BTK59

18 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Their choice of clothing was fig leaves. So, very primitive and unworthy of a "perfect mind", but hey, they were in a panic so they took the first thing they could get their hands on.

Once God had taken notice, and you have confirmed it, it becomes a matter of perception. The fig leaves have served their purpose well by covering their nakedness, as they had discovered.

22 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

But God had a stable mind that was not influenced by anger or disappointment. He also showed fashion awareness as he gave them a very nice leather set so they wouldn't embarrass him with their looks in that world outside of Paradise. lol

As I mentioned, you can focus on sequencing and accessories for the garden as you prefer after the exit. The issue with this argument is that it indicates the speculated moment of Adam and Eve's expulsion from the Garden. Regarding God's disappointment, it is quite significant that a cherub was placed at the entrance to prevent the first pair from returning. This is a clear indication of the extent of disappointment.

41 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

n your opinion, what is literal and what is symbolic in Genesis? The record of Moses? Or a translation?

Ah, now we will still look at the text in Genesis as a symbolic and not a literal description of what was happening?
Excellent. That suits me too. I will also manage in such a view of the description in Genesis. Then we can also question the "tree of life", right? Was it a literal or symbolic "tree"?

For sure, Genesis 3:7,  talks about when they spoke to God. Now, Genesis 3:21, not so much. Why? It's the point of expulsion. If we were to consider the circumstances leading up to the departure, it could be argued that God would have had to sacrifice part of his creation to facilitate that. What message would have been sent to the realm of angels? Satan's corruption of his creation was already unacceptable, but murdering within the garden would have been a step too far. According to other sources, Adam and Eve obtained sheep skins "following" their expulsion, through lions feasting on sheep. In that case, it was the animals that did the killing, not God. This occurred outside the garden where imperfection had already started to spread.

"The tree of knowledge held both concrete and abstract significance.". It bore real fruit and became the "first" commandment of God to humanity, demanding obedience.

3 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

That's true, I do not believe I know better than the lexicons. I was merely pointing out that you had presented a point that was pretty much the opposite of what that lexicon was saying.

Your statement is still incorrect, as I have accurately illustrated its intended meaning. You may not want it in order to create a misleading perception on your behalf.

But, that's the nature of the beast here, isn't it?

7 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

That's called "projection." Since I didn't assume a literal translation, I only assumed that you wanted to present the meanings given in the lexicon. And you were the one saying the opposite about outside vs inside the garden, but to others here, not me.

You are the one projecting. I provided an accurate interpretation, whether it meets your approval or not. It's of no consequence to me. Tunic and Linen can be used inside the garden, and animal skin outside the garden after the expulsion. So, the only one creating confusion is you.

15 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I am not making any kind of point about inside vs outside the garden. It was pointed out to you that the verse comes just before they were expelled,

Before being expelled, Adam and Eve had already clothed themselves, but this fact was perhaps not fully grasped by everyone here. This passage serves as a compelling and reflective commentary on the events that occurred after their departure.

However, everyone is free to accept their own interpretation of scripture.

22 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

The expression "passages as suitable for consumption" reminds me of the joke about the goat that gets into a movie "projection" studio and eats up all the rolls of film. Another goat asks him how he liked it. So the first goat said it was OK but the book was better.   

LOL! In some cases, that goat would be correct, especially when we have other references to consider. I guess that goat would say, more food for thought.

24 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Might be too late for that; because you already quoted the lexicon here and I doubt that ANY current reader here with the exception of George88, Alphonse, and their ilk read it the way you did. 

 

Your consistent dishonesty and lack of sincerity are evident once again, along with your usual inaccuracy. Your attempt to pass as a Jehovah's Witness is quite a stretch, given your track record.

If there are any doubts regarding my use of "AI" with your use of illustrations to present AI mistakes, let me clarify. There are moments when thoughts are written spontaneously, and as one idea develops, another thought may arise. To simplify, I will write in the manner that feels most natural to me, and you are free to make decisions based on what you think is best for you. If you need to wait to respond in order to seem intelligent, you are only fooling yourselves, thanks.

2 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Wrong. They are inside Garden and have conversation  with God inside Eden. Maybe the problem is in Moses' writing?

What's wrong is your comprehension, lol!

What were they wearing when they were talking to God?

5 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

In Eden, God teaches them a lesson about disobedience, prophesies trouble, dresses them in animal skins, drives them out, and sets guards at the entrance to Eden.

No, I don't struggle with reading the words in red. I simply enjoy contemplating. It is when people rely on a literal translation without grasping the context and significance that they end up going in endless circles.

Consider the contrast between tunic and linen versus animal skins within the garden from a literal perspective. Delve into the concept of purity in this context. Once outside the garden, feel free to let loose and be uninhibited.
I suggest delving into additional sources to gain a deeper understanding of your argument. The rest of the scripture comes into play after the garden, but some aspects are not applicable until after Noah received instructions. It's important to avoid generalizing and instead consider each aspect individually.

Now on your other post Srecko, after reflecting on the consequences of disobedience being immediate for man, what is the more probable course to consider, once Adam and Eve had managed to clothe themselves? Should we believe God would clothe them again inside the garden, overlapping their outerwear?

Some older illustrations depict Adam and Eve clothed in linen, while very few, show them with fig leaves. One should consider this as a matter of common decency.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

You refer to Genesis chapter 3, and you don't read it. So are you a privileged person who needs to be shown every Bible verse.

Srecko, I consider myself fortunate to be able to comprehend the teachings of the Bible without imposing my own viewpoints upon them. This is where discernment, reasoning, and wisdom play a crucial role. Without it, there's no point in even trying.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

So first of all, Genesis 3:7: "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that they were naked. So they sewed fig leaves together and made loin coverings for themselves."
Here, Adam and Eve, not knowing or being able to do otherwise, tore the leaves from the fig tree and hid their body parts, which they considered to be shameful. Text says they were "loin".

Indeed, the leaves were carefully arranged to ensure they felt adequately concealed and protected. It's not hard to believe that's how they left the garden. After the expulsion, feel free to unleash your wildest imagination with an abundance of animal skins.

That being said, do not indulge in wild fantasies about Adam and Eve feasting on meat, particularly "carrion" as previously suggested in this thread or another one by the same person who now denies it. I cannot comprehend the distinction between "spoiled meat" and "carrion," both referring to the putrefied state of meat. Nevertheless, it is a perplexing matter.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

What is "loin"?

Perhaps it would be wise to reconsider this particular choice, haha!

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I will make a brief observation here. Why does WTJWorg show in its illustrations that God covered not only Eve's loins but also her breasts (with "animal skin") when the term used in the Bible refers only to the lower part of the body?

Adam and Eve frequently journeyed back to the entrance of the majestic garden. Assuming that they were in the garden with a Cherub wielding a fiery sword in the background would be unwise. Should the observer believe they are being escorted out by the angel in the distance or are they just being denied entry from afar? I believe fear would be a factor. Once again, outside the garden, go crazy with animals skins. Use accessories, bling, whatever makes you happy.

2 hours ago, Many Miles said:

I've not spoken of eating "spoiled meat." That is a red herring you keep interjecting for your own reasons.

Are you retracting your previous position on "carrion"? It seems like playing games is a necessity for you.

I refuse to entertain any more foolishness from you. I am blocking your comments because it seems that you lack sincerity in your intentions.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This is completely wrong, Billy. Before I realized how you might have made the mistake, I thought you were attempting satire, @BTK59, but that would be quite a stretch from the @BillyTheKid-55  and previous B.T.K.s we've all come to know and love on this forum. 

I see why you would perceive it that way, especially considering the numerous misconceptions you have. So, I won't accept your assessment. It's highly unlikely that you believe you know better than the lexicons. However, what does it matter if you think about @BillyTheKid-55, as if it should mean something to me.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I'm assuming this could have been an innocent mistake, probably because you saw: "(Genesis 3:21) . . .And Jehovah God made long garments from skins . . ." and you looked up the wrong word. You appear to have looked up the Bible lexicon word(s) for "garment[s]" instead of "skin[s]."

Wrong! I mean specifically inside the garden, not outside. The mistake you perceive in me is actually your own mistake in assuming a literal translation.

Adam and Eve were the ones who proactively decided to cover themselves with fig leaves, even before God intervened. The abstract on Genesis 3:21 would have been written after Adam and Eve were expelled. Make sure to read the Bible accurately and with care.

There are numerous non-conventional books that challenge the validity of your perspective. After the expulsion, I don't have any concerns about wearing animal skins, as Adam and Eve were the first to do so, and according to other sources, they were "sheep" skins obtained from animals killed by lions. Once again, it refers to a deceased animal, not for food but to use its skin as clothing.

Therefore, it would be incorrect to consider those passages as suitable for consumption, as there is no mention of animals being included in the sources for consumption. 

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

As an aside, and in line with the Watchtower's comments just quoted, how "savage" do you think it would have been for God to clothe them with animal skins, and yet the same God, who does not change, demanded that if His priests were vegetarian, they would have to be disfellowshipped or perhaps even put to death. In fact, even for the average Hebrew, they MUST eat meat by God's command:

How can we successfully implement this within an ideal setting? God was still in control, not man. Therefore, any thoughts we have about imperfection within the garden hold no significance.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Because Friberg said a "garment" could be made not necessarily of linen but also of skins, you are apparently concluding that these particular garments in Genesis 3 must not have been from skin but could have been from linen. By that fallacious reasoning, if Friberg had said that garments were not necessarily made from frilly lace but also from skin, you could have concluded that Jehovah made those garments from frilly lace. 

Visitors should refrain from endorsing your perspective. They need to use their own judgment and critical thinking to correctly interpret a lexicon. For the same reason, they should not rely on your use of Strongs Concordance or JPS, Greene, without understanding those lexicons. As I mentioned, they have a hindsight view, as you are demonstrating with all your posted examples that would not be applicable "inside" the garden or before the flood, until Noah's instruction. The Strongs concordance can only be applied after certain conditions are met.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Actually, it's pretty simple when you look up the corerct word used in Genesis 3:21:

You just need to learn where to put it into practice.

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Let's keep in mind that the whole episode of sinning and talking and getting leather clothing takes place within the confines of the Garden of Eden. Only when God had finished talking with them and provided them with adequate clothing did He drive them out of the Garden.

Lets, not.

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

So the fact that they sinned within the confines of the Garden and were given leather clothing within the confines/boundaries of the Garden speaks for itself and disproves your remark to Many Miles.

To start, it's crucial to understand that God provided clothing for Adam and Eve as they left the garden, marking their expulsion. You're suggesting that Adam and Eve remained in the garden with clothing, but you'd need to provide evidence from Genesis 3 to support this.

Then you need to clarify the word "skin" to specifically refer to "animal skin." The commonly employed term in the lexicon is "tunic." This corresponds with another term, "linen."

Do you understand the definition of either word?
A tunic is a garment for the body, usually simple in style, reaching from the shoulders to a length somewhere between the hips and the knees. 
a: cloth made of flax and noted for its strength, coolness, and luster
b: thread or yarn spun from flax
2: clothing or household articles made of linen cloth or similar fabric
3: paper made from linen fibers or with a linen finish

Therefore, God would NOT have resorted to a savage deed to cover an otherwise flawless couple in the garden with your presumed animal skin. 

Friberg, Analytical Greek Lexicon

[Fri] χιτών, ῶνος, ὁ tunic, an undergarment worn next to the skin by both men and women, a sleeveless shirt reaching below the knees; more generally clothing, garment; plural clothes

כֻּתֳּנֹת & כָּתְנֹת Ex 3927, cs. כָּתְנוֹת, sf. כֻּתֳּנֹתָם: long shirt-like (under-)garment Gn 373 (« passîm); not nec. of linen; of skin Gn 321; for women 2S 1318f; for priests Ex 284. (pg 167)

Another concept to contemplate is "being covered in righteousness." This idea is reinforced when considering the notion of a paradise, a perfect garden. Did God clothe the pair within the garden or outside as they were exiting the garden?

No one here has presented a convincing argument for "animal skin" inside the garden.

Genesis 3 simply suggests that there was a covering over their "skin," but it really doesn't imply animal skin if we use the original language in present tense. People should learn to understand the bible. God had the option to create a covering from vegetation, tree bark, and other materials. They might have resorted to using animal skins after being expelled. With that understanding in mind, it becomes straightforward to interpret the message conveyed in Genesis 3:7.

NAS  Genesis 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings. (Gen. 3:7 NAS)

That's why the interpretations of biblical definitions by "Strongs" can be misleading at times. The Strong's concordance relies on terminology that comes after the events, instead of using terminology from before.

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

The assumption you made that getting clothes is related to the act of sin is only partially acceptable.

I have witnessed individuals running in the nude in modern society. I fail to perceive the essence of your message.

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Because nowhere is it explicitly said that people will remain naked forever or that they will dig in the garden with fingers instead of hoes.

What if humans had never learned the art of cultivating the land? Would we really be engaged in this argument?

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Climate change is also certain. So they would need clothes and a roof over their heads, and that again changes the way of life and has nothing to do with the status of perfection. Because both snow and ice is perfection that comes from God, too.

What if humanity had never learned to pollute or harm the earth without the influence of Satan? Where would humanity be now?

4 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Edible meat is the appropriate description for biological food, just as edible fruit or vegetation is the appropriate depiction of botanical food. I've not suggested eating inedible meat.

Clean meat is equally suitable, unless you can provide evidence of the consumption of spoiled meat before the flood. I'm still waiting.

4 hours ago, Many Miles said:

I have no concrete evidence confirming Adam and Eve consumed water in the garden. Does this mean Adam and Eve were prohibited from eating water?

Before we engage in the customary mind games of JWI and "Pudgy," let's talk about meat, or have we now shifted the conversion like Srecko?

4 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Like humans were given dominion over all the earth, they were also given dominion of all the animals hence, though not vegetation, this dominion is what gave them permission to eat meat unless told not to do so. They weren't.

Are you suggesting that what you said about Dominion is not what you actually stated? Which is it? However, it would be inaccurate to believe that God permitted killing within the Garden. In the unlikely event that an animal did pass away, it would undoubtedly have been respectfully buried, as was customary in later times.

Let's refrain from attributing negative intentions to God's words within the Garden. Satan was the sole negative presence within the Garden.

4 hours ago, Many Miles said:

"And Jehovah God proceeded to make long garments of skin for Adam and for his wife and to clothe them." (Ref: Genesis) 

After they sinned. They were also expelled from the Garden because of it. What skins did God provide when they were still perfect?

4 hours ago, Many Miles said:

"...like unreasoning animals born naturally to be caught and destroyed..." (Ref: Peter)

This evidence does not demonstrate anything about how to handle perfect beings inside the garden. Try again.

4 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Animals were created to live and die. Dead animal carcasses don't just disappear. Dead animal carcasses are decomposed, metabolized and thus returned to the earth. This is a vital part of earth's created ecosystem. Natural decomposition after death includes other creatures eating the bodily components of that dead flesh resulting in its metabolism. Animal flesh was always a food in Eden and outside Eden.

Please provide more clarity in your explanation by distinguishing between the optics inside and outside the garden.

To be rational inside the garden, you must provide evidence to support your thoughts.

4 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Genesis 6:21 says what it says. I can't change that. Meat of animals has been a sort of food since creation of animals. The text of Genesis 1:29 does not present a prohibition against eating things that are edible other than vegetation. It only states a permission to eat vegetation. Lack of a specific permission does not present a prohibition. Genesis 1:29 is no more a prohibition against eating meat than it is a prohibition against eating milk or water.

You are simply complicating the matter. I hope that those reading your comments aren't persuaded by what you are promoting. You are distorting the meaning of both excerpts to fit your own agenda, and nothing more.

We are currently tending to the garden that is exempt from the restrictions found in Genesis 6:21 and are continuing to follow the guidelines set in Genesis 1:29, which also applied to Noah and the Ark.

I'm not implying that evil disappeared after the garden, as we have proof of that with Caine. I believe there was likely even cannibalism among the inhabitants, especially when the Nephilim were around. How many people do you think made it inside the Ark? That is the important point to consider. By God's command, Noah would have accepted whatever nourishment that was still applicable with Genesis 1:29 for his family and the animals. If you fail to provide evidence to support your unfounded assertions, they will remain as mere baseless claims.

4 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Maybe the question you should ask and answer is: Why would God have specifically given Noah permission to kill and eat animals as food after the flood when animal flesh had been a sort of food eaten since creation? There is an answer, and it's pretty simple and straightforward.

I do not engage in irrational thinking that contradicts all the good that comes from creation, unless you also believe that Satan is good.

My response is clear and supported by reasoning to avoid misinterpretation and confusion.

I completely agree. Many people here distort scripture to suit their own desires and interpretations. It's comforting to know that God will judge those who feign and uphold incorrect theology, especially when they can't prove otherwise. 

13 hours ago, Many Miles said:

No need for "evil intent" or "wicked actions" because animals have always died and the consumption of resulting dead flesh would be according to the design harmony of nature's ecosystem created by God. Creation declares that by creative act animal flesh has been a sort of food from the very beginning.

Could you provide evidence to support this within the context of the garden? The ecosystem of nature was certainly different beyond the garden, but I am specifically speaking about the ecosystem within the garden. However, your argument fails to demonstrate how the creative act of consuming animal flesh took place within the garden.

Even before the flood, the principle set forth in Genesis 1:29 remained applicable to both humans and animals. Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, those provisions within the ark were undoubtedly present. I am not referring to the language that was received "following" the flood.

13 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Genesis 6:21 speaks to whatever was available and used as food at any given time. In the case of this discussion's context, animal flesh. At the pre-flood period of Genesis 6:21 the sole forbidden food item was the tree of knowledge. Since creation animal flesh has been a sort of food eaten, both inside and outside the garden.

How does Genesis 6:21 apply to the provisions inside the ark, considering that Genesis 1:29 would still be relevant for inside the ark due to the pre-flood conditions and the lack of additional accommodations for food after Genesis 9 for Noah?

12 hours ago, Many Miles said:

I indicated no such thing. God gave humans dominion over animals. We know humans were consumers of animal flesh. God himself set the example by providing animal flesh as clothing for humans, which made humans consumers of animal flesh. That is to say, humans made use of animal flesh for their own need.

I think you might not fully comprehend your own post. After Noah and Moses, they were consumers of meat, but not rotten meat - they consumed clean meat. Unless there is concrete evidence confirming that Adam and Eve consumed meat within the garden, which is the focal point of my current discussion, this argument remains unproven. The same can be said about the clothing within the garden, where Adam and Eve only became aware of their nudity after tasting the forbidden fruit. God did not give them skins, unless you and your deceitful friend "pudgy" can prove otherwise while in the garden.

As imperfect humans, the idea of 9 billion broiler chickens may seem plausible, but considering the perfection of the garden's inhabitants, it may not be appropriate to apply the same calculation.

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

I disagree that God didn't mention consumption of meat to humans. It may not be explicitly stated in recorded text, but it is stated by implication. By giving humans dominion of animals (Gen 1:26-39) God gave humans permission to use them as they needed or wanted, which would included eating them if they needed or wanted to. As it turns out, humans did use animals for their needs, including transplanting animal flesh onto their own flesh. In this context, what's the difference between putting animal flesh onto one's flesh versus putting flesh into one's flesh?

I disagree with your understanding of the passage you cited. "Subduing" the creators of the land should not be seen as a justified course of action for exploitation. As you indicated, it is about having dominion over them as caretakers who have no intention of using them for consumption. As you can see, the passage you mentioned uses the same language of food for the animal kingdom.

Therefore, God's intention for the garden was to have humans and animals live a harmonious life. For that to occur, no evil intent would have been allowed to enter the garden and corrupt the desires of humans and animals, leading to wicked actions such as consuming flesh.

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

We also have the text of Genesis 6:21 where God instructed Noah to gather from every sort of food eaten and use it as food for himself and the animals. This is an explicit statement and animal flesh has been a sort of food eaten since animals were created.

Does this passage discuss the inside or the outside of the garden? What is the reason for considering them as distinct subjects?

It's interesting to consider that if we follow that line of reasoning, God must have explicitly informed Adam and Eve about what was forbidden within the Garden, aside from the tree of knowledge. I guess, modern individuals could greatly benefit from having a comprehensive guide outlining the actions and behaviors that align with God's commands, or do they? It's quite amusing how God instructed the first couple to freely enjoy the edible fruits and vegetation. In my opinion, that instruction was actually quite explicit, as it made no mention of consuming meat, nor did God suggest it to them.

People often try to rationalize their irrational thoughts regarding the time of Noah and Moses. In Leviticus 17:14, it is stated that the life of the flesh resides in the blood, which would be considered precious to God. During those times, the Israelites had a specific ritual of purity that they had to follow for God's acceptance. The concept of defilement would have played a significant role in the minds of Noah, Moses, and Preist as emphasized in Deuteronomy 12:23.

All those facts were essential for a priest to comprehensively grasp their duties under God. True Christians should also embrace the same understanding, distinguishing themselves from those who forsake the true purpose and mistakenly consider themselves Christian. This principle is underscored in Ezekiel 3:18 and Hebrews 9:22.
What is the true significance of Matthew 5:21, regarding the act of causing bloodshed, whether by oneself or another?
True Christians do not want to defile the precious bloodshed made by Christ for us. Who among true Christians does not understand Deuteronomy 28? They should pay attention to it.

36 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Yes. I think that's correct. There are no RULES against engaging in fornication.

Could you please provide a Bible verse that confirms this belief? It is often understood that any form of sexual immorality encompasses premarital sex as well as adultery within marriage. Based on your interpretation of scripture, do witnesses think that they should disregard Paul's teachings in Galatians 5:19, along with numerous other passages that highlight the importance of avoiding sexual immorality? Are you using the word "fornication" as a way to unfairly misrepresent sexual acts? 1 Corinthians 5:1

Now the passage you just submitted that you highlighted in bold, can you also see where it states "Romans 2:12-15) . . .For all those who sinned without law will also perish without law; but all those who sinned under law will be judged by law."

Should Jehovah's Witnesses undermine this understanding, implying that it is acceptable to deny any of God's laws when we don't like them?

It appears to contradict Christ's teachings, but I look forward to your evidence on how young people can engage in sex without facing consequences under God's law.

"(James 2:8) . . .If, now, you carry out the royal law according to the scripture, “You must love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing quite well. "

What are the expectations for us, if we adhere to this text in a morally upright manner? Should we show love to our brother who has committed murder without facing the consequences of God's law? The same can be said about a neighbor. How can you show love to a neighbor who, for example, took away the most important person in your life? What if we focus just on James and set aside all other scriptural passages that condemn the act of murder? What would the answer be for Jehovah's Witnesses?

Do keep in mind that this passage in James is specifically addressing the issue of showing favoritism. 

15 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

There is no rule against fornication, there is no rule against eating blood.

I'm having a little trouble understanding this. Are there no rules against engaging in sexual relations (fornication)? In what sense are you referring to? What could possibly justify consuming rotten meat and even going so far as to ingest the blood of living or deceased animals by humans under either observation of the OT or NT?

The referenced article illustrates a particular line of thinking, showing how some might consider it, while unequivocally establishing its fallacy.

As far as I can tell by the conversation, it appears it's ok to give anyone rotten fruit. Does anyone believe that it will be accepted by everyone? 

This also raises the question of belief, pitting believers against non-believers.  In ancient times, those who rejected the laws of the Israelites freely indulged in consuming even the meat that had been offered to their gods and still had blood in it.  Did Paul claim that non-believers were free from sinning against God because they were not under any rules?

18 minutes ago, George88 said:

The humor lies with the uneducated, lol!

I also don't have any issues. The thing is, James (Pudgy) thinks, he is the only one that can insult here.

I don't object to the church being informed of the terrible crimes committed by an individual. As stated in Matthew 18, if someone refuses to acknowledge and repent privately, it is appropriate for the church to be made aware. If that individual continues to refuse to repent, they should be treated as a tax collector. In the time of the Jews, tax collectors were greatly disliked (hated). It is important for children to have a visual understanding of who is being identified as a pedophile, as it will help them to avoid such individuals. Therefore, I support this advocacy. If these people are scared for life due to their foolish position, I see no reason to stand in their way, haha!

In the United States, there is a growing concern as some individuals manage to evade the requirement of registering as sex offenders, leaving others permanently affected. However, we can remain hopeful that, over time, these issues will be properly addressed.

I guess that would mean Wally McNasty is linked to James Thomas Rook Jr, or is it Pudgy now? lol!

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

With the focus on "Remaining Confident" one might have thought this would be another article on showing confidence in Jehovah's Organization and the FDS. Not that we don't need some reminders in that regard now and then, but this did NOT focus on the leaders, it focused on the "people" the "rank and file" as it were. When the leaders are mentioned it's mostly about their encouragement and example -- and the people's response. Not about the importance of obedience. 

Only those lacking integrity would hold such beliefs. True witnesses place their faith in God, as they rightfully should. It is only those of feeble conviction who entertain such thoughts. Therefore, there is no reason to address the matter of leaders whom the closed club finds objectionable.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

One thing I thought about first was how Babylonian Exile was presented as a punishment, just as the destruction of the Temple and removal from their land was a punishment. Still it was better than death, and Jeremiah had warned his countrymen that they should put themselves under the Babylonian yoke for safety because this destruction/devastation/desolation was coming no matter what.

Yet, historically, it turned out pretty well for a lot (most?) of the Jews who were taken captive. They did well for themselves. Started businesses, etc. And when it came time to leave, they didn't want to go, mostly because (evidently) they were doing fine economically and the move would be an economic hardship:

Could you clarify why you are suggesting two unrelated topics? One concerns God's judgment, while the other pertains to human judgment or condition. If some Jews didn't want to leave Babylon due to material wealth, this may be seen as a failure, as Christ indicated to the rich man. Could you remind me what Christ told the apostles about this? You can find it in Matthew 19:21-24.

Are you implying that witnesses would be better off rejecting the Lord and God's commands? Why would anyone support such thinking?

20 minutes ago, George88 said:

Just like your recent post about a humor site that has nothing to do with beards, it seems off-topic and irrelevant. lol!

I wonder if the image submitted by pudgy is irrelevant.

I hadn't noticed until I took a closer look. lol!

I also found where another sister took a photo of Bro. Jackson at an assembly in the Netherlands.

Certainly, the Governing Body members are becoming more relaxed. Who knows, perhaps long hair will be the next trend. In Brother Jackson's case, maybe a toupee.

Knowing that you are allergic to the truth, I anticipated receiving an irrational response.

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.