Anna

In that case, what with scriptures such as Isaiah 11:6, 7? Does that mean the wolf will reside with the lamb in peace, until the wolf gets hungry and gobbles up the lamb? Peacefully though of course? Is that your congregation?

I got your original answer but others evidently didn't

Does Jehovah forbid tattoos?

At the convention today there was mention of certain behavioral characteristics that animals have which help them survive. Some of these are instincts which protect them from predators. These behaviours are atributed to Jehovah's creative wisdom. However, this is obviously at odds with the idea that animals were created not to eat each other. How does one reconcile these two opposing ideas?

What is going on here?

Clearly evident from the context is that Russell was talking about a symbolic freemasonry.

Oh please! Are you one of those conspiracy theorists by any chance?

Thanks ya!

That's what I'm waiting for.

Couldn't agree more

We were at the Manchestet Arena in 1998 for a convention. It had just been built. My son was 3 years old at the time. There is supposed to be a convention there in 5 weeks time....!

"What does Jehovah doing things in certain unusual ways have to do with child abuse?" This was the thinking also of a certain other poster on a similar thread, and I hate saying this, but perhaps this kind of mentality has been the reason for non reporting and other inefficiencies regarding the handling of child sexual abuse. Yes, it is true that Jehovah should figure in our trying to solve problems, since being a JW is a way of life, but when it comes to handling of child sexual abuse, "waiting on Jehovah" and other perceived theocratic sensibilities just don't seem appropriate in this situation.

The leading cow is spoken of as being a he but "he" has an udder, plus cows are never male I mention this on purpose, because I feel that sometimes this is the kind of thing you do, focus on criticising some detail that is not teally important to the overal story or lesson, and then you miss out on the whole point. Which is a pity.

Quite possible, since ducks are always rummaging around in fish ponds

Wow, this thread has grown so fast I hardly have time to keep up with it! Very good reading though and some good reasoning. What I have found though when it comes to arguing with Trinitarians about the Trinity....it leads absolutely nowhere....mainly because the Trinity is such a fundamental and "sacred" idea to them that denying it is tantamount to blasphemy. To them it's almost like if an atheist tried to convince us Witnesses that there is no God. What I find fascinating is that pretty much everything surrounding the birth of the Trinity, or the official definition of it, or the definition of the substance of the Christ in relation to God etc. is based on human philosophies and not the simple and pure language of the scriptures. Jesus’ disciples in the 1st Century clearly understood Jesus to be the son of God and a separate being from him. The simple statements that the Bible makes about the Father, his son and the holy spirit were later twisted into an incomprehensible pretzel, which as Eoin points out, needs an equally incomprehensible vocabulary and explanations which actually don’t explain anything and so ironically end up being called a “mystery” for simplicity sake. Just the other day in service we got to talking to a man who brought up the argument that Jesus could not have been a created being because if he was, he could not have atoned for our sins. That he had to be God himself to make the sacrifice valid. Where do they get that idea from? Doesn’t Paul in 1 Cor 45-47 explain it quite well: “So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit...... The first man is from the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven”. In fact, why did the 2nd Century “church fathers” have the need to define the substance of Jesus when as the apostle Paul says “If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one”. All they had to do is simply understand that when Jesus was first created he had a spiritual body, then when he was transferred into the womb of Mary he had a physical body and when he was resurrected he became a spirit being again. It's interesting that the church fathers didn't seem to refer to the scriptures much but rather to Greek and other philosophical ideas to determine the substance of the Christ. They preferred going beyond what was written.

Unfortunately one of the victims has been affected in such a way that she calls it a "degenerate religion" and that part is sad. In any case, apparently, neither of the victims have come forward yet (apart from posts on FB) to give the authorities proper testimonies.....

Evidently Moses had a vivid and dramatic imagination and let lose when writing the book of Job.

I apologize, you are clearly right. I did miss it. Tut-tut. Evidently, he doesn't seem biased towards the Witnesses, but I sill have comments on how he has twisted some things. I cannot speak for the Catholics of course, but I do know JWs pretty well. I will have to put my argument together one day (so much to do and so little time).

I feel this scenario also happens with some attorneys. I know @Ann O'Maly won't agree with me on this and I am sorry I failed to reply to her regarding Zalkin, (we are both busy and it takes so much time to put together a convincing argument based on observable facts), but I see in Zalkin someone who uses JW cases to aggressively promote himself and his business. If he wasn't so closely tied with Trey Bundy perhaps I wouldn't be thinking this way.... I have never seen him get so passionate and give interviews etc. regarding his other cases (Catholics etc.) like he does with the JWs. It almost makes me think it's personal. And then of course there is Bill Bowen.....

I've seen you mention this example before. All I can say is I am glad my elders aren't like yours. But then again I wasn't there, so I just have to take your word for it!

Yes, it's a campaign by ex-Witness opposers. Also apparently, one of them was collecting money from other opposers to fund billboard advertising space to display similar sentiments.

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

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

You would have a point if the GB ever implied anything like that. We all know the "greater" Moses is Jesus.

@bruceq Actually, it seems that what upset her the most is that I said she was being bossy