AlanF

Let's add to your intellectual sins: totally missing the point.

Then you should have no trouble explaining exactly what in the referenced posts are not rubbish or an idiotic attempt at humor. No one will be holding his breath. I'm not surprised about TTH. I don't know about Arauna having OCD; I chalk it up to too long spent in an arrogant, brain-deadening cult.

Not at all. While that entity is just as much a candidate as Zeus, Ganesh, or anything else, it's entirely made up in order to poke fun at god-believers.

Yes, the Society is more than capable of talking out of both sides of its mouth. Its leaders simply have no respect for the truth -- only for their own traditions. The GB member at the ARC flat-out lied about the GB's claim of being a spokesman.

Like I said, no information. Only a non sequitur and idiotically lame attempt at humor.

I totally agree. Neither of them ever offers actual information -- only opinions, and often, just plain lies.

Arauna said: << As we have heretofore stated, the great jubilee cycle is due to begin in 1925. At that time the earthly phase of the kingdom shall be recognized... Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old, particularly those named by the Apostle in Hebrews chapter eleven, to the condition of human perfection. >> -- Millions Now Living Will Never Die, 1920 Edition, pp. 89-90. << Based upon the argument heretofore set forth, then, that the old order of things, the old world, is ending and is therefore passing away, and that the new order is coming in, and that 1925 shall mark the resurrection of the faithful worthies of old and the beginning of reconstruction, it is reasonable to conclude that millions of people now on the earth will be still on the earth in 1925. Then, based upon the promises set forth in the divine Word, we must reach the positive and indisputable conclusion that millions now living will never die. >> -- Millions, p. 97. << We have no doubt whatever in regard to the chronology relating to the dates of 1874, 1914, 1918, and 1925. It was on this line of reckoning that the dates 1874, 1914, and 1918 were located; and the Lord has placed the stamp of his seal upon 1914 and 1918 beyond any possibility of erasure. What further evidence do we need? Using this same measuring line ... it is an easy matter to locate 1925, probably in the fall, for the beginning of the antitypical jubilee. There can be no more question about 1925 than there was about 1914. The fact that all the things that some looked for in 1914 did not materialize does not alter the chronology one whit. Noting the date marked so prominently, it is very easy for the finite mind to conclude that all the work to be done must center about it, and thus many are inclined to anticipate more than has been really foretold. Thus it was in 1844, in 1874, in 1878 as well as in 1914 and 1918. Looking back we can now easily see that those dates were clearly indicated in Scripture and doubtless intended by the Lord to encourage his people, as they did, as well as to be a means of testing and sifting when all that some expected did not come to pass. That all that some expect to see in 1925 may not transpire that year will not alter the date one whit more than in the other cases. >> -- May 15, 1922 Watch Tower. J. F. Rutherford later admitted to the Bethel family about his failed prediction, "I know I made an ass of myself." << Receiving the gift, the marching children clasped it to them, not a toy or plaything for idle pleasure, but the Lord's provided instrument for most effective work in the remaining months before Armageddon. >> -- The Watchtower, September 15, 1941, p. 288, regarding the distribution of the book Children. Article "Why Are You Looking Forward To 1975?" -- The Watchtower, August 15, 1968. << The apostle Paul was spearheading the Christian missionary activity. He was also laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our 20th century. >> -- The Watchtower, January 1, 1989, original edition, p. 12.

Yet another spew of lies, half-truths and ad hominems.

It certainly does make sense. After all, from the 1920s up through about 2013 JW leaders proclaimed that the entire worldwide body of "anointed ones" comprised "the faithful and discreet slave" which Jesus Christ "appointed over all his belongings" on earth in 1919. That, without question, fits the above bolded description. The current Governing Body claims the same thing for itself. That the phrase "I am He" encompasses the GB's overblown claim is proved both by logical argument and by the Society's own 1964 argument.

Anna said: Well then, if God didn't appoint Greenlees, how can you think he appointed the others? And which ones do you think that God did appoint? And how would you know? What you've just argued -- correctly, I might add -- is that JW elders are NOT appointed by holy spirit, but by imperfect men who may or may not have properly applied the scriptures. In particular, you've explained why the JW Governing Body cannot be spirit-appointed -- that they are counterfeits because their claims are false. But not by holy spirit. I have: the Governing Body is not appointed by holy spirit. You've completely missed the point. True, but we are talking about a fundamental doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses: The Governing Body, is God's anointed representative, speaks for God and must be obeyed as God would. But we've already concluded that the GB is NOT appointed by God, by holy spirit. Rather, its members are appointed by imperfect men, who were in turn appointed by other imperfect men, all the way back to Rutherford. In no case can it be shown that holy spirit acted upon the ones doing the appointing, or that the appointments were done strictly according to scriptural requirements. Done: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/forums/topic/85914-governing-body-member-albert-schroeder-denies-the-bible-applies-to-jehovahs-witnesses/ Yes, even Bowen created a good deal of beneficial publicity. Why? I know a great deal of what has been going on behind the scenes. Theoretical exercises are all well and good, but the many court cases where the sordid details of the perpetrator's actions, along with the active covering up done by JW elders, mostly at the direction of the Service Department, prove that JW policy and practice leaves much to be desired, and is often outright criminal. This was all so clearly exposed in the ARC proceedings. An opinion backed up by ARC and multiple court cases. The point is about APPOINTMENT by holy spirit. Your reading a book and trying to apply the author's instructions does not in any sense mean that the author has directed you. Following her written directions, and her actively directing you, are completely different things. It's the difference between having Julia Child's cookbook in your kitchen and having Julia Child herself supervising you. Capiche?

Arauna said: As usual, your comment is nonsensical personal opinion. It's far from claptrap. You claim that merely based on "I don't believe it!" You have yet to offer clear reasoning on anything with which you disagree. Good for you! Yet you view the Governing Body as speaking for God. Does God not awe you? Sadly, true. But the JW cult offers an ideal place for such sheeple. That is one good thing about the JW cult. But they are not unique in this. Not really. They're extremely prone to accept whatever nonsense comes out of Watchtower headquarters. Nonsense that is likely to be changed in short order. Like the organ transplant ban of 1967, which was quietly dropped within a decade. Wrong. People like you are often such fuzzy thinkers that you write things that have meanings you're not even aware of. Such as in the above exchange. Oh? Which scholars? Let's see if you can provide source references. Wrong. We know that elders, especially the Governing Body, are uninspired. But the GB claims "guidance from God" that is indistinguishable from "inspiration by God", which means that in practice, they cannot be wrong. I've heard elders make the same claim for themselves, based on the Society's teachings. So if they are what they claim, yes indeed, one expects that they would not be hoodwinked by pedophiles.

JW Insider said: Good! Correct. Remember that "messiah" and "christ" mean "anointed one", meaning "anointed by God". The term does not apply just to Jesus Christ, or even to someone claiming to be Jesus Christ returned, but to anyone claiming to be anointed by God. You're confusing two separate ideas. There is nothing scripturally wrong with expecting and hoping for "the end" to come soon. But predicting a specific time period for "the end" is a different kettle of fish. I need not repeat the many warnings given in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 against trying to predict "the end"; they're clear enough on their own. Therefore predicting a specific date or narrow window of time is grossly unscriptural. Otherwise, what do the scriptural warnings mean? Well, there is a lot that can be said about Revelation. What did John mean by "near"? If we say, "within a couple of decades", then Revelation can be dismissed as the ravings of a lunatic. If we say, "we don't know but we believe John was inspired", then it must mean "several thousand years". But that is extremely problematic since several thousand years is not "near" in any meaningful sense. One is then forced to interpret "near" in the virtually meaningless sense of "an unknown time in the future". And the meaning of "near" in Luke 21 is obviously not that. The Society itself explained the "I am he" one and only one time, in the Nov. 1, 1964 Watchtower (p. 645). After some commentary it said: << The combined testimony of these faithful witnesses pointed to danger from within the ranks of professed Christians. The peril would be not so much from the openly avowed opponents of Christ as from those who would rise up claiming to be Christ or claiming to exercise the rights and prerogatives of Christ as his empowered representatives. >> Now, who today among Jehovah's Witnesses claims "the rights and prerogatives of Christ as his empowered representatives"? The Governing Body. Therefore, by the Society's own argumentation, the GB is saying "I am he". Case closed. Posted 8 minutes ago That meaning is consistent with the Society's argument in the 1964 Watchtower: "Christ's empowered representatives". Which is exactly why Russell and his successors must be among the ones that Luke 21:8 says not to follow. Further titles were "The Kingdom Is At Hand", "The Approaching Peace of a Thousand Years", "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached", etc. All of this is so obvious that Albert Schroeder immediately realized its import, and almost panicked. This caused him to deny that the Bible applies to Jehovah's Witnesses. Otherwise he would have had to admit that the JW organization is fundamentally at odds with Jesus' teaching.

JW Insider said: Perhaps, perhaps not. In my experience with online forums and simply talking with ex-JWs generally, I've seen a great seething anger on the part of many because of the Society's policy of disfellowshipping for expressing disagreement with any JW doctrine. Such authoritarianism is bound to create resentment on the part of those who can actually think. Of course, a large fraction of JWs are content to have an authority tell them what to think, and even where to put their feet on each step. Remember the large drop in JW membership after the 1975 fiasco. The only reason that many JWs remain in the cult, at least nominally, is to avoid disfellowshipping or informal shunning. I know many, including my own family members, who are in that boat. The point I'm making is not so much about disfellowshipping per se, but the attitude engendered in most JWs by the policy of disfellowshipping for 'apostasy', i.e., expressing disagreement with Watchtower tradition or policy. Most JWs are well aware that if they found themselves before a judicial committee for expressing doubt about some JW teaching, the most important question the elders would ask is: "Do you believe that Jehovah is using the Governing Body?" A 'No' answer results in immediate disfellowshipping, as many stories posted by ex-JWs prove. This creates fear in the JWs who think this through. I think the number of people who would even want to come back is small, so great is the resentment caused by the authoritarian policies. You're right in principle, but not, I think, in practice. If there were less of a violent reaction by Watchtower officials against disagreement, there would be less pushback by those who are punished for disagreeing. It simply wouldn't be worth their time. About 20 years ago I managed to get an audience with a Watchtower official about such things. He was interested in hearing the viewpoint of an outspoken online critic. I told him that if the Society cleaned up its act on three issues, most opposition would dry up: blood, child molestation and disfellowshipping. He agreed. Of necessity, sure. Of course, because for decades the Society has condemned deviations as rebellion against God. The JW community could be rehabilitated fairly easily. I think the fact that most JWs DO think of their leaders as governors of their faith belies all that. That's because there IS no acceptable replacement. Why? Because it is the entire end-times scenario created by Russell and perpetuated by his successors that is wrong. Much like slowly boiling a frog in a big pot keeps him comfortable. Such "appreciation" ignores the fact that most of the time, JW leaders must be dragged kicking and screaming away from their traditional teachings. The experience of many JWs who tried to offer constructive criticism but were punished for their efforts proves it. Think of Carl Olof Jonsson and Jay Hess. If these men were truly humble, they would not claim that their own words are equal to God's. Considered by who? Sure, if it involved an extremely clear violation of biblical norms, such as sleeping with one's stepmother. But a far better practice would be to organizationally ignore most bad forms of conduct, since individual JWs are supposed to be trained to have consciences tuned well enough to figure these things out on their own. But a century of authoritarian indoctrination has severely damaged the conscience and thinking ability of far too many JWs. "What does the Society say?" rather than "What does the Bible say?" is the operational phrase for most elders. That's understandable since the Governing Body has put itself in the place of God in the minds of JWs. Watchtower policy almost always trumps an individual JW's understanding of the Bible.

The argument that “design requires a Supreme Designer” and that that Designer is the God of the Bible has a major flaw: According to 1 John 4:8, 16 “God is love”. As the Creator and Parent of all living things, and as one so lovingly cognizant of every creature that, according to Matthew 10:29: Two sparrows sell for a coin of small value, do they not? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father’s knowledge. The history of the last 550 million years of life, with the constant conflict between predators and prey and all the pain and suffering that history entails, proves unarguably that any postulated Creator is far from loving. A loving Creator, by definition, could not create a world in which the daily lot of so many life forms is to suffer a nature “red in tooth and claw”. Thus, either the God of the Bible is not loving, or he does not exist. Since the Bible says that "God is love", the only logical conclusion is that he does not exist. An alternative is that there are one or more other sorts of Creators, but it is obvious that none of these are the Bible’s God, and that they are not loving. There might be any number of these sorts of ‘creators’ or ‘gods’, such as a Deistic god who created the universe and then went off to tend to other business, or some entity altogether different. Some Christians assign the word “God” to these; creation by them can be called forms of theistic evolution.

John Houston said: Sure it was. Read any decent books on geology and paleontology. The earth formed about 4.7 billion years ago, the earliest traces of life are at least 3.5 billion years old, macroscopic life with hard parts first appeared about 550 million years ago. Within a short time predators appeared. Do you not accept this? Ah, you're a young-earth creationist. No wonder you say such things. So if scripture said the moon is made of cheddar cheese, would you believe it? So you think the Bible trumps science and the fossil record. Most predators are both scavengers and active hunters. Problem solved. Predators that also scavenged. The fossil record records plenty of examples of predator/prey interaction. For example, many trilobites, up to 520 million years old, exhibit bites taken out of their shells. A few of these exhibit partially healed bite marks, showing that they survived an attack and lived on. That is not possible in a young-earth creationist view. So again, which do you accept? The fossil record and science, or the fallible biblical interpretations of a few religious leaders?

In the thread Eight Governing Body etc on page 21, Anna asked me to post the following on a new thread. So here we go. Governing Body Member Albert Schroeder Denies the Bible Applies to Jehovah's Witnesses Consider the Bible passage at Luke 21:5-8: << 5 Later, when some were speaking about the temple, how it was adorned with fine stones and dedicated things, 6 he said: “As for these things that you now see, the days will come when not a stone will be left upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 7 Then they questioned him, saying: “Teacher, when will these things actually be, and what will be the sign when these things are to occur?” 8 He said: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time is near.’ Do not go after them. >> The important part here is verse 8. According to most Bible commentaries, and the Society itself, the phrase 'I am he' means "I am someone important, someone to be listened to, someone with authority from Jesus and God to represent them". That obviously includes JW leaders since they directly claim to be Jehovah's representatives. The next part of the verse mentions such people as saying ‘The due time is near’ which obviously refers back to the time when "these things are to occur". Jesus, then, was warning his listeners that if they hear such persons claiming to represent God, and claiming that the due time for 'the end' is near, they should not go after them. Since this perfectly describes what JW leaders have done throughout their history and continue to do, it is obvious that Jesus himself said not to follow them. In 1994 I had a phone conversation with GB member Albert Schroeder about his failure to follow up on some things he had promised to do. After he said he was reneging on his promise, I decided to challenge him with a question about Luke 21:5-8. I asked him, What do you think that passage means? He got out his NWT and read it out loud. After finishing verse 8, he was unable to speak. After a minute or so, I said, "Well? What does this mean with respect to applying it to JW teaching about the end?" After another two minutes or so of dead silence, he said, "It can't apply to us, because we're God's people!" Of course, you can imagine my reaction. In 2009 I found myself living temporarily in Utah, in Mormon country. One Saturday morning a lone JW, a man of about 70, came to our door. After some pleasantries where we identified ourselves as ex-JWs, I challenged him with Luke 21:5-8 and asked him the same thing I did with Schroeder. He was silent for a bit, and then said that he understood what the passage meant, so I asked him if he intended to remain a JW, given that his Lord Jesus Christ specifically said "do not follow them". He said that he had been a JW all his life and was too old to change. Perfectly understandable, of course, but also perfectly unchristian.

Dunning-Kruger is at work bigtime in this one.

Vic Vomidog said: I'm bored with stringing you along, TrueTomHarley, so this is the end.

JW Insider said: Of course. One such was in the April 1, 1986 Watchtower, which considered the question, "Why have Jehovah’s Witnesses disfellowshipped (excommunicated) for apostasy some who still profess belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ?" The article never clearly defines "apostasy", but weasels around by saying that a true Christian must accept "the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses." But this is another instance of the Society talking out of both sides of its mouth, because the Insight book, under "Apostasy", clearly states that apostasy "constitutes a rebellion against God and a rejection of his Word of truth." Combining the two concepts results in something like this: "Since the Governing Body speaks for God, rejecting its teachings is rebellion against God." And we know that this idea has been clearly enunciated or implied hundreds of times in JW literature. Of course, in the most general sense, "apostasy" means "leaving a previous loyalty", but that is far too broad a definition because it would mean that a loyal employee who quits his job is an apostate, which is an absurd use of the word. So the Society's many rantings against "apostates" essentially equate disagreement with its teachings with rebellion against God. How convenient! Much more accurate words to describe dissent from Watchtower teaching are "heterodoxy" and "heresy". But heresy has dire associations, such as "Inquisition" and so forth, so the Society will not use it. Catholic scholar Jeffrey Burton Russell, writing in Dissent and Order in the Middle Ages: The Search for Legitimate Authority (Twayne Publishers, 1992), gave an excellent account of these and related words and how they have been used in the Catholic world (pp. 2-3): << Ideas acceptable to the bishops and to approved theologians were defined as orthodox (correct teaching) and catholic (universally held)... Dissenting ideas were considered heterodox (divergent). Heterodox ideas, when defined and condemned by the bishops, were deemed heretical. A heretic was a dissenter formally condemned by an accepted ecclesiastical authority... The term heretic is distinguished from infidel, one who is not Christian at all; apostate, one who abandons Christianity; and schismatic, one who has true doctrine but does not submit to ecclesiastical order. >> Most of these concepts are found in the April 1, 1986 Watchtower. Yes, as I said above. That's right, but no administrators in their right minds would call such an expelled person an apostate. And of course, expelling for clearly stated organizational reasons has nothing to do with equating those reasons with rebellion against God. It is this unchristian attitude, among other things, that defines Jehovah's Witnesses as a destructive cult.

JW Insider said: The fact that virtually no JW critics give credence to that nonsense makes everything else moot. There are two senses of "inspired": 'God-breathed' and the metaphorical sense, as in "that painting inspires me". The two should not be confused, although Watchtower writers often dishonestly take advantage of the ambiguity of the two meanings. The Society likes to use "direction" rather than "inspiration" because it allows them -- they think -- some wiggle room when their "spirit-directed" policies and teachings go wrong. But in the minds of average JWs, there is no difference, because the result is the same: "Obey the Governing Body's commands as you would God's." The Society has long been talking out of both sides of its collective mouth on this. Completely missing the point. No surprise. What his blog post clumsily and inaccurately alluded to was, rather, the argument that if the Governing Body demands obedience as if to God himself, and disfellowships for 'apostasy' -- rebelling against God -- any who willingly disobey or dispute the GB, then they are implicitly claiming inspiration. Why? Because if they acted in accord with the fact that they themselves are well aware of -- that they are in no sense inspired -- they would have to stop pretending that their words are God's words, and stop disfellowshipping people for apostasy. Of course, most everyone understands that, after all this time and irreparable damage to families by these disgusting teachings, if they changed their policy and quit disfellowshipping for 'apostasy', their membership roles would drop immediately and drastically. And of course, a very large number of JWs would sue the Watchtower Society for various abuses, probably forcing it out of business.

TrueTomHarley said: Nope. You're simply too stupid to see that where the material has "... AlanF said:" it's inside a quotation of Anna. Thus my quotations of Anna's comments to me include my preceding comments to her. That's largely because this board's software is too limited to allow proper quotations within quotations without going to unreasonable lengths. You're simply too dumb for words. If striving for stupidity were a baseball game, you've knocked the ball out of the park.

TrueTomHarley said: Such an infantile rejoinder! You continue confirming that you're a real dummie. But since you suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect you don't know it. LOL! This ridiculous bit of special pleading starts off, in its very first sentence, with this bit of nonsense: << It is revealing to me that those who taunt JWs endlessly over just how “inspired” are the ones at the helm today seem to take for granted that there should be ones who are that way. >> It only gets worse from this simple-minded straw man. The fact is that no critics of the JWs expect that there ought to be inspired people at the helm. Quite the contrary. Many critics, like Raymond Franz, clearly argued that no one can be inspired today, and that is one reason JW leaders should not make that claim, or make the claim that they have been appointed by holy spirit as Jehovah's representatives. It is JW leaders themselves who claim or have claimed direct inspiration, or 'guidance' that is indistinguishable from plenary inspiration. J. F. Rutherford claimed that angels magically 'downloaded' information into his head. And on and on. The fact that JW leaders disfellowship for 'apostasy' anyone who contradicts their teaching or denies that they are God's representatives proves that they really do claim inspiration. The rest of your 'argumentation' is too childish to comment on.

Anna said: So you don't think that God appoints any GB members. Good for you! If God did not appoint Greenlees, then he and the rest of them were appointed by fallible men -- a position considered apostate by the Governing Body and its minions. But that all depends on whether the men applying the scriptures do so perfectly. If they do not, then holy spirit could not have appointed the man. It does not. All your rationalizations are mere special pleading. Then God had nothing to do with Greenlees' appointment to the GB or anything else. By extension, neither does he have anything to do with appointing any other JW elders -- contrary to the Society's claims. Not as such, but they would certainly have been inclined to ignore Greenlees' behavior if they knew about it. And things like obvious homosexuality are not things easily ignored. And of course, according to Watchtower doctrine, anyone not fully qualified to be a proper elder would not be appointed, because holy spirit would see to it. Of course. And to appropriate lawyers. Ok, here's a good one. Consider the Bible passage at Luke 21:5-8: << 5 Later, when some were speaking about the temple, how it was adorned with fine stones and dedicated things, 6 he said: “As for these things that you now see, the days will come when not a stone will be left upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 7 Then they questioned him, saying: “Teacher, when will these things actually be, and what will be the sign when these things are to occur?” 8 He said: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time is near.’ Do not go after them. >> The important part here is verse 8. According to most Bible commentaries, and the Society itself, the phrase 'I am he' means "I am someone important, someone to be listened to, someone with authority from Jesus and God to represent them". That obviously includes JW leaders since they directly claim to be Jehovah's representatives. The next part of the verse mentions such people as saying ‘The due time is near’ which obviously refers back to the time when "these things are to occur". Jesus, then, was warning his listeners that if they hear such persons claiming to represent God, and claiming that the due time for 'the end' is near, they should not go after them. Since this perfectly describes what JW leaders have done throughout their history and continue to do, it is obvious that Jesus himself said not to follow them. In 1994 I had a phone conversation with GB member Albert Schroeder about his failure to follow up on some things he had promised to do. After he said he was reneging on his promise, I decided to challenge him with a question about Luke 21:5-8. I asked him, "What do you think that passage means?" He got out his NWT and read it out loud. After finishing verse 8, he was unable to speak. After a minute or so, I said, "Well? What does this mean with respect to applying it to JW teaching about the end?" After another two minutes or so of dead silence, he said, "It can't apply to us, because we're God's people!" Of course, you can imagine my reaction. In 2009 I found myself living temporarily in Utah, in Mormon country. One Saturday morning a lone JW, a man of about 70, came to our door. After some pleasantries where we identified ourselves as ex-JWs, I challenged him with Luke 21:5-8 and asked him the same thing I did with Schroeder. He was silent for a bit, and then said that he understood what the passage meant, so I asked him if he intended to remain a JW, given that his Lord Jesus Christ specifically said "do not follow them". He said that he had been a JW all his life and was too old to change. Perfectly understandable, of course, but also perfectly unchristian. Obviously there is no point in his latter years where he had "been made clean". Shows like those are not intended to be scholarly documentaries but to motivate people to act. And that's what they did. Yes, and the people who helped spark all that were partly motivated by those TV presentations. Your point? Complexity is irrelevant to the criminal coverups. I perfectly well understand the process. God and holy spirit have nothing to do with it. JWs merely pretend they do. But the Society makes no claims about such things. What do you think JW leaders mean when they say that Jehovah has appointed them as his anointed representatives? Merely that their predecessors read the Bible and decided to appoint them? I could appoint myself by that process, but would it be a valid appointment? Of course not, and by the same token JW leaders appointing other JW leaders is NOT in any sense "appointment by holy spirit".

Vic Vomidog said: He/she seems to be in-between. I really can't tell, and these days it's impolite to ask. You'll have to decide for yourself. Well, I think that an in-between would be pretty thick skinned. It's never too late to fix all that.

Arauna said: Ah, so God's spirit-directed organization should be judged by such 'worldly' standards. Such self-serving hypocrisy! Nope. That moron first wrongly criticized my grammar and twice refused to be corrected. Or can't you read? Or is your age impeding your understanding? I've said that several times in this thread. Did you not comprehend? Or do you think you're making a point? Wrong. I expect that others will not be gross hypocrites, and will not stupidly try to remove a non-existent splinter from my eye when they have a rafter in theirs. Sure, and I envy them for that. But they shouldn't challenge a competent native English speaker unless they have all their ducks in a row. Arauna said: LOL! You, who gets most of her knowledge of the world via Watchtower publications, have the gall to say that! The Watchtower Society has been making claims like that since its beginning. Not one claim has come true. It taught that 1914 would bring "the end". It taught that 1918, 1920 and 1925 would bring Armageddon. It taught that Armageddon would come shortly after 1942. Then 1975 was really going to be "IT". Then 2000. After that, virtually every year after 2000. No, Arauna, just like so many now-dead JWs, just before you die you're going to realize how badly your leaders have hoodwinked you. Arauna said: As I predicted, no reasonable answer here. You have no actual reason that "nature red in tooth and claw" has existed for half a billion years. You believe that God created all life, so he must be the author of such a thing. How could God not be the source of a "nature red in tooth and claw"? My argument comes not from Dawkins but from a careful consideration of the Bible and scientific facts. Do you have any actual arguments? Arauna said: No, it comes from thinking about the situation. This is not rocket science. Except that I've demonstrated that you and most of your fellow JWs really do refuse to see. The few that do see prove my point. But your posts indicate that you believe the Governing Body can do no wrong because you refuse to acknowledge any of their wrongdoing. You obviously view them as infallible, and you view them as they want to be viewed -- as God's anointed spokemen. Prove me wrong if you disagree. Not a hater, but a realistic viewer. You seem to have absorbed the post-modernist view that criticism is hatred. Nonsense. You cannot cite examples.