Shiwiii

Think about this:
When you are reclining ( sitting) at a dining room table bench, you take off your weapons but keep them close by.
When "Jesus said to THEM..." he was talking to ALL the Apostles, as their weapons were not evidently ON THEIR PERSON. Sitting down with a sword is ...um.. problematic, as you can visualize, and it was considered an insult to others to be armed at the dining table as well.
... but here is the clincher ....
NO ONE left the room to sell anything, and Peter produced two swords in seconds.
It took a blacksmith, once he had the metal, about a week of hard labor to make a sword .... NOBODY just "had them laying around", any more than I would deliberately leave an expensive camera OR A .45 CALIBER HANDGUN in a rented dining room.
Upon reflection, Jesus said the two swords were "enough", as they were NOT going to war, merely confronting a cowardly illegal mob who would chill when faced with seeing their own blood, which they did.
Oh... the clincher ... almost forgot...
WHERE DID THE TWO SWORDS COME FROM?
... the Apostles brought them with them to the Passover and the Memorial.
.
 

Eoin Joyce:
I have read the two scriptures you posted, and it says NOTHING even similar to the way disfellowshipping and shunning is done today.
When a person was "banished from the realm", he was exiled, but communications with his family was never cut off, nor were THEY threatened with banishment if they continued to talk or correspond with him (or her).  They could even go with him, if they wanted, and come back freely.
Let's say the border was a small river ... he could move to the other side of the river, and his family, extended family, and his friends could go over at will to socialize, have dinner, or help him build a house, or plant fields, etc, and NOT BE THREATENED WITH BANISHMENT.
Banishment consists of forcing a person, under pain of death, to relocate PERSONALLY out of a particular geographic area. 
It does not cruelly punish OR THREATEN TO PUNISH  innocent bystanders who might love him ... or her, with the same treatment.
.
 
 
 

Nnaemeka:
The phrase comes to mind, paraphrased ... " ... If a man does not take care of his own, he is worse than a man without the faith."  To me that means spiritual education, food, shelter, secular education, and when necessary DEFENSE.
An incompetent defense is no defense at all, and a MAN is supposed to know the difference.
I almost cried when I read your post, as when I was young I too was an idealist, and I miss the old me .... but I am 70 plus years old and have been all over the world, and seen hundreds of times , and sometimes been a part of the travesty, to my everlasting shame, how people with the very best of intentions  give BAD advice, and wrap it in a sarcophagus of scriptural references that ALMOST apply,  and with honest hearts, and the very best of intentions, ruin people's lives .
Been there ... done that. 
In all my years of watching and carefully noting the affairs of men, in and out of the Brotherhood, I have NEVER, EVER seen Jehovah intervene to protect anyone from evil, and have seen Brothers and Sisters infinitely better Theocrats than I am cut down.
In World War II, and even in Malawi, there is ZERO examples of God rescuing ANY individual person ... except in liberal fantasy not connected with what is REAL.  ZERO real evidence.
Zero ... none ...  nada ... goose eggs.
Apparently this ceased during the times of the Early Christians.
I am NOT going to even try to dissuade you from your faith, because right or wrong, Jehovah gives us full credit for what we do to the best of our ability with the conscience we have at any particular point in time.
Half of your first sentence I will take to heart ... as we all have to live with our conscience.    I am NOT a sheep person. I am a Sheepdog to my bones, and if I am wrong, Jehovah will judge me appropriately ... but I would rather die forever than allow innocent people to be harmed, especially my immediate family, the whole association of the Brotherhood, or even the clueless Snowflake beset upon by evil ... when I consider it my responsibility to protect these people, and myself ... if I can.
I did not exist for 14.5 or so BILLION YEARS, and it bothered me not in the slightest ... If I am not resurrected because of who I am, the Brotherhood will be better off without me.
FAMILY COMES FIRST!
For me, if I shirk this responsibility, I am not a man .... merely a BORG with male plumbing.
.
 
 

During the time of Jesus' earthly ministry,  disputes and criminal charges were handled in the CITY GATES, so that everyone could see what was going on... and everyone could stand up and make themselves heard by everyone if they had anything to add.  This kept the witnesses honest, as they had no idea who MIGHT stand up and call them a liar, and be able to prove it ... and even MORE importantly, it kept the Judges honest, as if they were stupid, on the take, or railroading someone, it was obvious to all .... and they knew the Jews in the audience could throw rocks at them as well.

Evildoers were ordered to make reparations, or executed.  Juvenile delinquents were counseled and punished with hard labor, and if ineffective, they were stoned to death, and the parents had to throw the first stones. Prisons and jails did not exist, although chains did.

In the Jewish system, for thousands of years, this system worked .... and I have NEVER heard about institutionalized "shunning".  Individual people can "shun" whoever they want ...  this has always been an individual option.
Jesus even talked to and ATE WITH men of the nations, tax collectors and others the Pharisees shunned and looked down on.
If you want to emulate Jesus ... act courteously with ALL people ...
If you want to emulate the Pharisees,  first check the list, then shun, Shun SHUN yourself into an orgasm of self-rightousness.
Can you imagine Jesus treating people with deliberate cruelty like WE are instructed to do?
... and to discipline ONE PERSON, we tear apart entire generations and extended families?
I cannot.
 

I Like This story

Hello JW Insider,
 
I’m sorry that I couldn’t get back to you earlier my week has been very busy.
 
You say,
“Also, if Origen said "A" in one place and "B" in another, how do we know whether Rufinus picked the correct places to edit. Perhaps Origen would have preferred all his A's to be corrected as B's and Rufinus corrected all his B's and made them A's.”
 
Origen did not say “A” in one place and “B’ in another maybe you missed how, not only Rufinus, but also Pamphilus, mention that Origen’s work had been altered by others. So how can we know for sure? By doing what Rufinus suggests and compare these renderings to Origen’s other writings. So shall we?
 
 “Light without splendor is unthinkable. But if this is true, there is never a time when the Son was not the Son. He will be, however, not, as we have described the eternal light, unborn (lest we seem to introduce two principles of light), but, as it were, the splendor of the unbegotten light, with that very light as His beginning and source, born of it indeed, but there was not a time when He was not. Thus Wisdom, too, since it proceeds from God, is generated out of the divine substance itself. Under the figure of a bodily outflow, nevertheless, it, too, is thus called 'a sort of clean and pure outflow of omnipotent glory' (Wis. 7:25). Both these similes manifestly show the community of substance between Son and Father. For an outflow seems ὁμοὐσιος, i.e., of one substance with that body of which it is the outflow or exhaltation” (Origen In Hebr. frg. 24,359 emphasis mine).
 
Let’s notice a few things from this. When Origen says that there never was a time when the Son was not, this is in stark contrast with the later Arian principle that “there was a time when the Son was not”.
 
Another point is the uses of the word homoousios which you imply is a distortion of the developing language. Yet Origen here uses the word hamoousios in speaking of the Son's basic relation with the Father. Homoousios (Greek. ὁμοούσιος) means "of the same substance," "of the same essence."  Homo means "same" and ousia means "essence."  Origen is saying that the Son is of identically the same substance as the Father and thus is God just as the Father is God. For a more detailed treatment see G. L. Prestige, “God in Patristic Thought”, pp. 197-199.
 
You say;
“People can pick and choose from more than one teacher. Paul of Samosata followed Origen in several ways. I see no misunderstanding.”
 
It is interesting that Eusebius makes no mention of this and we both know Eusebius’ leanings were more towards your belief system, but I do agree “People can pick and choose from more than one teacher” but there is no confirmation of this theory in regard to Paul of Samosats,… not even from Eusebius, but then he would appear to be a charlatan because, from what you say, he does not record the specifics of church history but only a whitewashed version to “tie in” with “the current official faith”.
 
Even though Eusebius mentions other heresies which the church faced in the years before his own time, there is no mention of Binitarianism none at all. Why would he “intentionally” not mention this heresy? It’s because this heresy did not appear until the late fourth century. If it were a belief system BEFORE the fourth century then people like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and of course  Eusebius, would have referred to it, but there is nothing; just as there is no belief system that even resembles the JW form of religion being mentioned by these early church writers.
 
What you need to consider is this fact, the early church writers refuted all forms of heresy they do not even mention any group that resemble your type of religion because it did not exist until much later! This is fact, it’s not speculation no matter how many ways you want to “look at the issue” this fact speak volumes. <><
 

I tried exactly what you propose, only to have the subject changed. On top of that, there cannot be an intellectual conversation when one chooses to dismiss a point without hearing it out. 

To all!
 
I’ve never seen so much hypocrisy; I am accused of changing the subject by a name caller, when it is everyone else going off subject. But “the Praeceter” is silent on this…why?
 
You know when people get intimidated by the truth they resort to childish acts of trying to humiliate others by poking fun at them or insulting them, this is NOT how Christians behave…"by their fruits you would recognize them", I believe bruceq quoted this, and then there is the person who thinks his a duck…I have to scratch my head in wonder on this one?
 
Hypocrisy seems to be the common trait with JWs, the claim on the uses of symbols is a point in fact. JW will point the finger and make false accusations which have no bearing of truth. Yet you are the ones guilty of using pagan symbols mixed in as Christian. Charles T. Russell’s gave site…pagan! The cover of Watchtower books with the Egyptian Sun god RA emblazoned on the cover…pagan!  And the list goes on.
 
But I’m even more dumbfounded by the claim made that it is not “fair to say that Arians didn't appear until the 4th century”. This is historically incorrect.
 
The Arian belief system appeared in the fourth century and is the closest to match the JW form of religion, although Arius and JWs differ on the personality of the Holy Spirit among some minor other things.
 
If any form of Arian belief system were present before Arius was even born then the ANF writers, who denounced false teachings, would surely have made mention of any such group! <><

Hello Mr. Joyce,
 
What’s with the different post to answer one post?  You responded to me in FOUR different post, what’s with that?
 
I will respond to your posts in one post.
 
You JW’s, or whatever Arian background you hail, when shown what the first Christians said and believed, make the ridiculous comment like “I do not see the word trinity here…”.
 
You go one and say that you “find any attempt to draw a trinitarian view from 58:2 objectively to be futile” well then please do tell me WHAT you think Clement meant?
 
Here is what he said again;
“For as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ lives, and the Holy Spirit, who are the faith and the hope of the elect.... Amen.” (Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, 58:2)
 
Now you also bring up another objection, which is quite common by JWs who are unaware of history unless it is printed in the pages of that bogus magazine.
 
Why does Clement refer to the phoenix in his letter? You guys really NEED to do some proper Bible study!
 
In order to better grasp the significance of Clement’s use of the phoenix story, we need to uncover some additional background, let’s remember that the early Christians only had access to the Jewish OT.
 
Now the tale of the phoenix is actually found in the Jewish Scriptures – the book of Job.
 
Job 29:18 reads,
 
“Then I said: 'I shall die with my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the phoenix” (JPS)
 
“And I thought, 'I will pass away in my nest, and like the phoenix I shall multiply my days.” LEB
 
“Then I said, "I shall grow old as a palm trunk, and I shall multiply my days as a phoenix'.” (Bullinger Companion Bible)
 
“I said, ‘I will die with my nest, and I will live as long as a phoenix” (The Complete Jewish Bible)
 
Clement symbolic rhetoric device that the phoenix dies and its nest and returns for a length of days seems to have its origins in Scripture.
 
First let me state that the translation above is debatable, for the Hebrew word chol (or Khole) is typically translated in one of three different ways.
 
1.    Sand
2.    Phoenix (see above translation)
3.    Palm tree
 
In almost every context the Hebrew word chol means “sand”. We would expect that that would be the Jewish interpretation. Instead the rabbis unanimously render the word in Job as “phoenix”. According to the Jewish Midrashim document Genesis Bereshit Rabba it explains how Eve “gave the cattle, beasts, and birds to eat of [the forbidden fruit]. All obeyed her and ate thereof, except a certain bird named chol, as it is written, “Then I said: I shall die with my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the chol.” (Job 29:18).
 
Any good Bible commentary such as Albert Barns’ Notes on the Bible, or Kiel and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament, or any commentary that has an extended discussion on Job 29:18 will add more depth than I can show here in this short space.
 
The Jews have always believed that Job 29:18 is speaking of the phoenix bird, in fact if you look up any Jewish translation of Job, you will see that verse 18 is translated as referring to the “phoenix” and not “sand” note how Job dies in his “nest”. This would seem to favour (US favor) the Jewish rendering, some say.
 
NOW here is the point, it is very likely that Clement who could only have access to the Jewish Scriptures, had Job 29:18 in his thoughts because he goes on after mentioning the phoenix to quote passages from Job to explain the long expected hope of the resurrection. Didn’t you see this fact?
 
Moving on quickly, yes I disagree with your idea of “general principles” because like I said, who decided what the “general principles” are? You?
 
I’ll stop now as I have other things to do, I look forward to hearing what you think Clement meant by what you call “the 3-part construction”. <><

Hello Mister Joyce,
 
My deepest and sincere apology on referring to you as “Ms” I meant  “Mr” all I can say is that I for some reason pressed ‘s’ instead of ‘r’. Please accept my apology.
 
You say, “General principles can be drawn from Biblical passages, regardless of context.” I disagree. Who decided what the “general principles” are? In fact 2 Peter 3:16 is applicable in this instance. One must be careful to not read their own ideas into Scripture that is not the intent of the author.
 
I had asked you to explain what you were taught on the Trinity when you were growing up a Roman catholic but you say nothing on this, so I will ask again, can you tell me what you were taught?
 
You ask if I can quote first century examples from the early Christians, you do know that the first century is counted from the year 1 to the year 100 AD? The second century begins from 101 to 200 and so forth. You know we are living in the 21st century don’t you? The last book of the NT was written in the early 90’s of the first century.
 
Anyway, at the turn of the century, that is 100 AD, a person called Clement, believed to be the Clement mentioned in Phil. 4:3, wrote a letter to the church in Corinth, in that letter he said;
 
“For as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ lives, and the Holy Spirit, who are the faith and the hope of the elect.... Amen.” (Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, 58:2)
 
The three are coordinated in this oath. This faith and hope by “the elect” (those, WHO BELIEVE the truth) is straight forward and is reliant on the three together.
 
Let me know if you require more proof on the Trinitarian belief of the first Christians. <><

Hello Ms O’Maly
 
Thank you for your thoughts.
 
Firstly you should look up Messianic Jews on the web, such as “Jews for Jesus”, and ask them whether they are “guided” and “influenced” to believe what they believe by others as you imply; I very much doubt it, but I can’t answer for them.
 
Secondly, can I just say your comment about what you heard “by the non-trinitarian JWs” about reading the Bible on its own is strange, for the Watchtower “warns” JW’s NOT do this.
 
“From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah’s people those, who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude... They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such Bible reading, they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentators by Christendom’s clergy were teaching 100 years ago...”” (Watchtower, August 15, 1981)
 
And
 
" . . . people cannot see the Divine Plan in studying the Bible by itself . . . if he then lays them [Scripture Studies] aside and ignores them and goes to the bible alone, though he has understood his Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness...," (Watchtower, Sept. 15, 1910, p. 298).
 
So basically, what they are saying to the JW’s is that if they read the Bible on its own then after a short time they will believe exactly what I believe, how revealing is that!
 
I don’t know what kind of “killer texts” would satisfy your query; all I can do is show what the early church has believed.
 
Irenaeus (120-202) "For I have shown from the scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man.” (Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 19)
 
Tertullian (155-220) "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person” (Against Praxeas, chapter 25)
 
Hippolytus  (170-235) “A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three.” (Against The Heresy Of One Noetus, section 8)
 
This is just a few examples of what the early Christians believed; there are many more exemplar that could be called on. <><

Hello Bruceq,
 
You bring up the issue of war. And that somehow this issue justifies your Arian claim. JWs proclaim “we don’t participate in war” so therefore “we” are correct. This self-righteous stance does not prove that God is not Triune.  
 
First of all, let’s note that under Charles T. Russell’s direction the then JWs (known as Bible Students) were “allowed” to take part in war. See Zion's Watch Tower 1898 Aug 1 p.231 and Zion's Watch Tower 1903 Apr 15 p.120,
 
War is one of the worst happenings that confront all of us, we can only hope for the time when war is no more. But till then we cannot ignore the continual rise of false political idealism. Consider what the world would have been like if no one had stood up to the Nazi Germany?
 
The Bible even says in Ecclesiastes 3:8 "[There is] a time to love and a time to hate; a time for war and a time for peace."
 
The Bible does not forbid engagement in warfare, and if this engagement in wars had become an unacceptable practice to the writers of the Christian Scriptures they would have stated so.
 
 In fact, several New Testament passages indicate acceptance.
 
When military officers came to John for baptism, John did not direct them to leave the service;
 
"Also, those in military service would ask him: "What shall we also do?" And he said to them: "Do not harass anybody or accuse anybody falsely, but be satisfied with your provisions." (Luke 3:14).
 
This would have been John's perfect opportunity to tell them to resign from the military, but he counseled them instead to be content with their lot in life!
 
At Matthew 8:5-13 Jesus did not turn the soldier away when asking to heal his manservant, rather commending him saying "I have not found anyone In Israel with such great faith" In the account at Acts 10 Cornelius was not required to step down as commander of Roman soldiers before being baptized.
 
I hope that this has helped you see that the JW position is unwarranted. One more thing God is on the winning side. <><

Hello Bruceq
 
Thank you for your comments.
 
It is interesting to note that when Jews convert to Christianity and read and believe the New Testament (they are known as messianic Jews) that they believe in the Triune God. Also one of the reason the Jews persecuted Christians, you know the ones in the New Testament, was because of who they claimed Jesus actually is. And do you not know that the Devil counterfeits the truth, for example, in some pagan religions they have the story of the death and resurrection of a hero figure…sound familiar, does this then mean that the NT witness to Jesus is false? To follow your line of reasoning you must conclude this? <><

Hello Mr Rook,
 
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
 
I myself am not Roman Catholic, but I am a little surprised by your claim about the people of Haiti, may I ask where did you get your information and statistics from?
 
Also, there is a lot of discussion regarding Constantine’s motives towards the Nicene Council of the fourth century; the debate on this matter is wide open, but I refer to the early Christians who lived before Constantine was even born. Their belief in the Triune God is attested to by the witness of the early church.
 
These first Christians risked being thrown to the lions or to die by some other horrible means as “sport” for the Romans. Their testimony shows that they believed in the Triune God, long before the fourth century and Constantine!
 
On a side note; Constantine’s son, Constantius, attempted to mould the Christian church to follow what he believed. Richard Watson in his Biblical & Theological Dictionary explains, “Constantius,… became warmly attached to the Arian cause, as were all the court party…Constantius supported Arianism triumphantly.” And according to the Encyclopedia of Saints, Constantius “compelled the Eastern churches to embrace” Arianism. (page 146).
 
And to use your words; it was considered “treason against the expressed will of” Constantius “to believe otherwise” <><

It is what it is! @Anna.  What gives them the right to insert YHWH so that the the scriptures are manipulated to suit the their doctrine?  You can't get away from that.  You can't add or take away from God's word no matter what your intention is.  It's his word!
Deut 4:2 "You must not add to the word that I am commanding you, neither must you take away from it, so as to keep the commandments of Jehovah your God that I am commanding you."
Deut 12:32 "Every word that I am commanding you is what you should be careful to do. You must not add to it nor take away from it."
Rev 22:18,19 "“I am bearing witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; 19 and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things that are written about in this scroll.
If God wanted YHWH there he would have made sure of it, like he did with the Hebrew Scriptures.  But he has reason for not using it.  Jesus is the saviour!  Acts 4:10-12
Isaiah 43:11 "I-I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior."
Titus 2:13-3:6 "manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus, However, when the kindness and the love for man on the part of our Savior, God, was manifested, This [spirit] he poured out richly upon us through Jesus Christ our Savior." (Note the New World Translation inclusion of [the] to change the meaning of this passage.)
It is misrepresenting God if you add the name when it was not in the Christian Greek Scriptures because the New Testament clearly shows that Jesus is the new name under which people must get saved. 
The Watchtower is deliberately misleading sincere honest hearted people.
But we can be sure that God reads the heart and knows those who belong to him in all religions even though he does not have a religion. 
As you are aware ALL religion will be done away with.
I know how you feel as I would of defended the Watchtower in the past but the scriptures speak for themselves.  I would rather defend the scriptures than defend an organization.  And then encourage people to build up their faith and love built on truths found in the bible.  God blesses that!  Because then you can have a deeper relationship with him based on spirit and truth.
 
 
 
 
 

Sorry   I don't care to argue with apostates who use the same type of questioning that Satan used. The "Ministry of Justice is now being influenced by Dvorkin and other anti-cultist apostates and the trial clearly showed now for the world to see that they, all anti-cultist apostates, are all liars and have baseless claims. 

@James Thomas Rook Jr. I wish we could have new light with regards to a lifesaving blood transfusion.
Matt 12:10 "...they asked Jesus, “Is it lawful and permissible to heal on the Sabbath?”—they asked this so that they might accuse Him and bring charges into court. 11 But He said to them, “What man is there among you who, if he has only one sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable then is a man than a sheep!"
Life is sacred isn't it?
But I think personally, I would still prefer a glass of red to be wine...
@Aaron Mathewson Only takes one failed "prophecy."
Deut 18:20-22 “‘If any prophet presumptuously speaks a word in my name that I did not command him to speak or speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die. 21 However, you may say in your heart: “How will we know that Jehovah has not spoken the word?” 22 When the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word is not fulfilled or does not come true, then Jehovah did not speak that word. The prophet spoke it presumptuously. You should not fear him."
The Generation prophecy is obviously flawed but new light say it's an overlapping generation.  You only have to look at the Queen of England to see that there is now four living generations.
 

How is this not equivalent to passing the plate?  
Why would there be a need for an ATM, or many,  at an event like this? There is no food to be purchased or items to buy that I am aware of. 

First of all, what portion of my statement is not true that I may need to change my source of information? Can one get unbiased information from jworg? I think not. What mention is there of the child abuse cases in which the org is involved in on jworg? NONE, and that is the problem. There is a campaign to send letters to Russia, to appeal to the gov't to allow jw's to continue to operate within the country. This is called lobbying, something the org says they do not do:
"Why Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Maintain Political Neutrality?
Jehovah’s Witnesses remain politically neutral for religious reasons, based on what the Bible teaches. We do not lobby, vote for political parties or candidates, run for government office, or participate in any action to change governments. "https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/political-neutrality/#?insight[search_id]=ae2710d7-f1e4-4dd7-afa4-57b369e71ab7&insight[search_result_index]=5
 
Lobbying: 
verb (used with object), lobbied, lobbying. 5. to try to influence the actions of (public officials, especially legislators). http://www.dictionary.com/browse/lobbying   John, I'm not sure who you think you are, but this is a public forum. Not only that, but it is also within the section of Controversial Posts.  The forewarning should have been enough for you to avoid this section if it hurts your feelings:   Only enter this section if you feel strong enough spiritually to defend yourself biblically. As you probably are aware, not everyone on Facebook, Twitter and the Internet is nice and civilized. Some are rather rude. You are hereby forewarned.   I am only pointing out the hypocrisy clearly shown from the org's own mouth. The question was "are they blessed", my comments were made to demonstrate my view and invoke discussion on the ideas raised. Now if this bothers you, don't reply, don't engage in discussion. Your response to me had nothing to do with the topic, but rather a knee jerk reaction of defense when someone calls your mom ugly.  To continue with the Russian lobbying, I wonder what most jws are thinking when they hear that "the wild beast" is helping the org? 
 

e.I understand they just want to be positive and want from now on the Jws to only talk abouth positive things.Problem is they have said know that have made errors 8n organization structur and teaching.In biblical times you had to be specific what errors you made.I think if they did theres a possibility maybe things could change some.Ordering the members to only talk abouth positive things is not gonna solv anything.

A few highlights:
 “Although Jesus does not explain why he calls riches “unrighteous,” the Bible makes clear that commercialism was not part of God’s purpose. Par 6
 Along with the political and religious elements, the greedy commercial system, represented by “the merchants” of Revelation 18:3, constitutes part of Satan’s world. Unlike the complete separation that God’s people maintain from politics and false religion,  most cannot separate themselves completely from the commercial part of Satan’s world. Par 2
Another way to gain friendship with Jehovah is by minimizing our involvement with the commercial world and using our circumstances to seek “true” riches. Par 12
“Our annual Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM) Growth Markets Summit, held on April 24th and 25th in New York City, featured a series of in-depth conversations on important themes and dynamics shaping the Growth Markets today. The event comprised 18 different sessions featuring over 40 leading CEOs, CIOs, policy makers, political scientists, industry experts, investment fund managers and senior Goldman Sachs professionals. We were honored to be joined by over 400 attendees representing over 275 organizations from 37 countries.”   2012 GROWTH MARKETS SUMMIT
http://www.goldmansachs.com/gsam/pdfs/growth-summit-2012/2012GMS_RECAP2.pdf
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society were among the 400 attendees.
“An obvious way to prove ourselves faithful with our material things is by contributing financially to the worldwide preaching work that Jesus foretold would take place.  (Matt. 24:14) A young girl in India kept a small money box and gradually added coins, even giving up toys to do so. When the box was full, she handed the money over to be used for the preaching work. A brother in India who has a coconut farm contributed a large number of coconuts to the Malayalam remote translation office, reasoning that since the office needs to buy coconuts, his supplying them directly will help his contribution to go further than it would if he gave cash. That is practical wisdom. Likewise, brothers in Greece regularly contribute olive oil, cheese, and other foods for the Bethel family.” Par 8
Is it considered “practical wisdom” for the Watchtower to use another’s hard earned funds to support its commercial endeavors which are far from minimal? Although it is apparent that the Wt. is using another’s riches 'unrighteously', the “unrighteous riches” Jesus was referring to had no reference to commercialism or monetary donations made by such touching examples in paragraph 8.  This is conclusive when reading Matt 19:21-24,29; 6:19-21
Each anointed one has a spiritual debt to pay to his Master, Christ.  (1 Cor 12:1-11; Matt 13:8; Luke 17:10)  The Steward appointed over God’s household refuses to let his fellow slaves pay their debt, the return on the provisions they received.  This is the reality with the GB, who selfishly refuses to accept input from other anointed ones, thus this “wasteful steward” cannot be trusted with handling all provisions of God’s House.  Prov 15:22; 1 Cor 4:8; Mark 10:42-44
In the parable, the steward was cutting the debts owed to the Master, Jesus, using practical “earthly” wisdom to save his own soul, but he had no authority to do so. Thus, the steward’s wisdom is centered not on the Kingdom, as a son of light, but on acquiring power and authority over all in God’s House, as a “son of this system of things”, which the GB has successfully done.
 If this steward was to ‘make friends’ by sharing authority with all in the house, he would later be judged by his fellow servants, as faithful. John 20:23 
The Watchtower makes the comment,
“Although Jesus does not explain why he calls riches “unrighteous,” the Bible makes clear that commercialism was not part of God’s purpose.” Par 6
The attached article is written by an anointed one, who has been blessed with the spiritual understanding of "unrighteous riches".   If the Wt. doesn't 'get it', who are they serving, God or wealth?  Luke 16:13
Wasteful Steward - http://pearl-wastefulsteward.blogspot.com/
 
 

We all can agree that child abuse IS wrong.  Jehovah NEVER would allow it.  What human would for that matter!
I think ( and I'm nobody)  the problem comes in when we 'report' these horrendous acts to the older men instead of the 'proper authorities'.  Molesting a child forces them to deal with adult feelings, situations and matters they are ill equipped to handle.
 Perhaps that's why the  baptism of babies and very young children should not take place, because it's a conscious decision that should be made by a consenting, mature person.  
No doubt we are all sickened by anyone who would dare to abuse a child! And then lie about it!! 
But the question I believe 'we' struggle with- those of 'us' who would keep quiet or not report to proper authorities - HOW MUCH OF THE BLAME BELONGS TO 'US'?
Read any article- peer reviewed journal- you'll see that children who experience abuse need more than prayer.   I'm not taking away its power- but do you really think silence will make the trauma go away?  And god forbid they all remain in the same congregation!  What are 'we' teaching the child about trust? 
And god forbid AGAIN- that this child grows up and is promiscuous and df'd or worse yet- reoffend.  (Maybe that should be flipped)
Who's to blame- Satan? 
Today- and I do say today- if it happened to my child, I'd pray not to go off, I'd call the police (while still praying) comfort and support my child and do all I can to get him/her the proper assistance. I'd let him/her know that Jehovah does NOT approve of it - no one does and it is wrong and I will do everything in my power to make sure that brother/sister pay for what they've done.  
Having said that- if it were NOT my child... well, when does the right thing to do become wrong?  
We are talking about crimes committed against children! 

Actually, the ARC found that wasn't so - not one alleged abuser was reported to the authorities, even though some states required it. E.g. I remember the consternation on Br. Spinks' face (Service Department) when it was put to him that they hadn't complied with NSW law about reporting if one has knowledge or a belief that a crime had been committed.
The Fessler case brought it to light that the Org did not comply with PA law by reporting the abuse. Not only that, but even when Watchtower has been court-ordered to produce documentation, it has done everything it can to wiggle out of or obstruct the production of documents, like with the Campos cases.
So it's fair to say that the general practice in the Org has been NOT to report suspected abuse to the secular authorities.
Where did you get the 'two-thirds' statistic from, by the way?
This is exactly why trained professionals should handle all allegations, rather than untrained elders. Besides, when laypersons bumble in, trying to ascertain the truth of an allegation, they can (unintentionally) corrupt any evidence-gathering which, in turn, compromises the case, making it harder to successfully resolve.

The issue at the heart of Pedophilia within the WTBTS is about THE LACK OF RESPONSE on the part of the LEADERSHIP . Not about how many pedos's there are / were !
Its about the lack of action
Its about the lack of protection and help afforded the victims.
Pedos will abound and so too dsysfunctional families
What is the WTBTS going to do to remedy ITS policies on the matter ?
The links I posted are merely attempting to emphasize this - WTBTS has not done anything worthwhile to address the issue - that's the disgusting part about this ! Those links are not my sole possession - they are in the public domain. The ARC is not attempting to Publicize it world-wide. However the WTBTS WILL NOT make it Public now will they? Why not ?

Then why act as though they do? 
 
I'm glad you feel that way, I hope others do as well. There is of course a significant difference between a serial unrepentant murderer and someone who just doesn't feel that the wt is God's org.