TrueTomHarley

Yes they do. Once a year. You posted the long article. And even that is not asking for money. It is simply telling those inclined to donate the most effective ways of doing it. Nobody emphasizes money less than Jehovah's Witnesses. Moreover, they clearly have something to show for what is donated.

Off topic, but there is some Christian preacher who is right now invoking the pyramids to explain how earth is soon to be destroyed by a mysterious incoming planet. A sign, one of two witnesses of Revelation, is that of the eclipse that just bisected the country. (gasp!)

Against my better judgement, I'll grant your sincerity here. The methods may differ but the fact that they 'shake em down' in religion for dough one way or the other is not. Nobody is as discreet as Jehovah's Witnesses, who have never taken collections and who rely on contribution boxes, which can be ignored by anyone who wishes to.

Quite a few when nobody else in the plane knows how to fly, and there is only one guy back there with a huge mouth who insists he knows more than anyone in the whole wide world

I have in my will to omit my name and simply put the jw.org blue sign on my gravestone. Seriously, I agree with Fishing. They didn't have to tell me not to wear logoed tee shirts on work assignments. I long ago refrained from making myself a billboard for anything. jw.org is no different. I only wear the badge cards because I'm asked to. As a means of advertising the convention, it's okay, even though I resisted at first. But to the extent some think you are 'showing off,' I don't like it. When I worked the huge apartment complex by myself in the evening with only an iPad, some thought I was the building inspector. I didn't tell them differently. I like discretion, not being known as a Witness until I choose to make it known.

It is a 'document' attached once a year in the Watchtower magazine. That hardly seems excessive. Certainly not 'money-hungry.' Online changes everything. It is probably always possible to link to it. But still it is featured but once a year.

Moreover, it remains clear that your view of the Bible is that of a cross between the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, with special emphasis on the latter.

It's not really my reading skills that need work, but my reading-your-mind skills. Even these would be aided if you spoke without a bazooka.

TTH: I suspect that you, as usual, have misunderstood what I said. Since I don't remember saying that ... the burden of proof is on you to quote what I actually did say. So far ...your accusation has no basis of reference. It's nice not to remember what you have said. Not everyone has that luxury. From the thread Friends With Benefits: TTH: "Many times you have challenged readers to point to even one thing you have said that is not true. I will take you up on your challenge now. "You just said an untruth, and it is a big one. It is fundamental to everything else you say: "It's not about us. Not primarily. Primarily, it is about the sanctification of God's name and the vindication of his purpose. 'Not hurting anyone,' though a good provision, is not as good as keeping God's name on high and his purpose undeterred. "Furthermore, though you have been very critical of the Governing Body, this understanding predates the Governing Body. It first emerged in Rutherford's day." In response to my comment, you squealed that it was irrelevant because you had not just then issued a challenge to point out anything untrue you might have said. It is relevant now, as you have just done so.

And even more on blood pressure meds to help them when they noticed traffic to jw.org leapt and did not recede both after the trial and after the appeal - as people went to see if the website is truly extremist, and, of course, saw that it is not. If it is all about us, then your spin has real merit. If it about making known Jehovah's name and purposes, then mine does.

You're joking! The remark seems almost too disingenuous to answer. I was raised United Presbyterian. Our family received pledge envelopes to put in the collection plate at services. Put in the amount pledged. Like any charity, a pledge was used as the basis to try to secure a greater pledge. My non-churchgoing dad even had words with the pastor about it, since my mom did not work outside of the home, thus he was the one who ended up paying. My sister still is Presbyterian, Reformed. She tithes 10%. It is what's done. What seems more trusting in God to you - a contribution box in the back where people may or may not give anonymously, or a collection plate passed through the rows and everyone nearby will know just how much one puts in? I think you would have to be pretty obtuse to ask this question. I think I know why.

There was the statement you made that the sole purpose of the law was to serve for our happiness. Not only is it incorrect, but it is an untruth that underlyies ALL of your incessant bellyaching. It's not about us. You clearly think it is. At least, your comments clearly indicate you think it. There is such a thing as the sanctification of God's name, you know.

It is a sin to tell persons who would like to donate to their cause of choice how to do it? In recent weeks I have been helping a relative who has fallen on hard times. She is unable to work full time and what work she does is at $9.00 per hour. To my astonishment I find hers is a tithing church - is yours one of those, Shiwiii? - and she gives 10% to her income to it. It is given in a way so it can be kept track of - in pledge envelopes in the person's name. I do not know that it is required. She might be able to work out a deal with them, but the point is she would have to. They did help her out a bit with their food kitchen for a time, but with 10% tithing, I'm sure they have made it back several times over. My point is that at the Kingdom Hall, I can give 50% of my income or nothing at all. Nobody knows. I have to go back to a contribution box at the back of the auditorium to donate. No one knows if I do or not. Nobody approaches me. These is no collection taken, certainly no pledge envelopes, and unless I choose to use checks (or credit card at assemblies), it is completely anonymous. Even if I do use such things, it is only the account servant who notices. The Witness are the least donation conscious of any religion out there. Vent your indignation, @Shiwiii, on the 10% tithe churches, of which there are many, and after that, on the ones that track donations through pledge envelopes, of which there are many more, and after that, on the ones that use peer pressure public pass the plate collections, which constitutes just about everyone else. Way back in the day, Merrill used to tell me about his old church, where music accompanied the collection, and attendants shook the plates at the end of long poles in beat with the music. Put some coins in and the congregation would hear a CHINK! CHINK! CHINK! It's quiet money they wanted. If a loony-bin liar carries on about the GB, it is 'one of those things.' Everyone knows his pathetic hatred. But if he starts lying about Prince, MY PRINCE, THEN he has crossed a line of decency. Before he slanders the man, he should list each transgression he thinks he 'got away with' accompanied by proof and um - to quote his constant refrain - "FACTS!! DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHAT FACTS ARE?! " without which rants are worth (to use his favorite words) "ZIP - ZERO - NADA" I think he will not find any.

All anonymous! None of it's any good! No one was qualified! I'm quitting this religious gig and enrolling in college! There everyone is qualified. I know they are because they all went to college themselves. I just hope that idiot dropout Bill Gates doesn't come around or the ghost of Steve Jobs. They are not qualified either and I just trashed my iPad and my laptop on that account. If my wife can prove she has a Home Economics degree, I'll ask her to make me coffee.

And just think how pleased @adminwill be. He tries to boast among fellow forum hosts about his heavy traffic. "Yeah, but they're all religious nuts - friends of that biddy @The Librarian," they say, and they laugh at him. Just think how his stature will rise if he can boast of the first civil discussion EVER between climate change adherents and deniers.

I don't think anything of significance has changed since the 74 article. There is a bit of counsel designed so that persons do not get overly casual with disfellowshipping just because it is a relative, but there is nothing fundamentally different. And it is just counsel, albeit strong counsel. But it is nothing more. Having said that, I have never been there. But the things Franz speaks of today would not get one in hot water. Certainly not The Boot. Could it cost one privileges in the congregation? Dunno. But if it does, it does. Life goes on without privileges. And the advise I gave our very own Rocket Man is actually good counsel. If anyone is paranoid, take a screen shot of the FAQ and carry it around with you. And then carry on in accord with it.

who can say ANY of it was? There is a reason why the translators remained anonymous, so they didn't get laughed at. This is a classic attempt at humble-bragging by the wt. The Watchtower Study today was on the themes from Psalm 147. I was so happy. I'd wanted to talk about those themes for some time. But then paragraph 2 or 3 said that the author of Psalm 147 is unknown. I slammed my iPad down in disgust and stalked out of the auditorium. Anonymous? They're wasting my time with an anonymous Bible writer? How do I know he is qualified? He just remained anonymous so he wouldn't get laughed at. What possible other motive could there be?

Now that the cop was exonerated in the St. Louis shooting, the city braces for a third night of protests. A solution is needed. Here is one written last year. "In the course of their job, police shoot hundreds of people per year. How should one report this? Put all shootings on TV. All of them. Run them 24/7 in the order in which they occur. Create a dedicated channel: The Shooting Channel. Make it freely available. Give every network a cut so no one will complain about ratings. Promote ‘The Shooting Channel’ heavily. Ban shootings on any other channel. Put white-on-black shootings on. Put black-on-white shootings on. Put black-on-black shootings on. Put white-on-white shootings on. Put Hispanic-on-Methodist shootings on. Put Buddhist-on-nudist shootings on. Put redneck Alabama white-on transgendered Vietnamese shootings on. Put them all on. Let viewers decide for themselves which shootings are significant and which are yawners. Otherwise, the newspeople will cherry-pick their favorites and start a race war." What were there - about 5 or 6 highly hyped shootings that summer? They culminated with another shooter taking out several Dallas police officers, so much had rage been stoked. Did not the news media suddenly switch to 'love-in with police' mode to atone for their very different mode just before? Two of the shootings were not intentional white on black shootings at all, though they were both hyped that way. There was the black man shot in Florida. He was not the target. He was caretaker for an autistic white man with a toy gun that fooled the cop - the cop got spooked and missed his target. The other was the white cop in Charlottesville whose actions triggered several days of violence. Turned out he was not a white cop at all but a black cop. Both incidents were initially reported as 'white cop shoots black victim' and hyped as proof the police were racist. Neither correction was more than a buried footnote when the facts came to light. Why does the media do this? Not for me to say. But 'The Shooting Channel' will solve it. The italicized words are from 'No Fake News but Plenty of Hogwash,' an ebook that is not exactly flying off the shelf as it ought but I hope to remedy that here. The solution proposed would never come about, but only for monetary reasons. Insofar as public information can cool rage before it begins, it is the answer. Perhaps ALL police shootings should result in community outrage - that is for others to decide. Perhaps there IS racism within the police, but is not demonstrated by highlighting just a hand-selected few shooting incidents. When a study was made of the Philadelphia Police force, released in 2015, it showed blacks were more likely, not less, to be shot by a black or Hispanic officer than a white one, as the former were more likely to experience 'threat misperception.' https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/702101

I can understand that.

For general concepts and ideas ... that is good enough ... but if they were translating Aircraft Maintenance Manuals ... I would take the bus. The other way to look at this that is (for once) not intended as a put-down is the saying I think you have cited yourself: If you can do something, do it. If you can't do it, critique it. If you REALLY can't do it, teach it

Come on, big boy - have at it. Seriously. I really want to see it. I will even allow that I probably fall into your camp on this, but I want to hear the other side from someone informed yet not obnoxious or condescending and @JW Insiderseems good to go and I have extracted a promise from him to keep his submissions under the length of a phone book. I probably won't join in much because I agree with @Queen Esther that it is not the prime issue for a Christian, but that does not mean it's not something well to hear both sides of. If you hang out on one side, you will think the other side global elitists who want to use concocted 'climate change' as a wedge to advance unlimited government intervention. If you hang out with the other side, you will think the climate change 'denyers' (itself a term of ridicule) are self-centered greedy people who gladly sell their own grandchildren down the river so they can enjoy their profits and high living now. It is typical of the way the world addresses anything today and is the reason the system will not be missed when it is replaced by the kingdom. Two big stupid animals ramming each other with their horns: THAT is the image you want to send into outer space to tell any aliens how we run things here. The moment has arrived. right here on the World Media News forum, to begin a civil and informed discussion - the first one ever about anything. History will be made. In heaven they will say: 'you know, people can get along, they are not the basket cases we thought they were - maybe it's time to feel regret over our plans.' 'Why don't you be wise and make MY heart rejoice for a change,' says the Devil. 'Come on! Just once show that people outside of theocratic concerns can talk to the other side without resorting to hurling insults.' Do not shrink back. Advertise advertise advertise the claims of one side or the other and let the inquisitive reader decide!

Besides, @James Thomas Rook Jr., don't think I don't know about your alter-ego. You are also using multiple accounts. You can't hide it from me. You are @Witness and @Ann O'Maly. besides JTR. Don't tell me otherwise. Your style gives you away.

Why in the world would you assume I am speaking of you? The other guy looks a little slippery to me, you know. I have run this by Dr. Adhominem and he has agreed to monitor any attacks and assess penalties.

Yes. Please do. I would like to see this. I truly would. There are too many pundits who do nothing but shriek in sound bites and I don't know what is true. My impression thus far is that computer models predict, and have for some time, great global warming, but the actual data has not backed it up. When data does, it is only at the expense of ignoring data that doesn't. Shrill alarmists scream Irma was the greatest hurricane ever and we should get used to seeing ones like this all the time. In fact, it is the seventh largest to hit the U.S. and the list of potent hurricanes show they are largely independent of year - they are not particularly increasing in frequency over time. Before Irma, there were 12 years when no hurricanes at all hit the continental U.S. On the other hand, Andrew Cuomo, the NY governor said - and everyone knows this is true - 100 year floods are now happening every 2 years, so clearly something is happening. Neither side acknowledges the other's existence and when they do it is to demonize them - typical of the way the world handles things these days. Both @JW Insiderand @James Thomas Rook Jr. have proven capable of presentation and I do not see how either can hold the Governing Body accountable, though one may try.

Are they trinitarian or not? That's all you need to know. If they are trinitarian they will hate the NWT, because their beliefs dictate their scholarship. If they are not trinitarian they will be okay with it. They will recognize it as a legitimate translation, with both strengths and weaknesses. You have just answered your own question. If it was in the Septuagint, then it should be in the NT, because when OT verses are quoted in the NT, the quotes are taken, not from the Hebrew, but from the Greek translation of the Hebrew - the Septuagint.