Arauna

Uh oh. You are reacting (and I thank you) to my Dawkins post on the wrong thread. Be prepared for an onslaught from @AlanF about how STUPID you are!  
He is not the same—JTR is an absolute saint by comparison—but I used to occasionally include off-color words in my posts just to see him, who could launch the nastiest and crudest of tirades, get all bent out of shape that I has said a naughty word.

You and Mr Harley are quite often good for a laugh, and we all need a laugh at times. 

As far as I am concerned, this sign represents a win-win. It does not make me mad. It is doing me a favor. If anyone doesn’t want to talk to me, then I don’t want to talk to them.
There is a squirrelly assumption that underpins this meme: that Jehovah’s Witnesses are determined to talk to each householder no matter what, and are incredibly frustrated if stymied. It plays into the infantile view that they are “recruiting,” a view popularly spread by “anti-cultists” who obsess over all the ways that people can “manipulate” others. They abhor all forms of “brainwashing” except for the brainwashing that is theirs, as they safeguard mainstream values—values that have not worked out very well insofar as promoting overall peace and well-being. If the mainstream thinking contained answers to the vexing questions of life, people would’t have to worry for one second about “sects” and even “cults”—they would be rejected out of hand.
So are Jehovah’s Witnesses “recruiting?” 
“I am going to ask you to convert,” I told a certain householder, “but it is not going to happen until the 100th call—and what are the chances It will go on for so long? In the meantime, it is just conversation.” To householders who state they have their own religion or spirituality and who decline conversation on that basis I say, “Well, I’m not going to ask you to change, and if I do, you can say No.” I mean, it is fine to decline conversation—more people do than do not—but just not on that basis. You might say it to an evangelical Christian—the sort that actually do feature instant conversion of the “Come down and be saved!” variety. You might say it to a Moonie, because their people are known to disappear off the surface of the globe, only to reappear selling flowers in robes. But you ought not say it to one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, whose members live and work in the general community.
No, the sign does me a favor. I have no problem with it. It might be different if they proliferated so that they became a commonplace gag sign, just a fad witticism inspired by late-night TV that didn’t necessarily mean anything. In that case, I might just walk away or I might playfully attempt to negotiate terms before deciding if I wanted to enter into such a “contract.” “Well, a guy has to serve the Lord,” I will say non-aggresively to some while trying to size them up. You’ve got to have a sense of humor.
Like a No Soliciting sign, there are no legal consequences to blowing past it, and like a No Soliciting sign, it doesn’t necessarily mean anything. It might be put up by a previous owner, and the current one sees no reason to remove it. It might be put up by a family member that died. It might have been put up after those pushy people selling vacuum cleaners left. It might be put up in the heat of election campaign season. It might be put up to dissuade Jehovah’s Witnesses, but I do not assume that is the case.
”I saw your sign and was a little concerned that you might think it applies to me,” I sometimes say when one of them is staring me in the face. “It doesn’t—but you might think it does.” You can assess by the response if the householder had that intention or not, and if he did, I have no problem moving on from what would cause both of us stress. Don’t argue, “We’re not soliciting,” because it really doesn’t matter whether you are or not. What matters is what the householder thinks you are doing. Of course, you can tell him that what he thinks is wrong, but that is never a fine foundation for a visit, is it?
I have said at times, when my attention is directed to such a sign, “Oh. Well....I’ll make sure not to do that, then,” either by soliciting money (which Witnesses never do) or soliciting opinions—drawing people out—which we do. Simply tell them stuff, don’t ask them a thing—that is enough to technically comply with such a sign. But the trick is not to be like Alan and argue over technicalities. The trick is to see if such and such a vague sign actually means anything to the householder and respect his wishes if it does. 
No, a No Soliciting sign means nothing legally, same as this new $50 per hour JW sign that Jack is giggling about means nothing. The only sign with legal consequences (in the US) is a No Trespassing sign, and even that only has legal consequences for individual dwellings—you can’t wall off an entire community with a No Trespassing sign. To be sure, some are trying to change that, but the idea of answering for large swaths of other people is repugnant to most and so the change may not readily happen.
Let’s face, this sign is kind of crude, and not too many people are going to put one up. It is sort of like that sign in which you find yourself as though staring down the barrel of a gun that says, “Never mind the dog! Beware of the owner!” I don’t just jauntily breeze by that sign as though is was a Welcome mat. I tread a bit cautiously. If my companion was to turn around and leave, I wouldn’t blame him a bit. Still, you never know. I was leaving one such home—no one had answered—and as I was walking away, a pickup truck drove in with a gun rack in the back window. “Great!” I muttered to myself—“probably a real sorehead here!” He turned out to be the nicest guy in the world—very respectful of our purpose and of the Bible. There was a lot of crime in the neighborhood and he had just “weaponed-up” for the protection of his family.
These signs are not a red light—No Soliciting, Beware of Whatever—but they certainly are a yellow light. They are not a yellow light legally, but they are a yellow light in that they might reveal something of the householders wishes, and I have no problem always complying with their wishes once I know what they are.
As it is, Jehovah’s Witnesses have a method to keep note of those who have emphatically said that the don’t want JW calls ever. It is an imperfect system and I usually forget to consult it, but it works better than nothing. Ironically, it may all vanish one day if the current “data-keeping” laws gathering steam in Europe, spearheaded by the same people who see “manipulation” everywhere, spreads to the US. It will be illegal to keep track of who doesn’t want a call. As it is, one US brother I know reported on a trip to Europe and how the brothers there were wrestling with these new anti data-gathering laws that had never been intended (at least, by most) for them, but were being applied to them, with: “Good! They’ve just made your job easier! Preach to one and all and don’t worry about any “records”—keeping track of them is a pain in the neck!”
What about a child answering the door? For me, that depends upon the age of the child. For a teen, sometimes I will go Bible-lite, such as commenting on what the words of the Lord’s Prayer literally mean, and I do not press any point. Or show a video geared to teens—I have never had a teen not pay rapt attention to the video, “Be Social-Network Smart.” With teens, I have sometimes told them that I really don’t know what to do with teens, because they are learning and gathering smarts, but they are also under their parent’s roof, and the latter is guiding that process, and so they may or may not want them speaking to persons of different beliefs at the door, and ‘which is it with them’? 
Even that doesn’t guarantee anything. One parent that I finally encountered said, “I don’t appreciate you speaking to my children,”—I had done so twice and had shown a couple of videos. I responded that I had never been looking for the kids—I had been looking for her—and that when the teens had answered I had asked them whether their parents would want them speaking to a visitor about religion and they had said she would not care. “Kids will say anything!” she told me. So I explained that I would not call again (she said ‘thank you’), repeated that I had never been looking for them in the first place, and even was able to give a brief synopsis for why we call at all—she became quite pleasant.
Another teen—I had just finished something brief and similar—he had been home alone. As I left, the mother drove up in the driveway. I told her who I was, that I had spent a few minutes speaking with her son, I had asked him a question and he had answered intelligently. “You should be proud of him,” I said as I took my leave.
Cultures are different. I once handed a tract to a child with directions to give it to her parents, and upon leaving, my companion said that she would have witnessed to the child. My companion was newly arrived from South America where it is nothing for parents to allow and even encourage children to talk religion to anyone calling about it. There are congregations there heavily populated by children with the full blessing of parents who do not attend themselves—respect for God runs deep in some lands and the assumption is that you cannot go wrong allowing your children to learn about the Bible.
Though the following has nothing to do with the Bible, it has everything to do with that fact that cultures are different, and so when the GB speaks in a way that is not really my cup of tea, I say, “It is probably one of those others cultures that they are taking into consideration.”
There is a large community of deaf persons in Rochester NY. Accordingly, there are a number of Witnesses who make their living as translators. One of them told me of a certain deaf family of two adults and two children—all deaf—who are known not only locally but also nationally, and the following story is told nationally as a way of highlighting the challenges of catering to different cultures: 
A neighboring “hearing” girl would come over to play at the home of the deaf family. The two children were surprised that she didn’t seem able to sign very well at all, but they all managed to sign well enough to each other to get by. Then the two children went to the little girl’s home to play, where they saw the mother not signing at all! Her mouth kept moving, and the little girl seemed satisfied with that, but there was no signing. Upon returning home, they related their bewilderment to their parents and asked, “Are there other people like that?”
 

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/whats-the-maximum-gravity-we-could-survive

Apologies dear - no prob.  I just butted in that we are not pacifist..... lol.   Did not mean to mess up thread.
To understand the randsom sacrifice is crucial - that jesus gave his soul in death for 3 days.  Not love but self-sacrificing love as set in the example of jesus. 
If I love you more than myself (prepared to give my life) and you live me more than yourself (prepared to give your life) the world will be a different place. Alas !  We will all show this kind of love completely  under futurekingdom of Christ.

I do the same.. You will notice that I do have my own opinions on some things.... which comes from meditation......  .  I  will of course not go and teach this to others.  I teach the basic core teachings to my studies and help them to appreciate that they must do self study for maturity...  I also prepare them for their time as a witness when they will see that everyone is not perfect....... they may even bump their toe on a rock below the surface of the love-feasts..
Most new witnesses face a test with fellow witnesses after baptism -  or a new congregations - it is inevitable..... just depends on how big the test is.  I also help them to get life-skills as a witness.  Some did not learn this while at home or had too many bumps in life.  The qualities to survive and the attitudes that assist in cooperating with others and being kind and fitting in.
The realit y is: we are social animals and want to fit in , be successful in the group and it is hard on some people- especially if one has some weird personality quirks..... Navigating life - no matter where you go - is hard.  For us the workplace can be a specially hard because people expect us to be "better" than others...... when we are just ordinary people like everyone else..... The only difference is that we try to be faithful to god........ to the best of our very imperfect ability. Sometimes we must face ridicule for that...so as ordinary people we have to build up courage and work on our social skills to navigate out of difficult situations.
I have a very friendly personality and stand out easily..... as a woman this is not always a good thing.  So I have learnt to be smart and gauge the right time to say what I think.  Last year I went to see two Arabic brothers and spoke to them about their attitudes towards women..... because Arabs have an inbred attitude which the truth does not completely correct.... years and years of training in a certain way is not just going to disappear.  I waited for the right time and managed to do it successfully....   did they take my concerns to heart?   I do not know....  but I seemed to do OK afterward.  As I grew older I learnt to not keep quiet about my concerns....... but wait for a long time until the time is right and then talk.  Every time I was successful, I grew in maturity.  Now I help the young sisters to also grow strong and become pillars in the congregation. 
 

We are encouraged by GB to think about things (meditate/ analyze) .  Our maturity in spiritual things depend on ourselves - the organization cannot teach us  this. 

Good point. I also read an article written after Hawkins' death wherein he also "debunked"  string theory by indicating mathematically that 23 universes are not possible.
Let me make it clear to all visitors here: my "faith"  that God exists is not a blind faith but a faith based on evidence.  Evidence in the magnificence of creation in the infinite number of small wonders and the cosmos out there.  
As I said before: I have studied the intrinsic logic of the main theme of the bible for its cohesion and continuity.  I believe the bible is the only reality which is still ongoing.
I studied it in the light of project management principles and even did a risk assessment of the entire globe.  This is when I started to look at certain political developments in the world in certain sectors to determine where we are in the stream of time........and where we are heading.  
As truetom Harley indicated earlier -  even non-Christians admit to irreconcileable problems/hate in the secular political system.... it is not just in USA. It is everywhere!    The less than one persent of people in the West who own the money of the world (they own all the major corporations, press and surveillance capabilities)  see one world system as the only solution to create "peace and security" for its inhabitants.   We are already in the transformation stage of the process.......  these people see China as the model to follow.....
Stick to Jehovah through the difficult times.  Atheists, who are humanist, will  believe the UN when they bring in one set of laws /values for everyone and persecute those who do not conform.  Atheists will conform to save their necks but will not have the favour of jehovah when it all falls apart. And fall apart it will because humans were not made to rule themselves. 
The propaganda is doing its job - leading to Armageddon...... it is discrediting all witnesses in every possible way and promoting atheism.

The Bible says that everything that God initially created was "good". Everything that Satan created was bad. The world then became a paradox of good and bad. The question arose whether the arbiter of what was good, was justified to decide what was bad. Obviously, since he was the supreme judge and arbiter of all things. On top of that, was he justified in destroying or removing what was bad. The answer has always been yes, because his love, together with justice dictates that this must be done. 
Creation; predators, eating other creatures is not bad, since the predator depends on the primary consumer for survival. My great grandmother kept rabbits for food. She loved them all and took good care of them, they all had names too. When it came time for Sunday dinner, she lovingly took one out of the pen and bopped it over the head. Benjamin had no idea what had hit him as he blacked out within a split second, was dead within a minute, and cooking in the pot within an hour. His buddies never even noticed he had gone missing. Was that an unloving thing my great grandma did? I suppose it depends on who you ask. But the one to decide whether this is unloving or not would be the creator. Humans have differing views, but the rightful arbiter is God.

It’s odd that this should be your latest insult. Once again you inject national politics before an apolitical audience to whom you know it will fall flat.
I have several times expressed the opinion that the 2016 election was a godsend for Witnesses, and it has nothing to do with who won or lost. It used to be that if you read 2 Timothy 3:1-5 and your householder did not agree that people are more fierce, implacable, backbiting, unhinged, and so forth, then in times past, there was not much you could do about it. Plainly the verse is subjective. 
It always will be, or course, but with Trump’s election most people will concede that the country has lost its mind, with rank and file persons of both sides screaming at each other day and night. To say 2 Timothy 3 is undergoing fulfillment increasingly comes across as a “Duh.”
Parallel events take place around the globe. Brexit is as crazy, if not more so, and 2 Timothy saves the day for JWs there also. Then there is the fact that major populations around the world are exploding in violence, even revolt—Hong Kong, France, Italy, several countries of Middle East, South America, several again of Africa—civil unrest has become the order of the day.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/with-nationwide-strike-colombia-joins-south-americas-season-of-protest/2019/11/21/2d3adf0e-0bef-11ea-8054-289aef6e38a3_story.html
In view of this, the most important thing we can do is debate whether Karl Klein reported Rutherford saying “I made an ass of myself” because he didn’t like him. It is not unlike when Tillerson supposedly called Trump a moron, and the media suspended interest in all other topics in order to determine whether he did or not. This continued even after Tillerson called a press conference to say: “Back where I come from, we don’t have time for this nonsense!” Incredibly, this did not chasten them! “Well......did you call him a moron or not?” they wanted to know.
You can’t call Trump a “bull in a china shop” because to do so you would have to accept the premise that the status quo of human government is a “china shop.” “Junkyard dog in a junkyard” is perhaps an analogy that works better.
In service this morning, my companion started some presentation around the theme of good government. The householder, initially reserved, responded that he is working hard to undo the damage he thought Trump was doing to the country. I thought it was well, due to his initial brusqueness, to explain that Jehovah’s Witnesses are well-known for being neutral, and that a person such as he might suppose that anyone serious enough about the Bible to come preaching it must be a Trump supporter, since born-agains fall all over him, but with us it is not so. This melted his reserve considerably and the end of the visit was far better than the beginning.
Had it been my door, I would have heard him out on just what he was doing to counter Trump as a quid pro quo—perhaps he would afterwards hear us out. But I am comfortable talking politics, as relatively few Witnesses are. My companion took it back to a more conventional path, from our point of view.
 

This is actually a very good answer. No one has to kiss up to these guys. It is enough not to oppose them.
No national leader stands by and sees his legitimacy trashed. You don’t get too far in Russia or China by doing that. Look how much trouble Trump is causing that “whistleblower” and the uproar over it from those who want to undermine him. Obama did the say with a different set of whistleblowers. 
It is enough not to try to grab the wheel of the bus. Simply “do not think about them at all” if you cannot get your head around everything they do.

One thing I really enjoy from the Governing Body is their new series of Animations, similar to the Caleb and Sophia animated cartoons, about how in the New System, all animals will be at peace with each other, play together, and be happy.
I have six dogs, and it's important to me that they have happy lives.  I enjoy watching them play and frolic, and just peacefully sleep in their doghouses, or on the sofa, in the living room.  I even buy them treats, and dog toys to play with.
Without further ado, here is a clip from the Writing Department's latest animated cartoon, of how the animals will all live in peace and harmony, in the Paradise earth ....  It's called "Wild Alex in the Paradise Regained".
Enjoy!

Wild Alex in the Paradise Regained. .mp4  
I guess we will all have to wait until there is some "new light" ,,, to see how it turns out !
 
 

Dunning-Kruger is mighty in this one.
Have you been taking lessons from your idol Donald Trump?

The thing to focus on is, not that Rutherford thought it existed, (a “cult” around Russell) but that the FDS freely admits it 50 years (or whatever) later.
It is as when Rutherford says “I made as ass of myself,” and AlanF uses to fact to insist that he could not have been “inspired.” What he should focus on is that he said it in the first place. I mean, not in my wildest ramblings can I envision Alan saying publicly the same. You cannot go wrong when you have persons who, as individuals, do not take themselves too seriously.
This is the same Rutherford who says: “Well, Carl talks a lot and he says things he doesn’t mean.” Can you imagine Alan letting anyone off the hook so easily? He rages on about the technicalities of words and totally ignores the human component that makes them work in actual life.
Of course, the “Carl” whom Rutherford spoke of was Carl Klein, a one-time GB member whose life-experience was published in 1984. (“Jehovah Has Dealt Rewardingly With Me.”) Notable among the lessons he reports as contributing to a happy life is: “Since then, I have observed many similar tests of loyalty. When mistakes are made, those not wholly loyal at heart seem to pounce upon them as an excuse for quitting.”—Compare Psalm 119:165.
This, too, is good to reflect on. Klein’s reminisces are a favorite with the friends—it is not just me. One brother stated just the same when commenting on a WT paragraph about a month ago that referenced him.

Ha-ha. ....... Will  they regret it?   Time will tell.  Tune in tomorrow for the next episode of  "When truth died."

Loved your contribution above. 
The propaganda regarding the  "religion of peace" hides its extreme and barbaric violence.  True, JWs are the true religion of peace for refusing any political division in our ranks (not taking sides) or going to war to fight any of this system's battles. It is encouraging to be able to identify this nation on earth.
I studied the "religion of peace" ...... most people in UK call it by this name now because one can get 2 years in prison for islamaphobia.  One can mock a Christian, burn the bible, call jesus an adulterer and make funny pictures of him but do NOT hint at  anything against the "religion of peace". 
Oh-  I am comparing the injustice of the world in its bias treatment of JWs again in OCD way...... that will trigger Mr. JAH2......

This is Africa. Real UN soldiers rape African girls. The UN covers it up. Ever read about UN bad practices as an employer?  Whistleblowers on UN are fired...... do not think they have human rights because it is UN..
The countries with worst human rights abuses chair the Human Rights commission.

Why I enjoyed your piece : it cclearly identifies the cantankerous way all darwinists act...... the religion seems to affect them this way.   Mr Dawkins has embarrassed himself quite a lot since he became a celebrity for the cause...... 
I think the best video I saw of him is when he said that aliens seeded the earth. ..... in a discussion on the origins of life. ..

Tweeted Richard Dawkins one fine day (11/13/19): “You could easily spot any Religion of Peace. Its extremist members would be extremely peaceful” 
Can it be? Is Richard Dawkins referring to Jehovah’s Witnesses—universally known for being “extremely peaceful” yet declared “extremists” in Russia? If so, I will take back the relatively few bad things I have said about him.
I have not really said THAT many bad things about him. At times, I have even been complimentary. When he blessed the atheist buses rolling out in London, I said that he raised a good point—his was a reaction to existing “hellfire’ buses, with advertising from the church. He did wuss-out, though, with a: “There probably is no God.” Probably?
It wasn’t until I began following him on Twitter, though, that I noticed how breathtakingly contemptuous he was toward anyone who disagreed with him—not merely about God, but also on geopolitical things—and then I did say a few mean things. For example, I said of him that “he does not suffer fools gladly, and a fool is anyone who disagrees with him.”
However, he has largely repented over this online meanness. I’ve noticed it over the months. He has not banished it entirely, but it is much less prevalent, so that I regret that I ever said what I did. 
The temptation to be disdainful of opponents is well-nigh irresistible, particularly if you think that they are willfully choosing ignorance. I have (more or less) mastered the temptation, of course, but I have a source of effective and unending counsel that he does not.
This is no more concisely stated than it was at a recent Watchtower Study. A Bible verse considered how we ought “do nothing out of contentiousness or out of egotism, but with humility consider others superior to you.” (Philippians 2:3) Practically speaking, this advice is not easy to implement. It may even strike one as nonsensical—how can everyone be superior to everyone else? Said that Watchtower: “The humble person acknowledges that everyone is superior to him in some way.—Phil. 2:3, 4.” 
Of course. In some way everyone is superior to everyone else. Search for that way, hone in on it like a laser beam, and it will not be so difficult to treat even opponents with respect. “Disagree without being disagreeable” is the catchphrase today.
But Professor Dawkins does not have this advantage. Much of his tradition would sway him in just the opposite “survival of the fittest” direction. So he must be given credit for his new, somewhat softer, online personality. Possibly someone who has his best interests at heart—perhaps his wife—said, “Richard, you sure do come across as a cantankerous crank on Twitter,” and he deliberately walked it back. It’s commendable.
Now, I don’t think Richard had Jehovah’s Witnesses in mind with his tweet. He probably has formed his views of them through the contributions of their “apostate” contingent, and those views could hardly be blacker. I looked down among his comments to see whether any of those nasties had reared their heads. Perhaps here was an example:
“Not entirely true. Extremists usually have their own misinterpretation of scriptures.”
I responded to this one: “If “misinterpretation” results in a religion of peace, perhaps it is not a misinterpretation after all. Perhaps the mainline view is a misinterpretation.” Is that not a no-brainer? 
Another one, disagreeing with the above tweet: “Actually no. Most extremists do exactly what is written in their book. ‘Misinterpretation’ is used as an argument by believers that cherry pick morals that fit our secular ethics today.”
I know this type, too. This is the type that finds slavery in the Bible or war in the Old Testament and rails at the “hypocrisy.” I responded to this fellow as well:
“Everything has a historical context and to deliberately ignore such context is to be intellectually dishonest. If our side does it to theirs, we never hear the end of it.”
He blew up at this reference to context. Evil is evil, he carried on, across all places and time-frames. These characters are very predictable—you could even write their lines for them and not be too far off.
Has “critical thinking” made us all nincompoops? It was once thought the most intelligent thing in the world to consider historical backdrop; one was irresponsible, even deceitful, not to do it. Very well. If he is going to trash, with blinders affixed, the source that I hold dear, I will do the same with his source:
“You should turn your critical thinking skills upon Ancient Greece, the definer of it. When time travel is invented, history revisionists will give a friendly wave to American slaveholding forefathers as they race back in time to fetch wicked Greek pedophiles—it was an enshrined value of that world—back in irons.”
He was not chastened by this. Hijacking Twitter as his personal courtroom, he cross-examined:
“Is the holding and beating of slaves, as described in Exodus, morally acceptable? Yes or no?”
I countered: “Is the raping of children as endorsed by Ancient Greek society morally acceptable? Yes or no?”
Incredibly, he was not dissuaded. “Last chance!” he shot back. “Is the holding and beating of slaves, as described in Exodus, morally acceptable? Yes or no?”
“To the blockheads, I became a blockhead.”—Paul (sort of) —1 Corinthians 9:19-22,” I tweeted back: “Two can play the game of obstinacy. Last chance: Is the rape of children—it was enshrined in Ancient Greek society—morally acceptable? Yes or no?”
Then I went away, and when I came back, he had deleted all this tweets so that it was hard for me to reconstruct the thread. However, someone else had pointed out a grave sin I had committed:
“Thomas you are guilty of the moral equivalence fallacy.” Am I? I suppose. You can sort of guess by the wording just what that phrase means—I had not heard it before. At least it is in English. I once heard a theologian quip that if there is a Latin phrase and a perfectly clear English phrase that means the same thing, always use the Latin phrase so people will know that you are educated. But my “moral equivalence fallacy” is still is no more than considering historical context, a praiseworthy intellectual technique for all time periods except ours. 
Besides, I actually had posted something about slavery long ago. But it is not a topic so simple that it can be hashed out in a few tweets, and so I declined to go there with this fellow, who would debate all the sub-points. If God corrected every human injustice the moment it manifested itself, there would be nothing left. The entire premise of the Bible is that human-rule is unjust in itself and that God allows a period of time for that to be clearly manifested before bringing in his kingdom—the one referred to in the “Lord’s prayer”—to straighten it all out. In the meantime, the very ones who work themselves into a lather at religion “brainwashing” people are livid that God did not brainwash slavery away once humans settled upon it as a fine economic underpinning.
If Dawkins’s tweet and my response hangs around long enough before burial in the Twitter feed, I would expect some of our malcontents to observe as they did in Russia, where the only evidence of extremism cited is proclaiming “a religious view of supremacy.” Huge protest will come at how Jehovah’s Witnesses practice shunning and thus “destroy” relationships and even family. But views inevitably translate into consequences and policies. Refusal to “come together” with those who insist on diametrically opposed views is hardly the “extremism” of ISIS—and yet the Russian Supreme Court has declared that it is, with the full backing in principle of those from the ex-JW community—the ones who go crusading, which is perhaps 10%.
I’m going to write this up as a post and append it to his thread. Let’s see what happens. Probably nothing, but you never know.
Plus, let’s expand on that particular Watchtower some more. The particular article covered was entitled: “Jehovah Values His Humble Servants” (September 2019 issue—study edition)
Unlike nearly all religious services, Witness meetings are ones that you can prepare for. You can comment during them. They are studies of the sacred book, not just impromptu rap sessions, acquiescencing to ceremony, or sitting through someone else’s sermon. You can prepare for them, and you are benefited, as in any classroom, when you do. The focus here, as it so often is, is on practical application. 
Humility draws persons to us. Haughtiness repels them, and thus makes next to impossible the mantra to “come together.”
My own comment, when the time was right, was that haughty people can only accomplish so much—it may be a great deal, for haughty people are often very capable people—but eventually they run up against the fact that nobody else can stand them, and so people are motivated to undercut their ideas, even if they are good ones, out of sheer payback for ugliness. Humble people, on the other hand, may be far less capable individually, but their efforts add up. They know how to cooperate and yield to each other in a way that haughty people do not.
Someone else on that Dawkins thread, an amateur wit, played with that them of unlikely extremists: “Jehova's witnesses are peaceful but their extremists are better extremely annoying...”
Why fight this? It is a viewpoint. Viewpoints are not wrong, because they are viewpoints—right or wrong doesn’t enter into the equation. Better to roll with it. I was indeed on a roll, and so I tweeted back: 
“I will grant that they can be. Still, if you had a choice between a team of JWs approaching your door and a team of ISIS members, you would (hopefully) choose theformer. Those 2 groups, and only those 2 groups are officially declared “extremist” in Russia.”
And with that, I included a link to my ebook, “Dear Mr. Putin - Jehovah’s Witnesses Write Russia.” I am shameless in that. No matter how many books I sell, it is not enough. I don’t sell them, anyway. The book is free, a labor of love. It is an application of the theme: “If you have something important to say, don’t hide it behind a paywall.” It is the only, to my knowledge, complete history of events leading up to and beyond the 2017 ban of the Witness organization in Russia.
As to the latest developments there, another one was herded off to prison, who, making the best of a sour situation, or perhaps genuinely finding value there, said: "I want to thank … prosecution. I don't just thank you, but thank you very much, because thanks to you my faith has become stronger … I see I'm on the right path."
Of course. It is unreasonable to oppose so vehemently a people totally honest, hard-working, and given to peace—and yet the Bible says that such will exactly happen. How can it not serve to strengthen faith?

You will find it's not "people" in general who judge too quickly, but it is ex-JWs. People in general do understand the complexities. Even the ARC understands the complexities, and so do prosecuting lawyers. But of course neither are in the business to understand, but to hopefully help remedy the situation and to get justice (well in the case of the lawyers; to get lots of $$$$ too, lets be honest).

In the name of fairness - (I know you said you do not care..).... but what this indicates is that the problem is everywhere where there are children.  While JWs  managed the problem better than most other institutions we nevertheless did fail some victims.   People just judge too quickly and do not understand the complexities if dealing with this problem. In some families the mother does not believe her own children because the horror of it is too great!  It is easy to only judge JWs and expect them to be absolutely perfect.  
Now, I do not really care if GB is inspired or not.  Over the past few years my understanding of the scriptures has refined very much because I do the research and prepare for all my meetings.  Their study program helps me....
We WILL face persecution during Armageddon..... so why will I not cooperate with GB?   Whatever we do - if we belong to christ - we will face tribulation.  Better to be with friends in jail (who can support me) than alone somewhere  of my own choice.  Experience has taught me that numbers work better for protection and cooperation always brings benefits.....
 

This is Africa. Real UN soldiers rape African girls. The UN covers it up. Ever read about UN bad practices as an employer?  Whistleblowers on UN are fired...... do not think they have human rights because it is UN..
The countries with worst human rights abuses chair the Human Rights commission.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/united-nations-soldiers-paedophilia-un-child-rape-ngo-staff-a7648791.html
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/un-isn-t-doing-enough-to-tackle-its-sexual-abuse-epidemic-former-staff-agree/
@Srecko Sostar

In the name of fairness - (I know you said you do not care..).... but what this indicates is that the problem is everywhere where there are children.  While JWs  managed the problem better than most other institutions we nevertheless did fail some victims.   People just judge too quickly and do not understand the complexities if dealing with this problem. In some families the mother does not believe her own children because the horror of it is too great!  It is easy to only judge JWs and expect them to be absolutely perfect.  
Now, I do not really care if GB is inspired or not.  Over the past few years my understanding of the scriptures has refined very much because I do the research and prepare for all my meetings.  Their study program helps me....
We WILL face persecution during Armageddon..... so why will I not cooperate with GB?   Whatever we do - if we belong to christ - we will face tribulation.  Better to be with friends in jail (who can support me) than alone somewhere  of my own choice.  Experience has taught me that numbers work better for protection and cooperation always brings benefits.....
 

Then you said:
Unless I'm missing something, this includes contradictory logic. You said that if the WTS stopped DFing for apostasy the numbers would go down. But then your "evidence" is that the numbers go down when there is resentment when they continue to show authoritarianism by DFing for apostasy.
Perhaps you've spent many years on forums where such persons tell their stories, and the cumulative effect makes you think this is very common. Pew Research provides some indication to me that most JWs who no longer believe strongly enough in the value of the Watchtower organization simply drift away. Most are not disfellowshipped at all. Even those who would have been disfellowshipped have apparently (mostly) realized that one need only drift away. Ones that want to make a statement may write a letter or make a scene somewhere (such as an online site or at a Kingdom Hall or Convention). These would be a small minority.
Technically if one isn't out to make a scene it's probably easy enough to answer the elders questions honestly and not be in any trouble. If I were asked "Do you believe that Jehovah is using the Faithful and Discreet Slave?" The answer would be an easy and straightforward "Yes!" Technically the same goes for the Governing Body, just as Jehovah is able to use any group of elders, or publishers for that matter. Wherever 2 or 3 are gathered in Jesus' name, there he is in their midst. And of course anyone who has doubts about a doctrine should be able to humbly admit that it is a matter of not being able to understand the current doctrine in question, but make it clear that you don't want to make an issue or cause contention inside the congregation. I'm guessing that a humble attitude would solve 90 percent of these problems that might otherwise lead to DFing.
For me, the acceptable replacement is a humble admission that after getting things wrong over and over again on chronology, that we simply follow Jesus' advice to give up on chronology. At least the kind of chronology that is used to try to predict the time period for the generation that will see the end-times scenario.
I agree that there should be a way to provide constructive criticism that isn't immediately seen as a kind of "running ahead" of the organization. Of course, if you look at all the ideas people get, you can understand that the Governing Body are afraid of the chaos it could unleash if everybody started writing about their own opinions. There are a few who have dropped by this forum with ideas that would make everyone cringe as they go off the deep end of mysticism, gnosticism, chronology, numerology, etc.
I hate to admit that I had absolutely no idea who Jay Hess was until I just now looked him up. I probably saw the name before, but I typically tune out those who spend so much time on Trinity, worship vs obeisance, etc.
Disagree. We were talking about DFing for various forms of disagreement that the Society has traditionally treated as apostasy. I believe the Bible supports some of this DFing, as you seem to admit, too. We would also be individually responsible for our own "marking" and choice of "fellowshipping" avoiding "bad associations" even among those who call themselves a brother. But we don't IGNORE most forms of bad conduct. The elders are to watch over the flock, and give good counsel when they learn of bad forms of conduct. We shouldn't make up rules about six months of shunning, or one year of shunning. And no one should enforce shunning for another person. You make a good point that the right way to train a good conscience is to be allowed the responsibility of using that individual conscience -- but this does not mean that strong counsel and guidance should not be in order for those whose spirituality is drifting due to their conduct or their associations.