Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell
Does that mean the sexual abuse reported by John Ingalls is OK? Not to worry. It's everywhere so...chill.
|
What is definitely not OK is to twist someone's words, quote out of context and then ascribe such a nasty response. I have made it clear repeatedly that PL was "not OK". I repeated that "I had condemned PL to the uttermost". You are distorting my comment. The church is a hospital, what is foolish is to think you will have a church anywhere without sinners and fleshly people. PL was not even a member of the church. You can second guess the way in which the elders dealt with PL, and with Ben M. But saying that the elders allowed "sexual abuse" to flourish is ugly. Hope was an elder, JI was an elder. Those are the two testimonies of elders showing their response and there is no justification based on their response to conclude that the elders were complicit in allowing sexual abuse.
But would it be OK for me to say that you committed the crimes that PL did without any supporting evidence? No, that is called libel. You blamed Local Church Leadership for the crimes of PL. Based on what? PL was not Local Church Leadership. JI was. Are you blaming JI for PL? If so, give us the evidence. You pointed to a number of testimonies on this thread, none of them provided any evidence of "sexual abuse" by "local church leadership".
So, to answer your question. No, PL's abuse is not OK. Therefore why do we need to make up false charges? Since we all agree that PL's abuse was heinous and involved sufficient supporting evidence to be deemed credible this also means that the apology letter from the puppet elders that replaced JI, etal, was also heinous. I don't feel that the behavior of those elders can be used to condemn "Local Church leadership" as a whole, but if you want to throw shade on those particular elders go ahead. What I find far more relevant is that this is the undeniable evidence that ties WL into PL's sins.