TrueTomHarley

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

:)))) perhaps i need "simplified edition" 

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.

5 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

2016 Convention movie program rejects, disproves such yours conviction.

It disproves nothing. It is entirely in harmony with what I stated:

13 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

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. 

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:

13 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

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

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.

14 hours ago, Anna said:

Here is the case, but I know you probably won't bother to read it, and I don't blame you, you will just have to trust me that the quote I posted is really there

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:

6 hours ago, Anna said:

Family members decide according to their conscience the extent to which they will continue family discourse". 

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. 

6 hours ago, Anna said:

If it was a conscience matter, then if someones conscience said it was ok for them to spend time with their disfellowshipped relative, perhaps even go on vacation with them, then it shouldn't be a problem

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.

6 hours ago, Anna said:

and no one should judge that decision, just like if someone decided their conscience allowed them to take minor blood fractions

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.

4 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

I'll stop now, you do better when you debate TTH!! 

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

56 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

You can not believe that such young children were baptised in JWorg ?

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.

49 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

The oldest was baptized in age of 6 as i recall.

I doubt it. Not that you 'recalled' it that way, but that it was true.

50 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Elders made pressure on family to throw df child out of home.

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.

21 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Please review it and specifically tell me what you find so offensive

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

Some stool pigeon ratted on Shadrach, Meshech, Abednego and Rookie. "King Neb, didn't you say that when the whole shebang of instruments clanged, everyone must drool over that idol you set up? What a wise law that is! But Shadrach, Meshech, Abednego and Rookie haven't done it!"

"WHAT?!!" King Neb exploded. "Throw them into the fiery furnace. Stoke it up extra-hot first!!!" 

But as the guards approached, Rookie pulled out his six-shooter. "You forgot to declare this a gun-free zone," he smiled sardonically, and blasted the guards into smithereens - filling them all with gaping holes you could put your fist through.

As he twirled his gun and slammed it down into its holster, all the Jews hailed him as their savior. 'Who needs God, anyway?' they said. 

7 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Making Kingdom Halls "Gun Free Zones" ONLY makes professional victims out of everybody inside, as anyone who is going to MURDER ... will be unconcerned with what he is "allowed to do", or NOT "allowed to do".

Could you explain this again, please?

The problem may have something to do with  Corinthians 2:14...

"But a physical man does not accept the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually"

Whoever suggested that Kingdom Halls carried the designation of "Gun Free Zones" anyway? Didn't that just come from your own head?

3 minutes ago, Vic Vomidog said:

I helped me-self to the $500

"Beware, my brothers. In the last days there will be false apostates who deceive with their false stories."

2 minutes ago, Noble Berean said:

yes

I think I may have something mean to you long ago when you first came online here. I take it all back. 

The loyal brothers in the bunker video didn't exactly blow away the invaders with their tommy-guns, did they?

3 minutes ago, Noble Berean said:

(did you see the videos of KH invasions by police in Russia? Please look at how calm and respectful the JWs were)

It wouldn't have been if Quick-Draw McGraw was there. What a grand witness that would have been.

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

.....

What this case illustrates has nothing to do with guns or no guns.

What it illustrates is that the world continues to go to hell in a hand-basket and that the stupidist thing anyone can do is to criticize non-stop the Witness organization that educates people as to the significance of it. 

Incredibly, I know of some who are that stupid.

22 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

You have about 25 seconds to live, and the shooter walks over your paralyzed body and your pool of blood and continues firing. After you realize you will never move again, and your eyesight fades to black .. before you die your hearing still works for the next 15 seconds ... and you hear the screaming and terror of the Brothers and Sisters as they are systematically murdered, maimed and ruined for life.

Fade to black ..... you are DEAD.

This did happen at a Baptist church, remember. They must have disfellowshipped someone.

30 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

He asked to borrow about $200 to get home by bus, with the promise that he would send me the money the instant he got back

14 hours ago, Vic Vomidog said:

Me and my mates - we terrified the place. When the holyrollers saw our black leather jackets with BAA on the back (bad ass attitude) they ran. We was like Robin Hood, only halfway. We stole from the rich and we stole from the poor.

The one I hated worst was goody-goody JWI. He wasn't worse than the others at first but then he had a dream that he talked about at every meal. Aye. He was going to be exalted over all the rest of us to the Art Department. And what of his former mates? We would be swabbing the decks, like always. 'God gave gifts in men for some to be swabbers and toilet cleaners and waiters - but for me to do artwork' he use to tell us. Always smiling, he was. Always exhorting us to swab harder. I hate him. 

But I got even with him though. He left $200 lying right out there in the open! God will watch it, he said. I saw his money and his garments.- good looking ones from the land of Shinar - because he loved to shine, that one - and I took them. I wrote my ticket home and am a big shot there right now.

23 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This is a public forum, however, open to people who can read material and evidence from anywhere. So it is also a good place for Witnesses to show that they can hold their own opinions too. And even for fellow Witnesses, there is something called the Inoculation Effect or Inoculation Theory that can make it easier for other Witnesses to understand what kinds of changes and effect the Internet will undoubtedly have on us in the next few years. We will either have to completely change our focus onto "low-information" converts, or face facts.

Everyone is grappling with this in diverse areas and many do not handle it especially well. In the world of current events, it results in charges of fake news for what are sometimes just different points of view. In science and medicine, the internet results in 'anecdotal reports,' which science hates because they are not something their system is able to assess or repeat.

5 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

This action was part of the plan the Russian Orthodox Church

Yes. It certainly does call to mind the prior actions of the dominant church in other lands.

You know if it wasn't for @The Librarian (the old hen) breaking in about her hunger pangs, salivating over tacos, as though she were expecting - though believe me, if she was at her age, THAT would be a miracle to make the sun of Joshua's day hanging out for a month look like a cakewalk in comparison - we might be able to enjoy some order around here. 

There IS such a thing as starting another thread, you know. Did I not set the fine example doing so over Mike Duds? JWI and crew would have gone on and on and on about Milk Duds right there in the thread about the museum!!! With mummies and all overhearing! I wouldn't permit it!

A separate thread, if you please, Miss Librarian. I'm tired of having to enforce all the rules around here.

10 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

We were at Bethel together for several years. He's the one in the middle. One year younger than me.

IT'S OUTRAGEOUS!!! THE WICKED PLACE EVEN MAKES BABIES WORK!!!!

Well - that was a lot of work to be done during an eclipse. Better to pin the planets in place for awhile. Why force yourself to do a day's work in fifteen minutes?

3 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Well, not with the 30% percent I've read so far!

Wait till you get to the knock-down bare-knuckes fist fight I have with COJ!!!

4 minutes ago, Anna said:

No it's not. I see you didn't read anything yet.