JW Insider

Dear @Arauna , nothing in my comments are written because of hate. Just try to openly discussing about religious practice and reasons for such beliefs and practice. 

Probably the most superficial posting here on this forum because there is no concept of historical context.   Always placing old articles and using modern laws and attitudes to  defame Jws
In South Africa the JW brothers had to constantly ask permission from the government for assemblies to allow different colours of people to mingle...... and this was in the 70s and 80s....  When a white person wanted to preach in a black suburb  he would face personal danger and visa versa -  when a black person wanted to preach in a white area he would be thrown out and the npolice called.  It was society attitudes (and in case of SA - enforced by laws) which dictated what values one could hold.
 
I grew up in the 50s in Africa.  From young  age I saw black women with breasts uncovered in the streets.... I saw a murder of a black man killing another before I was ten.   I knew about Muti- murders (witch-doctor medicine from body parts)  and I thought it was depraved...even as a child.  .  How depraved must voodoo, witch doctors etc not bave seemed to those people living  in 1902 when colonists went to Africa.  British soldiers who underestimated the black "  impi" were slaughtered in war.  Read up about it on Google -  isandlwana.  The movie "zulu"  was the stand of a small group of engineers against a portion of this army.
In 1902 JWs definitely held the wrong view of Canaans/Ham's offspring but this was corrected afterwards.  Today,  JWs in the entire world are one United nation while many other religions remain separate.  I saw many churches in USA 5 years ago where only black people attended, and many where only whites attend.  Most  white churches still believe that these are the offspring of Ham because they have not been taught the truth about the bible.  We have matured and hold Jehovahs views on race.
I joined a forum  recently as a JW.  The group wanted my views as a JW.  I was shocked to learn how racially divided USA is now and how many people hate whites just for their skin color and perceived past inustices.  Black Israelites took over the conversation and i wish to add - this is a growing trend in USA. USA has a lot of problems to deal with because they have not corrected the historical problems.  JWs have corrected historical errors.
If you want to know more about the superstitions in Africa- even amongst the educated..... I can inform you.  Latin America also have many superstitions which Catholicism has not removed.   These practices are not tolerated by JWs when members revert back to old spiritistic practices.   These JWs are corrected and unrepentent ones removed.  There was  a special booklet,  against all forms of spiritism, written which I used extensively in Africa...... and it is also used in the Caribean and south America.   The muslims are also very superstitious about the evil eye etc.  This is realities....in the world .... not fallacies. 
JWs now preach to anyone who has an ear to listen in over 1000 printed languages.  The bible is not bias but in 1902 ..... the JWs were..........which proves this point: if one allows jehovah to correct you and you follow the bible's guidance - you will get it right in the end .......and after all.... it is not the beginning that counts but the end of the race.

I'm pretty sure there was never any accusation concerning more than 3 of them out of 17 or 18 contemporary GB members at the time. (Jaracz, Greenlees, Chitty) I do not believe there was the slightest suspicion upon any of the others at the time, nor any of the current members either. Also, even if a child molestor tends to molest boys rather than girls, it is not the same as homosexuality, and this was the accusation against one of the three. Another was long rumored to be homosexual, and was ALSO accused of having been a child molestor. And the third was a man who had evidently been homosexual, but I never knew of any rumor or accusation of an underage partner.

[Part One - Just a little more background]
The Bible contains no dates, at least not anything like the dates we use today. There is no such thing as a date like 539 BC, or 607 BCE, or 29 CE, or AD 33, or 70 CE, or 1914. The only types of dates that the Bible uses are expressions like:
(Genesis 5:21-27) 21 Eʹnoch lived for 65 years and then became father to Me·thuʹse·lah. 22 After becoming father to Me·thuʹse·lah, Eʹnoch continued to walk with the true God for 300 years. And he became father to sons and daughters. 23 So all the days of Eʹnoch amounted to 365 years. 24 Eʹnoch kept walking with the true God. Then he was no more, for God took him. 25 Me·thuʹse·lah lived for 187 years and then became father to Laʹmech. 26 After becoming father to Laʹmech, Me·thuʹse·lah lived for 782 years. And he became father to sons and daughters. 27 So all the days of Me·thuʹse·lah amounted to 969 years, and then he died.
(1 Kings 15:25-34) 25 Naʹdab the son of Jer·o·boʹam became king over Israel in the second year of King Aʹsa of Judah, and he reigned over Israel for two years. 26 He kept doing what was bad in the eyes of Jehovah . . .  . . . 33  In the third year of King Aʹsa of Judah, Baʹa·sha the son of A·hiʹjah became king in Tirʹzah over all Israel and reigned for 24 years. 34  But he kept doing what was bad in the eyes of Jehovah, and he walked in the way of Jer·o·boʹam and in his sin that he caused Israel to commit.
A portion of the Bible therefore includes a chronology system, that appears to track the number of years from Adam to Noah (and the Flood). Another portion appears to track the number of years from Noah (through Shem) to Abraham. Other sections track the time from Abraham to the Exodus. Then it gets a bit murky. Even so we know we are not too many years off between the Exodus and the Judges and then to King Saul and David. There is a also a lot of information to help track the time from David through the last Judean King Zedekiah. But even these "synchronisms" between the lines of kings leaves several open questions, which can be interpreted in various ways. Of course, not long after Zedekiah and the return of the Jews from Babylon to Judea & Israel, it gets murky again. And we have no chronology to track the time from, say, Zedekiah until Jesus is born.
In other words, you could know that Methuselah was born a certain number of years after Adam was created, or even that Shem or Abraham was born a certain number of years after Adam was created. but you would still have no idea when Adam was created, or what year the Flood arrived. We also have those murky or incomplete portions. That means that we know, for example, that Jereboam's son Nadab became king over Israel in the second year of King Asa of Judah, but we don't know how long that was after Adam or Noah or Abraham.
Still, the main point is that even if we did have a perfectly linked chronology from Adam through Zedekiah, such as the one seen in Genesis 5 or 1 Kings 15, above, we would still have no way to tell how long ago that time period started or ended. We would not be able to identify specific years, only relative years.
The only way we can start attaching specific years, like 4 BCE, or 70 CE, or 539 BCE to any of these "relative dates" is if we decide that we will accept non-Biblical dates, otherwise known as secular dates.
4 BCE is not a Biblical date, it's a secular date. 33 CE is not a Biblical date, it's a secular date. 607 BCE is not a Biblical date, it's a secular date. 587 BCE is not a Biblical date, it's a secular date 539 BCE is not a Biblical date, it's a secular date. The reason that is important is because the question about whether Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE or 587/6 BCE is often framed as if one of those dates is Biblical and the other is secular. They are both secular! Everyone in the world, incluing historians, scientists, archaeologists, Bible scholars, the Watch Tower Society and the Governing Body must rely completely on secular dates to figure out how many years ago a Biblical event might have happened. 
So what do we do?
We need to pick a secular date that we think we can trust and begin trying to link Biblical events to it.  Then we see if we can't create a chain of linked events backwards and forward from there. In fact, we need to pick several secular dates because the Bible's relative chronology does not really link the time around Adam, Noah and Abraham all the way through the time of the Judges and Kings. And after the Temple is rebuilt after the time of Ezra, the timeline stops again, so we'd need to find another secular date to see if we can match the time of Jesus birth, baptism, death, and any other events in the Christian Greek Scriptures.
We need to find some secular dates that we can trust! This is exactly where 539 BCE becomes so interesting. That's the time when Cyrus conquers Babylon, right? Yes, and it seems to be a perfectly good secular date for that event. If we accept it, we also get a pretty good idea when Jerusalem was destroyed. In fact, by accepting 539 BCE we ARE accepting the same secular chronology that pinpoints the destruction of Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year.
(2 Kings 25:8, 9) 8 In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. 9 He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; he also burned down the house of every prominent man.
This is the whole problem! We like 539 BCE, as the final year of a Babylonian king, but don't want Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year to be 587 BCE. We want his 19th year to be 607 BCE, instead. But we have a lot of trouble taking one without the other. In fact, if we say that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year must be 607 BCE, then that's the same thing as saying that Cyrus conquered Babylon in 559 BCE instead of 539 BCE.
It makes no sense to say one is Biblical and one is secular. They are both secular and if you say you trust that 539 BCE is correct, then that's also the same as saying you accept that 587/6 BCE, NOT 607 BCE, is the destruction of Jerusalem. Therefore the WTS has always been looking for a way to try to accept one part of the secular chronology without accepting another part of the same chronology.  Those attempts have never worked out, but this is what we'll need to discuss next.
 
 

A recent topic about whether the Watchtower view of 607 BCE is SCRIPTURALLY supported is linked below. This new topic should provide a better place to discuss the SECULAR evidence. I also think it would be useful to discuss the methodology that the Watch Tower Society has historically used to treat this evidence.
I would hope that we can do this without so much side discussions of unrelated topics. To avoid another topic that goes on for 30+ pages where only half of them were on-topic, I would suggest that if we get enough off-topic posts, we merely move them to another more appropriate topic.
The link to the most recent topic on a similar subject is here:


 

I don't know if anyone provided an update to this story, but the "brother" finally pled guilty, and was sentenced to five years, for three felony counts of child rape with two different victims.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-who-raped-jehovah-s-witness-girls-sentenced-5-years-n1082136
Elihu Rodriguez, 32, of Yakima, Washington, was given five years, the maximum sentence prosecutors had asked for, after Rodriguez pleaded guilty to three felony counts of child rape in the third degree in September. He was also ordered to register as a sex offender. Both of his victims attended the sentencing, which took place Friday at the King County Maleng Regional Justice Center in Kent, Washington.
I believe this was the case I was told something about in 2018, which is why I mentioned then that I couldn't say much because it was an upcoming court case. If it's the same one, then someone (parent?) convinced her not to report it because it was just a matter that this 25-year-old was in love with her, and so they told her it was actually multiple acts of fornication, not child abuse or child rape.
She agreed not to report on the basis that she would be considered guilty of fornication, too. So the family moved to another congregation, and within months, she got to a point where she decided she needed to report it to the elders. (I don't think it was because she learned about another girl being raped/abused by the man, even though this would make sense.) When she did report it to her new congregation's elders in 2013, they actually called the legal department just as they were supposed to, but evidently someone thought it was going to be possible to treat this as "consensual" and the elders tried to get her to say it was consensual. She refused to agree with the elders that it was consensual, and took it to the authorities.
When I heard about this case (or perhaps another one just like it) I was only told the general area of the US, and some circumstances, but no names. I was only told that this was disturbing that someone would try to turn a child molestation case of a "16 year old girl" into a consensual case in spite of the young age. (I was not told that she was actually 14/15.) Years earlier, J R Brown, as a spokesmen for the Society, had tried to minimize a lot of these cases by saying that a lot of them are like cases of an 18 year old boy with a 16 year old girl, which sounded a bit like the old "boys will be boys" excuse. 

I'm pretty sure there was never any accusation concerning more than 3 of them out of 17 or 18 contemporary GB members at the time. (Jaracz, Greenlees, Chitty) I do not believe there was the slightest suspicion upon any of the others at the time, nor any of the current members either. Also, even if a child molestor tends to molest boys rather than girls, it is not the same as homosexuality, and this was the accusation against one of the three. Another was long rumored to be homosexual, and was ALSO accused of having been a child molestor. And the third was a man who had evidently been homosexual, but I never knew of any rumor or accusation of an underage partner.

I'm pretty sure there was never any accusation concerning more than 3 of them out of 17 or 18 contemporary GB members at the time. (Jaracz, Greenlees, Chitty) I do not believe there was the slightest suspicion upon any of the others at the time, nor any of the current members either. Also, even if a child molestor tends to molest boys rather than girls, it is not the same as homosexuality, and this was the accusation against one of the three. Another was long rumored to be homosexual, and was ALSO accused of having been a child molestor. And the third was a man who had evidently been homosexual, but I never knew of any rumor or accusation of an underage partner.

And he finally explained why he sometimes looks orange. Turns out deregulation will solve his orangeness, too. (Not kidding!)
This sounded like something coming out of The Onion, but it was for real!

The above is complete hogwash.  What happened is that Joseph "Judge" Rutherford" tried to butter Hitler up in a conciliatory letter, before Hitler went completely bat-crap crazy ... but Jehovah's Witnesses in Germany almost "to the man" resisted Hitler, and were imprisoned and put to death without compromising any integrity toward God. Many Elders in Germany caved in to Hitler, because they were trying to appease Rutherford, but the rank-and-file JWs actual stand was magnificent, as a whole, and as a group.
And TTH did NOT indicate in any way that he "hated Trump".
You are seeing things that are not there ... BECAUSE it is you, Matthew9969, who has  a case of WDS "Watchtower Derangement Syndrome" and because your reasoning and logic processes are dominated by your bogus agenda, you are seeing things that are not there, and projecting those fantasys as originating from others.
"Be true to your own self, and it follows, you can be false to no man" (paraphrased) .
You have become in your derangement one very sad person to read, and that is why I voted you last two posts "sad"
You waste what intelligence you have.

Oh, and Matthew9969, If you want freedom of speech for yourself, morally, you have to allow for it in others, even if it is what YOU consider bluster and gross error.  To have the moral high ground you can legitimately point out someone's error, or ask them to "prove it", or to act, and call them a hypocrite, with or without a sound basis ... but you CANNOT demand or even contemplate that they "shut up", for not seeing things the same way you do.

I voted your remark "sad" because it truly is.
It is a meaningless non-sequitur with no relevance ... which you think is profound.

This is the first assembly I ever attended. But I wasn't paying very close attention. (I had just turned one year old.) So I probably wasn't even counted among the 194,418 who adopted the resolution.

What does that even mean?

Perhaps it can be as you said. And perhaps this can be true with many other similar "stories".  
What I see as important in this "story", is fine moral message and inspirational, motivating injection that in this materialistic and superficial everyday life offers a spiritual upgrade.... said with different order of words. 

The story has also been told that it was a "black boy" who offered him the newspaper for free:
https://mylife-chapter.blogspot.com/2017/08/who-is-richer-than-bill-gates.html
When my wife was a school principal, teachers were always putting up posters about, for example, the "Ten Things Bill Gates Says about School" or "What Bill Gates Said Were the Most Important Things in Life" etc.
He may have told a story like this, but usually people create such stories so that their own moral lesson comes across with more authority.
 

I’ve soured on my view of him in recent years.
As Supreme Commander, it was he who liberated the concentration camps. There is an account of a certain nearby German mayor pleading ignorance, an enraged Eisenhower forcing him to tour the camp himself, and the next day that mayor hung himself.
The national system of interstate 4 lane divided highways is named after him. You wouldn’t be able to get around in a timely way without them. It is a good symbolism for how he stabilized the country after the war and put it on sound footing to prosper through speedy transportation and commerce. One aspect of the system was that the roadways could be used to evacuate areas quickly in the event of nuclear war. They are used that way today to evacuate for approaching hurricanes. It’s all a good legacy to the man.
He did good things. He is essentially the savior of the world, and then the guide of America afterwards. But with my visit to his home in Gettysburg, his star began to fade some. 
Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide suffered intense persecution during WWII. There were only about 75,000 of them—not the 8 million of today. In the US, many were beaten, others rounded up and arrested without trial, some tarred and feathered. There were a few that were killed. 
He could have stopped it! He could have explained just who and what they were. No one on the political scene knew them better than he. It was his mama’s religion, who remained faithful to her death. He was raised in it. “Look, they’re patriotic in their own way—they hold off on fighting because of their own religious views about God’s kingdom. They are honest and hard-working otherwise. They are harmless! They are not criminals. It is free speech they are engaging in, and that’s what I am in Europe fighting for!” He could have said that, and probably ended their persecution. Others did speak out in behalf of the Witnesses—notably Eleanor Roosevelt and the ACLU. He kept mum.
It is impossible for me not to think that he kept his mouth shut with regard to his mother’s “brothers” so as not to harm his stature and political career—both during the war and afterwards. That harsh verdict is tempered by the fact that he truly did well by WWII standards and 8 years of presidential standards—and NATO chief afterwards. Maybe had he not been where he was, his substitute would have screwed everything up. Still, when push comes to shove, he did sell out his childhood “brothers.”
In a sense he was like Pilate, who knew very well that Jesus was innocent, but he also had a province to run and he decided that was more important. “Give the scoundrels what they want, and keep them out of my hair,” was his attitude. It may be the same with Putin, who says: “I don’t understand why we are persecuting Jehovah’s Witnesses—aren’t they Christians, too?” But, one year later, persecution just keeps rolling on, so it obviously is not a priority to him.
Even now the National Historical Park Service, that is not wrong on anything, stays wrong with regard to Eisenhower’s upbringing. The ranger during my visit said that he was raised Mennonite, and he wasn’t. He was raised a Witness. Keep that embarrassing fact well-hidden, so as not to jeopardize his or his families social stature. They are a respected family and they want to remain so. They can survive a Mennonite connection, for that can be passed off as quaint. But they dare not take their chances with a Jehovah’s Witness connection, and the National Park Service helps them maintain this ruse. The actual facts of Dwight’s upbringing lead to somewhere embarrassing for a national figure, and so they don’t go there.
It is hard for me not to think of Jesus’ words that “you will be hated for the sake of my name.” Just the thought of being associated with those carrying out the kingdom proclamation work that he originated and that others spearheaded is enough to make a prominent national leader turn tail and run like a rabbit. “How can you believe,” Jesus asks, “when you are accepting glory from one another and you are not seeking the glory that is from the only God?” Exactly. Dwight did know that you cannot play it both ways. You must choose. He chose to “keep religion in its place.” As is usually the case, that means last place.
 
Did you deduce from the post that I “really hate Trump and his supporters?” If so, I don’t know from where.
Could be.
Still, I don’t view him as the monster that his enemies try to portray him. He is a guy who has had an affair or two or three or four—something that is by no means unusual in men today. Some of his accusers are among the nuttiest people on earth, such as the one who flummoxed Anderson Cooper by describing rape as “sexy” and then leaned into him with: “You’re fascinating to talk to.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/cooper-cuts-interview-short-after-e-jean-carroll-calls-rape-sexy
Melania passed off her husband’s remarks to Billy Bush as “locker room talk.” Given that the media was every day trying to take him out and had apparently been sitting on that sound bite for ages, waiting for just the right moment, I made up a broadcast (in No Fake News but Plenty of Hogwash) that I named: Live From the Locker Room:
“Good evening. We’re broadcasting live from the locker room tonight to reveal to America just what goes on in this previously obscure culture that has so suddenly thrust itself upon the national stage. We’ll interview some players in this intriguing venue. Ah, here’s comes a jock now. “Hey! Yo! Whazzup? We’d like to ask you some questions.”
“Why, good evening sirs, madam. You must be members of the news media. Welcome to our humble locker room. It’s not much, but please make yourself at home. There are refreshments in the adjacent room, just past the gentleman snapping his neighbor’s buns with the wet towel.”
“Charlie, it is as we thought. ‘Locker room talk’ is but a lame excuse. They’re not crude at all here. They are quite refined and sensitive and…”
Hey, ya wanna get your crap outta here?! I can’t get to my @%!# locker!”
 

Fair enough and I agree with you on that. There is always a risk - even when we try to do the right thing, pray, follow scriptural principles, avoid bad areas... I'm sure you would also agree though, that some actions are riskier than others. i.e. jumping off a cliff is riskier than jumping off a curb - (unless you are jumping off the curb into traffic)  For instance, if you know an area of your city is known to have a high crime rate - especially at night, you might feel it prudent to avoid that area when you have a choice. True you may not be attacked, but the chances of that happening to you are significantly greater if you expose yourself to that environment. Not to flog this... (OK yes, I am flogging it ) One more example. You might not get cancer from smoking cigarettes, but the evidence shows your chances are greater of getting it. And in fact, even if you felt you were willing to take the chance yourself, would you be willing to set that example for your kids by smoking at home? They would see your example and possibly feel it's fine to follow your example, in turn putting them at greater risk of both addiction and cancer. That's the point I was clumsily trying to make. Personally, per se, I am not a dogmatic "opposer" of higher learning such that I would take it upon myself to punish others for choosing that option. But I would also candidly admit from real-life examples I have seen, that it poses a higher risk to spiritual objectives than other grades of schooling (which of course, as I recognize, can come with their own risks.) 

I just want to point out how, life is a sort of risk. Events that took place in Eden Garden (and in Heaven Realm with angels) show us how many things can go wrong when you are alive.
People who do not live (do not exist), or are dead, are not at risk and not causing any risk, (only health risk if they are not properly buried or burnt).  Perhaps corps are not risk for vultures. (black humor)
But want to show how facing "risks" is "normal" thing. You are at risk even in your congregation meetings. You can fall in love with person you should not to fall. Or somebody can be in "crush" with you. You are at risk to follow human interpretations of God's words!!! Children are at risk to be victims too. We have literal and spiritual risk that took place in congregation. And you have to deal with them. In that way, you are at risk where ever you go. Bible verses can give you good advice or warning, but they will not save you from every risk. If you are in a place, you believed is the safest place on Earth, than you are at risk ..... Bible shows this too :)) 
 

This guy over here did at https://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=197629
To me, they sound a bit corny in English, but that's always fixable by translating to another language.
 

Trump would make a terrible jw.

The Dark Lord has made his appearance and people who agree with him in many particulars are keeping an unusually low profile. It is probably because they do not want to inadvertently say something wrong and have him find their lack of faith disturbing.
Case in point is @James Thomas Rook Jr.. Normally, a mention of climate change will trigger a tirade from him as to how it is a masterful left wing hoax. Normally a negative mention of Trump will unleash torrents of praise for him from his corner. This time, however, not a peep. Well...there is a bit of cheerleading for Trump—you cannot completely erase the spots of a leopard—but he does not pursue it. He and @JW Insider have happily squabbled at great length over both these topics. But he does not do it here with Darth Alan.
Do I blame him for this bit of cowardice? Not at all. He is in his senior years and he wants to live them out. He does not want to be accosted with endless taunts about how stupid he is. He does not want every syllable he utters to be corrected. He does not want to have to open dozens of dialogue boxes to recall just what it was that he said to earn the verdict that he is a moron. He does not want to shake his head in disgust that every other forum participant has learned to use those boxes properly, and only the Dark Lord is too enraptured with his own arguing to constrain himself to quoting just three lines of text that will faithfully reproduce without opening boxes. He looks at @Arauna, who has had to triple her blood pressure medication, and decides that he wants no part of it. Who can blame him?
So I will carry his Trump ball for him—not as aptly as he would do it himself, for I am not so vested in it as he—but I will carry it.
In the midst of discussion, @AlanF reaches back into his quiver for taunts, chooses a old favorite, and hurls back at me: “Apparently you just make up "news" out of thin air -- just like your idol Trump.”
This is the fifth completely irrelevant reference to Trump since he began participation here, just two or three weeks ago. A moment later, he launches the sixth: “You're doing what ever-Trumpers do very well -- project their own faults onto their opponents.”
Six times he brings Trump into a discussion that has nothing to do with him. Each time it is like ripping a loud one in the concert hall. His audience surely must be among the most apolitical people on earth. Some of them, JW and non-JW alike, think it downright wrong to bring politics into a discussion of spiritual things. Alan knows this. He knows everything. So why can he not restrain himself from continually inserting that which he knows will fall flat with almost everyone and be positively off-putting to some?
It is because he suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome. I had thought that JTR made up the term because he is the only one who has ever used it here—another testimony to the apolitical nature of both JWs and many who oppose them—but I see now via internet search that it is not so. Alan has that ailment full-blown, though. He froths over Trump. He obsesses over Trump. He embraces those who every day since before his election experiences orgasm at some new bullet that will supposedly take him out. He inserts references to Trump everywhere, the same way that normal people insert “word whiskers” like “um.”
So what of this taunt that he hurls at me—ME, TrueTomHarley! :
“Apparently you just make up "news" out of thin air -- just like your idol Trump.” 
Is he my idol? That depends. Politically, it is not likely to be so. Trump does the Make America Great routine. He pushes for his country, assumes that other national leaders will push for theirs, and if they don’t, it is all the better for him. On the other hand, as a JW, I look forward to “the kingdom”—a government from God that will eliminate national borders. Even now, visit Bethel, observe the huge globe, and take in the fact that there are no national borders to sully it.
So no, politically he is hardly an “idol.” But that does not mean that as a man I cannot learn from him. I try to learn from anyone that comes to my attention—either through personal interaction or by their being in the news a lot. I even strive to learn from Alan. Nobody can be said to be worthless, for you can always be used as a bad example.
Politics aside, it turns out that I am very grateful for Trump. His election has vaulted 2 Timothy 3:1-5 to the position of the world’s year text—this year and every year. It used to be that if you read how people would be fierce, unreasonable, not open to agreement, backbiting, and so forth, and your householder did not agree that such was the case today more so than in prior times, there wasn’t much you could do about it. Plainly the verse is subjective. It always will be, of course—I expect that should Alan ever have the misfortune to be executed by guillotine, he will ignore that unpleasant fact and his head will continue to insult onlookers as it is being carted away in the wheelbarrow—but with ever-Trumpers and never-Trumpers screaming at each other day and night, it becomes a much more difficult verse to deny.
I also take a page from Trump with regard to his communication skills. At first glance, he hasn’t any. Surely he is one of the most ineloquent public figures in history. And don’t come to him for spelling lessons. But at second glance, one comes to see that he is a master at pushing back at his barrage of opponents. After a brief period of supposing opponents would adjust to his presence, he decided that there was no way on earth that they could be placated, and so he redirects his efforts to defeating them. He does it in the most innovative of ways, taking full advantage of their weaknesses. Time and again, he draws them in as with hooks in their jaws, and just as they are ready to pounce, tasting certain victory, he pulls the rug out from under them.
Case in point is the brouhaha over his inauguration. ‘It was the most well-attended inauguration in history!’ he boasts. ‘It wasn’t!’ counter his enemies. He reasserts that it was. They dive into the archives to find photos of other inaugurations. Obama filled the quadrangle. Trump’s crowd is visibly far less. HA!, they shout in victory—surely now that they have caught him in a lie, he will fess up to it. He doesn’t! 
Night after night they run the two photos side by side on national news broadcasts, ignoring all else. They point to the gaping holes in Trump’s photos that are not there with Obama’s photos. “These are FACTS!” they are close to screaming. “You cannot dispute FACTS!” He does. He doubles down, nearly to the point of saying: “No event in human history has drawn the attendance of my inauguration!”
Tearing their hair out, they invite his advisor on TV—Kellyanne. They rub her nose, and the noses of their viewers, into their two photos. ‘The FACTS show that Obama drew way more than Trump! Right here—look at just this spot! There is just bare ground with Trump and there is shoulder-to-shoulder people with Obama! FACTS are FACTS!
But Kellyanne says that the President is trying to draw attention to alternative facts. He is trying to draw attention to.........’ALTERNATIVE FACTS!! they scream. ‘THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN “ALTERNATIVE” FACT!!! A FACT IS A FACT IS A FACT IS A FACT!! THERE ARE NO “ALTERNATIVE FACTS!!” 
But the Advisor to the President insists that they are, and that the media ignores them. They consist of the fact of popular discontent with the “swamp” that propelled him to victory in the first place. Whatever Trump said to the ignored half of America clearly resonated with them, and it is being ignored by the mainstream media. Today he crows about the economy. Bill Clinton garnered adoration from pundits with his, “It’s the economy, stupid!” Today these same pundits will portray the economy as though a very minor point.
As for me, I enjoy the spectacle, without taking any position as to whether he makes a good president or not. He may be a terrible one, but I like the way he turns the tables on those seeking to destroy him. I am not even sure that his numerous spelling errors are not deliberate. When he tweets that North Korea has launched its nuclear missels, people of common sense will run to take cover. People of the media will run to their keyboards to point out that the idiot can’t even spell the word right. 
Life is a continued term paper to many of these characters. They did well on term papers in college. They have grades from their professors to prove it. So they launch into the media that only attracts a certain type of people—those who imagine that ‘exposing’ problems is enough to fix them—and assume that life, too, will respect their term paper skills as highly as their professors did. They have little experience in actually doing anything. They are mostly wonks when it comes to government—and the fixes that their type of government can bring is their obsession.
As for me, I take note that if there is any new meme guaranteed to undermining traditional family life, these characters are all over it. If there is any new meme that will even bend gender distinctions, these characters are all over it. Gayle King dutifully appended the Q on LGBTQ before she even knew what it meant—I heard her say it. Did it mean ‘queer?’ Did it mean ‘questioning?’ She didn’t know. But she didn’t dare not include it once the gods of media popularity told her to. With this track record, anyone who can get these characters incensed cannot be all bad.
(More to come)

Learning and making money to support oneself/family isn’t a problem. But putting oneself in an environment that promotes standards and objectives that conflict with or are at odds with our own spiritual outlook and objectives CAN be a problem - and it has often been that way in real life experience. Sure, there are exceptions to both sides of the equation. But there certainly is more of a risk to one’s spiritual health on a number of fronts. If one of your primary objectives is to preach the gospel and support yourself while doing that, where would your focus be? Jesus, the apostles, early Christians all made choices that reflected their priorities - even if at times it meant leaving lucrative businesses. Why should it seem so strange that Christians today with the same mandate would choose to do the same? A human perspective that doesn’t take God into consideration would logically pursue a course tilted toward this world’s thinking/reasoning/priorities. But if you have faith in God’s promise to provide what you need when you put his will first, your choices would logically be different. So, if you actually believe that God will see to it that you have what you need, then going much beyond that would be for what are “wants” - and for that you would likely need more money and sacrifices will have to be made on one side to gain on the other. “You can’t serve two masters“ as Jesus correctly pointed out. He lived by what he said. Look at the hundreds of thousands of pioneers in the world today - or even in your own congregation. Sure they have challenges like the rest of us, but are they suffering/destitute or unhappy generally? “Money can be a protection“ but as they say: “Money can’t buy happiness.” True happiness comes from within and having a good relationship with God - we were created that way. The main host of one of the tv travel documentaries was asked: “Who did you find were the happiest people in the world?” (No he didn’t say JWs although that may have been true;) His answer was that the happiest people were also the poorest materially. He referred to a very poor group of people in a village in Sri Lanka whose families often could only afford one meal a day. Poor yes, but also the happiest. I’m not suggesting that we should follow suit, but just making the point that happiness is a quest anyone would want. But this system promotes satisfying essentially spiritual needs with physical “things.” Pursuing higher education is often less about satisfying basic and legitimate needs and more about lifestyle. Wise king Solomon knew the truth about these things. His observations are worth a second look. 
That being said, I would have to admit that taking the choice as to what type of education to pursue out of the hands of parents and individuals and handing that choice to imperfect men who may not be any smarter does sound cultish to me. True, people can actually choose, but it’s like “choosing” whether to jump off a bridge or not, when you will be punished for not making the “right” choice. On the other hand, and to be fair, when people in positions of responsibility set an example of accepting a course that could put one in harm’s way, it could set a harmful precedent. So there’s that.. 

To the extent it is true, Luke 5:31 is what would explain it:
“In reply Jesus said to them: “Those who are healthy do not need a physician, but those who are ill do.”
Do you think he is speaking of cancer? Or is mental distress, such as might accompany anguish over the atrocities of this world and the blame assigned to God for it more to the point? To my mind, the ones you should worry about are those who are not greatly troubled by the injustices of life today—those who sail blithely through the horrors and cruelties without a care.
It is easily offset by the high participation rate of those who stick. After all, with many faiths, people might not actually leave, but how would you know if they did?
It is also explained by the fact that there is a substantial cost in conduct—to be a minister of Christ is to be self-sacrificing. Why bother leaving a faith that asks little of you?
Seen, it that light, it is something that the “turnover” you speak of isn’t much higher than it is.
I would say the numerous schools that exist now that did not 50 years ago fits the bill. For elders, ministerial servants, traveling reps, etc. Intense and reoccurring instruction lasting anywhere from a weekend to a few weeks. 
I have attended some of these schools. Almost all content is on imitating Jesus’ manner of dealing with the flock, dealing with those in the ministry, showing tenderness, not lording it over, leading by example, and so forth. Very little is on what would be called ‘doctrinal.’
I remember in particular one instructor leading around a string on a table with forefinger firmly applied to one end. “See how the rest of the string follows so nicely?” he asked. He then reversed course and tried to “push” the string. “See how it bunches up when I do that?” he said. “It’s really not too smart of me to do it that way, is it?” The lesson, of course, was to lead by example, and not by being “pushy.”
These schools have a cumulative effect of refining those exercising any authority. That they are needed can be inferred from Jesus’ dealings with those to whom he granted the greatest authority. Even on the eve of his death he interceded in an argument they were having as to which one of them was the greatest, the same as you might do with children.
Take that into account when you next carry on about how inspired, unerring, and pure the leaders were back then and by extension ought be today. Grown men are capable of behaving like children—it happened then, it happens today. Refresher course training in which students will focus on scores  of scriptures—and if they prepare as the ought—hundreds of scriptures, go a long way towards training those in authority to lead as Christ did.
And, far from the GB dreaming up a school that they ride above and apply to everyone else, when such a school is formulated, they put themselves through it first. They do not imagine that they cannot benefit from intense review of how Jesus dealt with people.
 
I thought you said you were going to be a “bit positive?” This is just the same bile you deliver when you are being your usual negative self.

This guy over here did at https://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=197629
To me, they sound a bit corny in English, but that's always fixable by translating to another language.
 

It had words? In what language? Who wrote them? Shostakovich?
I saw that someone had recently added their own words, when I googled lyrics for it. (Sometime after Stanley Kubrick used it, I assumed from a very quick scan.) But I never saw words in the original context of the work.