TrueTomHarley

Years ago I discovered in my research that almost all the days are taken, and therein lies the key for spotting the end of the world. http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2011/05/how-to-predict-the-end-of-the-world.html

7 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said: I am 71 years old, above average intelligence, I am also above average intelligence. Especially if you are not fussy.

Great, just great! After I said he was putting on weight. Now Witness will declare me a false prophet!

Yes, because if the organization did "say that at all," they would have done it through "quotes from the organization," - and I think even he acknowledged the quotes disprove the allegation. @Matthew9969 has stumbled across something that is misrepresented and exaggerated, but at root, it is based upon something that did happen. A lot of people did get pumped up back then. @Anna's dad even sold his skis, practically guaranteeing that he would put on weight, and it is all the GB's fault! Please, Witness - 42 years is a long time to be bitter. It is a long time to still say to our resident fisherman: You're joking! This is something you pray about?

Often the WHY is more important than the statement itself.

Are you saying they are not? Didn't you just say that they did? Didn't you just say Witnesses spoke of nothing else? Do you think it is not?

Did you ever hear a person say: "I am gay or I am a pedophile but I have good self-control and am not practicing anything bad so I am okay to invite to lunch with your family including your.....minor kids? JW scientists are busy at this very moment inventing a machine that can read minds so as to solve this problem.

Usually before I spotlight a video for proof of my point, I go there to see that it really does that. Should you not add: "It is so important that I didn't go there?"

Be careful in high-fiving @Witness is my caution to you. She tirelessly presents herself here as Jehovah's true annointed - which would make her your new boss. Isn't that the 'Who' song? Meet the new boss - Worse than the old boss! Outrageous disgusting blatant hypocrisy!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you for calling our attention to this!

Do you think there should be more capital punishment, then? If so, why is there not?

So what does this mean? Is it JW you claim to have seen through? Or is it the Bible? This is unclear. Do you think there should be any consequences for ignoring Divine Law, as there is for ignoring human Secular Law?

This sounds like an example of 'natural' law to me.

Give credit where credit is due. This is the most concise summary of clickbait I have come across.

I read somewhere but cannot find again that the same woman who was relied upon for expert testimony was, after this case, disciplined for providing false expert testimony. Bible Speaks, do you know where that was written?

"At any rate, it is a game I do not feel able to play," I said. I will play this one, though, with regard to your statement about law: If you are a former Witness, you were once concerned about Divine Law. You have listed Natural Law and Secular Law. Where is Divine law in your discussion? Granted, you have come to think the Witnesses did not capture it, but where is it? Why do you not search for it, mention it, or lament its disappearance? Might it might simply be a matter of putting God in last place? You are big on 'Natural' requirements. You are big on secular requirements. But when it comes to God's requirements - blow it off! It is just "doctrinal interpretations of Bible text." - who can say what it means? - do whatever you want,' notwithstanding that it makes for one hash of a world.

Perhaps, but it will have to come from someone else. I consider the reconciliation of the two statements plain as day, unless someone is deliberately trying to twist things to support a conclusion he has already come to. It might also be incomprehensible for someone just plain stupid, but I do not regard you as stupid, so I am reduced to the first possibility. At any rate, it is a game I do not feel able to play - repeating what I have already said.

Read all comments again and you should be able to reconcile what was said. It is not hard.

It disproves nothing. It is entirely in harmony with what I stated: It is an example in a given drama, one in which the young woman portrayed is decidedly unrepentant over wrongdoing, and she even says that for her parents to have resumed contact would have been to her detriment spiritually. It does not negate: Not everyone is like the 'typical' example portrayed at the convention. Admittedly, there is no encouragement to consider that your df'd child (if he or she is) is atypical, but a parent will know the child best and can make whatever stand they think appropriate, given any atypical facts or circumstances.

Hmmm. Not only what you say, but also this description of the plaintiff: "He contended his wife was a messy housekeeper and that caused his angry explosions of verbal abuse." Today one does not pass Go nor collect $200 after such an incident. Abuse is a big no-no. With but minimal fabrication, one can imagine his favorite Elvis song: "Get out in that kitchen and rattle those pots and pans!"

If it is one of those frustratingly hard to pin down situations, there is no reason not to pin it down your way, whatever you decide that is. Among the reasons we are asked to respect the decisions of a judicial committee is that they have had opportunity to examine everything relevant and will know the situation better than us. In the case of a close family member, this is rarely true. Thus: One factor a family member might know of is the one you suggested - a person who no longer practices anything wrong but declines to rejoin the congregation. Reasonably, that could have a bearing on one's conscience. Take the organization at their word. Go on vacation with them if your conscience permits it, perhaps because of the situation already described. If it raises eyebrows, and you wish to explain, do so. At worst there is some peer pressure. Perhaps one may not be considered 'an example' and as such, may lose or not be considered for privileges. So be it. They are voluntary things anyway. If they disappear over such a thing, they disappear. It is a choice you can make. Some of the eyebrow-raising, in the above scenario of one who desists wrongdoing but does not wish to return, will have to do with separateness as much as prior congregation discipline. Separateness was a real concept in Hebrew times - there is no reason to think it is less so in modern times. Our people are taught the Bible principle that separateness is a good thing - remain separate from the world lest its influence gradually seep back into us, and through us, the congregation. There is no reason for the GB to underplay that concept just because it is not popular. A person today might think it narrow-minded or judgemental, but there is no way it is not scriptural. One might get experience pressure (and who is to say that is such a horrible thing? - people have been meddling in each other's affairs since the beginning of time), but the point is, there is no actual sanction over it. Do it if you want to. One reason no one would be judged over yes/no on fractions is that they would not know about it. I know of no one else's stand on fractions other than my own and my wife's. It is the same with your conduct with a df'd family member. Discretion helps the medicine go down. Admittedly, the tone of theocratic counsel is toward firmness. It is: 'Consider that the counsel of df ones applies to a relative, unless you can think of why it wouldn't' - instead of the other way around. Nonetheless, based upon factors that only a family member would know, one might adhere to avoiding association with a df'd relative to a lesser extent than a non-related congregation member.

I consider those words an insult. I wipe up the floor with his remarks no less than you!

It is a big world and I have not seen everything. I can believe age 10 or early teens without a problem. But not 6.

Though some might say it is a matter of semantics, I say the Christian congregation does not tell Witness families not to associate with df'd children. What they do is point out that the principle of not associating with a df'd person is not negated merely because that one is a family member. I doubt it. Not that you 'recalled' it that way, but that it was true. I rather doubt this, too, if the child was the minor you imply he/she was. If I recall, when the subject of df'd family members was discussed in literature, it was a given that association would take place with a minor, but with an adult it might be possible to have almost no contact.

He mentions nothing about packing a gun, the big girlie-man.