TrueTomHarley

Invisiblechildren.org, first brought to my attention by JWI, gives a figure even higher: one in four for girls, one in six for boys. I would never say that going to original sources is valueless. I do not practice abstinence in that regard myself. But large amount of anything original is throat-clearing rubbish. You do as well, often better, considering what the thinkers have said about it, and processing the pros and cons that they observe. . Unless you are a thinker yourself. Possibly you will modestly admit that you are not. Are you not the one who relies on 'chain-saw logic'? "Sure, 90% of science fiction is crud. That's because 90% of everything is crud." Theodore Sturgeon

It may be that I don’t consider this forum your own personal courtroom so that you can try your own vendettas and cross-examine opponents at will. Have you attended all the legal JW trials that you lecture the rest of us about? Summaries, reviews, commentaries, and concordances usually get the job done. The trick is to be sure they are not all penned by your own people but also by those you disagree with. I pass this test. Otherwise, one ought not comment on any Bible verse without first having demonstrated competency in Hebrew and Greek. Moreover, there are plenty of elitist boors who think it is that way, and they try to run every opponent off the road who has not ‘attended the proper schools’ as they. I read continually, sometimes original sources, sometimes not. Suffice it to say that builds up a reservoir to draw on more quickly than does watching every offering from Hollywood, watching nine and a half hours of the Kavanaugh hearings, or reading the phone book.

If I recall correctly, you are also VERY impressed with the Terminator, Jack Reach, and Die Hard movies. Here, I admit, my screen time is slim. You write that way. Whether you are or not, how would I know? You cannot mishandle something that you never attempted to handle. JWs did the best they could in cleaning house when few others had any interest in doing likewise. The fact that cases from 2000 on do not present themselves (they are ever from the 80s and 90s) suggests that whatever problems there were, they have been corrected.

This exactly makes my point. This is pure emotion. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the passage you used to segue into it. It is nothing more than your unhinged hatred of the GB speaking. You suffered abuse in pre-Witness days such as does not afflict one in a thousand. The ‘upside’ is that you know how depraved humans can be. The downside is that you think they all are when child sexual abuse has occurred. As reported on this thread or elsewhere (I’ll relocate it if I have to) two thirds of professionals REQUIRED BY LAW to report suspected abuse fail to do it. Are they all vile? Plainly, other factors are at work, but you can see only one. It is as stated before: You are too close to a particular tree to properly assess the forest. You were tied to a tree that was rotten. You think they all are.

The poverty-stricken person of a developing nation is stuck with 200 year old turkey of a translation that he can neither afford nor understand because nobody other than the GB sees anything inappropriate about Big Business overseeing the distribution of God’s word. That is the forest: the distribution and subsequent education in God’s message to humankind. The tree is your pre-Witness history with regard to child sexual abuse, a background that does not afflict one in a thousand.

Since the much-hyped penalty for not doing this was later thrown out by another court, it ought to be clear that it was not the law of the land. Rather, a certain court was exceeding its authority. The Kavanaugh hearings also ought to have made clear that the lauded impartiality of the world’s justice system is but a bad joke. Law is not the issue. One’s interpretation of law is the issue and that is forged in emotion which is forged in one’s personal experience. Your pre-Witness experience gives you knowledge of the depravity that humans can sink to. But it also makes you prone to see it everywhere. It is rather like a Holocaust survivor seeing Hitler everywhere.

WE ARE NOT!!!!!

She did not do this. What she essentially said is that you are too close to a tree to properly assess the forest.

Listen to @Gone Away, Shwiiiiiiii. He has a handle on reality

That's not a terrible answer. I'll try to get the count of 'iii's right.

I suspect he has unloaded his secret weapon when he states he was a virgin and had nothing even resembling sex until well after school days. It is obviously true, for in today's culture, nobody admits to such a thing. It is to scream from the rooftops: "I am a loser!" Now, he doesn't view it that way. And I come from a religious background where such is more common than uncommon for unmarried persons of that age, and it is due to their religious beliefs on the sanctity of marriage, so I don't view it that way either. But his most vociferous opponents, irreligious almost to the person, cannot conceive of such a thing. Some of them pursue sex almost as though it is the purpose of life. He tells them he was a virgin? It is the most definitive answer possible, and ought take the wind completely out of their sails. They would never admit to such a thing, were it true. It would be a matter of deep shame. In fact, wasn't there a shooting recently by someone who hasn't scored with the females, and he and his are passed off as "of all men, the most be pitied." I think they have even coined a word for that type, as though it is an ethnic group. Kavanaugh is not ashamed of it at all. He is proud of it. That doesn't mean he willingly advertises it, for it is a personal matter. But when backed into a corner, he states it as his perfect defense. 'Well.....well....just when did you have sex, anyway?' say his opponents, since this is a hugely important topic for them. But there is a limit to how much he will indulge them, for next they will want video footage. It is enough to say 'well after.' It is too much. There is no better way to defang an enemy than to freely admit to a weakness. This is especially true if you do not regard it as a weakness at all. Not getting the sense of it, one pundit, sympathetic to he and his cause, lamented how disgusting it was that he should have been maneuvered into revealing his then-virginity. He didn't get maneuvered at all. He played his trump card. And, yes, I will indulge his enemies and state that he also played his Trump card.

What! Shiwiiiii would equate the two? It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Even Jack, who starts a thread if a GB member so much as passes gas, is not this dumb. When he heads this thread, it is 'Witnesses now "encouraged?" He puts the 'encouraged' in quotes because even he knows that you have to stretch it very thin to see matters this way. 'Taste and see that Jehovah is good,' says Psalm 34:8. If you tasted and saw that he was bad, what is to be done? 'Check your taste buds' is the only answer that comes to mind. However, Shiwiiiii can just as well fire the same answer back. So it becomes a stalemate.

They hear ‘Turn me on, dead man.’ It is very distinct and impossible to mistake, when they play backwards Revolution #9. Check your ‘Beatles checker’

I admit I have never seen it as the GB placing a heavy burden on people by informing young men that masturbation is not the bees’ knees.

At last, I think you have put your finger on the problem. That Anna is nothing but a big chicken. ?

One loop. These are Unitarian pretzels, not those of Fred Rogers.

It could be just me, but it seems that he has but a passing interest in the topic of discussion, if any at all, and but uses whatever the subject to further his peeve with the GB. If you discuss any other aspect of the topic, you lose him.

There is only one point JB has, SM. Please get your head around it. ?

You mean that your wife will not discuss these things with you? Whatever is wrong with that woman? I hope you dial this stuff down a few notches at home. You cannot be easy to live with. If you go at it at home as you go at it here and your wife decided one day that she just couldn’t take it anymore, I’m sure you would assign the GB full blame for that, too.

Thr reason for they always indulged pretzels is that they all got a kick out of the joke, ‘What do you get when you pour boiling water down a rabbit hole?’ Hot cross bunnies.

Per the 60 Minutes report years ago: Industry-funded studies concluded that the stuff was as safe as rain. Nonindustry-funded studies concluded: ‘Yikes! We’d better take another look at this!’

How many of them do you want answered? We went round and round on a prior thread and you just repackage your questions and run them through again. The verse says: ‘Taste and see that Jehovah is good.’ If you tasted and saw that he was bad, what can I say? Check your taste buds. But you can just as easily say it to me. It may be that you should be praying to The LORD. It is the GB that brings God’s name to the fore, nearly everyone else seeks to bury it, and you have made clear that you don’t trust the GB as far as you can spit.

Always I wait till I have crossed the state line before I disparage via megaphone the phony insert at 1John 5:7-8

 I liked at the meeting Thursday, Proverbs 21:2, one of the support scriptures cited on the gem point of how Jehovah draws people: All of a man’s ways seem right to him, But Jehovah examines the hearts. Everybody is right. Nobody states a fact that is wrong. Everybody states facts that are right. These are all matters of the head. But how they are combined and how they are prioritized are matters of the heart, which Jehovah examines.

Of course! Why bring such nonsense into a discussion of courtroom proceedings?