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

[John Paul]

1 hour ago, Witness said:

In what way did Jesus come forth from God’s “woman”? ⁷ God sent forth his Son, his first creation, from His wifelike organization of spirit creatures in heaven to be the promised “seed.” w09 12/15 pp. 20-24 

This appears to be saying that an organization of angels conferred together with God to bring forth a “seed” – Jesus Christ.  Which is really impossible.

Wife like organization from heavenly creatures. Does this mean the Watchtower doesn’t understand the implication of how God views his creation? Does it mean God can’t be the mother and father figure of his creation?

Still, the mention continues to be applied from heaven, not from earth.

However, the article is expanding on Jesus Credentials as the messiah. With it, could the foundation not then be more understood after the baptism?

*** w09 12/15 p. 21 par. 9 The Messiah! God’s Means of Salvation ***

⁹ People’s expectations, however, needed to be adjusted. Jesus was properly hailed as King, but that his rule would be future and from heaven would only later be fully understood.

I don't see where the article is proposing the angles gathered to vote Jesus in as the Messiah, but instead God was predisposed to use his first creation to accomplish, what Adam could not as sinless creatures, and it was to be coming from the linage of David.

 

50 minutes ago, The Librarian said:

Let's have everyone start to use the new rule: BNBR .  Be nice, Be respectful.

Or at least stop calling one another names.

Attack the ideas and not the person directly.

How is this working out for JTR, and AlanF so far? I think Tom called Allen Smith a loon. Wouldn't that be considered a personal attack. It would be nice to have a good understanding on the rules of this open forum. Who is allowed and who isn't allowed to be irresponsible with their comments.

[The Librarian]

8 minutes ago, John Paul said:

It would be nice to have a good understanding on the rules of this open forum. Who is allowed and who isn't allowed to be irresponsible with their comments.

While that might be 'nice'..... for now you'll have to suffice with ... push too hard yourself and find out what triggers me to ban you.

 

[Witness]

39 minutes ago, John Paul said:

Wife like organization from heavenly creatures. Does this mean the Watchtower doesn’t understand the implication of how God views his creation? Does it mean God can’t be the mother and father figure of his creation?

There are abundant scriptures where God is referred to as "Father", but do you know of any scripture where God is referred to as Israel's "mother"?    Jesus never made reference to a "mother" organization.  

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

They might be thinking of the "Mother Ship".

WOOOO-EEEEE-OOOOOO

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, John Paul said:

Then why is it in an open forum? This justification makes no sense.

A privately-owned website is what I should have said, not a private website.

[TrueTomHarley]

If @The Librarian follows through on her plan for one master thread....

A typical conversation in the new system:

”Say, what ever happened to that semi-apostate website, the WNMF? Did Allen Smith ever succeed in his scheme to take it out?”

”He didn’t have to. The Librarian did his work for him. She eliminated all threads but one, and so much energy focused into that one that the whole site blew up like a supernova!”

”Did any good come out of the change?”

“Well, yes. All those who contended with JWs that because an organization is imperfect it should be destroyed came to see the result of total chaos.”

“Ah, here comes the Librarian herself (that young hen) fresh from the resurrection.....Ms Librarian, do you have any regrets in funneling all writing into one master thread so unwieldy that nobody could find their way around in it, and they abandoned it in droves?”

”Absolutely not! There are rules! Mathematics is not the same as geology, which is not the same as history! These naughty pupils were deliberately mixing them all up, and I only did what I had to do. They thanked me for it later!”

”What was the end of the matter?”

”Well, everybody left except for Alan, and he was itching for a fight. So I readmitted AllenSmith and the two of them battled it out all the way till the new system! They were both pretty evenly matched in insult-power.”

[AlanF]

James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Quote

Try using reason and logic and common sense instead of disparaging personal insults.

See where failing to read posts gets you? You have no clue what you're talking about.

If you read my posts -- as I just suggested and you've refused -- you'll find that I certainly use "reason and logic and common sense", but along with that I use "disparaging personal insults" whenever I find a poster lying, misrepresenting, disparaging, ignoring, or otherwise deliberately trying to throw the discussion off the track.

What's wrong with that? Isn't that what Jesus did with the lying Pharisees? "Vipers . . ." Or maybe you don't think Jesus is a good model.

Again, do you expect me to be a better Christian than the hypocritical clowns?

Quote

 

It may not work, but at least you have done your duty in a civil manner ,,,, AND ... don't get expelled.

Destroy the arguments .... not the person.

 

I always try to destroy the arguments, but when it's called for, the liars, too. Often there's no difference with deliberate liars. Remember, I've been dealing with these types for nearly 30 years, and from experience I know that taking a hard line with liars is the most effective. Sometimes telling them to their face that they're a liar eventually gets them to think, and quit lying.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

ALANF:

.... JUST REMEMBER THAT WHEN JESUS DID THOSE THINGS YOU MENTIONED ... THEY EXECUTED HIM FOR BEING A COLOSSAL PAIN IN THE BUTT, AND A WORLD CLASS PEST.

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO GET NAILED TO THE STAKE ... AT LEAST DON'T SUPPLY THE NAILS.

[Srecko Sostar]

9 hours ago, John Paul said:

So, if witnesses use that term, I suspect they are referring to the spiritual Jerusalem, not the watchtower.

Sorry but you are wrong in this thinking. JW members not separating spiritual and literal Organization. Because that is one and the same in their thinking. They consider JHVH asOwner or Master of One Organization in Spiritual and Earthly place, not two. Because JHVH love Unity :))) 

8 hours ago, Anna said:

You are putting too much emphasis on 8 imperfect men,

If i am correct in thinking, this 8 men running all job, governing how all work should be done and giving complete direction to JW organization :)) 

8 hours ago, Anna said:

Does it mean JWs didn’t get enough holy spirit if they made mistakes in some interpretations?  Don’t forget the holy spirit does not work on our terms. God is perfectly in control of holy spirit and knows when and how much to give, it’s not up to us to judge.

On question answer is: No, they didn't get enough spirit. Because JHVH spirit can't make such mistakes because of my perception how JHVH spirit is absolute in this context. If i believe in wrong premises than that is my problem :)))

On second quote:  Agree, spirit doesn't work on our terms. (Perhaps spirit can and doing in "adaptable manner" because spirit have to deal with blood and flesh and bones in us). But on other part of thinking if we accept your good statement, than GB are not entitled to speaking about one and only "Channel of Communication", because spirit not work in GB terms. Spirit can give "communication" to other sort of channels too, because spirit work on own terms not on ours. :))

On third quote: I will just add to your fine words. Spirit knows When and How .... and to Whom.

Waiting for your thoughts :))

[TrueTomHarley]

11 hours ago, AlanF said:

On the other hand, TrueTomHarley and Arauna scream bloody murder when I give them back what they first gave me. Do you have different standards for me and them?

Today’s quiz for all forum contributors:

Name two participants (one who has been sent packing) who both are hypersensitive to the slightest disparaging remark (or even disagreement) and at the same time are completely oblivious to their own nuclear abuses?

Hint: Both names begin with “A.”

GASP!  You don’t think THAT’S the hidden alias connection we have all been missing, do you?

(Nice, gracious @Arauna who....yes.....when pushed long enough gets a tiny bit sharp, but is NOTHING like the abuse from the “A”s

And blessedly pleasant TTH, who occasionally lets loose with what for him qualifies as a swear word: “loon.” That saint? Mean? There ought to be a law.)

“Why, then, do you look at the straw in your brother’s eye but do not notice the rafter in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Allow me to remove the straw from your eye,’ when look! a rafter is in your own eye?”

 

14 hours ago, Witness said:

Okay, it originated with AlanF and Arauna repeated it.  I do not keep up on AlanF and Arauna's involved conversations. 

The answer to this problem with be for @The Librarian (that old hen) to throw EVERYTHING into one master thread, and then you will not be able to keep up even with your own material. Let us see if you will then say as you have with the WT: “Who needs organization?” Because it is not perfect, she eliminates it.

Hmmm. One way to adapt (short of leaving) if the Librarian DID go ahead with her nefarious scheme would be to forget all about following the master thread, which would be a 24/7 project, and just tick off a few names to follow—a few allies, and one or two villains such as Agent Jack, who reliably keeps me up to date on controversial things but otherwise keeps his personality largely at bay. 

It might not be a bad thing at all, though it would change the nature of participation. Certain individuals who (I admit it) affect me like waving a red flag before a bull would be cut out of the picture. They would cry about their free speech being cut off, but I would respond that the Librarian has formed a culty wall....how did Jack put it?....to cordon them off. Yes.....it might be something I could adapt to, especially if a little of that punctuated equilibrium kicks in.

[AlanF]

A few pages back, Arauna challenged my acceptance evolution with the example of the supposed bad routing of a nerve in the giraffe's neck. She complained that Richard Dawkins' demonstration to show why the routing is bad was ridiculous. I answered in some detail, but of course, Arauna completely ignored the facts I presented. The way the argument stands now is shown here:

The left hand routing scheme is what a competent Designer would use. The right hand scheme is actually in the giraffe, and in humans, and in all other vertebrates 'higher' than fish. The 15 foot (4.6 meter) loop around the heart blood vessel and back up is why it is called the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

Which scheme makes more sense to you? Why?

Note that this is one of the nerves that controls the larynx (voicebox).

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

ALANF:

IT'S OBVIOUS YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT HYDRAULICS IN A FLEXIBLE PIPING SYSTEM, WHICH IS WHAT AN ANIMAL IS.

NERVES ALL HAVE CAPACITANCE, ELECTRONICALLY, AND THE FIGURE ON THE RIGHT  SHOWS A BYPASS WITH LESSER CAPACITANCE, FOR THE LOW VOLTAGES BEING TRANSMITTED.

.also, ... think of a wiring harness on an automobile ... going to sensors, fans, pumps, lights, ignition systems, etc.

now... think of what happens if there is wear on the original routing, and damage occurs, and you have a spare wiring harness already in place. A spare wiring harness that as the first one is damaged, the second spare adapts, without the need for surgery to install replacement parts.

or ... A WIRING HARNESS THAT BYPASSES AN AREA TO SERVE OTHER AREAS.

It's called redundancy.

ALSO ... nerves can send signals both ways, and do not just serve one area or have a singular function.

I know nothing about a giraffe's voicebox .. hell ... I did not know they had a voice! ...

... but I do understand wiring diagrams, and electromechanical hydraulic controls.

... which apparently you do not.

BUT ... having Narcissistic Personality Derangement ... you think you do know ... about everything.

You are wrong.

DUH!