Thinking

To the extent that is true it would appear that I am the blockhead.

Just to show @Thinkingthat we are thoroughly attuned to ‘down under,’ here are some pictures we took at the Columbus Zoo:


No. He is probably more like this guy:

Blockhead? lol
I thought that by now you already had the chance to know my sense of humor and some kind of irony and sarcasm in some of the written sentences. Well, for such things, we don't need to "conduct a Bible study" in order to master the material. Or do we? lol

I just woke up from a nap.
I dreamed my face and neck was a million times larger.
…. but everything else in the Universe was also a million times larger.
But it’s OK.
 I was wearing a dog collar size 3-1/2 million.

I can ride with witty good humored sarcasm every time...

Well—had you put it that way in the first place . . .

“What do you say, you fornicating punk? Ya feeling lucky today?”

You blockhead. I mean, Duh, if anyone discards belief in God they necessarily focus on only the inconveniences of being Christian in the present system, which no Witness would ever deny there are some, but they are compensated by realities to come.
If there really is a God, and if there really will be a new system in which He rules unopposed, then he will enforce his own standards. Just like during that circuit assembly in the early 70’s in which two resurrected ones were bellyaching over everything under the sun, impervious to the correction that the loving elders (who weren’t packing guns) were pouring on like syrup, then the lights went out, there was a loud zap and a flash from heaven, and they were gone! Oh, yeah—a ‘dramatization’ it was.

Yes koalas are very cute but they have a big problem with STDs which I think they are trying to eradicate …..I wouldn’t hold one ..but one day ..it’s a sure thing….i don’t think pudgy looks as cute as that when he awakes…

Yes koalas are very cute but they have a big problem with STDs which I think they are trying to eradicate …..I wouldn’t hold one ..but one day ..it’s a sure thing….i don’t think pudgy looks as cute as that when he awakes…

When I wake up from a nap, I get dressed, and take myself for a walk ….

I don’t know how else to say this, so here goes…. 
Do we REALLY want Elders in the Congregation to carry guns?

Never could figure it out

I tend to break Juan’s and even JWI and their writing up in paragraphs at a time..just cannot do it in one hit …but it’s usually worth it even if I don’t understand everything…

Thank you Juan and I definitely got the gist of your words, I’m sort of getting used to the way you write…and I sure hope when I speak in short bursts you get my awkward gists 

Thanks for trying but it still seems murky waters..if I had to say that to leave Australia I would think I was giving allegiance to our constitution thus our country…..so happy we never had this problem. Americans are very very political and religious compared to us…makes things so much easier on us.

Never could figure it out

To be fair, I have ADD, and a 77 year old with ADD really needs to write with crayons.

I hate to say it because 1) it sounds bad. But because 2) I could think of no other reason, and 3) given that the society's top leadership could not have ever imagined their own sworn oaths of allegiance to the United States of America would see the light of day, I 4) teeter between disingenuous and duplicitous.  

Don't know if this will help, but I think he is just saying that when a foreigner comes to another country, that foreigner must still obey the laws of that country. But there is a limit to that obedience, because a foreigner isn't required to take an oath of allegiance or obedience in everything. For example, would a Chinese citizen visiting Australia be required to fight for Australia against China if war between the countries broke out during their visit? (Or vice versa.) In the same way, Russell says that Bible Students are all for obedience to the laws, but don't take an oath of obedience and allegiance in all things, because Bible Students are essentially "foreigners" in their own country when it comes to their higher allegiance to God. 

No. That was my own typo. Sorry. It was the phrase "So held me God" instead of "So help me God." And Pudgy was only highlighting the part that says "Port of departure" instead of "Date of Departure" where part of the word "ALLEGIANCE" appeared writ large.
However, I note that Elizabeth's 1922 application (above) also contains "Port." I now suspect you are right however because I searched such images on Google and have now seen several different versions of the application form from the early 1900's, and I have now seen a few versions with typos in other places, although this is the only one I saw with the word "held". It was a ripe place for a typo however because some versions changed the font to italic only at that sentence. Some highlighted different words in that sentence. 
I brought it up, however, because major ex-JW sites are usually super-careful about never faking anything, especially because Witnesses so often claim that ex-JWs and non-JWs "always" fake things or take them out of context. Even claiming that photocopies of the literature have been faked. I have been through large portions of jwfacts.com, RF's CoC, COJ's GTR, etc., looking for exactly that kind of thing, and have never found a claim that could be countered with these common complaints. And where evidence exists elsewhere, it has ALWAYS supported the claims in those particular places. I can't say as much for ALL the ex-JW sites, because I haven't checked, but I know there is also a lot of misinformation out there from all sides. 

I tend to break Juan’s and even JWI and their writing up in paragraphs at a time..just cannot do it in one hit …but it’s usually worth it even if I don’t understand everything…

yeah …. like that silly requirement the Romans had in the Coliseum that you just put a pinch of incense on the alter to the Roman Emperor and you could go free … OR … you could refuse and you and your family would be torn apart and eaten by lions.
Whadda sense of humor!
When you make a statement “.. so help you God… “ it may be a formality to some civil clerk, but if you take an oath before God and man the presumption is that God will enforce it.
There are times when the sands of the Arena are soaked with the blood of Christians who would not make the simple gesture of putting a pinch of incense on the Alter of the Emporer … and there are times when Church Leaders don’t get to go to Europe.
If Oaths before God are meaningless … you get to go to Europe.
See?

Another thing to consider is that everything we do in life is experimental, and just like Jehovah was surprised when the people rolled their children into the fiery stomachs of Molech, we are often surprised and sucker punched.
It’s not that we “love the Truth”, quite often what we love, we label as “ The Truth”. 
This is true for Saints and Monsters.
If a person is WRONG … but believes himself that what he in good conscience tells you is true …. that is NOT A LIE.
A lie has to be a DELIBERATE lie, and hearing something wrong from a self-deluded person, if you believe it, does NOT mean you have been lied to.
So, I believe that 95% of what we think is correct, that turns out to be wrong, in History, Astronomy, (Astronomer Percival Lowell believed he saw “Canals” on Mars …and for decades everyone on Earth believed it.), Chemistry, Physics … AND THEOLOGY, is not an attempt at deception.
Attempts at deception are lies.
Being cluelessly ignorant and self-delusional may make someone a certified fool … but labeling them as liars may be unfair …. and wrong!

It is well not to describe religous interpretations as ‘lies’ when they cannot immediately be identified as such. With your patience—and you are certainly a patient and tenacious fellow—let me try to develop a point: 
Congregations are lately covering the Book of Job. Here, Job is giving his testimony: “Let God weigh me with accurate scales; Then he will recognize my integrity.” (Job 31:6)
His life course is one of integrity toward God. If it was not, downfall would be justified, he believes, but it has been
“If my footsteps deviate from the way Or my heart has followed after my eyes Or my hands have been defiled, … If my heart has been enticed by a woman And I have lain in wait at my neighbor’s door, … If I denied justice to my male or female servants When they had a complaint against me, … If I refused to give the poor what they desired Or saddened the eyes of the widow; If I ate my portion of food alone Without sharing it with the orphans;… If I saw anyone perishing for lack of clothing Or a poor man with nothing to cover himself; … If I shook my fist against the orphan When he needed my assistance in the city gate; … If I put my confidence in gold Or said to fine gold, ‘You are my security!’ If I found my joy in my great wealth Because of the many possessions I acquired;” (31: 7-25)
All those things would be bad, meriting God’s disfavor, he believes, but he never did any of them!
“Have I ever rejoiced over the destruction of my enemy Or gloated because evil befell him?  I never allowed my mouth to sin. . . Have the men of my tent not said, ‘Who can find anyone who has not been satisfied with his food?’ No stranger had to spend the night outside; I opened my doors to the traveler. Have I ever tried to cover over my transgressions, like other men, By hiding my error in the pocket of my garment?” Have I been in fear of the reaction of the multitude, Or have I been terrified by the contempt of other families, Making me silent and afraid to go outside?”  (29-34) No, his life is not characterized by any of those things.
It is his testimony. He has always been upright. He’s ready to sign it: “I would sign my name to what I have said.” (31:35)
It is all peremptorily denied by his three interrogators: 
Eliphaz: Is [your suffering] not because your own wickedness is so great And there is no end to your errors? For you seize a pledge from your brothers for no reason, And you strip people of their garments, leaving them naked. You do not give the tired one a drink of water, And you hold back food from the hungry. The land belongs to the powerful man, And the favored one dwells in it. But you sent away widows empty-handed, And you crushed the arms of fatherless children. That is why you are surrounded by traps, And sudden terrors frighten you;  (Job 22:5-10)
Why does he reject Job’s testimony, instead charging just the opposite? Because it conflicts with his own ‘theology:’ “What I have seen,” Eliphaz says previously, “is that those who plow what is harmful And those who sow trouble will reap the same. By the breath of God they perish, And through a blast of his anger they come to an end. . . . Even the teeth of strong lions are broken.”  (Job 4:8-10)
His preformed—faulty, as it turns out—theology tells him Job must have been ‘plowing what is harmful’ for him to be suffering now. Job, who otherwise might have agreed with that theology, undergoes the worst of spiritual crises to accompany his crisis on all other fronts, because he knows he has not been ‘plowing what is harmful’—quite the contrary. So he works out his angst by blaming God for being both cruel and unfair. This further inflames Eliphaz and crew, already riled that Job is resisting their ‘correction.’ Now they read  false positive for apostasy and figure they must attack Job for that reason, too. Presently they are all but hurling epithets at the poor fellow.
Before chalking up the above to the oddities of religious people (or applying them to Witness HQ), reflect that all of society is that way. If you have benefited from acupuncture, say, and want to tell the world about it, you will find yourself derided among the materialist crowd for advocating ‘pseudoscience.’ What about your own beneficial experience, you will ask. ‘It will be attributed to ‘anecdotal evidence,’ inherently unreliable. It doesn’t matter how many like testimonies you can gather; it will all be attributed to ‘anecdotal evidence’ by those whose scientific ‘theology’ admits to no other view—they can’t replicate your experience in their test tubes, so they assume you are either deluded or lying. Mechanisms may differ, but the overall pattern is no different than Job’s ‘anecdotal evidence’ rejected by those of a different theology.
You can go along with the airy dismissal of ‘anecdotal evidence.’ Then one day you find it is your evidence they are trying to dismiss and you wonder how people can be so high-handed and stubborn.