Alphonse

You've missed out on a lifetime of learning and instead chosen to make a foolish rebuttal. Perhaps it's time to find a more worthwhile use of your valuable time.

Knowing that you are allergic to the truth, I anticipated receiving an irrational response.
If the website itself has published a satire addressing the distinction between fact and fiction, such as the case of Bro. Jackson's goatee that has only been claimed here by apostates and disgruntled witnesses, then that satire remains valid and relevant. If you are unable to understand the humor in your own post, it speaks volumes.   Your current objective holds no significance to me. You are behaving in a manner similar to MM. Maybe this theology from the past will enlighten you, lol!   E. Bersier, D. D.
The disciples in the storm
Let one page be quoted to me in which a trace is recognized of the moral impression which the life of Christ produces today on every sincere conscience. We believe that they never contemplated Him; that their look was never stayed on Him in an hour of justice. They had the Gospels, they had the living testimony of the Church, and the history of Jesus was not yet disfigured by the iniquities of its defenders. It does not matter, they saw Him only through the thick cloud of prejudice and hatred. It was a phantom they fought against. The Christ of Celsus and of Julian, the Christ whom anti-Christian satire mocks, is a silly Jew, whose greatness no one suspects for a moment. Our century has seen the same facts reproduced in an entirely different form. To what did that vigorous and learned attack against Christianity tend, so cleverly led by Strauss, if not to make a myth of Christ and His work; that is to say, a mere conception of the human consciousness? Now a mythical personage is a phantom and nothing more.
Robert Tuck, B.A.
Satan's proverb
II. WHAT A SATIRE THE PROVERB IS WHEN APPLIED TO MAN'S CARE OF HIS SOUL-LIFE! Yet that soul-life is the man's real and abiding life. His body-life is but a passing, transient thing. The soul-life is Divine and immortal. The body-life is akin to the life of the creatures; the soul-life is kin with God. I live. That is not the same as saying, My heart pulsates, my lungs breathe, my blood courses, my nerves thrill, my senses bring me into relation with outward things. It is equal to saying, An "I" dwells within me. That "I" is a spark struck off from the eternal fire of God. I am a spiritual being, an immortal being. Let the word life mean spiritual life, then how much will men lose rather than lose their souls? How do men reckon sacrifices when their souls are imperilled? What strange delusion can possess men that they can be careless of their priceless treasure? Why do men, who are souls, barter their heavenly birthright for a pottage of worldly pleasure? God Himself seems to wonder over so painful and so surprising a fact.
   

However, my question, "pudgy", why should I pay attention to the relentless complaints of excommunicated former members who have nothing constructive to offer except ignorance and distortions?
You desire to remove the intermediary, you are that intermediary.
Is it fair to blame Christ or the apostles if someone decides to stop identifying as a Christian or following Christianity because they no longer found it beneficial? Eventually, your dislike towards the organization should be justified.

Your assumption is still based on subjectivity.
It may appear irrational to some individuals or to certain members, but it is crucial to acknowledge that many members here have held the belief that the Governing Body (GB) has been incorrect for numerous decades. However, do these opinions hold any validity? Absolutely not. The opinions of individual members do not hold significance in the eyes of God. What truly matters to God is when something is guided by His spirit, it will be implemented regardless of anyone's perception of its correctness or incorrectness.
Therefore, the GB's misrepresented words are "so it may seem" not that it is. 
Are you implying that the Governing Body lives together around the clock? This is a new concept for me. When they come together, they indeed represent one body, just like the rest of the brotherhood. Spiritual Israel is a unified body with Christ, not composed of individuals. Are you suggesting that if a leader neglects their responsibilities, the entire brotherhood is deemed to have failed, including all members of the closed club? And even if any member, regardless of their number, disagrees with something, they will put aside their differences and seek clarity through prayer, regardless of the time it may take.
In this context, you are referring to the Governing Body's approach through impulse. The members of the Governing Body believe in patiently waiting for the guidance of God's Holy Spirit to illuminate their hearts.
Will it make a difference to those who do not comprehend?
Only from a foggy looking glass.

Once again, this is your subjective evaluation and not a rational one at that. If the Governing Body makes a personal mistake, it would be a result of an individual decision. That decision would NOT be influenced by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, you are misunderstanding the perspectives.
How can the Watchtower be blamed if a 66-year-old man chooses to distribute child porn? So, if someone defends a predator, while advocating for child sexual abuse prevention, wouldn't that person be a hypocrite? Justifying such actions with the use of callous reasoning about child sexual abuse shifts the blame to the wrong party.
When does a church leader intervene in order to expose the 66-year-old man and the defender as hypocrites under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? At times, God employs external means to confront those who have pledged loyalty but have dishonored him through disgraceful behavior in private.
You are repeating the actions of the Pharisees who targeted Jesus, searching for flaws until they fabricated one. Their hypocrisy ultimately led to the demise of Jesus. Consequently, those who refuse to comprehend the bible and instead blame others are essentially crucifying Jesus anew. Hebrews 6:6
What was the objective of the previous thread? MATURITY!

Mistakes in life are often a result of personal choices, which are distinct from errors in church policies and completely different from going against God's teachings.
As always, former members provide a contradictory illustration to provoke.

No.

… and if you really HAVE an alleged specific example, try not to obfuscate it with associated irrelevancies ….

However, opinions are an indicator of whether we are more or less sane. With that evidence, someone could start to prove this or that. lol

Did you manage to accomplish everything on your own without guidance from your parents, teachers, or schools? Furthermore, have you chosen to obey your government's legislation yourself, or were you taught about those laws?
How can you personally guarantee someone else's actions? Do you have psychic abilities or supernatural powers to predict the future? Could you have anticipated that a 66-year-old man who was baptized would later commit child abuse? Bear in mind that there are various forms of child abuse.

It appears that the only one playing games here is pudgy and his group of followers. Instead of evading discussions about your dishonest statements and diverting attention with nonsense, face the questions. The evidence indicates that a 10-year-old displays more spiritual maturity than an uneducated 76-year-old. Who granted these individuals the power to determine who possesses enough spiritual maturity to comprehend their oath before God, especially when someone who took that oath became apostate even before being dismissed for an egregious act against children?
Imagine defending someone accused of child sexual abuse while using a sock puppet to do so. It's like playing Whack-A-Mole with the truth, and the consequences are nothing short of insane.

… exactly the diversionary tactics I described in my posts … instead of just downvoting my posts … refute them!

…. give it a try  … you can use whatever Whack-A-Mole pop up screen name you want!  After two sentences everybody knows it’s YOU anyway!

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.
—————————————————-—-
 
 

@Pudgy, let's address the straightforward question in paragraph 7. The Watchtower brings up the point that not all children possess the capacity to discern when an adult is deceiving them. Undeniably, this statement holds true. How does that particular point relate to the development of spiritual maturity?
7. (a) Why may a devious abuser find it easy to fool a child, and how might the abuser do so? (b) What may be the results of such lies?
How can a young age baptism possibly be linked to a predatory mindset? Is it plausible for a 66-year-old to distribute child pornography while at the same time embracing baptized grandchildren? These two scenarios are not correlated. Are you implying that a baptized 15-year-old should be immune to danger while a baptized 30-year-old woman is not?

How would that 15-year-old spiritually mature girl know a 66-year-old male is involved with child porn when a 30-year-old doesn't?
If you're going to critique any writing, it should be done universally and not just targeted at a specific organization that you have a dislike for. The sword of criticism should be wielded impartially. First, it needs to make sense.

The actions individuals take in private are unrelated to the foresight or spirituality of others. However, they do highlight the potential risks that children may encounter, emphasizing the importance for parents to educate their children about these dangers. This responsibility is no different from that of any spiritual leader who should guide their followers according to Christ's teachings. It is essential to note that baptism does not shield anyone from exposure to such risks, nor does it guarantee anyone's safety.

That is the distortion of Srecko's post, refute it if you can.

You crack me up!
They are YOUR SOCK PUPPETS!

…. 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?

When I was 15 I received a blood transfusion. My congregation soft shunned me because they literaly were afraid I might have received the blood of a satan worshiper or ax murderer.

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.

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.

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. 

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.