JW Insider

Google's companies (and now Amazon, too) are US military contractors and must therefore follow US interests. Google even helped to delist and blacklist videos that were going viral about the Huawei phones, so that the originals have often now been re-posted, but with many fewer views. My introduction to the phone was this video showing an amazing 50x zoom that no US phone can come close to yet. There are also videos showing an amazing ability to "see in the dark" which is a major weakness of iPhones and Google phones. Of course, all this posturing against the Chinese phone can backfire into seeing the iPhone banned in China. Similarly, the fact that China has rolled out so much true 5G is going to make it hard for US companies to claim that they were the 5G pioneers who had it first. There has been a partial blackout in the US of a lot of Chinese technology. To reduce interest and international competition, the USA once simply relied on the claim that China only "steals" US and Western technology, but this doesn't make a lot of sense when some of these amazing technologies in China have already surpassed US technologies by several years. (quantum computing, AI supercomputers, etc.)

Missed that. As I said, I don't have a problem with this one because I'm sure we have the right idea about the actual correct application. I don't think we needed to put the interpretation into the translation though, because more likely translations of the original Greek were available, and these more likely translations fit other scriptures much better. For example, the Greek does not literally say: "beggars in spirit." The word usually translated "poor" primarily means wretched or reduced to wretchedness, not beggar. Of course, many wretched or persons "reduced to wretchedness" were forced to beg, so a secondary meaning could be "beggar" in some circumstances. Most beggars are poor, but not all poor are beggars, so it's better to stick with the more literal meaning of the word and not add anything to that meaning unless context says we must. The more literal meaning of the term, was not evidently crouching in the stance of a beggar, necessarily, but crouching as if cringing in fear, or slinking away (from crowds, from society, from getting kicked out of places). Of course, the term must have included beggars, which makes the translation possible. But look at the parallel in Luke where the verse reads merely as follows: (Luke 6:20, 21) . . .Happy are you who are poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God. 21 “Happy are you who hunger now, for you will be filled. “Happy are you who weep now, for you will laugh. Do we think that Luke missed the point completely about the "beggars" and only noticed that they were poor, hungry and weeping? So, the thing to figure out then is if adding the term "of/in spirit" changes the meaning to those who must be conscious of a need for "spirit." If it were so germane to the meaning in Matthew, you'd think it would have been at least hinted at in Luke. We end up giving the words for lack of "spirit" a new meaning of lack of "spirituality" when we add the idea of a "spiritual need." What they really need, we are told elsewhere in Matthew is to have their spirits lifted, because they are broken-hearted and sighing and groaning over the system of things and their particular circumstances in it. So it's right in one sense. (Matthew 11:5, 6) . . .the poor are being told the good news. 6 Happy is the one who finds no cause for stumbling in me.” But the more likely sense is that Jesus, by his ministry of curing and preaching and bringing hope, is accomplishing the goal that fulfills what was written about Jesus through Isaiah: (Isaiah 61:1-3) . . .The spirit of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah is upon me, Because Jehovah anointed me to declare good news to the meek. He sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And the wide opening of the eyes to the prisoners, 2 To proclaim the year of Jehovah’s goodwill And the day of vengeance of our God, To comfort all who mourn, 3 To provide for those mourning over Zion, To give them a headdress instead of ashes, The oil of exultation instead of mourning, The garment of praise instead of a despondent spirit. Jesus brought hope of justice, hope of a new world. He healed; he fed; he comforted; he even raised the dead. He stood up to the religious oppressors; he preached a day when the world they lived in would pass away and a new Kingdom would be born. He therefore raised the spirits of those who were wretchedly reduced in spirit (despondent, depressed). (Matthew 11:28-30) 28 Come to me, all you who are toiling and loaded down, and I will refresh you. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am mild-tempered and lowly in heart, and you will find refreshment for yourselves. 30 For my yoke is kindly, and my load is light.”

I think I just got bored that there had been less scriptural discussion of late (not counting some notable exceptions here and there, however). Nothing to get worked up over, but we do have an obligation to handle the word of God aright. And I don't think it is wrong to use the verse as a statement of something positive, because it is something very positive. In fact, to me, there is something very meaningful going on in this verse, and I hate to think we miss it by using the verse out of context. In context, it is actually amazing that God's people are being asked to stop defending their land, stop defending the Davidic Kingdom and the Temple, but to just willingly leave with Babylonian captors, pray for Babylon to let you live a peaceful life as captives, get ready to stay a long time there, get married, plant fruit trees, have kids, and then await a time when you (or at least your children) can come back to the re-promised land and start fresh. Jehovah had something truly amazing in mind for those who were willing to listen to something that really made no rational sense to most of the people listening. This probably didn't make much sense that an enemy who would be starving people to death in a siege on Jerusalem was going to be someone they should compromise with. It might even look like treason to their fellow Judean brethren. And yet, we have actual physical evidence among tens of thousands of neo-Babylonian documents that the Jews very quickly formed peaceful communities in Babylon. Jeremiah was right, even though it seemed to be against all the odds. Neither the upper or the lower classes generally believed him; other prophets were claiming something else. Jeremiah was imprisoned for such talk. All the while some Jews were fleeing to Egypt or in other directions for protection, or with the thought that they could regroup and fight Babylon. Jeremiah said they shouldn't do that either. The royal family was sure that it should defy Babylon and make its stand against it. The land was being decimated of all its people. At the time, who'd have thought that Jeremiah was giving good inspired advice? If there is a "type-antitype" lesson here, it's probably not that we should compromise with some antitypical Babylon. It's more likely that the point is that God's people today might have to be willing to give up our comfortable reliance on the physical, visible "Temple" and our authoritative "governors." God's people will have to understand that each one of us will stand spiritually on our own. We are temporary residents (alien residents) in a world that we should not get too attached to. We are not judged for what our earthly or spiritual "fathers" have done, but the law will be written on our own hearts. We won't be reliant on what our neighbors or brothers tell us about how to know Jehovah, for each of us will know Jehovah on our own. I think all those points are found in the next couple of chapters, especially Jeremiah 31:28-34: (Jeremiah 31:28-34) 28 “And just as I watched over them to uproot, to pull down, to tear down, to destroy, and to do harm, so I will watch over them to build up and to plant,” declares Jehovah. 29 “In those days they will no longer say, ‘The fathers ate sour grapes, but the teeth of the sons were set on edge.’ 30 But then each one will die for his own error. Any man eating sour grapes will have his own teeth set on edge.” 31 “Look! The days are coming,” declares Jehovah, “when I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant. 32 It will not be like the covenant that I made with their forefathers on the day I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, ‘my covenant that they broke, although I was their true master,’ declares Jehovah.” 33 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares Jehovah. “I will put my law within them, and in their heart I will write it. And I will become their God, and they will become my people.” 34 “And they will no longer teach each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know Jehovah!’ for they will all know me, from the least to the greatest of them,” declares Jehovah. “For I will forgive their error, and I will no longer remember their sin.”

I have avoided my old habit of fault-finding for quite a while, but this one just brought up the need for some good, old-fashioned nit-picking again. One thing I like to avoid is the use of a scripture that appears so removed from context that we look like proof text cherry-pickers. I know the average householder is not going to notice at all, but it still seems like a stretch to use Jeremiah 29 as an "all encompassing verse." Here's why: In context, Jeremiah is saying that his fellow Jewish countrymen just have to give in to Babylon (in effect, they must now compromise with Babylon and pray for Babylon and whatever city they end up in) and let themselves be taken willingly to Babylon as captives. He says that if you allow Babylon to take you, you can try to do the best you can while you are living there and, because the entire Babylonian Empire is only supposed to last for 70 years max, and at least 13 or 14 of those years are already used up. (The 14 years detail is not part of our doctrine, but is clear from the Hebrew of Jeremiah 10:25; 28:17, 29:10, etc.) So, Jeremiah says that you are going to be a long time in Babylon, so if you just give in, by building houses, planting fruit trees, and getting married and having children in Babylon, you might even personally have a chance to come back to this nation, when Babylon's time is up. So, in context, Jeremiah is saying that this is a situation where people are lying to you, but if you follow Jehovah's thinking, there is a good solution by compromising with Babylon. But Jehovah's thinking also includes the thought that if you decide to listen to prophets like Hananiah, or decide to defend Israel/Judah, or defend the Temple, or defend the Davidic kingdom, or even listen to certain misguided prophets already in Babylon. For these Jehovah's thinking is as follows: (Jeremiah 29:1“For this is what Jehovah says to the king sitting on the throne of David and to all the people dwelling in this city, your brothers who have not gone with you into exile, 17 ‘This is what Jehovah of armies says: “Here I am sending against them the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, and I will make them like rotten figs that are so bad they cannot be eaten.”’ 18 “‘And I will pursue them with the sword, with famine, and with pestilence, and I will make them an object of horror to all the kingdoms of the earth, and a curse, and an object of astonishment, something to whistle at, and a reproach among all the nations to which I disperse them, 19 because they have not listened to my words that I sent to them with my servants the prophets,’ declares Jehovah, ‘sending them again and again.’ “‘But you have not listened,’ declares Jehovah. 20 “Therefore, hear the word of Jehovah, all you exiled people, whom I have sent away from Jerusalem to Babylon. 21 This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, says. . . , ‘Here I am giving them into the hand of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon, and he will strike them down before your eyes. 22 And what happens to them will become a curse spoken by all the exiles of Judah in Babylon: “May Jehovah make you like Zed·e·kiʹah and like Aʹhab, whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire!” . . . “‘“I am the One who knows, and I am a witness,” declares Jehovah.’” . . . 28 For he [Jeremiah] even sent to us at Babylon, saying: “It will be a long time! Build houses and live in them. Plant gardens and eat their fruit,—”’”’” In other words this is not an all encompassing verse about how Jehovah is not ready to rake us over, or that he is thinking good thoughts toward us. It's about a specific set of circumstances when he is about to rake a lot of people over, and is thinking to make a curse out of those who won't listen to Jehovah. In this case, Jehovah wanted his people to stop defending Judea and Jerusalem and their Davidic kingdom. He would only protect them if they "compromised" with the enemy and prayed for that enemy, at least until its 70 years was up. I wouldn't be as nit-picky about your use of Matthew 5:3 because I'm sure we all have the right idea on this one. But there is something to note here: Very few people know this verse as one that says anything about being conscious of something, especially not conscious of a spiritual need. In Greek, the verse just says, happy are those who are poor in spirit (the same words that would mean depressed or broken hearted or those with a "broken spirit." Most translations correctly say something like "poor in spirit" which aligns with parallel expressions in context about those who are meek, merciful, or mournful. Our NWT translation is more likely an interpretation rather than a translation here. If it were in an obscure place like Jeremiah it might be different, but a lot of people know the "beatitudes" from the Sermon on the Mount, and this could give them the impression we have changed the Bible to fit our beliefs. There are plenty of good replacement scriptures, however, which I'm sure you already know.

I'm saddened by the loss of Rachael de Vienne, but I'm thrilled to hear that at least the second volume of Separate Identity will be available soon. I'd love to read whatever else you publish.

Absolutely. Quite a loss of someone who knew how to bring value out of historical sources by being thorough rather than taking shortcuts and extrapolating assumptions from just a couple of snippets here and there. Instead of 3 snippets and an assumed conclusion, her work manages to bring 30 snippets, no matter how trivial they might have seemed -- but offers no personal assumptions unless they are obvious, and unless they help guide you away from sloppy conclusions already made by pretenders to the profession. Although I never commented on it, I read and kept up with the truth history blog on a fairly regularly basis in the last couple years. I bought both of the books and love their work. I know that another volume of "Separate Identity" was planned, even though it was pretty obvious that time and cost would make it unlikely. But at least they covered some of the most difficult time periods, which were also the most vulnerable to obscurity. I think they missed very little between them, although a few items have shown up since their writing. But they would change very little -- nothing very substantial, anyway. I like your comment above, and I notice that the version of this comment that you put on the blog gets cut off fairly early. Perhaps it's a character count limit. If it can still be edited your comment makes more sense in full, rather than in the way it's cut short. I understand why you wouldn't want to just link to your own longer version under the circumstances, of course.

Ah those memories. I bought an Apple IIe back in 82 or so for too much money even though I bought it used. I used it with a modem to submit my programs to the "mainframe" at school. My first work "PC" was also an Osborne, that looked much like the above picture, but it was running an early MS-DOS by then rather than CP/M. I bought it from my boss, and it was not something to take on trips. Took it to Boston once or twice. A luggable, they called it. In 1985 my job at ADLittle/Trump bought me one of the first HP laptops.

I rest my case, then.

Way over the top there, James, don't you think?

Ad copy: Fish tend to avoid it because it slows down the current . . . Translation: The biggest problem is the way it kills so many fish who come up to it because it slows down the current (and might even jam up the turbine, turning it into dam of rotting fish). . . Still, if they can solve that problem with a non-capturing convex rather than a concave mesh screen, for example, it might be an excellent source of off-the-grid power.

That experience could be used at the next convention. Of course, it could be for other reasons. I know some Witnesses here who don't want other Witnesses doing their lawns and landscaping out of concern for privacy among the friends, or just to avoid business dealings and potential misunderstandings. We also had a brother in our congregation who ran a gas station only a quarter mile from the KH, and he was so taken advantage of that an announcement had to be made from the platform that brothers should pay their debts and not expect credit when doing business with fellow Witnesses.

OK. I see where you are coming from on this now. I don't know that the GB instructed the hiding from authorities and others in the congregation, but they certainly have known about the hiding, and have gone along with it, and could have ordered exposure of the problem instead of continued hiding. (In the past, hiding apparently happened in most, but not in all cases.) From that perspective, exposure of such crimes and sins would undoubtedly have reduced the problem. Especially the problem of repeat offenders. There are some cases that will probably never come to light in this system due to the systemic nature of trying to protect the reputation of an organization and leaders at the expense of protecting children. They were late in their correct responses to this problem, in my opinion, but they do see it as a problem. Even if it's exposure and cost. But I know that many have seen it as a problem of justice for the victims, too. Unfortunately, that had previously been dismissed by some in power as less important. Just an analogy to show how someone can be both right and wrong at the same time. There are huge scriptural problems with this claim of the GB to be the exact and complete fulfillment of the FDS. I've dealt with that elsewhere. But we can't forget that it is a Christian duty to try to feed spiritual food to fellow Christians. The GB truly believe this is their duty and they also know that they are not perfect, and must admit to providing wrong guidance at times and sometimes bad spiritual food, too, in the form of false doctrines and false predictions. They probably thought them right at the time, but you are right, that it was not all 'food at the proper time.' People guided by God have made mistakes in Biblical times, when the very same persons had the privilege of seeing Jesus personally, or were even inspired at other times to write books of the Bible. Yet, the GB make no such claim about themselves that they are inspired in this same way. They feel that intensive Bible study, organizational experience, faith in Jehovah, meditation and prayer will all combine in some spiritual way to guide them. Other people have made claims that they claim inspiration, and the distinction gets blurry. And some Witnesses teach "present" truth as immutable in such a way that they, too, have blurred the distinction. In any case, God is not misguiding. It's just that people are so imperfect that we must learn to trust and obey God as ruler rather than sons of men in whom no salvation belongs. No. The inability to question something is often because something just seems so clear and obvious that we just can't imagine that it could ever be wrong. Or it has been repeated so often that we can't imagine it could be wrong. We don't question things we are "sure" of. It happens to all of us, and then we might be surprised some day to find out we were wrong after all. But by not questioning, we probably will never have to find out. So the early Corinthian congregation must also have been an unclean organization. Jesus' organization of his apostles must have been an unclean organization, too. I think it will come close to that. It won't come immediately, but there will be some countries soon, I think, where we won't be allowed to preach unless we stop shunning family members for example. We will agree, and shunning will become a personal, private thing. Most Witnesses don't want to shun, we just do it because we are told it is loving. When there is no longer any threat of getting in trouble for not shunning, most of us will see that it is more loving not to shun. The change will happen organically from that point. Food at the proper time.

You probably know that there were infamous cases of immorality that Paul referred to in his letters even to the very Corinthian congregations that Paul himself had "planted." So it doesn't seem reasonable that if the GB had acted as Paul was saying that Child Abuse / Pedophilia would somehow no longer be a problem. No, I don't see it as just collateral damage. But when the Org sees it as a problem, I do think it's necessary for its leaders to do all they can to remove it, and "progress" in processes and procedures that can be seen to help eliminate it. I had said that "the core of the religion itself is one that does perhaps the best job of all religions in fighting the machinations of the Devil" to which you replied: You are asking how it can be logical I guess that someone can be right on some things and not on others. I think you probably already know of many examples. Isaac Newton was right on a surprising number of things, but was wrong on some things, too, and only partially right on many things that he could not have been fully aware of at the time, so that he is still considered right for all practical purposes on many of those things. Aristotle, Pythagoras, St. Augustine, Jerome, Attilla the Hun, Martin Luther, Charles Taze Russell, probably even Hitler were both right on things and wrong on things. We remember them for their overall value or detriment to people or societies. Misinformation reaches us from liars, but usually from people who truly believe the misinformation, even if it does NOT suit their own purposes. Can you imagine that Rutherford really thought he was lying when he predicted that the "Old Testament" princes like Abraham and David would come back in 1925? If so, he was preparing to be made fun of, to be seen as a fool. He evidently even admitted that he had made an a** of himself, according to the Watchtower. That doesn't strike me as trying to suit his own purposes. Just as with Rutherford, I can't see how it "suits themselves." It's because of misinformation that they have believed for the same reason that we have believed it. GB are chosen not because of their ability to question, but because of their "loyalty." In other words, they are chosen for their reputation of not questioning. But when they get into that position, they realize that questions do come at them that are difficult to answer. Except for the "generation" fiasco, I think most changes since around 2000 or so have been for the better. And the only reason for the "generation" fiasco is the inability to question 1914. It seems like just too much of a coincidence. It took a while, but I think they've almost gone as far as they can as of the most recent Watchtower article that covers this topic. It's now just a matter of fully implementing the processes that have been put in place. There is still a matter of compensating for the past, and this is a difficult issue to be discussed elsewhere, I hope. I think we agree completely on shunning. I have no doubt at all that we have been implementing the shunning practice in an unchristian, unscriptural, and unloving manner. I can see our practice as OK from an "OT" perspective, but not at all from a "NT" perspective. If I get in complete trouble with the Org, it will be because I refuse to shun beyond what is written in the scriptures. I am more concerned about being in trouble with Jehovah than with humans in an organization. And even then, if I am shunned, it does not mean that I will shun in return. As far as it depends upon us, we should work what is good toward all, but especially toward those related to us in the faith. No. Very serious. I think that moral cleanliness is preached correctly, even though we see that there are exceptions to how it is practiced. Many Witnesses lead double lives. Many are involved in adultery, fornication, child sexual abuse, spousal abuse, violence against children, cheating, lying, drugs, etc. But most aren't, and most appreciate the value and reminders we get from the platform. Most of us appreciate the association of like-minded persons who also wish to remain clean. I have heard persons say that they wish they could only hire Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses, one time from a person who didn't know I was a Witness. I know of worldly persons who have come into the congregation to try to find a wife from among JWs, based on admiration of their morals. I would never claim we are more moral than any other group of people. But I think we have the best advantage in terms of an overall call to morality that includes not only personal morality, but a realization that we should not even be tainted by immorality of commercial greed, nationalistic murderous wars, etc. Sure. It might turn out to be a temporary sacrifice for some of us. Some of us might have found ways to question and avoid any consequences. If enough Witnesses perform their Christian duty, however, even a mass of disfellowshippings will automatically produce changes. Open questioning of doctrines at Bethel became common as early as 1974 when it was obvious that 1975 would not likely turn out as Fred Franz had been repeatedly hinting at, even though he didn't predict "1975." (He only predicted what must happen before the 1970's were complete, because of 1975.) Questions became open at Bethel tables, and around Bethel "water coolers" until a crackdown began happening in mid-1978 through 1979. People got dismissed and disfellowshipped in large numbers, but this also resulted in a backlash and exposure of the witch hunting and star-chamber methods. I think the Internet itself is already resulting in a flood of questions all over again that are proving very valuable. It is these that have been been driving many of the new (and better) doctrinal changes since 2000.

I saw an example of that after Outta Here made a complaint about a post with profanity and I saw a lesser example of his (Ryan's) profanity in the past. I hate to see profanity here too, especially because it pushes people away who might otherwise add something more valuable here. But there is a big difference between profanity against an ideology and directing profanity at a specific person. For example, you are well aware, I'm sure, that that "Allen Smith" was banned after repeated warnings not about profanities but about wild, raging rants that were directed at specific people. Allen acted the part of a cyber-bully. He was not just judgmental but was threatening. Personally I felt badly for persons who might have felt bullied and threatened, but I also considered that all the persons who participated here had already seen many examples from him, that ranged from pathetic to deranged. Therefore, it was likely understood that his threats were not actually meaningful and they therefore carried more "entertainment" value than anything else. This is why I was against banning Allen, because I thought it more likely that his readers here were mature enough to see through him. For those who didn't want to be entertained in such a way, they could personally block him. I also thought that some of his ad hominem attacks (against the person instead of attempting to respond to an argument) actually strengthened the other person's argument with Allen inadvertently admitting that he could think of no actual response to the evidence itself. It was only after the warnings that he would be banned that Allen started using profanities. Allen's surprising profanities may have helped some other people think they understand why he was banned, but they were not the real reason. The real reason was always the bullying, in my opinion.

That's a very revealing statement about where you would love to live, but it would certainly explain a Lot (and Lot's wife, even more so).

If I didn't know better, I'd say you didn't have a disgusting and filthy mind. The reason I stood up for Allen Smith and all your (his) aliases was made very clear. I always defended your right to say what you wanted. Of course, you had to know, and still know, that the content of what you were saying would be open to countering opinions that could contain criticism, facts and evidence. Even if some of the statements made by some of your aliases have been deleted, none of my own were, and this is how you can see that I never insulted you of made fun of you. I never made fun of your grammar either, which is something that some of your aliases kept repeating, and for which you always failed to produce evidence. I admitted that I could not always understand what you were saying. Several people here had the same problem understanding you sometimes, not just me. I have apologized to you every time you have pointed out an error. This goes for all your aliases. And I'm not saying this because I think you have never pointed out an error. There have been several occasions when you were right and I was wrong. I still apologize for these mistakes, and have corrected them. By the way, I do not ask the same of you. You could say whatever filthy and disgusting things that might come into your mind. I might point them out, and sometimes I might just ignore them, but I won't ask you to apologize. This reminds me of typical corporate-sponsored news outlets, and other forms of propaganda, in which people obviously believe, hypocritically, that if they repeat a falsehood often enough, it will probably have some "sticking" effect. Thanks. I have already done so from the first day you took up this last alias. But it does make it a bit easier to refer to you again, Allen.

For what it's worth, my opinion is that @JW Insider works for both sides in a different sense. I like the way Paul put it: (1 Corinthians 9:19-23) . . .For though I am free from all people, I have made myself the slave to all, so that I may gain as many people as possible. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew in order to gain Jews; to those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law, in order to gain those under law. 21 To those without law I became as without law, although I am not without law toward God but under law toward Christ, in order to gain those without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, in order to gain the weak. I have become all things to people of all sorts, so that I might by all possible means save some. 23 But I do all things for the sake of the good news, in order to share it with others. Early Christianity started out in the context of Judaism, which had become steeped in end-of-the-world eschatology, and the legalism of the Pharisees. But end-of-the-world eschatology, although dangerous to Christianity on its own (per Jesus), still naturally drew out crowds of people who sighed and groaned over the injustices of their world. They wanted a new heavens and a new earth, and they wanted it as soon as possible. So early Christians would be mistaken to focus on eschatology, but many good Christians, desirous of a new heavens and new earth, would naturally come to Christianity through this path. Jesus gave several illustrations showing why focusing on eschatology was so dangerous to true Christianity, and we have the words of Peter to explain how Christians must transform into those who would be the very same type of person they ought to be, whether the parousia came in their own lifetime, or whether it came 1,000 years after their own lifetime. Another major focus of Jesus' illustrations and teaching was about legalism. Early Christianity was still steeped in Judaism, and still attempted to put Christians under law, even after it was recognized that the Judaic system didn't apply to gentiles. Jesus' illustration in Matthew 24:45 of the unfaithful servants --who would beat their fellow slaves and try to lord it over them when the master was gone-- is a good illustration reminding us of the dangers of both eschatology AND the dangers of legalism/Pharisaism. Paul played both sides of Pharisaism/legalism because he was accused of being an apostate from Judaism. So they asked him to pay for some legalistic customary preparations for the persons going with him to the Temple. (Acts 21:20-24) . . .but they said to him: “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the Law. 21 But they have heard it rumored about you that you have been teaching all the Jews among the nations an apostasy from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or to follow the customary practices. 22 What, then, is to be done about it? They are certainly going to hear that you have arrived. 23 So do what we tell you: We have four men who have put themselves under a vow. 24 Take these men with you and cleanse yourself ceremonially together with them and take care of their expenses, so that they may have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that there is nothing to the rumors they were told about you, but that you are walking orderly and you are also keeping the Law. So rather than claiming that the GB have gone off track, I believe they are continually getting more and more ON track. I believe they naturally started partly off-track as would be expected with a very eschatological Russell and a very legalistic Rutherford. But all the while, it was the right kind of heart condition being attracted to and joining into the religion -- a religion with a greater focus on the type of person we ought to be for Jehovah, for ourselves and for one another. This was much like the form of Judaism that naturally made persons fit for transformation into Christianity. Legalistic Judaism was like a tutor leading to Christ. But we must still be transformed. Paul played both sides in order to win more persons over to Christ. To Jews he became a Jew. To Greeks he became a Greek. Still the core of the religion itself is one that does perhaps the best job of all religions in fighting the machinations of the Devil: avoiding taking one side over another in politics and war, pointing out the unchristian influences on supposedly Christian traditions, and pointing out the value of Christian morality, and unity of purpose in preaching, meeting together, etc. To me these are the most important things. Granted the Pharisaism still keeps us hanging on to rules (like turning in time so that our right hand and our left can distinguish different types of Christian service, and misuse of the two-witness rule so that mercy and protection of children has often been sacrificed, etc.). And eschatology will keep rearing its head now and then, too. But these things are getting better over time, getting more on-track, not off-track. Pharisees don't want to be questioned, but we must all take our Christian duty and responsibility very seriously. We must question. We must make sure of all things. And we can only expect more questioning as more persons from all walks of life keep coming into the organization. I find that this forum is still a fair enough place to question and get feedback to help test whether those questions are on the right track.

Yikes. Yikes, again. This is pretty much correct as I remember it, too. It was JTR who made fun of you (while you were using a different name). It was about "meds" at least once, and he also made fun of you on another occasion in a similar vein. You called him out on it at the time, so I didn't see a need to. You actually called him out on it a second time a few months later and JTR denied that he had ever said what he actually had said. But again, you were already calling him out on it. I called out John on his "drunk" reference, just as a reminder that these things sometimes escalate and someone ends up getting disciplined and then there are hurt feelings for a long time to come. And what's worse is that sometimes the escalations can get out of hand and people leave or get locked out of the forum. I hate to see such things. But as I think about it, I was wrong to mention anything to John. It wasn't my place. And perhaps it was even a bit sexist of me to step in for Anna as if she couldn't respond for herself. As you say, it's not like I try to step in for every little thing. Even when you say things I don't like about me personally, I let about 90 percent of them go without mentioning anything. (In fact, when I tried to respond to about 30 percent of your claims in a recent thread, it was John who stepped in to censure both of us for unchristianlike fighting.) So, @JOHN BUTLER I would like to apologize for involving myself in an argument that was not for me, in the first place. I have my own prejudices like everyone else, perhaps more than you. Some person's comments I hardly ever even read. So I could never be a fair moderator anyway.

OK. No it's not OK. I didn't happen to see that one, but I don't doubt you. I've seen similar from him. If you thought that what he said was unnecessarily harsh and judgmental, I hope you or someone else said something. Even if he would have felt like "elders" were trying to dominate him, he should know that such statements are as hurtful as more blatant types of bullying. It's the unnecessarily harsh judgment of the person's motives or state of mind that I think we should avoid. I think I remember that from him -- a couple of times, in fact. I didn't take it as overly harsh but I was sensitive to your reaction. Sometimes we choose to reveal a portion of our background and experience in order to add credibility to our comments. In such cases, we legitimately open up that background itself to scrutiny and assumptions about its relevance, or import. BTK regularly tries to discredit my own experiences and background as either false or ill-motivated. He has that right, because I have given him that right in choosing to share my experiences as they relate to my opinions. I think that to some extent you open yourself up to criticism about your own views when you admit that they are based on experiences. If we don't like your opinions on a matter we might feel cornered by your first-hand knowledge of the issue, at least anecdotally. So our best defense is to say that your opinions are "tainted" by your experience instead of "informed" by your experience. It's a very weak response, but for those who come here to learn about people's experiences, the weakness of that kind of argument against the opinion/experiences probably becomes obvious to others. I'll let her answer that. I admit there were some weaknesses in her argument, with respect to addressing your view of the organization, just as I suspect there were weaknesses in all of our responses. But I appreciate you bringing it back to the basics of what she was saying.

Of course, this could be part of a sequence that goes 7, 9, __ 13, 15, 17, __ , 21, 23, 25, __ , 29, __ , 33, etc., in which case no number is missing in that portion of the sequence. (In this case it would have been a series of incrementing odd numbers from 7 where we skip odd numbers that match the prime status of the previous number.) It's for a similar reasons that pattern recognition in AI should never be considered "set in stone" but should only be given a probability. The probability was very high that the missing number was 19, but this should be subject to change on discovery of further information. Another example happens all the time to engineers. If you happen to sample the amplitude of a 400 Hz sine wave at time increments of once per second you could get a sequence of 0, 0, 0, 0 ... etc. If you think it's a mistake and sample it 200 times a second you could still get 7, 7, 7, 7, etc., or 0, 0, 0, 0, etc., depending on when the wave starts its peaks and troughs. But you could sample it at some odd number of increments, or accelerate and decelerate the time sampling increments and discover it is a 400 Hz sine wave.

John, You should bring it down a few notches. I should say up front that I am not a moderator but was given some admin privileges only to be able to move posts around and keep topics better organized. So I'm not speaking as any kind of moderator, and I do not have (or condone) the use of those kinds of privileges to discipline or censure people. People can say just about anything they want about another person's beliefs here. But we shouldn't say just anything we want about the individual. We shouldn't presume to impute bad motives or a bad state of mind (as in drunkenness). I didn't want to respond to a matter before hearing it, so I ended up watching the video. (I use the term "watching" loosely. Because it was YouTube, I was able to turn it up to 2x speed and then repeatedly click forward on the red line so skip about 3 seconds and then watch 3 seconds over and over. This gives the general idea of a 10 minute video in just over 2 minutes.) I thought the person sounded angry, perhaps understandably, but also very haughty. I thought it interfered with his message, if not his credibility. Seems he and his wife heard a few statements and we have no idea if he is quoting them exactly or really putting them in context. We have to allow that people have different personalities and different views and reactions, but we can't give credit to an idea just because we agree, and then discredit another view (as naive and drunken, for example) just because we disagree. Instead, we should deal with the subject matter raised, not the specific individual's motives and state of mind. I also fail at this. Many of us do. But I hope you aren't upset that I point it out.

It's hard to see through them but the rest of the marquee sign includes the jazz musicians that also worked with and behind these "actors" on the film Oceans 11 (1960): [In the Lounge] Jonah Jones Norman Brooks Ann Brooks Red Norvo and Ernie Stewart Trio

Amazing. The only one that looks perfectly familiar is the A&W Root Beer can design. I'm assuming it's one of the most recent. The Sprite and Dr Pepper seem vaguely familiar. Also, old gas stations in the midwest still used that exact 7up design on tin signs that I remember well into the 70's, but I don't think I ever saw a can quite like that. "Pearl Harbor" guava drink sounds like a can designed before the name became infamous.

Good point. I thought it a bit jarring that a post about a dog turned so quickly to religious questions, so I checked to see what forum it was in. It was not in a general topic forum, but is in the "Jehovah's Witnesses" open forum, and therefore I'm guessing that this is going to be a typical occurrence. By that I mean almost any topic in a JW forum might be expected to turn towards a discussion of how that topic might fit with our beliefs and experiences among JWs. I don't know how the owners and overall moderators feel, but I'm more concerned when a topic that has nothing to do with JWs and is not in a JW forum gets turned into a discussion of Witness beliefs. I'm guessing that's not what the owner(s) hoped for.

There was a time in 1982 when there were only three ".com" addresses. (symbolics.com, bbn.com, and think.com) The full article from which that picture above is taken does a much better job overall: But the NSF actually made predictions in 1982 that came a lot closer to reality for the year 2000, not so much about gaming, but the effects of the Internet in general: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/26/bold-predictions-about-the-internet-from-1982/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d82663905c80 -----------quote from article until the end of the post--------------------- We don't call it "videotex," but this sounds about right. The National Science Foundation report in question also made some surprisingly solid predictions about the Internet's broader societal and economic impact: