Anna

10 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

We agreed that I would do as much or as little as I wanted to, whenever I wanted to, with the Digger/dumper episode being the exception. 

The handshake was a kind of trust between us. I mean, we could have bought in squatters / homeless folk or had wild parties there. The owner was in London, mile away. He had no idea what we were doing. He trusted us to be 'caretakers / key holders' of his £850,000 property.  

My feeling is that i allowed my Christian attitude to flow over into this situation. Matthew 5 v 39 to 42 

 However, I say to you: Do not resist the one who is wicked, but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him.⁴⁰  And if a person wants to take you to court and get possession of your inner garment, let him also have your outer garment; ⁴¹  and if someone in authority compels you into service for a mile, go with him two miles. ⁴²  Give to the one asking you, and do not turn away from one who wants to borrow from you.

The joy of doing something for someone else whilst having the free run of this semi derelict mansion was fantastic. Money is not the means to happiness is it ? Giving is better than receiving. We gave our time and we still are but in a more limited way as winter approaches. 

I have found here in the UK that there are many people, other than JW's, that give a lot of time and effort to others for free. They too have the joy of giving... And Space Merchant seems to give a lot of his time to others for free, and he is not a JW. 

I've no idea about Stateside, how they behave and why. And I have a poor opinion of Americans overall, but i don't really know why.  

Now here is one more reason that i didn't mind giving of my time and it does involve money. I receive government pension as I'm an old un'. I also receive pension top up, extra money. Now if i do any paid work, the government department, if they find out, will not only stop that extra money, but also I'll be in trouble. Any paid work would mean, I'm no longer retired, as I'd be working. But it would not be regular income, so in the long run I would be worse off.  It would be too much hassle to do a bit of part time work and declare it, then stop work, and declare it, then start again..... So much easier to give my time freely and enjoy it. 

And as I've said, therapy. To work hard in a quiet space, to rest when we wanted and sunbathe,  to walk the land and see how nature had taken over, to be at peace and not to worry about anything or any one. Therapy. To come home tired at the end of the day, knowing we had worked well and given of ourselves freely to another. To rest and sleep well. 

I’m sorry John, even to be a house sitter, and using all the facilities or whatever, the decent thing for the owner of the house is to pay some kind of compensation for your services. I don’t know the details of what kind of an agreement you have but it sounds odd.  I think having you taking care of the property ensures that there are no squatters. So you are doing the owner a BIG favour. As for wild parties, I mean, even if you had one every week, what damage would that do to an already dilapidated house?  

I assume your profile pic is of your son and his wife, or your daughter and her husband? So are they working on the property too, as the young lady is driving the digger.

You are right, money is not a means to happiness and giving is better than receiving, but I think when Jesus said those words he didn’t have in mind free labour for someone with more money than you.

The only thing that does make sense is that you are retired and so earning extra money would be a problem, and so you are treating this as a hobby, and I understand that. What I don’t understand is the owner.  Hopefully he will be decent enough to reward you with some kind of compensation at a later date....

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Yes all for free, no wages, no agreement, just on a hand shake. 

On a hand shake? What does that mean, lol. That you all agreed on slave labour? My goodness, I must have been out of the country too long and got used to everyone paying for everything and expecting to be paid for everything. No one one, I mean NO one (except the brothers and sisters) does anything for free in America! Time is money. Always.

On 10/29/2018 at 1:06 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

my wife and i to clear some earth and rubbish with.

Did you say you were doing all this for free??

On 10/29/2018 at 8:21 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

Unfortunately, lawyers cooled off much of that. When trespassers began suffering injuries on private property & owners were sued for it, many responded by making their property off-limits.

I know. I've never known a country so bent on lawsuits! In any case, you're not a trespasser if you have roaming rights. I don't hink lawsuits were the only reason though.

This should be an interesting read:

https://www.amazon.com/This-Land-Our-Lost-Right/dp/073521784X/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0/130-3437771-3998608?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=GH6923Z4YCETS09WHXRR

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

planned hiking trails

One thing that upset me when I moved to the USA was the realisation that one cannot just walk anywhere. In Europe, for the most part, everyone has "the right to roam" which means you can pretty much go anywhere, even on privately owned land. In America, most land is owned by someone, and that someone does not tolerate anyone walking through their property. I'm sure @James Thomas Rook Jr. wouldn't hesitate to put a bullet through your head. There are "parks" but those parks are rarely within walking distance. You might have perfect hiking acreage right behind your house, but if it doesn't belong to you,  you can't go there. In England, most privately owned fields and meadows can be accessed by pedestrians and hikers (including their free running dogs, in America you can only let your dog run in a dog park) through a style or "kissing gate". Trails are made naturally by people frequently walking there, not by someone preparing them specially for that purpose. Farmers who drive tractors through a field leave a path, and people walk on those too. As long as you do not infringe on someones garden (yard) around the house (which is usually fenced anyway) you are not trespassing. Of course there is the odd grumpy farmer who puts up "do not trespass" signs in a field, but there are not many....

So in view of that, hiking trails are not really a planned thing in England in the same sense as in America. Of course there are nature reserves, where there are sign posted trails, but generally, in the rural countryside, (where John Buttler's house is) there is no need for them. The same goes for Scotland. In fact I think now you can also put a tent up anywhere, and you can fish and canoe on all the rivers, even if it cuts through someones land.

In Switzerland, you can hike anywhere as well, and you don't have to stick to trails. The whole alpine region is completely and freely accessible to everyone. As for other European states, it's pretty much the same. Oh, and all the nature reserves are "free". They are paid for by the state.

So apparently America is the land of the free. Not in my mind   The book "trespassing across America" sounds interesting.....

 

This almost looks identical to the field behind my mum's house. One year it was growing rapeseed and it was amazing walking through a field of pure yellow...

 

 

 

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I live a real life, not fantasy world stuff. My wife and I do occasionally snuggle up on the sofa and watch a film on Netflix. But it would be something we'd choose between us and not on a regular basis.

I'm deeply involved in auctions and 'caretaker' of a semi derelict mansion, so i'm busy enough and getting out lots. 

What do you think of 'my' house then ? 

 

Wow, it's fantastic! Looks like a lot of work on the pillars, will they be able to be restored to their original beauty?

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Anna, here we have a technicality. 

My comment was that many 'feared they would be disfellowshipped if they went outside the org'..  Some have actually said that.

Yes, I understood what you said. They had a fear.  But it was unfounded because like I said; "going to the police was never a disfellowshipping matter". However, and I added a clause, if going to the police was part and parcel of gossiping and slandering, then they could be disfellowshipped for that. And as you say, you have experienced that yourself, even when unfounded!

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

But Elders could find another reason to use to disfellowship said person, and /or a person could well be shunned by the congregation if the congregation found out that said person had gone to the police. 

Yes, a bad elder could find another reason to disfellowship because if going to the police is not a disfellowshipping matter, and if there is no slander involved, then this elder has no grounds to act that way, and he has to make something up. Anyone who does that is dishonest. He would be acting on his own, and NOT because of any instructions from the GB. So remember John, if unfounded, then these are the actions of a bad elder, and not because of any instructions from the Bethel or the GB. My experience with elders has been very good for the most part, most elders have been loving and caring people. BUT I also have known a couple of bad elders. They do exist for sure. There were bad elders in the 1st century;

"I wrote something to the congregation, but Di·otʹre·phes, who likes to have the first place among them, does not accept anything from us with respect. That is why if I come, I will call attention to the works he is doing in spreading malicious talk about us. Not being content with this, he refuses to welcome the brothers with respect; and those who want to welcome them, he tries to hinder and to throw out of the congregation". John 3:9

And yes, some congregation members could shun said person. But they would be acting on their own as well, and not from anything that was instructed by anyone. You cannot control how certain people will act, even if it's unfair or wrong. You cannot stop someone from "marking" someone else, even if unfounded. That is a personal thing unfortunately. But Jehovah sees the heart and will judge all.

10 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

many have said they were told NOT to go to the Police or outside authorities. And many have said they feared being disfellowshipped if they did go to those outside of the Org. That seems to have been at least 50% of the problem in past cases. 

I have heard that too, but it seems it wasn't many, but a few. Some elders were acting on a wrong interpretation of "one should not take another brother to court". Of course that was never talking about crime such as murder or sexual abuse. And some elders took it upon themselves to say that it should not to be taken outside the congregation so as not to sully Jehovah's name. Which was wrong, and was never an instruction from Bethel. Also, taking the matter to the police was NEVER a reason for disfellowshipping. If someone was disfellowshipped it was because of unrepentant gossip and slander.

11 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

In my opinion ALL Child Abuse accusations should be handed over to the Police immediately, and Social Services / Children's Welfare should be involved if a child is in danger.

Yes, I believe so too. I believe the PARENT should go to the police first thing, and then to the elders second. However, if the parent goes to the elders first, the elders are not always mandated reporters. Regardless, some parents do not wish to involve the police at all! (that goes for non JW parents too). It very much depends on who the perpetrator is and what the circumstances are. Not every parent wants to rush to the police or if their 9 year old daughter tells them senile grandpa was a little too touchy feely the other day. Some parents opt for keeping granddaughter out of reach of grandpa. I feel a parent who is well connected to their child, knows their child, communicates with their child and watches their child will instinctively know when to report someone. Unfortunately, not all parents are like that.

6 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

It's a sword that cuts BOTH ways .......

 

 

 

 

 

She looks a little scary

7 hours ago, John Houston said:

This subject is dark. Because the person talked about is accused. Even if true what they have done, before found out, they are guilty. What a spot to be in. Like being a black person. So they are to be followed from now on shadowed because they are accused of this. Can you sense the reaction of telling people of their presence openly, of just being accused? Being black and stopped and frisked for no apparent reason other than my skin color, this person outed why? For only an accusation, since the writing states established or not. Man, what a way to live. It would be hard enough if it was true, convicted and disfellowshipped, but just being accused, wow. Who would want to live in that limbo. I do daily, I know how that person feels. The new congregation needs not to know yet. Only if I have been tried and true. But on accusation alone, no, that ain't right, humanly right for anyone. We have gotten to sensitive and police everything, calling nine one one on people at the drop of a hat.

Kind of sucks doesn't it, if the accused is actually innocent. Until there is proof, I don't think the police can do anything either. The person can only be put on a sexual predator registry only if they are convicted, otherwise no. I think in a congregationally un-established case it would be good to hand the matter over to the police, since they have better means for investigation at their disposal. But I always say there is no smoke without a fire. And most children do not make things like this up. The problem is the victims tend to speak up when they are adults, and who knows what kind of ulterior motive can there be behind an accusation.....

There is no doubt  that false allegations do happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_allegation_of_child_sexual_abuse

18 hours ago, Nicole said:

And why not inform the elders of the new congregation about a person who could be a danger to the community? 

I don't see anything in those instructions that prohibit the elders from informing the new congregation. All it says is to inform the legal department first. The pertinent question is what kind of direction do the elders receive back from the legal department.....

I just realised @Gone Away gave a similar answer....

8 hours ago, Gone Away said:

This has to be the best off topic entry ever!

Thanks. And here it is! And also, to add to your list, people NEVER close doors in the house, or the front door. And when they eat or write they are almost always left handed.

@Space Merchant look out for it!

7 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I study movies for detail

Me too! It detracts a little from the movie but it's fascinating. Even in the best movies there are sequence or continuity errors. Like you know, in one shot the character has her hair in a pony tail, and in the next shot its loose. It surprises me sometimes how script supervisors don't catch some of those things. My cousin is a film director and he tells me some interesting stories. And have you noticed, there is ALWAYS a green desk lamp in every movie (well almost).

5 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

go downtown to the Main Public Library, and they had a viewer that could show archived newspapers, magazines, etc.  You would sit down and run a roll of tiny negatives through a projector to a screen in front of you

You mean like they do in the movies?

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

(you had already defended yourself very well) a few hundred posts back in this thread.

Well at least it's popular

23 hours ago, JW Insider said:

- I think that the whole blood issue is entirely a matter of conscience.

I suppose you think it should be a matter of conscience because you believe the scripture at Acts 15:29 is ambiguous?

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

unfair it seemed that someone started a thread with your name in it

IT was the librarian, he was punishing me for not sticking to a topic. Now it looks like I started this thread. I would never start a topic with a title like that.

1 hour ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

That red liquid is technically referred to as cow bovine, not blood. 

I've not heard that, must be a butchers term or something. Bovine is usually another name for cow, or cattle

12 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Can a human live a normal life without a heart? Can a human live a normal life without lungs?

This, in essence, is fractioned blood. On their own, it means very little to the human body, since it is just one particular function out of many.

I like this reasoning.

9 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

The ONLY reason blood fractions are allowed (ALLOWED!!) by the Governing Body is for better public relations spin, and to try for plausible deniability in today's cultures Earth wide so when sued, they will NOT LOSE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF MONEY.

I don't look at it that way. Blood fractions are left up to conscience because it is a grey area for some. And when something is a grey area then one shouldn't impose ones' views. Humans were not capable of separating blood into fractions when the prohibitive scripture was written.

9 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

God's admonition against his declared personal property, for which he is jealous and possessive, stated "blood" is not to be used except for two things .... sacrifice to God, as was done in ancient Israel, and pouring it out onto the ground, after slaughtering an animal for food or resources needed by humans, which was an acceptable way of "returning the blood to God".

YES. This is also why many Witnesses won't accept blood fractions, their conscience tells them it is still blood, even if its a fractional part of it.

Eating a bloody steak is also a conscience matter.

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Many Earthwide who were once JW's and have left or been removed because they were stumbled due to the GB policies and the puppet Elders that didn't question orders..

Luke 17 v 1&2 

" Then he said to his disciples: “It is unavoidable that causes for stumbling should come. Nevertheless, woe to the one through whom they come! It would be more advantageous for him if a millstone were hung from his neck and he were thrown into the sea than for him to stumble one of these little ones."

The problem with that is that sometimes in someone's eyes you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. And what someone calls being stumbled, someone else calls being strengthened, by exactly the same thing. I suppose it all boils down to attitude and :

Colossians  3:13

"Continue putting up with one another and forgiving one another freely even if anyone has a cause for complaint against another. Just as Jehovah freely forgave you, you must also do the same. 14  But besides all these things, clothe yourselves with love, for it is a perfect bond of union."

11 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

As it's often quoted: "Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do or die."

....when there's no rhyme or reason

3 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

As described, such a quick and violent flood would wash away the topsoil, and this would make it the worst time to plant, and for many years into the future.

Nah, that washed away soil must have settled somewhere. You know, like drifts of snow I imagine a lot of mud everywhere

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

And then the Flood, (Après à fois le déluge. ..)after which it became much easier again to cultivate the ground

Probably because the soil was nicely softened from all that water. I like to wait for after some rain before I start weeding or digging in the garden. We have clay soil and it gets as hard as a rock! (Did you just come back from France?)