JJJ-AUSTRALIA

Well the older the kid gets the harder to get that kid to be baptized.  No underage should get baptized as the price of changing their mind later is too high. 

It means he got a mule at 31 😆😆😆

I think even when we are baptized, the watchtower elders or CO has no power over anyone, the power they think they have is because we give them that power, is not like we have signed a contract or anything. 

It means he got a mule at 31 😆😆😆

Is not that we weren't following God's will it is just the light gets brighter 😆😆😆

Well the older the kid gets the harder to get that kid to be baptized.  No underage should get baptized as the price of changing their mind later is too high. 

Is not that we weren't following God's will it is just the light gets brighter 😆😆😆

Arauna said:
Still clueless. Do you even know the distinction between "Jehovah's witnesses" and "Jehovah's Witnesses"?
Arauna said:
First you answer all my questions you ignored.
Do you know the word for what you're doing? Demanding answers from me when you continue ignoring my rejoinders to you? Hint: it begins with "h".
 

Lol we didn't see that at the Australian international convention 2019, as they made a man made JW barracade to stop the peaceful protesters showing their posters, stopping  them and dropping the f bomb and the looks given to the protesters, it was an embarrassment. Shameful honestly. They didn't try that the following day. 

Never would we want to be like the Pharisees, who resented those who questioned them and persecuted those who expressed an opinion contrary to their own.—Mark 3:1-6; John 9:29-34.
- Watchtower September 2019
 
 

That makes a lot of sense  Alanf thanks for sharing.
I always found it funny, when I was a JW how some scriptures does not apply to the org and some do. 
I also find it funny for example, as long as I was a JW the GB always said they were the spokesman or channel of Jesus and Jah on earth they will give scriptures blah blah blah but at the Australian Royal Commission suddently they weren't the only channel or spokesman of Jesus and Jah on earth... 🤣🤣🤣
 

That makes a lot of sense  Alanf thanks for sharing.
I always found it funny, when I was a JW how some scriptures does not apply to the org and some do. 
I also find it funny for example, as long as I was a JW the GB always said they were the spokesman or channel of Jesus and Jah on earth they will give scriptures blah blah blah but at the Australian Royal Commission suddently they weren't the only channel or spokesman of Jesus and Jah on earth... 🤣🤣🤣
 

That makes a lot of sense  Alanf thanks for sharing.
I always found it funny, when I was a JW how some scriptures does not apply to the org and some do. 
I also find it funny for example, as long as I was a JW the GB always said they were the spokesman or channel of Jesus and Jah on earth they will give scriptures blah blah blah but at the Australian Royal Commission suddently they weren't the only channel or spokesman of Jesus and Jah on earth... 🤣🤣🤣
 

That makes a lot of sense  Alanf thanks for sharing.
I always found it funny, when I was a JW how some scriptures does not apply to the org and some do. 
I also find it funny for example, as long as I was a JW the GB always said they were the spokesman or channel of Jesus and Jah on earth they will give scriptures blah blah blah but at the Australian Royal Commission suddently they weren't the only channel or spokesman of Jesus and Jah on earth... 🤣🤣🤣
 

Lol maybe we should ask to explain the generation doctrine and 1914  as well... 😁😉

Where is the photo?

Lol seriously.... Love her clueless responses.
Gossip, few cases of pedophilia.. 🤣🤣🤣 

Lol seriously.... Love her clueless responses.
Gossip, few cases of pedophilia.. 🤣🤣🤣 

Sure Aruna, whatever U say, U r so smart, I have no clue at all but U do.
Still find amazing ur clueless responses 🤣🤣🤣
 

Lol this kind of reasoning cracks me up, too innocent to tell lies too innocent to appear in front of the court too innocent to be buying whisky 😆😆😆 
How do U know as a fact they have never touched anyone inappropriately, not saying they have but to make such statement that they have never U must have good evidence.

Lol I have given up reading this discussion.
It reminds me the time when I was a naive JW  I used to discuss the same thing with Catholics and guess what the same excuses and reasoning is given... 
 

You were the one making the statement without any evidence I did not make any statement that they were clean or not, what matters is that the GB refused to give evidence clean or not. Or should we recap what Garry lush mentioned on his statement or what Geffry Jackson said in case 29 thanks to them I see where the GB stands. I'm sure U will come up with some incredible amusing excuse but what it was said has lots of repurcussions to the point that my wife and I can not believe another word that comes from them.

Lol this kind of reasoning cracks me up, too innocent to tell lies too innocent to appear in front of the court too innocent to be buying whisky 😆😆😆 
How do U know as a fact they have never touched anyone inappropriately, not saying they have but to make such statement that they have never U must have good evidence.

Lol this kind of reasoning cracks me up, too innocent to tell lies too innocent to appear in front of the court too innocent to be buying whisky 😆😆😆 
How do U know as a fact they have never touched anyone inappropriately, not saying they have but to make such statement that they have never U must have good evidence.

Lol this kind of reasoning cracks me up, too innocent to tell lies too innocent to appear in front of the court too innocent to be buying whisky 😆😆😆 
How do U know as a fact they have never touched anyone inappropriately, not saying they have but to make such statement that they have never U must have good evidence.