Anna

18 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

superfine apostles from Jerusalem (like James, Peter, and John).

I am under the impression that these brothers were not who Paul had in mind, but he was talking about the "Judeizers" 

Didn't he call James, Peter and John pillars? I'm not on my pc so I can't check. I will probably have to come back to this later with some scriptures...

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

This is what you want to be writing your books about, Greg Stafford, not arguing over the Trinity.

Did you tell him that?

22 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

and you don't need three days and 20 videos to explain it.

Some do!

11 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Yeah, thoughts that circled in my mind about this in recent years, made me to think how God "desperately" need love from creatures He brought to existence - Humans (and Angels).

It has been, and is my understanding that God doesn't "need" anything. However, in his love he had the desire to give other creatures the gift of existence, (or life), so that other beings could experience to some degree what he had (life), which included the joy of being alive. I think that the love you say God needs from intelligent creatures is actually for their benefit, not for his. He created them with a spiritual side, which only gets fulfilled with knowing and loving Him. Like a child who knows and loves his father, is in a better/happier position than a child who does not know who their father is. (Children with adoptive parents always want to know, or want to search, for their real parents once they come of age).

12 hours ago, Outta Here said:

Don't understand this. I think @Anna raised the topic?

Not me 😞

9 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

If this 'brother' had been involved in a child abuse accusation would they have told H about it so that she could be on her guard ? 

Yes. 

But there is absolutely  nothing wrong with your wife approaching your daughter with concerns about this 'brother', as suggested by TTH:

9 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Say ‘the guy might be a pervert. Remember the warning everyone got at the 2017 Regional convention?’

16 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

TO UNDERSTAND WHAT JESUS OR THE APOSTLES REALLY MEANT, YOU HAVE TO "GET INTO THE MIND" OF THOSE THAT WERE BEING SPOKEN TO AT THE TIME.

HOW DID THEY UNDERSTAND IT ?

Agree!

On 6/3/2019 at 11:31 PM, Noble Berean said:

The WT's statements about the GB are a logical fallacy. That is why you are having difficult harmonizing your beliefs.

1. "The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watch Tower Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870. Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food." Watchtower 2017 Feb p.26
2. "Since Jehovah God and Jesus Christ completely trust the faithful and discreet slave, should we not do the same?" Watchtower 2009 2/15 p. 24-28

It's the textbook example of cognitive dissonance: believing in contradictory ideas at the cost of one's mental state. There is a reason why JWs struggle in the organization. They are being given mixed signals under their leadership. JWs are expected to be understanding of the GB's mistakes while also fully compliant to their direction. Imagine having a spouse that demands total obedience but also expects love and understanding when wrong. People would call that an unhealthy relationship with one partner holding all the power.

One wonders why Jehovah God appointed fallible, uninspired men over his people when he was perfectly capable of accurately conveying his truths to the writers of the Bible? There is no scriptural precedent for the idea of unquestioned obedience to a group of uninspired men. There is no scriptural precedent to putting obedience to men above scriptural truth. 

Complete trust in someone or some group requires strong support. Trust in the GB can't come from its history of unwavering doctrine, because the GB acknowledges it has made errors in doctrine and changes have been made. Trust also can't come from the GB's prophet status, because the GB acknowledges it is not inspired by God. 

So, what does the WT offer as support for complete trust in the GB?

1. The preaching work: "...the faithful and discreet slave has been able to accomplish in giving a worldwide witness about Jehovah God, his Son, and the Kingdom. Jehovah’s worshippers are actively proclaiming the Kingdom message in over 230 lands and island groups." 2009 2/15 p. 24-28
2. The growth in members: "...In the last 15 years, the number of congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide has grown from some 70,000 to over 100,000—an increase of over 40 percent. And what about the new disciples added? Nearly 4.5 million disciples were baptized in the last 15 years—an average of more than 800 a day." 2009 2/15 p. 24-28

This 'support' is brought into question when it is pointed out that other Christian denominations engage in forms of preaching work all around the world. For many years, the JW organization did have tremendous growth, but that growth has slowed in recent years and is even in decline in some countries. The fastest growing Christian denominations in America are Catholics and Evangelicals. (The fastest growing religion in the world is Islam.) So, this support is weak at best, and it doesn't change the logical paradox the GB expects all JWs to accept.

I agree with some of your points. But your comment has also helped me to see things I would have otherwise not realised. Right now I do not have time to respond properly as we have visitors out of town staying with us. But I promise I will get around to it soon!

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

If I was not a JW in good standing (actually, I sit down a lot ...) the WT Study Conductor would not have called on me.

Maybe they're just worried if they didn't call on you you might get upset and reach for your holster

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

However, I never heard anyone (who watched Jackson's testimony in its entirety) point out any instances or evidences of humility. Sorry to say it, but his overall demeanor, to me, actually stood out as haughty and smug.

Just a side observation, a little off topic, but I am sorry to say, I felt the same way. Like you though, I don't think Br. Jackson is haughty, and probably neither are the others, but it seems that Br. Jackson was looking down on counsel assisting as someone who was completely incompetent and ignorant of the scriptures and had no idea where to find any of the Bible books. I understand why most of us believe "worldly" people lack knowledge in that department, because most probably do, but I could see it really started to get on Stewart's nerves when Br. Jackson kept repeatedly "guiding" him to find the books. In a few instances I felt like those two were like two roosters in a ring.

On 5/27/2019 at 9:18 AM, JOHN BUTLER said:

But you're right it's not democratic either, it's a dictatorship.

Your opinion. But regardless, you can still take it or leave it 🙂

21 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Probably something like the 'This generation' scripture now means 5 generations twice removed. 

Could be anything, the GB make it up to suit themselves. 

 

I thought you were being serious when you said the Witnesses need a new message, and I thought you knew what that message should be

13 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

So not only new tools but new message too.

Interesting. So you must have some ideas on what this message should be. Care to share?

Of course this would never happen. The org. is not some kind of talk show or democratically run establishment.  You either take it or leave it.

18 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

as she is viewing both sides,

I'm just trying to be fair, and I believe the truth is the truth and a lie is a lie no matter who says it.

1 hour ago, Witness said:

We don't censor "adult" parts of the Bible for our young ones, so why should we "censor" practical warnings of real lurking dangers that could be around them?

I don't think we do that anymore do we?

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

In the past, where the "notoriety" had been thought to be limited to the victim, victim's immediate family, and fellow elders (or fellow circuit overseers, or higher) there have been cases (I now know of two, but wouldn't be surprised at greater numbers) where the perpetrator was simply moved to a place, new circuit, or new country, where that elder was no long in contact with the victim or victim's family.

I don't know of any cases like that, but I do know (personally) of one prominent, influential elder (no longer living) who was removed as elder because of notoriety, but remained a pioneer. I don't think today he would be pioneering.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Hate to say it, but there are a lot of single parents, especially sisters, who ask for elders/ms to study with their young children for them.

I've had different experience. I know it was definitely like that in the past, I agree, but in recent years I've noticed that elders are very reluctant to step in, even when asked, and if they do, then as you say, they ask the parent to sit in.

11 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

JW's give private bible studies to children and take them out on the ministry. 

 No one gives private bible studies to children anymore unless they are the parents. Same with the ministry.

11 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

 if people visit churches as a family it would be most likely that the children would stay with their parents all the time.

Most churches separate kids from the parents. It is JW kids who stay with their parents all the time.

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Also, in general, I think the evidence is strong that the higher up a person is in the organization, the more he has been protected from scandal, because that scandal was thought to reflect so badly when it is someone known by all the Witnesses of a specific country or, at least once in the past, even internationally.

Being protected from scandal surely does not include remaining an Elder despite clear evidence that they have been guilty of child abuse,  since that is what John was mainly talking about. I cannot see that happening in view of 1Timothy 3:2. A person like that would clearly not qualify, even if the accusation was not true, but there was notoriety. 

17 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Do you believe any of the cases of child abuse within the JW Org, from any country in this earth ?

Yes, I do, and so do elders and others I have spoken with.

17 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Do you believe that any of the Elders that did continuously abuse children in the JW Org were known to be doing so

This may have been a reality, but not because the elders were known to be doing so, but rather because no one believed they really were doing it. If it was a victims word against an elder, the elder's denial may have been believed over the victim. Big difference.

17 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Do you think it was possible for those Elders to continue to abuse children because they were allowed to keep their position as Elder even though it was known they had abused children in the past

Yes, it was possible because of same answer as above.

17 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

OR do you think that every complaint against every Elder concerning child abuse, is a lie by apostates ? 

You have already forgotten that no one ever said that cases of child abuse were lies by apostates. What has been said is that apostates say that we do not care about child abuse, and that is a lie. Again, big difference.

17 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

But of course JW Org is much better than the Nation of Israel    isn't it.

What I actually said was that no organization purposefully condones child abuse.

On 5/21/2019 at 11:33 AM, JOHN BUTLER said:

Do you believe ANY of the cases, from ANY country in this earth, that say an Elder was allowed to keep his position and status and his conduct was kept hidden, so he was able to abuse more children or abuse the same child on a regular basis ?

I noticed this question, and I know you were asking TTH, but I would like to say no, I do not believe that this has ever been the case. Now if Jehovah's Witnesses were a child porn ring in disguise, then I might believe it. You, as a reasonable person, and I am assuming you are reasonable, has to see that no human organization (unless it is what I mentioned) will knowingly and purposefully condone child molestation.

On 5/17/2019 at 11:11 PM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Humans, after all ..... are just big ugly bags of mostly water

Not me

12 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Elvis's love child could be  found alive inside a watermelon. 

This seriously cracked me up! Where do you even go for these ideas?