Dmitar

I assume you already know that I don't have any power to ban people from this forum. And I wouldn't ban anyone anyway, because I don't believe it's a good or useful thing to do. I think everyone comes to these forums for their own reasons. Mine are different from yours obviously. But I don't think I have any more right to be here than you do. I don't know the owner of the forum, and I'm not always happy with the way things go all the time, but it's not my forum, and he or she or they can run it as wished. I'm tired of it at times, but I still like to share what I learn, and learn if what I have shared has been thought about in a different way by others.
The most important thing for me is to share things in such a way that they might attract some others who are equally willing to discuss the same issues that have caused concern for me or other WItnesses, and who have found solutions or counterpoints to the specific issues raised.
I understand where you are coming from. And based on things you have said, I would agree that the easiest way to handle issues I have brought up (when you disagree) is to simply think of me as an apostate, or think of me as dishonest, or badly motivated. It's not possible for you to think of me as a brother, and I admit that it stings a bit, but I understand that I have no reason to take it personally on a forum, where I am not here in person. And I would not be able to be so honest if I were here in person, anyway. But this in no way keeps me from thinking of you as a sister, and understanding the predicament. If an apostate said any of the things I am saying, you would not need to be the least bit concerned with giving any kind of answer or response. You could merely ignore it, or simply state that you disagree. And you might even want to spit a bit of venom my way. It's probably natural.
I understand that it is my own fault if I create discomfort for some, in the same way that these questions once created discomfort for me. Some still do create a lot of discomfort for me, but I will still be honest about these issues, especially if I am going to find someone else who has found a solution that works for them, and might also work better for me.
The way I have come to see it is this: that in order to provoke an honest response I sometimes need to state the issue as honestly as I think it's possible to state it. There are many examples right here under this same topic. In a previous post here, I could have said, for example:
I don't think that Russell should be seen as having a special part in the fulfillment of Malachi 3 because I think it's possible he lied in court and it's possible he showed himself to be hypocritical and it's possible he was presumptuous and it's possible he was dishonest in other ways.
That might be a bit provocative but it would not be likely to elicit a real thought-out defense of why Russell should have a part in fulfilling Malachi 3. It just makes it more likely that someone will simply respond:
OK maybe Russell did some of those things, and maybe he didn't, so let's just give him the benefit of the doubt, and go with the WTS publications that involve Russell's work in the fulfillment of Malachi 3.
It's not that claim would have been dishonest, because I do believe "it's possible" when I spoke about those things I believed were possible. But it would be more honest if I stated my more honest belief that it's not only possible, but very true that Russell lied in court, for example. This way, I might elicit a solution from someone who actually also knows that it is true. Or a responder might show that they are just as concerned with the Bible issue in Malachi by asking for the reference about Russell. And if If they don't believe it, but also don't show any interest in the evidence, then I already know that they probably don't really care about the Bible problem involved, and have probably misunderstood it to be a sly way to take a "dig" at Russell, or relay some embarrassing history. And this will tell me something right away about the level of seriousness the person has about the Biblical issue.
And some will be expected to simply give a downvote to the very idea, or make a judgment about me that implies bringing up an issue (honestly) makes me apostate or demon-possessed. That's another way to handle the discomfort, and I can't judge them for it. It's the same way I tried to handle the same discomfort for a while. I can't take it personally for that reason. It's my own doing, since I am not trying to couch everything in easy terms here as I would do in my congregation.
And perhaps it's merely that I am the wrong kind of person to ask about such issues. Using another more common example, we would allow, or even expect an apostate to ask about the "overlapping lifespans" making up the latest definition of the generation. But if a Witness herself asks, it is considered possible evidence of apostasy, depending on how seriously they feel they need to present the question. If someone were to say, "Hey, I don't really have much of a problem with it, and I can see it going either way, but I am still a bit concerned," then we give them a pass, and say that they are probably not apostate. But what if that same person, to be more honest with others, will say, "Hey, I can't see this at all! I've looked up the Scriptures, and I think the explanation is wrong!" Now, that Witness is suspected of being or becoming an apostate merely because they are being more honest, or want their faith in things unseen to be based on evidence.
And I'm not saying that any Witness needs to respond to her question about the generation, even if they might find it necessary to down-vote her, or make a simple statement to say that it makes sense to them. For certain issues, that might even seem an appropriate response. It may be all we can do.

This is her interview.  I listened again to the first hour where she does mention the tunnels and describes the tunnel in detail, that took her to the room where she channeled.   She spoke of many people involved in the automatic writing, perhaps you will recognize those names not so obvious, I only recognize the more prominent ones.    She said her place was to channel the book of Daniel, chapters 11,12.  This woman also mentions the book "Angels And Women" and said her father would read it her when she was small.  
 The other woman, "the first woman"  who I feel may be mentally damaged because of her childhood and the pressure put upon her, has her website posted below the video – Veronica Houston.   
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-JVdBHKTtE
 

I remember from about 1962 to 1965 in the Truth many people were telling each other stories about demons, ectoplasm phantoms, and other "ghost stories", which I did not believe, but it was clear that THEY believed them, as they told them with serious rapt attention to detail.
...always relating someone elses' experiences ... never their own .... but they told the stories as if they were there.
I was warned repeatedly not to buy things at yard sales, or any used items, as they may be demon possessed, and owning any such item was inviting the demons into your home.
I am glad I spent several years in the Scouts (... before it went to hell in a hand basket), before I developed an interest in the Truth, so I was used to campfire "ghost stories" ... but the fact that most Witnesses I knew gave at least lip service to these beliefs made me wonder whether or not there was something to it.
Empirical "evidence" from such testimony slowly mounted in quantity and scope that it became clear that anything a Sister bought at a yard sale was demon possessed, but Brothers could freely buy tools and used cars without any fear whatsoever.
Later on, in slow, painful lessons, I came to realize we can be our own worst enemy.
.... and I often wonder about the specifics of the Apostle Paul's "thorn" in his side, and the fight he had within himself.
 

I have a set of about two dozen children's books where each book includes a child's imaginary friend and the interactions with that friend. I would never read these to my children, but psychologists say it is extremely common. I realized when talking to my 5 year old granddaughter at age 2 she was already talking a lot about an imaginary friend. When she was three and four  she also gave ages ranging from 5 to 25 to her dolls and stuffed animals and tells me stories about how each of them get along with each other. I don't recall anything so creative about myself or my own three children.
We had a brother from Florida/Bahamas in our congregation, the brother who handled the literature counter, and he was always telling stories about ghosts and demon possession from back home. Sometimes a crowd of young sisters would gather around the literature counter and I could correctly guess that he was telling another ghost story. But I also recognized that some of his stories were just plain old superstitions, or stories that turned out to be false, but that many people believe, such as snakes that turn themselves in a hoop and roll down hills to attack, or eat their own tails until just a snake head remains, etc. I was nearby when an elder told him to stop telling these stories, and he was defensive about how everyone should know the machinations of the Devil.
My wife and I studied with a couple who both claimed to hear demons in the house breaking dishes and whatnot. They always made a big deal about how they both heard it at the same time, and it wasn't boiler pipes, or rats, etc. (or ravens: Never Morse! Never Morse!) But it caught my attention that their attempts to call out Jehovah's name would sometimes work for only one of them, not the other, and which one was helped would sometimes be reversed. They both ended up being baptized and are still doing well, but they also told me later that at the time they were experimenting with sexual aberrations, wife-swapping, etc., and now they think it was their "guilt" talking, and maybe some drugs, too. 

It is a great nuisance, let me tell you, but it has always been. Here I am trying to do nothing but think about God and they keep batting eyes at me.

As a Christian and a lover of God and Christ, I forgive you. I forgive Tom and Thinking also.
 
 

Only the characters I have come to know who have the same attitude as you do - that compulsive hate...... there is never a balanced way in the thinking processes ....... it is never ever positive. Always the modus operadi smells foul. 
On the other hand I do not always agree with JW Insider and have accused him of other stuff but never of hate-OCD.  That is a special designation for people with specific personality traits.  So - you have that assessment wrong as well! 

Yes. The Bible says that Jesus was already bringing persons into that Kingdom, and that he made them to be a Kingdom.
(Colossians 1:13) . . .He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son,
(Revelation 1:6) . . .and he made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father. . .
But not ALL things that are "bound" by humans on earth are eternally bound in heaven, yet. Some persons in the current earthly side of the Kingdom will need to be thrown out of the Kingdom when the harvest (the conclusion) begins. So there is also the promise, the covenant, that those remaining faithful to the end will be granted entrance into the everlasting Kingdom (the heavenly portion):
(2 Peter 1:11) . . .In fact, in this way you will be richly granted entrance into the everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
(Luke 22:28-30) 28 “However, you are the ones who have stuck with me in my trials; 29 and I make a covenant with you, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my Kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge the 12 tribes of Israel.
And, yes, it should also be obvious that this can include those currently claiming to be JWs.
This is why Christians who are partakers in that Kingdom are "no part of the world" as you said, and therefore even now treated as residents of that Kingdom and aliens and temporary residents of their current nations of residence. Soon they will be permanent residents, shining like the sun, in their everlasting abode:
(1 Peter 2:4-11) . . .Coming to him as to a living stone, rejected, it is true, by men, but chosen, precious, with God, 5 YOU yourselves also as living stones are being built up a spiritual house for the purpose of a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.. . . 9 But YOU are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession, that YOU should declare abroad the excellencies” of the one that called YOU out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 For YOU were once not a people, but are now God’s people; . . .11 Beloved, I exhort YOU as aliens and temporary residents . . .
But it's not a simple matter of identifying "time." It's also the sureness of the promise, the covenant, that makes it possible to speak of the Kingdom --even the heavenly part of that Kingdom-- as already here, even though there will clearly be events in the future and final events of that Kingdom which will be outstanding, such as the time when the righteous ones shine forth.
(Ephesians 2:6, 7) . . .Moreover, he raised us up together and seated us together in the heavenly places in union with Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming systems of things he might demonstrate the surpassing riches of his undeserved kindness in his graciousness toward us in union with Christ Jesus.
When the "conclusion" [Gk: synteleia] begins, there are no more wheat and weeds growing together. This is how we know that we have not reached that "synteleia" yet. (This is not the WTS pov, of course.) Also, of course, we are still looking for fine soil, to be planted with good seed, and some are still planting, and some are still watering, and God is making good seeds (good hearts) grow. When the harvest (the conclusion) arrives, obviously there will be no more planting and watering and growing. The harvest IS the synteleia according to scripture:
(Matthew 13:39) . . .The harvest is a conclusion of a system of things, . . .
[The harvest is the synteleia (final end) of the system of things.]
So this will be understood differently if one thinks that planting and growing continue even after the harvest begins, and then that would mean that one will also have to try to give a different meaning to the word "synteleia" so that it could mean, for example, a 100+ year conclusion rather than a final, destructive end, or "end of all things." But we can know the Biblical intent of the word, because there are times when the Bible switches telos (end) and syn-telos (end of all things together) interchangeably:
(1 Peter 4:7) . . .But the end [telos] of all things has drawn close.. . .
(1 Corinthians 10:11) . . .they were written for a warning to us upon whom the ends [teloi] of the systems of things have come.
But again, just as with trying to pin an exact time on when and where the Kingdom exists in heaven vs on earth, we have a similar (purposeful) reason to also say that the final end (joint end), "ending [of all things] together" had already begun back when the last days began. That's because of the power and incontrovertability of what Jesus has already done and the sureness of that covenant promise.
(Hebrews 6:17-20) 17 In this same way, when God decided to demonstrate more clearly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, 18 in order that through two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to the refuge may have strong encouragement to take firm hold of the hope set before us. 19 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, both sure and firm, and it enters in within the curtain, 20 where a forerunner has entered in our behalf, Jesus, . . .
This may even be why Hebrews could also indicate that we were already  in the time of that "joint end" when Hebrews was written:
(Hebrews 9:26-28) . . .But now he has manifested himself once for all time at the conclusion of the systems of things to put sin away through the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is reserved for men to die once for all time, but after this a judgment, 28 so also the Christ was offered once for all time to bear the sins of many; and the second time that he appears it will be apart from sin and to those earnestly looking for him for [their] salvation.

(1 Peter 1:19, 20) . . .. 20 True, he was foreknown before the founding of the world, but he was made manifest at the end of the times for the sake of YOU
(Galatians 4:3-5) . . .. 4 But when the full limit of the time arrived, God sent forth his Son, who came to be out of a woman and who came to be under law, 5 that he might release by purchase those under law, that we, in turn, might receive the adoption as sons.
(Hebrews 1:1, 2) . . .God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets, 2 has at the end of these days [Gk, "has in the last days"] spoken to us by means of a Son. . .

It seems to me that the only reason people argue about the stake or the  cross is to enhance their own credibility about other things, reasoning that if you can prove the stake concept is correct for the cross concept is correct you have more credibility.
It doesn’t 
…… Unless of course you actually have photographs.

Just as I stated. It has become ‘all roads lead to heaven’ with him. That didn’t take long.
I’ll bet already with him Jesus has died upon a cross.

It seems you only apply the pieces you want to.
When Jesus was on earth he gave this illustration. Jesus planted the fine wheat - sons of the kingdom.  Satan sowed weeds in amongst the wheat in the time of Jesus.  Greek philosophy and pagan teachings together with those who were bringing in immorality into the congregation was already visible in the congregation in time of the apostles. The apostles wrote about this in their letters - warning brothers against the wicked.  For example: one man was removed from the congregation for sleeping with his mother.
As soon as John died t(and even before) he bad seed got a foothold in the congregation ( the bad seeds were already there) for the creation of powerful Christendom. Christen-dom is religion with political power. The creation of the Roman catholic church and its powerful leaders ruled for centuries and were responsible for the dark ages in europe.
Jesus said that they must let the true wheat and the bad seeds grow together until the time of the end. During the dominion of false Christendom many true wheat were murdered.  People such as Wycliffe, Johannes Huss - and people like them -  were burned on the stake and tortured for translating the bible.  THese could have been anointed people and part of the wheat. 
As Daniel indicates - near the time of the harvest people will start to investigate the word of god close to the establishment of the kingdom.  This happened after the secular renaissance. When the power of the church started to wane a little people started to independently research the bible.  This gave opportunity to spread the truth and the inspection of those professing to be the wheat took place as Mal 3:1-3 indicates.  The wheat was cleansed.
Jehovah had a people for his name on earth again who did not learn war any more Isaiah 2:2-4 
"Mal 3 : 17  “And they will be mine,”y says Jehovah of armies, “in the day when I produce a special property.*z I will show them compassion, just as a man shows compassion to his son who serves him.a 18  And you will again see the distinction between a righteous person and a wicked person,b between one serving God and one not serving him.”
Soon the wheat and the imitation wheat will be separated and the imitation wheat be destroyed. The "man of lawlessness" will be revealed.  For example many churches are making the new morality acceptable and the pope is pushing  the LGBTQ and UN Agenda 2030.  The harlot is riding the beast just like before but she is blatant about it and thinks she is riding like a queen ... that nothing can happen to her. Orthodox religion is standing up against the governments and getting involved in politics (also riding the beast in different way). False religion is starting to show their true colors by following political agendas - they have the mark of the beast - politics.!

Matthew 13 from v 36.
"Then after dismissing the crowds, he went into the house. His disciples came to him and said: “Explain to us the illustration of the weeds in the field.” 37  In response he said: “The sower of the fine seed is the Son of man; 38  the field is the world. As for the fine seed, these are the sons of the Kingdom, but the weeds are the sons of the wicked one, 39  and the enemy who sowed them is the Devil. The harvest is a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels. 40  Therefore, just as the weeds are collected and burned with fire, so it will be in the conclusion of the system of things. 41  The Son of man will send his angels, and they will collect out from his Kingdom all things that cause stumbling and people who practice lawlessness, 42  and they will pitch them into the fiery furnace. There is where their weeping and the gnashing of their teeth will be. 43  At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father. Let the one who has ears listen."
Does this scripture prove that the Kingdom is here on Earth right now?
41 The Son of man will send his angels, and they will collect out from his Kingdom all things that cause stumbling and people who practice lawlessness,
Could this be the removing of 'the ones causing stumbling and practicing lawlessness' within the JW Org ? and then 'the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun', those being the True Anointed ones. 
The scripture seems to make it clear that the Kingdom is here on Earth right now.

The churches are part of this world, not part of the Kingdom. Jesus said his angels will collect out FROM HIS KINGDOM, not from the world. 
The scripture I have quoted is from the NWT and it says PEOPLE who practice lawlessness. 
So where is the Kingdom and those people mentioned ? 
Remember that the Kingdom is no part of this world.
JWs presume only their religion is true and righteous. So to follow through on that from a JW viewpoint, the Kingdom must be in the JW Org. 

You are in good company.
22 “Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. 23 “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.” Luke 6:22-23

I found this quote from a Wt. when researching,
"Third, consider some of our recent refinements in understanding. For example, our clarified understanding of “the faithful and discreet slave,” published in the July 15, 2013, Watchtower, thrilled us. (Matt 24:45-47) It was explained that the faithful slave is the Governing Body, while the “domestics” are all those who are fed spiritually, whether of the anointed or of the “other sheep.” (John 10:16) What a delight it is to learn such truths and to teach them to new ones!  w15 3/15 p. 8-9
One set of scriptures apparently prove that these false prophets are the faithful and discreet slave.  How thrilling!
 
 “You have spoken arrogantly against me,” says the Lord.
“Yet you ask, ‘What have we said against you?’
14 “You have said, ‘It is futile to serve God. What do we gain by carrying out his requirements and going about like mourners before the Lord Almighty? 15 But now we call the arrogant blessed. Certainly evildoers prosper, and even when they put God to the test, they get away with it.’”
Then those who feared the Lord talked with each other, and the Lord listened and heard. A scroll of remembrance was written in his presence concerning those who feared the Lord and honored his name.
17 “On the day when I act,” says the Lord Almighty, “they will be my treasured possession. I will spare them, just as a father has compassion and spares his son who serves him. 18 And you will again see the distinction between the righteous and the wicked, between those who serve God and those who do not.  Mal 3:13-18

JWs have this habit of using David and his grave sin, as an example to excuse their leadership’s sins.  With David though, we have his documented expressions of great remorse spoken to God.  We have no expressions of remorse from any Wt. leader, only their examples of either hiding their sins, or making excuses for them.  I find it ironic that past articles in the Wt. will tell the story of a murderer being “saved” by the organization and he is received with open arms into the congregation. Wouldn't this past murderer be the example of repentance and not the example of sin?
Not so, with David.  He is usually shown up for his sins and never for his extensive documented request to God for repentance.  Likewise, the organization keeps a record of sin on all members, yet God in his mercy will forget our sins – only if we come to him in sincere repentance. 
Sinning against the Holy Spirit, the unforgiveable sin, has been committed by the organization since Rutherford, possibly before. (Matt 12:31) Ray Franz spoke truth, but he was disfellowshipped – considered dead in the eyes of God. (Luke 12:11,12; Matt 10:20) This has happened throughout  Wt’s history to anointed ones who had the Holy Spirit poured into their hearts.  Spiritual blood is on the hands of Wt’’s leadership. (Matt 23:33-36; Rev 17:3-6) Jesus spoke truth and he was killed for it, and they said he had a demon. I have been accused of the same thing here. (Matt 10:25)   It is a twisted concept that the leadership is righteous while unrepentant for their sins, yet any anointed priest who stands for truth and exposes lies, is the unrighteous one.  (Mark 3:28-30)
No, God does not consider the sins of a priest (if Russel was anointed) as forgotten, if he is never repentant before God and apologetic for the damage he has done to those whom he has taught.
No matter how much of what appears to be truth that he may have produced, he is still a bad “tree”.  (Matt 7:15-20)
 
 
https://4womaninthewilderness.blogspot.com/2013/07/what-is-worst-sin-wt-has-done.html

This would probably be a seperate topic but I'd like to hear / read you thoughts on these men above mentioned.
David, adultery and murder, premeditated it would seem.  Moses lost his temper / self control maybe ?
But tell us about  the 'sins' of the others.  They were chosen by Jesus, to do a job. 
I've often read on here that the disciples / apostles 'were just as bad', but I've never seen real examples. 
Russell maybe chose himself, then called himself righteous ??   
I see the GB in that same light. Well maybe they choose each other, but then call themselves the F&DS and say that 'God and Christ trust them'.  That's a bit like calling themselves righteous.  It seemsto follow a pattern. 
To be honest i care not about Russell in himself. I do find what you write interesting and that you do so much research. 
I find fault in the GB/ Org using Russell as part of it's history, because I think Russell would be totally adainst the JW Org. And I'm still interested in knowing more about the division, as the IBSA seems to still exist today. 
So to me the Watchtower,  JW Org or now the CCJW (whichever aka suits people) is a totally different thing to the 'religion' that Russell started. It would seem that Rutherford 'stole' the Watchtower, whether legally or not i don't know. And it would also seem that Rutherford was 'not a pleasant man'. 
Maybe Rutherford will be your next topic ?  Thank you for sharing all previous info'. Have a good day. 
 

Basically, you are right. But I'm not apologizing for what I've written, but just the way some people would be expected to over-react to it.
I can. Read about David, Moses, Peter, Paul, Barnabas, Mark, Thomas, and James with John along with "Mrs." Zebedee.  People are complicated.  We can easily find fault but we need to balance the good they have done, too.
That he was a normal, sinful man, yet probably still much better than most men. But he seems to have been smitten with self-righteousness, or even "sons of Zebedee" syndrome. We can't judge his faults and prejudices outside the times he lived in and we can't impugn his convictions and his faith, nor his love for Jehovah and Christ Jesus. We can't read his heart. When I read a most of his Biblical commentary, even the chronology commentary that I disagree with, I would guess that his heart was definitely in the right place. His motives seem generally commendable. Outside of the commentary and exegesis forced by his faulty chronology, his writing is still valid and valuable.
When he used the Watchtower in such a petty way, to publicize only his side of a two-sided argument, and print supporting letters, he was doing the very thing he had complained that Barbour had done with the Herald. When Russell also began to use the Watch Tower funds as his means of support he was doing the same thing he had complained that Barbour had done. Did this make him a hypocrite? Or did Russell just change his view on such things? Russell actually ended up giving his one-sided view about 5 or 6 (read, "most") of his earliest editorial associates in the pages of the Watch Tower. (These were often in the "Harvest Siftings.") Rutherford used the magazine in the same way against all opposers to his 1917 presidency, denouncing the opposers the "evil slave." Similarly, for Salter, Moyle and a couple of others. I'm sure some also appreciate the fact that they both had the fortitude to stand for their convictions, and protect the editorial integrity of the Watch Tower. But we can look back now and see that that it wasn't even-handed. And we probably should never expect that it could have been even-handed.
To explain more fully my view of Russell, I think it is possible to make him sound much worse than I did. But I fear, you might have been the only one interested in any of those details. And I might be over-reaching and too judgmental. I'll definitely be considered imbalanced by those who disagree with me. My point is not to denounce him, but to avoid looking back with so many rose-colored filters that we forget he was just a man, a lot like any other man. 
It's dangerous, in my opinion, to come so close to teaching that a specific man did so much that his work fulfilled a specific Bible prophecy. That's the only reason I speak up about him like this at all. 

Sorry, but i can witness how some IMPERFECT persons also sin and do not remorse. What is final point of your standpoint when evidence show only this: IMPERFECT individuals can act in two ways - to show remorse and to not show remorse. 
If Bible state that people are made in image of God.....that would mean how PERFECT individuals have same quality - to show same feelings, attitudes as IMPERFECT.
Bible stated this:   The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. Gen 6:6
 
Regret vs. Remorse - https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/stop-caretaking-the-borderline-or-narcissist/201507/regret-vs-remorse
The main difference between Remorse and Regret is that the Remorse is a advanced emotion and Regret is a negative conscious and emotional reaction to personal past acts and behaviours. - https://www.askdifference.com/remorse-vs-regret/
The Difference between Regret and Remorse - https://education.onehowto.com/article/the-difference-between-regret-and-remorse-12141.html
 

This is some proof .. for what? Things not written not exist? 

THAT .... is a very good point!

Maybe they’ll change it.
Or maybe we’ll learn to deal with the whole thing as a metaphor. (though I don’t see how)
Meanwhile, if someone starts giving me a hard time over this in the ministry, I tell them its okay to treat it as a metaphor, and on that basis, see what can they draw from it. A certain type of person almost takes that as a compliment—that you are not rubbing their nose in ‘Adam & Eve’ but you are deeming them smart enough that they can figure out a metaphor. I even briefly won over my return visit Bernard Strawman, whom everyone but me thinks is a waste of time, on this point.
I used to call people like this ones who suffer from “We are wise and learned adults, far too clever to be sold Adam and Eve. What’s next—Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck?” syndrome. But now I drop the derisiveness, which does little good anyhow, and just invite them to treat it as a metaphor. After all, science is pretty universal that Adam & Eve is for dumbbells, and we are all taught that science is the be-all and end-all. Training like that doesn’t turn around on a dime.
Sometimes when they see how well the metaphor works out they forget all about “science” and they put their “cognitive dissonance” on the shelf as something to work out later. You don’t have to know everything. It’s the antithesis of humility to think that you do—or can.
I’’m convinced the phrase “cognitive dissonance” is an appeal to our pride and overall dumbs us down. It is an idea worthy of a pamphlet, but not the volumes dedicated to it. People can’t simultaneously hold two conflicting ideas as true at the same time? Of course they can. A little humility solves the problem, a willingness to put this or that on the shelf pending more information, which may or may not come, but in the meantime, you can’t rush it. You can’t just check yourself at the door because of a few facts that don’t line up. I note how often in mathematics, proofs will commence with assuming this or that point is true, and then seeing where that assumption leads. They don’t just stop dead in their tracks because they don’t know up front whether something is true or not
When I first came across Jehovah’s Witnesses, I was astounded that here were people who actually believed in Adam and Eve. They didn’t look stupid, or if so in no greater proportion than anyone else, yet all my life I had heard that only the reddest of the rednecks believed in Adam and Eve.  I couldn’t figure it out. I decided to shelve it for future resolution. I still don’t know how certain things will align. But the answer to the ‘problem of evil,’—why a loving God would permit it, the answer to the reason for and origin of death, the coherent answer to the question of how Christ’s death could benefit us—all these things were so overwhelming, that I decided to give “science” the back seat, not the front seat it usually demands. Without Jesus as the “first Adam,” a perfect man who by holding the course, repurchased us from that first perfect man who sinned and sold us out, the question of ‘Why Jesus died from us’ devolves into a mushy and intellectually unsatisfying “because he loved us.” To be sure, the head is not everything, but neither is it nothing. 
There is some sort of chromosomal evidence that goes back about 6K years. I think @Araunaposted of it not too long ago. I haven’t looked at it closely. Maybe that represents the reconciliation of timelines that otherwise don’t reconcile. It is roundly shouted down by majority scientists today. But we ought to know by now that being shouted down by the majority means nothing. Doesn’t this entire thread establish that? Or what of @JW Insider, who takes a line contrary to almost everyone else (and i think he’s wrong on the point) and declares bad reports of the CCP overblown? Here he is shouted down, but perhaps elsewhere he is paraded around as a visionary. Anything can be spun any way, by people who may or not be disingenuous. 
The majority team gets the ball and then tilts the field so steeply as to tumble the minority team right off it.
 

Why do you spend so much energy worrying about the affairs of other people?

It wasn't me that did the blaming of their own people. Hypocrits 
I'll just place this here again. 
 
It must take a very dull or almost dead conscience to remain a JW. 

What an ironic moniker.