Srecko Sostar

If you really believe that GB acrobatics are "Divine teachings" .., go on, continue. lol

It is good to note that bans also have their counter effects. There is no guarantee that bans are successful, that is what experience tells us. People drink alcohol and drive motor vehicles relentlessly even though prohibitions are clearly posted and penalties are enforced.
Ideologically oriented and convinced people, in this case with religious beliefs, will resist the prohibitions of their religious freedom. JWs are not an only example of that. And other people, because of different beliefs, are ready to endure contempt and various prohibitions of society.
One question is always asked, is it worth suffering? When GB bans the wearing of beards for men or trousers for women, we wonder if the ban is worth enduring? JWs have proven it's worth. Because they also received liberation from those prohibitions. lol
But, Is it useful for a Russian brother to wear a beard? And Orthodox priests in Russia also wear beards, so maybe the end of the ban on wearing beards will not significantly affect JW men in Russia, because they could be mistaken for members of the "false religion".
GB abandons some of its bans, and there are various motives and reasons behind this. The fact that something is true, just, moral and pleasing to God plays the least role in all of this. It is about pragmatic reasons and the issue of money and material possessions. Also damage control, primarily due to the specific policy of running a massive international corporation, which is a religiously-ideologically colored hierarhical administration.
Each ideology is interwoven with its own extremisms, which are accepted by members within that ideology. WTJWorg and GB keep proving their own extremism which they project to their followers. And some JWs rebel within themselves against it, but then they become "apostates" and are expelled from the "society" because they are under "ban". Some leave and others stay despite the bans. Some remain in WTJWorg and balance the ban with their freedom.
So, as written in the article, bans are of limited effect. But in the meantime, you have to endure. Is it possible? Is it necessary?

Does this apply to a lot of bearded people at the meeting?

I wish you a quick and good recovery.

What you believe does not affect what I observe.
It only affects YOUR ability.

What is the use of comparing the decisions and actions of "perfect" people, Jesus, Adam and Eve with "imperfect" people, here and now? lol

What is the use of comparing the decisions and actions of "perfect" people, Jesus, Adam and Eve with "imperfect" people, here and now? lol

What is the use of comparing the decisions and actions of "perfect" people, Jesus, Adam and Eve with "imperfect" people, here and now? lol

The responsibility, and the full responsibility, rests with GB. Why? Because they dared to control the conscience of other people. You mention free will. What is more important or necessary for correct behavior? Free will or free conscience?
Free will was enslaved by GB, because GB claims that man has a tendency to abuse free will. They enslaved the natural conscience because GB claims that the conscience is insufficient to make correct decisions and distinguish between good and evil. They also enslaved the so-called "Bible-trained conscience" because it was clearly expressed in the latest public address of the GB representative that only the GB is authorized to allow, limit and direct when and how the so-called "Bible-trained conscience" should be used by JW.
Bizarre GB politic.

The lust for land, money power and real estate usurped the instructions of a man so poor, he didn’t even have a suitcase, and walked everywhere.
 
There is no record in the Bible of ANY Congregation ANYWHERE owning a building to meet in.

All these problems can be solved if the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society administers Justice and policy as specifically outlined by Jesus in Matthew the 18th chapter.
Matthew 18:15 is a critical key element of that.
… so simple a solution.
So important it was recognized and incorporated into the Constitution of the United States.
All JWs know Matthew 18:15  is a command as important as Memorial attendance.
This creates a problem, though…….
It disenfranchises arbitrary use of power, to do arbitrary things.
….like ignoring Matthew 18.
 
 

…. For the agenda driven intellectually challenged people, what I have just recommended is only what the Bible specifically states.
Specific and direct instructions directly fromJesus Christ, on exactly how to run a Congregation.
…. specific and direct instructions from our King, Jesus Christ, on EXACTLY how to run a congregation.
Do we do that that way?
Not even close.

Whose responsibility is it to understand if it's written in black and white? How many people do you believe Jesus guided by gabbing their hands to follow him and reject the unrighteousness of the Pharisees?
If people perished in the wilderness as a result of their sins, who should bear responsibility for it? Is it fair to attribute the removal of an entire generation before entering the promised land solely to the leaders? It appears as though you consistently shift the blame onto others instead of recognizing that true responsibility lies with free will.
Humanity is faced with only two fundamental choices, regardless of the justifications people use to navigate life's challenges or evade responsibility. Even in the face of personal imperfections and a desire to shift blame, these two choices remain constant, unaffected by any belief or restriction.
The Governing Body does not grant absolution for sins, unlike the Catholic Church, but it does provide a way for those who have been disfellowshipped or have left to return to God if they are truly repentant. Repentance is key, and the Governing Body has given clear guidelines for elders to assist those who demonstrate a genuine desire to return. This new understanding does not apply to diehard apostates or unrepentant individuals.
Let's avoid complicating the matter by engaging in another type of fallacious argument. Hence, it should be embraced when people show a willingness to return to God.
Your opinion is quite interesting, as it seems to contradict itself. On one hand, you criticize the Watchtower for not providing enough information, and on the other hand, you argue that it provides too much information that should be regulated by the government. This inconsistency may indicate an unsatisfiable attitude, which is often associated with diehard apostates.
 

Similar to the time when the generations of those who traveled in the desert died out and never saw the New World of the Jewish Paradise, so today there are generations of JWs who do not know what was taught in 1952, or before or after that year regarding those who cease to be JWs, as well as in other matters when it comes to dogma or administrative procedures.
You are now introducing the issue of business relations between former and current JWs. Your GB still needs to redefine the protocols with regard to the "new instructions" about dfd. As far as I understand, 3 categories of problematic JWs are mentioned. Excluded, apostates and minor baptized members.
The current practice does not mention the reason why someone was excluded or left the membership on their own. What are the reasons for not making it public?
If you can clarify for me and other readers, please comment and give source the information. Thank you!
Furthermore, in order for an ordinary JW to "decide independently" which person to say "hello" to, and which one not to, he/she must have enough information to make a decision. What information should there be about a dfd or diss person? May the elders and the congregation treat people who have committed the "same sin" but are not the same age, differently? How can this be explained through Jesus' teaching? No interpretations by GB, just the pure statement of Jesus, not the opinion of the WTJWorg administration and lawyers.
If it will be publicly announced in the congregation why someone is excommunicated, then this will cause some new elements that will not be "biblically justified", because the current practice shows that today's procedure carried out by the JC is "the only correct one". Abandoning the current procedure would mean that this existing practice is "unbiblical." "Shoot yourself in the foot." lol
Will reading names and revealing private information also be illegal due to existing regulations, laws on information that relates to individuals and should not be publicly available?
GB is starting to fear the effects of world courts, such as Norway, and these new changes are just a reflection of pragmatism, not genuine concern for the membership.

This is why even witnesses who never understood the proper protocol on how they should conduct themselves with former members and disfellowshipped individuals can now clearly see the impact of these new provisions from the Governing Body.
Even as far back as 1952, there was an article that made a conscious decision on this matter. How many witnesses today still remember and believe these provisions are a step in the right direction, when in reality it has been feasible for a very long time?
*** w52 12/1 p. 735 Questions From Readers***
Is it proper for a Christian witness of Jehovah to have business relationships with one who has been disfellowshiped?—F. G., California.
The distinction between social and religious responsibilities has always been important. In my experience, I have interacted with many disfellowshipped and former members on a professional level. The recent clarification by the governing body serves as a social norm, shedding light on why public announcements are deemed necessary when it comes to individuals who have been critical of the Watchtower but have not fully comprehended its principles throughout their lives. This practice is sometimes misunderstood by uninformed witnesses as "shunning." Therefore, the latest developments regarding former members and the disfellowshipped are not surprising.
Hence, it is irrelevant how a critic may meticulously analyze this in an attempt to cater to their followers and distort the story; it is merely the same old tale. However, what truly holds significance? These provisions exist for those who have strayed from the path and desire to reconcile with God, providing them with the chance to do so through their genuine "repentance." The governing body also addressed the topic of individuals who are unwilling to repent and have chosen the path of betrayal. In light of this, what sort of connection should a faithful witness maintain with such a malevolent being? What does scripture say in this instance?
Those critics who selectively choose Watchtower articles and distort their meaning do a disservice to those who seek to obediently follow God. This is something that all witnesses should have been mindful of from the beginning.
Regarding the relaxed dress code, we are currently living in the 21st century, where dressing distinctively may lead some to be perceived as stuck-up and old school. For this reason, a casual look may be more appealing to the younger generation and could encourage them to open their hearts to God. 
In certain countries, this has already been accomplished, particularly in cases where persecution is rampant. In these circumstances, it becomes a necessity to prioritize the welfare of individuals. Think about it people instead of criticizing the decision of the GB. How do you fit in society?

Let's delve deeper into that idea. Who established the commandments that govern the obedience of Gods' followers? Who bestowed the instructions assigning the Levites the duty of the altar? Who determined the dietary restrictions that God's faithful should adhere to? By examining these aspects, it becomes evident that former members lack any sound basis for criticism, or do they think the GB was responsible?
Srecko, it's truly remarkable how you continue to display hypocrisy. In the past, you criticized Witnesses for not even saying hello to disfellowshipped or former members. Now that they can, you still find a way to criticize. This psychological aspect is truly fascinating and deserves attention.

Well, I suppose it’s okay for the open club but I wouldn’t put it in the closed one.

Me: No, if you remember what you drew in the very first picture. The man should have just hit his finger or thumb with a hammer while trying to hammer a nail in the wall. The woman should be next to the parrot. She should be pointing her left index finger at the parrot's ear, and she should point her right finger at the parrots other ear. But her index fingers should be close enough to be touching the parrot.

Me: 
I like the black and white version better, and the parrot should be back on a perch which should be just like the first picture you drew, but with the pole a bit shorter so that the women is just slightly taller than the perch, and can more easily put her fingers at each side of the parrots head, but touching the parrots head at each side so it appears that she is trying to stop the parrot from hearing

Me: Keep the same picture, but have the woman holding the index finger of each hand at both sides of the parrot's head as if she is trying to cover the parrot's ears to keep the parrot from hearing whatever the man is saying.

I've adjusted the scene according to your instructions. The woman is now holding her index fingers at both sides of the parrot's head, attempting to cover its ears.
Not quite. So I try again:

I pay $20 a month to OpenAI to play with their 4.0+ version of ChatGPT. It's not really an expense because I still do some remote consulting for a tech company in Ohio. 
Today, I decided to try out its ability to draw pictures on demand. I wanted a picture of a man about to curse because he just hit his thumb with a hammer, and I want his wife, to put her fingers in the "ears" of their pet parrot, so that the parrot doesn't pick up any bad words to repeat.
So here goes:
Prompt: 
I need a New Yorker style cartoon containing man hammering a nail in the wall and accidentally hitting his thumb. At the same time a woman, presumably his wife, is standing next to a tall perch where a parrot appears oblivious and she, the wife, is putting her fingers in the ears of a parrot.


 Not terrible, but it didn't get the right idea about the parrot's ears being covered.
So I try again:
 

Come on man......jeans and Jesus loves me t-shirts to wear to meetings.

via .ORGWorld News

The best explanation and scale representation of a black Ive ever seen. Enjoy!