Jump to content
The World News Media

"New Light" Question


Jesus.defender

Recommended Posts

  • Member
29 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

I doubt whether anyone's seriously considering putting members of the Org's leadership to death

Hmm?? Got my doubts about that.

42 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

How does that sit with the issue of loyalty?

Pretty well for me. Excellent strategy in that David secured his future boundaries whilst giving the Philistines the impression he was fighting their enemies. He then escaped fighting against Saul when the distrusting Philistines sent him away. Thus he played no part in Saul's overthrow and death in the ensuing battle. So David stayed loyal to Jehovah and allowed him to deal with problem of Saul.

So back to the thread, the way to deal with New Light, Old Light, any kind of Light  is to wait always on Jehovah. Even David advised as much at Ps. 4:3-4. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 1.8k
  • Replies 29
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

*** w70 1/15 p. 38 Which Comes First—Your Church or God? *** Notice that worship in “truth” is a must! It is therefore impossible to worship God acceptably without a deep love of the truth. Th

This is a common judgment. We often say that they didn't wait on Jehovah, or they ran ahead of the organization. Ann has made a very important point, and the support she has presented from Watchtower

I know what an anomaly is, I just didn't understand your sentence. David defected to Saul's and Israel's enemy, the Philistines. Wouldn't the establishment have viewed that as disloyal? 

  • Member
35 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Pretty well for me. Excellent strategy in that David secured his future boundaries whilst giving the Philistines the impression he was fighting their enemies. He then escaped fighting against Saul when the distrusting Philistines sent him away. Thus he played no part in Saul's overthrow and death in the ensuing battle. So David stayed loyal to Jehovah and allowed him to deal with problem of Saul.

Yep, David was playing both sides and it worked out for him. But doesn't David's example emphasize loyalty to Jehovah over and above loyalty to a nation or human ruler, even if that meant he was an outcast in the eyes of God's anointed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

But doesn't David's example emphasize loyalty to Jehovah over and above loyalty to a nation or human ruler, even if that meant he was an outcast in the eyes of God's anointed?

i don't think his loyalty made him an outcast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 5/28/2016 at 11:24 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

i don't think his loyalty made him an outcast.

Having to hide in caves and among Israel's enemies to evade death at the hands of God's anointed king doesn't count as being an outcast? Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

He was already an outcast.

From when God's anointed king wanted to kill him, yes. But you are evading the lesson to be learned, namely: doesn't David's example emphasize loyalty to Jehovah over and above loyalty to a nation or human ruler, even if that meant he was an outcast in the eyes of God's anointed?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

 

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

doesn't David's example emphasize loyalty to Jehovah over and above loyalty to a nation or human ruler, even if that meant he was an outcast in the eyes of God's anointed?

I agree with the point about being an example of loyalty to Jehovah, but just can't see your point regarding being an outcast.

At this time, Saul had already long been rejected by Jehovah and David had already been anointed before they even met each other.

David was an outcast because Saul refused to accept that he (Saul) was no longer God's anointed king and that David was now God's anointed.

David recognized that it wasn't his place to depose a ruler within Gods arrangement, just as true anointed Christians today do not try to depose the worldly governments that God tolerates temporarily at this time, even though they will replace them.

I think we had better leave this discussion to another time and place as it is straying a bit off topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
12 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I think we had better leave this discussion to another time and place as it is straying a bit off topic.

Lol. You started it by asking how 1 Samuel 24:4-7 sat with the idea that being loyal to Jehovah may mean disloyalty to a religious leadership's actions or beliefs, and quibbling about whether David's loyalties made him an outcast in the eyes of God's anointed king. 9_9 And I think you see my point very well. ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
4 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Lol. You started it 

This is a bit childish? I am stopping because I started.... Just used "we" out of respect. I'll rephrase as "I think I had better leave...." for the reason as stated.

4 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

quibbling about whether David's loyalties made him an outcast in the eyes of God's anointed king

David was God's anointed king. 1Sam 16:13. Saul made David an outcast because of his own loss of God's favor and his intent to kill David.

4 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

And I think you see my point very well. ;)

Now you are second guessing.

I'm disappointed, I had come to expect anomaly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
18 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

This is a bit childish?

I was stating a fact and it was written with an impish twinkle in my eye. 

19 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

David was God's anointed king. 1Sam 16:13. Saul made David an outcast because of his own loss of God's favor and his intent to kill David.

The point remains that, because of David's higher loyalties, he became an outcast in the eyes of God's (still) anointed and reigning king (cp. 1 Sam. 24:5, 6), and that David provides an example of where loyalty to God may mean disloyalty to a leadership's actions or beliefs. 

19 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Now you are second guessing.

Yes, it is purely my opinion based on how this discussion has gone.

19 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I'm disappointed, I had come to expect anomaly.

I don't understand what that means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,670
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Apolos2000
    Joined
×
×
  • 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.