Mike Forrest

Some of the recent topics here have touched upon the political systems of communism and socialism. I found a good write-up on those topics here. Later we can discuss its source, accuracy, any critiques, etc.:
----------------------------------
Socialism: a social system advocating State ownership and control of the means of production that communists view as an intermediate stage between capitalism and communism; Communism: a social system advocating the absence of classes, the common ownership of the means of production and subsistence, and the equitable distribution of economic goods. GREEK mythology tells of a Greek deity named Cronus, during whose reign Greece enjoyed a golden age. “All shared equally in the common lot, private property was unknown, and peace and harmony reigned undisturbed,” explains the Dictionary of the History of Ideas. The same source adds: “The first traces of socialism appear in the lament for a lost ‘Golden Age.’”
Not until the early and middle decades of the 19th century, however, did socialism make its appearance as a modern political movement. It found ready acceptance, especially in France, where the French Revolution had severely shaken conventional ideas. There, as in other European countries, the Industrial Revolution created harsh social problems. People were ripe for the idea that public rather than private ownership of resources would better enable the masses to share equally in the fruits of combined labor.
Socialism is not a new idea. Greek philosophers Aristotle and Plato wrote about it. Later, during the 16th-century Protestant Reformation, Thomas Müntzer, a radical German Catholic priest, demanded a classless society. But his views were controversial, especially his call for revolution, if necessary, in order to achieve this goal. In the 19th century, Welshman Robert Owen, Frenchmen Étienne Cabet and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and a number of other social reformers, among them prominent clergymen, taught that socialism was simply Christianity by another name.
The Utopias of Marx and More
But “none of these spokesmen for socialism,” says the above-mentioned reference work, “had an impact comparable to that exerted by Karl Marx, whose writings became the touchstone of socialist thinking and action.” Marx taught that by means of class struggle, history progresses step-by-step; once the ideal political system has been found, history in that sense will end. This ideal system will resolve the problems of previous societies. Everyone will live in peace, freedom, and prosperity, with no need for governments or military forces.
This sounds remarkably similar to what British statesman Sir Thomas More in 1516 described in his book Utopia. The word, a Greek name of More’s coining, means “no place” (ou-topos), and was possibly meant as a pun on the similar expression eu-topos, meaning “good place.” The Utopia about which More wrote was an imaginary country (no place) that was, nonetheless, an ideal country (good place). Thus, “Utopia” has come to mean “a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions.” More’s book was a clear indictment of the less than ideal economic and social conditions that prevailed during his time in Europe, especially in England, and that contributed later to the development of socialism.
Marx’s theories also mirrored the views of German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. According to the Dictionary of the History of Ideas, “the apocalyptic, quasi-religious character of Marxian socialism was shaped by Hegel’s philosophical restatement of radical Christian theology.” Against this backdrop of “radical Christian theology,” explains author Georg Sabine, Marx developed “an exceedingly powerful moral appeal, backed by a quasi-religious conviction. It was nothing less than an appeal to join the march of civilization and right.” Socialism was the wave of the future; perhaps, some thought, it really was Christianity marching to victory under a new name!
The Road From Capitalism to Utopia
Marx lived to publish only the first volume of his work Das Kapital. The last two were edited and published in 1885 and 1894 respectively by his closest collaborator, Friedrich Engels, a German socialist philosopher. Das Kapital undertook to explain the historical background of capitalism, the economic system characteristic of Western-style representative democracy. Based on unregulated trade and competition without State control, capitalism as explained by Marx concentrates ownership of the means of production and distribution in private and corporate hands. According to Marx, capitalism produces a middle class and a working class, provoking antagonism between the two and leading to oppression of the latter. Using the works of orthodox economists to back up his views, Marx argued that capitalism is in reality undemocratic, and that socialism is the ultimate in democracy, benefiting the people by promoting human equality and freedom.
Utopia would be reached once the proletariat rose up in revolution and threw off the oppression of the bourgeoisie, setting up what Marx called a “dictatorship of the proletariat.” (See box, page 21.) His views, however, mellowed with time. He began allowing for two different concepts of revolution, one of a violent kind and the other of a more permanent, gradual kind. This raised an interesting question.
Utopia by Way of Revolution or Evolution?
“Communism” is derived from the Latin word communis, which means “common, belonging to all.” Like socialism, communism claims that free enterprise leads to unemployment, poverty, business cycles, and labor-management conflicts. The solution to these problems is to distribute the nation’s wealth more equally and justly.
But by the end of the last century, Marxists were already at odds about how to achieve these agreed-upon ends. In the early 1900’s, that part of the socialist movement that rejected violent revolution and advocated working within the parliamentary democratic system gained in strength, developing into what is now called democratic socialism. This is the socialism found today in democracies like the Federal Republic of Germany, France, and Britain. For all intents and purposes, these parties have rejected genuine Marxist thinking and are simply interested in creating a welfare state for their citizens.
One dedicated Marxist, however, who strongly believed that a communist Utopia could be achieved only by violent revolution was Lenin. His teachings, along with Marxism, serve as the basis for contemporary orthodox communism. Lenin, a pseudonym of Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov, was born in 1870 in what is now the Soviet Union. In 1889 he converted to Marxism. After 1900, following a term of Siberian exile, he lived mostly in Western Europe. When the czarist regime was overthrown, he returned to Russia, founded the Russian Communist Party, and led the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. Thereafter he served as the first head of the Soviet Union until his death in 1924. He saw the Communist Party as a highly disciplined, centralized group of revolutionists serving as the vanguard of the proletariat. The Mensheviks disagreed.—See box, page 21.
The line of demarcation between revolution and evolution is no longer so well-defined. In 1978 the book Comparing Political Systems: Power and Policy in Three Worlds observed: “Communism has become more ambivalent about how to achieve Socialist goals. . . . Differences between Communism and Democratic Socialism have been considerably lessened.” Now, in 1990, these words take on added meaning as communism undergoes drastic changes in Eastern Europe.
Communism Reintroduces Religion
“We need spiritual values . . . The moral values that religion generated and embodied for centuries can help in the work of renewal in our country, too.” Few people thought they would ever hear these words from the mouth of a general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. But on November 30, 1989, Mikhail Gorbachev announced this dramatic about-face toward religion during his visit to Italy.
. . .
“Glasnost” and “Perestroika”
Since the waning months of 1989, the Soviet Union and its fellow Communist governments in Eastern Europe have been experiencing mind-boggling political shakeups. Thanks to the policy of glasnost, or openness, these changes have been seen by all. East Europeans have demanded far-reaching reforms that, to a degree, have been granted. Communist leaders have admitted the need for a more humane and compassionate system and have called for a “rebirth of socialism in a different, more enlightened and efficient form,” as one Polish economist put it.
Chief among these leaders has been Gorbachev, who, shortly after coming to power in 1985, introduced the idea of perestroika (restructuring). During a visit to Italy, he defended perestroika as being necessary to meet the challenges of the 1990’s. He said: “Having embarked upon the road of radical reform, the socialist countries are crossing the line beyond which there is no return to the past. Nevertheless, it is wrong to insist, as many in the West do, that this is the collapse of socialism. On the contrary, it means that the socialist process in the world will pursue its further development in a multiplicity of forms.”
Communist leaders are therefore not ready to agree with the assessment made last year by columnist Charles Krauthammer, who wrote: “The perennial question that has preoccupied every political philosopher since Plato—what is the best form of governance?—has been answered. After a few millennia of trying every form of political system, we close this millennium with the sure knowledge that in liberal, pluralist capitalist democracy we have found what we have been looking for.”
However, the German newspaper Die Zeit candidly admits the sad picture Western-style democracy presents, calling attention to its “unemployment, alcohol and drug abuse, prostitution, curtailment of social programs, tax reduction and budget deficits,” and then asks: “Is this really the perfect society that has forever triumphed over socialism?”
A familiar proverb says that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. What form of imperfect human government can afford to criticize the weaknesses of another? The facts show that the perfect human government—a Utopia—does not exist. Politicians are still looking for the “good place.” It is still “no place” to be found.
[Some notes and definitions]
Marx, born of Jewish parents in 1818 in what was then Prussia, was educated in Germany and worked there as a journalist; after 1849 he spent most of his life in London, where he died in 1883.
SOCIALIST AND COMMUNIST TERMINOLOGY
BOLSHEVIKS/MENSHEVIKS: The Russian Social Democratic Labor Party founded in 1898 split into two groups in 1903; Bolsheviks, literally “members of the majority,” under Lenin, favored keeping the party small, with a limited number of disciplined revolutionaries; Mensheviks, meaning “members of the minority,” favored a larger party membership employing democratic methods.
BOURGEOISIE/PROLETARIAT: Marx taught that the proletariat (the working class) would overthrow the bourgeoisie (the middle class, including factory owners), establishing a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” thereby producing a classless society.
COMINTERN: Short for Communist International (or, Third International), an organization set up by Lenin in 1919 to promote communism; dissolved in 1943, it was preceded by the First International (1864-76), which gave birth to many European socialist groups, and the Second International (1889-1919), an international parliament of socialist parties.
COMMUNIST MANIFESTO: An 1848 statement by Marx and Engels of the principal tenets of scientific socialism that long served as a basis for European Socialist and Communist parties.
EUROCOMMUNISM: The communism of Western European Communist parties; independent of Soviet leadership and willing to serve in coalition governments, it argues that a “dictatorship of the proletariat” is no longer necessary.
SCIENTIFIC/UTOPIAN SOCIALISM: Terms used by Marx to distinguish between his teachings, supposedly based on a scientific examination of history and the workings of capitalism and the purely Utopian socialist teachings of his forerunners.

(Ezekiel 44:25, 26) “They should not approach any dead human, or they will become unclean. However, they may make themselves unclean for their father, mother, son, daughter, brother, or an unmarried sister. And after the purification of a priest, they should count off seven days for him”
 
The priest should not contact any dead human… except his nearest relatives. Jehovah is very reasonable and comprehensive when dictating rules.
Would not it be fine to apply the same principle when we deal with disfellowshipped people? Why Paul doesn’t mention these exceptions in 1Cor 5? Why Ezekiel doesn’t mention the priest’s wife? Perhaps, because the common sense would guide the application. It isn’t the same my cousin than my father, it is?
Other reference:
(Leviticus 21:1, 2) “Jehovah went on to say to Moses: “Talk to the priests, Aaron’s sons, and say to them, ‘No one should defile himself for a dead person among his people. But he may do so for a close blood relative, for his mother, his father, his son, his daughter, his brother,…”

To treat family members lower than strangers is wrong, it is not loving, it is not encouraging nor is it up building. This practice is only meant to control.
I agree 100% .... but then again I got my morality not only from the Bible, but from the old "Code of the West", and I embrace BOTH.
Sometimes we become parts of EXTENDED families... like joining a wagon train for mutual support and protection back in the early settling of the West. (Western United States ... think Cowboys and Indians, and the struggle for survival in a hostile land.).
..and sometimes that extended family abandons you, or casts you out as a perceived danger to them, when ignorant incompetence and  peer pressure prevails. 
 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/18/europe/portugal-fire/index.html
Fire in Portugal
As far as information comes to us, our 38-Year-old brother has died with his 5-Year-old nephew. Another sister is admitted to a hospital. Pray for Portugal
??????????
Pray for Relief! ??????????
Firefighters rest during a wildfire at Penela, Coimbra in central Portugal. More than 2,000 firefighters continue to work to control the flames of a forest fire that killed at least 62 people this weekend. Patricia De Melo Moreira/AFP/Gerry Images

Oh Tommy Tom Tom .... what part of the above sentence do you NOT UNDERSTAND?
apparently it is the phrase :
" ... AND SEE IF YOUR ARGUMENT STILL MAKES SENSE"
And now, for a musical interlude, Kermit the Frog, direct from his ancestral swamp in Leland Mississippi, sings and dedicates a song to JTR's three children, all Jehovah's Witnesses, and serving whole souled, of which fact I am very proud .....
 
 

Back when national policies elevated the pursuit of cheap oil sometimes over the interests of ordinary people, a certain human rights person pushed back. "We can always get more oil," he said."but human lives are irreplaceable." This prompted a pragmatist to observe that, really, it was just the opposite. Oil was in finite supply. People were not. 
It is that way with the pedophile endemic. It pushes emotional buttons to the extent that even rational people lose it. Even JTR, rationalism personified in his own eyes, likens child sexual abuse to first degree murder. He has picked one of the few comparisons he could pick that is not valid. Why doesn't he liken first degree murder to terrorism, for example, which is valid? Or to today's nuclear foreplay between nations? Or to the economic system that enriches a thimbleful and drives the vast majority into poverty? Everyone tells us that grinding poverty triggers much violence.
I resist accepting pedophilia as the vilest of all evils. It has no end of worthy competitors, for this system of things is not exactly a romp in the park. However, it IS easy to get one's head around. I suspect that accounts for much of it's status as #1 Evil. "We may not be able to do anything about terrorism, or nuclear foreplay, or economic theivery," people say, "but by God, we can stop people molesting our kids!" But, in fact, they can't even do that. I wish them well in trying. I truly do. It's a noble cause. But so far it has proven to be like shining a light on roaches. They don't cease being roaches by doing that. They just go somewhere else. 
So, while the sexual abuse of children is indeed a great evil, it is just one of many, and I slam back with vigor those who use it in an attempt to malign a religion they cannot stand. The facts do not support their zeal in using the issue to further their interests. 
Sometimes in my heart of hearts, I think that the emotional devastation wrought by abuse is surely overstated. Not that it is nothing. Far from it! But people can and do recover, as they can and do from atrocities they encounter in other aspects of life. As observed before, ancient Greece is the bedrock of Western civilization. The sexual abuse of children was an enscounced staple of that society. How did they ever survive to become 'our' mentors of democracy?
People my age will remember how suddenly the outcry over child sexual abuse burst upon the scene, triggered mostly by scandals in the church - unheard of one day, public enemy #1 the next. And then, as zealots always do, they reach back in time to judge yesterday's people by today's standards. 
In recent years, the American founding fathers that lodge in JTR's house have been vilified for owning slaves. Yet, when time travel is invented, the morals police of today will give them a friendly wave as they race back in history to bring the real slimeballs, the pedophile pervert pillars of ancient Greek society, back in leg-irons.

I will not, for I can already spot a dissimilarity. Pedophile victims survive. First Degree Murder victims do not.
Moreover, pedophile victims frequently recover. This is especially true when we are dealing with the non-violent, non-rape pedophilia which hysterical persons lump all together as one with the more infrequent predator sort.
Ancient Greece, as you well know, with all of your 'founding father' comments, is regarded as the cradle of Western civilization,  the first glimmerings of democracy. The sexual abuse of children was a staple of life among those perverts. Had it been First Degree Murder, instead, there would be no Greece and hence no Western civilization deriving from it.

Hey! How old do you think I am, 90?

Anna:
You will have to give Nicola some slack ... although 50 years old, she is still very young, and has not learned how hard it is, or why you HAVE to do homework, or that the Bible does not have a theme, thread, chapter or verse on motorcycle maintenance.
.I would pat myself on the back for that inspired philosophical gem, but I would need both elbows on the same arm, and with the other arm, point it out.
 

Well good for you!  I am happy for you, you obviously feel you need a support group. On the other hand, I know my intentions, Jehovah knows my intentions, and that is all that ultimately really matters to me.  I am happily married, with a lovely family, in a lovely congregation, with great friends and wonderful elders so I really don’t give two hoots about what anyone on here thinks of me. It’s not important. However, I do regret when one cannot have a decent discussion because of self-righteous attitudes like yours. You muscled your way in here like a vigilante, with your sleeves rolled up ready to set everyone straight with your opinions as if we didn’t know half as much as you did. I really didn’t think this was the purpose of this forum, but the @The Librarian might prove me wrong
Actually this was the other way around, you never asked for a summary initially, this is what you said: " I am a Jehovah's Witnesses and what exactly is the Australian Commission saying that the JWs did wrong in handling of sexual abuse cases?  I only want answers from other JWs, not from haters of us!" Then, I sent the relevant link, (to the Australian Commission) to which you replied: "Anna I am not going to read that whole thing, I would rather spend my time reading the Bible!  Can anyone sum it up?" That is when I said I would sum it up for you the next day
You are right, I didn't need to reply, (and now wish I hadn't) but I wanted to honor my word. Plus, I was aware that you wanted to be informed so that if someone confronted you with this problem you would be able to give an informed reply. You see, I had listened to the whole hearing when it was streamed live a couple of years ago, and I had read all the transcripts from the summary of the Royal Commission, the statement of GB member Geoffrey Jackson, submissions on behalf of the WT etc. etc. so I figured I was the right person, however, I should have just directed you to your congregation elders as they also know about these things, and they would have been in a better position to talk to you face to face and answer your concerns. I realized this after you started going on and on and I had already been there where you are now a few years ago, and had discussed this ad nauseam on this and another forum, and I was tired......and am tired, especially when I read judgemental rhetoric by self- important people who seem to think that without them, no one would know their ABC's.
Oh and......
pat yourself on the back dear, it takes much courage for some to set people straight on a discussion forum

Would we reason the same way if it was a question of for example murder? "No we can not be sure, so we don't report it to the authorities". Of course not!
If we have reasonable suspicion of a serious crime we should report it to the police so that they can do a proper investigation. Yes, sometimes an innocent person could suffer from such an investigation. (It's the same thing with any crime investigation) On the other hand we absolutely must prioritize a likely victim and also protect potential future victims.

Of course. Congregation elders have been instructed that any situation where a child is at risk should be reported to the police regardless. Also, any congregation member that becomes aware of such a matter is at liberty to report the matter to the authorities regardless. Family members also have that right, congregation members or otherwise. 
This may not have always been clearly understood, but then neither has the extent of this heinous crime.
However, I do struggle with the logic that says we must put the suffering of an innocent person due to false allegations second to the protection of likely vicitms and potential future victims. Not the least factor in this is the demonstrable incompetency at times of the agencies we entrust with carrying out  "proper" investigations.
The following cases are relevant and sadly by no means isolated: 2014 David Bryant; 2015 Jay Cheshire.

How does the ban on JW in Russia fit into our current belief? Since many years WT have explained that the attack on Jehovahs people should occur AFTER 1. Proclamation of Peace and Security and     2. The fall of Babylon the Great.
Also in WT 2015 (May 15 p. 29-30) it says that "it seems to be in harmony with ...(Ezek 38: 6,15)...that this coalition will be led by the figurative “king of the north” (text sequence edited by me) .
Can we expect new light on this or does someone now a different explanation? 
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2015364#h=6-6
http://wol.jw.org/sv/wol/dsync/r14/lp-z/r1/lp-e/1102014263
https://youtu.be/D8pvnrV5s94

How does the ban on JW in Russia fit into our current belief? Since many years WT have explained that the attack on Jehovahs people should occur AFTER 1. Proclamation of Peace and Security and     2. The fall of Babylon the Great.
Also in WT 2015 (May 15 p. 29-30) it says that "it seems to be in harmony with ...(Ezek 38: 6,15)...that this coalition will be led by the figurative “king of the north” (text sequence edited by me) .
Can we expect new light on this or does someone now a different explanation? 
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2015364#h=6-6
http://wol.jw.org/sv/wol/dsync/r14/lp-z/r1/lp-e/1102014263
https://youtu.be/D8pvnrV5s94

Anna:
In the REAL world, divorced from agenda driven fantasy, there is a rule that can never be violated.
It's called the "Holy Rule of Design", and it ESPECIALLY applies to Bible translation ... that is why the best Bible Translation in the World ( 1962-2012 NWT) took ten years to make, even though labor was almost free.
Good + Fast = Expensive
Choose good and fast and we will postpone every other job, cancel all appointments and stay up 25-hours a day just to get your job done. But, don't expect it to be cheap. This supposes EXTREMELY qualified people, young, strong and motivated .. AND EDUCATED.
Good + Cheap = Slow
Choose good and cheap and we will do a great job for a discounted price, but in the case of the PRE- 2013 paraphrased "Silver Sword" , the 1962-2012 NWT 2013 it took ten years and the quality was MAGNIFICENT! (Read Jason Bedunn's unbiased "Truth in Translation", available on Amazon for a full explanation WHY).
Fast + Cheap = Inferior
Choose fast and cheap and expect AN INFERIOR job delivered on time. You truly get what you pay and in the case of translating 880 different items on a schedule is a nightmare.
Translation is NOT a science ..it is an art, and in the case of translating a paraphrased Bible (2013 NWT) into paraphrased magazines and literature, and even other bibles, also paraphrased ... something has to GIVE.  And that something is QUALITY. 
In a culture (ours) where we hang on every nuance,  and discuss everything to death ... extracting truth from something that has been paraphrased across languages to OTHER paraphrases across languages , by people OTHER than people who are talented and well educated in BOTH languages is almost impossible ... and still retain the nuances and accurate idiomatic expressions of the original.
The PERFECT real life example example of this is the 2013 NWT, which uses the word "Brazen" at least twice.  Be a sport ... REALLY look it up. Nowhere in the Bible is the word brazen used in ANY translation, before the "Silver Sword" ... not even the NWT..
If you look it up in Benjamin Wilson's "Emphatic Diaglott", which the Society bought and publishes, , or the "Kingdom Interlinear"  Translation, and look up the same scriptures, NOTHING even remotely close is there.  (As an an extremely IMPORTANT aside, The Super Secret 2010 Elders Handbook which 95% of all JWs do not even knows exist, and sisters are not permitted to read, and no one is to make copies ( but which was instantly available all over the Internet), mentioned that "brazen conduct" was a disfellowshipping offense, whatever THAT means, and they needed to PUT that word in the 2013 NWT .... Copies of the 2010 Handbook were given to the Government of Finland, and Australia for their reference,... but YOU can't read it, unless you are an elder ... but that is a whole other very, VERY  sad discussion ....).
I could go on for perhaps 20 pages about this, but I just got out of the Hospital this afternoon, and I tire easily ... fortunately I had highly qualified, highly educated, experienced doctors taking care of me. It was fast, and it was good ... but it was NOT cheap.  What made it GOOD was HIGHLY qualified experts ... because without REAL EXPERIENCED experts, you may as well hammer with a rock.
.I hope you have enough real life experiences to discern what reality is ... because the Universe will judge us impartially, and without mercy if we are wrong.
 
 

.Pick any TWO.
The Universe will not allow you to have all three..
 

The frontal cortex of the brain is fully developed when you are 24-28 years of age. Of course nothing wrong with knocking on a door but please do not show it like some sort of "good example". Kids should not bear any sort of responsibility or pressure. IF any activity connected to preaching work, let them PLAY some sort of game. Do not involve them in "sharp" witnessing situations. 
Should not be difficult to understand?

How can it be brave to let children do what adults was told to do? Please, let kid's be kid's! 

Bravo!!! Hurray!!! Beat that..... 

Isn't it a bit disrespectful to call them "Morons" ? Try instead to feel like Jesus did for the misled people. Feel sorry for them?

Isn't it a bit disrespectful to call them "Morons" ? Try instead to feel like Jesus did for the misled people. Feel sorry for them?

.
I think this could be a good "Class Project" !
Everybody that reads your question give their interpretation, and let's see what everybody comes up with!
As an example, the guy with the megaphone could have removed the electronics and D sized batteries, and turned it into a funnel, so facing it into the wind, he can, in the manner of John the Baptist who ate locusts, be collecting high protein insects to eat ...
That's what immediately came to MY mind, but the artist may have had something else in mind ....
.Your turn !
 

.
Bible Speaks:
First of all I have been on the Archive for somewhere around 5 years and more, and made over 6,400 comments, and you must have just discovered my postings.  My outrageous sense of humor is certainly an acquired taste... if EVER adjusted for. 
Some people enjoy my satirical, biting comments some don't ..... but I try to give insight in to how people work, and WHY people do things ... of COURSE based on my particular life experiences and observations.
With some people, having similar perspectives and life experiences as my own, they will INSTANTLY get what I was trying to say with this post, REALIZE it's only a joke, laugh, and move on and have a nice day.
Other people will have reactions from mild entertainment, to understanding NOTHING .. the worst being the convening of a witch hunt.
..and as far a something upsetting me .... in the case of Global Thermonuclear War, I plan to get a lawn chair, and a case of beer, and sit out in the middle of my street, and watch the show!
 
.