Good evening, Yadirf.
What exactly do you mean by "must meet the mule"?
A colloquialism that goes back to farming days -- "to meet the mule"
means to go to work.
I was in a bit of a hurry already and didn't have much time this a.m. I
asked who should reasonably be aware of and in the process of
investigating all the "what ifs"?
I asked because, in scanning through this morning, I read where you
said:
What if this "murderer" … had been part of a "gang" ... whereby he
… committed "murder" because of his participation…
…and, later…
But perhaps with the enlightenment that he has come by, after once
having studied the Bible,
Being somewhat familiar with your mindset and JW apologetics, in
my hurry I assumed I knew you were going. That's why I asked what
I did this a.m. Now, having more time to read your full post, I note
that you did opine that "there's no one here that knows any of the
details". For me, at least, this one phrase of yours lays to rest the
fairly widespread notion that you are NEVER reasonable. Will
wonders never cease!?
But then that goes back to my question this morning. We are fiddle
faddlers on a discussion board talking to and fro about matters we
know nothing about and will likely never know anything of the details,
so let's try sticking to just what's written in the elder's letter to
Brooklyn.
It's apparent that they knew that he was guilty of past felonies -- knew
enough to write for a solution to what was (to them) a puzzle. How
did they come to know? They don't say in the letter -- ergo, we don't
know. Want to speculate? Be my guest.
They do not comment in the letter what the circumstances were
surrounding those criminal acts. Did they or didn't they know, for
example, that he was in a gang? WHAT did they know (or not know)?
We do read the word "murders", plural. Now, how did they know
that? After sharing this letter with my sister, she called it "hearsay."
Was it hearsay, or did they KNOW?
We can speculate until our faces fall off. My question was and is: who
should be investigating the facts of the case? Some might say the
elders, but reason and years of past experience suggests (at least to
me) that the average elder body is ill-equipped to handle a matter
anywhere near approaching this magnitude.
But let's say the elder body in question are an exceptional bunch and
were able to investigate (while still not having enough wits to figure
out where to go from there). Let's go with your scenario (a silly one,
imo -- I can think of better ones): he was in a gang. He killed to stay
in the gang.
I'd have a question: would it matter? Would it make a difference?
Would their investigation that led to the fact that he was in a gang
rightfully bring to a fair and just conclusion to the matter?
My question -- who should be investigating -- was leading to the only
answer: Caesar. He's the one who should be handling this. And the
numbskulls in Brooklyn, living under the delusion that they really are
speaking for god, must equally believe that they are above the law.
They blindly guide the blind numbskulls in Florida, the same idiots to
whom countless sheep (they really are sheep) look for protection from
the dangers of satan's impure, godless world. Unbeknownst to these
hapless sheep, their vaunted Governing Body, Jehovah's One and Only
Mouthpiece, allows satan right in the door with open, welcoming
arms. He is even welcome to spew comments out of his blood-stained
mouth and share this comely truth with his goatish neighbors by being
free to share in the field ministry.
How truly sad. Ah, Jehovah's People aren't like they used to be. Not even
close.
peace,
todd
__________________________________________________________
"In order to preserve your self-respect, it is sometimes necessary to
lie and cheat."_______ Robert Byrne