Anna

All depends on who is shepherding according to Ezekiel 34:1-6
"The word of Jehovah again came to me, saying:
2 “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel. Prophesy, and say to the shepherds, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says: “Woe to the shepherds of Israel, who have been feeding themselves! Is it not the flock that the shepherds should feed?
3 You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, and you slaughter the fattest animal, but you do not feed the flock.
4 You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bandaged the injured or brought back the strays or looked for the lost; rather, you have ruled them with harshness and tyranny.
5 So they were scattered because there was no shepherd; they were scattered and became food for every wild beast of the field.
6 My sheep were straying on all the mountains and on every high hill; my sheep were scattered over all the surface of the earth, with no one searching for them or seeking to find them. "
Why not read on..............

16) Three blind mice
17) The Three Degrees
18) Moe, Larry and Curly
19) Emerson, Lake and Palmer
20)  Kepler's three laws of planetary motion
21) Earth, Wind and Fire
22) Tom, Dick and Harry
23) Shake, Rattle and Roll
24) Three Billy Goats Gruff
25) Lies, damn lies and statistics
 

We respect those who have religious beliefs. The beliefs themselves may have to earn respect.

Wikipedia says the following about Arianism: Arian teachings were first attributed to Arius (c. AD 256–336), a Christian presbyter in Alexandria, Egypt.
But note that Origen was born in the late 2nd century and did most of his language and theological work in the early 3rd century. Of him, Wikipedia says: "Origen. . .  184/185 – 253/254),[1] was a Greek scholar, ascetic,[2] and early Christian theologian who was born and spent the first half of his career in Alexandria. "
Personally, I trace the fundamentals of Arianism to the gospel of John. I think that Anti-Arianism probably was raised to a high pitch based on the public arguments between Arius and Homoousians leading up to a decision by council at Nicaea in 325 CE.
It turns out that the earlier manuscripts of John were more Arian than the later manuscripts. Just look at John 1:18
(John 1:18) No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him. (NWT)
(John 1:18) No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (KJV)
You might think that JWs would have preferred that this verse had read "only-begotten Son" instead of "only-begotten God." You might also think that Trinitarians in the 4th century had no reason to tamper with an expression like "only-begotten God" and would have no reason to change it to "only-begotten Son."
Yet that is exactly where the evidence leads. The manuscripts split here on this reading going all the way back to the major Bible mss of the 4th century. I won't take the time to explain the whole footnote here from the NWT Reference Bible, but the main symbols to be concerned with are: Alpha, A, B, C, and in this case P75 and P66.
(NWT footnote on John 1:18) “The only-begotten god,” P75אc; P66א*BC*, “only-begotten god”; ACcItVgSyc,h, “the only-begotten Son.”
The P66  refers to Papyrus Bodmer 2, Gr., c. 200 C.E., Geneva, G.S. (Note the date!)
The P75 refers to Papyrus Bodmer 14, 15, Gr., c. 200 C.E., Geneva, G.S.  (Note the date!)
The Aleph refers to the Sinaiticus:
א (ʼAleph)   Codex Sinaiticus, Gr., fourth cent. C.E., British Museum, H.S., G.S.
The B refers to the Codex Vaticanus:    
Vatican ms 1209, Gr., fourth cent. C.E., Vatican City, Rome, H.S., G.S.
But notice that "only-begotten Son" appears first in the 5th century:
A       Codex Alexandrinus, Gr., fifth cent. C.E., British Museum, H.S., G.S.
 
The change was an obvious requirement after the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century. You couldn't say that Jesus was an only begotten God after Arianism was outlawed. That was the crux of Arianism. Therefore a few major manuscripts of the 4th century begin to reflect this. Even 2nd/3rd century manuscripts support the Arian teaching. Two of the most well-read early Christian writers/historians/scholars were Eusebius and Origen. Both of them believed a form of Arianism.
Note this about Origen in a respected and scholarly theological journal:
THE ORIGINS OF ARIANISM Author(s): T. E. Pollard Source: The Journal of Theological Studies, New Series, Vol. 9, No. 1 (April 1958), pp. 103- 111 Published by: Oxford University Press
Page 1 starts out:
THE ORIGINS OF ARIANISM The question of the origins of Arianism is, at the present time, still wide open. 'It is a matter of considerable doubt whether Arianism is to be traced to Antioch or to Alexandria, and also how far it is due to the teaching of Origen.'1 At the outbreak of the Arian controversy, Alexander of Alexandria connected Arius' doctrine yvith that of Paul of Samosata, that is with the Antiochene tradition,2 and this view has been accepted by B. J. Kidd.3 On the other hand, F. W. Green asserts that 'to make Paul the father of Arianism is to add insult to a man already sufficiently injured, and rather unintelligent insult'.4 F. Loofs describes Arius as belonging to 'the tradition of left-wing Origenism', and in a footnote adds that 'the connection between Arius and Paul of Samosata, emphasised by Alexander of Alexandria, the opponent of Arius, is scarcely of importance for the understanding of Arian Christology'.5 Likewise, Père Bardy asserts quite categorically that there is no connexion between the teaching of Arius and that of Paul,6 and that the roots of Arianism are to be found in Origenism.7
After reading this entire article and a couple others like it, I'm personally convinced that Arianism does indeed date to a time prior to the birth of Arius. We can see evidence of the teaching in Origen. [And some important elements of it from Paul of Samosata (200-275). It was Paul's student Lucian of Antioch who is said to have had been a major influence on Arius, per the Wikipedia article on Paul of Samosata.]
But, more importantly, the textual evidence leads us all the way back to the earliest papyri of the gospel of John.
 

Wow, this thread has grown so fast I hardly have time to keep up with it! Very good reading though and some good reasoning. What I have found though when it comes to arguing with Trinitarians about the Trinity....it leads absolutely nowhere....mainly because the Trinity is such a fundamental and "sacred" idea to them that denying it is tantamount to blasphemy. To them it's almost like if an atheist tried to convince us Witnesses that there is no God.
What I find fascinating is that pretty much everything surrounding the birth of the Trinity, or the official definition of it, or the definition of the substance of the Christ in relation to God etc. is based on human philosophies and not the simple and pure language of the scriptures.  Jesus’ disciples in the 1st Century clearly understood  Jesus to be  the son of God and a separate being from him. The simple statements that the Bible makes about the Father, his son and the holy spirit were later twisted into an incomprehensible pretzel, which as Eoin points out, needs an equally incomprehensible vocabulary and explanations which actually don’t explain anything and so ironically end up being called a “mystery” for simplicity sake.
Just the other day in service we got to talking to a man who brought up the argument that Jesus could not have been a created being because if he was, he could not have atoned for our sins. That he had to be God himself to make the sacrifice valid. Where do they get that idea from? Doesn’t  Paul in 1 Cor 45-47 explain it quite well: “So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.”  The last Adam became a life-giving spirit...... The first man is from the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven”. In fact, why did the 2nd Century “church fathers” have the need to define the substance of Jesus when as the apostle Paul says “If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one”. All they had to do is simply understand that when Jesus was first created he had a spiritual body, then when he was transferred into the womb of Mary he had a physical body and when he was resurrected he became a spirit being again.
It's interesting that the church fathers didn't seem to refer to the scriptures much but rather to Greek and other philosophical ideas to determine the substance of the Christ. They preferred going beyond what was written.

By the way not all here are Jehovah's Witnesses so your remarks are irrelevant. So where is the Trinity in your Bible?  
 "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."
Of course but once they found out it was PAGAN they changed. What about you? If you found out that your cherished beliefs were also false as the Witnesses did are you humble enough to change?

I'm not addressing a particular individual on this public forum, but I would like to contribute  to the general discussion.
Seems the Trinity idea takes a number of guises. This view differs substantially from what I was taught growiing up as a Roman Catholic.
"God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one, united in their purpose of saving man. But they're obviously three different entities. Jesus while on earth prays to His Father in heaven. Jesus was neither a ventriloquist nor a schizophrenic. He was talking to His Father, and His Father answered Him. In the gospel of John, the disciples say, "We heard the Father answer Him." Doug Batchelor (Seventh Day Adventist Pastor.)
However, it seems to reflect current thinking amongst a number of different church groups.
For me, the principle Paul refers to at 1Cor.14:9 is relevant here:
"unless you with the tongue use speech that is easily understood, how will anyone know what is being said? You will, in fact, be speaking into the air" 
The vocabulary used in explaining the doctorine of the Trinity includes words/phrases such as: 
filioque dual procession appropriation perichoresis hypostases procession The Essential (also called Immanent or Ontological) Trinity The Economic Trinity Some different opinions (referred to as heresies) include:: 
Modalism Tritheism Partialism Adoptionism Arianism The Trinity doctorine does not appear to meet Paul's criteria of being expressed in "speech that is easily understood".
Neither does it's definition appear to be something in which the inspired Holy Scriptures can be used to "set matters straight" (2Tim.3:16). In fact, apart from convoluted, out of context, and distorted attempts to twist existing texts, eventually it was deemed necessary to add a completely spurious statement into scripture at 1John 5:7 which, in the King James version of the Bible, reads: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one". ( I don't know why the forger just didn't go the whole hog and use the word "Trinity" here). Unbelievably, this text is still relied upon by many "grass-roots" Trinitarians.
(Lovers of detail may find this discussion of interest:  https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8)
Britain's good old "Aunty", the BBC, summed up the matter very simply when discussing the (not exclusive) beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses on the matter of the Trinity: 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/witnesses/beliefs/beliefs.shtml
The traditional Christian idea that God is a 'Trinity' of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is false and based on pagan ideas The doctrine of the Trinity is inconsistent with the Bible The doctrine of the Trinity contradicts what the prophets, Jesus, the apostles, and the early Christians believed and taught

Wow, this thread has grown so fast I hardly have time to keep up with it! Very good reading though and some good reasoning. What I have found though when it comes to arguing with Trinitarians about the Trinity....it leads absolutely nowhere....mainly because the Trinity is such a fundamental and "sacred" idea to them that denying it is tantamount to blasphemy. To them it's almost like if an atheist tried to convince us Witnesses that there is no God.
What I find fascinating is that pretty much everything surrounding the birth of the Trinity, or the official definition of it, or the definition of the substance of the Christ in relation to God etc. is based on human philosophies and not the simple and pure language of the scriptures.  Jesus’ disciples in the 1st Century clearly understood  Jesus to be  the son of God and a separate being from him. The simple statements that the Bible makes about the Father, his son and the holy spirit were later twisted into an incomprehensible pretzel, which as Eoin points out, needs an equally incomprehensible vocabulary and explanations which actually don’t explain anything and so ironically end up being called a “mystery” for simplicity sake.
Just the other day in service we got to talking to a man who brought up the argument that Jesus could not have been a created being because if he was, he could not have atoned for our sins. That he had to be God himself to make the sacrifice valid. Where do they get that idea from? Doesn’t  Paul in 1 Cor 45-47 explain it quite well: “So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.”  The last Adam became a life-giving spirit...... The first man is from the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven”. In fact, why did the 2nd Century “church fathers” have the need to define the substance of Jesus when as the apostle Paul says “If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one”. All they had to do is simply understand that when Jesus was first created he had a spiritual body, then when he was transferred into the womb of Mary he had a physical body and when he was resurrected he became a spirit being again.
It's interesting that the church fathers didn't seem to refer to the scriptures much but rather to Greek and other philosophical ideas to determine the substance of the Christ. They preferred going beyond what was written.

But not by First Century Christians taught by Jesus you know the ones in the New Testament. They used the BIBLE. The Bible, every single book in it, was written by Jews and Jews do not believe in God as a Trinity. So nobody can claim the Trinity is in the Bible if the writers did not believe in it. In fact WHO did believe in a Trinity at the time the Bible was written, say the first 5 books of Moses? It was the Egyptians the very ones who enslaved the Jews. And throughout history it was always the ENEMIES of God's people who believed in trinities : Egyptians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, Assyrians and so forth.

In Haiti, even today .. the population is 85% Catholic, and believe in the Trinity, as an institution (individual results may vary ...) AND 85% or so of THAT group also practice Voodoo and worship their ancestors, and practice "magic".   The Church allows this.
During the Nicene Council, where assembled Catholic Bishops from all over the Roman Empire were assembled, by Emperor Constantine ..worshipper of the Sun .. a member of the cult of "Sol Invictus" and Mithras, the god of Tradesmen and warriors, until his death ... the controversy  even inspired fist-fights on the floor of the meeting place ... but Constantine, who was a comsumate politician, who thought Jesus was a FINE way to consolidate his Empire with a pacifistic god... ORDERED the Council, for political reasons, to adopt the concept of the Trinity.
As you can imagine... Roman Emperors had for a long time promulgated the very politically helpful idea that THEY could be both god and man at the same time ... and by commanding the doctrine of the Trinity, this would show the rubes that this idea had theological backing.
Divine right of Kings ......
The Bishops STILL bore the scars of the terrible persecutions ... and NOW .. they were the favorite religion of the Roman Emperor himself... WOW!  Constantine gave them privilege, power, money, and land ... and military protection.
I could go on for a hundred pages about this ... but OF COURSE, the "early Christians" ( a mislabeling..), or at least those officially honored by the Roman Empire ... believed in the Trinity. It was treason against the expressed will of Constantine to believe otherwise, and political suicide.
.To have a "Universal" Church .. you have to adopt EVERYTHING pagan, and rename it to appear holy ... like whitewashing a grave .. filled with bones and corruption.
Trinities were around a LONG time ( Egypt, Babylon, India, etc.) before Christendom adopted them.
 
 
 

Since I am retired and do nothing but write, I am putting together a short Ebook (which gets longer all the time) on the Russian ban, the letter-writing campaign, and things leading up to it. This one will be a freebee, unlike the others I have written that are on my profile banner – ‘free’ is more in keeping with the spirit of things. They should all be free, but unfortunately, writing is my sole gig. It’s either that or Mickey D. for me.

En route to gathering material, I came across a book entitled Dissent on the Margins, which is about the history of our people in Russia, published in 2014. The author, Emily Baran, is not a Witness, nor a cheerleader for us, but she gets it right with regard to her facts - she relates them accurately and impartially. She has been quoted on jw.org. Her book has given me much context, preventing what might be some clumsy missteps, and I recommend it. 

It’s pricey, but less so as an Ebook. And worth it, if you’re into history and non-biased commentary. Whereas my books are largely anecdotes and experiences, my ‘research’ mostly just nailing down the specifics of things or events I already know about or have recently come across online, she actually has done the academic kind. Her book is heavily footnoted with materials both from Witnesses here and in Russia, as well as government archives.
 

Hey! How old do you think I am, 90?

Well good for you!  I am happy for you, you obviously feel you need a support group. On the other hand, I know my intentions, Jehovah knows my intentions, and that is all that ultimately really matters to me.  I am happily married, with a lovely family, in a lovely congregation, with great friends and wonderful elders so I really don’t give two hoots about what anyone on here thinks of me. It’s not important. However, I do regret when one cannot have a decent discussion because of self-righteous attitudes like yours. You muscled your way in here like a vigilante, with your sleeves rolled up ready to set everyone straight with your opinions as if we didn’t know half as much as you did. I really didn’t think this was the purpose of this forum, but the @The Librarian might prove me wrong
Actually this was the other way around, you never asked for a summary initially, this is what you said: " I am a Jehovah's Witnesses and what exactly is the Australian Commission saying that the JWs did wrong in handling of sexual abuse cases?  I only want answers from other JWs, not from haters of us!" Then, I sent the relevant link, (to the Australian Commission) to which you replied: "Anna I am not going to read that whole thing, I would rather spend my time reading the Bible!  Can anyone sum it up?" That is when I said I would sum it up for you the next day
You are right, I didn't need to reply, (and now wish I hadn't) but I wanted to honor my word. Plus, I was aware that you wanted to be informed so that if someone confronted you with this problem you would be able to give an informed reply. You see, I had listened to the whole hearing when it was streamed live a couple of years ago, and I had read all the transcripts from the summary of the Royal Commission, the statement of GB member Geoffrey Jackson, submissions on behalf of the WT etc. etc. so I figured I was the right person, however, I should have just directed you to your congregation elders as they also know about these things, and they would have been in a better position to talk to you face to face and answer your concerns. I realized this after you started going on and on and I had already been there where you are now a few years ago, and had discussed this ad nauseam on this and another forum, and I was tired......and am tired, especially when I read judgemental rhetoric by self- important people who seem to think that without them, no one would know their ABC's.
Oh and......
pat yourself on the back dear, it takes much courage for some to set people straight on a discussion forum

"In America, most of us think of Jehovah’s Witnesses as that occasional Saturday nuisance" quoted by @JayWitness. (Interesting discussion by the way).
Well, here we have a paradox well known to philosphers. Can tolerance tolerate intolerance and survive? Or must the intolerant learn to tolerate the tolerant? An argument for unlimited or absolute tolerance makes no logical or Biblical sense to me. I mean, no-one should not have to tolerate tobacco smoke if they are a non-smoker.
Numbers 25:10-11 indicates a limit to tolerance from a Biblical perspective, modified later, for example, by statements such as that at Rom.12:17-19.
Christians are tolerant of the current state of affairs, as is Jehovah, but know that His tolerance has limits, and await His action as stated. Meanwhile, we are grateful where the attitude above prevails at present, but we will tolerate intolerance, opposition, and even injustice for as long as Jehovah does.
 

Do you think I'm telling you all this? This is a public forum, not a private chatroom don't forget. However, I will address the following comments specifically to the points you have raised.
I have heard Joseph in Egypt and children in abusive situations mentioned before in parallel for various reasons by persons other than yourself. I object strongly to the general assertion or inference that the suffering of children has any value or place in anything that Jehovah is accomplishing no matter how tenuous. I find any connecting of Jehovah's name to the heinous practice of child abuse to be disgusting in the least. And that regardless of the intention. The only compensating factor, save the welcome bringing to man's harsh justice now of these miserable perpetrators (Rom.13:4), is the fact that, for those victims who survive and who are able to draw close to Jehovah, there is the prospect of Isaiah 65:17 being fulfilled: "the former things will not be called to mind, Nor will they come up into the heart".
What we mean to say and what others might draw from what we say is a very important consideration we should take prior to voicing our views publicly. Personally, I welcome the opportunity to share in a forum like this because, among other things, it trains thinking ability, enables me to test the soundness of a view, and to adjust when an error, weakness, or ambiguity is exposed. Surely that is one of the lessons contained in Proverbs 12:17: "The first to state his case seems right, until the other party comes and cross-examines him".
However I would respectfully point out the warning given at the beginning of this "Controversial Posts" section of the forum: Only enter this section if you feel strong enough spiritually to defend yourself biblically. This is an area where topics that arouse strong feelings are discussed. This means that views you may present here will be will be subject to what you might feel is rather overly rigorous scrutiny. And as this may well be by persons who do not share your faith or principle, this scrutiny could be aggressively critical, hence the entry caution.
However, many of us have been witnesses for even longer than yourself, and just because we do not agree with what you say or how perhaps you present what you  say, it does not mean we are attacking or opposing you personally. And in no way does it justify being termed in response, insultingly, as apostate!
You could welcome the opportunity to test (and improve) the incisiveness of your argumentation in the spirit of Pro.27:17 "As iron sharpens iron, so one man [woman] sharpens his [her] friend".

That is what makes average people, average people.
In the July 7, 1879 "Zion's Watch Tower" Charles Taze Russell was making life miserable for the Clergy of his day, and was the subject of malice, slander, envy, hatred and contention, as a former member of Christendom who the Clergy  characterized  as Satan, himself..
In an article "What is Truth" of that issue he stated  " A truth presented by Satan himself is JUST AS TRUE as a truth stated by God.".
"WHAT IS TRUTH?"
This question is one which every sincere Christian should ask and seek to answer. We should learn to love and value truth for its own sake; to respect and honor it by owning and acknowledging it wherever we find it and by whomsoever presented. A truth presented by Satan himself is just as true as a truth stated by God. Perhaps no class of people are more apt to overlook this fact than the Christian. How often do they in controversy overlook and ignore truth presented by their opponents. This is particularly the case when arguing with an infidel. They feel at perfect liberty to dispute everything he says on religious subjects. This is not the correct principle. Many infidels are honest— as anxious to speak and believe the truth as are Christians— and if in converse with them we ignore truths which they may advance, we not only fail to convince them of our truths, but put an end to all hope of reaching them; for our failure to admit the evident truth which they advance begets in them contempt for the one who is not honest enough to admit one truth because he does not see how it can be reconciled to another. Accept truth wherever you find it, no matter what it contradicts, and rely for ability to afterwards harmonize it with others upon "The Spirit of truth, which shall guide you into all truth," as Jesus promised. Truth, like a modest little flower in the wilderness of life, is surrounded and almost choked by the luxuriant growth of the weeds of error. If you would find it you must be ever on the lookout. If you would see its beauty you must brush aside the weeds of error and the brambles of bigotry. If you would possess it you must stoop to get it. Be not content with one flower of truth. Had one been sufficient there would have been no more. Gather ever, seek for more. Weave them together as a garland —"Bind them on thee as a bride doeth." "Bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart: so shalt thou find favor and good understanding in the sight of God and man." Prov. 3:3. C.T.R. =========================================================
Or as Gene Hackman playing Lex Luthor in the first Superman movie, circa 1979 said ....
" Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it’s a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe."

I think they're all crazy here, myself included. Well - if not crazy, at least they all have some special reasons for writing. Actually, some of them I like, and I may even cut myself a tiny bit of slack, but there's no getting around the fact that - this isn't the type of hangout the Watchtower has in mind when in speaks of associations, is it? Perhaps you could most charitably describe the atmosphere as avant-guard.
Do you belong here, Nicola? You come across as a very good person, a trusting person, who expected something very different than the exchange of remarks here. Even with your exchange with so and so, I suspect you would be fine friends in the congregation where you would work shoulder to shoulder, interact face to face, along with the other friends, and readily get to know where each other is coming from.
On the internet, there is no way to determine anything about anyone other than their comments themselves, and that takes a while and can never be known for sure. There's no point in asking someone if he is a brother or not. How would you know if he is being truthful? You don't even know if the profile picture he uses is genuine. The internet is not the congregation.
After an initial skirmish, I have carried on at great length about the ignorant, disgusting, controlling battleaxe of a Librarian, who I'm not afraid of one bit. My DESCRIPTION fooled even HIS LOUDNESS. In fact, she is a he.

Hahaha, very well, I shall rephrase it: many believe the Bible to be authority from God, but only a few actually believe it enough to change their lives to live by it, even if it is a inconvenience to them. I was actually meaning that I get the impression you are an atheist.
I know, because I talked to them about it. On top of that there were no shepherding calls, because they declined the offer. You know you can leave the congregation and stop going to meetings any time you want don't you? Usually without any "repercussions" I say usually, because as long as you don't flaunt an outwardly "hedonistic life style" as you call it, and tell everyone at the strip club you are one of Jehovah's Witnesses, then most likely no one will "bother" you. Again, I know quite a number of ex- Witnesses who were never disfellowshipped and who have been living out of wedlock and celebrate Christmas for some time now. The whole point, as I mentioned before, and as I am sure you know, is to keep the Christian congregation clean. Once someone leaves and over time is no longer known as a Witness in the community, keeping the congregation clean is no longer applicable as they are no longer associated with it. A far cry from the claim of "total control" indeed.
Well this is assuming they are still living under his roof of course, and are a part of his household which he "presides" over. I don't see a chain of coercion here if you believe Jesus's words about putting the Kingdom first, and agree with the Bible's qualifications for elders.
Indeed, it's difficult since the whole of society is geared to self pursuit. In this environment it is not easy to follow Jesus's command: Then he went on to say to all: “If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself  and pick up his torture stake day after day and keep following me".

Nudism (in nudist camps) is not equated with immorality as far as I know. It is possible, if humans had not sinned, they would have remained nude, or if not nude all the time, nudity would not have been inappropriate, so someone could reason that the nudist colony type of nudism is like being back in paradise.
Well put

@Nicola you seem to be writing an awful lot of stuff considering you think we should not be discussing any of this. And you are awfully bossy telling people what they should or shouldn't do.

A while back there was discussion of the NPR story:
"Lack Of Education Leads To Lost Dreams And Low Income For Many Jehovah's Witnesses" 
I read the article, but I didn't have to. The title says it all. Just where do you look for fulfillment of your dreams? This system of things or the one to come?

People make excuses all the time.  If they can find a scapegoat they will.
I know someone who was offered a scholarship by the government of the day to study for a professional career, as his talent and qualifications were evident. (He was subsequently offered the same scholarship on two more occasions and did not accept.) He did not pursue any studies - just stayed in the field he was in at the ordinary level of a government officer. Years later after seeing that he was not as successful as he might have been with a professional qualification he laid the blame on his mother who raised him as a Witness.  He did not take into consideration that he was baptized for some years, was of legal age, and that the scholarships were offered to him several times and that his mother would not have footed the bill.
One or two of the contributors here have recently said that many of us could have been better off with a little more education and more purposeful planning of our lives, though not leaving out spiritual things.  However, even with this mistaken idea that you cannot be a spiritual person with a sound secular education, many of them have been able to provide for their families albeit with some difficulties.  The person is still a Witness along with his family - so there is still some success. (Hebrews 6:10)
Diligence and capability in all things can make life easier.  We have the example of Joseph, Mordecai, Esther, Daniel and the three Hebrew officials, Nehemiah, and  they were probably others not mentioned (John 21:25) who were diligent in all areas of their lives.  They put spiritual things first but were also excellent in their secular work.  If we have insight we will notice that God did not despise them for this. God used Joseph, Mordecai and Esther to save his people from annihilation; God use Nehemiah to restart true worship.
Today we also note that several persons are working in branch offices  who are well qualified secularly as well as spiritually.  I know quite a few whose parents sent them to study despite the suggestions.  I know of four of these who are now working in branch offices either full time or part time and others as resource persons.  (Isaiah 60:16)

Sorry you have feelings of resentment. "Amen" expresses my complete agreement with a view that Anna (not you) has posted. However, feeling resentment is an unpleasant experience for you, and not the intention of my comment. I can appreciate your own experiences as described above make this a sensitive area for you.
However, I feel there is absolutely no comparison possible between Joseph's experience of imprisonment in Egypt and the unthinkable horror a child must go through when subject to molestation by someone who, in some cases, they may well have looked to for protection and love. That is before we start to consider the inexcusable reproach that is heaped upon Jehovah's name and the reputation of all Jehovah's Witnesses, when someone claiming to be one of us perpetrates such a despicable crime.
Even a cursory examination of the factors involved in Joseph's case reveal that, despite the indisputable injustice he experienced over the course of many years, he was well aware of Jehovah sustaining him and intervening in his circumstance to enable him to enjoy privileged conditions, albeit a prisoner. Additionally he was also well aware that, overall, Jehovah had a specific purpose in allowing him to serve instrumentally for the salvation of the line of the promised seed. Gen.45:5-7.
This has no resemblance to the experience of abused children and quite frankly, I resent the association of Jehovah in anything which would contribute to some imagined purpose in Him allowing such depraved behaviour. This is the same Jehovah who referred to child abuse in His condemnation of the Israelites when speaking through Jeremiah the prophet:
"Furthermore, they built the high places of Baʹal in the Valley of the Son of Hinʹnom, in order to make their sons and their daughters pass through the fire to Moʹlech, something that I had not commanded them and that had never come into my heart to do such a detestable thing" Jer.32:35.
I know that an awareness of the bigger picture regarding the universal issues of Jehovah's sovereignty and the slur on the integrity of Jehovah's servants are factors in why Jehovah has allowed wickedness for a time. But we must remember that, even in the case of Job, limits were set by Jehovah as to how far Satan could go in his vain attempts to prove his lying claims (Job 1:12). Satan has far exceeded those limits in connection with imperfect humans. Child abuse is one example of this.
 

To my knowledge, no one can be controlled unless they want to be, or unless they are subject to extreme psychological duress.   
These are all excuses.  Assigning blame on something or someone else instead of accepting we went the direction we didn’t really want to go, or changed our mind about the direction later. Most of these accusations are only a cover up for immorality and other behaviours unacceptable in the Christian congregation. The congregation has to be kept morally and doctrinally clean.  Recommendation against higher education is just that, recommendation.  Humans are very, very good at blaming and making excuses, and have been since the creation of Adam.

Who is bringing the case against this extremist?