Pudgy

Srecko Sostar’s premise was ONLY about baptisms at a very young age. 
As usual, BTK et al, your train has jumped the tracks and headed off as wreckage into the woods. 
Your agenda is interfering with your comprehension and attention span.
”WDS - The Sword That Cuts Both Ways”.

…. It would help if things that were quoted verbatim were inside quotation marks   “___”. 
It should not be a capital offense if this basic rule is disregarded ….
…. if it’s a first time.

Most everything is “beyond you” George, because you are hung up on your agenda, when the thread is about the appropriateness of JW customs, traditions, and POLICIES OF BAPTISMS.
Why don’t you start your OWN thread, and see what kind of response you get?
See how many people respond to your diversionary agenda defending the indefensible.
—————————————————-—-
 
 

You crack me up!
They are YOUR SOCK PUPPETS!

Since it seems that (Pudgy) is once again starting the year by defending apostate views, just as he has been doing for about a decade now, I wonder what the difference is when statements in quotes are manipulated to misrepresent the facts.
What sets "danger" apart from "spiritual maturity"? What is it about ex-witness Srecko post that escapes your understanding?
Pudgy, please enlighten us: which path would you suggest Christian children should follow while navigating this harsh world? It is high time you took responsibility for your conduct. Do you believe that parents have no responsibility in ensuring their children are raised properly? Shouldn't parents educate their children about the dangers of the world?
Shouldn't spiritual leaders guide Christian children to obey God, instead of leaving it solely to parents? This goes against Jesus's instructions and guidance. What wisdom do you aim to impart?

…. and is it “flagrant misconduct” to analyze what someone has stated publically?
Explain THAT!

What part did he distort?
It looks like STRAIGHT QUOTES from Watchtower publications.
Again …. what part did he distort?

For years I have been thinking about a large chest tattoo, about the size of a Hyundai steering wheel, A red heart edged in lace, with an arrow through it, with flowing script “Mammy! From Alabammy! Put on some Eggs and Hammy! And don’t Flim Flammy! - Mammy!”,  …. but it would require my nipples for punctuation…..

I look at it more that brothers are gentlemen and perform that task as a service to others including sisters. Like opening doors etc. 

This seems to be relevant only to people who are spiritually immature and believe they are above God's laws. I don't think former witnesses have the authority to dictate God's commands for this point to be considered by true witnesses.
If you can demonstrate that the rule suggested by the GB was truly exclusive to them and not a mere attempt to prioritize appearance on a global scale, then your perspective will become coherent.

Related to the beard issue is the issue of tattoos on the body. The Law of Moses forbade the Jews from tattooing. But, JWs do not care about the Mosaic Law to such an extent that its rules would guide them through today's life. JWs today tend to adapt the Bible's permissions and prohibitions to fit their circumstances.
Although I am not a supporter of tattoos, it will be a new experience to observe how GB will regulate this segment of the free will of its members, when it becomes so current that it captures GB's attention.

The GB has with prayerful consideration decided that the admonition that a woman’s head be covered when preaching or praying needs modification.

It is to be assumed that members do not need to question their elders for every dispute or ambiguity, because then the elders go to Bethel and Bethel to HQ for answers.
On the other hand, people in positions of power, and ultimately GB, should stop with the idea that they are "guardians of doctrine" for banal things like beards.
Consequently, everyone in the JW organization bears responsibility for the immaturity that prevails among the believers.
I have nothing against neatness.
This fact shows the senselessness of striving for rules and religious doctrines and instructions presented by GB. 

If only a lesson was to be learned from it.

Perhaps I have been sucker punched, but the last 2024 photo I posted came from the JW.org website. It’s a straight screenshot of the Feb. 2024 WT. 
In my search for the April 29, May 5, 2017 WT issue to check, I screwed up. 
My apologies … still checking …..
 

THIS is what I found in the February 2017 Digital JW.org files Watchtower.  
It looks like I have been bamboozled … again, my apologies to all. 
Thanks Tom for the well deserved criticism.

Quote from the article below:
"My test is politics and business. When businessmen and politicians* adopt beards, we know we are in a true beard movement.”
*Add Jehovah's Witnesses.
 
https://www.truefittandhill.com/blogs/journal/history-of-beards-and-facial-hair

I am glad you challenged me.   I am embarressed I don’t have a ready answer. I will search for it.

Not that I would challenge you on this, but it would be better if you would point to the previous publication. Yes I see the 2024 one with the two new brothers. Where is the previous one you claim was photoshopped over? Unless you can point to it, you can easily be portrayed as the dupe with the mind of a goldfish.

HahaHAHha!
It looks like the Dilbert cartoon was spot on!
Perhaps George88, you could explain the following photo which has been used in previous publications, where non-person Anthony (tight pants Tony) Morrison is shown at the GB table (really great photo, by the way…. lighting, composition, posing etc. ….) which is in the February 2024 Watchtower but a NEW Governing Body Member has been photoshopped in where the nuanced theme throughout is that the entire Brotherhood has the collective memory of a goldfish.
 

I think everybody here knows that, only God can bestow the Holy Spirit, what we are really analyzing is the silly excuses that for 80+ years were given to discriminate against beards.
It is a well known phenomenon that if you want to exercise control over people, keep them off balance with authoratative false premises, enforced  with arbitrary use of power, and peer pressure.
Hypnosis by grinding them down into numbness with 18 paragraphs when one will do.

Thank you for once again confirming my point. Is the individual you're attempting to equate me with more offensive than you and your alias Matthew? Perhaps we should refer to you as "pudgy mcnasty"? Interesting!

The people here tolerate nastiness, except from YOUR group?
Would that group you would like to be vile and nasty without repercussions be Wally McNasty and all his nasty pop-up clones, sock puppets and doppelgängers?
Hmmmmm?

Thank you for proving my point that people here tolerate nastiness from everyone except a selected group. 

that is a very important point…… Here in the United States people think that the Constitution gives or takes away freedoms and liberties. It does not. What it does is guarantees by law the freedoms that we as people have naturally because we are humans, and God has allowed us these freedoms and liberties.
The Constitution  identifies natural rights and protections, but it not create them or “give” them to us.