Evacuated

4 hours ago, John Houston said:

Revelation 4:11 tells us that it is by Jehovah God's will that all things were created.

I like using the Revelation on this topic. It says at Rev.1:1 that it is "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him,"

Haven't seen anyone successfully wrestle with this.

On 11/3/2018 at 11:13 PM, Jesus.defender said:

Are you married and have children?

You are doing a great deal of work in rummaging through archives of old material like this.

I hope you realise that the time and effort and expense that you are putting in to this, like all the others so engaged, is actually only providing us with some entertainment? It is only fair to point this out in case you thought you were accomplishing something else more serious. But given that, carry on please.

When there is time to read through these old ideas, it provides a light diversion from the more serious business of living, and indeed, saves some valuable time in avoiding the necessity for doing the same thing twice.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

most of the apostles were evidently unlettered (illiterate) and required second-hand "secretaries" to record their first-hand experiences and memories.

The only portion of your excellent post that I would take issue with due to the possibility of an ambiguity.

The reference is to Acts 4:13 where this description of the apostles Peter and John appears: "unlettered and ordinary". The use of the word agrammatoi could be understood as "illiterate" in respect of it's literal meaning  of being "without letters". But this would only be done  by someone figuratively so. To take such a line of reasoning, in the face of scholarship on the application of this word to the apostles, would be as reasonable  as applying a similar "rule" to the use of the word idiotai, (rendered ordinary), which appears in the same verse. Then we could render Luke's description of the religionists' view of Peter and John as being "illiterate idiots".

Now, this might fit the religious leaders'general perception of those outside their social circle as being "accursed", eparatos,  (am haarets elsewhere). But it has long been held that the phrase has reference to those who are "unlettered"  in the sense of not having had formal religious training in a Rabbinic school of the day. The sense of the other word rendered as "ordinary" should be understood as one not having had the level of formal professional training necessary to become a State official of the day. So in more modern mode, their words, their speech and demeanor did not reflect them to be public school (UK version) educated, university graduates with degrees in theology and social policy.  The description could apply to most of us today, but, as then,  in no way would it be a relevant assessment either of our literacy, or IQ.

Interestingly, many "highly placed, public school (UK version) educated, university graduates with degrees in theology and social policy" also require "second-hand "secretaries" to record their first-hand experiences and memories", and indeed, much else of what they produce.  ?

Is it time for this forum to close its doors?

This used to be an interesting place. Discussion on matters that are not usually found in the everyday congregational setting. Viewpoints and questions, perhaps a bit different from the norm, but for the most part enlightening. Some topics a little challenging, but some genuinely creative opinions as a rule. And some input from non-witnesses, but with an educated and stimulating perspective.

It has deteriorated this year. Perhaps that has something to do with the article prompting this thread which suggested that "An online forum is not an appropriate setting for “instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed.” (2 Tim. 2:23-25; 1 Tim. 6:3-5).

Unfortunately, the forum of late seems to have attracted a growing group of whining, whingeing, critical, sarcastic, and apparently self-centered participants, set on maligning the Jehovah's Witness Governing Body, airing their rather sad, one-sided experiences and soured perceptions, along with tired, doctrinal debates, and the tedious repetition of time-worn anecdotes on perceived congregational injustices.

Leave the doors open, these people need somewhere to offload, but maybe a change in name is in order?

Jehovah's Witnesses Public Club? Why not Jehovah's Witnesses (Dontwannabe) Public Club?

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Another question is whether Paul would have been thinking of the same set of books that we think of today.

What part would the gift of "discerning the spirits" (as some translate 1Cor.12:10) have had in Paul's evaluating the spiritual credentials of religious writings available at the time? 

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

How many JW's ever think of the fact that Paul wrote that information before the other scriptures were written and long before a Bible was composed ? 

Thanks. Now I understand your specific point.

10 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

When Paul wrote those words he didn't know about the other scriptures to follow. Nor did he know about a 'Bible' being formed

Opinion surely? We can't really state what Paul knew or didn't know on these matters, surely? He must have had some idea that there was a difference between "inspired" and non-inspired religious writings from his experience with the Hebrew Scriptures.

Probably you have a point that isn't coming across clearly to me here.

12 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Timothy was inspired

Probably Paul......

On 11/1/2018 at 6:26 AM, Jesus.defender said:

BOTH the FATHER and the SON HAVE the SAME 119 ATTRIBUTES

Thus the truth of Heb.1:3 is underscored: "He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact representation of his very being"

On 11/1/2018 at 3:01 AM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

25 MAN-YEARS of witnessing to bring one  new person into the "Truth", who will stay a lifetime

Oh, that means it takes the average publisher about 1825 years to help one person become a Jehovah's Witness.

5 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

It was cleared up in less than 20 seconds.

Reasonable extenuating circumstances. A good example.

8 hours ago, Nicole said:

improper circumstances?

Under the same roof with no one else present in the dwelling, or in the same room if someone was, and without any reasonable extenuating circumstances. The witnesses would be to the fact this had ocurred, not to necessarily whatever actions took place.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Confusing and controversial ideas and perceptions we can find about God

Like this?

De.32:22: "For my anger has kindled a firethat will burn to the depths of the Grave, and it will consume the earth and its produce and will set ablaze the foundations of mountains."

Or like this?

Pro.28:5 "Men given to badness cannot understand judgment, but those who are seeking Jehovah can understand everything."

45 minutes ago, The Librarian said:

there are questions regarding it that each one who plays chess should consider.

I remember this article well. I really welcomed it at the time. As a teenager, a close friend of mine was an avid and highly proficient chess player. He actually taught me the game, and continued to trounce me daily for a period of years. I actually did checkmate him once when his concentration was impaired, but that was never repeated. He put his success down to his superior intellect, and constantly reminded me of this, attributing my "deficiency" to genetic inheritence.

We both became witnesses, and he continued his passion. Indeed, other witnesses (including some at Bethel) who shared this passion would travel miles to play him and of course their sole purpose in that was to attempt to beat him at the game. I don't recall any succeeding in this. Then, this article came out in the Awake. I was triumphant! My suspicions of the games "evil" origins were confirmed. My feelings of inferiority faded and my damaged self image was healed. My friend was unimpressed. "It's a matter of conscience" he said. "Doesn't change the fact you're just a born loser at this". By that time I had acquired some musical skills that my friend was desiring to emulate. He, unfortunately suffering from a condition where he couldn't hear note difference, was unable play in tune although he was able to technically read music much better than me. Somehow, the balance was adjusted by this as we came to agree that chess proficiency was not the only measure of intellect or worth as a person. We are still friends, and he still plays chess.

The article in the Awake summed up (more completely than the quote above), "Surely chess is a fascinating game. But there are questions regarding it that are good for each one who plays chess to consider." 

43 minutes ago, Nicole said:

what Bible base have these instructions?

1Cor.14:40 would seem to cover any instructions on procedures in congregational matters.

45 minutes ago, Nicole said:

why not inform the elders of the new congregation about a person who could be a danger to the community? 

This doesn't seem to address the specific issue as sharing the information is not prohibited in the instruction. More relevant would be "why is legal  advice and direction required prior to sharing with another congregation information regarding those accused of child sexual abuse (established or not)?

Some, including Anglican clergymen, believe that animals only die because of Adam and Eve's rebellion and that  in the future animals will also live forever as they think they did in Eden. Some of these also believe that animals will be resurrected, regardless of the possibility of us being nose-deep in gerbils before long. They base it on Romans 8:21-22.

10 hours ago, Anna said:

And have you noticed, there is ALWAYS a green desk lamp in every movie (well almost).

This has to be the best off topic entry ever!

And have you noticed (in the movies) 

• Everyone has a black umbrella if it rains at a funeral
• People always leave car keys behind the sun shade
• Computer passwords and even government systems are always hackable in seconds or minutes
• You can nearly always park just where you need to
• Single bullets can spectacularly explode cars
• Friends, (and others) can often just walk into houses
• People are always having dreams that make them sit bolt upright in bed
• Gangs often walk four abreast in rows whether goodies or villains
• Nobody ever finishes their breakfast
• Heroes can often shoot rifles accurately one-handed, but baddies demolish walls and ceilings with automatic assault rifles
• Pedestrians always jump out of the way of reckless drivers, even if they are driving on the pavement
• Ventilation shafts are often accessible, human sized, well-lit, spotless and go anywhere you want
• People often clean their teeth without toothpaste, in fact only villains have bad teeth. And regardless of overall dirty appearance, goodie's teeth are perfectly white and dentally manicured.
• News reports about you always start as soon as you turn on the TV, even though someone told you it was on already

On 7/11/2018 at 11:29 PM, Jack Ryan said:

Funny how that reflects the borg perfectly

Be fair, that certainly is not the general perception although it may well be your own. In Christendom probably yes, but otherwise, no.

On 2/28/2016 at 1:30 AM, The Librarian said:

Why is it that the Other Sheep are found only 3 times in the Bible and each time only AFTER the great tribulation?

Could the clue be at Rev.7:14 in that the great crowd are shown as coming out of the great tribulation? Who they actually are will not be apparent until then. Similarly with the sheep of Matt. 25, it is the judgement that qualifies them and that doesn't really become apparent until they actually survive the end.

Being concealed is only probable according to Zephaniah 2:3.

27 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

!. I am not your mate. 

Oops, misunderstanding here. We are most certainly not friends, in any sense, if you thought I was implying such. No, we are "mates" in this sense: MATE: "used to show that two people share a space" and that space is here on this forum, "forum-mates". Bit like travelling on the London Underground in the same carriage. Then we would be "tube-mates" But we probably wouldn't know each other from Adam. Hope that's clear? No offense intended.

34 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

2. I knew what i meant and so did you

If you are referring to your "almost funny" comment, I still don't know what you meant. I'll assume you mean "strange or peculiar" because no comedy is involved in the subject matter. So my comments still apply. And I'm quite happy being "funny" in any sense for that matter, so "get over it"? Not really an issue.

40 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

it's not me that started this topic, nor am I interested in continuing it.

Oh, a clarification. Well that's useful. I'll duck out of it now then,  'though I will echo @JW Insider 's comment that it is "your reaction to WTS policies that is very important for most of us to reflect on".

All the best with your search, (forum) mate. ☺️

16 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

How would you justify the comments being offered, when governments themselves don’t wish to hear the alternatives that support their mission?

Not sure I understand your question fully. I do not justify calling the police where there is no provision for proper handling of child abuse allegations.

I agree that mandatory required reporting to secular authorities would shift the burden from individual decision to standard process. This is the best case scenario. Until that happens, then the reporter, unless fully trained in the professional handling of child abuse cases , HAS to seek advice. By "professional handling" I mean fully aware of the physical and psychological aspects for the victim, AND the specific, local legal requirements.

The NSPCC which, in the UK , invites confidential disclosure of such matters will involve secular authorities "if necessary". To that end they are empowered to apply for care and supervision orders for children at risk. This means they are equipped to make "assessments". They seem to act as a buffer zone between the victim, those involved, and the rather heavier hand of the law 

Parents at all times have the right to involve the police regardless of evidence/witnesses etc if their child is alleging abuse. This becomes highly problematic if the abuser is part of the family.They can also call the NSPCC.

If elders become aware of such allegations, there are complex issues involved. The immediate physical and psychological safety of the victim, the local legal responsibilities, confidentiality issues, spiritual/judicial aspects. Unless they are fully trained in the professional handling of child abuse cases, they will HAVE to seek advice. Who from?  Some one fully cognizant in the professional handling of child abuse cases. If who they call is not, then a can of worms is opened and , voila, today's scenarios with organisational reputation too high on the list of priorities.

3 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

'incompetence in secular handling ' is almost funny in comparison to 'incompetent elders'.

Sorry mate, you can't get away with that one. There is nothing anywhere in the appaling secular or religious incompetence demonstrated in the handling of child abuse matters that even approaches "almost funny". And I'm afraid an appeal to "context" doesn't cover up this indiscreet use of language.

Your take on this runs the risk of appearing cynical, a base attempt to make some sort of debating capital at the expense of abused children. I am sure that is not the case. I can see your emotions run high on this matter so I'll just put it down to "shooting from the hip" .

Might be better in future to wait a bit longer than 10 minutes to respond to something that boils your blood.

Actually, I will admit that I forgot that this topic is quite specific. I was triggered by some earlier comments and was addressing the  problem of the enormous mishandling of child abuse generally in society today. This topic is of course is  about "why John Butler left Jehovah's Witnesses" which has very much narrower focus, even though we are 27 pages in. I'll keep that in mind.  ☺️

4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

What if we said that ALL accusations would be reported directly to the Police and secular authorities. Wouldn't that make accusers think twice about making false accusations ? 

Might do for some, although looking at the calibre of some accusations, it seems unlikely that some of the (false) accusers would necessarily think much about the consequences. However I think I proposed that already as the logical process, but this is NOT what currently happens. Is this a recommendation of the secular authorities (in which i include police) currently? I think not if the NSPCC statement of intent is anything to go by. They say "if necessary", whatever that means. May well be that reporting direct to police would actually put some off. and of course confidentiality is of very high importance to victims.

4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And your point about  'incompetence in secular handling' is almost funny.

I am not sure what you mean by "almost funny". Nothing to do with child abuse is "almost funny", particularly the incompetence of secular authorities in handling abuse. As an example:    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse.

In fact, the prevalence and escalation of this crime generally is clear evidence of the failure of secular authorities (of any kind) to protect children. The IICSA you mention would not be necessary otherwise. The inquiry is working with a current (conservative) estimate of 2 million victims and survivors of child sexual abuse in the UK alone (According to the 2015–16 Crime Survey for England and Wales, 7% of people aged between 16 and 59). They acknowledge that no-one will ever know the true scale of this problem.

The media continues to rebound with reports such as:  http://www.theweek.co.uk/96222/uk-child-abuse-the-shocking-statistics-revealed. None of this is even approaching or "almost funny" in the slightest.

In the final analysis, the primary protectors of children are....parents. The principal place of safety for children is...the family. That is the starting point.

1 hour ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I believe each Elder has the freedom to determine if a crime has been committed. A judicial committee is convened for scriptural matters

This sounds like a good principle, but really the determination of a crime being acually committed is not best served by single individuals is it?

Once an allegation has been made, the matter should be taken out of individual hands. This is where the system appears to fall down in that there is insufficient clarity about what should be done next. Wouldn't it be great if the simple step was to inform the appropriate secular authorities who theoretically (Rom.13:1-4) should have the necessary resources to investigate and handle the matter. I mean, I don't inform the body of elders if my neighbour's house is on fire, or if a car hits him in front of me, even if he is a Jehovah's witness, do I?  How much more so if I suspect a crime has been/is being committed?

Unfortunately, life is not that simple. False allegations, historical allegations, media brouhaha, guilty until proven innocent, guilty even if proven innocent, weaponising of allegations*, incompetence in secular handling, etc.etc. And then there is the protection of the victim both from further abuse, and the consequences of revealing it's occurrence, (did somebody mention that?).

The only charity with statutory powers in connection with child protection in the UK is the NSPCC and it may well be a comment on the difficulties and inadequacies in the secular response to this crime in the UK in that their encouragement is to contact them, not secular authorities, with concerns regarding possible abuse. Even then they say that, as a part of their response, they share this information with children’s services as well as the police, if necessary. How is that necessity determined and why is there a need to do so?

*On the point about the weaponising of this issue by those who attack Jehovah's witnesses, TTH highlights this with an interesting comment::

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

an offender might go door to door as a Witness in search of new victims. Well, nothing is impossible, but it seems an extraordinarily difficult way to go about it. The house to house ministry is a challenge even when done for the right reasons. Isn’t there another thread here that complains about how difficult it is to find people home today? How many of them are going to be unsupervised children? How many of those children are going to be trusting of strangers? It’s ridiculous, but the former elder has swallowed it all. Why not simply hang out where children are? Volunteer at a children’s camp. Coach youth sports. Drive a school bus.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Oh dear, actually it related to scripture, but in truth I'm sure you got the point of it.

Dream on. But, not for too long I hope. ?