JW Insider

Want to make $10,000 a day while sleeping in bed? Try my site https://makeamilliondollarsadayinyourpajamas.con Wonder if this post ever sees it's way onto the site. (Wow! It did. You have a terrible spam filter.)

I suspect it has more to do with the water issues that Warwick had dealt with in the lakes that begin in their region and spill down toward the WTS HQ. But I can look into it. I now have a contact who worked on these issues with Warwick and Tuxedo Park.

Planning Board too. Nevertheless, even the early articles about it say this: https://shar.es/aaYQ1i The Watch Tower Society also is providing some on site medical services and have made arrangements with the Greenwood Lake Fire District; it is also working with the Tuxedo Fire District. If any of the Headquarters residents decide to move off site to have children, they then would pay taxes and their children would likely go to the Tuxedo school district.

I am writing this on Sunday 12/9 at about 3:30 PM. On Thursday night I drove up here to Warwick with relatives. We completed the five exhibits at Warwick, spoke with some Bethelites we knew, and attended the Sunday morning meeting held in the Bethel Auditorium where the "Long Meadow" congregation meets. This is a congregation of about 180 persons, some of whom travel from up to about half-an-hour away, and many (if not most) of the members are Bethelites who live in the HQ complex on site. Tomorrow we'll go to Wallkill. The first thing you notice from setting your smartphone maps and GPS routing systems is that the Warwick Bethel is not in Warwick. It's actually all within the borders and limits of Tuxedo Park, NY. If you look at the back of the Warwick Bethel brochure you'll see that 1 Kings Drive, Tuxedo Park, NY 10987 is the actual address. The name was picked, I assume, because Warwick is a town just a little farther away, in another zip code (10990), and smaller than Tuxedo Park, but with a name that sounds just a bit more Biblical. It's a name that also sounds a bit more alliterative: as in, "Watchtower at Wallkill" and "Watchtower at Warwick." Wars, Wicks, Walls, and Kills are all found in the Bible, but no Tuxedos of any stripe. The exhibits were very good. I'll find my previous post that discusses them and try to get it to land below this one.

Of those two, only Russell was removed from the "list." Rutherford remains, but some of Rutherford's faults have been candidly admitted. I wouldn't say anyone has "disowned" Rutherford, although I worked with two brothers in the 1970's who still admitted that they held a strong grudge against the judge. If you know some of the stories about him it's a lot easier to read between the lines in the publications and from experiences various brothers had with him that have been mentioned in interviews. But you don't have to be liked to be faithful and discreet. There are a few things I don't like about Rutherford and a few that I do like. I don't think of him as a key part of the FDS nor any kind of "foundation stone." Among many righteous and courageous things he stood for, he was instrumental in keeping control of the assets of the Watchtower Society, and that name, having been associated with Russell and the work of the Kingdom as they understood it, kept a core portion of Bible Students together at a critical time. Otherwise, it's possible that Rutherford might have become a footnote. A couple things make no sense, because human traditions create strongly entrenched things. Things just get more awkward when someone has to grasp at straws to make sense of things after they have been proven to be obsolete. Outside of about 5 topic areas, however, I happen to think that most things make even more sense now, especially looking at all the changes since about the year 2000. Also, I think we've dropped a lot of things that just can't be made to work anymore, but the WTS hasn't completely abandoned the ideas completely and has sometimes chosen untenable solutions to issues created by the older teachings. It's like sewing new patches of unshrunk cloth on old garments. After everything is "cut and dried," it just doesn't wash! All anointed Christians are no longer identified as THE faithful and discreet slave. But this wouldn't stop anointed Christians from being faithful and discreet slaves. This is something that all Christians are supposed to be, no matter what they claim to know about their ultimate place where they will serve in God's Kingdom throughout their eternal lives. True Christians who are faithful and discreet slaves will have this attitude: (1 Peter 4:10) . . .To the extent that each one has received a gift, use it in ministering to one another as fine stewards of God’s undeserved kindness that is expressed in various ways. (1 Corinthians 4:2, 3) 2 In this regard, what is expected of stewards is that they be found faithful. 3 Now to me it is of very little importance to be examined by you or by a human tribunal.. . . I agree that it is an unfortunate circumstance that has probably led the Governing Body to believe that they need to bestow this title upon themselves to be respected for "authority" they believe is necessary to effectively lead thousands of local congregations and millions of brothers and sisters. I think it is a human failing to be expected in every religious organization on earth. For me the point of an organization is the idea that it provides a ready-made social group with which we can begin putting our Christianity into practice. It's a support group for the stronger to help the weaker, the richer to help the poorer -- and for all to provide an example to one another, both physical and spiritual encouragement and nourishment to one another. Such a group will be expected to put forth a set of teachings, which might be half right and half wrong, but it's a start for us to discuss. As the teachings are tested and questioned, the surer things and the more important things will rise to the top. It's true, as you say, that weak elders will not question and will become "policemen." But it is still our duty to test and question. If we are kicked out for it, so be it. If the "policemen" think it's right to break up families and natural affection over such questions then this is a tragedy and needs to be changed if we want to be Christian. Christianity is a constant fight for righteousness. It's easier in a social group of like minded persons, even though a social group, being human, will naturally have abusers who want to rise to the top just to be "policemen." *** w77 10/1 p. 599 The Christian Congregation and Its Operation *** They are not governors or “masters” of the lives or faith of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but are viewed as brothers and equals having a duty of stewardship. —1 Cor. 4:1, 2; 2 Cor. 1:24; 1 Pet. 4:10. Back in 1977, discussing the Governing Body, this verse from 2 Cor was included along with the two other scriptures I already quoted above. The one I hadn't quoted yet was the middle one: (2 Corinthians 1:24) Not that we are the masters over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy, for it is by your faith that you are standing. This is one big problem. I'm not minimizing it. We no longer encourage the hiding of child abuse. It still happens, of course. I think it's from shame. We just don't want to admit something so horrible is as much among us as among others. Those who think it's best to hide it are not thinking the way Jehovah wants us to think; they are not thinking about what true justice really is. It's rampant criminal stupidity, and we are not immune. True. Some have left, thinking this might allow them to push for change more effectively. Some, in the past, have pushed on the issue and then even been pushed out when they did not want to leave. But you left and I wonder if you really think that it made more people aware of the problem, than if you had just brought it up matter-of-factly in normal conversation to as many people as possible first, before leaving. Also, don't you think that this really requires a top-down approach. And by the way, I know of an elder in California who has stepped down and discontinued his former level of association with the congregation and who spends much time actively campaigning for worldwide change and national political change on this issue. If he is to be believed, he has not been approached by any persons or committee about disfellowshipping or disassociation. I honestly don't think the WTS would ever want to make a move against such a person again. It would be devastating to the current and potential court cases. Also, note that in recent court cases there are apparently less of them trying to mitigate against the seriousness of the specific crime itself. They are primarily trying to mitigate against financial loss to the corporate entities whose representatives argue that the responsibility for child sexual abuse does not lie in following the promoted rules, guides, and processes of the WTS, which they also believe, in good faith, have been Bible-based. True. I don't expect the leadership of any human organization to be perfect. Ultimately we must be, and it should always guide our motives and goals. But don't expect it anywhere. As TrueTomHarley has often tried to point out, we might expect that Christian methods of dealing with the issue might make our numbers (statistics) actually come out better when compared against institutions of the world. Perhaps they already are. But there are factors that might fight against this, too. Just as Catholics bring supposedly celibate men into the priesthood, Witnesses attract persons who believe that association alone might change their wicked desires. Witnesses might also attract those who believe that fellow Witnesses are extremely trusting and naive, "babes to badness" as it were. If that happens, do you see yourself believing that this organization must have been "God's chosen" one, just as Jerusalem represented an earthly organization of God's chosen ones? I get the feeling that you don't feel there is any significance to the JW Org in our day, and probably don't feel that big changes would really be a cleaning out by God's direct intervention. I think that most if not all the current Governing Body are doing a pretty good job as expected in most areas of concern. But they are also steeped in our own long organizational tradition, and captivated by the idea that they have been asked to serve in an awesome, overwhelming position of responsibility. One of those areas of responsibility is finding and choosing others who should be asked to serve in such a position. In such a situation, I don't see them as bad or unworthy, but just trying to do the best they can in the situation they find themselves serving. An ex-member who was a strong critic of the Governing Body called it being "captives of a concept." The same ex-member said that a big part of that "concept" is based on seeing certain changes as inconceivable, especially where it comes to a perceived need to "police" the faith of millions of followers. I think you (and the ex-JW I refer to) are both partly right in this regard. Because their vantage point sees reports of activity always "rolled up" in terms of a works-based faith, it will likely be a while before we see a change from "activity-based faith" to "faith-based activity." As people who came up through the rules of the organization as they have always been, it's probably all they are seeing every day, and it's so much to deal with that they haven't yet looked very far outside the box.

The trip to Warwick is nice. I'm going to the 10:00 Sunday meeting in the auditorium there tomorrow morning. Then Monday, we go to Wallkill. I met two brothers I knew from the 80's only because I called them first. Also, it's so impersonal without tour guides, and the whole place is sterile as can be. In a tour group you are talking to other people in your group and asking them where they are from, and what congregation, and invariably finding out that you know someone they know. In Brooklyn, I used to get called upon at least once a week to give tours, and it was always joyous, upbuilding and friendly. Also, a person coming through for a visit to Brooklyn could ask for me to give their tour and it would be a welcome interruption to the day's routines. Yesterday, I saw at least 200 people from bus tours and carpools come through and I happened upon only one instance of someone recognizing someone else from afar. Everyone was quiet, even young ones, as if it was a library. I saw only about 10 teenagers, and maybe 20 younger children. The rest were adults, more wheelchairs than I expected. Everyone is on their own, usually with a headset on, and 4 out of the 5 exhibits are very cramped so that I think brothers and sisters in wheelchairs felt like they were always in the way. Bethelites stay out of sight, and the guides are often volunteers from nearby congregations who commute in one day a week. There are about 850 full-time workers here and I probably saw 10 of them even though I also walked the grounds several times between buildings -- not a part of the tour. Never saw a glimpse of a person in any of the building offices or windows because of the way they reflect. Except for the 200 on tour, you could have convinced me that all those many large buildings were vacant. Two exceptions were two sisters assigned to clean the tables in the "multi-purpose room" with Swiffer-style brooms. I had brought a muffin with me and offered it to someone at the table and the sister pretended she wanted my food and said "Did you say you had a muffin?" I yelled back "You didn't hear muffin!" She lol'd and called the other sister over and began talking to us. They were originally from Hawaii and LA and had married Bethelites about 7 and 9 years ago working at Patterson and Brooklyn, respectively, before moving to Warwick.

Anna and Outta Here have already said it and pointed to material that says it, and I'm sure you have heard the argument before while associating with Witnesses. But here it is again: there is a logical problem with your argument. God's name in Hebrew is YHWH, true, but this doesn't automatically mean that Yahweh is the correct pronunciation. Why not Yehowah? In fact, there are languages today where the most common pronunciation of the Divine Name is exactly that: Yehowah. Admittedly this was influenced from English, and a major contributor to the popularization of that form of the name was a Catholic monk. But as Anna said, there are other names where we use a modern English or other modern-language equivalent. The name for Jeremiah was YRMYH. Do you argue, why not Yarmayah? It's possible (though highly unlikely) that this was how it was pronounced. But some modern languages will pronounce it Yeremiah, even in the WTS publications in those languages. The divine name is a special case and perhaps this means we should give it special scholarly treatment in selecting the most likely pronunciation. However, even here, if it turned out to be Yahweh, that form in English would be Jahveh. We don't say Yeshuah, we say Jesus (because that form of the name Joshua had already been "hellenized" to Yesous.) Sometimes the change is even more significant, like Yakob to James or even Santiago. To me, these arguments sound a bit like straining the gnat, but not very consistently.

That has happened, but it's not what I said. There was a time when the focus was always on Russell and how great he was as one of the major historical contributors to the "faithful and discreet slave." We had a doctrine that claimed that there were always members of this faithful and discreet slave alive at any given time on the earth since the Christian congregation was formed just after Pentecost of 33 CE. In fact, there was a research assignment for history buffs that was supposed to become a part of the "Proclaimers" book, that was supposed to go into a lot more detail about some of the groups that our publications had identified in the past, who were typically persecuted for not believing in the Trinity (Arians, for example), and those who stood up against the powerful religious leaders of their time and tried to publish truths for wider distribution to everyone. The GB members behind this effort were so disappointed in the results that they dropped the idea from the "Proclaimers" book, and began to drop the teaching altogether, so that we rarely spoke any more about about Arius, Wycliffe, Tyndale, the Waldenses, etc. The focus of that book became a chance to show how Russell stood out among those he had learned from: Grew, Stetson, Brown, Miller, Paton, Seiss, Storrs, Barbour, etc. But even this effort began to show that Russell was rather eclectic, and was just as apt to pick up a wrong idea as a good idea and run with it. But the biggest "new" issue that was being learned about Russell was that so many of the early Bible Students who followed Russell were actually in an end-times chronoloy cult. This was not Russell's fault, but he had the kind of convincing personality that drew people to him. Rutherford was a Russellite cult member too for many years. But it was in 1919 that Rutherford realized this. If Rutherford had not used shrewd (and technically illegal) means to grasp the Watchtower organization from the majority of the Russellite leadership that Russell had chosen, then the Watchtower would probably still be just another Russellite "cult." The real cut-off from Russell began in 1919, and it took another decade for Rutherford to completely figure out how to do that. And this is one of the reasons that the Watchtower today, since 2012, teaches that the true "faithful and discreet slave" no longer includes Russell, even though for many years up until 1919, Russell was had been considered to be the ONLY member of the "faithful and discreet slave." I'm not saying that the current Governing Body necessarily did the right thing in identifying only themselves as the current FDS, but at least, since 2012, they have taken measures to remove much of the emphasis on Russell himself, by removing him from any identification with the "faithful and discreet slave."

I have never heard this expression "human foundation stones of the JW. org, but I know what you mean. However, I see that you still have some trust in the organization. You must have at least had some to be able to say that it is now less. But this wasn't the point. I think people make too much of the humans who have been used and involved in the history of the Org. It is what it is, and for me the organization represents the most respectable attempt in recent history to present an international teaching ministry, making Bible teaching available for free to nearly the entire world. It's a teaching that is consistent, gives hope, encourages high morality, and presents a Christianity that has excellent advantages over other forms. You may disagree over some of the basic fundamental teachings of JWs, I happen to agree with the basics. I disagree with what I consider a lot of less significant issues, and for most of these disagreements, it means almost nothing in the scheme of things. There are a few moderately important issues that I disagree with, but I think these are also already on the way out. (I notice that, as an organization, we are almost able to laugh at ourselves with respect to some of these past errors and false doctrines. -- And, yes, one of the things I disagree with is our general inability to use the term "false doctrine" to refer to a past teaching that turned out to be false.) I know your biggest issue, you said, was the child abuse issue, and I agree that it is big. Much bigger than most Witnesses realize. But as many have said, we don't produce pedophiles and child molesters. We may have needed big improvements in our processes, just as so many other institutions have needed. We should all push for more improvements even if this means exposing the seriousness of injustice to children, and exposing these issues to the light. But you sometimes give the impression that anytime a serious sin is seen in this organization that it means God has removed his blessing from all of us, especially the leadership. I don't expect so much out of the leadership as others, and from what I know, they are trying to do a good job going forward, and have a weakness in the area of admitting mistakes of the past. I think the only way we can see past the human error and focus on the leadership of Jesus under the headship of Jehovah, is to avoid putting the human leadership on so high a pedestal in the first place. If we can see the human leadership as just as sinful and imperfect as the rest of us, this is a GOOD thing, in my opinion. And there are plenty of good reasons to make note of their imperfections and sinfulness. It's not to find fault and make you trust them less; it's to make us trust the leadership of Jesus and Jehovah, all the more.

Oddly enough, I do know one of them. Rebecca Newberger Goldstein lives just around the corner from my daughter and son-in-law. My sister-in-law teaches at NYU, which allows me to go to lectures (I rarely do) where she (Goldstein) was invited as speaker at one and a round-table-member at one. From what I can tell, she would be the closest thing to a "religious" voice in the list of Bilderberg participants. My wife, as a district level director of NY public school programs had also attended a seminar where Peggy Noonan spoke, a columnist I don't like. And on a shelf somewhere among 1,000s of others, we still have a book signed by Noonan. I suppose she was doing seminar lectures as a more discreet form of a book tour, even though she was giving them away at this point. I get the sense that this Bilderberg thing is a kind of think-tank to manage expectations about (and to protect) Western interests in the face of events and trends that might disturb the peace and profitability of those same Western interests. David Petraeus? Henry Kissinger? James Baker?

You might be stating something so obvious that the Watchtower has explicitly used this as one reason for a recent change in doctrine (only 5 years old) that states that the GB/FDS* only counts from 1919 onward. Previously, we said it was from 33 CE onward and would thus have included the indiscretions of Russell and a few of Rutherford's. The new doctrine now leaves Russell completely out of the picture. Also, Rutherford's time of saying how the League of Nations was 'wonderful and awesome' changed in just a matter of months, just before the beginning of 1919. *** w91 6/1 p. 13 par. 14 The Spiritual Drunkards—Who Are They? *** In 1919 she was among the foremost promoters of the League of Nations. While Jesus said that Christians would be no part of the world, Christendom’s leaders cultivate relationships with political leaders. *** ip-2 chap. 13 pp. 184-185 par. 9 “Cry Out Joyfully in Unison”! *** When the Greater Cyrus, Jesus Christ, freed God’s covenant people from captivity to Babylon the Great in 1919, they came to a better understanding of Jehovah’s requirements. They had already cleansed themselves of many teachings of Christendom that have their roots in pre-Christian paganism, such as the Trinity, immortality of the soul, and eternal torment in a fiery hell. Now they set out to rid themselves of all traces of Babylonish influence. They also came to realize the importance of maintaining strict neutrality regarding this world’s partisan affairs. *** kj chap. 18 p. 346 par. 28 Resurrection to Unity in a “Garden of Eden” *** Then in the liberation year of 1919 the faithful survivors of World War I reunited with the one objective, namely, to be loyal to Jehovah’s reigning King, Jesus Christ, and to preach world wide “this good news of the kingdom.” Jehovah forgave their transgressions and cleansed them of the “dungy idols” of worldly nationalism and other religiously disgusting things.

Interesting. I always think of just Jay, Hamilton and Madison, but forgot about "Publius." Google/Wiki: The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 essays arguing in support of the United States Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay were the authors behind the pieces, and the three men wrote collectively under the name of Publius.

It's definitely a side-track. But it's an interesting one to some people. Also, I see that this topic was in a religiously neutral part of the forum, and an admin has now moved it into the "Jehovah's Witnesses Public Club." To me, this will make it interesting because of how politically-influenced our own prophetic explanations have been over the years. Russell himself wrote to the President of the United States to tell him that Filipinos were lazy and that we (USA) should give a large portion of the Philippines to Japan. Rutherford was constantly involved in the political trends of his day. In fact, Rutherford, wrote to Hitler to tell him that he thought that what Hitler was "preaching" in the early 1930's was kind of like a political expression of what the kingdom of God stood for, and therefore, Rutherford expressed appreciation for what Hitler was saying. This only lasted a short time because Hitler didn't buy it. In fact, Rutherford for a short time also stated that the League of Nations was like a political expression of the Kingdom of God on earth. That only lasted a few months. But he was famous for taking sides between capitalists and labor, and just like Russell, predicted that the chaos of Armageddon would be triggered by a clash between the interests of Capitalism and Labor's interest in social justice. This developed into the idea of the West (Capitalists) being the key representatives in the King of the South, and the socialist/communist powers being the key representatives of the King of the North. Watching this idea develop between the old Daniel book (Your Will be Done on Earth) and the Babylon book and the new Ezekiel book is EXTREMELY interesting to me.

This is a false statement. But the reasons that it is false could make someone think things are better -- or much, much worse. Most of the 1% think they are fairly regular people in the upper middle class. Many JWs are in the top 1%. A Witness family that I know in our congregation is a single black mother (divorced) who has been raising 2 daughters and 4 dogs. The house is worth about $450,000 with the mortgage paid off. She didn't graduate college, but worked her way up into a vice presidency in a division of a ritzy international maker of jewelry/perfume/etc. She's been in this job more than 10 years. The job pays about $225,000 plus benefits and bonuses worth another $50,000. She has saved well for her two daughters, one of whom also makes about $100,000. This household, for the entire USA, has made it into the top 1%. This sister is in the top 1%. When she retires, she will probably remain in the top 1% for several more years, or drop to 2-3% depending on how much she spends on her daughters' weddings, their cars, gifts, etc. She will still be in the top 1% of our city, and our county and our region. What you were describing, might better be applied to the "top 1% of the 1%" (shades of Bernie Sanders).

Assuming that most of us will not go there, I'll quote some relevant portions: ----the rest of this post quotes from Bilderberg--- About Bilderberg Meetings Since its inaugural meeting in 1954, Bilderberg has been an annual forum for informal discussions, designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America. Every year, between 120-150 political leaders and experts from industry, finance, academia and the media are invited to take part in the meeting. About two thirds of the participants come from Europe and the rest from North America; one third from politics and government and the rest from other fields. The meeting is a forum for informal discussions about megatrends and major issues facing the world. The meetings are held under the Chatham House Rule, which states that participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s) nor of any other participant may be revealed. Thanks to the private nature of the meeting, the participants are not bound by the conventions of their office or by pre-agreed positions. As such, they can take time to listen, reflect and gather insights. There is no detailed agenda, no resolutions are proposed, no votes are taken, and no policy statements are issued. Bilderberg Meeting 2018 The 66th Bilderberg Meeting to take place from 7 - 10 June 2018 in Turin, Italy TURIN, 5 JUNE 2018 –The 66th Bilderberg Meeting is set to take place from 7 - 10 June 2018 in Turin, Italy. As of today, 131 participants from 23 countries have confirmed their attendance. As ever, a diverse group of political leaders and experts from industry, finance, academia and the media has been invited. The list of participants is available on www.bilderbergmeetings.org. The key topics for discussion this year include: Populism in Europe The inequality challenge The future of work Artificial intelligence The US before midterms Free trade US world leadership Russia Quantum computing Saudi Arabia and Iran The “post-truth” world Current events Founded in 1954, the Bilderberg Meeting is an annual conference designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America. Every year, between 120-140 political leaders and experts from industry, finance, academia and the media are invited to take part in the conference. About two thirds of the participants come from Europe and the rest from North America; approximately a quarter from politics and government and the rest from other fields. The conference is a forum for informal discussions about major issues facing the world. The meetings are held under the Chatham House Rule, which states that participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s) nor any other participant may be revealed.

The following is just my opinion, of course: Religious fervor begins with a religious group believing that they know something important that others do not know. For some this has been "knowledge of the times and seasons" i.e., the dates or time range or signs that show how close we are to the end of this system. For some the differences between their religion and others will seem small, but to the religion that believes it has more important knowledge, these differences will seem huge. The same thing is true of political views, some people see differences in left and right as no big deal, but others are convinced that they know something important about the correctness of their own view and the incorrectness of the other person's view. These ones will display political fervor in the same way that religions can show religious fervor. In other words, politics is just like religion (and religion is just like politics). Most of politics, just like most religion, is based on misinformation, or the beliefs of parents, or the general traditions and propaganda of our national group, or the beliefs of our most outspoken and convincing friends. I've seen a curious uniformity in the way many JWs would position themselves if they had to identify which of their beliefs align more with the US "left" and the US "right." The US is aligned generally with the "International West" (UK, France, Germany, Australia) and sometimes includes Japan, Israel, Saudi Arabia and other nations when interests align. This might make an interesting topic of study about JWs, assuming that the person behind the study could be trusted to know the true differences between "left" and "right." Also, they'd have to understand the limitations of political knowledge that all Witnesses receive only through specific target-driven sources. Many JWs would still think of "FoxNews" as right, MSNBC as left, and CNN/ABC/CBS/NYTimes as generally neutral. In fact all these sources have their own interests which are often hyper-partisan, but often go far beyond "left" and "right." It would surprise most Witnesses, and much of the world, to see just how many interests of the "left" and "right"overlap in the very areas where most see them as different.

I used my moderate powers as a moderator to change the title.

The "two-balloon slander" is misunderstanding or mistranslation of the French, which I think just means "bickering over trivialities." (As in, "Isn't all this just some bickering over trivialities?") C'est cette médisance a deux balles ? Literally "à deux balles" doesn't mean two balloons, balls, or even two bullets, but I think is more like "over [just] two francs." (i.e., 'Isn't this just some cheap sniping?')

That's silly! What if the bus is at a stop sign and there is no wind? There should be a large depression in the roof of each bus to collect rainwater, and then solar-powered windmills could pick up buckets of water from the roof to spill the water onto small turbines to make electricity.

In the spirit of non-competitive one-extra-man-ship I always like to respond as follows: First person: See ya later, Alligator! Second person: After a while, Crocodile! Me: Mañana, Iguana!

My parents, from California, visited Brooklyn Bethel every few years, and even after my father's retirement, he got invited to stay on a temporary basis for some electronics and audio work. But they had only been to Patterson twice, and Wallkill once. They keep thinking every visit might be their last opportunity with health issues and "this old system the way it is." But every couple years they still come back for another visit.

Oh, and I almost forgot. We've heard the oft-repeated newspaper and radio reports that many thousands were fooled into thinking that this "fake news" was accepted as so real, that there was a mass panic, and perhaps even suicides. True? Well that was probably fake news, too. Note: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/10/30/241797346/75-years-ago-war-of-the-worlds-started-a-panic-or-did-it

The above is from Al Gore's book "The Assault on Reason." I assume that it was him and not Donald Trump, as Trump actually claimed, who invented the term "fake news" (shortly after inventing the Internet). But he's right. Fake news was a theme of: Orwell's "1984." Or Well's "War of the Worlds" from 1894. (H.G.Wells) Or Orson Welles' broadcast of Well's "War" as actual fake news in 1938. Fake news has been at the heart of most of our supposedly real news for centuries. It's recently become a way to try to differentiate unsanctioned fake news from official fake news. You missed all those pride parades in ancient Greece? That's a bit of fearmongering that tends to contradict the fearmongering over a rising population. Another contradiction to Malthusian fearmongering. Turn up the sensitivity on the meter and everyone will find their way onto the spectrum. It's probably more like: Autism, which was once diagnosed in 1 out of 1000. . . . Now, one can easily go back and retroactively diagnose Fred Franz, Alan Turing, The Absent-Minded Professor, etc. Agreed. Actually, it had gained ground as "Jewish" and early "Christian" Gnosticism to the point where it was actualy threatening to compete with actual Judaism and Christianity for many years. In the common forms of Gnosticism, Satan was the good god, and Jehovah was the bad god. Now it's more of an attention grabber.

I think you provided some very good examples of what I meant. These things you mentioned are serious or symptoms of serious problems, but they don't give us the kind of ammunition we had in the 40's and 50's. Also the fearmongering of the 70's was coming at us from all directions. The WTS did not invent it, it just resonated with the WTS when brothers read books like "Famine 1975" "The Population Bomb" and any quote that indicated the world couldn't last but a few more years at most. But now, we are so enamored to problems, that even the usual fearmongering has fizzled. As @Outta Here helps remind us indirectly, and as @Kosonen reminds us directly, however, there is enough flexibility in the Bible passages to account for anything and any situation. If it's madness and chaos, it's because it was exactly predicted for our time. If it's relative peace and security, it's because it was exactly predicted for our time.

Make America Great Again!?!?!?! These were the US IRS Tax Brackets the year I was born: 1957. (See way down below.) It was the tax rate paid by my parents and the rest of the so-called "Greatest Generation." A person who made a Billion dollars in one year (with "windfall" exceptions) could keep $100 Million of it. Today, most persons who happen to make a billion dollars in one year can pay a million of it to a tax attorney and may then end up paying between $0 and $10 Million, keeping about $990 Million (99%). Yet, for some reason businessmen back in the 1950's ended up investing even more of what they kept into further investment in their companies, increasing benefits for workers, etc. Now the highest percentage is spent on maintaining their grip on their money, finding ways to take even more from employees, lobbying for lower taxes and harsher labor laws for workers, making sure their own families maintain control, and luxury expenditures (such as jets, yachts, personal real estate). And a percentage invariably goes to "philanthropy" as a method of controlling the potential public outcry against the new status quo. Tax Bracket Tax Rate $0.00+ 20% $4,000.00+ 22% $8,000.00+ 26% $12,000.00+ 30% $16,000.00+ 34% $20,000.00+ 38% $24,000.00+ 43% $28,000.00+ 47% $32,000.00+ 50% $36,000.00+ 53% $40,000.00+ 56% $44,000.00+ 59% $52,000.00+ 62% $64,000.00+ 65% $76,000.00+ 69% $88,000.00+ 72% $100,000.00+ 75% $120,000.00+ 78% $140,000.00+ 81% $160,000.00+ 84% $180,000.00+ 87% $200,000.00+ 89% $300,000.00+ 90% $400,000.00+ 91%