Pudgy

This is Great Stuff! The fact you say that in all dead seriousness is incredibly funny!
ESPECIALLY since I don’t even care if “scholars” even HAVE eyes!

Esteemed scholars and sagacious beings, including Cartoon Canines and CGI Cats ….. gather 'round as we delve into the veritable labyrinth of epistemological wonderment!
In contemplating the nature of truth and the vast expanse of subjective experience, a PROPOSITION emerges, resplendent in its audacity—namely, that every individual's opinion, irrespective of its content, bears an inherent validity that warrants our unwavering reverence.
Behold, the richness of the human condition! Amidst the tapestry of diverse perspectives, each one, a unique facet of the intellectual cosmos, imparts unto us a glimpse into the boundless realm of possibility.
For in the realm of cognition, where knowledge intertwines with perception, the emergence of truth assumes multifarious shades, akin to a kaleidoscope of intellectual brilliance.
As we navigate this intellectual expedition, we encounter the paradoxical symphony of competing viewpoints, intertwining like the cosmic dance of binary stars.
While conventional wisdom may dictate the existence of objective truth, we find solace in the inherent subjectivity of human consciousness.
It is within this realm of subjectivity that the seeds of personal truth are sown, sprouting forth like wildflowers in the fertile soil of individual introspection.
Moreover, let us not forget the art of linguistic expression! Language, that formidable tapestry of symbols, imbues our opinions with a richness that transcends mere conveyance.
Each thought, ensconced within the intricate web of lexicons, becomes a prism refracting the light of meaning. As such, within this marvelous linguistic kaleidoscope, the veracity of every opinion becomes a vibrant spectrum of authenticity.
Gentle minds, let us not dismiss the notion that in the realm of intellectual discourse, our perceptions, influenced by myriad factors such as cultural upbringing, personal experiences, and cognitive biases, shape the contours of our truth.
Thus, as we strive to comprehend the unfathomable depths of existence, it becomes apparent that to deny the legitimacy of any opinion would be tantamount to obfuscating the fundamental essence of human thought.
Therefore, in our noble pursuit of enlightenment, let us embrace the extraordinary tapestry of human consciousness, wherein every opinion, no matter its absurdity or incongruity, bequeaths upon us a morsel of wisdom, and thus, contributes to the vibrant mosaic of collective knowledge. For it is within the interplay of diverse perspectives that the grand tapestry of truth is woven, its intricacies unfolding before our awe-stricken intellects.
Thus, I submit, with the utmost aplomb, that within the boundless domain of human cognition, every opinion, without exception, assumes the sanctity of inherent rightness.
May this PROPOSITION inspire us to engage in fruitful dialogues, fostering a milieu of intellectual growth and unfettered exploration. Let us raise our voices, dear scholars, and rejoice in the splendorous notion that within the realm of ideas, all opinions are forever right!
…. brought to you by PUDGYCOIN ! … the only digital currency in the ten pound box!
 

Yeah, he should have taken the red pill.

@Allen Smith .......a little bit more on that "christian" Constantine, from a W/T: “Constantine never became a Christian,” states the encyclopedia Hidria, adding: “Eusebius of Caesarea, who wrote his biography, says that he became a Christian in the last moments of his life. This doesn’t hold water, as the day before, [Constantine] had made a sacrifice to Zeus because he also had the title Pontifex Maximus.” ...................."Constantine sensed that the “Christian” religion—albeit apostate and deeply corrupted by then—could be effectively utilized as a revitalizing and uniting force to serve his grand scheme for imperial domination. Adopting the foundations of apostate Christianity to gain support in furthering his own political ends, he decided to unify the people under one “catholic,” or universal, religion. Pagan customs and celebrations were given “Christian” names. And “Christian” clergymen were given the status, salary, and influential clout of pagan priests. Seeking religious harmony for political reasons, Constantine quickly crushed any dissenting voices, not on the grounds of doctrinal truth, but on the basis of majority acceptance. The profound dogmatic differences within the badly divided “Christian” church gave him the opportunity to intervene as a “God-sent” mediator. Through his dealings with the Donatists in North Africa and the followers of Arius in the eastern portion of the empire, he quickly discovered that persuasion was not enough to forge a solid, unified faith. It was in an attempt to resolve the Arian controversy that he convened the first ecumenical council in the history of the church."
Another couple of interesting points, also came to light in this article: under the heading, Dynastic Murders
"Under this heading, the work Istoria tou Ellinikou Ethnous (History of the Greek Nation) describes what it calls “disgusting domestic crimes that Constantine committed.” Soon after founding his dynasty, he forgot how to enjoy unexpected achievement and became aware of the dangers surrounding him. Being a suspicious person and perhaps egged on by sycophants, he first grew suspicious of his nephew Licinianus—the son of a co-Augustus he had already executed—as a possible rival. His murder was followed by the execution of Constantine’s own firstborn son, Crispus, who was dealt with by his stepmother Fausta because he seemed to be an obstruction to her own offspring’s total power.
  This action of Fausta was finally the reason for her own dramatic death. It appears that Augusta Helena, who had influence over her son Constantine until the end, was involved in this murder. The illogical emotions that often controlled Constantine also contributed to the spate of executions of many of his friends and associates. The book History of the Middle Ages concludes: “The execution—not to say murder—of his own son and his wife indicates that he was untouched by any spiritual influence in Christianity.”" (my highlights in bold type)
 

What identical false narrative are you talking about … and why are they false ?
I will be back in an hour or so to read your reply. It’s getting close to 7pm and I have to go in my back yard and rake up some invisible hay, for my invisible hippopotamus in the bath tub.

What identical false narrative are you talking about … and why are they false ?
I will be back in an hour or so to read your reply. It’s getting close to 7pm and I have to go in my back yard and rake up some invisible hay, for my invisible hippopotamus in the bath tub.

Oh sure, I’ve caught ChatGBT IN MANY errors, but when I correct it, it apologizes, and does another search, then about 95% of the time, gets it right, or very close.
Credibility is based on a track record of being right. And how many times. And about what.
And like you, it does have a left wing “woke” agenda that skews its answers according to how it’s been programmed.
 

Jesus forgave the Roman Soldiers who were torturing him to death ….. WHILE THEY WERE DOING IT.
 

Jesus forgave the Roman Soldiers who were torturing him to death ….. WHILE THEY WERE DOING IT.
 

Jesus forgave the Roman Soldiers who were torturing him to death ….. WHILE THEY WERE DOING IT.
 

Jesus forgave the Roman Soldiers who were torturing him to death ….. WHILE THEY WERE DOING IT.
 

Enlightened? You waited for Armageddon in 1914, 1925, 1940, 1975, until the end of the 20th century, until the end of the 1914 generation, until the end of the overlapping generation. You said that the vaccine is prohibited, then it is allowed, that organ transplantation is prohibited then allowed, blood transfusion is allowed, then it is prohibited, that blood fractions are allowed, then they are not, then some are and others are not.
What are you enlightened about?
Core teachings?
You have clergy and hierarchy like the Catholic Church. And you seek the same privileges as the religions of "Babylon the Great", so called. And you ask for that privileges from the political powers that you say are under the power of Satan. Enlightenment? Or maybe Hypocrisy? Opportunism?

Whoaaaa!
A downvote!
using your criteria, does that mean we are engaged?
(…. flutters eyelashes and looks coy ….)

…. thank you for permission to hold onto my beliefs.
And here I thought you were going to try, try, try to strip me of any right to communicate or think. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.  (…. does a Michael Jackson Moonwalk backwards while attempting to fake a genuflect, but trips and gets head stuck in a bucket, which is a good thing as it suppresses the laughter of sarcasm …). 
And I agree, as a practical matter, It is best to avoid any further engagement with someone who recognizes pontifical piousnesst as funny, and enjoys ripping it to shreds.
You need an easier target or a bigger audience.

Sniffing each others butt's comes in pretty handy with communicating:P

That’s what agenda driven thinking will do to you Fausto … you misunderstand everything and defend the indefensible as if everyone in the Universe is stupid, and will believe your rationalizations. After awhile you begin to believe your own explanations, not because they are true, but out of a sense of duty and loyalty to your bogus agenda, imagining that this serves God.

That’s what agenda driven thinking will do to you Fausto … you misunderstand everything and defend the indefensible as if everyone in the Universe is stupid, and will believe your rationalizations. After awhile you begin to believe your own explanations, not because they are true, but out of a sense of duty and loyalty to your bogus agenda, imagining that this serves God.

Fausto … rather than just pontificate, offer an alternate explanation that fits the facts, point by point.
It is painfully obvious that your reasoning ( and I use the term loosely) is agenda driven and not reasonable, or exhibits any common sense whatsoever.

Fausto … rather than just pontificate, offer an alternate explanation that fits the facts, point by point.
It is painfully obvious that your reasoning ( and I use the term loosely) is agenda driven and not reasonable, or exhibits any common sense whatsoever.

duhnt duhnt duhnt.....another one bites the dust!

This has nothing to do with the methods of obtaining confessions by the elders. I have only rarely heard of these methods being problematic. The spreadsheet indicates that only 58% of the alleged perpetrators made a clear confession.
I am saying only that at least 290 of those 579 reported confessions (50.1%) were not volunteered to a judicial committee due to remorse that followed soon after the sin/crime. These confessions happened most times after SEVERAL YEARS.
Imagine sitting in the same Kingdom Hall (or Book Study home) where your victim is also sitting and continuing to go on for years without ever admitting your crime. Or knowing that your crime has caused that person to leave the Organization and still not being bothered enough to confess until after an accusation is made years later and a judicial hearing is called. Imagine being in the same household pretending to be the spiritual head of the household in front of your wife and children knowing that you are abusing those same children, time after time, in some cases.
The most obvious cases where the perpetrator confessed, but not voluntarily, would be the 257 of those confessions that occurred after MULTIPLE children were abused by them. (I removed all the cases with just 1 victim or an Unclear number of victims.) With some of them, it was actually 10 or more children abused and their first abuse occurred when they were baptized publishers. For two others they began abusing when they were Ministerial Servants and still went on to abuse at least 10 victims each. With some elders, it was only after 2 or 3 or 5 or even 7 accusations that they finally confessed. Although they may have "voluntarily" confessed years later, i don't see this as a voluntary confession. No one is supposed to accept an appointment to be an elder without confessing to such crimes/sins that began after they were baptized.
With 44 alleged perpetrators where the confession was labeled "Unclear," these also had been accused of abusing MULTIPLE children. These 301 alone (257+44) )already puts us into the definition of MOST.
In all these cases the confession was about abusing at least ONE of the MULTIPLE children referred to in the accusation.
Even though this already covers enough of the numbers required to speak of MOST being involuntary there is a large number of additional cases which are based simply on the fact that there was no judicial hearing until years after the initial accusation of abuse. For these, of course, I removed those perpetrators whose first abuse was as a Non-Witness.
I should have mentioned before that I don't consider it a "voluntary" confession if a person waits years to confess it, or has continued to abuse MULTIPLE children before that confession. Even if just one child was abused, I think that waiting years until confessing at a judicial hearing (especially only after an accusation is made) doesn't count as voluntary.

So …. What happened to Tony Morris?
Can you give an executive summary in two paragraphs, with say, ten bullet points? Also in bold type so I can actually read it would be nice.
You have no idea how difficult this is on an Apple Watch.

Another curious piece of data that showed up in the analyses was that in almost every group (non-JW, baptized, ministerial servants, and elders) the average number of children involved in the accusations was close to 2 victims apiece. The highest percentage of children per perpetrator was among Ministerial Servants reported. Then Elders had almost the same ratio of children abused per Elder as non-JWs in the data. The lowest victim ratio was among Baptized JWs who were not Elders or Ministerial Servants.
Of course, this data can be complex, because several of these persons whose first accusation was as a Baptized Witness, went on to become Ministerial Servants and Elders, and some had to be deleted from their positions as Elder or MS. Same goes for alleged perpetrators we have been calling "Non-JWs" in the data. It just means that their first accusation was as a Non-Witness. Several of them also went on to become Elders and Ministerial Servants. So this fact would skew the numbers of victims per perpetrator (ratio) even higher as these perpetrators were promoted in their positions within the congregation.
Another potential skew of the data comes from the interpretation of the word "Unclear" for the number of victims. I could only equate these to ONE victim for that particular perpetrator, because we know it means "at least one." However, it is more likely that it's "Unclear" because it could not be determined whether it was 1 or 2, or 2 or 3, etc. It could possibly have been a question about whether it was: less than 10, 10, or 10+ child victims.
Also, the number of separate victims does not necessarily correlate with the seriousness of the crimes. A single victim can be molested many times over a long period by the same perpetrator, just as multiple victims can be molested many times over a long period by the same perpetrator.

Confession of sins in secret before a priest in the Catholic Church is one thing. The admission of guilt and the circumstances, details of what was and how it was, before the JW Judicial Committee is a completely different matter.
That cannot be equaled. But, WTJWorg lawyers want to try to smooth some things out to exonerate their client. GB turns a blind eye, accidentally or intentionally, to the methods their lawyers use to be able to say; "That's what the lawyers said, not us".