Ray Devereaux

This is so funny Rambo.. Losing KHs   They have just built Warwick and now they are going to build Ramapo. So they obviously don't think Armageddon is very close. 
Worship with spirit and truth ???  You are having a laugh. The GB only worship themselves and their multi-organisations which have $$$$ and real estate.. It's all for show. 
Rambo you write so well and sound so serious, but you tell lies just like your Leaders. 

20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”
21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.
This organization is already guilty of being false prophets, dude, your continuing the tradition of prophecying.

I have empathy / sympathy for those who were sexually abused as children, and for those still being abused.. And I believe it hasn't stopped happening in the JW Org. In my opinion the GB and their lawyers are just being more sly in how they handle it.  It seems too that Elders are still using the Clergy Penitent Privilege to hide Pedophiles in the congregations. Perhaps many of those pedophiles are actually Elders themselves.  So much has become known now that it is clear to see how immoral and dishonest the GB and their organisations are. 
Will it be a time of cleansing ? Or, will it be a time of destruction ?  Who knows ?  One thing is for sure, the  W/t & JW Org is not being run by True Anointed ones right now.

What a stupid statement!
“Interpretation of Bible text” is not what is on trial here. What—we are all required to interpret Bible text in a certain way? 
Jehovah’s Witnesses are a ‘one true faith” religion. There are many ‘one true faith’ religions. As such, they are known to criticize other religions, as all ‘one true faith’ religions criticize other religions. It is a valid read of the Scriptures that any perusal will suggest just might be true—that there is one true faith.
But if they would “not allow any faiths” they would call for violence against them. They would try to get politicians to pass laws against them. Instead, the “weapons” of Jehovah’s Witnesses are words only. Tell them ‘no’ and they go away.
Joel Engardio has stated how Witnesses provide a fine example, perhaps our last hope, of how groups with strongly polarized views can yet co-exist peacefully.
There is a difference between criticizing and disallowing. The back of a cigarette package contains a very strong warning agains smoking. Does that mean people are not allowed to smoke?
 

Yes. His general goal is always to minimize any negative press about NRMs. He lists "Mostly Against [Their Own] Members" as one of those minimizing factors. This is why I said:
If in politics, for example, a dictator were to bomb or gas a part of their own population, the world would point out how terrible it was that "he gassed his own people." It would not be considered a factor that minimizes guilt.

Hey brother, don't be so hard on yourself! I've noticed that people in general have no time....really. I'm a prime example, I have books on my to read list (including yours) and have I read them, nope, not a single one...yet. I wanted to start a topic on here the other day, but other (more important) stuff got in the way. In fact the days run into each other so fast and before you know another week is gone. I swear time is running faster. I think if we ever get put in jail I will beg them to let me access all the books I have wanted to read....

Would falsely predicting Armageddon on many occasions just to frighten people into the Orgs, and would stating that a person MUST BE a baptised JW to be saved, count toward atrocities ? 
Would deliberately misusing the Romans 13 scripture to give power and authority to the Leaders of the Orgs be classed as an atrocity ?
And would the Leaders giving orders to Elders, and the Elders obeying such orders, to keep CSA and known pedophiles information secret inside the JW Org, qualify as atrocities ? 
Well I think it would, especially to those people seriously affected by such actions. 
 

You are correct. My mistake, although you only used that to sidetrack from my comment about atrocities. 
And once again we have you, a pretend Christian, calling me names. 
JWs would receive nothing by holy spirit, hence they use the Clergy Privilege excuse in court cases. 
 
Then I fully hope that as many JWs, GB members et al, will be exposed as liars asap. Because that would be a true witness against false religious teachings and practices. 

YES CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE IN THE JW ORG IS COMPLETELY COMPARABLE TO TERROISM. BUT TO PEOPLE LIKE YOU IT IS JUST COLLATERAL DAMAGE. 
 
 

When you say; "given by HS to say", that is so close to idea of "been inspired by HS". Don't you think the same? Bible verse about such experiences in 1st century is about that "miracle". 
...for the holy spirit will teach you in that very hour the things you should say.” Lk 12:12 nwt
...for what you are to speak will be given you in that hour;+ 20  for the ones speaking are not just you, but it is the spirit of your Father that speaks by you. Mt 10:19,20 nwt
You used the words of Jesus written in these two gospels. The manner and appearance of HS action has nothing to do with the intellect and learned things that an individual adopts through life. Here we are talking about the ability of HS to act directly on a person at a given moment. This is also called “inspiration, influence, leadership, guidance”. And it happens outside the action of our will and consent or demand.

https://www.dailyherald.com/news/20210527/trial-scheduled-for-jehovahs-witnesses-elders-accused-of-failing-to-report-sexual-abuse
Two Jehovah's Witnesses elders accused of failing to notify police that a congregant was sexually abusing a child are scheduled for a joint trial in July.
Jehovah's Witnesses elder Michael Penkava, 72, of Crystal Lake, and Colin Scott, 87, of Cary, were charged in November with violating reporting provisions. Both men are accused of failing to notify police about a church member who later was convicted of sexually abusing a child.
The abuse continued for more than a decade after the church elders became aware of the accusations, prosecutors have said.
A judge on Wednesday denied a request to exclude testimony regarding potentially "confidential" meetings between church leaders and the now-convicted man.
The charges against Scott and Penkava are rooted in another man's sexual assault conviction. Accusations against that man, 43-year-old church member Arturo Hernandez-Pedraza, surfaced during a confessional or spiritual guidance setting, according to Prossnitz and attorney Terry Ekl, who represents Scott.
In 2019, a jury convicted Hernandez-Pedraza of all counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse, predatory criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual abuse, sexual relations within families and domestic battery charges filed against him.
He is serving a 45-year prison sentence at Pontiac Correctional Center.
Penkava invoked his right as a religious leader to not testify at Hernandez-Pedraza's trial, but he still was required to answer questions about actions the congregation took after learning of the sexual abuse more than 10 years before it was reported.
Because the accusations surfaced during a confessional, Penkava and Scott's attorneys now argue the disclosure should be considered privileged communication between faith leaders and congregants.
Assistant McHenry County State's Attorney Ashur Youash, however, said that privilege doesn't extend to situations involving abused or neglected children and isn't grounds for failure to report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
They are still hiding behind the clergy privilege thing, so no lessons have been learnt. The GB and others in control, and the Elders are still more interested in the 'face of the Org' and in saving money, than they are in the congregation. 
Does God and Jesus really approve of this ? No of course not.
 

Are Voltaire's texts a recommended read for JW members?
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.
Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.
 

I would love to be one of them, and I have more than once contacted certain ones—Introvigne, Folk, and Chrysiddes. They all ignore me.
I don’t hammer at their door, nor do I take their non-response personally. I tend to think that they wish to maintain a scholarly detached independence. Whereas I unambiguously champion a certain New Relgion, they stand in defense of them all, and thus may wish to keep any specific apologist at arm’s length.
Or maybe they have just concluded that my books suck. That certainly was the case with Dear Mr. Putin. Damage control after such a debacle to present the new and improved Don’t Know Why We Persecute is anything but a slam-dunk. You must persuade people who perhaps have previously written you off to give you another look. That’s why someone should have told me that Dear Mr. Putin sucked;

The one whom I have hammered at his door to no avail (as much as 5 or 6 times cumulatively) is George Chrysiddes. The reason for added persistence here is that we had an email correspondence. On Twitter, I came across his saying to someone that he wished he knew a real live rank-and-file Witness. “Here I am,” I said like Isaiah, and we had some nice chit-chats. He faithfully read Tom Irregardless and Me, commenting via email as he did so, and wrote what is far-and-away the more original review of it (under his informal pen name Ivor E Tower).
It’s the last I ever heard from him. Maybe he too, read Dear Mr Putin and concluded it stunk. (Of course, its always possible that all of these guys have read Don’t Know Why and have concluded that it stinks, too—yikes!—but that is a scenario I prefer not to entertain. I gave it my best shot.)
My second book, No Fake News, stunk, too. Maybe that was a turn-off for George even before Dear Mr. Putin.  It was written too hastily, too sloppily. Even after sinking some time in a rewrite, I have removed it. Not sure right now if it will ever see the light of day again. I have several other irons in the fire ahead of it, so that for all practical purposes, that one is not in the fire. Or if the fire is literal, maybe it is.
Any day now (I’ve been saying this forever) Don’t Know Why will be in Amazon print. Just now I cannot make Word behave to do the bells and whistles version with fancy headers and whatnot. If I settle for a simplified version, I am fine, and I just may have to do that. The one who does my covers referred me to someone who wants $285 to format it just so. It’s not unreasonable at all, yet I think I’ll draw the line. I spend enough as it is and I’m self-published. I may have to settle for a certain rough-hewn look, which is certainly reinforced anyway by my many battles with proofing. To proof it professionally can cost thousands.
Alas, nobody likes me. Even Liebster blocks me. I probably can patch that up, and will someday. Most likely they came along whilst I was bickering with some villains and were scandalized. Or maybe they, too, read Dear Mr Putin and thought it stunk, so that I became to them “an indiscreet brother.”
Only the Librarian likes me (that old hen). I may be a bad pupil, but I am her pupil, and she doesn’t forget that. Oh—and I have Cesar in my back pocket, too. But then, who doesn’t?

The group Introvigne heads, CESNUR, (Center for the Study of New Religions) is roughly the opposite of FECRIS, the latter which, if they had their way, would ban them all as “cults.” “New religion” is the scholarly term for any group originating in relatively recent times. Scholars deliberately choose “new religion” over “cult” to avoid the incendiary overtones of the latter word. Non-scholars favor “cult” because they are intolerant and wish to make it as hot as possible for the “new religions.”
One might think of Introvigne (who I know nothing of personally) as a modern-day Voltaire. Voltaire (probably you know) is from the 17th century, and is considered founder of the Enlightenment. He was a fierce critic of organized religion, particularly the Judeo-Christian variety. He was also firmly deist, that is, he never doubted the existence of God, and he came to be much distressed that his body of work was used as a stepping stone into atheism—breaking free of God altogether. His dream was that there be religious tolerance, that all religions should get along peaceably. It never occurred to him to change them internally or to mush them into one incoherent whole. He just wanted them not to wreak violence upon one another. 
Early in his life a dispute with a French aristocrat caused Voltaire to flee to England. While there he noted how there were dozens of religions, many (maybe all) claiming to be the one true path (people took religion more seriously then), yet they all co-existed without rancor. (In his native France, the Roman Catholic Church was torturing those professing other faiths on the rack.) It never would have occurred to Voltaire that a faith calling itself the one true faith was doing violence to any other one. Virtually all of them were doing it. It is a uniquely modern concept to think a religion regarding itself as the true path does violence to the others.
Voltaire’s “Letters from England” conveys his amazement and delight that here was a country, so different from back home, where people could worship as they pleased without anyone trying to ban them or beat up on them. He sets himself up as a chump interviewing a Quaker, just about as weird a religion as one could envision backed then—they ‘quaked’ when they became filled with spirit. He paints himself as though a devout Catholic thoroughly scandalized by Quaker beliefs, gives dialogue with one in which the Quaker ties him in knots, before summing up with how you just can’t talk sense with a fanatic.
It never occurred to Voltaire that the Quakers should change—he was just delighted that, given their “weirdness,” they could coexist so easily with the rest of society. In short, “intolerance” had nothing to do with doctrines or beliefs within a religion. He took for granted that internally each religion would be sufficiently different from other religions. If they were not, there would not BE separate religions—they would all blend into the same. It didn’t matter to him if Quakers were weird; if you conclude they are, don’t be one, would have been his obvious conclusion, just like it should be today with anyone concluding JWs are weird. 
Being a strict religion, serious about their beliefs, there would be severe internal strictures for any Quaker doing a 180 and leaving his faith. This was of no concern to Voltaire, who personally had no use for any of the established religions. Whatever strictures a departing Quaker would encounter would be more-or-less human nature: turn your back on previously cherished beliefs and you will of course find yourself on the outside looking in as regards those still holding true to those beliefs. It only adds “fuel to the fire” that the Christian scriptures can so easily be read that way. It’s the same with JWs today. It’s the same with most of the “new religions” that FECRIS labels as “cults,” as it seeks to homogenize religions, extracting whatever teeth they have to make them stand out from others, and mush them all into one that doesn’t stand for much or anything other than putting a God-face on humanist endeavors.
Voltaire’s firm deism, his belief in God, stems from what the Jehovah’s Witness organization has called the “Book of Creation.” It stems from the observed design of creation, and from what he called first cause, the utility that created things are put to. He rejected any “book of revelation,” that is, any sacred scriptures from any source that would attempt to explain the creator. But he also famously, after years of soul-searching, declared insoluble the “problem of evil.” There is undeniably a God, and there is undeniably evil. He could not reconcile the two, though he was the foremost thinker and deist of his time.
To say that rejecting any revelatory information on God is foolish might be going too far, but it certainly is self-defeating. He yearns with all his heart to discern the problem of evil, yet he confines his gaze to where the answer certainly will not be—in the book of creation. There is only so far that book will take you. His aversion is quite understandable, given the horrendous abuse practices by the religions of his day, but it was still self-defeating as for discerning the problem of evil or any other aspects of God’s personality.
If there is an answer to the “problem of evil,” it will be found in the new religions. Of course, my view is that it will be found specifically within the the tenets of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Indeed, the wording may differ, but “Why is there evil?” is a staple of each of their basic study guides almost since their founding. Mainstream religions have so homogenized their views, so eager not to be out of step with intellectual or scientific trends, that they have modified their own foundation to the extent that the problem of evil cannot be solved. FECRIS gets around the issue by ignoring it. There is no answer to such questions, they maintain, forget about them. Focus on making the world a better place now. Nevermind arcane spiritual concerns that will distract from how we must, in the words of the Beatles, “come together.”

Well said. Although, the topic gets heated from the moment you send 8 million people to preach that all religions will be destroyed because they don’t believe the way they should believe in God, and that’s the JW way. At such a moment, the alleged tolerance of another’s religious belief becomes an empty phrase. On one side JW gave picture of how tolerant they as people are, but in same time preaching how they worship intolerant God who will destroy them/other people because of their religion.
Does a JW member "like" someone else's religion? If he liked it, he might become a member of such a religion. But the JW member only likes his religion, and towards others he does not have such a kind of tolerance nor does he have it in such quantity that he would “like it”. Please nicely, let us explain what this might mean at all if a JW member have feeling and attitude; "I like other religions and I am very tolerant of them, but God will destroy them one day and i am glad that He will do it"?
If it is so as you said what Massimo Introvigne stand for, then that is not JW way/model of "religious tolerance".
OT records speaking about God who have no tolerance for false way of worshiping Him. Neither to worship some other God in different/opposite religion. And JW members also using such Bible verses to enforce and empower own religious attitude about this issue. By that, it is questionable about what sort of "religious tolerance" is about, here and now, inside JW Church.
 

...so did Quisling, former Prime Minister of Norway during the Nazi Occupation, EVEN when he was executed by firing squad by the Norwegian people.
...and to be fair ... if anyone attacks you. it's not really you that they are attackng ... its your goofball ideas. philosophy, and general hatefulness toward them.

I personally do not mind if you are here. or anywhere at all. I just come here, expecting you to stroke out in mid typed sentence.

What! 
So here we have a case of you literally "picking a bone" with me !
Shameful!
I shall report you to the Daisy Hill Puppy Farm!

I understand from the Hamster and Gerbil Underground that they have a contract out on you.

Finally got this image right.
 

With me? Almost nothing is wrong.
What is wrong withe their "evidence"? Do you have some link, that we be able to look at those "evidences"? 
No, it is not. But you mentioned M.I. tolerance about religious ideologies. And we are witnesses how WTJWorg teachings promote how religious coexisting is not future for human society, but contrary, that all religions, except JW religion, will be destroyed by JW God. Well, is it question of simplified  "interpretation" or is it JW doctrinal, cultural and social standpoint?  
Not necessary. And not in this circumstances we living now. But in "New World", GB members gave interpretations (spoken and written), how they will get power and be delegated, by God JHVH, that they as Kings and Priests will be able to do such things. Today, GB is able and in power to complete spiritual sort of "punishments".
 .... triangle of historical friends and enemies
 

What on earth is wrong with you? This is FECRIS, the spinner of defamation against Jehovah’s Witnesses, being tried before the German Court. Do you really think they would have provided no evidence to back up their claims? You probably served as their advisor. 
Of course the Court saw whatever FECRIS deemed useful for them to see. The Court looked it over, and declared it irrelevant or insufficient to justify FECRIS’s defamation..

In your world of your reality, does this statement also apply to GB and doctrines they promote?
According to GB interpretation of Bible text, GB would not allow any faiths (in this system of things nor in the any future system), that is not under WTJWorg, to exist. 
WTJWorg GB is not voice for religious tolerance between religions. They also stifle any religious tolerance within their own church toward those who have different interpretations of the biblical text.
How is this different from the WTJWorg organization and its teachings? GB claims to be the only mediator / channel for the communication of truth between God and people on earth today. They preach that they are the only true religion / truth in the world.
GB stand on same position.
----------------------------------------------------
I am of the opinion, and @Witness also spoke about it, that the German court did not deal with reading and interpreting the WTJWorg editions (published for the public and the one for internal use) which speaks of the disputed elements. WTJWorg, I presume, simply made a statement in court that FECRIS was telling lies and slandering. Does FECRIS have studious investigations and knowledge/insight of WTJWorg such as ex-JW? It takes decades of working, reading, and linking events so that one can see what GB is teaching, how it changes instructions, and how the various BOE bodies and individual elders operate in a variety of circumstances. 
In ARC various depositions of JW elders + GB member we see good picture how "truth"  becomes a lie.  But such a lie works wonders. It liberates.... and fulfills Jesus' statement: "You will know the truth (will see the true face of your religious leaders) and the truth will set you free."

Has the German Court read the magazines?
See the anointed in Wt's heaven below, posted under the fair use act for teaching purposes only, as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law, and freely obtained from Google's images.  
 
Can you spot a female among them?  Now, if the court wants to argue that men also receive a "change of nature" by becoming clones, well...that is true.  Yet, they are still men, while not one woman can be distinguished from the group of male clones.  Putting both oars in the water to understand Wt's twists, takes some critical thinking.  I doubt the German Court will invest the time to untwist Wt's deception.  That goes for all the points I have made above.  
 

 

No they do not. They seek the opinion of the court that their theology and practices are not being lied about by FECRIS—whether they are correct or not is immaterial. And the court says, in 17 instances out of 32, that FECRIS has indeed lied about them in “defamatory” statements. It is a prime example of Jesus’ words on how opposers would “lyingly say every sort of wicked thing about you.”
It hardly matters, does it?  Would you invite for your keynote speaker someone with a GPA of .6 in their field of expertise? “Well, he doesn’t lie all the time—let’s see what he has to say!” Perhaps in your twisted world that would work, but not in any world respecting integrity.
A far more significant detail that the article does not show is that the VP of FECRIS, Alexander Dvorkin, is the prime instigator of the ban against JWs in Russia. Armed with FECRIS ideology, he shouts “CULT!” in the crowded Russian theater with “facts” that are incorrect 53% of the time. Thus he and his FECRIS is responsible for the mayhem that results. Each time a Witness is beaten, tortured, jailed, detained, or harassed, it falls upon him.  It is the same as how someone shouting FIRE! in a crowded theater would be held accountable. Hopefully, now that his credibility is seriously undercut, the government may reassess the degree to which they wish to rely upon his “expertise.”
I’m not holding my breath, but it may be like when the US Supreme Court ruled during WWII that Witness children could be compelled to salute the flag. A wave of persecution broke out across the country that saw widespread destruction of property, and even some Witnesses lynched. In the aftermath of what had been unleashed, 2 or 3 of the justices gave to understand they thought the case had been decided incorrectly. Another 2 or 3 retired and were replaced by ones thought more agreeable to individual liberty. The case came before the court once again, just three years later, and the decision was reversed. Would that such a thing were to happen in Russia.