Anna

I suppose this can be a lesson for all of us, especially the likes of John Butler (pity he isn't around anymore). As an experiment, I try to think of someone I know well and am really close to. They have always been a loyal friend, always there for me. Then I imagine another adult person I know, tell me my friend did something bad to them when they were a child. How would you feel? It's easy for us to judge elders for mishandling matters and say why didn't they do this or that. Sometimes it must be so difficult to comprehend the whole situation, especially if we know the person well and he is a "really nice guy". It's someones word against an other's, because of course there are rarely any witnesses. It must be especially difficult when it is an adult survivor that comes forward years later, a long time after the alleged crime . Who do you believe? Surely those must be repressed memories that are somehow skewed. They must have misunderstood, got it all wrong. Surely brother "really nice guy" wouldn't do anything like that! The fact is, people who do these things usually ARE "really nice people". A lot of different factors come into play when an accusation is made against someone, including not wanting to be wrong. What if the brother IS actually innocent, and we drag his life through the mud? He has a wife and children, and is that really nice guy. It's easy for us, behind our computer screens, to shout; hang him! But what are we doing now? I don't see anyone shouting hang JTR. No, we are all sad over the situation. But we know he has done these things because he has been convicted, there must have been proof. Now imagine there is no proof. Just an accusation, and not against a person on a forum (whom we don't really know) but against someone we know personally, someone who is a "really nice guy".....now try and handle that.

Oh dear........

Transcript of day two (11/8/2020) of the hearing: https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/20895/view/public-hearing-transcript-11-august-2020.pdf

I am as guilty as anyone in adding an unrelated topic to a thread. That is how normal conversation goes, especially with women. But a discussion forum is not normal conversation. It should be the dissection of one subject or only a few very related subjects. The problem is some topics are almost self explanatory after just a few comments, and so changing the subject is very tempting. Really, the moderator should be the one who manages a discussion, but that means a full time job for someone. This forum is not the @The Librarian 's main occupation. I can't do it either. We all have other things to do.

The other day my mum and I talked about communism, I wanted to glean some more information from her since she, as opposed to me, really lived during the totalitarian regime, and had to study it at school as part of the mandated curriculum. I mentioned some of the research I have been doing on China, and she confirmed that there was famine in China even before Mao...

The short answer: Because the HQ are in America. The longer answer: In order to be legally established you have to comply with rules and regulations of the country. In America, it seems these are extra complex. Then also, because you are in America, you have to protect yourself legally, which means against potential lawsuits. America is the land of litigation. People here sue (and win) for the most ridiculous things. I know, I live here. Everything in the first century was so much simpler because there were not as many problems as we see in modern American society. But even in the first century, the preaching work had to be legally established - Philippians 1:7. As for the complexity internally, well don't forget modern society is a lot more complex. You cannot organize things the same way as in the first Century. What worked well then, would be inefficient today.

So, I have been doing some reading, (Wikipedia so far) and evidently the above statement is far too sweeping to accurately describe quite a complex and multi faceted situation that brought about the death of many, the numbers of which vary because they cannot be accurately verified. I am assuming the reference to "murder" of 40 million is referring to the "Great Leap Forward" and the "great famine" that resulted from it. If I were to sum it up briefly, I would say Mao Zedong was an idiot who shouldn't have tried to implemented something he didn't fully understand. And definitely not on such a large scale. I remember in communist Europe private farms being "colectivized" with the animals being taken away from the small holdings and put in huge pig farms or cattle ranches. All that the farmers had left was chickens and some geese. They didn't make enough money to make repairs to the buildings, and as a consequence the villages became dilapidated, so much so that when my grand parents returned to their homeland after 40 years, and drove through these once pretty villages, they wept. My "bourgeois" grandfather, before he and my grandmother defected, was put in jail (just for a few days) because he owned his own company. Over the years the capital city, once a crowning jewel, became gray and depressing. In China, the farmers were forced into collective farming but as opposed to the later European model, where individual farmers didn't make a nickle, the Chinese farmers suffered terribly, millions of them starving to death in what was called "the great famine". One of Mao's absurd campaigns was the plan to eradicate sparrows. Wikipedia: "The Four Pests Campaign (Chinese: 除四害; pinyin: Chú Sì Hài), was one of the first actions taken in the Great Leap Forward in China from 1958 to 1962. The four pests to be eliminated were rats, flies, mosquitoes, and sparrows........which resulted in severe ecological imbalance, being one of the causes of the Great Chinese Famine. In 1960, Mao Zedong ended the campaign against sparrows and redirected the fourth focus to bed bugs" (!) I don't know about anyone else, but reading this confirms in my mind that Mao was a raving lunatic. Then there are supposed reports of torture and killing of non compliant farmers. But I will have to pick that one up in my next post.

You two, @4Jah2me and @César Chávez crack me up!

I have no idea, but I am sure you do 😄so I look forward to your next post.

Actually, after communism fell in Eastern Europe, and Jehovah's Witnesses were free to preach and distribute literature, many householders would remark that the paradise illustrations reminded them of communist drawings. More recently, my mum gave the book "God's Kingdom Rules" to one of her studies (a lady in her 70's) and she did not like it at all. She said it was like reading a communist book. This is why in my earlier post I was careful to say that a totalitarian regime ran by imperfect beings is wrong. Most of us know that many of the communist ideologies are actually good, but of course imperfect man is not able to make them work, because man cannot rule over other men.

Of course, everything comes from China these days

I have said this before, but I find it extremely difficult to imagine that this could happen in the USA where freedom of religion is written into the constitution. And I find it difficult to see that the USA would change its precious constitution for the sake of some kind of new world system which demands no religion. I also cannot see that Islamic nations such as Saudi Arabia would allow anyone to forbid them to worship at their mosques or the pilgrimage to Mecca etc. I cannot imagine the Pope being taken down. What I can see though is that in general, and especially in Europe, people not being too upset about religion, since so many of them are atheists.

No, I am definitely not a fan. But, as with everything, there are pluses and minuses. Today, there are still those who mourn those days, missing the camaraderie, the "we have nothing but neither does our neighbor". Those who kissed the Bolshevik's butts fared better than those who didn't. Personally, I can't understand why anyone would like anything about that period, except there was maybe less stress, because no one actually worked, but those who wanted to work, or contribute something useful to society, usually had to emigrate, usually illegally, leaving behind family members. As a child, I could never understand why someone was not allowed to leave the country. I don't know much about China, so I cannot compare their communism to the communism I experienced, I am sure there are similarities but also differences. But any totalitarian regime, run by imperfect people, is wrong.

@4Jah2me a while back you expressed contempt at the fact that there is a JW only club and mockingly wondered what kind of topics might be discussed there. Well before this topic was moved here, (since it was off topic in the Furuli discussion) I considered making it a topic in the JW only club for the very reason that has become apparent with your latest comment. In the JW only club, we like to actually discuss scriptures and their application, without inserting child sexual abuse or the imperfections of imperfect people every chance there is. That is the reason why the JW only club was set up, to avoid that. That is not to say the problems regarding child sexual abuse are not discussed there, they are, but under a relevant topic. I wish I had moved this topic there now. 😠

Thank you for all your replies @JW Insider In summary, as I understand it: 1. Jesus' coming/ parousia/presence although invisible (since he is a spirit) will be manifest in a physical way, like lightning flashing from one end of the earth to the other. At the same time, everyone, good or bad will be aware that this is the manifestation of Jesus, the king, and that he has come to judge the world. We know it as Armageddon. This is also when the harvest will occur because the wheat (true Christians and those righteously disposed) will be separated from the weeds (false Christians) which will be removed from the earth. 2. Jesus' presence with his disciples till the conclusion of the system of things began in 33 C.E. when he was crowned king (WT interprets this to mean king over the Christians, but it seems like he was made king over the whole earth, although Arauna has made some good points about why this is is not necessarily so ). All the above makes sense to me. However, we are still left with that secondary,"later application", (as opposed to the 1st century application) with regard to "the conclusion of the system of things" as being a period of time before Armageddon. If we do away with 1914, as there is no need for it if Jesus was crowned king over all in 33 CE , then there is also no need to solve the generation, but there still remain questions with regard to this specific time period. In other words, where does the "revival" of true religion in the time of the modern day "last days" fit in? (As the scriptures seem to indicate, and JWs believe). There seems to be plenty of evidence that apostasy did occur, as was predicted by Jesus, and therefor in time there had to be a separation of true Christians and counterfeit Christians. This though meets with conflict when we think of the idea of the two growing together as the weeds and the wheat until the harvest during Christ's coming/parusia/Armageddon because it could be understood that these two, the weeds and the wheat are intermingled, as in a field, and stay that way until they are separated at Armageddon. However, the Bible does say that in the time of the end true knowledge will become abundant, as opposed to apostatized knowledge. It is logical that people of like mind will gather together, and it fits in with the Bible students of Russell's day, and ultimately to our day as Jehovah's Witnesses worshiping together worldwide but in doctrinal unity. This is why I suppose Jehovah’s Witnesses are defined as a restorationist Christian religion as opposed to traditional "Christianity" which sprung up after the apostasy. Christendom, although believing in some kind of judgement day in the future, does not occupy itself with the possible imminent second coming of Christ. I definitely give Jehovah's Witnesses credit in this regard, because since the beginning of their organized activity, the focus has been on relentlessly preaching the good news of the kingdom, the nearness of Christs coming to settle nutters on earth, and for Christians to be ready and finally to be found by him to be spotless and unblemished (coincidentally this was an item in tonight's meeting). In contrast, Christendom has done nothing to prepare their members for that day....to be ready and found approved by God.... although through the centuries it has acquired many converts (using very un-Chritian means) ultimately, it has taught them many untruths and caused much blood shed in the name of God. Surely, those who separated themselves from that kind of "Christianity" and grouped together were the wheat, and already stood apart from the weeds as if they had been harvested. But as you say the fact that the preaching work is still going on, means that the planting is still going on and No one continues to plant after the harvest has started. " I remember the WT and remember thinking the same at the time.....So what is the answer to this problem?

I am glad this has moved to its own topic. I have not read the rest of the comments yet (Arauna) only the first one by JWI. I have always taken this scripture to mean that there will be people pointing to visible signs that Jesus is here. Like that he is physically in one particular spot, in the wilderness, or in an inner room...and that there will be many such people, false Christs (and there have been). So in contrast, and in that context, when v. 27 says that his presence will be from one end of the globe to the other, suggests that it could not be a literal physical presence of a person, since no one can be in more that one place at the same time. So therefor we should not be looking for Christ in one particular spot, in the wilderness or somewhere else. But we will see his "manifestation" from one end of the earth to the other. I know this is also WT interpretation, but it makes sense to me. So do you suggest that Christ will travel and greet every single person? (every eye will see him). So there are two types of "appearances" : The first is Christ's presence as the head of the congregation starting after his resurrection in 33 C E. (The WT agrees with that). The second one is his appearance (manifestation) when he comes to take the remnant to heaven and judge, and every eye will see him because it will be the battle of Armageddon. (The WT agrees with that too). But the problem seems that with WT, there are three appearances, 1.Christ's presence with the congregation after his resurrection in 33 CE, then interrupted with the great apostasy, then 2. restarted again in the time of the end (beginning 1914) and then 3. the manifestation where every eye will see him (Armageddon). So the problem is obviously the "interruption" part. Where is WT's scriptural basis for that? Although Jesus does not mention an interruption regarding his presence with his disciples, he says he will be with them till the end, and wherever two or three are gathered in his name he will be with them, but what about the apostasy? Are there scriptures that the WT mentions in support of Christ no longer being present with two or three gathered in his name starting after the apostasy all the way to the present time; starting back up again in the 20th century? (I am sorry, I would look it all up but I don't have the time right now, you probably already know which scriptures WT uses to support that idea). The visual this gives me is something that I would rather not imagine as it reminds me of creepy scenes in anecdotal videos of people levitating and rising into the sky like balloons. I just cannot imagine seeing Br. Jackson in his suit and tie, (or would he be casual), ascending into the clouds. Since flesh and blood cannot enter into the heavens, and those people will be transformed into spirits, that are invisible, how could then this whole scenario be visible? Of course I definitely agree with Armageddon being very visible, but not everyone could see the literal Jesus at the same time. That would be a physically impossibility, but all will know it is Jesus acting. Isn't that what is meant by every eye will see him? So obviously the presence of Christ with his disciples from 33 CE onward is different from the presence at the end, since that presence will be the Judgement day/lords day/day of Jehovah etc. basically Armageddon. And this presence will be a literal manifestation as is mentioned by 2 Thessalonians 2:8 "Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence [parousia]". Yes, I see that the parousia is tied in with not only being gathered to him (I am assuming that means in heaven, therefore the "rapture") but also to the day of Jehovah/Judgement day/Lords day/ Armageddon when those who suffer destruction will "see him" in the sense that they will know it is Jesus who is destroying the wicked. So the WT sees it that Jesus' invisible presence began in 1914, but we could also say it began in 33 CE because Jesus said he would be (invisibly) present with his followers right up to the end. That bit seems clear enough. In both versions his presence is associated with him becoming King (both 1914 or 33 CE). Now to his presence being visible and felt in a literal way because he is coming to judge, that would be Armageddon. The biggest discrepancy I can see, that you highlighted, is that Jesus said he will be with his disciples till the end, which means throughout the time from 33 CE until now. Which means without a break. The fact that the Bible students started searching and "seeing" Jesus in the 20th Century does not necessarily mean that Jesus had left off being with anybody (two or three) until that time. In fact we used to teach, and still do, that there have always been individuals who were anointed throughout the ages since the first century. I suppose this is because Jesus did not say he would take a break and come back at a later time. But then we do have those scriptures which point out that big gap with regard to true Christians....the wheat and the weeds, growing together, until the harvest, when true Christians as a group would be identified. When did that harvest start? WT says in the 20th century. I'm sorry, I know I have jumped around a lot, and repeated myself. I just put down my thoughts as they came to me and had no time to organize anything. I just copied and pasted.

I've only been checking in to read posts and for the last couple of days not even that. Although this is off topic here, I still want to pursue this discussion. I did make some notes when I read your post first, but that was several days ago. In any case, It's not everything I want to say, and I have probably missed some things because I haven't had the chance to really think about it properly and do relevant research (it's our CO visit). Anyway, here are some of the questions I have come up with. I don't have any references right now, but wasn't Jesus's supposed parousia/advent to be recognized only by those who had spiritual insight at the time? In other words it wasn't going to be a fanfare for everyone in the whole world. I know it wasn't originally expected in 1914, Russell pointed to other dates before that, but close enough that it could be said that those Bible students expected the glorious manifestation of the Christ, albeit invisible, seen with spiritual eyes, in their lifetime. And as time progressed it was decided that 1914 had been the year when this happened. (Although that there is a contradiction in itself because it was to be recognized and celebrated WHEN it happened not after the fact). You mentioned "(2 Timothy 4:8) From this time on, there is reserved for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give me as a reward in that day, yet not to me only, but also to all those who have loved his manifestation". So was this crown of righteousness given to all of Christs followers 'in that day' when Christ was made king in 33 CE? If I understand it correctly these are the two timeline options. I probably got it all wrong so please correct me. Option A 1.Jesus became king when he was resurrected to heaven in 33 C E. He battled with Satan and threw him down to the earth. 2. At the same time his invisible presence began, because he was to be present (in "spirit) with his followers, overseeing the congregations. 3. Synteleia: he will arrive to judge the nations at Armageddon, "where every eye will see him".* Option B 1. Jesus was made king over the anointed/ congregation in 33 CE. 2. At the same time his invisible presence began, because he was to be present (in "spirit) with his followers, overseeing the congregations. 3. Synteleia: In 1914 he became ruling King and battled with Satan and threw him down to the earth. 4. He will "arrive" to judge the nations at Armageddon when every eye will see him. One problem I can see is that when he arrived/will arive (synteleia) it would be a joyous occasion, welcoming the king with fanfare etc. This though would only be a joyous occasion for those who were Jesus's subjects, for Jesus enemies it would mean their end. I haven't really written everything down that I wanted to because I am running out of time again. I would like to have these terms clarified please: Coming, arriving and presence. Got to goooo! 🏃‍♀️

Best person to ask is the @The Librarian !

I understand what you are saying but I was mainly referring to character and personality traits rather than the environment someone grows up in, although that does have a certain role in shaping people. My point was that humans are humans wherever they are, their intrinsic qualities are basically the same, so with that in mind, Jehovah would surely give everyone a chance equally to get to know him regardless of upbringing or culture. We know Jehovah is impartial. But the problem is, it is logistically impossible to reach the billions of people in India especially those whose living conditions prevent them from having access to the internet. Recently, we heard how the brothers and sisters in Africa had trouble accessing our programs because of the lack of internet and how this was solved using local TV stations, which is also automatically resulting in a witness. Perhaps something like that would be possible in India? In any case, I am not worried, and like you, I leave it in Jehovah's hands because he is a righteous judge and he will not destroy anyone unjustly. I just brought it up because many don't think of areas outside of what they already know. I just wanted to bring attention to it 😁.

I tried to figure out, using averages, how many of (for example) those 1.3 billion in India could potentially become baptised Witnesses. Assuming that the people in India are the same as any other people in the world, no more or no less good/evil in their general character, and we use the ratio of Witnesses to the general population of say the USA, where there is about one Witness per 400 people or is it around 300? (the number is not accurate, just rounded off) that would mean that potentially there should currently be around 3,250,000 Witnesses in India. Using the ratio of 1:400. The point I am trying to make is that the Indian people, (although steeped in false religion, through no fault of their own, just born into it) have just as much potential to become a Witness as someone in another country. There are only over 8 million Witnesses worldwide, how long would it take to preach to all those people in India so that they get the same chance and opportunity as people in other countries? Personally, I think Jehovah will judge their hearts without them ever having to be exposed to the Truth. Just like he will judge the hearts of those elsewhere who have not heard or had a chance to respond to the good news.

All I can see so far is that it's not in chronological order, at least not if we apply our current understanding. Looking forward to what you have yo say about it.

Yes, I find WT teaching about this a tad puzzling since as you say 1 Cor 15:25 seems quite clear. BUT, v. 23 talks about those belonging to Christ during his presence, as if his presence is at a different time to when he was resurrected. I suppose it all hangs on when Christ's presence began then (I know you have discussed this a number of time). Anyway WT explains it like this (I know you know how WT explains it) Insight Volume 2 p. 169-170: This Kingdom is of greater proportions and bigger dimensions than “the kingdom of the Son of his love,” spoken of at Colossians 1:13. “The kingdom of the Son of his love” began at Pentecost 33 C.E. and has been over Christ’s anointed disciples; “the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ” is brought forth at the end of “the appointed times of the nations” and is over all mankind on earth.—Lu 21:24. WT w02 10/1 p. 18-19 When Jesus ascended to heaven, he did not immediately take up the scepter of rulership over the peoples of the world. (Psalm 110:1) However, he did receive a “kingdom” with subjects that obeyed him. The apostle Paul identified that kingdom when he wrote: “[God] delivered us [spirit-anointed Christians] from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son of his love.” (Colossians 1:13) This deliverance began at Pentecost 33 C.E. when holy spirit was poured out on Jesus’ faithful followers.—Acts 2:1-4; 1 Peter 2:9. I must admit this is the first time I have noticed the reference "Jesus's first Kingdom" w90 3/15 p. 15-16: AT PENTECOST 33 C.E., Jesus Christ, the Head of the congregation, began actively ruling in the kingdom of his spirit-anointed slaves. How so? By means of the holy spirit, angels, and a visible governing body. As the apostle Paul indicated, God ‘delivered anointed ones from the authority of the darkness and transferred them into the kingdom of the Son of his love.’—Colossians 1:13-18; Acts 2:33, 42; 15:2; Galatians 2:1, 2; Revelation 22:16. 2. In what larger Kingdom did Christ begin reigning in 1914? At the end of “the appointed times of the nations,” Jehovah increased Christ’s kingly authority, extending it beyond the Christian congregation. (Luke 21:24) Yes, in the year 1914, God gave his Son kingly authority over the “nations,” “the kingdom of the world,” all mankind.—Psalm 2:6-8; Revelation 11:15. What's your argument with the above? (Goodness, we are all over the place now....So I will say Furuli....I wonder what his opinion is on this. I haven't read all his book yet, I zeroed in on the GB bit only so far).

I find it diffcult to imagine how those poor people living in the slums of India will ever hear anything significant enough to make them change their way of life and go against the caste system, if they ever hear anything at all. There are no Witnesses in those areas and most people don't have internet access or any other means of finding any Witnesses or anything to do with us. Most probably don't know what a Bible is. The slum population is reckoned to be over 68 million.

I am sure WT knows that there are no literal thrones in heaven. But the Bible itself describes the heavenly arrangement using literal images known to humans. We know these are not literal either, and understand that these things were written this way in order to help humans better "visualize". So it's not WT's doing as you imply. As for the Kingdom being a condition in the heart of an individual only, well there are too many scriptures that show that there will be some kind of "kingdom/government" call it what you want, with Jesus as the head as a tool to bring mankind on earth to perfection, and when accomplished Jesus will hand over the "Kingdom" back to his father. Again, the Bible is being very literal, but how things will actually be we can't really know I'm sure.

it seems unbelievable to me too, but don't the scriptures warn that in the final test after the thousand years many will turn? Or do you think that's a missaplied scripture? I like Tom's idea that they may not think they are actually rebelling and that they may think they are helping some who they think have lost their way. Maybe it will be some kind of presumptiousness on their part. Like when "whats his name" tried to prevent the ark of the covenant from falling...