Jump to content
The World News Media

Recommended Posts

  • Member
8 minutes ago, Anna said:

That was not the impression TTH gave me. Nor do I think that's the attitude of JW  leaders. I think it's ignorance of how child sexual molestation really works, and naivete regarding "repentance" is what has caused all the doo doo.to happen.

Look beneath the surface, Anna.

Your last post was excellent and well describes the attitude shown by TTH and so many elders, including and especially the Governing Body. "We abhor child molestation! But not as much as we abhor public exposure of anything that makes us look bad."

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 27.1k
  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Brother Greenlees and Brother Chitty are not mentioned in the Proclaimer's book. Interesting that Percy Chapman (included in the picture above) is still mentioned now and then, often in the same conte

I can respond to that since you appear to be drawing assumptions without having all the facts. I completely agree that one should go to the police when dealing with such issues involving a minor. In f

With regards to "being appointed by 'holy spirit,' a few things to keep in mind. A recent "Treasures From God's Word" stated: "The stars are under Jesus' full control, power, and direction." That COUL

Posted Images

  • Member

@b4ucuhear  Quote " I agree with you on that, since I know a number of brothers who have been disciplined for child molestation in various congregations.  All of them have been faithful brothers for many years now without incident.  But a potential problem with that type of weakness is the rate of recidivism that can accompany that type of behaviour.  Naturally, there are some very thorny legal issues associated with appointing a person with such a history and whether he would even potentially offend again."

I wonder if those brothers are in the 20 year long DATABASE that the GB are refusing to hand over to the authorities. 

If you KNOW A NUMBER OF BROTHERS WHO HAVE BEEN DISCIPLINED FOR CHILD MOLESTATION,  then shouldn't you go to the Police or authorities with your information as @Anna likes to tell people to do. After all if they 'have been disciplined for it', then they must have done it. 

The plot thickens. And @TrueTomHarley says not many JW's do it. 

Child Sexual Abuse and Homosexuality, and still trying to pretend that the JW Org is clean. 

Remember Jesus saying 'First clean the inside of the dish, then the outside will also be clean'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
28 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

The plot thickens.

The reason that you have been likened to Butler is that he had the same wont for overstatement, the same near hysteria on the topic, the same resilience to any mitigating factors, the same shrillness at any comparison of JWs to “the world.”

In his case, he was subjected to horrendous child sexual abuse by the British orphanage system. Yet he never (here) spoke a word against them—he took all of his rage out on Jehovah’s Witnesses that he joined much later, persons having nothing to do with his history.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

It's exactly the attitude TTH displays here -- "Oh, molestation is no big deal!" 

He has said or indicated nothing of the sort. This is completely your emotional take. 

This is yet another example of the Master of Rationality completely throwing that quality out the windows in pursuit of his ends.

The trouble with critical thinking is that those who espouse it the loudest invariably assume that they have a lock on the stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Anna said:

That was not the impression TTH gave me. Nor do I think that's the attitude of JW  leaders. I think it's ignorance of how child sexual molestation really works, and naivete regarding "repentance" is what has caused all the doo doo.to happen.

Quote @Anna Nor do I think that's the attitude of JW  leaders.

So what exactly is the attitude of the GB and it's lawyers for not handing over the complete 20 plus years of Database concerning Child Sexual Abuse accusations ?  After all shouldn't they 'obey God as ruler rather than men' and wouldn't God want His name cleared ?  Wouldn't God want justice for the victims? So it would not matter about what laws of men were in place. 

What is the attitude of the Australian Bethel brothers for not apologising to victims ?  The Australian government apologised and people of different religions agreed with the apology, but not the JW Org. 

What was the attitude of the UK Bethel brothers / solicitors when they refused to hand over the information to the Charity Commission ? Even though later they had to hand the info' over.

What did Jesus say ' If you are conscripted to walk one mile, then walk two miles'.

Why can't your GB actually take note of what Jesus was teaching here ? 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Comment :- 

@TrueTomHarley   Quote " The reason that you have been likened to Butler is that he had the same wont for overstatement,... "

Oh come on then, show me my overstatement word for word.  Just as John Butler did I try to write the truth as I know it. Unfortunately he got disfellowshipped for it here. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Anna said:

Quote

 

    22 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Come on! We all know (at least, non-trinitarians do) that the Bible's use of "holy spirit" is just a metaphor for God's power, or better, just God. So saying that "holy spirit did this and that" means "God did this and that".
    So are you claiming that God did not know about pedophilia, or that Greenlees was a homosexual pedophile?

I thought I already gave you an answer to that, that of course God knew, and therefor Greenlees couldn't have been appointed by God using holy spirit.

 

Very good! But the Watchtower Society claims that Greenlees, other GB members and all elders are appointed by God, thus contradicting the fact that Greenlees was not. If Greenlees was not, then the rest were not either.

This is simple logic. Why do you refuse to accept it?

Quote

 

    22 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Most Christians claim to follow the directions in the Bible, and you certainly don't accept that God directs them, metaphorically or directly.

Claiming one thing and actually doing it are different. And we have already established God is not deceived.

 

The point is that the mere claim that one is following the directions in the Bible in no way means that one is actually following those directions.

The proof is in the pudding, and the JW organization's 'pudding' proves that it often does not follow the directions. Hence it is not what it claims: God's earthly representative.

Quote

 

    22 hours ago, Anna and AlanF said:

        Since God used holy spirit, his force, to inspire people to write down His directions, when appointing overseers, elders do so according to those directions. Doing so correctly is contingent on the honesty of the one being appointed, and the astuteness of those doing the appointing. If the person actually qualifies, then it can be said they were appointed by holy spirit as per Acts 20:28 "Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God...."
        Read more   

    Once again, by that reasoning the Pope has been appointed by God.
    Read more   

If the Pope qualifies by doing God's will according to the Bible, seen and unseen by human eyes,  then yes.

 

Deliberately missing the point again.

The point is that, despite the Pope's and many other leaders of 'Christendom's' claims to be appointed to their positions by God, and to speak for God, you and all other JWs reject those claims. Why? Because according to your beliefs, despite their claims, they are not doing God's will according to the Bible.

Once again the point here is that old Tom, Dick and Harry can claim to be doing God's will, but that claim in no way means that they are actually doing God's will. Their actions prove or disprove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, AlanF said:

Your last post was excellent and well describes the attitude shown by TTH and so many elders, including and especially the Governing Body.

The reason why I said what I did in that post was to highlight that "a little molestation" leads to "big molestation" unless the "little molestation" is stopped. What happened to me was nothing really. It did not traumatize me, and I was on good terms with my uncle. I doubt I would ever think of bringing something like that to the police, and my mum obviously didn't think it warranted it either. And to let you know, my mum was a tigress when it came to protecting me. Then in my reply to you I said:

3 hours ago, Anna said:

I think it's ignorance of how child sexual molestation really works, and naivete regarding "repentance" is what has caused all the doo doo.to happen.

I mentioned that elsewhere too. No one thinks child sexual molestation is ok. And no one thinks "a little molestation" is ok either (that is why I said something, and that is why my mum handled it). If my uncle had been a Witness, and not my uncle, my mum would have gone to the elders and told them what happened.The the perpetrator would have probably made some excuse, or shown remorse,  got a warning and a slap on the wrist. He would probably never dare to do anything like that to me again. The pertinent question is, would he do something like that to someone else? And if he did, would that someone else report it? And if they didn't report it would the "little molestation" lead to "big molestation"? That is the problem. I have no idea if my uncle molested someone else. He was my aunts second husband and had grown children. It probably didn't cross my aunts mind. I don't think it crossed anybodies mind, that other children could be in danger. Its because that's not how these things were generally perceived or understood. I am not making excuses. That's just how it was. In a similar manner, elders in those days were not aware that others could be in danger. They probably thought that a warning was enough to ensure it would not happen again. We now know the likelihood of something like that happening again is high. 

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

"We abhor child molestation! But not as much as we abhor public exposure of anything that makes us look bad."

Yes, unfortunately it does appear that way. But to be fair, I would put both on the same plane. Child molestation is abhorred as much as the accusation of being tolerant of it, or hiding it. Especially  when felt it is not justified (the accusation).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

TrueTomHarley said:

Quote

 

    3 hours ago, AlanF said:

    It's exactly the attitude TTH displays here -- "Oh, molestation is no big deal!"

He has said or indicated nothing of the sort. This is completely your emotional take.

 

I think you're so blinded by your Watchtower blinders that you don't see your comments for what they are -- abhorrent to anyone with moral decency. Note this one:

<< And sometimes you wish that there was more differerentiation in “molestation.” At present, anything from a hand on the inner thigh or rear end to outright rape is described (and sometimes deliberately confused) as “molestation.” None of those actions are great, of course, but there is a substantial difference between them. >>

As Anna explained, in principle there is no difference between "a hand on the inner thigh or rear end" and outright rape. All are violations of law, and of New Testament principles for sexual misconduct, and all are forms of molestation -- despite your protests to the contrary. The 'minor' violations, if not checked, inevitably lead to major violations.

Your obvious attempt to minimize some forms of molestation is saying exactly, "Molestation is no big deal!"

That's exactly what JW leaders have always done, and continue to do, and is why they're in such trouble with the Law and molestation victims.

Quote

This is yet another example of the Master of Rationality completely throwing that quality out the windows in pursuit of his ends.

I think you need to go back to square one on what constitutes morality.

Quote

The trouble with critical thinking is that those who espouse it the loudest invariably assume that they have a lock on the stuff.

Coming from someone with a demonstrably defective moral sense and little critical thinking ability, that's rich!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

If you KNOW A NUMBER OF BROTHERS WHO HAVE BEEN DISCIPLINED FOR CHILD MOLESTATION,  then shouldn't you go to the Police or authorities with your information as @Anna likes to tell people to do. After all if they 'have been disciplined for it', then they must have done it. 

I can respond to that since you appear to be drawing assumptions without having all the facts. I completely agree that one should go to the police when dealing with such issues involving a minor. In fact, the direction we get from the society is to do just that. One of the reasons we are instructed to call Bethel is to make sure we comply with all current reporting laws regarding child molestation. Some of the problems we have had in the past (and I have personally attended in court), have been because brothers had not acted in harmony with the instructions given because they haven't paid attention or been casual about doing their homework. The examples I had cited were from many years ago when the current laws were not in place and in fact, they have been evolving over the years - and in some cases, a moving target. Those individuals affected are now adults with the freedom to choose to go to the police under the current laws if they so choose. However, if what they had done decades ago occurred now, it would be an entirely different story. Our policies have changed as well to comply with legal requirements. 

In my country years ago, both doctors and clergy were simply not allowed to go public with what was then considered private/protected/privileged information and if they did so, legal repercussions could arise. For instance, it wasn't until the '80's that the laws changed and doctors were required to report cases of AIDS for - which was then transferred to a national data-base. One of the reasons for this was that certain individuals were deliberately spreading AIDS and partners needed to be warned. Likewise as molestation cases came to the fore, the laws gradually changed. But even then, at times they applied in different ways and in different areas, or not at all. (i.e. ARC hearings...) We now have more comprehensive laws that address these injustices - requiring/allowing religious authorities to report them without legal repercussions. So to be clear, elders are REQUIRED to report these cases now and the legal department is involved to ensure they do just that. Unfortunately, we have had to learn the hard way what would have been the morally right thing in the first place. But we have made the changes. 

 If anyone in a responsible position is aware of child molestation going on, he is legally bound to report it to the authorities. But if he fails to do so and must face the legal consequences for his non-action, (which as we know can have devastating consequences for the minor) I can't say I'd feel sorry for him. 

Gen. 42:22 "Did I not say to you, 'Do not sin against the child,' but you would not listen?' Now his blood is certainly being asked back.

James 4:17 "Therefore, if someone knows how to do what is right and yet does not do it, it is a sin for him."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

TrueTomHarley said:

Quote

 

    1 hour ago, AlanF said:

    ... the Watchtower Society claims that Greenlees, other GB members and all elders are appointed by God, thus contradicting the fact that Greenlees was not. If Greenlees was not, then the rest were not either. This is simple logic. Why do you refuse to accept it?

Because it’s ridiculous.

 

Yet you're unable to show that it's ridiculous. All you can manage is an unevidenced denial of what I said.

On the other hand, in earlier posts in the now-chopped-up thread, I've set forth detailed reasons why it is so. And in no case has anyone shown why the reasoning is wrong.

Quote

As I recall, by your “logic,” you have “disproved God,” also.

That's right, and again not a single JW apologist has refuted that. In fact, only one (Arauna) even tried, and her 'reasoning' was completely lame, and I proved it false.

To recap:

***********************
The Bible says God is loving; 'creation' says the Creator is not loving.

The Bible says God knows all; so God knows when parts of 'creation' are not acting lovingly toward other parts. God sees this and approves, because he created it to be so.

Reality cannot contradict itself. Hence, either the Bible is wrong that God is loving, or the evidence from 'creation' that says the Creator is not loving is wrong.

The half-billion-year-old fossil record of 'creation' is fully established as scientific fact. Hence the Bible's claim that its God is loving is false. Hence, either the Bible is false, or God does not exist, or both.

QED.
***********************

Look at the videos below of leopards eating live warthogs and tell me that leopards act lovingly toward warthogs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhXUrFdWeoU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4Id4OSe2to

A handful of especially stupid apologists will claim that leopard behavior is a product of "man's sin" or even that Satan created such things. But they forget that these things began occurring half a billion years before man or Satan came to exist 6,000 years ago (according to the Watchtower Society).

Note that the above reasoning in no way argues that some sort of creator does not exist -- only that such a creator is not loving.

Ok now, Einstein: show why the above logic is wrong. Put up or shut up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

With regards to "being appointed by 'holy spirit,' a few things to keep in mind. A recent "Treasures From God's Word" stated: "The stars are under Jesus' full control, power, and direction." That COULD be a bit misleading depending on how literally you view that statement. Should we assume then that elders will do everything perfectly - as if Jesus by holy spirit has them on remote control - controlling every thought, decision and action within the congregations? If that was the case, the elders/GB would always act perfectly. Should we actually expect that today? Recall, that even while Jesus was letting the first century anointed elders know that they were accountable to him as to how they used the authority entrusted to them, what was actually going while he was yet speaking? Apostasy, immorality, lukewarm, half-hearted service that wanted to make Jesus vomit them out of his mouth... Why would that be the case when Jesus is in authority?

As we recall, we are often reminded not to expect perfection from our brothers and sisters - including appointed elders. The  apostle Paul candidly described his battle with good and bad inclinations. But there are other reasons too.                                    

1) Holy spirit does not give appointed men a miraculous ability to read hearts and minds. A person is spoken of as being "appointed by holy spirt," when they are seen to live up to the qualifications set out in God's Word - which is inspired by holy spirt. But humans are limited in that respect and sometimes mistakes are made. (i.e.. GB appoints an individual as an elder and later as a Circuit Overseer who turns out to be a communist spy that turns in the brothers causing some to stumble. Jesus didn't direct that to happen. After all, he would be working against his own interests - like a house divided. It was human limitation.)

2) Neither Jesus nor holy spirit take away a person's freedom of choice. (As was evidenced by what was going on even while Jesus was speaking). As we also know, in the first century, there were men in the congregations described as "rocks hidden beneath the surface." They weren't forced or directed to do that. That was their personal choice - which is important because our heart conditions are revealed by the choices we make. Anyone - including men in authority can make a wrong choice if they don't guard their heart. Freedom of choice is important for obvious reasons. 

3) If something isn't dealt with right away, does that indicate Jesus isn't in control of the congregation? No. As the comments point out, "if someone needs correction, Jesus will see to it that this is done in his own time and way." And it should come as not surprise that it's always been that way. As 1 Tim. 5:24 states: "The sins of some men are publicly known, leading directly to judgment, but those of other men become evident later." Later?!! How much later? The Bible historically answers that too. Sometimes the sins of some men like Korah and others became publicly known leading directly to judgment (when the earth swallowed up the rebels.) But other times, faithful men endured injustice for years, or decades and some would never see justice until the resurrection. So at times, things don't happen when and how we think they should. Or when we think is best. But we can have confidence that, as in the past, they will be dealt with one way or another. 

4) The operation of holy spirit can at times, be hard to "quantify." The first century Christians had strong and undeniable evidence they were anointed by holy spirit and some even had miraculous gifts. Even so, they didn't always have a complete understanding of things and some expectations were premature - although they were very interested as to where they thought the spirit was leading them. Likewise today. At times the leadings of holy spirit are easy to recognize and at other times not so much. Sometimes organizationally, we "go beyond the things written" as to dates, types and antitypes, times and seasons and even doctrinal issues. Well meaning, yes, but sometimes we forget that instead of making "predictions," (even while admitting we are not miraculously inspired prophets), our mandate is to preach and teach - not make up stuff that doesn't have a specific Biblical foundation. Historically and biblically there is nothing new to this. God's people have always had a gradual understanding of the outworking of God's purpose - and often leaning new things means we have to discard old things.

  But in all of this it's important to remember what is truly remarkable about benefitting from Jesus' authority as head of the congregation and what he has been able to accomplish using imperfect men. Miraculous some would say.

A) Jesus has been able to direct a world-wide preaching work using imperfect men, women, children and yes, imperfect elders. But it's much more than that when you think about it. We are preaching in Satan's backyard. He is the "god of this system of things" and has the support of powerful spirit creatures (henchmen) and world governments. And what is part of the message we deliver? "Satan is a malicious liar and that he and all of his spirit buddies, along with the world system he has spent thousands of years to develop, are all going to be destroyed." We preach that "right in his grill." How do you think that goes over? We would never be able to accomplish that if Jesus wasn't a powerful king in control of the congregation. So do we faithfuly follow the direction of appointed elders as to the details of accomplishing this ministry?

B) We have what everyone has wanted for thousands of years but been unable to achieve. World unity. Despite being from all nations, tribes and tongues - from different backgrounds and stations in life, we are united. But we aren't just united in a stalemate - "I won't attack you if you don't attack me." No. We are united because of the love we have for one another. The type of love that Jesus taught and demonstrated in our behalf. 

C) Many/most of Jehovah's Witnesses come from other religions. Even those born into the truth are exposed to many people from different faiths. And there is one thing we can all testify to: Spiritually, we are BY FAR, the best fed people on earth. More than that. We are the best fed group of people who have ever lived. We even know things first century Christians didn't know. Al of this is readily available. That is no accident. and Jesus continues to educate us using (imperfect) elders as teachers in the congregation. 

We benefit from a loving arrangement Jesus has by holy spirit set in place for our benefit. It's helpful to liken this arrangement to having good parents. As we grew, they fed us, cleaned us, clothes us, disciplined us, taught us, cared for and sympathized with us. When we were hurt they supported us. And even when we reach maturity, they are there for us and continue to love us. Again, this is possible by means of Jesus direction in the congregation and holy spirit.

  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, AlanF said:

TTH: “At present, anything from a hand on the inner thigh or rear end to outright rape is described (and sometimes deliberately confused) as “molestation.””

You donkey, of course they are different! You are committing Event Escalation Fallacy.

Turn your mighty intellect upon murder, if you can do so without screaming ‘Straw Man.’ Consider that there is first degree murder, 2nd degree murder, even 3rd degree murder, not to mention hate crime murder. Vent your outrage over that, why don’t you? Tell the moral deviants that “murder is murder!”

Even that paragraph doesn’t adequately describe your idiocy, for the examples within all do involve murder. Better that you should insist that a shove to the body is no different than murder. That comparison is much more parallel to the CSA offenses that you think are the same.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

I think you need to go back to square one on what constitutes morality....Coming from someone with a demonstrably defective moral sense and little critical thinking ability, that's rich!

Completely emotional outbursts. Not a shred of “logic” to them. Character assassination appears to be your specialty. Not meeting your completely arbitrary criteria is enough to be labeled a person of “demonstrably defective moral sense.”

 It is perhaps understandable from Leonard McCoy. the hothead. But not from someone who claims logic and intellect that would put even Mr. Spock to shame.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Just once I’d like to see a Pharma ad in which the actors, rather than acting out the touted benefits of the drug, instead act out the side effects of the voiceover—gasping, clutching their throats, turning blue, hair falling out, doubling over, dropping dead, straining on the toilet to ‘go’, swiveling about in dizziness.
    • Journalists who go rogue often do it for me. https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust RFKjr is turning out a fine source as well. Look how he says 60 years ago most people (80%) trusted government and now 90% do not: https://x.com/vigilantfox/status/1777710201937732085?s=61&t=fM8K_zHB-Zw9l_mM_4QHqg
    • My overall point is that most Witnesses I know in the United States are very political and don't even know it. Often much more political than their neighbors who vote. There are certain limits to what we will say about our political views, but I think we don't recognize that those political views often come out inadvertently in other ways. In fact, I've seen strong political views among Witnesses who only use the line "we don't take sides in politics" when they wish to shut down an argument they disagree with. My parents and many relatives were of the type that said they wouldn't be fooled by all the lies and exaggerations from MS-NBC supposedly on the "progressive left." Nor the lies and exaggerations from FOX News on the supposedly "conservative right." But that didn't stop them from being fooled by thinking that CNN was not mostly "state-sponsored media" that would cherry-pick stories now and then to keep up the ruse that they weren't. As long as they continued to support corporate sponsors, including "Big Pharma" and "Big Military Industrial Complex," it was clear what side they were going to take. And although Trump was golden to all networks for his ability to spout controversy, one of his biggest sins for CNN was the fact that he went 4 years without getting the USA involved in any new wars.  We were watching CNN once, not on purpose, and although many segments were introduced with "Brought to you by Pfizer" one was introduced "Brought to you by McDonnell-Douglas." As if any of us watching were about to go out and buy McDonnell-Douglas fighter jets and missiles for accessories. Of course, even the segments brought to you by Pfizer weren't really for any of us to be swayed in our pharmacy choices, either. As with all corporate media, those ads are really just payments to CNN; they are all just a way for corporations to PAY (bribe) the news writers and commentators to realize on which side their bread is buttered. They are merely buying influence. ---- All this was probably just my own rationale to excuse my own tendency to throw in opinions about politics, politicians, and the mainstream corporate media. There are no easy answer to how someone should go about getting their news, or how to feed their own opinions. But I would be happy to hear about the various sources people use when trying to find the "truth" about various world events. 
    • Here was the general conversation, skipping a part where I had just explained how 30,000 Palestinians, largely women and children, had been killed, and the majority of major news outlets were still equivocating about whether Israel had gone too far. But when mostly "white" aid workers were killed, suddenly Nancy Pelosi (friend of the aid organization founder), Joe Scarborough, Elizabeth Warren, and a bunch of others turn on a dime to stop giving Israel a free pass -- embarrassing their own man Biden.  THEM: Well, anyway, we don't take sides about literal Israel, and we don't discuss political sides of who supports whom. ME: But that last part is just information, even history. THEM: History is one thing but the Bible says don't speak against the King. What's that it says in Ecclesiastes? (Ecclesiastes 10:20) . . .Even in your thoughts, do not curse the king, and do not curse the rich in your bedroom; for a bird may convey the sound, or a creature with wings may repeat what was said. ME: Yeah. That's where we get the expression: "a little birdie told me." Basically, it means that someone on Twitter will turn you in. Or all the government agencies will be listening in on Twitter.   THEM: Very funny. You mean "X." ME: Yeah, but they still call them "tweets." THEM: But still we don't take sides, we don't even say anything against any ruler, whether he's good or bad. We only pray that they make decisions that are good for us.  ME: I don't think it's wrong to say something against a ruler. Don't you think Hitler was a bad ruler? THEM: But he's not a king now is he? He's dead. ME: I mean even when he was alive. THEM: Well, of course, because he was attacking Jehovah's people. ME: But it would have been wrong to say he was bad while he was attacking millions of Jews? THEM: [changing subject] But look how respectful Paul was talking to Felix, he never said a word against him. ME: Maybe not, but Luke tells us he was probably looking for a bribe. That's pretty negative. ME: continuing . . . And Jesus called Herod a fox. THEM: Well maybe he was "foxy" -- "crafty" not always a bad thing. ME: You don't believe that . . . and even if it was a good thing, then Jesus was taking sides. THEM: Anyway . . . it's wrong.
    • The conversation went like this: ME: I'm just now seeing the new article on the front of jw.org, about whether Bible prophecy points to literal Israel. That seems to be on everyone's mind. THEM: Absolutely. One of my studies just asked that question and I went through the usual scriptures, especially Galatians  6. I hadn't seen the article yet. I wish I had. ME: Yes, the article uses Matthew 23:37 "your house is abandoned to you" and Galatians 6, and Romans 11. THEM: I think I used Romans 11, too.  ME: I just noticed that the article says one thing that might be confusing though. “A dulling of sensibilities has happened in part to Israel until the full number of people of the nations has come in, and in this manner all Israel will be saved.” (Romans 11:25, 26) . . . By the expression “all Israel,” Paul meant all of spiritual Israel. ME: continuing . . . Actually, I don't think that will make sense to most people though. I mean, ultimately, yes, it's spiritual Israel that is saved. We know that from Galatians 6, but in this context people are going to notice that Paul actually was speaking about the two olive trees and the LITERAL Gentiles getting grafted into the tree representing LITERAL Israel.  THEM: But it means all of spiritual Israel will be saved. ME: That's the only way it works out in the long run, yes. But doesn't it make more sense that as many of literal Israel as possible get saved because it's these people of the nations who now have Jehovah's blessing, and this makes some of natural Israel jealous? And that helps lead to the salvation of as many natural Israelites as possible. (Romans 11:11) etc., etc. Who is right on this point is not important here, it's the next part of the conversation. Next post . . . 
  • Members

    • Many Miles

      Many Miles 703

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • JW Insider

      JW Insider 9,723

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Anna

      Anna 5,082

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Pudgy

      Pudgy 2,398

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.2k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,678
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    James Hume
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.