Evacuated

On 10/6/2019 at 3:03 AM, Anna said:

It is obvious that both Russell and Rutherford made mistakes in their interpretation and got some things downright wrong.

Somebody got something wrong there! In fact, it looks like he held the baptism candidate under a bit too long!!

9 hours ago, Indiana said:

I disagree about using  those cartoons leading to commit idolatry

I can understand this. It's a bit like the meat offered to idols. Nothing wrong with the meat, but some having weak consciences (which is as much about feelings as knowledge) might have been enticed to worship, or are just plain offended that someone else seemed to be doing it. "If others have doubt...Leave it out" works for me.

I don't like these cheesy dollies, but that is just a personal thing. "Holy" baby pictures never meant anything to me other than a slight nausea, even when I was being forced up as a Roman Catholic. So models of Sophia and the doting affection some seem to have for such things is pretty crass to me, but there's no accounting for culture. Look at those creepy manga or anime bug-eyed creatures, and the wierd paintings that  Margaret Keane did. Some people go mad about this stuff. I just feel slightly air-sick.

But I don't mind the Caleb and Sophia videos. They are a bit Toy Story, but they have a moral punch that is quite effective. Don't like the cardboard cut outs and photo shoot stuff and merchandise much.... BUT....worship them? or feel anything other than pity for their outsize heads? Not really...............But I have always been suspicious of those fat baby cherub things they have in religious pictures..................... 

4 hours ago, Matthew9969 said:

back on topic please

Topic is about Lies and slander....I didn't stray.

4 hours ago, Matthew9969 said:

I didn't say he has gone away,

Then say Jesus doesn't, not didn't. (Heart's abundance and all that...)

8 hours ago, Matthew9969 said:

Jesus didn't need to depend

Jesus hasn't gone away....or didn't you realise?

25 minutes ago, divergenceKO said:

It is not based on faith but rather than, wanting to hear gossip and opposing views by those that claim their witnesses when indeed they are not. What benefit would this type of worldly view provide? Here the negative outweighs the positive unless you are a participant to that negativity.

Are you referring to yourself here?

As for the original post, I think an internet forum for JWs is great.

It helps to get a global perspective of what effects JWs day to day. The rather anoymous nature enables people to say what they really think about things but might be a little reticent to divulge elsewhere.

Of course, there are all the usual caveats regarding imposters, but I think the positive outweighs the negative by far. Anyway, it is a good sparring ground regardless. 😊

On 9/24/2019 at 4:05 AM, JW Insider said:

I think we are therefore back to a question of our own trust in those "bragging rights" that make us feel that a higher measure of Jehovah's spirit direction (or inspiration) has been evident among the leadership of this organization.

I think the main thing to be concerned about, particularly if you live in a "fat nation",  is whether you will be a survivor of the "last days", not if you will be a survivor of Armageddon. Luke 21:34-36./Rom.10:13.  

On 9/26/2019 at 8:08 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

If You believe in God's creation of Universe than you will accept "vacuum" as His creation too

Rather vacuous statement don't you think?

In fact, the only place a "vacuum" truly exists is in the mind of men, these kind of men: 

"For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened." Rom. 1:21

On 9/14/2019 at 7:46 PM, Jack Ryan said:

When we call out their lies, they say we must have been hurt. When we call out their hurtfulness, they say we must be lying.

This a classic example of "OTHERING", a fascinating but rather sad aspect of human behaviour. Who is exempt? Why does it happen? How did it start? How can it be overcome? Trying to answer these questions would be a more profitable excercise than the eternal mudslinging that "otherness" appears to breed.

On 9/15/2019 at 7:09 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

Judging? :))

The side, not the person.

3 hours ago, Jack Ryan said:

Breast milk, and especially colostrum, contains white blood cells and babies nurse on breast milk

Excellent article with some clear detail on the matter for those wanting to be informed on the composition and purpose of human breast milk:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3586783/pdf/nihms-413874.pdf

On 9/9/2019 at 11:25 AM, JW Insider said:

But there have been some rather ironic "Dedication" talks by WT presidents, vice-presidents, and Governing Body members through the years.

Well, I suppose we have moved on from the rather outdated notion that in some way the dedication of a building would somehow sanctify or change the nature of the bricks and mortar of the construction in the same way that some in the 1st century felt could occur with regard to meat used in some sort of  idolatrous ritual.

The dedication of a building for a particular purpose is really an act of the users, making that dedication for the time that they find that building suitable for that particular purpose. Once the building no longer suits that purpose and is no longer required by those making the dedication, then it seems quite reasonable that it should be disposed of and any funds obtained as a result should then be used for that same dedicated purpose.  Thinking that the fabric of a building should be used in perpetuity for that same purpose as if it was somehow made "holy" by that dedication is unreasonable . If that notion was applied literally, then no refurbishment could ever take place. No rented or leased building could ever be returned to it owner.

Nice to see more pretentious hooey biting the dust. (However sincerely it was originally meant of course).

Great to see one area of life at least where concern for the treatment of fellow humans, particularly children, is paramount in law. Although the focus is on retribution rather than prevention, at least the problem is acknowledged.

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

The Bethel representative WAS THERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE 1975 ARMAGEDDON PREDICTIONS.

Philip Reece? The Aussie guy? Where is he now?

11 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

T-Boned by another car, and all were instantly killed. How would that relate to what you have posted above?

They were " in the right place but it must have been the wrong time"  Malcolm John Rebennack Jr.

As for the billionaire illustration, we are not suggesting that Jehovah pays us to go to assemblies are we?

11 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

T-Boned by another car, and all were instantly killed. How would that relate to what you have posted above?

Malcolm John Rebennack Jr. Got that right first line........

They may have "been in the right place but it must have been the wrong time"

On 8/15/2019 at 8:27 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

As we see from various statements made by JW Representatives, this "sin - crime" issue is also "foggy" to them... Or it is not?!  They said how Elders are to deal only with "sin" and Secular Authority to deal with "crime". But in cases of child abuse, it is obvious how such differentiation in 1) Terminology and in 2) Division of duties (among Elders and Worldly Officers) is bad for victims. Don't you agree? If victims suffer because Administrative Ideology and rules and protocols, than people in charge must CHANGE what they now doing. As Jesus said, when your animal falls in into a pit or into a hole at Sabbath - would you brake Sabbath Law and provide help or waiting for next day? Jesus was obviously showed "rebellious" solution :))) Would you allow for Children to wait on some Clark in JW Office to find time and way how to solve this problem?! Do you think that GB need to change attitude and brake "Sabbath Law" about this?! I hope you will say: no, on first and yes, on second. 

More complicated stuff!

I presume you are trying to make a case for the need to speed up action in the case of Child Abuse crimes??? If that is the case, then it is a worthy cause, regardless of context. And one I agree with wholeheartedly, across the board.

However, I don't think I could really comment on your hypothetical generalities unfortunately.  Specific cases from a host of backgrounds where they have been brought to light in a legal context, appear to have been commented on extensively in the public domain by those qualified to do so. Where there are genuine reasons for criticising the handling of such cases and these have been dealt with, then presumably these instances have then been handled as appropriately as possible by the correct authorities? Any exposure of mishandling in specific cases then serves to inform all parties presumably.

Quite how you have managed to morph a discussion on baptism questions into one on handling of Child Abuse allegations would be an interesting study in itself, but not one I have the inclination to unravel at this point of time.

Anyway, if the topic manages to get back on track and any further points meriting discussion appear, I will be back. But for now, excuse me if I turn to other areas of interest. 

5 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

JW Organization have no need for Judicial Committees of Elders. All can be handled by Secular Authorities

I don't follow your (presumably) reasoning that if crime and sin are synonymous then Secular Authorities could handle all "judicial matters", unless your are presenting it from a soulical perspective.

Do you therefore think that the secular definition of sin and crime is the same as the sacred and that sacred and secular authority is synonymous in these matters?

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Sin and crime are two different words in JW organization

Of course they are, but their meaning (dare I say...) overlaps.

The key to understanding is to consider against who the crime or sin is committed. The word sin is traditionally viewed by those of the soulical world as relating to the violating of God's laws or standards, whereas the word crime is understood by many of that same designation as referencing a violation of the requirements or laws of the secular state.

Really, in the spiritual world there is no difference between a crime and a sin as any violation of God's laws or principles constitues a crime or sin. To sin is a criminal act.

But we have no problem in speaking the language of the world if that is what they understand.

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

It sounds sillycal.

But like "cynical"

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Is "soulical" even a real word?

Depends what language you speak.

13 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

if the law did not describe or prescribe something, then that particular thing does not exist neither as a sin nor as a crime.

Matters not how this topic of sin v crime is reasoned/wrangled/presented by you and others who reflect your view. Regardless of religious/moral/ ethical persuasions or stance, this the soulical perception of matters. You seem to think that what lies in the mind of man is what determines the existence of sin or crime. This is a soulical perception. You are effectively demonstrating what Paul descibed regarding this matter, although I am not sure if that is your intention.

6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

JW Church consider bad acts as sins, not a crimes.

Without getting bogged down in semantics here, there is no real difference between the two words. The difference may lie in whose law is actually violated. The differentiation between a violation of Jehovah's law as a sin and not a crime would be a "soulical" percepton.

We don't really care about worldly ("soulical") perceptions about laws, crimes, sins, lawyers, definitions, corporations etc. etc. Paul encapsulated the principle in his words to Timothy regarding the Mosaic Law (and by extension, law in general and all its appendages). 1Tim.1:8-10. Let those who fit his description be concerned with all the relevant definitions and arguments concerning "Law". Your complex definitions and arguments indicate your need in this regard. I hope you are getting it clear and it is enlightening for you. 😊

15 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

But - factually

Instead of "factually", I would use the word "physically", or "soulically" if you want to get scriptural. You have used the term "spiritually" in contrast.

Both terms can be applied to the same set of facts,  and focus on the "eye of the beholder". In the immediate instance, the "soulical" view is that baptism is the ratification of some sort of (business?) contract with a religious "corporation". This is not the view of a spiritual mind. (Compare 1Cor.2:14).