AlanF

15 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Yes, @Arauna, an excellent challenge for you. Put each “joke” under the microscope. Analyze it with critical thinking skills to PROVE that it is funny or not funny. Just think how enriched your life will be!

It is like when I watch Colbert. I do not just laugh because the plebeians are laughing—what do they know? I run each joke into the lab for a bevy of tests. If I determine thereby using science that it was funny, I laugh my sides off.

If you actually read things before you worked on your rebuttal, you would see that @Arauna‘s comment has nothing to do with chronology.

It has to do with political developments that she has in position to know that will make you wish the end had come, even should you be on the wrong side.

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

14 minutes ago, Arauna said:

"Rubbish, idiotic humor " those and other rude remarks are really teaching me something about the writers..... They also can cut and paste from other magazines but cannot think for themselves. .....

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.

28 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

Yes true. But Mr Harley has made it clear over the years why he is here, and it isn't to impart info' but to use other people's info for his profit. 

Arauna, well she probs' just as OCD  

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.

21 minutes ago, Matthew9969 said:

I thought you atheist call that the flying spaghetti monster?

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.

13 minutes ago, JJJ-AUSTRALIA said:

That makes a lot of sense  Alanf thanks for sharing.

I always found it funny, when I was a JW how some scriptures does not apply to the org and some do. 

I also find it funny for example, as long as I was a JW the GB always said they were the spokesman or channel of Jesus and Jah on earth they will give scriptures blah blah blah but at the Australian Royal Commission suddently they weren't the only channel or spokesman of Jesus and Jah on earth... 🤣🤣🤣

 

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.

4 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The last few comments have referenced “the end,” but they have missed the most obvious sign.

As you know, Jehovah’s Witnesses take a few years to work their way through the Bible via assigned chapters. This week we consider Revelation chapters 1-3. 

The end will come in about two months. It would be too inconvenient to make them start all over again from the Genesis beginning.

Call THAT not bringing in anything useful?

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

11 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

@TrueTomHarley  I'm sorry to have to say this to you, but it appears to me that you and @Arauna are very selfish and actually offer nothing of use to any of the topics. 

Arauna very often talks about herself just as you talk about yourself. She will say 'I am not impressed' 'I do not fall for your bait.'

She and you seem to be full of your own self importance. IMO you both waste space here. 

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

Arauna said:

Quote

I think we will see enough developments in global affairs in the next three years which will give you the incentive to hold your head up high for a little longer past the 10 year mark..... we are on the brink of BIG life-altering political developments. Things are building up.

<< 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.

20 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Yada yada yada yada.

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

45 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

Someone else, maybe @Witness  (forgive me if I'm wrong) mentioned that the GB were putting themselves in the place of Jesus Christ. I think the idea was dismissed. 

However @AlanF comment here :- claiming to exercise the rights and prerogatives of Christ as his empowered representatives. >> 

This is fantastic. It proves the point beyond doubt.  

I don't link on to anyone, just individual comments. And that comment makes a lot of sense to me. 

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:
    

Quote

 

    5 hours ago, AlanF said:

    So you don't think that God appoints any GB members

I did not say that. I said God obviously didn't appoint Greenlees.

 

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?
     

Quote

 

    Anna said:

        Anna quote: The appointment, as all appointments are, was based on qualifications outlined in 1Timothy 3:1-7.

        The process by which holy spirit "appoints" is through that scripture.

    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.

No it does not, it does not depend on that. No man can apply the scriptures perfectly. If they could, then there would be no need for Jesus to die. Also, man judges only by what he can see.

 

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.

Quote

So if someone appears to qualify according to the requirements in Timothy, then they are appointed.

But not by holy spirit.

Quote

 

    5 hours ago, AlanF said:

          Quote

        Anna Quote: Since JWS believe the Bible is inspired of God by means of holy spirit, then if one works along with the scriptures, one is working along with the holy spirit. Obviously in the case under discussion, holy spirit could not have appointed this man because unbeknown to those making the decision, he did not qualify. Which also answers your other question

    It does not. All your rationalizations are mere special pleading.

It does, because you asked :
     
    5 hours ago, AlanF said:

    And what about God's viewing his heart? Was God ever fooled by an outward appearance of repentance?

To which I replied, no God was not fooled but man was. Connect the dots please.

 

I have: the Governing Body is not appointed by holy spirit.
     

Quote

 

    5 hours ago, AlanF said:

    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.

There are a few people that I met in my life who I suspect may be that way inclined. But I have no proof.

 

You've completely missed the point.

Quote

Holy spirit can be ignored, because we all have free will.

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.
     

Quote

 

    5 hours ago, AlanF said:

          Quote

        JWs only pretend that the Bible is such a template. When push comes to shove, most JWs will push the Bible aside when Watchtower tradition or practice gets in the way. Do you want examples from my personal dealings with them?

        Sure   

    Ok, here's a good one.

    Consider the Bible passage at Luke 21:5-8: . . .

 I think this part should be put under a different topic heading. Perhaps JWI can do that? And then I will reply to it there.

 

Done: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/forums/topic/85914-governing-body-member-albert-schroeder-denies-the-bible-applies-to-jehovahs-witnesses/
     

Quote

 

    5 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Shows like those are not intended to be scholarly documentaries but to motivate people to act. And that's what they did.

You mean people like Bowen?

 

Yes, even Bowen created a good deal of beneficial publicity.
     

Quote

 

    5 hours ago, AlanF said:

          Quote

        However, the ARC was a different kettle of fish.

    Yes, and the people who helped spark all that were partly motivated by those TV presentations.

I doubt that.

 

Why? I know a great deal of what has been going on behind the scenes.
     

Quote

 

    5 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Your point? Complexity is irrelevant to the criminal coverups.

My point was that if we really know the details, discoverable by reading detailed transcripts and unravel the complexity, then we can see that often there was no cover up, it merely appeared that way on the surface. I am sure you know about two sides to a story. With CSA there are multiple complex sides, its not easy to get the facts unless you hear all the sides. For example you find out that a disfellowshiped man molested an 8 year old girl, and that the elders knew about him molesting another girl years prior to this one. Those are the bare bones. Then you find out that the mother (of the child) took the child to the perpetrators house (who happened to be the mothers step dad) for baby sitting, knowing that he had previously molested her (the mother's) sister when they were young.  "The first to state his case seems right,Until the other party comes and cross-examines him". Prov 18:17

 

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.

Quote

 

    5 hours ago, AlanF said:

        Anna quote: No, I did not say it was a lie. It's you, you are not comprehending the process.

    I perfectly well understand the process. God and holy spirit have nothing to do with it. JWs merely pretend they do.

Ummm....., that tells me merely your opinion.

 

An opinion backed up by ARC and multiple court cases.
     

Quote

 

    5 hours ago, AlanF said:

    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".

It is a process that is outlined in the Bible for the appointment of elder men. How else do you want me to understand it?

 

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:
     

Quote

 

    2 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Obey the Governing Body's commands as you would God's."

You remind me of the guy who wrote Thirty years a WT slave.  He was a slave....

 

As usual, your comment is nonsensical personal opinion.

Quote

You really believe the claptrap you talk.

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.

Quote

I have been a Witness for 45 years.  I have never been in awe of anyone...... not you either.....

Good for you!

Yet you view the Governing Body as speaking for God. Does God not awe you?

Quote

Some witnesses are inclined this way..... but they would be like sheeple even if they were not JWs.

Sadly, true. But the JW cult offers an ideal place for such sheeple.

Quote

I think JWs teach them to be less useful to governments who use the sheeple to fight their wars and they are less pliable to their political agendas and propaganda because they obey the GB suggestions.

That is one good thing about the JW cult. But they are not unique in this.

Quote

They are also less pliable to scholarly  deceit and amorality.

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.

    

Quote

 

    6 hours ago, AlanF said:

    so God's spirit-directed organization should be judged by such 'worldly' standards. Such self-serving hypocrisy!

"Oh- so you said-" is a tactic of putting words in my mouth I did not say.  I see you use this a lot.

 

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.

Quote

What I am saying that "scholars" were hoodwinked by pedophiles

Oh? Which scholars? Let's see if you can provide source references.

Quote

so why would "uninspired" elders not be hoodwinked?  You are the one with unreasonable standards and bias.  

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:

Quote

I believe you.

Good!

Quote

 

FWIW, I would have answered like this:

    The verse says not to go after persons who say "I am he" AND who say "the due time is near."
        On the first point, we could say that we do not say "I am he" in the CONTEXT of Jesus' answer in Luke. "I am he" is most likely referring to "false messiahs."

 

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.

Quote

        The problem with this is that the idea of "false messiah" in context sets a kind of trap that you point out, in that anyone who tries to predict the closeness of the destructive judgment is making himself a kind of prophet or Messiah, saying that they are speaking for Christ.

        
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?

Quote

 

        On the second point: "the due time is near," this would be much easier. Revelation has John stating that the due time is near.

            (Revelation 1:1-3) . . .A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. . . . 3 Happy is the one who reads aloud and those who hear the words of this prophecy and who observe the things written in it, for the appointed time is near. (Revelation 22:20) . . .“The one who bears witness of these things says, ‘Yes, I am coming quickly.’” “Amen! Come, Lord Jesus.”

 

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.

Quote

    If we can extricate ourselves from the "I am he" then Revelation 1 & 22 give us the basis on which to say "the due time has approached."

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

Quote

 

I should add that the meaning of 'persons who say "I am he" ' is probably best spelled out in Matthew's version:

(Matthew 24:23-28) . . .“Then if anyone says to YOU, ‘Look! Here is the Christ,’ or, ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will give great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones. 25 Look! I have forewarned YOU. 26 Therefore, if people say to YOU, ‘Look! He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; ‘Look! He is in the inner chambers,’ do not believe it. 27 For just as the lightning comes out of eastern parts and shines over to western parts, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 28 Wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together.

 

That meaning is consistent with the Society's argument in the 1964 Watchtower: "Christ's empowered representatives".

Quote

It is ironic that Russell put out a book called "The Time is at Hand" AND simultaneously taught that the solution to the "great mystery" doctrine was that those who were of the higher calling, including Russell himself, could rightly speak of themselves as "the Christ."

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:

Quote

 

    2 hours ago, AlanF said:

    if they changed their policy and quit disfellowshipping for 'apostasy', their membership roles would drop immediately and drastically.

I think you are wrong here. I think that there are fewer apostasy disfellowshippings than you think, so the net effect can't be determined.

 

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.

Quote

Also, among JWs, there is a great appreciation for the good that comes out of association with others of like faith in the brotherhood. I'm sure you think this is irrelevant, but it would override any effect a few more or a few less disfellowshippings.

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.

Quote

In fact, I think the effect could be opposite. Membership roles might even increase as persons who had been pushed away would feel more comfortable associating again where they can now feel more supported, even if it weaknesses in their faith that caused their doctrinal deviations.

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.

Quote

It does not mean that less DFings would necessarily be right, because there are many who are only interested in disruption, chaos, contentions, and causing trouble and discomfort. These ones are not conducive to the comfort and encouragement of the brotherhood, and they should go.

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.

Quote

It might produce a more flexible theology as it sounds like there would be less enforcement of deviations.

Of necessity, sure.

Quote

But it would take a while for most JWs to be comfortable with the idea of any kind of deviations, anyway.

Of course, because for decades the Society has condemned deviations as rebellion against God. The JW community could be rehabilitated fairly easily.

Quote

For the most part we already have a high appreciation of what has been given to us through the organization. This is even true of those of us who recognize the GB as elders handling some specific necessary ministries, and do not think of them as the "governors of our faith" or the exact equivalent of the FDS.

I think the fact that most JWs DO think of their leaders as governors of their faith belies all that.

Quote

When it comes to deviations of current doctrine, even "overlapping generations" would probably take some time to go, because no one has offered a consistent acceptable replacement yet.

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.

Quote

Witnesses are generally very comfortable with their leadership.

Much like slowly boiling a frog in a big pot keeps him comfortable.

Quote

We actually appreciate the humility it takes to remind us that they are imperfect and will make mistakes and that not all the food will be perfect.

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.

Quote

It would be considered even more discreet to stop DFing for certain kinds of apostasy.

Considered by who?

Quote

Of course, the Bible already gives us a guide that shows there are also very serious kinds of apostasy, and therefore we would always expect nearly complete and unanimous approval about some disfellowshipping for apostasy.

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:

Quote

I would like to say this... when I read about the creation, life was not created as "red in tooth and claw" as you put it.

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?

Quote

Life was not eating each other to exist. At death maybe, but no life form was hunting another for food in the beginning.

Ah, you're a young-earth creationist. No wonder you say such things.

Quote

Things have to make sense if one believes in scripture.

So if scripture said the moon is made of cheddar cheese, would you believe it?

Quote

Can't believe in one concept and not another. If it is written that life was to eat, and that was ALL LIFE, green vegetation, then common sense would tell me, the only meateating was going on at death, scavengering a carcass.

So you think the Bible trumps science and the fossil record.

Quote

No, wild ferocious dinosaurs as science think they know from bones. But ask yourself, what cleaned away these massive bodies after they died?

Most predators are both scavengers and active hunters. Problem solved.

Quote

We have sharks in the seas, what is left over it settles on the bottom for scavenging. And we see that today. Animals not created to live forever had to be removed, cleaned up after, who,did that Adam? Come on think about it.

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.

6 hours ago, Arauna said:

You almost sound kind on that one...... but you are the one who is misled.  You see, I am not the average witness you have dealt with. Yes, I am a sweet and happy old lady...... but that is as far as it goes.  I am shrewd and well informed. 

I have lived and worked in 4 continents of the globe....... for starters..... I do not have a myopic view  or inward looking - like many Americans do have. I am now retired in Asia-minor.

I look at my faith objectively and have done my own intrinsic evaluation of the bible for logic, cohesion, and continuity of the theme.  I believe the bible tells how God is project managing  events until the restoration of the earth...... I have used project managing skills to do this and also used risk management techniques to see where the globe is heading........ I love politics and watch events closely to see how prophecy will be fulfilled.........I believe the bible is absolute reality and can prove it by analysing the reality of the theme and current events on the globe.   

I have also looked at the latest discoveries in paleontology, geology etc....... not impressed with the suppression of information which proves there is a creator. I also listen to a lot of debates between atheists and religious philosophers..... but the religious nuts come out on top ..... except when they try to prove a literal 6 day creation... but young earth evidence is ample........ 

I have already seen through your way of thinking..... why?  I keep abreast of world events........ science, technology...... let's leave it at that. I need not state my credentials.  But I do see enormous gaps in your thinking which compels you to dismiss all JWs and any value a JW might have.   A waste of a good mind..... 

 

I have noticed a post- modern world-view in your own replies. 

Dunning-Kruger is at work bigtime in this one.

Vic Vomidog said:

Quote

Ha ha. You are funny. I love it that you are making mincemeat of these horrible people here.

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

JW Insider said:
     

Quote

 

    20 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    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.

I think you know that past WT articles have used a sense of apostasy that is not the equivalent of "rebellion against God."

 

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.

Quote

I could point to a post here where I discussed an "apostasy spectrum." But you are already aware that the WTS has stated that the "apostate" need not have specifically turned away from God, but they are expressing a desire to leave the organization.

Yes, as I said above.

Quote

@Arauna even made a point I've heard before that any organization has a right to expel persons for conduct or representation that the organization deems to be detrimental to its interests. A "Golf Course" can expel persons for its own reasons.

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:
     

Quote

 

    1 hour ago, AlanF said:

    The fact is that no critics of the JWs expect that there ought to be inspired people at the helm.

On this forum, we have seen this critique a few times. It was clearly claimed by @JOHN BUTLER, who sadly was "DF'd" from the forum. It is similar to what has been said by @4Jah2me more recently, and @Witness, too.

The idea is that if Jesus had in mind an ongoing feeding program from an appointed "faithful and discreet slave" where these teachers of the kingdom would teach things both old and new,

 

The fact that virtually no JW critics give credence to that nonsense makes everything else moot.

Quote

then they should be inspired in the sense of having something like a "double portion of Jehovah's spirit." This does not mean "inspired" in the same sense as "apostolic succession"

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.

Quote

but aliases associated with @AllenSmith-38 have argued for something very close to "apostolic succession" or at least "apostolic precedence."

Completely missing the point. No surprise.

Quote

I think that TTH's blog was actually dealing with a real question about an idea that the GB should really be inspired, even infallible, and that they should produce "perfect" food, which of course, they don't claim to do.

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:

Quote

Is this long comment what it looks like? Is this fellow really doing lengthy commentary on the greatest scholar that he can envision—himself?

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:
     

Quote

 

    1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

    So no one in the JW Org is appointed by Holy Spirit. No one in the JW Org is Inspired of Holy Spirit.

This is too juvenile. If you appoint someone who turns out to be a clunker, you say, “Guess that wasn’t so inspired after all,” and let that be the end of it.

 

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.

Quote

 

I wrote it up here:

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/08/the-loaded-words-infallible-inspired-and-perfect.html

 

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:
     

Quote

 

    1 hour ago, AlanF said:

    Anna, you're sidestepping my question. I asked you if you think that God would appoint a man such as Greenlees. Not whether fallible men would appoint him.

I would have liked to merge this with my reply above, but had to go away and do something. Anyway, as I've already shown, I did not side step your question but I answered directly that I do not think God would appoint a man such as Greenlees:

        23 hours ago, AlanF said:

        Do you really think that God would appoint a homosexual pedophile to the Governing Body of his organization?

    Of course I don't think that.

 

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.
 

Quote

 

    1 hour ago, AlanF said:

    You've argued that, even though the Society claims "appointment by holy spirit", that's not actually what happens. Rather, imperfect men make appointments, and then JWs pretend that holy spirit did it.

Like I said:

    The appointment, as all appointments are, was based on qualifications outlined in 1Timothy 3:1-7.

The process by which holy spirit "appoints" is through that scripture.

 

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.

Quote

Since JWS believe the Bible is inspired of God by means of holy spirit, then if one works along with the scriptures, one is working along with the holy spirit. Obviously in the case under discussion, holy spirit could not have appointed this man because unbeknown to those making the decision, he did not qualify. Which also answers your other question

It does not. All your rationalizations are mere special pleading.
     

Quote

 

    1 hour ago, AlanF said:

    And what about God's viewing his heart? Was God ever fooled by an outward appearance of repentance?

Obviously it was not God but men who were fooled.

 

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.
     

Quote

 

    1 hour ago, AlanF said:

    But Greenlees never stopped

Obviously. However I very much doubt that someone would have purposefully employed a pedophile.

 

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.
     

Quote

 

    1 hour ago, AlanF said:

    There are many instances where a molester known to some elders has been put back into some position of responsibility in some congregation. Barbara Anderson has a list of those known to her.

I am sure she has, and hopefully she has given that list to the Police.

 

Of course. And to appropriate lawyers.
     

Quote

 

    1 hour ago, AlanF said:

    JWs only pretend that the Bible is such a template. When push comes to shove, most JWs will push the Bible aside when Watchtower tradition or practice gets in the way. Do you want examples from my personal dealings with them?

Sure

 

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.

Quote

 

    1 hour ago, AlanF said:

    It appears that you know that Greenlees was a homosexual child molester for many years, including when he was appointed a Watchtower Society Director in 1964, which in turn implies that he was such for many years before that. Just when in the years between his youth and his appointment to the GB in 1971 had he "been made clean"?

I don't know much about him, only from what you and JWI said.

 

Obviously there is no point in his latter years where he had "been made clean".
     

Quote

 

    1 hour ago, AlanF said:

    Since this issue became publicly known in 2002 with the NBC Dateline and Panorama programs,

That's hardly and inspiration for reform.  I have seen them. Full of loaded language and sensationalism.

 

Shows like those are not intended to be scholarly documentaries but to motivate people to act. And that's what they did.

Quote

However, the ARC was a different kettle of fish.

Yes, and the people who helped spark all that were partly motivated by those TV presentations.
 

Quote

 

    1 hour ago, AlanF said:

    Some of those are the subject of the Zalkin lawsuits. In most coverup cases that I'm aware of, the elders took it upon themselves to cover up, or were directed to cover up by the Service Department.

I am sure there have been coverups. But I am sure you know cases are very complex. I have read two court transcripts (two different cases) each several thousand pages long. So I know what I am talking about.

 

Your point? Complexity is irrelevant to the criminal coverups.
     

Quote

 

    1 hour ago, AlanF said:

    And of course, you've clearly admitted that the Society's claim that elders are appointed by holy spirit is a lie.

No, I did not say it was a lie. It's you, you are not comprehending the process.

 

I perfectly well understand the process. God and holy spirit have nothing to do with it. JWs merely pretend they do.

Quote

Those days of tongues of fire are long gone, with all the other outward manifestations of miracles etc.

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:
     

Quote

 

    17 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Sure. Call the number I gave you, and leave your PayPal contact with my secretary. Once that's done I'll request a payment from you for whatever you tell my secretary your information is worth.

I’m sorry to be troublesome. Please excuse my asking, but is your secretary a male or a female?

 

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.

Quote

I am not really good with girls. I get very nervous around them, and I am nervous already thinking about passing along some of the hot information that would really expose  these jerks.

Well, I think that an in-between would be pretty thick skinned.

Quote

As I get older I look at myself in the mirror and I don’t like what I see. I have to admit that I am very repressed sexually, and this is not easy for a middle-aged man to admit, even anonymously. It is their fault. I wish I had gone to college. I wanted to when I was younger.

It's never too late to fix all that.

Arauna said:
    

Quote

 

    16 hours ago, Anna said:

    , elders had been hoodwinked into thinking that someone with pedophilic tendencies

In the past university professors were hoodwinked. Social services placed children back in the homes with pedophile fathers.

 

Ah, so God's spirit-directed organization should be judged by such 'worldly' standards. Such self-serving hypocrisy!
     

Quote

 

    19 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Once again, try using Grammarly.

Arrogance!

 

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?

Quote

I bet you only speak English well

I've said that several times in this thread. Did you not comprehend? Or do you think you're making a point?

Quote

but expect others to write your "style".

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.

Quote

Many here speak several languages of which English is not their first language.

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:
     

Quote

 

    22 hours ago, AlanF said:

    will be another couple of generations before they reach the status of of religions in Australia, the UK,

I think you are too busy studying the sordid inner circle gossip details if the few cases of pedophilia amongst JWs,  that you have little knowledge of what is happening in the real world.

 

LOL! You, who gets most of her knowledge of the world via Watchtower publications, have the gall to say that!

Quote

 

All religion will soon be replaced by either worship of the state or one world religion which will take the form of a set of values which will include  LGBTQ ......P

In your mind that will be wonderful because you hate all religion and cling to the dogma of Darwinism....... only ..... your disappointment will be great because you will be gnashing your teeth in anger at  the true God when he reveals himself.

 

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:
     

Quote

 

    21 hours ago, AlanF said:

    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.

Only two? What about a third postulation..... that God is not the source of the problem but allows it to exist for a reason...... Your reasoning is occam's razor -    very limited........ all that reading of Dawkins' junk is showing.

 

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:
     

Quote

 

    22 hours ago, AlanF said:

    alternative is that there are one or more other sorts of Creators

That idea must have come from the idea of 23 universes in string "theory"..... oh you are so smart! Congratulate yourself.

 

No, it comes from thinking about the situation. This is not rocket science.
  

Quote

 

    On 11/19/2019 at 12:27 PM, AlanF said:

    None so blind as those who will not see.

That argument goes two ways.  

 

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.
     

Quote

 

    On 11/18/2019 at 9:17 PM, AlanF said:

    Your worship of the GB is so strong that even if Jesus himself

You do not know me and make many assumptions.

 

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.

Quote

On the other hand - you may have some truths, but like all haters of JWs

Not a hater, but a realistic viewer. You seem to have absorbed the post-modernist view that criticism is hatred.

Quote

you have no balance or reasonableness and always go to extremes.

Nonsense. You cannot cite examples.