Ann O'Maly

Zip, as far I can tell. The last mention of Babylon's 'hanging gardens' in the Org's literature was 2011 - 2 years before Stephanie Dalley published her research.

No, that's not it. As I posted before, "... he concludes that there is a disconnect between the Organization's doctrines, with its claims about itself, and the Bible and known facts. Therefore, the Organization doesn't have a special relationship with God after all, and is just another Christian-based group among many with their various strengths and weaknesses. Subsequently, there is no reason to regard the Organization's human leaders in any higher esteem than one would a clergyman. This person would also be praying to God for strength to endure the situation he was in and to find a way through. " For a believer, absolutely. Organizations come and go and can become corrupt. God's word and Jesus are the Truth. A child can be pressured or coerced to become baptized as was shown in the other thread. As already explained, a dissenting JW is presented with a dreadful dilemma - keep the status quo along with his family and friends, or voice his disagreement, leave (or get kicked out), and face losing everyone he holds dear to his heart. I know it's hard to imagine how agonizing it is if you haven't been through it. The scenario Jesus presents in Matt. 10 is where a family is ripped apart because some wanted to follow Jesus whereas others didn't. He was addressing an audience of Jews, remember? However, why should families be ripped apart when everyone is following Jesus according to their Bible-trained consciences and beliefs? Jesus wasn't talking about Christian family members becoming enemies of other Christian family members. I'm sure he'd be horrified. And again, if a dissenting JW concludes that Jesus is long dead, following someone that doesn't exist would not figure in his available choices, nor would he ask for a mythical diety's help in making his choice. Nevertheless, the basic choice is the same: keep the status quo along with his family and friends, or voice his disagreement, leave (or get kicked out), and face losing everyone he holds dear to his heart.

16) Three blind mice 17) The Three Degrees 18) Moe, Larry and Curly 19) Emerson, Lake and Palmer 20) Kepler's three laws of planetary motion 21) Earth, Wind and Fire 22) Tom, Dick and Harry 23) Shake, Rattle and Roll 24) Three Billy Goats Gruff 25) Lies, damn lies and statistics

David, trying to save his life by hiding who he was and pretending to be somebody he wasn't, was not cowardly. We agree. It's extremely brave to be among those who would turn hostile toward him (even kill him!) in a heartbeat. It's similar with the situation a doubting or unbelieving JW often finds himself in. His family and friends may not go so far as to kill him, but it can lead to them cutting off all contact with him which can be a kind of living death - for both parties. That assumes that the JW organization is specially chosen by God and that the leaders are God's anointed. A questioning JW who thoroughly researches his religion and concludes it doesn't stand up to scrutiny will broadly fall into one of two camps: 1. Someone who remains a Christian believer and takes the Bible as God's Word. In this case, he concludes that there is a disconnect between the Organization's doctrines, with its claims about itself, and the Bible and known facts. Therefore, the Organization doesn't have a special relationship with God after all, and is just another Christian-based group among many with their various strengths and weaknesses. Subsequently, there is no reason to regard the Organization's human leaders in any higher esteem than one would a clergyman. This person would also be praying to God for strength to endure the situation he was in and to find a way through. 2. Someone who believes the Bible originated with man. The Judeo-Christian God does not exist. All bets are off. The Organization is human construct with irrational, mumbo-jumbo ideas. Either way, your point about speaking against God's anointed or organization would be considered moot by a JW dissenter. Assuming the person is still a Bible-believer, he'll find himself in an impossible situation. Despite the Awake's comment a few years ago ... "No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family." - g 7/09, p. 29, Is It Wrong to Change Your Religion? ... he'll have to choose between his beliefs (and expressing them) and his family. He can seek out a Christian church and join with them in praise and worship ... but he'll lose his JW family and friends. Or he can keep his beliefs to himself, continue with his JW family and the JW community with its 'unacceptable' worship, but struggle with his godly conscience and personal integrity. He may end up in a spiritual no-man's land. It's not an easy choice and it often takes some time to make. A person has a better idea of what they were doing if they get baptized as an adult. Not necessarily so with a minor. Eoin and I have had a couple of discussions on the ethics of minors getting baptised as JWs. Rather than repeat myself here, you might like to take a look. You make it sound like 'no choice' is a good thing. It's one matter for a child to be born subject to a country's laws, but death for not following your parent's religion? Doesn't society criticize fundamentalist Muslim groups/authorities for having a similar mindset? What about tolerance and freedom of religion that JWs often fight for - even going to Caesar's courts to do so? Is it fair to demand those freedoms for oneself while denying the same for one's own children or others? That depends on your point of view. Losing faith in what? Falling away from what? For the still-Christian-but-doubting-JW God, not Satan, is leading them out of the Organization. For the atheist or agnostic JW, the biblical God and Satan don't exist; they survive without expectations of divine help or fears of devilish temptation. As for your comments about what a person should and shouldn't do, everyone's circumstances are different and the individual has to carefully weigh up his options and their wider ramifications. "Don't judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes."

Details of the case: https://cases.legal/en/act-uk2-264937.html

Was David a coward when he hid and feigned insanity among the Philistines and later pretended to be their ally when he was really working against them? Or was he working for the greater good? Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 - There is an appointed time for everything, A time for every activity under the heavens: 2 A time for birth and a time to die; A time to plant and a time to uproot what was planted; 3 A time to kill and a time to heal; A time to tear down and a time to build up; 4 A time to weep and a time to laugh; A time to wail and a time to dance; 5 A time to throw stones away and a time to gather stones together; A time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing; 6 A time to search and a time to give up as lost; A time to keep and a time to throw away; 7 A time to rip apart and a time to sew together; A time to be silent and a time to speak; 8 A time to love and a time to hate; A time for war and a time for peace. Oftentimes it is better to gently coax loved ones into truth by maintaining relationships with them rather than by hitting them with a giant mallet, causing injury and alienation that never fully heals. It takes greater psychological fortitude to use the soft approach - often at the expense of your own mental and spiritual well-being. When a JW is alone in his unbelief and there is nobody among his family and friends to share his concerns or frustrations with for fear of becoming an outcast (which may cause extreme practical, economic and emotional problems - not just for himself but for others too), online forums are the places to safely vent and get the needed validation and support. This 'Jordan' guy is going through a process and that is what 'Tears of Oberon' is seeing. 'Jordan' will eventually leave, but it will be when he is ready. How many times have you heard experiences where people have dilly-dallied and taken years to officially convert to the JWs? There is no cookie-cutter method of disengaging from a high-control religious group ... or converting to become a member of one ... and 'Tears of Oberon' will do well to be mindful of the individuality of a person's spiritual journey.

It's extremely difficult to treat AML and acute anemia without the best tools at the medical profession's disposal. It's not the medical profession's fault that blood well fits that purpose - blood was designed to oxygenate the human body in the first place. Anyway, it's still sad. One can applaud the boy's faith, but unfortunately it found expression in a deeply flawed interpretation that made his sacrifice so unnecessary.

The medical services weren't inadequate here. They were prevented from using the best treatment available for giving the boy optimal chance of survival. They did all they could under the circumstances. It's a sad story for all concerned.

Finally, I've had time to read through this thread. Some observations: I see that no scriptural support has yet been given for the idea that there will be a resurrection during the 1000 years. Where does the idea come from, then? It appears to be based on assumptions, i.e., 1. that 'Judgment Day' isn't a specific point in time but a long period lasting 1000 years; 2. that there are two groups of Christian believers; 3. that the 'deeds' people will be judged on are those done during the 1000 years and not those done before they died ... ... which comes from the interpretation of Rom. 6:7 that once a person dies, they have been 'acquitted' from their sin ... ... in which case, the resurrected start with a clean slate but are still raised in imperfect bodies that can sin again, and it's really during the 1000 years that they are able to avail themselves of the merit of Christ's sacrifice (paradoxically by working toward perfection) ... ... which means that Christ's sacrifice doesn't atone for their sins committed before death in this present age, as their own deaths paid for their sins ... ... which goes against the gospel message (Rom. 3:21-26). If Jesus' death does atone for sins committed before a believer's death, then why isn't that individual 'declared righteous for life' like the 'anointed' are? And yet, even with regard to the 'anointed' who are regarded as being 'declared righteous for life,' there is judgment based on what they did 'while in the body': 2 Corinthians 5:10 - For we must all appear before the judgment seat of the Christ, so that each one may be repaid according to the things he has practiced while in the body, whether good or bad. This judgment for the 'anointed' doesn't last for 1000 years, does it? And they are judged according to what they did before they died and were raised as spirit beings, right? Why the different standards between two groups? This raises another conundrum because, if Adam died, he was acquitted of his sin too. So why do JWs insist that in his case, his 'Adamic death' doesn't acquit him of his sin? Where is the scriptural support for the idea that he has fast-tracked, without passing 'Go' and collecting $200, straight to the 'second death'? Melinda mentioned 'willful sin.' Isn't much of our 'sin' 'willful' in some way or another? What about David? Was his adultery with Bathsheba and murder of her husband involuntary, accidental? Manasseh's offenses against God with his child sacrifices and false worship - were those lesser sins than Adam accepting his wife's offer of forbidden fruit to eat? Eoin talked about there being a difference between 'immortality' and 'everlasting life,' and that humans cannot be immortal due to their nature. But then, wasn't it argued that angels are not immortal either (one of Melinda's posts)? So what does a being's human nature have to do with it? And does 'immortality' mean 'cannot die' or simply 'does not die' because the person has been granted a spirit-generated body - whatever the nature? If an immortal person 'cannot die,' doesn't this limit God's power or make the immortal person as indestructible as the Creator? On the other hand, if immortality means one doesn't die, and that life continues indefinitely, forever, or everlastingly, no matter what body the rewarded believer is given, it will always be dependent on God's life-giving spirit, would it not?

OK, OK. Enough of our ping-pong 'Yes he does' / 'No he doesn't.' To me, AMIII's words and intent are as plain as day. You disagree. However, we can agree on this:

That's because the discussion wasn't about a minor prioritizing working toward dedication over seeking a driving permit. The discussion was about a JW father withholding his child's driving permit to coerce him into getting baptized on the basis that, if he wasn't ready to handle a car, he wasn't ready to make a lifelong dedication/commitment to the Sovereign of the Universe and the Org that claims it exclusively represents Him. I agree that Anthony Morris III and the father in my scenario are comparing apples and oranges when trying to equate the responsibility that comes with dedication and baptism (or marriage) to that of having a drivers permit ... which makes using that kind of coercive tactic with one's children all the more distasteful - my point all along.

So basically, Glenn, it looks like you are arguing that the phrase 'came to life' has a different meaning depending on the group. One group is resurrected to perfection. The other group is resurrected to imperfection ... until they've 'achieved' sin-free perfection at the end of the 1000 years. Where is the scriptural evidence that one group has to 'achieve' perfection during the 1000 years? If one group is resurrected perfect, why can it not be that the other group is resurrected perfect but at the end of the 1000 years, in harmony with the timing contained in v. 5's parenthesis?

Furuli's method for obtaining the data for his 1993 study was to personally interview congregation members about their mental health. A local elder assessed the mental health of those members who couldn't be there for interview that day and this formed part of the results. The 2015 study involved sending out a questionnaire to congregation elders and getting them to answer questions about members' mental health issues that they were personally aware of. They also had to categorize what kind of mental health issue the member(s) had, how long they'd suffered from it, and the kind of professional help they had been given. The many problems with these approaches and how they would affect the results are glaringly obvious.

I know what an anomaly is, I just didn't understand your sentence. David defected to Saul's and Israel's enemy, the Philistines. Wouldn't the establishment have viewed that as disloyal? My argument was a simple one: Loyalty to God may mean disloyalty to a religious leadership's actions or beliefs. You brought in 1 Sam. 24, and I referenced 1 Sam 27f. which raised the issue about David's loyalties. David's example underlined the point that loyalty to Jehovah comes over and above loyalty to a nation or human ruler, even if that meant one became an outcast in the eyes of God's anointed.

Oh I seeeee. I didn't watch after 16 seconds. I'm going to have to watch the whole thing now, aren't I?

"It is true that it will never be known beyond doubt what type of instrument was used to execute Jesus. But there is evidence – strong evidence – that it may have been a cross." - p. 31. The Watchtower's prior beliefs about the cross and how it was depicted in the literature isn't used as a 'proof' that Jesus must have died on a cross, but is merely part of tracing Watchtower's attitudes about it. The author presents biblical, linguistic, archaeological and patristic evidence that is highly suggestive that Jesus' instrument of execution may well have been cross-shaped.

Thanks JW Insider. I had a feeling that Manuel Boyet Manicola would struggle to answer (there's a lot of doctrinal history to dig up and process!), but you have given a thorough background to how this 1935 idea came to be. As an aside, and slightly off at a tangent, it's interesting that one of the main arguments Rutherford put forward as scriptural evidence for the new 1935 'great crowd = earth-bound' teaching was that Jesus inspected the temple and had sat down on his judgment throne in 1918 with the nations before him, and he was separating the sheep from the goats (Matt. 25). These nations aren't in heaven, he reasoned, so the 'great crowd' of 'sheep' must be on earth when this takes place, therefore, this is evidence that the 'great crowd' is earthly, not heavenly. Seeing as the '1918 judgment/separating' teaching was revised in the mid-90s (it became a future event), this specific argument for the 'great crowd' being an earthly class evaporated. Going back to how ideas were communicated back then, this caught my eye in the Aug. 15, 1935 WT (which discussed the new ideas about the 'great multitude'): 1935 WT volume found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5jNoZSyIWQWS3NyVHlaazZvNFk/view

I was stating a fact and it was written with an impish twinkle in my eye. The point remains that, because of David's higher loyalties, he became an outcast in the eyes of God's (still) anointed and reigning king (cp. 1 Sam. 24:5, 6), and that David provides an example of where loyalty to God may mean disloyalty to a leadership's actions or beliefs. Yes, it is purely my opinion based on how this discussion has gone. I don't understand what that means.

OK I lasted 16 seconds. As soon as the video started using the 'Two Babylons' book as its source, I knew it was a dud. Real research can be found here: jwcross.pdf

Eoin, dragging you back to the point here: if you overheard the kind of conversation between a father and son as I posted above, would you not conclude that the father was trying to coerce or blackmail his child into marriage? If not, why not?

Blood was only to be poured out on the ground if a life was taken. It was to ensure the animal was properly dead and, when used as part of ritual sacrifice, was symbolic of atonement for sins. Seeing as no life is being taken when blood for transfusion is being donated, and that it is not being used for religious purposes or for food, but it is being used for what God originally designed it for, those Scripture texts and the intent behind them do not apply.

Lol. You started it by asking how 1 Samuel 24:4-7 sat with the idea that being loyal to Jehovah may mean disloyalty to a religious leadership's actions or beliefs, and quibbling about whether David's loyalties made him an outcast in the eyes of God's anointed king. And I think you see my point very well.

From when God's anointed king wanted to kill him, yes. But you are evading the lesson to be learned, namely: doesn't David's example emphasize loyalty to Jehovah over and above loyalty to a nation or human ruler, even if that meant he was an outcast in the eyes of God's anointed?

Um yeah! If he'd been disloyal, he'd have killed Saul, become king, and stopped being an outcast.