All Eight Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses members are now individually named on two New York Child Victims Act case documents

[TrueTomHarley]

8 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

And the GB seem frighten to announce reasons from the platform for why a person is 'No longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses'. So no one knows if a person left of their own accord, or was d'fed. 

You know, I think this comment reveals a lot. It is all about themselves with these guys. They simply MUST get their story out! They are incapable of setting aside personal interests for the sake of something greater than themselves. 

Everyone wants their own story to prevail. That is not hard to understand. I do, too. But sooner or later, one must concede that life does not revolve around ME. Submission to authority, and benefiting from discipline is a constant theme of the Bible.

It is as Brother Mick Jagger says: “You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometime, you just might find, you’ll get what you need.” I want to be center of the universe. I don’t need to be.

I don’t know why the announcement was modified. I would not be surprised if it is a response to relentless attacks of opposers framed legally.

Why would they care about specific wording? They just want something that will get the job done. “No longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses” works. If, through word or deed, you are no longer witnessing for Jehovah, can anyone say that you are one of Jehovah’s Witnesses?

[JW Insider]

18 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

A few quotes "Witnesses are generally very comfortable with their leadership."

Exactly how many people have you asked. Were they just elders that you asked ? 

I've heard whole congregations give an enthusiastic Amen when the prayer includes thanks for the bounteous feast of spiritual food provided by the faithful and discreet slave. I've heard entire assemblies and conventions of people respond with joyful applause when a speaker mentions the opportunity to express appreciation for the Governing Body.

30 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

Yes it is a social club. Well here in UK it definitely is a social club.

It's a social club with a basis in faith in God and in the merits of Jesus' sacrifice and the Kingdom hope for a new heavens and a new earth. Christianity is social.

32 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

Shunning keeps people in the JW Org, that is the way the GB / Org rules people's lives. So, no, many JW's are not 'very comfortable with their leadership', but they just don't have a good way out, without being totally 'cut off'.

Yes, an unfortunate percentage are in terrible personal situations because of circumstances imposed on them from the rules and processes. It's a relatively smaller percentage but I do think you are right that this reflects an unloving spirit and shows that many of us are capable of showing "no natural affection." Of course, there are some situations where even close relatives wouldn't talk to each other under similar circumstances when it has nothing to do with the WTS. Humans cut off other humans based on their conduct. If any of my parents or children turned out to be child molesters, for example, I think I'd pretty much disown them.

38 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

As for this 'because no one has offered a consistent acceptable replacement yet.'  It is laughable. Just because you don't know exactly what is right, does that mean you don't know what isn't right ?  And doesn't it tell you to wait on God through Christ, instead of burbling on with untrue information ?  

Yes. This is another area we need to clean up. People are leaving over it. I talked to one myself, although it's a combination for him: both the child abuse cases and overlapping groups within the last generation before the end. Still, my guess is that most JWs don't even think about it in any negative way.

40 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

Quote " Of course, the Bible already gives us a guide that shows there are also very serious kinds of apostasy, "

Give us examples please. 

Teaching that Christ never really existed and trying to work that into their teachings among the Christian congregation.

(1 John 2:22, 23) . . .Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either. But whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

(1 John 4:2, 3) . . .This is how you know that the inspired statement is from God: Every inspired statement that acknowledges Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with God. 3 But every inspired statement that does not acknowledge Jesus does not originate with God. Furthermore, this is the antichrist’s inspired statement that you have heard was coming, and now it is already in the world.

(2 John 7-11) 7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Look out for yourselves, so that you do not lose the things we have worked to produce, but that you may obtain a full reward. 9 Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. 11 For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.

 

[AlanF]

JW Insider said:

Quote

 

    2 hours ago, AlanF said:

    if they changed their policy and quit disfellowshipping for 'apostasy', their membership roles would drop immediately and drastically.

I think you are wrong here. I think that there are fewer apostasy disfellowshippings than you think, so the net effect can't be determined.

 

Perhaps, perhaps not. In my experience with online forums and simply talking with ex-JWs generally, I've seen a great seething anger on the part of many because of the Society's policy of disfellowshipping for expressing disagreement with any JW doctrine. Such authoritarianism is bound to create resentment on the part of those who can actually think. Of course, a large fraction of JWs are content to have an authority tell them what to think, and even where to put their feet on each step.

Remember the large drop in JW membership after the 1975 fiasco.

The only reason that many JWs remain in the cult, at least nominally, is to avoid disfellowshipping or informal shunning. I know many, including my own family members, who are in that boat.

Quote

Also, among JWs, there is a great appreciation for the good that comes out of association with others of like faith in the brotherhood. I'm sure you think this is irrelevant, but it would override any effect a few more or a few less disfellowshippings.

The point I'm making is not so much about disfellowshipping per se, but the attitude engendered in most JWs by the policy of disfellowshipping for 'apostasy', i.e., expressing disagreement with Watchtower tradition or policy.

Most JWs are well aware that if they found themselves before a judicial committee for expressing doubt about some JW teaching, the most important question the elders would ask is: "Do you believe that Jehovah is using the Governing Body?" A 'No' answer results in immediate disfellowshipping, as many stories posted by ex-JWs prove. This creates fear in the JWs who think this through.

Quote

In fact, I think the effect could be opposite. Membership roles might even increase as persons who had been pushed away would feel more comfortable associating again where they can now feel more supported, even if it weaknesses in their faith that caused their doctrinal deviations.

I think the number of people who would even want to come back is small, so great is the resentment caused by the authoritarian policies.

Quote

It does not mean that less DFings would necessarily be right, because there are many who are only interested in disruption, chaos, contentions, and causing trouble and discomfort. These ones are not conducive to the comfort and encouragement of the brotherhood, and they should go.

You're right in principle, but not, I think, in practice. If there were less of a violent reaction by Watchtower officials against disagreement, there would be less pushback by those who are punished for disagreeing. It simply wouldn't be worth their time.

About 20 years ago I managed to get an audience with a Watchtower official about such things. He was interested in hearing the viewpoint of an outspoken online critic. I told him that if the Society cleaned up its act on three issues, most opposition would dry up: blood, child molestation and disfellowshipping. He agreed.

Quote

It might produce a more flexible theology as it sounds like there would be less enforcement of deviations.

Of necessity, sure.

Quote

But it would take a while for most JWs to be comfortable with the idea of any kind of deviations, anyway.

Of course, because for decades the Society has condemned deviations as rebellion against God. The JW community could be rehabilitated fairly easily.

Quote

For the most part we already have a high appreciation of what has been given to us through the organization. This is even true of those of us who recognize the GB as elders handling some specific necessary ministries, and do not think of them as the "governors of our faith" or the exact equivalent of the FDS.

I think the fact that most JWs DO think of their leaders as governors of their faith belies all that.

Quote

When it comes to deviations of current doctrine, even "overlapping generations" would probably take some time to go, because no one has offered a consistent acceptable replacement yet.

That's because there IS no acceptable replacement. Why? Because it is the entire end-times scenario created by Russell and perpetuated by his successors that is wrong.

Quote

Witnesses are generally very comfortable with their leadership.

Much like slowly boiling a frog in a big pot keeps him comfortable.

Quote

We actually appreciate the humility it takes to remind us that they are imperfect and will make mistakes and that not all the food will be perfect.

Such "appreciation" ignores the fact that most of the time, JW leaders must be dragged kicking and screaming away from their traditional teachings. The experience of many JWs who tried to offer constructive criticism but were punished for their efforts proves it. Think of Carl Olof Jonsson and Jay Hess.

If these men were truly humble, they would not claim that their own words are equal to God's.

Quote

It would be considered even more discreet to stop DFing for certain kinds of apostasy.

Considered by who?

Quote

Of course, the Bible already gives us a guide that shows there are also very serious kinds of apostasy, and therefore we would always expect nearly complete and unanimous approval about some disfellowshipping for apostasy.

Sure, if it involved an extremely clear violation of biblical norms, such as sleeping with one's stepmother. But a far better practice would be to organizationally ignore most bad forms of conduct, since individual JWs are supposed to be trained to have consciences tuned well enough to figure these things out on their own. But a century of authoritarian indoctrination has severely damaged the conscience and thinking ability of far too many JWs. "What does the Society say?" rather than "What does the Bible say?" is the operational phrase for most elders. That's understandable since the Governing Body has put itself in the place of God in the minds of JWs. Watchtower policy almost always trumps an individual JW's understanding of the Bible.

[Anna]

Oooooh I gots itchy feet to answer all of Alan's arguments. But I won't butt in. Alan still has to reply to mine...

[JW Insider]

23 minutes ago, Anna said:

Oooooh I gots itchy feet to answer all of Alan's arguments. But I won't butt in. Alan still has to reply to mine...

Feel free. I can't really stay on today anyway. I might keep the computer open and access from a remote desktop on my phone, but I won't really be putting enough effort into answering. If you do feel like taking on AlanF's argumentation, have him sign a waiver that he'll read your whole answer before responding to it. Ithinks sometimes he just assumes what you must have said even if you didn't say it. Hold his feet (if you dare) to the fire, if you will. (Especially if your own itchy feet are contagious.)

[AlanF]

Arauna said:
     

Quote

 

    2 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Obey the Governing Body's commands as you would God's."

You remind me of the guy who wrote Thirty years a WT slave.  He was a slave....

 

As usual, your comment is nonsensical personal opinion.

Quote

You really believe the claptrap you talk.

It's far from claptrap. You claim that merely based on "I don't believe it!" You have yet to offer clear reasoning on anything with which you disagree.

Quote

I have been a Witness for 45 years.  I have never been in awe of anyone...... not you either.....

Good for you!

Yet you view the Governing Body as speaking for God. Does God not awe you?

Quote

Some witnesses are inclined this way..... but they would be like sheeple even if they were not JWs.

Sadly, true. But the JW cult offers an ideal place for such sheeple.

Quote

I think JWs teach them to be less useful to governments who use the sheeple to fight their wars and they are less pliable to their political agendas and propaganda because they obey the GB suggestions.

That is one good thing about the JW cult. But they are not unique in this.

Quote

They are also less pliable to scholarly  deceit and amorality.

Not really. They're extremely prone to accept whatever nonsense comes out of Watchtower headquarters. Nonsense that is likely to be changed in short order. Like the organ transplant ban of 1967, which was quietly dropped within a decade.

    

Quote

 

    6 hours ago, AlanF said:

    so God's spirit-directed organization should be judged by such 'worldly' standards. Such self-serving hypocrisy!

"Oh- so you said-" is a tactic of putting words in my mouth I did not say.  I see you use this a lot.

 

Wrong. People like you are often such fuzzy thinkers that you write things that have meanings you're not even aware of. Such as in the above exchange.

Quote

What I am saying that "scholars" were hoodwinked by pedophiles

Oh? Which scholars? Let's see if you can provide source references.

Quote

so why would "uninspired" elders not be hoodwinked?  You are the one with unreasonable standards and bias.  

Wrong. We know that elders, especially the Governing Body, are uninspired. But the GB claims "guidance from God" that is indistinguishable from "inspiration by God", which means that in practice, they cannot be wrong. I've heard elders make the same claim for themselves, based on the Society's teachings. So if they are what they claim, yes indeed, one expects that they would not be hoodwinked by pedophiles.

[Anna]

16 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Feel free. I can't really stay on today anyway

Me neither actually. Too busy as well, doing some work outside of my home and I am sure my client wouldn't appreciate me being on my phone all the time. Plus it sucks on the phone. I prefer being on my computer at home....

Hope you have a good day!

[AlanF]

Anna said:
    

Quote

 

    5 hours ago, AlanF said:

    So you don't think that God appoints any GB members

I did not say that. I said God obviously didn't appoint Greenlees.

 

Well then, if God didn't appoint Greenlees, how can you think he appointed the others? And which ones do you think that God did appoint? And how would you know?
     

Quote

 

    Anna said:

        Anna quote: The appointment, as all appointments are, was based on qualifications outlined in 1Timothy 3:1-7.

        The process by which holy spirit "appoints" is through that scripture.

    But that all depends on whether the men applying the scriptures do so perfectly. If they do not, then holy spirit could not have appointed the man.

No it does not, it does not depend on that. No man can apply the scriptures perfectly. If they could, then there would be no need for Jesus to die. Also, man judges only by what he can see.

 

What you've just argued -- correctly, I might add -- is that JW elders are NOT appointed by holy spirit, but by imperfect men who may or may not have properly applied the scriptures.

In particular, you've explained why the JW Governing Body cannot be spirit-appointed -- that they are counterfeits because their claims are false.

Quote

So if someone appears to qualify according to the requirements in Timothy, then they are appointed.

But not by holy spirit.

Quote

 

    5 hours ago, AlanF said:

          Quote

        Anna Quote: Since JWS believe the Bible is inspired of God by means of holy spirit, then if one works along with the scriptures, one is working along with the holy spirit. Obviously in the case under discussion, holy spirit could not have appointed this man because unbeknown to those making the decision, he did not qualify. Which also answers your other question

    It does not. All your rationalizations are mere special pleading.

It does, because you asked :
     
    5 hours ago, AlanF said:

    And what about God's viewing his heart? Was God ever fooled by an outward appearance of repentance?

To which I replied, no God was not fooled but man was. Connect the dots please.

 

I have: the Governing Body is not appointed by holy spirit.
     

Quote

 

    5 hours ago, AlanF said:

    And things like obvious homosexuality are not things easily ignored.
    And of course, according to Watchtower doctrine, anyone not fully qualified to be a proper elder would not be appointed, because holy spirit would see to it.

There are a few people that I met in my life who I suspect may be that way inclined. But I have no proof.

 

You've completely missed the point.

Quote

Holy spirit can be ignored, because we all have free will.

True, but we are talking about a fundamental doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses: The Governing Body, is God's anointed representative, speaks for God and must be obeyed as God would.
But we've already concluded that the GB is NOT appointed by God, by holy spirit. Rather, its members are appointed by imperfect men, who were in turn appointed by other imperfect men, all the way back to Rutherford. In no case can it be shown that holy spirit acted upon the ones doing the appointing, or that the appointments were done strictly according to scriptural requirements.
     

Quote

 

    5 hours ago, AlanF said:

          Quote

        JWs only pretend that the Bible is such a template. When push comes to shove, most JWs will push the Bible aside when Watchtower tradition or practice gets in the way. Do you want examples from my personal dealings with them?

        Sure   

    Ok, here's a good one.

    Consider the Bible passage at Luke 21:5-8: . . .

 I think this part should be put under a different topic heading. Perhaps JWI can do that? And then I will reply to it there.

 

Done: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/forums/topic/85914-governing-body-member-albert-schroeder-denies-the-bible-applies-to-jehovahs-witnesses/
     

Quote

 

    5 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Shows like those are not intended to be scholarly documentaries but to motivate people to act. And that's what they did.

You mean people like Bowen?

 

Yes, even Bowen created a good deal of beneficial publicity.
     

Quote

 

    5 hours ago, AlanF said:

          Quote

        However, the ARC was a different kettle of fish.

    Yes, and the people who helped spark all that were partly motivated by those TV presentations.

I doubt that.

 

Why? I know a great deal of what has been going on behind the scenes.
     

Quote

 

    5 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Your point? Complexity is irrelevant to the criminal coverups.

My point was that if we really know the details, discoverable by reading detailed transcripts and unravel the complexity, then we can see that often there was no cover up, it merely appeared that way on the surface. I am sure you know about two sides to a story. With CSA there are multiple complex sides, its not easy to get the facts unless you hear all the sides. For example you find out that a disfellowshiped man molested an 8 year old girl, and that the elders knew about him molesting another girl years prior to this one. Those are the bare bones. Then you find out that the mother (of the child) took the child to the perpetrators house (who happened to be the mothers step dad) for baby sitting, knowing that he had previously molested her (the mother's) sister when they were young.  "The first to state his case seems right,Until the other party comes and cross-examines him". Prov 18:17

 

Theoretical exercises are all well and good, but the many court cases where the sordid details of the perpetrator's actions, along with the active covering up done by JW elders, mostly at the direction of the Service Department, prove that JW policy and practice leaves much to be desired, and is often outright criminal. This was all so clearly exposed in the ARC proceedings.

Quote

 

    5 hours ago, AlanF said:

        Anna quote: No, I did not say it was a lie. It's you, you are not comprehending the process.

    I perfectly well understand the process. God and holy spirit have nothing to do with it. JWs merely pretend they do.

Ummm....., that tells me merely your opinion.

 

An opinion backed up by ARC and multiple court cases.
     

Quote

 

    5 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Merely that their predecessors read the Bible and decided to appoint them? I could appoint myself by that process, but would it be a valid appointment? Of course not, and by the same token JW leaders appointing other JW leaders is NOT in any sense "appointment by holy spirit".

It is a process that is outlined in the Bible for the appointment of elder men. How else do you want me to understand it?

 

The point is about APPOINTMENT by holy spirit. Your reading a book and trying to apply the author's instructions does not in any sense mean that the author has directed you. Following her written directions, and her actively directing you, are completely different things. It's the difference between having Julia Child's cookbook in your kitchen and having Julia Child herself supervising you. Capiche?

[ASF-37]

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

There are a few points to consider:

1. The Watchtower publications are not using the term in a legal sense, they are only copying the way in which the word had recently been used in worldly news reports, publications and newspapers. 

Correct. I was not implying the Awake! Articles were submitted as a defense for or against legal standings. I submitted them as a realization into certain implications and dangers attached to the action of child abuse.

The term “grooming” was added as a substance to the broader types of child abuse in 2009 by the U.S. federal mandate.

The comparison of the two was to illustrate that the Watchtower was well aware of certain conditions existing in society, before the term grooming became part of a legal remedy. Certain concerns were raised here, that made my submission; relevant to that concern.

Child Pornography and Sexual Grooming 2009

 Sexual Grooming

Grooming behaviour can share a relationship with the wider phenomenon of child sexual abuse; research has shown that an opportunity to sexually abuse a child is more likely to emerge following an act of grooming. 30 Grooming can be conceived as a predatory act committed in order to facilitate sexual abuse and, thus, the issue of context – particularly the motivation behind the behaviour – is highly relevant. P.32

 ‘Grooming’ and the Sexual Abuse of Children 2012

The Extent of Grooming

The covert nature of sexual grooming makes it difficult to pinpoint yet alone quantify such behaviour. While the scale and extent of grooming locally, nationally, and internationally is ultimately unknown (Kosaraju, 2008), a range of both quantitative and qualitative sources collectively provide some representation of the nature and extent of sexual grooming. These have included studies of the disclosure process in children who have been abused (eg Hunter, Goodwin, and Wilson, 1992; Watkins and Bentovim, 1992; Berliner and Conte, 1990, 1995; Sas and Cunningham, 1995), of offenders in treatment programmes (eg Budin and Johnson, 1989; Conte, Wolf, and Smith, 1989; Christiansen and Blake, 1990; Elliott, Browne, and Kilcoyne, 1995; Smallbone and Wortley, 2000; Beckett et al 2004; Hudson, 2005) and of both taken together (Phelan, 1995). P.32

 Those articles come to show the Watchtower made a concerted effort to address a danger before it had become an official mandate by law. When parents become the first line of defense for their children, it is important for witnesses to properly do their own research starting with Watchtower publications. This measure of diligence should be part of any caretaker's daily routine.

[Srecko Sostar]

14 hours ago, Arauna said:

The catholic church has refused to use confessions from people against them as well - as in JWs.    

May we make conclusion that both, Catholic and JW have "The Truth" about this issue ? :)))

13 hours ago, Arauna said:

Some witnesses are inclined this way..... but they would be like sheeple even if they were not JWs.

This is interesting observation.

With this it is possible to see how some individuals are Naturally kind, good, humble, they let God to guide them through "His earthly servants" (who ever they are). :)) 

Also we can go with this: God "Created them in such Nature" and they don't need congregation, WT publications or even Bible to make them humble and to obey God or other people in "His service". They do not need to make special "efforts" to be in Line with God's will. They do this by Nature. :)) 

 

With other perspective (according to definition) something, many thing is/are wrong if we are "sheeple".

Definition of sheeple

informal

: people who are docile, compliant, or easily influenced

 

[TrueTomHarley]

13 hours ago, AlanF said:

That's right, but no administrators in their right minds would call such an expelled person an apostate.

When speaking with others of a different point of view, it is important to treat them with a modicum of respect. It is important not to taunt and ridicule and insult. Of course, if such is your only object, then it is okay to do these things, but not if your goal is to persuade. It is important to present oneself as cognizant to the laws of civility. That way, in the event that you actually do make a valid point, you find that it is not rejected out of hand by persons who simply resent how ill-mannered you are. My greatest fear is that Alan’s cherished evolution is right and that he is the final product of it. If so, kiss goodbye any future for the human race, for that is ensured, not by big dumb animals with horns ramming each other to prove ‘who’s da man?’ but with ordinary persons of moderate intellectual abilities and superior social skills—the latter of which our boy Alan has not a speck.

Arguably, this point highlighted above is valid. It is not a game-changer, but neither is it ridiculous. It may be that the “apostate” brush paints far too broadly and many regarded as such do not strictly fit the bill. They fit another bill, that of fomenting divisions, displaying an unyielding spirit to the point that unity and progress ceases, elevating self to godhood, or some such woe. It is in the Book somewhere—certainly the overall spirit should cover it.

It is sort of like that StarTrek episode where Picard snapped: “Those Stenchiites have been beating us over the head with that blasted treaty for days! There must be something in it that can benefit us!” There was. Provision in the treaty called for arbitration of disputes, the plaintiff to choose the arbiter, and so Picard chose the Sleepyites, now in the 2nd year of their 20 year hibernation state. For some reason that I do not recall, time was of the essence, and so the Stenchites yielded on their legalistic point.

Legalism only takes you so far, and is counterproductive if pushed beyond that point. It is like looking at those solid electrons that dissolve into mush if examined too closely. @Arauna is right when she concedes that Witness has a huge reservoir of verse, but she is totally unable to put them to any practical use. It is the same with AlanF. Yes, he knows a lot of facts and he shows off with them to the most anal degree, but when push comes to shove, what can he show for them? An ability to destroy a WorldNewsMediaForum thread, and not much more. He, like Witness, is good at tearing down (though in different ways). But can he build? Don’t make me laugh.

He ladles contempt on any who would stick to an arrangement that they know to be fallible. What in the world is wrong with him? Or his disciple, 4Jah2Me, who puts even “make mistakes” and “errs” under the electron microscope and discovers worlds of difference between them! He says—for he has not yet shed everything, as he presently will—that the end is at least ten years off. In that time, God will be able to raise up a pure anointed who represents him without flaw. I say, “Go for it!” Maybe you can start it up in your basement—as a collaboration with Witness. Ten years down the road I’ll take a look, and if in fact, you have pulled off the trick, I will join you.

Meanwhile, I will tell Kim Jung Un to hold off on the nukes, Trump to stop carrying on so others hate his guts, Xi to dismantle social rating and be nicer to those in his camps, Putin to “cut it out,” Greta to just be patient for a few more years. Yeah, go for it 4Jah2Me! I’m sure it will happen that way. Meanwhile, trash the good while holding out for the perfect.

Michael Hart wrote about Plato and his ideal government as realized in his concept of philosopher-kings, notable for their ability to convert their academic book-learning into practical results. The concept has never actually been implemented, Hart said. I wrote that it had been. Anyone familiar with Jehovah’s Witnesses will realize at once that his idealist concept fits almost to a tee their Governing Body.

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/plato-and-the-governing-body.html

I’m serious with regard to 4Jah2Me. Ten years for God to make a better anointed that has enough Holy Spirit to satisfy him? Fine. Run with it. I’ll stay where I am in the meantime because JWs are quite plainly in the vanguard, even with their blunders. Besides, I don’t know how many of their blunders are actually blunders. I do note that John rejoiced that “SOME of your children are walking in the truth.” That’s a pretty weak statement. Don’t you think he would rather have said, “ALL of your children are walking in the truth?” Were the “some” that left all due to the ineptness of that early Christian governance? Or was it the best that could have been expected then (and now) in the course of letting light shine in a world that prefers darkness? “When the son of man arrives, will he really find the faith on earth?” Jesus asks. “Not if I can help it!” Alan says, with an upvote from 4Jah2Me.

So bring me what you have in ten years, and if it is the same, only minus the imperfections, count on my support. I’ll bolt. I’m not vested here. I am tired of guys who “make mistakes and err.” I want to be where they don’t make mistakes and they don’t err. Get cracking on it, and if there still is a system of things in ten years, I’ll join you.

 

 

[Arauna]

27 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

individuals are Naturally kind, good, humble, they

Yes, some people are naturally good and kind and there is no need to look down on them.  Satan had the opposite type of personality....... which type of arrogance many people here display..... and they are not as smart as they think they are.... 

 

30 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

have "The Truth" about this issue

I was not talking about the Truth...... I was talking about the law which protect lawyers and clergy from revealing confessions.