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

[Anna]

14 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Isaiah 65:20: "And the sinner will be cursed, even though he is a hundred years of age.

 Of course. So I will leave it between them and God.

11 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

" I don't believe in upsetting the elderly "

you do it to me  

Really? How? I thought I did the opposite. You put a smiley for every quote I post.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

6 minutes ago, Anna said:

 Of course. So I will leave it between them and God.

Really? How? I thought I did the opposite. You put a smiley for every quote I post.

Sorry, I take the accusation back 

 

[AlanF]

8 minutes ago, Anna said:

 Of course. So I will leave it between them and God.

And in the meantime you'll obey them as you would God, right?

Do you really think that God would appoint a homosexual pedophile to the Governing Body of his organization? Do you really think that God is so hypocritical? Do you even believe in God?

[Anna]

Just now, AlanF said:

Do you really think that God would appoint a homosexual pedophile to the Governing Body of his organization?

Of course I don't think that.

1 minute ago, AlanF said:

Do you even believe in God?

I do, but I know you don't.

[AlanF]

One thing that JW apologists and their leaders never do is go back to square one of their religious beliefs. Rather, they merely assume a handful of basics, plus a wagonload of Watchtower tradition, and keep going from there.

The most fundamental assumption they make is that the God of the Bible exists. But he does not, which is easily proved by the following argument:

*======*======*======*======*======*======*
The argument that “design requires a Supreme Designer” and that that Designer is the God of the Bible has a major flaw: According to 1 John 4:8, 16 “God is love”. As the Creator and Parent of all living things, and as one so lovingly cognizant of every creature that, according to Matthew 10:29:

    Two sparrows sell for a coin of small value, do they not? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father’s knowledge.

The history of the last 550 million years of life, with the constant conflict between predators and prey and all the pain and suffering that history entails, proves unarguably that any postulated Creator is far from loving. A loving Creator, by definition, could not create a world in which the daily lot of so many life forms is to suffer a nature “red in tooth and claw”. Thus, either the God of the Bible is not loving, or he does not exist. Since the Bible says that "God is love", the only logical conclusion is that he does not exist.

An alternative is that there are one or more other sorts of Creators, but it is obvious that none of these are the Bible’s God, and that they are not loving. There might be any number of these sorts of ‘creators’ or ‘gods’, such as a Deistic god who created the universe and then went off to tend to other business, or some entity altogether different. Some Christians assign the word “God” to these; creation by them can be called forms of theistic evolution.
*======*======*======*======*======*======*

It will be entertaining to watch JW apologists try to rationalize their way around this argument.

[Anna]

2 minutes ago, AlanF said:

It will be entertaining to watch JW apologists try to rationalize their way around this argument.

Looking forward to it, but right now I've got to get ready for my meeting

[AlanF]

Anna said:
     

Quote

 

    2 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    Do you really think that God would appoint a homosexual pedophile to the Governing Body of his organization?

Of course I don't think that.

 

Then how did that homosexual pedophile get to be on the Governing Body? Remember that such men don't start their pedophile activities at age 72, but much younger.
     

Quote

 

    2 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    Do you even believe in God?

I do, but I know you don't.

 

Then you should have no problem explaining why your Bible God exists, in view of my argument posted above.

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

I thought you mentioned you have never been in an apostate site like JWN. Which is it?

I do not know what JWN is. Can you tell me?

Besides Reddit, the two weeks were at JehovahsWitnesses.com. The 3 comments (NOT 12, you blockhead JTR!) were at AvoidJW.com. it is possible I have commented a time or two elsewhere, but I cannot recall. For the most part, I have confined myself to my own blog.

I started blogging in 2006, and some early posts reflect that I was working through some issues. I did not seek out opposers, but when they would comment, I developed ways to answer them, not disrespectfully, unless they were real jerks, but also not befriendingly. I wrote about a post a week. Something in the news would catch my interest and I would weave it in with scripture and humor to produce posts that I had never seen the like of before. It is like an artist with paintings. Complete one, throw it up for viewing, and of course you are happy to find people who like it. But that is not why you do it, and I would do the same, like a painter, even if it was completely ignored. I gained a fair number of frequent commenters. 

I took a leave of absence to deal with a perfect storm of troubles. They and the residuals kept me occupied for several years. When I began posting again, it was little snippets on Facebook, something that had not been around before. One FB friend I knew well from before kept saying: “You ought to write a book.” Another friend has said, “I think there’s a book in that blog.”

In time I began doodling paragraphs into what might be a book someday. I did it completely on the iPad that I had bought second-hand from a brother, on Notes, and without keyboard—one letter at a time. In time, as I got more serious about it, I bought a laptop. Mixing about 50/50 previous blog posts with original writing, in 2016 I came out with an ebook, “Tom Irregardless and Me.” Several persons, some known, some unknown personally, gave it good reviews By far the most creative review came from (I’m sure he won’t mind at this point, and if he does, I’ll say I’m sorry) George Chryssides writing under the pseudonym Ivor E Tower. 

Oddly, though I have written three more books, I have scarcely received another review. I can’t quite figure it. I mean, the obvious explanation is that the writing sucks, but I have had people, even elders, praise them effusively. I even had my strategy in place should apostates flame it with horrid reviews, but I didn’t get them either. It is too bad. I would like some. Ah, well—painter with his artwork and all.

While writing this book, I opened a Twitter account. I followed a link that led here and began leaving some comments. For a time, the only way I knew how to get here was to follow that link through Twitter. I started hawking my book, rather shamelessly, and the Librarian (that old hen) at last yelled at me—“enough is enough!” she said. “This is not a book store!”

I was stung. I almost left the site for good. In fact, I did, but in time, tentatively came back. It is probably due to some conciliatory posts from @JW Insiderthat I did stay. In time, I floated adding some value-added content not related to any book, and the Librarian signaled encouragement. Thus began a series of outrageous posts characterizing her as a wash-up, arthritic and alcoholic has-been of a grade school librarian who hates kids—with good reason because they torment her relentlessly—and is counting down the days till her retirement. I am the baddest of her pupils, but I am her pupil, after all, so there is a limit to how much she can discipline me.

I told her privately that I was going to do this, and that if it became too much, she should let me know. She said that she sort of enjoyed the games, and that she was actually a he. I have probably tested her patience since—she did at one point lay the law down on my “spamming” and when I felt that my contributions to her site buffered me, I linked to a post and said that if I was ever again called for spamming, I would discontinue all participation here. I said that, blogging since 2006, I have become a news source in my own right, and I would not put up with it. However, I also showed myself sensitive to her concerns. I would do it less, I said, never just a link in itself, and only include one where there was good reason for it—also that there would be no, or greatly limited comments on my blog, so that if anyone went there and wanted to comment on it, they would have to come here. I just wanted to keep all my stuff in one place, I pleaded. I wasn’t trying to steal her readers.

My followup ebook, “No Fake News But Plenty of Hogwash” was written too hastily, and was an ill-advised attempt to appeal to newsy and current events people. I reworked it substantially to make it the most autobiographical of my books. It, too, is about 50/50 old blog posts vs original writing. Little of it was written here. 

I kept writing more and more here. Our problems began in Russia. I began to post about it in my blog. Others, especially a @bruceq, posted many Russian woes here, and I contributed to those threads. On Twitter, I discovered Anton Chivchalov, who, from Belarus, was following events minutely, and does to this day.

I thought of writing a short brochure of sorts—nothing big—a collection of news releases about the ban, with maybe some melodramatic cover in black, as though an iron curtain was again crashing down. I kept expanding the idea into another ebook, centered around the theme of our letter-writing campaign that all Witnesses would take part in but no one else could ever appreciate the atmosphere. I described to my graphic artist a vision of a child writing Putin, as though writing Santa Claus, (children are always best, not just in themselves, but in what they symbolized—Jesus said you must become as young children) thinking a thought balloon occupied by Putin, not Claus. She returned with what is pictured below. See how clever it is, with Putin seeming to have bangs, like a child, and it is actually the kid’s hair? She is a fine and imaginative artist and I would recommend her in a heartbeat.

“Dear Mr. Putin”  is the only complete history of JW persecution from just before ban until about a year after. But I had by that time decided to include reasons JWs were opposed in Russia (CSA has NEVER entered into the picture there) since they were largely absent in the Supreme Court trial, in Part II, as well as a third section presenting a witness. All of it is written for non-Witnesses primarily. Little of it centers on doctrine—where there is doctrine, it is just enough to bridge points. Russia is not demonized, in the event the book ever finds an influential read there. (JWI—the old commie, gave it praise for breaking free from the Western point of view, not easy for a Westerner, and I appreciated the thumbs up in that regard.) Other faiths are not put down—JWs are presented as the canary in the coal mine—what starts with us may well spread to them, and they are shaking in their boots.

And as stated before, when I stumbled into this site, via Twitter, I was aghast at all the “apostates” operating here with impunity, on what claimed to be a Witness site, and I went after them with ferocity. As a result of one battle, the Librarian placed me heading a thread that she entitled “TrueTom vs the Apostates.” I tried to get out of it, to no avail. So I warmed to the task and went after them with such heat—it was the unlikely trinity of O’Mally, Witness, and Rook—until Admin made the Librarian pull the entire thread and slap me with an “Abuse” label that explicitly said was to follow me forever and ever, but after a time, disappeared. 

In time, this became the ebook, “TrueTom vs the Apostates!” It is a more tightly written book than Dear Mr Putin, with about 50 short chapters as opposed to the former’s 16. Part I of that book was mostly written here, some as complete posts, barely modified for the book. Part II is old posts of mine from the blog—close enough to the theme of skewering apostates that I figured it would fit nicely. 

I have about three other books in mind, all of which will probably be on the drawing board for some time. There may even be a “TrueTom vs the Apostates!—Round 2” someday.

Does that answer your question?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

TTH:

I do not remember the number, but if I stated 12 posts, it is because I actually counted them.

I do remember actually counting them, as I expect EVERYTHING I say to be challenged, and it embarrasses me to be wrong.

[AlanF]

César Chávez said:
 
 

Quote

Why should any witness waste their time to call the Watchtower on baseless accusations leveled by AlanF and JWinisder?

How can you prove they're baseless? Do you have complete knowledge of all these things?

You only call the accusations baseless based on your virtual worship of the Governing Body, namely, putting them in place of God.

And of course, as I implied, your rationalization makes you a coward: you're afraid that a Watchtower official will confirm what I said.

Quote

It’s your claim, prove it. Its JWinsider’s claim, let him prove it. You don’t need to redirect your nonsense to AD1914.

I already told you several times: there is no proof, but lots of evidence collected over 25 years from many sources.

Quote

Just like you started your post as I indicated by attempting to sway your nonsensical argument to JW apologists,

Gobble-de-goop.

Quote

I asked you what the difference was for you, “personally”, couldn’t be considered an “apologist” singular not plural since I was only including your bogus assertions here.

More gobble-de-goop. Once again, try using Grammarly.

Quote

Meanwhile, try learning your own language and it's word definition.

LOL! You are trying to instruct me in proper English usage?

We note that you made two grammar errors in the above sentence: (1) You should have used "its" not "it's"; (2) you should have used "definitions" not "definition" since there is more than one word in the English language.

Rather, let me instruct you: English words, like Spanish words, often have subtly different meanings. "Apologist" is one. The definition you posted is one, but there are others. The one you posted is not the most common usage. The most common usage is:

<< One who speaks or writes in defense of a faith, a cause, or an institution. >>

That's the sense in which I used it.

Related meanings are:

<< one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something

a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc.

a person who writes or speaks in defense or justification of a doctrine, faith, action, etc.

A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.

a person who supports a particular belief or political system, especially an unpopular one, and speaks or writes in defence of it >>

Note that the "something" does not have to be controversial or unpopular.

People like you, who offer defenses of the JW religion, are apologists.

People like me, who offer criticisms of the JW religion, are critics, not apologists.

You're still confusing "apologist" with "critic". Perhaps looking up the equivalents in Spanish will let you get your head on straight.

And of course, you're so dishonest that you still refuse to admit that you messed up when you copy/pasted "apologists" wrongly, thus causing you to double down on a ridiculously stupid argument.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

and that she was actually a he

I wondered about that. You almost had me convinced.

[Vic Vomidog]

Welcome, @AlanF! I am sorry that I did not notice here before. A little bird had to rattle my cage.

The JWs here (or anywhere) are all liars and disgusting apologists. It is good that you are expose the lies of Mommy. Only a reminder as regards TTH:

4 hours ago, AlanF said:

His ad hominem attacks and lies can in no way be considered civil. And I will continue to deal with him as an uncivil pathological liar as long as he keeps it up.

Yes. But you are not very thorough, I have found. No matter how many of his disgusting, vile, reprehensible, flatulent, odious, debased, toe-sucking qualities of his you highlight, there will always be a few that you forget to mention. Please consult me during those times for assistance. 

4 hours ago, AlanF said:

Hmm. I see "WTF" on national news channels regularly.

Yes again. It stands for World Trade Federation. If these JWs had more education—they are the stupidest creatures on two feet—they would know that.