Jump to content
The World News Media

JW USA: A Witness responds to Lloyd Evans about JW and global climate change


Guest Indiana

Recommended Posts

  • Member
25 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Well TTH, if you will be in same situation to tell this words again, to someone else as advice/plead, Please, DO NOT. 

I regretted it almost the moment I sent it. Who am I to interject myself? Maybe I should have taken it back, but I usually do not delete things once I've put them out there. I try to dig myself out of the mess I've made later. Ideally, I think it through first. In this case, I shot myself in the foot.

28 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

It is very Interesting fact how i stopped to go on meetings from 1 January 2015 and not giving reports about field service. Not single telephone call for some 6 months

It is what it is. No one is saying that anyone is proud about it. That being said:

29 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Not single telephone call for some 6 months, to say simple hello or call for coffee - to show some "brotherly love" (which i probably would not accept anyway) 

Well, they're people too. Maybe if you "probably would not accept anyway" they somehow had a clue that would be the case. It isn't easy stepping into a situation that you know will be unpleasant, especially if you have many other things that are pleasant that you can occupy yourself with.

 

34 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

oh dear god, you are the people who will shun and ignore me, you are the people who told congregation to destroy my Letter and to stop have anything with me, and now you have nerve to warn me to not make some trouble to her. 

It may not be wrong to look at it that way, but that does not mean it is helpful.

It might be that if you do "make trouble" for her, she will go your way. Or it might be that she will break and/or that your marriage will blow up. Would you prefer that? Take it as real concern for her on their part, and even for you that you do not make what would have to have been a strained marital relationship 10 times worse.

 

42 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

You are not "extremist" in that sense. :)          

OK. It is a good word, I think. If you notice, my word to you was also a good word. I said that she probably loves you "with good reason."

Don't misunderstand. Spiritually speaking, I think you have traded in the diamonds for the turds, but that does not mean that I dislike you personally (though - I admit it - at times I have).

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 5.7k
  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The only way to learn the truth about whether "global warming" is real ... and whether it is a naturally occurring phenomena that mankind can do NOTHING about, or is caused by human interaction with t

It would have to be a small star sized chunk of iron .... probably not something you could get at an automobile scrap yard. Further, when a star collapses, it can go Nova, or Supernova, which is

@TrueTomHarley I still getting used to this theme. I think I will actually ask the @admin to go back to the default. 

Posted Images

  • Member
16 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Here you are, Srecko. You’ll be heralding this in no time at all, perhaps already.

The point is that your people divide up readily with regard to every new thing. Our people don’t. It would b the same with regard to climate change if our people were to join your people.

 

B618E25E-BC10-4363-A391-E4EE5071B99E.png

This does not surprise me, the whole gender thing. You should see what they are doing when it comes to indoctrinating children into something that they proclaim as normal when it is bad. Birth certificates I believe was effected too: http://newjersey.news12.com/story/39735791/gender-neutral-birth-certificates-to-be-available-in-nj-come-february

There is a fight coming, those who see the danger are prepared for it, but those who don't see the danger or go about the danger as if they can defeat it will only find themselves in absolute ruin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
4 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

If he was a scientist, maybe I would get a good answer for a debate.

The reason I am not "sympathetic" to you Billy, is that if you found someone who knew EVERYTHING about any particular subject ... and you knew NOTHING about that same subject ... you would debate him.

Sometimes ... you just need to sit down, shut up ... and listen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On ‎3‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 6:15 PM, JW Insider said:

I have no problem if JTR is drawn into a discussion on the topic, because I'm sure he knows more than I do about it. 

He does not know more about it than you. He knows things about it that you do not.

And you do not know more about it than he. You know things about it that he does not.

It is due to the reality of news sources that do not cover the same facts, each ignoring what does not fit into its prevailing narrative.

I can best explain it by referring to a topic I have stronger feelings about. I am undecided about climate change. As stated, the biggest factor for it, in my view, is that the organization has said it is devoting so much more to disaster relief.

Not surprisingly, when a white police officer shoots a black suspect, the event is widely covered. Other shootings are not so widely covered. Sometimes they are barely mentioned. Thus comes the perception that white officers are racist and hostile to blacks. Yet a study of the Philadelphia police force during the Obama administration found the statistics revealed no significant aberrations with regard to race. In fact, the stats revealed that black officers were slightly more likely to shoot black suspects than were white officers. They were slightly more likely to experience "threat misperception," was the phrase. 

So a picture emerges via media that does not reflect the whole truth. It even serves to create a wrong impression. Does such a thing happen with regard to climate change? That recent year when major hurricanes hit Florida and Texas? It was pronounced significant evidence of global warming. Yet the total number of hurricanes that year was abnormally low. Do we see a weather version of  "If it bleeds, it leads?"

Everyone must do something to sort through the polarized information streams. My own strategy is that, whenever I follow anything on Twitter, I make it a point to also follow its polar opposite. In this way, there are two or three things popularly regarded as almost conspiracy theories that I have come to regard as quite likely. It is not the case that all the scientists are on the side of climate change. What happens is the same as what happens during physical warfare: efforts to dehumanize the enemy. The climate change scientists declare the other scientists not scientists at all, because if they were scientists they would come on board with climate change.

If you follow both sides on Twitter you find the 'conspiracy' side well argued, well researched, with abundant studies, data, facts to support statements made. They do not at all come across as the unhinged crackpots they are portrayed as. The pro side tends to be more like.....like....well, like Billy, who froths that the matter is "settled" and that only a science apostate would contradict "established science." I don't think that it is settled at all.

Recently a disheartening Pew report related that today's reality goes beyond people not agreeing on the facts. Today's reality is that people do not agree on what the facts are. With no common starting point they can be no agreement. It is very different to get to the bottom of anything, and usually one can identify a person's primary opinions by the news sources he takes in. They report on different things.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
55 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

He does not know more about it than you. He knows things about it that you do not.

And you do not know more about it than he. You know things about it that he does not.

Actually, TTH, since you do not know enough even to form an internal opinion, as you yourself admitted, you are particularly unqualified to render an educated opinion on whether I, or JWI is the most informed.

All "Global Warming" prognostications are based on  say 15 computer models, and information is adjusted, managed, and tweaked to make the models say whatever agrees with the source of funding.

JWI was, and is correct in his statement that I know more about the subject than he does ... and more to the point, I can PROVE my conclusions.

This would involve  charts, graphs, pocket calculators, and lectures on cosmology, orbital mechanics, physics heat transfer, and a dozen other subjects, that most people are never even exposed to .... much less have an understanding and a working knowledge of.

You are like a feather, blowing in the wind ... wishing that EVERYBODY was as uninformed, wrong, and wishy-washy as you are.

You cannot vote ...... on TRUTH.

dt190310.jpg

dt190315.gif

Global Warming  1989.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

JWI was, and is correct in his statement that I know more about the subject than he does ... and more to the point, I can PROVE my conclusions.

He probably just yielded to your intransigence. At any rate, despite all of your proof, you failed to convince him.

Actually, I tend to fall into your camp on this and would fall into it more firmly were it the core issue today. But it's not. People on both sides pound each other relentlessly over the issue and fail to convince. So I stop short of going the extra mile required to affirm in my own mind that it is as you say. I put my eggs in another basket.

It is certainly is a political issue, as you say, and as JWI says it is not. Rephrase it slightly, and even he will agree: it is certainly an issue that is politicized. Yes, I know of the sneaky globalist statements that they are using it to drive idealogical change. That makes sense to me. But it is not my main cause. I already have a main cause. 

If humans are not ruining the earth by climate change, it is not as though they are too responsible ever to ruin it. It is also not as though they are not ruining it, just by other means. These days, I must restrain myself from being a full-time zealot, not against climate change views, but against vaccine ones. I think it very likely that there are a host of ills to be laid at their feet and when those ills occur, they are more catastrophic and more immediate than climate change. 

It is the same story of demonization and misportrayal as with other contentious issues. Follow it via Twitter or somewhere else and you find that the "anti-vax" side - (they hate that label and charge, I think correctly, that it is deliberately assigned so as to portray them as loonies, since very few of them are anti ALL vaccines) come off as exceedingly well-informed and reasonable, not at all as the hysterical nuts portrayed by the other side.

Don't go against me on this, you calcified blockhead. I will not yield so readily on this one as I will on the climate.

7 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

You are like a feather, blowing in the wind ... wishing that EVERYBODY was as uninformed, wrong, and wishy-washy as you are.

You do not keep up, do you? No need to insult, "forcing" me to follow suit, We are now soul brothers, according to Billy. Act like it, please .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

When all is said and done ... you and Billy ARE my soul brothers, and I would defend you both with my life if necessary. 

We all take turns being wrong about many, many things, with the firm and profound belief that we are right.  It's part of being "big ugly bags of mostly water.

... just add gravel, and Portland Cement.

In the big red "Revelation" book, circa 15 or so years ago, it mentioned as an aside that Sir Isaac Newton may have been one of the Anointed. This sparked me reading two very large biographies on his life, and what impressed me the most was the fact that he never published anything without rigorous proof.

Rigorous proof means that the facts you use are checkable, and do not contradict known chemistry, physics, and science that makes the REAL world what it is.

If it cannot be expressed with HARD NUMBERS, and to "how many decimal places" ... it is NOT science .... it is ONLY opinion.

The things wars are fought over.

ALL agenda driven thinking, without exception always has been, , is now, and will always be faulty.

Tied to a bad idea.    .jpg

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.