Jump to content

Queen Esther

IS THERE PREPARING THE THIRD WORLD WAR?......

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Queen Esther -
TrueTomHarley -
30
1200

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

I think the best criteria is mentioned in Zeph. 2:3 :" Before the decree takes effect,Before the day passes by like chaff,Before the burning anger of Jehovah comes upon you,+Before the day of Jehovah’s anger comes upon you,  Seek Jehovah,+ all you meek ones* of the earth,Who observe his righteous decrees.*Seek righteousness, seek meekness.*Probably* you will be concealed on the day of Jehovah’s anger.+

Even if we are not with one another and we are alone we must be faithful and loyal to Jehovah. As to uncertainties I really like Bro. Jacksons talk at the annual meeting "Expect the Unexpected".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bruceq said:

I am "devoted" to my wife that does not make me an idolater Acts 2:42..

Quite true. At first, I wondered if I should have started out with this same point about what it means to be "devoted" to something. In the original verse, the idea of devotion is just as well translated without even using the word "devotion." It could also have been properly translated: "And they continued steadfastly [proskarteréō] with the instructions of the apostles."  (Acts 2:42) or perhaps, "And they persevered  [proskarteréō] in the instructions of the apostles..."

In fact, the New World Translation does not usually use the word "devoted" when translating this word:

(Acts 1:14) With one purpose all of these were persisting [proskarteréō] in prayer, together with some women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with his brothers.

(Acts 2:46) 46 And day after day they were in constant [proskarteréō] attendance in the temple with a united purpose,. . .

(Acts 8:13) 13 Simon himself also became a believer, and after being baptized, he continued [proskarteréō] with Philip; and he was amazed at seeing the signs and great powerful works taking place.

(Colossians 4:2) 2 Persevere [proskarteréō] in prayer, remaining awake in it with thanksgiving.

But this is still a very useful point about being "devoted" to your wife, and a wife being "devoted" to her husband. You could even argue that slaves should be devoted to their masters, and children be devoted to their parents. In Acts 2:46 these same brothers we have been talking about were also "devoted" to their attendance at the temple. And in Acts 8:13, Simon, the former magician, was "devoted" to Philip. But the point about "devotion" to one's spouse is especially useful here, specifically because of the immediate context of Ephesians 5 & 6:

(Ephesians 5:21-6:5) 21 Be in subjection to one another in fear of Christ.22 Let wives be in subjection to their husbands as to the Lord, 23 because a husband is head of his wife just as the Christ is head of the congregation, he being a savior of this body. 24 In fact, as the congregation is in subjection to the Christ, wives should also be to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, continue loving your wives, just as the Christ also loved the congregation and gave himself up for it, . . .  28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. A man who loves his wife loves himself, 29 for no man ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cherishes it, just as the Christ does the congregation, 30 because we are members of his body. . . .  33 Nevertheless, each one of you must love his wife as he does himself; on the other hand, the wife should have deep respect for her husband. 6 Children, be obedient to your parents in union with the Lord, for this is righteous. . . .  5 Slaves, be obedient to your human masters,. . .

It's very true that this sense of devotion does include a kind of "subjection to the lead" of another person, just as you imply that we should be in a kind of devoted subjection and obedience to imperfect men. But notice one more verse in that same passage that I didn't highlight yet:

(Ephesians 5:21) 21 Be in subjection to one another . . .

In other words, the way in which you should be in subjection to the Governing Body and other elders, for example, is in the same way that each member of the Governing Body should be in subjection to you. That's the way it is with all fellow members of the congregation. We are in subjection to each other.

This is why, even among Jehovah's Witnesses, it should not be possible for us to think of a certain group as if they make up a group of human leaders.

(Luke 22:25-27) 25 But he said to them: “The kings of the nations lord it over them, and those having authority over them are called Benefactors. 26 You, though, are not to be that way. But let the one who is the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the one taking the lead as the one ministering. 27 For which one is greater, the one dining or the one serving? Is it not the one dining? But I am among you as the one serving.

Our "food" -- our spiritual nourishment -- is doing Jehovah's will with respect to each other; it's especially the encouragement, comfort and support we all give to one another. (John 4:34; Hebrews 10:24,25) This encouragement and spiritual food can include instruction and guidance and counsel and information from the elders, and therefore also from the Governing Body. We respect all that counsel deeply.  But we don't devote ourselves to the Governing Body, except in the same sense that the Governing Body members also devote themselves to you. There is no separate Body within the Body. They are not in the position of a husband over the congregation, and we are not in the position of a wife in the congregation. We are all a part of the body of the whole congregation. But Jesus Christ is the Leader and Head (and Husband) and the rest of us are slaves serving each other. Some are shepherds and stewards, but this does not make those ones our Leader, in any sense.

In fact, as a shepherd, every elder takes on the responsibility of being "God's steward:"

(Titus 1:7)  For as God’s steward, an overseer must be free from accusation. . .

And it is every steward's responsibility to be faithful and discreet:

(1 Corinthians 4:2) In this regard, what is expected of stewards is that they be found faithful.

(Ephesians 5:15-17) 15 So keep strict watch that how you walk is not as unwise but as wise persons . . . keep perceiving what the will of Jehovah is.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like I rather rudely steered this conversation to one that kept veering back to a problem I had with the words "devotion to imperfect men" which was tied to "devotion to the Governing Body." That wasn't the real gist of the original thread, so I'm thinking all that part of the discussion could be moved to a new thread. If that happens, perhaps the entire February 2017 study article that was referenced could be discussed. But I won't be adding more to that particular subject here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

 

Matt.24:34,40 is also applicable, and even Rom.10:13. As for the exact logistics of how exactly this will occur, I'll (hopefully) discuss it with you a little later. :)

Yes, good scriptures, and I cited others in my posts on this thread. My point is that all of us are NOW facing tests of faith, and loyalty to Jehovah's standards, when the GT comes it will be too late then for the leopard to change his spots and we are going to do as we have done so far. The implication of this post is that somehow without the FDS we will not be able to survive the GT. In what way would the FDS play a role in our salvation? Some have likened the FDS to Moses, leading the Israelites through the red sea. Or that we will get some special direction from the FDS which might not make sense. Is this really a correct view? And can it be supported by scripture?  Hence my question HOW will the FDS lead us to survive the GT, because if we are loyal, and approved by Jehovah, isn't that the criterion for salvation? Anyway, if you read my other posts to bruceq you will get the general idea of what I am trying to say....

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

perhaps the entire February 2017 study article that was referenced could be discussed

Good idea :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Anna said:

Hence my question HOW will the FDS lead us to survive the GT, because if we are loyal, and approved by Jehovah, isn't that the criterion for salvation?

We could spend a great deal of time speculating on scenarios on how we will (if we are there) survive the GT as you term it and what role the FDS will play in leading us during that time. And yet you have highlighted the most important aspect already in saying "if we ARE loyal, and approved by Jehovah..."

In the light of Habbakuk's words at Hab.3:16-17, we need to be prepared for any eventuality during the "great tribulation" that will exceed all others in history. In the 1984 NWT, the rendering of verse 17, in connection with the "day of distress" (v16), contained the phrase "[the] flock may actually be severed from [the] pen.." What does that suggest as a possibility? And yet the WT 15/7/1977 stated in commenting on that verse "And never allow your vision to become dim as regards angelic backing of those holding to their dedication to Jehovah".

Habbakuk goes on to exemplify what our resolve should be in verse 18: "Yet, as for me, I will exult in Jehovah; I will be joyful in the God of my salvation" and indicates Jehovah's response in v19: "The Sovereign Lord Jehovah is my strength; He will make my feet like those of a deer and cause me to tread on high places."

I agree with your statement that we now need to maintain our loyalty, along with Jehovah's approval. And the FDS has had no meagre role in assisting and encouraging us to do this successfully so far. So there is no need to fear that this will cease, or that somehow, the loyalty and approval by Jehovah that we now experience (if genuine) should some how wear off if we find ourselves seemingly "severed from the pen". This regardless of where the anointed are located say, during the time of Gog's attack. 

And neither is there any doubt that Jehovah can and will provide the means for His people to escape at that time, because "Jehovah knows how to rescue people of godly devotion out of trial" 2Pet.2:9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @Eoin Joyce.  Your comment is pretty much my thoughts too. Why I pushed that point about the FDS was because some have the attitude (and opposers love pointing this out) that we believe that we are somehow dependent on the FSD for surviving the great tribulation, i.e. that they play a direct role or special role in our outcome, and that without them we would not be able to make it. This is why I kept harping on about WHAT is the REAL criterion for us surviving. It's not the FDS obviously, although as you have rightly pointed out, their role in helping us to maintain our loyalty to Jehovah has not been small by any means. And as you say, yes, we could spend a lot of time speculating on how the actual scenarios will play out, because we just don't know. But that wasn't really my concern. My concern was that readers don't get the impression that we are putting the FDS above the place they were given by Jesus, or on par with Jesus, because each of them individually are also the domestics, like everyone else in the Christian congregation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Anna said:

each of them individually are also the domestics, like everyone else in the Christian congregation.

As they have stated themselves recently.

In discussing the functioning of the Governing Body, the February 2017 study issue WT says::

"And each member of that body views himself, not as the leader of his fellow brothers, but as one of the “domestics,” fed by the faithful slave and subject to its oversight." P29 para 11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

As they have stated themselves recently.

In discussing the functioning of the Governing Body, the February 2017 study issue WT says::

"And each member of that body views himself, not as the leader of his fellow brothers, but as one of the “domestics,” fed by the faithful slave and subject to its oversight." P29 para 11.

They have stated this even earlier than this WT.  Notice concluding paragraph in the letter from the GB in the 'God's Kingdom Rules' book, and also there were a couple more WT articles (I can't remember when) and a talk, which I can't remember either, I just remember noting the reference to the GB as being domestics. Then there was a convention or assembly talk about not imitating men but their fine deeds or something like that. Of course we should know all this anyway, since from the inception of the modern day Christian congregation this has always been the case (although some did put Russell on a pedestal, but he never put himself there). I am not sure when it is that a form of a kind of reverential adoration of the GB started (I am not saying that everyone of us was this way, but many were). Was it with Rutherford? I don't know. But in any case, it is very much part of human nature to "worship" what we see (adoration of the Pope etc. ) and this must be why Jehovah had to make sure that this was correctly directed towards him only (warning regarding idols etc.) I was reading recently a secular article about 'Jehovah' to whom this particular author referred to as a "Hebrew god of war" (Jehovah of armies), but what he found noteworthy was that as opposed to surrounding nations, the Jews had no statue or physical symbol of, as he terms it," this deity". We know why that is.

In any case, it seems that the GB/FDS saw it necessary to remind us that they too are domestics because perhaps of this human tendency to focus more on those we can see, rather than Jesus and Jehovah whom we cannot see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 4/18/2017 at 6:07 PM, Anna said:

GB/FDS saw it necessary to remind us that they too are domestic

I have had the privilege of meeting a few governing body members (or ex) over the years. Bros Schroeder, Franz, Barber, Chitty, Barr I can remember.

One, who gave the public talk in our Kingdom Hall when I was chairman, pulled me aside and asked "Please don't introduce me as a member of the Governiong Body will you?. Just say I am a visiting brother OK?

Bro.Barr I remember particularly. When I was studying first (1972), I visited Bethel UK. He was working on one of those lead type-setting machines in the factory. He pulled me out of the group and spent about 45 minutes explaining and demonstrating the whole process to me. It was really interesting. At lunch, he introduced me to his wife Mildred. Some years later, (1980), I visited Brooklyn Bethel and attended the WT study. At the end, tap tap on my shoulder. Who was it ? Jack Barr just sitting in the row behind. "Hi" he said using my first name. " Which congregation are you in now?". And we carried on the conversation as if no years or service privilege had separated us.

I found these experiences pretty meaningfiul and formative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Bro.Barr I remember particularly. When I was studying first (1972), I visited Bethel UK. He was working on one of those lead type-setting machines in the factory. He pulled me out of the group and spent about 45 minutes explaining and demonstrating the whole process to me. It was really interesting. At lunch, he introduced me to his wife Mildred. Some years later, (1980), I visited Brooklyn Bethel and attended the WT study. At the end, tap tap on my shoulder. Who was it ? Jack Barr just sitting in the row behind. "Hi" he said using my first name. " Which congregation are you in now?". And we carried on the conversation as if no years or service privilege had separated us.

There was another in Bethel with same first and last name. I know him. He married at Bethel. We later sent him an anniversary card and the GB Barr answered! He wrote a few chatty paragraphs saying where he had been lately. 'Boy he sure gets around for being just a year at Bethel,' I said to my wife. The wives names didn't match, but I figured maybe the name I knew was a nickname. It took a few minutes to figure it out.

Imagine - a GB member writing a few chatty paragraphs to someone he does not know but doesn't want to ignore. These are not proud brothers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Forum Statistics

    61,692
    Total Topics
    114,656
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,513
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    pastel
    Newest Member
    pastel
    Joined




  • Topics

  • Posts

    • For a brief time, Mike Tussin was a roommate of mine. He drove me nuts in taking literally the admonition to read God’s Word “in an undertone day and night.” In time, he learned that he had better not do it in my presence. I logged some of his exploits in No Fake News but Plenty of Hogwash. He was one of the most squirrelly characters that you will ever hope to meet, and yet—people are a mix—he had the most telling common sense, knack for nailing aspects of human nature (though mixed with an odd naïveté), no fear whatsoever of man, and the ability to simplify the complex. I can hear him now explaining to someone or other just how it worked with the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, composed of anointed Christians. This would have been in the early 1970s. “They study and study their Bibles and one of them notices a point and discusses it with the others. They continue to turn it over and over. If their discussion reaches the point of agreement, that idea finds its way into the Watchtower—that’s how God’s people are fed spiritually today. “Now, in your own personal study, you may have noticed that point, too, maybe even before they did. And if this was Christendom, you’d go out and start your own religion over it.”  He captured it. I like the idea of ‘they’re not the only people who can think’ as well as the notion of waiting on headship and not running ahead. Present your idea, but if it doesn’t get adopted, don’t lose your cookies over it. The ship cannot sail in every direction at once. Rumor has it that Sputnik came up for discussion at the Bethel table after 1957, but it was aborted before takeoff. Might that date not be a milestone in the last days stream of time commencing with the outbreak of World War I in 1914–a year marking the first time in history that the entire world went to war at once? Throw in the greatest plague of history, the Spanish flu of 1917, the colossal food shortages that always accompany colossal war, and viola!—one is powerfully reminded of Luke 21:10: Then he said to them: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be great earthquakes, and in one place after another food shortages and pestilences; and there will be fearful sights and from heaven great signs.”  Might 1957 Sputnik mark a mighty exclamation mark in “fearful sights and great signs from heaven?” It certainly scared the bejeebers out of the Americans, and within 3 years President Kennedy declared that the US would not play second fiddle to the Russians. They would join—and so make it—a “space race” by sending a man to the moon. It is worth a simulated launch, I guess—presenting the idea at Bethel—three GB members batted about the idea, I’m told, but I’m glad that it blew up on the pad. The “fearfulness” would have been lost on most people. Did the race have military implications? Relatively few catch the implications of anything. They take it at face value, as it was popularly repackaged just a few years later: Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no man has gone before! On a flight to Damascus, Bill had a vision of such. Some strange fellow that he probably took for an angel presented the idea to him right there as he was riding in the Shatner seat. Like Saul, it disoriented him completely for a time, and the other passengers heard of the disturbance, sure enough, but witnessed nothing themselves. As a boy, I never once trembled when they launched a rocket from Cape Canaveral. I always took it in the spirit of advancing technology, advancing exploration, and so forth. It’s one of the few major accomplishments of men that has NOT been quickly put to military use—though that could ever change—the way that airplanes were. No sooner had they been invented then they were strafing the towns of Europe and dogfighting each other in the skies. In contrast to 1957, World War I was not only perceived by just about everyone, but it was instantly perceived as a negative. Probably that’s what the other GB members pointed out, sending the three Bethel “astronauts” pitching the notion hurtling off like Darth Vader in his crippled craft, careening off to the pantry for a donut or two. Hmm. Maybe an update could incorporate robocalls from the cloud. What year did they begin? Truly, they cause men to raise their faces and curse the heavens. Truly, they too, are instantly perceived as a great evil, as any time-share owner in the Everglades knows. You know, as I read the 1960 speech, I can see how the idea might come up for discussion at Bethel. Despite my innocuous take expressed about it—a take that has mostly played out (but may someday not)—there certainly were military overtones—overtones that just might make some tremble—in JFKs speech rallying Americans to support a moon launch. Everything must be considered in its own historical context. I’ve added italics to his words that play this way: “We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say that we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours. “There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again. But why, some say, the Moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask, why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?  “We choose to go to the Moon...We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too.” ..... Yes, you could read a measure of terror into that speech if you were of a mind to, though I did not as a boy. The President says: “Space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.” What are the chances of that happening?  
    • You know, I can see how the idea might come up for discussion at Bethel. Despite my innocuous take expressed about it—a take that has mostly played out (but may someday not)—there certainly were military overtones in JFKs speech rallying Americans to support a moon launch.  We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say that we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours. There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again. But why, some say, the Moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask, why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the Moon! We choose to go to the Moon...We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too.
    • Good start. Just noticed the latest post. Does Russell make any distinction for 1844 other than to suggest it was a great disappointment for the second coming churches? Did he use 1844 to further his calculation? Does he mention 1844 to be part of his calculation? Does he stipulate 1910-1911 is referenced in scripture? It far more interesting, that some continue to project Russell as an Adventist, when Russell was “clearly” criticized for having a negative view of Adventist. It speaks volumes to those that continue to portray a false narrative. “So today, when prophetic time or anything relating to the Lord’s Second Advent is mentioned, many Cry ‘Adventist,’ as if to say, ‘Can any good thing come out of Adventism?"- even though they admit that many prophecies containing time are not yet fulfilled, and that the second coming of the Lord is the most prominent topic of Scripture." "We have great sympathy for both the First Adventists (the Jews) and the Second Adventists, though only a few of either realized the truths they So nearly apprehended, yet failed to grasp, each being blinded by false expectations. Our Adventist friends have failed to recognize both the manner and the object of the Lord’s return as taught in the Scriptures; consequently they have not been expecting to ‘see him as he is,’ but as he was. They consider the object of his coming one which will fill the hearts of all except the saints with dismay and terror; that his object is to gather the elect, destroy all others of mankind, and burn up the world."   Interesting how conflicted people start with William miller’s account of chronology, 1844. I wonder if Brown and Miller were the only ones to make calculations on the 1260 days, 2520 days. CHRONOLOGY--Prominent Dates. Q76:1: QUESTION (1910)--1--Should we consider it necessary to call attention to other Prominent dates than 1874, 1878, 1881 or 1914? Should 1911 be included?   ANSWER--I am glad that question is there, my dear brothers and sisters. You will notice that in my own teachings and writings I am careful to avoid any other dates than these. I know nothing about other dates. In the third volume of Scripture Studies there is a suggestion, but it is offered only as a suggestion, merely that a certain measurement in the Pyramid (not in the Word of God) Looks as though it might point down to 1910 or 1911, but we do not say that it does mean anything, but merely throw out a suggestion. Don't anticipate, don't say things are to occur, for we do not know, at least I don't, and don't believe anyone else does. My advice is to follow the Apostle when he says, "We speak those things that we know." Don't say anything about those things that you do not know. Quite likely you will wish you had not after a while. Nineteen hundred and fourteen is the time when the "Gentile Times" will end. What does that mean? I do not know, but I think it is when God lets go in a general sense of the word, and permits things to take their course; and we can readily suppose, as the Apostle says, that the course of nature would be set on fire, because of strife. In the world of mankind, I shall expect a time of great trouble, which the Bible marks out as having its beginning about October, 1914, but I think, dear friends, that it is more important, instead of telling of the time of trouble, to tell about the good things. The poor people who get into the time of trouble will have all they want of it then. I have enough now, and so have you. The Scriptures say that through much tribulation shall we enter the kingdom, and if we pay attention to our duties, we will get enough without taking time to tell them about the time of trouble. The world will not be profited by our telling, either. We do not wish to scare anybody. It is indeed a spectacle, when that kind of suggestion is made by a conflicted person. Were there any earlier works of Miller 1844 disappointment? History shows, there were some. Some that paint a more precise picture than that of Miller. Therefore, Russell did not have any influence with Miller’s 1844 prediction nor did Russell use it as basis for comparison. "When the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat; when the earth and the works that are therein shall be burnt up."   At the present time the blessings of peace seem to be nearly general throughout the nations of the earth. This I deem a very favourable sign. War, however, with its train of abominations, may not finally terminate till about A. D. 1914, or perhaps A. D. 1956; neither do I think that the seventh thousand years, or great Sabbath of the world, or the beginning of Christ's third day, will commence before A. D. 2046 ; and this belief or conclusion I take to be no less deducible from a variety of the prophetic numbers, than from the figurative language employed by Christ concerning the three days, and the three measures of meal, during the time of which the whole world shall be gradually leavened by the kingdom of God.   As I have calculated the prophetical numbers, it will be 206 years from A. D. 1840, before the beginning of the seventh thousand years, or the great Sabbath of the world, when God's rest shall begin to be glorious, and when Christ, that glorious Sun of Righteousness, by the brightness of His coming into those temples, It is indeed sad when people try so hard to end up empty. As stated earlier by an architect of misrepresentation said, it’s an embarrassment. I agree it is.
    • It is worth a simulated launch, I guess—presenting the idea—but I’m glad that it blew up on the pad. It would have been lost on most people. Relatively few catch the implications of anything. They take it at face value—“Space: The final frontier: these are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise—it’s continuing mission: to seek out new world’s, to boldly go where no man has gone before.” On a flight to Damascus, Bill had a vision of such. Some odd fellow that he took for an angel presented the idea to him right there on the Shatner wing. Like Paul, it disoriented him completely for a time, and the other passengers heard of the disturbance, sure enough, but witnessed nothing themselves. As a boy, I never once trembled when they launched a rocket from Cape Canaveral. I always took it in the spirit of advancing technology, advancing exploration. It’s one of the few accomplishments of men that has NOT been quickly put to military use, as airplanes were.  In contrast, WWI was not only perceived by just about everyone, but it was instantly perceived as a negative. Probably that’s what the other—how many were there then—GB members pointed out, sending Bert and his co-astronauts scuttling off to the pantry for a donut. Robocalls from the cloud, on the other hand, ARE perceived as an instant evil, as any time-share owner in the Everglades knows.
    • If you think they use it for their own purposes then why do you donate?  That is not logical. It depends on what you define as own purposes, private purposes, public purposes, necessities, etc.  I think you really should be more thankful to be associated with the organization and what it does for us.
    • My donations are always by check, and written thereon is "for local needs". It's like paying taxes, some of which are used to make hydrogen bombs, and ICBMs. Not my problem. Jesus and the Apostles needed NONE of those things you mentioned, Arauna. If you are NOT inspired of God, as the GB admits they are not ( February 2017 Watchtower), you do need all of those things you mentioned. They are actually essential, as I would freely admit. .... and HEY!, I am just guessing about all of this ... as is everyone else. And Arauna .... did you get NOTHING out of the "Follow Jesus" Assemblies? Jesus set the example . We are either following that example, or ..... WE ARE NOT. The fact of the matter is that the GB DOES use the billions for their own purposes. but, I am, as you stated, "no one to criticize" ... as I do not follow Jesus' example either. If I had that kind of money, I would buy a Chinook double rotor helicopter, instead of Rolex watches, and cartoons of Caleb and Sophia, etc. uh ... for Witnessing on beautiful Pacific Islands, of course ....    
    • Just one question for you:  when you go to meeting or field service you get to use many videos that were made to be easily accessible for all ages and peoples.  Do you have any clue what equipment costs?   Many poor congregations in Africa receive projectors from the organization because they cannot afford it. They do still print bibles and watchtowers etc. Do you think they must remain in the Jurassic age when it comes to using technology or will it be ok by you if they venture to use the newest tech to support the brothers? You have a budget to fulfill your responsibilities at home.....dont you?  Why not broaden out and see that they also need money to provide services in almost 1000 languages?   I think we need a little more gratitude and less criticism...  ALL you see is "billions" which you try to imply are used for their own purposes....  They are always in need of funds to make it stretch further..... because we do get all our spiritual needs fulfilled without cost.  You need not give any donation if you feel they waste it.  You can use all amenities without giving a dime!   
  • Popular Now

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.