Pudgy

Yeah. Seen it. Experienced it. Reminds me of another source that would go “crickets” when asked tough questions. Once, when suggesting an in-person audience on a narrow subject, the response was “We don’t have an arrangement for that.” Too many people don’t want to answer for themselves on the spot, which they should be willing to do, if they’re convinced they’re right and do not worry about being wrong. But I don’t want to whine. I’m as imperfect as the next man. But, if I’m wrong I want to know it. 

I wouldn't hold my breath. Not saying anything about George specificially, of course, but you will find certain people on forums, including ones who love or need a few 'sock puppets' and, over time, literally 40+ different "handles" are often of the type who will never admit a mistake. I've been on this forum for about 8 years now, and someone ilke George, throughout 40 of his different names never admitted to one mistake during that entire time, and probably made hundreds of them. Someone couldn't even point out a simple typo without seeing his supposed justification for it. I suppose you could get: "I was testing you to see if you were still ignoring me." But more likely you will get ignored, and then soon notice a new name carrying on the same style of 'dialogue' and 'discussion.'

The other one is in bad shape and doesn’t work any more. The university of Missouri at Columbia and Chicago University might still have one. 
it is a ball (a 6 inch steel globe penny bank) that I had painted to be like way the Apollo astronauts photographed the earth from space. 
It hangs in mid air and you can take a stick or ruler to all sides and above and below and show that it is not attached to anything. You can even spin it and it keeps spinning on its North Pole / South Pole axis. Below the display is a sign that says “He hangs the earth upon nothing.” — Job 26:7. 
 
My dad often told the story of how some students would see it and wonder what the job number referred to.
it’s a little easier to guess how this one works. 

What infers that it is "unlikely" that, PRIOR to the flood, Noah would have eaten flesh of animals dead of natural cause so long as it was fit to eat?
When you say, Noah "possessed a pre-flood understanding of God's intentions" what are you talking about specifically? Are you suggesting pre-flood humans were FORBIDDEN from eating of something other than the tree of knowledge?
I don't see any written issuance where God suggested His intentions one way or another regarding eating the flesh of animals dead of natural cause, EXCEPT we do have the WRITTEN testimony of God telling us His creation testifies of His will, and His creation tells us that dead animal carcasses have always been eaten and metabolized by other living creatures as part of earth's natural ecosystem. Noah would unavoidably witnessed carcasses of animals dead of natural cause being eaten. What had God said that would have instructed Noah that he couldn't eat the same thing if it was fit enough to eat?
And, George, if you want me to respond you're going to have to provide concise and solid answers or else I'll just keep ignoring you.

What laws are you talking about? Mosaic Law? post-flood Noahide law? Pre-flood law? What law are you talking about?

Please cite the biblical text that supports that notion.

…. this is The Year 2023.
All of the above has less relevance than an 85 year old Hippie arguing about Woodstock.
 

Two entirely separate issues.

if you’re going to quote someone, you should put what they actually said in quotation marks at the beginning, and at the end, and reference who it was that was speaking.
This was not done for several of the above posts, and it’s very ambiguous as to who said what, and whether or not it was  a quote, a paraphrase, or someone’s opinion.
 

Two entirely separate issues.

Well, I could say that:
1. it is possible to be very (highly) educated, very rich and at the same time be a good Christian
2. it is possible to make a good deal and see a business opportunity as the president of a publishing company that deals with religious topics
 

Funny how opinions work: Based on available eidence it would have been just as easy to reword your statement above as follows and possibly be just as accurate:
It is important to highlight that Mrs. Russell harbored NO ulterior motives and was not consistently honest in certain occasions [where some might say she was dishonest]. It is HARDLY possible that she was deceived by E.C. Hennings, a hypocrite person who was fully loyal to Russell such that Russell entrusted him with the Watch Tower's work on the entire continent of Australia, and who only later began to disagree with Pastor Russell on various matters. [And those matters were primarily matters in which ALL Jehovah's Witnesses have now come to also disagree with Russell.] Something we don't need to use Sultz's book to address.
I won't repeat the defense that Russell printed for himself in the Watch Tower. It has been rather thoroughly debunked. Also, the Watchtower is currently more in line with Mrs. Russell's writings on some subjects than Mr. Russell's. And the Watchtower is currently more in line with Henninges views on the New Covenant and rejects Russell's view (that only natural Jews are in the New Covenant).
 
But you did say this:
Turns out that she wasn't a child at all during the time that Mrs Russell spoke. She was a grown woman of legal age. She was the VICE PRESIDENT OF THE WATCH TOWER SOCIETY. Russell tried to paint her as 'a little child in a short skirts/dresses sitting on his lap' to make himself appear more innocent, as if she was just a young girl jumping on papa's lap, not because anyone would have been thinking about child molestation. Otherwise Russell wouldn't have voluntarily mentioned her short skirts.
Or one could say that when an egotistical and vindictive man tries to take everything away from a woman, including her means of support, and her reputation, and her place to live, she has little choice but to take him to court.

"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark;
                       the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light."
- Plato

Dilbert 4:14
 

I came across some more interesting information that I would like to share with you.
You remember that we saw how God arranged the issue of dead animals for human consumption. He told the Israelis that they were not allowed to eat such animals, but that they could freely sell them to non-Israelis, thus commercializing the prohibition to their advantage.
However, I came across an article from the WT, October 15, 1981, which puts a negative light on that decree of God if it were to be applied today. 
Quotes (not in same order as in article):
...Finally, questions have arisen about disposing of animal carcasses that have blood in them. In Israel a person who found a carcass of an animal that died of itself could sell it to a foreigner who was not interested in keeping God’s law. (Deut. 14:21) It is noteworthy, however, that this provision was not made so that an Israelite might make a regular business of trafficking in blood or unbled meat. .........
....Accordingly, a farmer today might have to get rid of an unbled carcass, such as a cow that he found dead so that it was no longer possible to drain the blood. Or a hunter might find a dead animal in a trap. What could he do with such an unbled animal? Sell the carcass to a rendering plant? Sell the dead animal to a non-Christian who had some personal or commercial use for the flesh? The individual Christian would have to decide for himself after considering what the law of the land requires and factors such as those discussed above, including the value of having a good conscience before God and men.—Acts 24:16 -
.....Yet Christians know from the Bible that blood is not simply another biological product to be used in any way possible or profitable.
.....Do you see the point? Though they could eat neither blood nor fat, Jehovah said that they could put fat to uses other than in sacrifice. But God did not say that about blood. If blood was not put on the altar, it was to be poured out on the ground, thus returning the animal’s life to the Life-Giver.—Lev. 7:22-27.
Christians are not under the Mosaic law. (Rom. 7:6; Col. 2:13-16) We are, though, specifically commanded to “abstain . . . from blood.” And we surely ought to respect the sacredness of blood, realizing that our salvation has been made possible through the blood of Christ. (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:13, 14, 20) A Christian who deeply appreciates this does not need endless rules about what he should do with regard to commercial uses of blood.
Consider, for instance, the use of blood as fertilizer. When an Israelite hunter poured an animal’s blood out on the ground it was not in order to fertilize the soil. He was pouring it on the earth out of respect for blood’s sacredness. So, would a Christian with a similar appreciation of the significance of blood deliberately collect it from slaughtered animals so that he could use it as fertilizer? Hardly, for such commercialization of blood would not be in accord with deep respect for the life-representing value of blood.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1981770
 
We must be clear about one fact. WTJWorg equates animal blood with human blood. This is something that deserves further discussion. Because every blood prohibition mentioned in the Bible is related to animal blood and flesh.
In the past, the commercialization of blood was not prohibited. Today GB considers it something bad and non-Christian behavior. They go so far as to admonish JWs that it would be improper to feed our pets with the blood of other animals.
The GB literally interprets the commandment "to abstain from the blood" of the flesh of animals to mean that the animal must be slaughtered and that the blood must be bled, poured on the ground.
Now the problem begins when this teaching (Bible command) should be applied to human blood. Obviously, GB believes that other rules apply here. But they didn't explain why.
If all blood is to be "poured on earth", how is it possible that GB has no objection to human blood being collected and commercialized?
How is it possible that GB thinks that JWs are allowed to use blood, even some parts of blood, when that blood has come out of the body and therefore cannot be used for any purpose other than the one that God intended for it? God intended the use of blood only as a sacrifice.
Is the blood that people donate (or charge for it, anyway) a kind of act that implies some kind of sacrifice (for humanitarian reasons) for another human being?
 

Actually, I found the book “Shepherding The Flock Of God“ to be quite valuable.
I found absolutely nothing wrong with it, having read every word from cover to cover, although the part dealing about brazen conduct was creepy and a catchall for anything the Elders didn’t like, like when you confronted them with overreach.
”Brazen Conduct”. (?)
What I did not like is that it was top-secret. What I did not like is that sisters were not supposed to know of it’s existence, or touch it..
How would you feel if you were dragged into court for some traffic offense or some criminal offense and you wanted to know what you were charged with, and the court or the police said I’m sorry I’m not allowed to tell you what law you broke or to know in advance what they are, and you’re not allowed to know how the proceeding is going to go against you.
SURPRISE!!
And if you’re convicted it’s roughly the equivalent of being executed, Because you’ll be evicted from the Congregation from which is the source of life.
Secrecy ALWAYS begets tyranny! 

“Brazen Conduct” is one of those nebulous indefinite and non-defined terms that can in the hands of the inexperienced inflict TREMENDOUS damage to people with strong personalities.
Often with BRAZEN disregard for reality, or consequences.
 

“Brazen Conduct” is one of those nebulous indefinite and non-defined terms that can in the hands of the inexperienced inflict TREMENDOUS damage to people with strong personalities.
Often with BRAZEN disregard for reality, or consequences.
 

Actually, I found the book “Shepherding The Flock Of God“ to be quite valuable.
I found absolutely nothing wrong with it, having read every word from cover to cover, although the part dealing about brazen conduct was creepy and a catchall for anything the Elders didn’t like, like when you confronted them with overreach.
”Brazen Conduct”. (?)
What I did not like is that it was top-secret. What I did not like is that sisters were not supposed to know of it’s existence, or touch it..
How would you feel if you were dragged into court for some traffic offense or some criminal offense and you wanted to know what you were charged with, and the court or the police said I’m sorry I’m not allowed to tell you what law you broke or to know in advance what they are, and you’re not allowed to know how the proceeding is going to go against you.
SURPRISE!!
And if you’re convicted it’s roughly the equivalent of being executed, Because you’ll be evicted from the Congregation from which is the source of life.
Secrecy ALWAYS begets tyranny! 

Actually, I found the book “Shepherding The Flock Of God“ to be quite valuable.
I found absolutely nothing wrong with it, having read every word from cover to cover, although the part dealing about brazen conduct was creepy and a catchall for anything the Elders didn’t like, like when you confronted them with overreach.
”Brazen Conduct”. (?)
What I did not like is that it was top-secret. What I did not like is that sisters were not supposed to know of it’s existence, or touch it..
How would you feel if you were dragged into court for some traffic offense or some criminal offense and you wanted to know what you were charged with, and the court or the police said I’m sorry I’m not allowed to tell you what law you broke or to know in advance what they are, and you’re not allowed to know how the proceeding is going to go against you.
SURPRISE!!
And if you’re convicted it’s roughly the equivalent of being executed, Because you’ll be evicted from the Congregation from which is the source of life.
Secrecy ALWAYS begets tyranny! 

Actually, I found the book “Shepherding The Flock Of God“ to be quite valuable.
I found absolutely nothing wrong with it, having read every word from cover to cover, although the part dealing about brazen conduct was creepy and a catchall for anything the Elders didn’t like, like when you confronted them with overreach.
”Brazen Conduct”. (?)
What I did not like is that it was top-secret. What I did not like is that sisters were not supposed to know of it’s existence, or touch it..
How would you feel if you were dragged into court for some traffic offense or some criminal offense and you wanted to know what you were charged with, and the court or the police said I’m sorry I’m not allowed to tell you what law you broke or to know in advance what they are, and you’re not allowed to know how the proceeding is going to go against you.
SURPRISE!!
And if you’re convicted it’s roughly the equivalent of being executed, Because you’ll be evicted from the Congregation from which is the source of life.
Secrecy ALWAYS begets tyranny! 

There's that.
And, there's this.
Does this mean I have no need to respond to that?
Had I known you were Aussie, I'd have kept my work here to just a sentence or two at-a-time.

Actually, I found the book “Shepherding The Flock Of God“ to be quite valuable.
I found absolutely nothing wrong with it, having read every word from cover to cover, although the part dealing about brazen conduct was creepy and a catchall for anything the Elders didn’t like, like when you confronted them with overreach.
”Brazen Conduct”. (?)
What I did not like is that it was top-secret. What I did not like is that sisters were not supposed to know of it’s existence, or touch it..
How would you feel if you were dragged into court for some traffic offense or some criminal offense and you wanted to know what you were charged with, and the court or the police said I’m sorry I’m not allowed to tell you what law you broke or to know in advance what they are, and you’re not allowed to know how the proceeding is going to go against you.
SURPRISE!!
And if you’re convicted it’s roughly the equivalent of being executed, Because you’ll be evicted from the Congregation from which is the source of life.
Secrecy ALWAYS begets tyranny! 

It seems like if we are going to do overstepping headship, we should criticize Aaron for not going all the way and saying to God, ‘Oh, come on! After all he’s done? It was just a little loss of temper, and goodness knows, they had it coming!’
That is the sentiment most of us have to come to grips with upon reading the account. Aaron was human. Would he not have had to come to grips with it too?
The trouble with overstepping headship is that people don’t have the judgment to know when to do it. For every ‘proper’ time they do it, there are 5 improper times.

This publication is confidential. If an elder is deleted  he should turn over this publication  to be destroyed, and any electronic copies in his possession should be deleted.
The book deals with "legal" matters within the religious community. If a citizen of a country wants to know what the "legal" system/procedure of the country in which he lives looks like, he can easily get information.
What reason is there that JWs cannot get information on what the "legal" system/procedure of spiritual Paradise looks like?