public accusation is true or not.

Surely a discreet investigation of the accuser's claims could have been conducted before openly challenging her - what harm would come from that?

Why? Tell me why? You keep making assertions and then when I asked for why you just make another assertion in it's place. BTW skepticism forms the basis of discreet investigation. Investigations often start by asking questions. It was a public discussion. If one did not want public scrutiny then they should never have made it public to begin with. Apparently this was not the first time it was made public. How can someone do an investigation without asking public questions?

I despise false accusations of abuse, but I also despise the blame the victim mentality that is rampant throughout Christendom. Way too many shepherds feasting on leg of lamb

Skepticism is not "blame the victim"...sorry you confused the two. Skepticism is asking questions. Skepticism is not taking what someone says as the absolute truth at face value. Skepticism asks questions. Skepticisms is merely being skeptical of someone's claims. It has absolutely NOTHING with blaming the victim AND blaming the victim actually assumes something DID happen...if there is a victim to blame.

Open skepticism is fine.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Paul welcomed open skepticism by the Bereans when they checked everything he said against the word

Bad application of a good Scripture.

Why? Tell me why? You keep making assertions and then when I asked for why you just make another assertion in it's place.

You asked one (1) question. You disagree with my answer. So be it.

I didn't denounce skepticism, or suggest it should never be exercised publicly. My salient point was that NO HARM would come from first seeking private corroboration.

If the accusations are false, the accuser should (ideally) be subjected to the same consequences as the accused would be if they were true.

If the accusations have merit, the victim may have been needlessly traumatized just because someone insists on shooting first and asking questions later.

No Scripture proscribes the kind of caution I have advocated.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Stonewall

Bad application of a good Scripture.




You asked one (1) question. You disagree with my answer. So be it.

I didn't denounce skepticism, or suggest it should never be exercised publicly. My salient point was that NO HARM would come from first seeking private corroboration.

If the accusations are false, the accuser should (ideally) be subjected to the same consequences as the accused would be if they were true.

If the accusations have merit, the victim may have been needlessly traumatized just because someone insists on shooting first and asking questions later.

No Scripture proscribes the kind of caution I have advocated.

You didn't give a reason why, you just gave more assertions.

No harm would come from seeking public corroboration either. Skepticism is not the same thing as blaming the victim or attacking the person. You seem to have suggested they are. The scripture I gave indeed backs up my point. Paul was not offended that they sought to prove his words. Skepticism is not personal attacks and if someone takes honest inquirer as an insult then they will still take it as an insult in PM too.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Stonewall

In case the accusations are true, for one thing. If they are true, open skepticism amounts to disregard for a wounded sheep - quite contrary to the heart of a shepherd.

If someone openly brings accusations about abuse whether true or false, then some will be skeptical and openly challenge their accusations. There needs to be more than one witness to this abuse. The attitude of those examining this person can be called into question but I don't see what is wrong with being skeptical. Questioning someones veracity doesn't have to mean you are saying they are lying but is more a demand of proof.

Pr 18:17 He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.

18:17 The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him.