Noble Berean

Ask any parent whose child (adult or otherwise) is disfellowshipped.

That's in the unrated edition... 

I think I may have something mean to you long ago when you first came online here. I take it all back. 
The loyal brothers in the bunker video didn't exactly blow away the invaders with their tommy-guns, did they?
 

@TrueTomHarley yes our desire to be "slow to anger" and not loving violence sets us apart. It doesn't make sense from a worldly perspective!! Although I don't judge a Christian that carries a gun, I think of how Jehovah God asked the Israelites to go into battle with no weapons. What a message sent to the nations that God has a people that rely on HIM and not physical weaponry. I think of the future when nations will turn violent against us. Will we think this is our fight? No. Jehovah says vengeance is his. Jehovah will protect his people pure from the bloody violence of this world.

It wouldn't have been if Quick-Draw McGraw was there. What a grand witness that would have been.

You should realize that Jesus was aware that there were so many things his apostles had to learn and overcome such as fear of man and the customs they grew up with. Jesus did not set out correcting every fault they had instantly but when the occasion arises. Realize that in the Luke 22 you quoted when the apostles showed him two sword he answered them: "It is enough." He went on to emphasize that their confidence should not lie in weapons when he laid down a principle before them right at the moment when Peter cut off Malchus' ears. This was stated in Matthew 26:52 thus:
Jesus admonished Peter for using one of those swords. Just picture this scenario with the one you pointed out in your original post. They are both similar. But Jesus reproved Peter for falling on a weapon to protect himself and his master. Jesus laid a principle that all his followers will do well to follow. Jesus then in the next verse showed why it is wrong to do as you imagined in your original post scenario - that is, bring weapons to the Kingdom Hall. He emphasized to his disciples that he had legions at his beck and call - invisible spirit weapons - but in this time of death, he did not and would not use it when he said in Matthew 26:53 thus:
That idea above, allowing Jehovah's will to be done irrespective if your life is in danger, does not show Jesus to be a coward as you contend. Or do you think he also is one? I doubt it. Jesus was bold and courageous to exercise self control at the darkest moment in his life and he never flinched from his resolve. We do well to follow his steps closely as Peter urges in 1 Peter 2:21.

I would not hesitate to be the judge, jury and executioner right then and there in that situation. I would even try to keep my teeth ;-)
And the law would be on my side.
Do Kingdom Halls prohibit you from carrying weapons?
I'm not even sure what Catholic churches say about carrying weapons inside them.

Yes, I agree with you that, JW Insider, there are many ways to understand that between paurusia and synteleia passes for a certain amount of time and that is not the same thing.
There are many scriptures that make this and not only Revelation (however Revelation should be more than enough).
Obviously I disagree on 1914 and not even on the concept of "overlapping generation" but this is another matter.
Beyond the interpretations, the Bible makes it clear that the seventh trumpet is really "the seventh", that sounds after the sixth, fifth, and so on.
To skim any doubt and every interpretation, we see that Paul identifies the last trumpet (that is, that concerning spiritual resurrection) as "the last" - 1 Corinthians 15:52
So if the last trumpet is really the last one, how is this sound in 1914 while the sixth plays in 1922, the fifth in 1919 and so on?
There are a thousand ways to refute the current official chronology and Revelation is one of these thousand

As IBA has just indicated, you can get such evidence through interpretation, and interpretations may be wide-ranging . . . and therefore more often wrong than right, even when serious, sensible and sincerely held. But interpretations are not the same as clear evidence.
My first impulsive answer to the specific question would be, "Yes, there is evidence for a two-part presence, but not a two-part parousia. There are no scriptures that would indicate a two-part parousia. But Jesus said that he would be present with us from the time of his resurrection, right up until the synteleia.
(Matthew 28:20) . . .And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion [synteleia]  of the system of things.” Technically, using Watchtower definitions, this would mean that Jesus would be present right up until 1914, the start of the synteleia.
We know from Matthew 24 that the disciples understood the synteleia to be the same as the parousia. (Probably, synteleia meant "end of all things" and parousia meant "the royal visitation judgment event.") So their question had to do with how they could identify the time period just before the parousia/synteleia so they could have an advance warning, and Jesus gave them an answer that says, basically,
"Sorry, there will be no warning signs, because the parousia/synteleia will come as a thief. You might think that wars and earthquakes and famines will be the signs you are asking about, because these things will definitely take place, but don't be misled, these are not true signs of the end. So you will just have to expect trouble all throughout this generation until the parousia/synteleia is upon you, and use the time to prepare to preach and to be ready for anything." But even if you agree that this is what Jesus was saying, this is still just an interpretation of what Jesus said. There are a lot of things in Matthew 24 and elsewhere that support the interpretation, but there are many religions, not just Witnesses, that are able to read it differently: as if Jesus really was giving them warning signs that would match Revelation 12's "short period of time" leading up to his parousia/synteleia. Or, as our own publications have explained it since around 1943/44: that this parousia/synteleia would have started in 1914, somewhere between 30 years and a maximum of, say, 185* years prior to the final judgment manifestation of that same parousia/synteleia. (At 103+ years since the start, we would now be just over half-way through that possible range.)
*Depending on how long Brother Sanderson, for example, might live on earth.
It would be nice if it were more clear-cut, but it's basically a matter of interpretation. Like an imaginary experience I had in field service:
JW: Knock, knock Hello? JW: Hello. Today, I'd like to talk to you about this article in the latest Awake! on Spiritism. Did you know there are invisible spirits around us right now? Invisibility? I just can't see that. JW: Well let me make myself clear!' [Went back for a return visit, but nothing materialized.]  

"Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence" (2 Thessalonians 2:8).
I understand that Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus Christ presence began back in 1914. I also understand that JWs believe the clergy of Christendom represent the Man of Lawlessness. However, if that is the case, why have the clergy thrived since 1914? Shouldn't they be brought to "...nothing by the manifestation of his presence"?

An even more interesting question should be: if the man of illegality is the clergy of Christianity, it should be the main part of Babylon the Great, is not it?
How is the man of iniquity destroyed by the spirit of the mouth of Christ (hence directly from Christ) while Babylon the Great is destroyed by the United Nations? Writing says that God (not Christ) will put in the hearts of these kings to carry out his thinking of destroying Babylon the Great.
It puts the thought (God, not Christ) but God does not destroy it directly.
Instead, the man of iniquity will be destroyed by the spirit of the mouth of Christ

"Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence" (2 Thessalonians 2:8).
I understand that Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus Christ presence began back in 1914. I also understand that JWs believe the clergy of Christendom represent the Man of Lawlessness. However, if that is the case, why have the clergy thrived since 1914? Shouldn't they be brought to "...nothing by the manifestation of his presence"?

I really like tacos 

Nope, you are not going to derail US into an off topic discussion!! Not falling for that!

Bethel has a long history of child labor:
(Genesis 35:16) 16 Then they pulled away from Bethʹel. . . .  Rachel began to give birth, and her labor was very difficult. And wickedness too:
(Amos 4:4) Come to Bethʹel and commit transgression,. . .

IT'S OUTRAGEOUS!!! THE WICKED PLACE EVEN MAKES BABIES WORK!!!!

Exactly!

This is true. Blood is dangerous. Heart surgery is dangerous too and has killed many patients. But it has also saved many patients. It's the same with blood, which is why so many thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses take blood. They take it in fractional components. Most blood is stored in fractional components anyway. And most blood is supposed to be used within 42 days. This was true long before the Duke study, because it was already known that blood stored for 4 months was only about half as efficient for carrying oxygen.
The Duke study (this is only one of many Duke studies) was one of the most repeated in the media because it was the "scariest." But attempts to repeat the study with more randomized data did not fully confirm it. And the failure to show any difference by trying to bump up the nitrous oxide might be evidence that they were on the wrong track anyway.
None of this is evidence one way or another that Jehovah's Witnesses should reverse their conscience on blood. Blood saves lives in the same way that heart surgery saves lives. Just because something might save our life doesn't mean it's right. But we shouldn't have to find ourselves always trying to defend our position based on specific secular studies of risk vs benefit. Are human scholars that important to us? If we are right, why would it matter even if blood only saved lives 80% of the time or 50% or 20%? Is it men we are trying to please, or God?
The apostle Paul obviously didn't mind getting some blood in his meat, and said it was a matter of conscience. So let each one decide for himself, he said. As adults, we have the right to our own conscience in this matter. None of us should question the conscientious choice of another. I have a concern over whether we should force our conscience on unbaptized members of our household including small children, or should we follow the "higher authorities" of Romans 13:1.
Obviously, this discussion should go under another topic.
Edited to add: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851210/

The fact of the matter is that after having personally studied the Bible and meditating on it, certain decisions should be left to the conscience of each individual - 2 Corinthians 1:24

I would agree. That's usually what's brought up in anti-JW articles as a way to say the religion is a cult.

A son of a Governing Body member was handling the Watch Tower's Public Relations department just before J.R.Brown took over that position. He said that these particular two items were the two items that, if changed, would resolve 90% of our public relations problems. (This was just prior to the child abuse debacle which J.R.Brown was immediately thrown into.) I suspect people understood him to be saying he disagreed with our position on these issues, but I don't recall him ever saying that. He was fired from the position anyway.

I don't want to leave the organization. There's many things I admire about it. I just don't understand why every JW has to be in 100% agreement with all GB directions. I don't think the organization would descend into chaos if more matters were treated as conscience decisions. There are already areas of conscience like entertainment and the religion hasn't fallen apart over that.

I don't want to leave the organization. There's many things I admire about it. I just don't understand why every JW has to be in 100% agreement with all GB directions. I don't think the organization would descend into chaos if more matters were treated as conscience decisions. There are already areas of conscience like entertainment and the religion hasn't fallen apart over that.

The people of God, in the past, believed many wrong things about his God and his purposes, and yet remained the people of God. The people of Judah believed that they had contracted a "pact with death" and believed that Jehovah would not have them never punished because they had the Temple. On many occasions the Israelites did wrong and had misguided ideas about God's personality.
So the point is not "change religion" because there is only one people of God.
Paradoxically some "people in the world" can be better and more spiritual than some brothers. In the Bible, we have many examples of non-Israeli people (Raab, Rut, the Roman soldier who shows more faith in the Israelites, the Syrian-Phoenician woman with his damned daughter, etc.) who were blessed for their faith and, on the contrary, many belonging to God's people who were rejected for taking everything for granted and not really "seeking Jehovah".
We must not think that every thought that is not in line with the governing body is apostasy or serves to weaken the faith.
We carefully study the Bible without having a stinging attitude towards any human being.
The Bible was written for each of us