Patiently waiting for Truth

She also later on accused me of spamming and I said if she did it again I would leave. However, i also bended to her concerns. I told her i was not trying to draw from her site—I just wanted my posts somewhere together, uncontaminated by 4Jah, where I could readily locate them. Also my comment section would be very brief, would quickly expire, and if anyone want to haggle out something raised here, I would send them back here. It has been a fine compromise. I am grateful to the old hen for providing a forum with interaction where my writing has flourished. I never forget to post plenty of original content here and “pull my weight.”
 

Speaking of the name, I did today block @originalJehovah on Twitter. He had responded to a tweet of mine with something snide. I told his two friends who had commented on the new thread before I had seen it, that I hoped he didn’t mind the block, and that it was not for anything he said. Rather, it was for his insolence toward the Divinity, as expressed through his handle.
(It was probably 4Jah)

The physicist (Neil) was right. You can tell evil as it feeds on itself w/it's ideas and expressions. Spiritual autophagy produces progressively predictable response patterns as these have chosen themselves as their own root.

Jesus said, "I have revealed your name to the people you gave me from the world. They were yours, you gave them to me, and they have kept your word.”  "I made your name known to them and will continue to make it known, so that the love you have loved me with may be in them and I may be in them."  John 17:6,26
Did Jesus wear a badge that said, “Jehovah’s Witness”?  Is that how he made God’s name known?
Is saying the word, “Jehovah” going to make for easy access to knowing God? 
Pharoah asked, "Who is the LORD that I should obey him by letting Israel go? I don't know the LORD, and besides, I will not let Israel go."  Exod 5:2
He came to know who God was by His acts.
“This is what the LORD says: Here is how you will know that I am the LORD. Watch. I am about to strike the water in the Nile with the staff in my hand, and it will turn to blood.”  Exod 7:17
I believe it is better to be on the safe side, than to create a pronounceable name for God, especially since “hovah” is a Hebrew word meaning “a ruin, a disaster”.  https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h1943
So, yes, the name "Jehovah" does not indicate  an acceptable, pleasant way to address God.  
It is interesting how JWs here, refuse to acknowledge the example of Jesus Christ and how he spoke to God.  

I see what you mean. What I mean, Jews should know how to pronounce old Jews names, without vowels, written in the Bible. That would be start, at least for hear how name JHVH have to sound, on Jew language of course :)) Perhaps from that point, interested people, or linguists can be able to show direction how not to pronounce this the holiest Name IF wrong pronunciation can bring shame or defilement of that Name.  

With this information we can conclude how it is not only "family violence" problem as some here want to present CSA in WTJWorg. This numbers proves "institutional violence" too. 

You keep playing the same old record. But your old record does not give any proof of how Almighty God wants His name pronounced in any language. Only with Holy Spirit can God's true name be known, but you JWs no longer believe in God using His Holy Spirit. You rely on Men's words to teach you. 

Yes. Of course. Is no more complicated than that, although dressed up as pious concern and godly respect for this technical point or that.
It is always good if letters to the foe are short and sweet. I like how you typically do that as I also try, with but occasional caveats. You see what happens. He goes into hysterics, screaming over words, making ever more shrill and poorly supported charges, if supported at all. He wets himself in the presence of all.
Best to let him stew that way. Respond with pith to select short quotes. He wants miles-long verbiage on each one of his many complaints, all of which he has raised many times before, and it is best to just let him wet himself.
Let your short remarks be as persuasive and cheery as possible, as his are as shrill and bitter as possible. In the unlikely event that anyone will want to untangle all this verbiage, it will be clear how things are. That doesn’t mean you will “win.” Many people prefer the whiny claptrap he spins, with contempt for anything that smacks of cooperation. So be it. The purpose is simply to lay down thoughts persuasively and let it be seen that he really doesn’t know how to think.
In short, you know that this is a Witness forum, even if an avant garde one that the organization itself probably does not care for. The keeper (that old hen) is a Witness. She is a “theocracy dies in darkness” Witness, to be sure, who believes in dialogue, even with riffraff, but she is a Witness. A whiny little girl like him fills up pages, but should he move on he is easily be replaced with other whiny little girls. A Witness who brings original content to the table has little fear of going out of style.

The meaning of God's name does not change just because you pronounce it in a different language to Hebrew. And guess why not? Because anyone who is educated, or cares to do research will associate the name (in whatever language they speak) with the Hebrew God, and the meaning thereof. Google it.
In any case, this conversation is getting ridiculously silly....

@Anna do you remember my mistake with - worth noting or worth nothing. One single letter making meaning completely opposite. Is that can be the case also with how to pronounce JHVH? Some people say it can be.
If that is possible than it is very good to follow what we know for sure, to address God with, My Dear Friend, My Dear Best Friend., because JW people are motivated to be friends with God according to WTJWorg.
But, what Jesus practiced was to say, Father and/or God ... as in his Last and Final Words: Eli, Eli, lama sabahtami . Very significant. Not Father ... Not Jehovah,..... but... My God. His Final Testimony was not speaking aloud name Jehovah or however Jew spelled JHVH. With his last breath He used common title - God.

You have it all backwards, as usual.

I think those who are serious about not pronouncing God's name in English should also stick to pronouncing Jesus's name as Yeshua. After all he is God's son, the second most important person in the universe. And it would probably be best if they used a Hebrew accent too.
 

You can jaw on as you like, but you're still squirreling around doing your best to avoid God's name - Jehovah. Another thing that convinces me that Jehovah is right, is the kinds of people and their specious and inconsistent arguments against using Jehovah. It's like in the movies when the vampires shrink back at the sight of a cross. Gods name just freaks them out and they have to, like a startled octopus ink up the room w/junky inconsistent arguments.

* "let your name be known"
"God said: “Because he has affection for me, I will rescue him. I will protect him because he knows my name". (Psalm 91:14)
 "Those knowing your name will trust in you; You will never abandon those seeking you, O Jehovah". (Psalms 9:10)
Biblical scholar Francis B. Dennio, in an article he wrote, in the Journal of Biblical Literature, said: "Jehovah misrepresents Yahweh no more than Jeremiah misrepresents Yirmeyahu. The settled connotations of Isaiah and Jeremiah forbid questioning their right." ............form "Jehovah" is not a barbarism, but is the best English form available, being that it has for centuries gathered the necessary connotations and associations for valid use in English.
 
Let's stop playing games. You know you cannot let the name Jehovah pass your lips without shuddering because of your hate for His Witnesses.  Like I said, it tells me a lot.

Yes it says that ex-JWs question the use of a man made name. When in truth it is YHWH. 

At the risk of beating the drum. I'm always suspicious when people avoid using "Jehovah". The argument about not knowing the exact pronunciation would then apply to Jehoshaphat, Jehoram or pretty much any name in the Hebrew scriptures, but for some reason the punctiliousness is applied only to "Jehovah". The reason is that God's name tastes bad in their mouths.

Uttering a hybrid name created in the 16th century makes more of an impression on you than calling God, “Father” as Jesus did?  Or, it makes more of an impression on you than the tetragrammaton…
Or, the name given to Moses when he asked,
“Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.
15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is My name for ever, and this is My memorial unto all generations.”  Exod 3:13-15
 
 Maybe, instead of concentrating on a literal contrived name, as a "mark" of faithfulness to God,  there are those who have left the organization who seek to know more behind the true name.  They respect Him as Jesus set the example, by personally approaching in Him in prayer, as "Father".   Matt 6:9-13
 
 

So, JWI is almost saying here that Zalkin has over 100 CSA cases against Elders and Minsterial Servants. 
Thank you JWI, you have just proved a point, which @TrueTomHarley  constantly denies.  Tom says it is rank and file that commit CSA. JWI is proving it is Elders and MS. Zalkin is a top lawyer. He would only take cases he can prove. 

Yes, private handling with private lawyers can bring other results. I see that you speaking about "genuine victims". So "fake victims" will enter ARC program to get some money that will not be received in private lawsuit? And do you think how Redress Commission collects cases without checking?
Do you want us to believe that JW lawyers who representing WTJWorg are more honest than those lawyers who representing opposite side? :))
Sounds fair to me. Problem is if you have a very old car, so insurance declares total damage for what is not total damage at all. The reason is that the price of a vehicle of that year on the market is lower than the price of a turn signal and a headlight, so to speak. ;))

So true. I was killed once (not kidding) for a couple of minutes. As a pedestrian, I was standing on the curb but with one foot in the crosswalk waiting for the light to change when a man who wanted to get through the "long yellow" in time angrily sped around a car that was stopping for the yellow. I was thrown across the street, and his windshield hit me in the chest in a way that stopped my heart for a minute or so and produced lots of broken ribs and a bilateral pneumothorax as a bonus. I even had the out of body experience in the ambulance remembering from "above" seeing them remove my tie and cut off my shirt and T-shirt with a pair of scissors. I was hit only 3 blocks from the hospital they drove me to.
I got $10,000 from his insurance. But we never bothered to push for more. I admit to being about one foot into the crosswalk even though the driver actually came up slightly on the curb. Brothers still chide me for leaving so much "on the table."
But my son was hit very softly by a car that partially sideswiped his car, and they both got out and saw there was no damage. My son, a lawyer, even took pictures of the non-damage. A few months later he gets hit by a lawsuit that puts another passenger in the offending car and claims that there were serious injuries. Our insurance (Geico) got all the details and photos from my son, who showed them how this suit was baseless and frivolous. We were sure they would fight it. But they paid the party some amount under $10,000! We couldn't believe it.
I'm seeing a couple of law offices that advertise for CSA lawsuits with hour-long commercials on TV. I understand that the primary lawyer who takes on cases against the WTS (Zalkin) has a backlog of over 100 cases in the US. Also, they will hardly take on cases that only involve rank and file because it is harder to prove "agency" to the WTS which is considered the source of the money. They only want MS and elders. This way even if the WTS did nothing wrong, they still can claim "agency" to the WTS (where the money is).

I actually think the statement is a little clunky—for it doesn’t account for the reversal— and that i could have written it better, along the lines I have already said. 
Still, it is such a white-hot issue, and some are trying to milk it for various reasons, that maybe it is just as well not to risk looking “defensive”—state what has been stated, and move on. 
It is a good deal to have resolved. I am sure they are happy to do that. I am sure victims are happy, too. That is the nature of any reconciliation. People are happy when it is done.
I liked how Holly Folk did not shirk from taking on lawyers. Essentially, if you have money, someone will devise a means to take some of it. It will not be a completely fictional means, for that will seldom produce results. It will be something that is real, but overstated, exaggerated, and legitimate cases will be mixed with more dubious ones. It is in lawyers’ interests to portray people as victims, whatever happened to them was not their fault. Accordingly the “cult” mantra is hugely popular with them. At times, one wonders if they to some degree have invented the idea, for they surely benefit from it.
It is not just CSA. That is but a tiny part of the iceberg. In my community, there are about twenty legal firms that advertise on media, and some of them do it virtually non-stop. I can remember a time when manufacturers were the prime sponsors of TV shows. Now they are sidled aside by lawyers. What does that tell you as to the nature of society?  It amounts to a global society-wide transfer of funds, with barristers netting a third.
I was a defendent in such a case. I don’t think many people have not had some such experience, unless they have taken care never to do anything in life. This one involved a house I rented out. Insurance kicks in and you have little to do with it, but if you don’t know that in advance, it is very disconcerting. Even knowing it in advance, it is not comfortable. The suit was for $6 million and the settlement was for $200K. “How can the insurance companies afford this?” I asked my agent. “They can’t,” was the reply. “They just keep raising their rates.”
”My lawyer got me 5 million dollars, 18 times what the insurance company offered.” Such ads are staples on TV. In satire, I append the following to them: “All my neighbors rejoiced with me. Then they opened their premium bills.”
My teenage daughter’s car was hit—not her fault—and within days the other insurance company was hounding me to “settle.” Settle what? I was not accustomed to this new normal. They offered thousands of dollars if only I would settle. Finally I told them, “I don’t think this is going to cost you a dime. Pay a few chiropractic bills and that will be the end of it. But I am not signing anything away, for I don’t know what the finale will be.” They paid a few bills. I never did settle. There was never any reason to. I was probably a chump. I probably should have hit them up for as many thousands as I could. I just didn’t know that mindset, and concepts like “honesty” got in the way. The latest prompting from TV lawyers is that you call them immediately after your doctor to find out what “your accident is worth.” I am of the generation where you didn’t call them at all. You had insurance, the other party had insurance, you relied upon them for fair compensation, and were seldom dissatisfied with the result.

I would not be so sure that genuine victims will get a better deal with this program. It may be that handling complaints on a case-by-case basis, as was being done, will be more to their advantage. Governments with their agencies, not to mention lawyers, tend to seriously erode funds meant for victims. Plus, it has already been revealed that those churches that did sign on, to much fanfare, are subsequently dragging their feet and are being as uncooperative as possible. CC is right. These things tend to be facades, with everyone taking bows while raiding the till, and the victims don’t fare nearly as well as you might think.
It may turn out to be more like the vaccine court in the U.S. Though you can sue a manufacturer for every other defective product, you cannot sue for a vaccine injury. Pharma managed to legislate themselves immunity. There is a vaccine court for redress, funded in part by surcharges on each vaccine given. Ask any injured party and they will tell you that their cases are almost invariably denied, and it is only by fighting it out with lawyers that they may, after a few years, get a few thousand dollars, seldom very much. This is true even in cases of permanent paralysis.

The organisation says it will sign up because of new rules introduced by the federal government, which mean it would lose its charity status - and subsequent tax exemptions - for continuing to hold out.
"Now that the law requires charities to join the scheme, Jehovah's Witnesses will comply," it said in a statement to AAP on Wednesday.
"Jehovah's Witnesses believe that it is their responsibility before God to respect and co-operate with the authorities." - https://7news.com.au/politics/jehovahs-witnesses-to-join-redress-scheme-c-2278906.amp?fbclid=IwAR1LpqH2VhAS6zdSCrRi_PIE4G_TGS3HbLMl4Thai6GrUEAiqMWchS3-bgA   The organisation says it will sign up because of new rules introduced by the federal government, which mean it would lose its charity status - and subsequent tax exemptions - for continuing to hold out.
"Now that the law requires charities to join the scheme, Jehovah's Witnesses will comply," it said in a statement to AAP on Wednesday.
"Jehovah's Witnesses believe that it is their responsibility before God to respect and co-operate with the authorities." -
 https://au.news.yahoo.com/jehovahs-witnesses-join-redress-scheme-061052602.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJ9pgYa7pNtBc_oEWG53LZETBGtFA4Fadn2IXb5actDJqmXVSObESwZZAoG8-IMh2QzGj3mJAELSBLT_Sf3D2euPAVmJQA9O2D_HT9p8XM1NY-rCd-MwnXj9DpiQ1DxsCCYH24OhIuAgSBRxHtFwN8YsmTnQnkVCxhn9xtzEsCsD
WTJWorg have same choice as every JW in the world, to obey or disobey secular authorities. If something what secular government ask them to do, according to their beliefs they are not obligated to obey if God say opposite. 
In this case "God told" them before few months NOT to join the scheme. And WTJWorg refused to join. Now, they reexamine Roman 13  and decide how "God say, join". How is possible that all those wise men in WTJWorg did not know what these verses instructed them to do from first minute?  
They showed to the World again, It is all about Money! They CHOSE money instead principle; Let your Yes be Yes, and your No be No. ..............For whatever is more than these is from the evil one. Mat 5 37

It was still a CHOICE, just as it was a CHOICE not to cooperate with the redress scheme to begin with.  Obviously, money is more important than reaching out to help the victims.

Yeah. He said it in a very placating soothing way, like if he was patting a child on the head. I thought, wow, Satan sure knows how to lull people into "blissful ignorance".