TrueTomHarley

"He was probably giving you your highest chance of success, for the Bible is more respected in the country than is the JW religion. Attach your refusal to the highest cause possible if you want to maximize chances of success." Why should anyone try to spin a 'good' as a 'bad?'

If that were the case, they would have been pardoned after the war. Instead, they were exonerated. Their convictions were reversed.

To a degree, maybe. Having said that Let us assume this statement is true. Does this increase or decrease his qualifications? Most would agree it increases them. What if he finds the translation so good that he sides with the people who have produced it? Suddenly his qualifications vanish? What if DeBuhn became a Witness? Is he suddenly a moron? It is like reading Consumer Reports and selecting the best make of car. Suddenly you are unqualified to comment on that car? Admittedly, reviews like @JW Insider mentioned are a bit much. Our people can get funny on the internet. But even that is excusable, for anti-Witness trolls come out of the woodwork at any mention of JWs and they feel they ought to weigh in to counter that. On a personal note, 'Survival into a New Earth' was one of my favorites. To the extent things there were billed as anti-types (if they were - I don't remember) they have been swept aside. To the extent they were "this reminds us of that" they are brilliant.

No. I do not think your take is correct. There is no way proscecuting authorities are not going to know what religion you came from, and this will make "problems" for them regardless of what you say. That is especially true when young men of that religion routinely refuse military service as they come of age. It won't matter what they say - the fact that they come from a certain religion will cause problems for that religion in the eyes of YU government. He was probably giving you your highest chance of success, for the Bible is more respected in the country than is the JW religion. Attach your refusal to the highest cause possible if you want to maximize chances of success.

Try JTR.com

That sounds like good counsel to me. My father-in-law was born in Zagreb. My son has been to Belgrade many times. I have never been imprisoned. I do not know if I would hold up well or not.

While we may represent ourselves this way, few in the world take us up on it. Instead, they view us as a church whose members "have to" go door to door. The typical Witness in their eyes is a church member, not a person of the clergy. Anything done can be done better. Anna pointed to new policies that offer improvement. Was it irresponsible not to have done it before? Who can say? There is nothing to compare it to. No other religion attempts what Witnesses attempt - investigating wrongdoing for the sake of meting out discipline and protecting the worldwide congregation and presenting to God "a [clean] people for his name."

Please supply a few examples of church members, not clergy, who have been so identified. Then do a search for the last 20 or 30 molesters arrested by police in your area. Tell me how many are identified by religion. It's a little work, but do it, if you maintain that a molester's religion is routinely reported.

Yes! No wonder you are coughing when you see the amazing accomplishment of those eight dear men you have pictured! Look at the witness they have given! And all of our brothers worldwide who wrote in have a share! And, of course, our 175K brothers in Russia are the real heroes. Note the two pronounced and permanent spikes in web traffic to jw.org following the April 20th verdict and the July 17th appeal! You have good reason to praise these men, @James Thomas Rook Jr. I understand why you would do it. Millions of people check to see if jw.org is truly extremist as reported. Of course, they see it is not. What an amazing service they have rendered to Jehovah - almost as much as certain ones who go online and do nothing but bitch! However, James,, you should remember that they are but men, who give all glory to Jehovah. You should not be worshiping these guys. . https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/jw.org

You are asking the wrong question. Would you agree that it is a very common news event for molesters to be caught by authorities these days? How often is the religious affiliation of the person reported? Why? Or why not?

This is a classic example of getting slammed for doing the right thing and should not be spun any other way. The way you (as a faith) avoid such problems is to take no interest in the conduct of your members. Preach to them on Sunday and let that be the end of it. If they apply it, they apply it. If they don't, they don't. It's no concern of yours as the pastor. That way, should any turn out to be molesters, you can never be made to look bad for investigating it because you never even learn of it. God gets shortchanged that way because he expects a clean people, but who cares? He's God. Tell him to suck it up. Witnesses alone investigate wrong conduct so as to keep the congregation clean, which God expects them to do. In the case of pedophiles, they investigate also to make sure one does not simply slip out of one congregation and into another. That is the sole purpose of any records kept. If they have ever erred in any investigations, this should not be spun as a negative, for no one else even attempts it, though they all should.

Unfortunately, after my experience, a thief could break down my door, yell "Peace and Security," and I would roll over and go back to sleep. There's too many ways things can be spun. I leave it to others and focus on the work that is engrossing in its own right. i take the party line without fuss, but always tentatively, for maybe it will change someday. Meanwhile....oops...sorry - just had to dodge a missile from RocketMan

I ever think the key fact is that the Trinity violates common sense. Everyone knows that, but not always the implication. It means that the burden of proof will always be upon them, not us - as it is with anyone trying to sell someone any bill of goods that flies in the face of reason. Sometimes a thing that goes against common sense turns out to be true. But the threshold of proof required is always high. At most, they can come up with a handful of verses which, in any other context but the Bible, would be instantly dismissed as 'figure of speech.' They read 'crocodile tears' in a book or magazine, and instantly catch the meaning. They read it in the Bible, and it is proof we are talking crocodiles. They are firmly convinced but it is not from Scripture. Therefore, it must be from something else - who can say what? But it is not Scripture. In my experience, if you don't make headway with them in ten minutes, you will make none in ten years.

There are some who, if they came to my door merely as themselves, I would run in terror.

Ford had just pardoned Nixon. After a bruising several months of the Nixon Presidency under assault, people ate up Ford's promise of better times ahead and the words he used to describe them. At a convention I attended, the speaker worked his way through end-time themes, before holding aloft that morning's paper with the huge headline: "Peace and Security." "Have you seen today's headlines?" he cried. It was irresistible. I would have done it, too. It will absolutely happen. But there have been false positives along the way.

The difference in whether the star witness is a liar or merely incompetent lies solely in whether he will do jail time or not. Imagine: The only direct mention of a Trinity is either fraudulent or inept.

Gone fishing, That is quite a broad statement, one that I do not share. You would challenge that? Do you know what a broad statement is? "All practicing Roman Catholics do not grasp their systems" would be a broad statement. But "many?" You have a problem with that? Would you concede that some do not understand their systems?

Or get someone to help you lift it up in case you are getting up there. Well - heavy things are afoot these days in the news. Maybe they will make all other points moot.

Why would such a verse be inserted into Scripture anyway? Could it be anything other than a scribe reading and getting madder and madder and madder that his favorite doctrine is nowhere taught in Scripture, save by taking obvious figures of speech literally?

Exactly. Otto is right on. There is an explanation offered and it makes sense. If you don't believe it, you don't believe it. But don't carry on as though it were never offered.

Oh YEAH??!!!!

It was originally done with an AMC Javelin, and yes, there was a lot of math. Some are calling this the greatest filmed car stunt ever. I had no idea. https://jalopnik.com/the-james-bond-corkscrew-jump-was-the-first-computer-mo-1711459704

Nah, there's a pile of 105 wrecked Hornets behind the trees.

In fact, rather than dribble it out slowly, I'll shoot the wad right here: http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2010/11/american-motors.html

BOO!!!!