All Eight Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses members are now individually named on two New York Child Victims Act case documents

[Witness]

8 hours ago, Anna said:

Both WT, January 2016, and January 2020 that talk about the anointed, applies to ALL the anointed, which includes the GB. There is no difference between them as regards their anointing, and how they should be treated.

You are basically saying that the GB is applying their words not to bond with other anointed ones to themselves; while on the other hand they have approved of their bonding/ gathering with their own body of “Gentiles”.  They have whom they have picked, while rejecting those whom God and Christ have already chosen to serve them.  

I’m sorry, but you are blind to the true motives behind your leadership. As I have said, telling the anointed not to bond and study the Bible together transgresses what is written in God’s Word.  You are choosing men’s excuses over what is written in the Bible. 

The anointed Body of Christ:

The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” ²² On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, ²³ and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, ²⁴ while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, ²⁵ so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 1 Cor 12:21-25

The entire Body is necessary to impart truth under Christ.  The GB has no respect for God’s arrangement, since it contradicts their desire to build another "temple" - the organization - rather than support God's Temple in the anointed priesthood.  1 Pet 2:5,9; 1 Cor 3:16,17

Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.  1 Cor 12:14

For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you. ⁴ For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, ⁵ so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. ⁶ We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with you faith; ⁷ if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; ⁸ if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully. Rom 12:3-8

Is the apostle Paul telling the anointed at that time period not to bond together? No, just the opposite; so, why do you accept the GB’s regulations that the anointed are NOT to bond?  Their rules defy the rules of Christ!  Their authority is magnified above the authority Christ has for his own Body! Mark 13:22

And JWs have naively accepted it. Here is the scripture you used previously,

Rom 16:17 - I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. ¹⁸ For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.

These scriptures target the GB succinctly, as the wicked slave. The trait of this wicked servant in Matt 24:48-51, is his choice to beat down his fellow servants – his fellow anointed ones.  This is not a literal beating, but accomplished through the use of falsehoods that the two articles are full of.  This “slave” has chosen his cohorts/elder body to carry out the job of keeping his fellow servants obedient to HIS regulations.  The falsehoods that the wicked slave teaches – the spiritual food that he supplies – has caused spiritual drunkenness among all JWs. Can you see how you readily accept their teachings over the apostle Paul’s?   The elder body, drunk on this “harlot’s” wine, willingly accepts the role to carry out the wicked slave’s decrees.  They willingly follow orders to judge God’s anointed people as “dead”, who reject the wicked slave’s rulings.  Rev 13:5,7,15

 “I have told you these things so that you won’t be staggered by all that lies ahead ² For you will be excommunicated from the synagogues, and indeed the time is coming when those who kill you will think they are doing God a service. ³ This is because they have never known the Father or me.”  John 16:1-3

 

8 hours ago, Anna said:

And, even how much holy spirit they get. Some will disagree with me on this, but in my opinion the GB do not receive any more, or any "special" type of holy spirit or insight than any other anointed, or anyone else for that matter.

That is because the GB have severed themselves from Christ as their Head.  They no longer have his Holy Spirit. If you believe that they are led by Christ, how can this be done if Christ doesn't inspire them with his Holy Spirit?  Is Christ not inspired?  How else would he direct an anointed to do God's will?    If it is true that the anointed do not have any "special" type of Holy Spirit than anyone else, what is the point of being anointed?  

They are the Temple of God, His "dwelling" and the source of truth for the children of God to come.  2 Cor 6:16  

"But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth."  

"As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you don't need anyone to teach you. Instead, his anointing teaches you about all things and is true and is not a lie; just as it has taught you, remain in him."    1 John 2:20,27

They carry the laws of God on their heart.

But this is the covenant
that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, says the Lord:
I will put My laws into their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be My people.  Heb 8:10

Which allows them as priests to teach the people God's ways.

"For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and people should seek instruction from his mouth, because he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts."  Mal 2:7

The GB expects JWs to "seek instruction" from the elder body who are obviously a counterfeit priesthood.  

Because the GB reject the members of Christ's Body, they no longer remain in Christ.

“I am the vine; you are the branches. The one who remains in Me and I in him produces much fruit, because you can do nothing without Me"  John 15:5

 

 

 

[Arauna]

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

As usual you're so far off the beam that you're not even wrong.

Where do you get all this nonsense? Do you just make it all up?

Actually I have watched Christopher Higgins debate quite a few philosophers on this subject..... atheist never come out on top with good arguments.

[JW Insider]

So, I've been mostly away from my computer for a few days, and it looks like this entire forum has been mashed up into a single thread/topic. I know that I was given the ability to move posts around to new threads, and I probably should have started to do that many days ago. (When I began I realized it was too late.)

But I also understand the simplicity (and short-term efficiency) of putting everything in the thread that people are actively participating in. In the longer-term, it's less efficient for those who need to go back and try to respond to things.

Since I think I'm getting in here at the tail end, I hoped to summarize a bit, and had hoped that Anna, Tom, Arauna, any "Allen Smith" alternative would have tired out AlanF so I could pretend to have delivered a final knock-out punch. But it keeps going and going with no end in sight. And there is no single topic on which one could hope to offer a "summary defense."

TTH, in spite of letting his tomfoolery characters get out of hand, has used them to point out so many of the areas where AlanF shows unnecessary antagonism, lack of empathy, and a lack of humor. He has also pointed out that AlanF's super-hypercritical view of JW leadership is also hypocritical in that an atheist should have no reason to pick on the spiritual and doctrinal beliefs of just one particular religion among hundreds. 

I like that Anna has picked up on some flaws in AlanF's reasoning. I think AlanF still argues against JW leadership from the FWF-era, especially the 1950's through the 1980's, when Anna and others have picked up on positive signs of transition, away from much of the dogmatism of that era. Slowly, I see some of the old arguments disintegrating, especially in moving a few of the events, once applied to 1918, 1919 and 1914, now being more correctly applied to the 1st century or the future judgment.

I like that Arauna has included some excellent points on intelligent design, some of which AlanF doesn't care to counter, but resorts to the trusty old ad hominem instead, either against Arauna or her sources.

Personally, I wish I could say more on the evolution/creation debate, but I've never tackled the relevant literature, and I can tell that even our own Writing Department has made enough mistakes in misquoting the relevant scientists that they aren't ready to fully tackle this topic either. However, I have a deep love for the Bible as God's Word, and the amazing consistency of the Bible books from first to last, and I have to wonder at the amazingly wide distribution of this particular book to every corner of the world. It's awe-inspiring. Because of this, I'll take "Pascal's wager," that even if we are of all men most to be pitied (if our faith is misplaced) we really have nothing to lose and much to gain if our faith puts us on God's side.

Besides, in the meantime, the true measure of Christianity is the activity that makes the world a better place and also makes us better individuals. We might even be better "neighbors" on random Internet forums, than those who reject Christian principles altogether.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

I can see how a rudimentary eye might develop, but not one with multiple coordinated lens systems, an iris, to regulate light and exposure, etc, etc. and then there is the neural interface to the brain, etc., etc.

And the ear, which has miniature bones that move, and is an electromechanical marvel.

That being said, which to me, who spent a lifetime designing things... all kinds of things ... before I retired, and recognize designed things when I see them, I believe in ... based entirely on my own insight and experience, and observation ... in seeing in all life on Earth the directed hand of God.

After much study and reflection, taking into account millions of tons of hard fossil evidence that cannot be ignored, I believe in "Punctuated Creation" over the past few billion years, where guided evolution and dramatic corrections took place , which if explained simply enough to a 3rd grader, by being simplified into the word "Evolution".

The Humanoids that lived before the direct creation of Adam and Eve, did exist, and they did in fact "evolve", but had no spiritual component, or opportunity to live forever .... that we know about (!).

If you have a better idea, I am "all ears", as mine is only an educated and thoughtful "best guess", with what I know.

EVERYTHING that took place before Satan rebelled against God about 6,000 years ago ..... was "good".

...even versions 1.0, versions 2.0, and versions 3.0.

I do not have Polaroids.

.... and neither do you.

 

 

[AlanF]

29 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Actually I have watched Christopher Higgins debate quite a few philosophers on this subject..... atheist never come out on top with good arguments.

It's Hitchens, you moron! You can't even get his name right.

Hitchens almost always came out on top. He mopped the floor with his opponents. Most of the time his opponents, as well as their groupies, were too ignorant and/or stubborn to admit it. Like you. LIke ever-Trumpers are about Trump's criminality.

You don't even know what atheism is, but presume to criticize something you don't understand.

[Tom Foolery]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

TTH, in spite of letting his tomfoolery characters get out of hand,

Hey!! Look to your own hands, Bub!

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Besides, in the meantime, the true measure of Christianity is the activity that makes the world a better place and also makes us better individuals. We might even be better "neighbors" on random Internet forums

 

51 minutes ago, AlanF said:

It's Hitchens, you moron! You can't even get his name right.

Sigh....

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

10 hours ago, Anna said:

Both WT, January 2016, and January 2020 that talk about the anointed, applies to ALL the anointed, which includes the GB. There is no difference between them as regards their anointing, and how they should be treated. And, even how much holy spirit they get. Some will disagree with me on this, but in my opinion the GB do not receive any more, or any "special" type of holy spirit or insight than any other anointed, or anyone else for that matter. The Bible does not say the FDS anointed know more, all it says is that they are to provide timely spiritual food, which is already in the Bible, and dispense it to the others and to each other, since they are also "domestics".  Also they are not the only spokesmen for God. Anyone speaking the truth about God and Christ are also his spokespersons.

I will admit I haven't yet read the Jan 2020 Wt but wanted to comment on this :-

Quote "There is no difference between them as regards their anointing, and how they should be treated. "

So if the GB can gather together then so can other Anointed. But not according to the GB 'rules'.

Quote " but in my opinion the GB do not receive any more, or any "special" type of holy spirit or insight than any other anointed,..." 

So what gives them the right to call themselves the F&DS ? What puts them at the top of the tree ?

And What stops them being removed from office ? 

Quote " The Bible does not say the FDS anointed know more, all it says is that they are to provide timely spiritual food, "

You seem to be twisting things here.  There are no F&DS anointed made known in the Bible. They have just called themselves as such. There is no proof of any appointment by God or Christ. 

Quote " all it says is that they are to provide timely spiritual food, .." 

BUT THEY HAVEN'T. They have supplied LIES.  They have also made 'man made rules', burdens for congregants to carry. Heavy loads as mentioned in God's word. 

They make threats. One such being that a person HAS TO BE a Baptised JW to survive Armageddon. And they add to that, that Armageddon is 'just around the corner', so close now etc. I'm sure if you were realistic you could understand that as a threat.  It is not a warning, because they have no proof of either.. 

Quote " Also they are not the only spokesmen for God. Anyone speaking the truth about God and Christ are also his spokespersons. "

So one doesn't need to be a JW to be a spokesperson for God then? 

And the GB and it's Org cannot be spokespersons for God, if they DO NOT speak TRUTH.

So we could go back over all the lies / mistakes / false predictions from the Bible Students and JWs, and we could say that they were never spokespersons for God. 

Quote @Arauna  Those without conscience will also murder if they can get away with it and many other immoral things if society let's them get away with it too!......

So because society allowed JW Elders to get away with it Earthwide, they committed Child Sexual Abuse and kept it hidden in the ORG. And the GB, because society allows them to get away with it, are holding back a twenty year database of Paedophile accusations. 

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

Quote @JW Insider " we really have nothing to lose and much to gain if our faith puts us on God's side. "

Oh dear, deep breath. Surely this is ONE OF the MAIN points of all this forum. 

From your comment :- IF OUR FAITH PUTS US ON GOD'S SIDE.

The whole point is, Does it put you on God's side ? 

Or, does it just put you on the side of the GB and JW Org ?   For there is a very big difference. 

 

[AlanF]

Anna said:

Quote

 

    7 hours ago, AlanF said:

    People do that all the time. In the meantime, those who time proves were right all along have to shut up and defer to the Society's false teachings. Do you really think that's good?

It is Christian.

 

Please provide scriptures that say a Christian must defer to false teachings. The New Testament is clear that Christians must not go along with such.

Quote

The way of a true Christian is so much more elegant than that of the world.

In terms of assenting to false teachings?

Quote

I agree, the biggest changes in secular history have been made because of violent uprisings and protests of a large majority. After all, if a King loses the support of most of his subjects, he becomes powerless. However, the way of a Christian is not that way. Within the framework of the Christian congregation, a Christian relies heavily on God,

Only in the indirect way of reading and applying what the Bible says.

Quote

and that if there is a change or correction to be made, it WILL be made*.

By the same token, no one should criticize any religion that claims to read and apply the Bible.

And of course, we know very well that needed changes in Watchtower teaching have not been made since its very beginning. All the teachings about 1914 are a prime example. Not only has that date been proved to be wrong by scriptural refutations, and of no significance by historical measures, but all of the claimed disasters of the so-called "composite sign" have not materialized. If they were creating the worldwide havoc and massive death rate the Society claims, world population would have steadily declined since 1914. But it has grown rapidly from 2 billion to 8 billion. Therefore, the empirical evidence disproves and fundamental JW doctrine. And since the claim of the Governing Body to spiritual authority granted by God and Jesus entirely rests on all this 1914 nonsense, that claim is proved false.

Quote

And that is without Christians employing the ways of the world. But this concept is very difficult to understand by someone who does not believe in God.

No, it's easy to understand. Remember that I myself rejected this concept while I still very much believed in God.

Perhaps the best example that falsifies your claim is Raymond Franz. He wrote two books criticizing JW leadership, but retained full belief in the Bible and its God until he died.

Quote

*The exception is child sexual abuse. No one should wait in that case, it must be dealt with immediately, for the protection of innocent children who cannot defend themselves.

Why do you break out one bad practice or belief from all the others?
     

Quote

 

    7 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Exactly when was "Daniel's prophecy" "figured out as pointing to A.D. 1914"? And by whom? And what evidence can you cite for your answer?

Belongs under another topic. Has been discussed many times on here actually.

 

No, it belongs under this topic, since you brought it up.
Don't make excuses to avoid answering.
     

Quote

 

    7 hours ago, AlanF said:

    What the Society really should do is become more tolerant of dissent. That would make being a JW much more pleasant for intelligent, knowledgeable people.

If it did that, then it would be no different to Christendom.

 

So? It's already no different to Christendom in all the ways that count.

By the way, "Christendom" was an obsolete term even 40 years ago, as pointed out to me when my literature professor critiqued my essay written when I still believed in God.

Quote

Plus, the Bible does not teach that this is how the Christian congregation should be.

Sure it does. It's quite explicit that true Christians were not to tolerate false teachings promulgated by anyone -- not even those claiming to be leaders.

Quote

 

    7 hours ago, AlanF said:

    You're not being particularly honest here, because when I brought up the Albert Schroeder / Luke 21:7-8 topic, you suggested making a new topic -- which I did -- and you ignored.

Yes, I did, and I did not ignore it. I read yours and JWI comments.

 

Come on, you know perfectly well that I meant "you failed to respond".

Quote

I have honestly not had the time.

Then you should have clearly stated that, both in this thread (since you brought it up here) and in the thread I started at your request.

I guarantee that if I had requested that certain other posters here make a separate topic, and I never responded, they'd be screaming "Hypocrite! You never responded!" And they'd be right.

Quote

I am having a hard time trying to keep up with the posts on here, never mind other topics somewhere else.

Many of the posts here are relatively trivial, being concerned with secondary matters.

Primary matters are things like, "Does God exist?", the fact that the realities of the 1914 doctrine disprove the GB's claim to spiritual authority, and "Do JWs really follow Jesus' commands?" in view of Albert Schroeder's claim that "Jesus' words don't apply to Jehovah's Witnesses".

If you don't have the fundamentals right, the secondary issues are moot. So don't get sidetracked by them if your time is limited.

Quote

I haven't replied to one of your posts on here which I wanted to, but now it has been buried under so much, I think it's already about 10 pages back.

So? Drop the small stuff and get to the important stuff.
I think you understand very well that you'll not be able to deal with such primary stuff, and so you go for the secondary because it's easier.
     

Quote

 

    7 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Apparently you want to have your cake and eat it, too.

No, I just want to filter out some blatantly off topic stuff because they clog up the thread. This is why your other comment to me is 10 pages back!

 

Everything that you say is blatantly off topic has been brought up initially by your fellow JWs. I've merely responded.

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

So because society allowed JW Elders to get away with it Earthwide, they committed Child Sexual Abuse and kept it hidden in the ORG

No.

One reason I do not get worked up when Agent Jack or someone posts news of a JW  elder caught in an act of CSA is because, with even the most cursory bit of follow-up, it is seen how extraordinarily rare this is. With other organizations, religious or secular, it is the pattern. JWs, unlike any other group, are being penalized for CSA among renegade members.

Agent Jack posts news of a lawbreaker getting his just deserts, and who can get worked up over that? Not me. However, such deeds are extremely rare among JW elders.

It may be that there will be a penalty to pay for leaving the reporting of CSA to the digression of affected or knowledgeable parties—and then it turns out that many did not do so out of concern for not bringing reproach on God’s name. That is why it is such a good thing that it was made very clear in the May 2019 study article that the reporter does not bring the reproach—the abuser does.

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/02/the-reproach-of-child-sexual-abuse-falls-on-the-abu.html

Time will tell how above matters regarding reporting lapses from elders will shake out. Possibly it will go down as a matter to JWs lasting shame. This is a strange world and one cannot know how things will end. Much like the police go after consumers of drugs because eliminating sellers and producers has proved impossible, so they do now with attempting to make more and more persons mandatory reporters of CSA, even where previous norms of confidentiality used to apply: doctor/patient, lawyer/client, clergy/penetant (on the supposition that these relationships cannot work without the expectation of confidentiality). Now it is all being examined and conduct legal and even expected at the time is being retroactively criminalized. Time will tell how it all turns out.

Still, despite modern efforts to criminalize the lesser “crime,” as it is being redefined because authorities have proven totally helpless in stamping out the former one, I still submit that there is a difference between the person who blows a person’s head off with a shot-gun and the person who came to know of it and, for whatever reason, did not report it.

(File that one away, JWI. Or maybe, given the heading of this thread, file everything else away in some category or other in you card catalog, and just keep this one.)

And just so @4Jah2me knows that I am not throwing up a smokescreen over Agent Jack’s topic...

Somewhere along the line, he asked breathlessly, ‘How will it all turn out?’

The answer that I did not give then but perhaps could have is, “Who knows?”

Maybe it will all be discarded at the highest level court, with opposers being made to pay all fees, and it will be a glorious victory for JW. Maybe the higher-ups named will be sent off to Atlanta again, and it will be a delayed victory for JW. For all I know, maybe Someone will perceive that as having had his eyeball touched, so that the delay will be no more than two seconds. I haven’t a clue.

I don’t weigh in on court things on a play by play basis until they are resolved. When that happens, I sometimes do, such as here regarding a big Montana case:

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/is-it-time-for-jehovahs-witnesses-to-apologize-part-1.html

I avoid play by play because I am not a lawyer, and when commenting on courtroom proceedings, this is a very significant deficit. So I wait until afterwards. The most arcane and unexpected twists can come, and ones that have come can be undone, so that I avoid the subject until the dust settles. I don’t know the ways of the courtroom. I learned this lesson as a very young man, representing myself (which is what most people do) in small claims court. All hell broke loose when I went to hand the judge a document without first asking to “approach the bench”

(It is like young Timmy, who when the doctor asked, “What color is your stool?’ answered that it was white. He had never heard it called that before, but his Grab-a-Toy stool he used all the time.)

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

Most of the time his opponents, as well as their groupies, were too ignorant and/or stubborn to admit it. Like you. LIke ever-Trumpers are about Trump's criminality.

Trump is GOOD at it, and as far as I am concerned is the best President since Jackson.

As far as I am concerned, he saved the Republic from the evil liberal swamp creatures, already.

President Jimmy Carter was a fine, "christian" man, and a nuclear engineer, and a good carpenter building houses for the homeless ... and a tireless worker, even when exhausted, and my guess is absolutely honest .... .... but was a really crappy President.

As far as Trump goes, politics is like playing poker ... You are there to cut the others' hearts out and eat them, or you should not be playing.

...that's what the job is.

[AlanF]

JW Insider said:

Quote

So, I've been mostly away from my computer for a few days, and it looks like this entire forum has been mashed up into a single thread/topic. I know that I was given the ability to move posts around to new threads, and I probably should have started to do that many days ago. (When I began I realized it was too late.)

If you had done that it would have destroyed all continuity.

Quote

But I also understand the simplicity (and short-term efficiency) of putting everything in the thread that people are actively participating in.

Yes, because that's the way conversations develop. Without making a roadmap, no one would be able to follow the development.

Quote

In the longer-term, it's less efficient for those who need to go back and try to respond to things.

Not necessarily. With continuity of challenge/response maintained, it's more efficient. Long time posters by now should have figured out that keeping a record of their posts and the ones they respond to is necessary to maintain a coherent view of the conversations.

Quote

Since I think I'm getting in here at the tail end, I hoped to summarize a bit, and had hoped that Anna, Tom, Arauna, any "Allen Smith" alternative would have tired out AlanF

I admit I'm getting tired, but I'm not yet done.

Quote

so I could pretend to have delivered a final knock-out punch. But it keeps going and going with no end in sight. And there is no single topic on which one could hope to offer a "summary defense."

Just like threads on every board I've seen.

A good example of how properly to run a board is this: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/

Quote

TTH, in spite of letting his tomfoolery characters get out of hand, has used them to point out so many of the areas where AlanF shows unnecessary antagonism, lack of empathy, and a lack of humor.

Nope. TTH's clumsy attempts merely emphasize his incompetence.

What you call such are merely the results of my badly tolerating gross foolishness, hypocrisy and blatant dishonesty. The Watchtower Society has used such tactics on those it considers part of "Babylon the Great" and the rest of "Satan's system". There is nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade, and in plain language.

As Isaiah 65:20 says: "And the sinner will be cursed, even though he is a hundred years of age." Sins like gross foolishness, hypocrisy and blatant dishonesty need to be pointed out, and their practicers called 'spades'. Do you not agree?

Quote

He has also pointed out that AlanF's super-hypercritical view of JW leadership is also hypocritical in that an atheist should have no reason to pick on the spiritual and doctrinal beliefs of just one particular religion among hundreds.

Yes, TTH has said that, and I've pointed out why he was wrong. Why have you ignored that?

Quote

I like that Anna has picked up on some flaws in AlanF's reasoning.

Please point them out. She has only objected, not pointed anything out, so far as I can see.

And again, I've responded to every one of Anna's objections that were not trivial.

Quote

I think AlanF still argues against JW leadership from the FWF-era, especially the 1950's through the 1980's, when Anna and others have picked up on positive signs of transition, away from much of the dogmatism of that era.

I see no such transition. On the contrary, I see today's Governing Body doubling down on dogmatism. It is also becoming more mealy-mouthed.

I see a greater tendency for the GB to talk out of both sides of its mouth, such as Jeffrey Jackson did before the ARC when he denied, without explicitly denying, that the GB claims to be directly guided by God. "Directly" means that God actively changes what the GB members would think if there were no such 'guidance'. That is inspiration.

Quote

Slowly, I see some of the old arguments disintegrating, especially in moving a few of the events, once applied to 1918, 1919 and 1914, now being more correctly applied to the 1st century or the future judgment.

I see what little has been changed as tweaking certain claims in order to emphasize the spiritual authority of the GB. Claims that time and events have proved to be false.

With regard to dates, I only see a trivial change with respect to 1919, where the supposed governing body comprised of the Brooklyn leadership is now said to have been appointed as "the faithful slave", as opposed to the entire body of anointed. Do correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote

I like that Arauna has included some excellent points on intelligent design,

ID is just old-time creationism in a tuxedo, as one critic said.

Quote

some of which AlanF doesn't care to counter, but resorts to the trusty old ad hominem instead, either against Arauna or her sources.

Wrong. I've responded to every one of Arauna's rational or semi-rational claims, and thoroughly debunked them. Her reliance on creationist sources goes against explicit Watchtower teaching. And she's mired in the Society's old young-earth creationist teachings that were abandoned 40 years ago.

I doubt that you can come up with even a single example where I failed to respond to a rational argument.

As for ad hominems, I rarely use a bare one, but usually accompany it with prose that anyone with a brain can see justifies its use. Do you want examples?

Quote

Personally, I wish I could say more on the evolution/creation debate, but I've never tackled the relevant literature,

Just like most JWs. I have, and I know what I'm talking about.

Quote

and I can tell that even our own Writing Department has made enough mistakes in misquoting the relevant scientists that they aren't ready to fully tackle this topic either.

You're a master of understatement.

Quote

However, I have a deep love for the Bible as God's Word, and the amazing consistency of the Bible books from first to last, and I have to wonder at the amazingly wide distribution of this particular book to every corner of the world. It's awe-inspiring.

You're leaning on a "crushed reed", my friend. Genesis is demonstrably wrong about many supposedly historical things, such as the order of creation of life, and Noah's Flood. Isaiah describes the earth as shaped like a pizza pie. New Testament writers go along with all this nonsense. Note what the Insight book says:

<< “Reed” is used in the Bible to represent instability and frailty. (1Ki 14:15; Eze 29:6, 7) Egypt was compared to a crushed reed, the sharp, pointed slivers of which would penetrate the palm of anyone leaning upon it. (2Ki 18:21; Isa 36:6) >>

Quote

Because of this, I'll take "Pascal's wager," that even if we are of all men most to be pitied (if our faith is misplaced) we really have nothing to lose and much to gain if our faith puts us on God's side.

Pascal's Wager is a fool's wager, because it assumes that God is too stupid to figure out if the bettor is sincere in his betting on God.

Quote

Besides, in the meantime, the true measure of Christianity is the activity that makes the world a better place and also makes us better individuals.

Ah yes. That's why the Watchtower Society has set up so many charities to help mankind.