Jump to content

TrueTomHarley

The Man of Lawlessness in the 21st Century

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

TrueTomHarley -
Space Merchant -
63
925

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

On 7/19/2019 at 2:14 PM, Anna said:

Trinity and hellfire

And these are the very teachings that is on a strong decline. Falsehood of mainstream Christendom is dying, hence why they have a strong grip on attempting to save themselves. Such falsehood has prompted many to speak against it, I myself, comrades of mine such as the late warrior of Christ, Soulja and Solider of God, Kel, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Outta Here said:

In my opinion, of course

You are right, of course, as regards the overall picture. 

“Yes, in her [Babylon the Great] was found the blood of prophets and of holy ones and of all those who have been slaughtered on the earth.”  Rev 18:24

“All those who have been slaughtered” is a big category, and it is especially huge if we equate slaughter to death, since no one would have died at all were it not for rebellion back in Eden. Most die, not due to acts of commission, but due to acts of omission. The Man of Lawlessness does not teach biblical truth, and the sheep, as a consequence, are found roaming the hills, and land themselves into all sorts of mischief, atheism being one of those mischiefs. Had they not been force-fed a diet of spiritual junk food, they might not have thrown out the baby with the bathwater, asserting that not only are the doctrines untrue, but also God.

So the origin of the Man of Lawlessness may be correct, but I am not sure that we keep up with its modern evolutions. Sometimes I think that we do the equivalent of railing about Egypt or Assyria, and don’t grasp that other heads have emerged in the seven-headed wild beast. The “apostates” that cause us trouble today are overwhelmingly atheistic. You mentioned Lloyd recently. He is atheist, and all those close to him that he works with. The media people, be it print or video, who “accuse the brothers day and night before our God” are almost always atheistic, Every general needs to know the enemy. We do ourselves a disservice if we imagine that today’s enemy is religious. It leads to miscalculations as to how to oppose him. Sometimes, we imagine that explaining doctrine clearly will serve to rectify things.

7 hours ago, Outta Here said:

clergy class still rears its ugly sting to inflict vindictive damage on true servants of God if possible (See the Russian affair).

I don’t think that’s true, and it is a good case in point. Buy too much into this and it would appear that if the clergy were to disappear, our problems would be over. In fact, the clergy has practically disappeared from the standpoint of influence, and our problems come upon us full-throttle. 

 Nobody believes me on this. They just assume that the Russian Orthodox Church is behind the ban. They have said that they are not. I am inclined to believe them. To be sure, most there squealed with delight when the ban on Witnesses went into effect, like kids on Christmas morning, but the thinkers among them don’t like it. They think that the same legal reasonings being used against us could also be used against them. They also regard themselves as the true church, and THAT is now illegal under the new laws first applied to Witnesses.

The centerpiece of my “theory” is articles such as this one in the Daily Caller:

https://dailycaller.com/2017/07/23/the-french-connection-how-the-russian-orthodox-church-and-the-putin-administration-colluded-with-a-french-ngo-to-destroy-the-jehovahs-witnesses/

We fixate on the Russian Orthodox Church because we have not moved on from the days of the Roman Catholic Church in 1950s Quebec, and 1940s America and Europe, when religion truly did orchestrate the mischief. The anti-cult movement of today that would take out ALL religion starts with the biblical faith that is most clearly “no part of this world,” but it is hardly friendlier with other types. We should know the enemy.

Recently in field service a woman answered my companion’s knock and said she wouldn’t speak with us since she “follows the Word of God.” Thus, she drew “battle lines,” and it was hard to not respond in kind. My companion began to go where we so often go, where I used to go, and a silly little contest begins of searching for chinks in her “armor,” since we are loath to leave an “objection” such as hers unanswered. After all, we also think that we are following the Word of God.

After a time, I interrupted to say: “Look, you believe in God and you think we’re doing it all wrong. We believe in God and we think you’re doing it all wrong. We will steal sheep from your church if we can and you will do the same to us. Let’s just accept that as a given. Either way it is a search for God and a desire to worship him.” With that, I made a point about the “shocking disregard for Jesus” prevalent in the world today, and a brief defused conversation ensued. We parted with her thinking that we were, at least in some respects, on the same page. And we were. We both have a common enemy who is on the ascent.

The Western clergy is licking its wounds these days. It is the atheists who are riding tall. It may be correct to identify the Man of Lawlessness with a religious faction—it certainly was that way in the early centuries—but its latest manifestation is not religious and has no use for God, having elevated other concerns to that status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What surprises me as I go through the sequential schedule of Bible reading, now focused on the letters of Paul, is how well they anticipate current “anti-cultist” complaints of being brainwashed, misled, duped, and so forth. What would appear to be a brand new scenario is just history recycled—put on steroids by modern viral methods of communication. Given that the following was said then, when the only communication was word-of-mouth, it is not at all surprising that it would be so prolific today:

“We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have taken advantage of no one,” says the apostle at 2 Corinthians 7:2, as though the accusation of those things was commonplace.

“Nevertheless, you say, I was “crafty” and I caught you “by trickery,” he says again at 2 Corinthians 12:16. For sure, Solomon had a point: “There is nothing new under the sun.” (Eccles 1:9)

Do “apostates” proliferate today, as though something new? It’s the oldest game in town. “For there are many—I used to mention them often but now I mention them also with weeping—who are walking as enemies of the torture stake of the Christ. Their end is destruction, and their god is their belly, and their glory is really their shame, and they have their minds on earthly things.” (Philippians 3:18-19)

”Having their mind on earthly things” is where its at today, and there are endless people who obsess over petty freedoms at the expense of totally missing the real ones. Their “critical thinking” has sold them down the river; they have shipwrecked whatever faith they once had—just like Paul says about two actual malcontents in the first century, when he advised Timothy to “go on waging the fine warfare, holding faith and a good conscience, which some have thrust aside, resulting in the shipwreck of their faith.  Hymenaeus and Alexander are among these, and I have handed them over to Satan so that they may be taught by discipline not to blaspheme.” (1 Timothy 3:18-19)

What exactly is it to be “handed over to Satan?” The only other use of the expression (1 Corinthians 5:5) makes clear that it is expulsion from the congregation. Today their counterparts on social media protest loudly that discipline.

They protest another sort of discipline as well. “Just as I encouraged you to stay in Ephesus when I was about to go to Macedonia, so I do now, in order for you to command certain ones not to teach different doctrine, nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies. Such things end up in nothing useful but merely give rise to speculations rather than providing anything from God in connection with faith.” Today the ones so “commanded” would hop on social media to rail that you can’t even breathe a word different from the tyrannical men on top to be muzzled at first transgression, and ejected at second.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are a cult if and only if the Bible is a cult manual. Nobody has apostates like Jehovah’s Witnesses. Nobody has apostates more prolific, more determined, and in some cases they seem almost deranged—I mean, if someone so much as farts at Bethel, there is one of these yo-yos to start a thread on it, which is not ignored, but is joined in by countless persons in sympathy, some of whom are coherent and some of whom are pure loons.

It is as it should be. We should be proud of our apostates. Nobody else has anyone like them. What if they did not exist? Would you not have to wonder why? No writer of the New Testament fails to deal with them. What if there were no mention of them today? Would it not indicate that the faith had so strayed from its roots to embrace contemporary thinking that there was little to apostatize from?

I will admit that the only apostates that interest me are the ones that go atheist, which partly accounts for my take on the 2 Thessalonians “Man of Lawlessness.” Having learned the man-made origins of Trinity and the immortal soul, and having come to appreciate the damage these teachings do to to a close relationship with God, can one really go back to them? Often the “believing” apostates do not—they simply become ambiguous on such doctrines, thinking that they hardly matter—to each his own. Essentially, they want to retain God, but they acquiesce to the greater world molding their thinking as to outlook, goals, and morals. They want to “throw off all restraint” and in no time at all, they have lost whatever unity they once had. When they can be distracted from attacking their former roots on social media, they are to found lambasting each other over differences in matters scientific, medical, climate, politics, etc.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TrueTomHarley  You certainly are an author of fairy tales and you are good at it too. Keep it up please it gives me plenty to laugh at after a morning of hard work. I'm back at that big house again doing some physical work as a favour to its owner. Well I'm totally baffled spiritually, out of the frying pan and into the fire it seems. BUT staying in the frying pan would  have got me cooked that's for sure. So I'm thinking I might as well be helpful in some way to other people, as it seems I cannot help myself right now. 

BUT. Lets quote your words :- 

What surprises me as I go through the sequential schedule of Bible reading, now focused on the letters of Paul, is how well they anticipate current “anti-cultist” complaints of being brainwashed, misled, duped, and so forth. What would appear to be a brand new scenario is just history recycled—put on steroids by modern viral methods of communication. Given that the following was said then, when the only communication was word-of-mouth, it is not at all surprising that it would be so prolific today:

OK. Catholics could say the same,  and any other 'brand' of Christian.  Mormons maybe. However you are pretending that it is the same, But it isn't. 

“We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have taken advantage of no one,” says the apostle at 2 Corinthians 7:2, as though the accusation of those things was commonplace.

“Nevertheless, you say, I was “crafty” and I caught you “by trickery,” he says again at 2 Corinthians 12:16. For sure, Solomon had a point: “There is nothing new under the sun.” (Eccles 1:9)

The Bible Students / GB / JW Org / W/t cannot truthfully say the above.  Promising Armageddon in 1914, suggesting Armageddon in 1975,  saying 'Millions now living will never die' (just as the Devil told Eve she would not die), was crafty, trickery, and the continued rumours that Armageddon is 'so close' and 'that only those inside the JW Org will be saved', when at the same time a member of the Governing Body said that 'they might not be the only channel of communication God is using', well you work it out for yourself.  

They protest another sort of discipline as well. “Just as I encouraged you to stay in Ephesus when I was about to go to Macedonia, so I do now, in order for you to command certain ones not to teach different doctrine, nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies. Such things end up in nothing useful but merely give rise to speculations rather than providing anything from God in connection with faith.” 

False stories, um, 'this generation will not pass away', oh dear it didn't happen. So make up another story, the generation isn't one generation , it's two overlapping generations. 

Do “apostates” proliferate today, as though something new? 

You may have to break this down a bit Tom. First of all it depends what YOU mean as an apostate. Are you talking about those who have found fault with the GB and JW Org / W/t ? If so you cannot truly compare it to first century Christians.  In the first century it would probably have been the Jews that were used to living under Law and Jewish customs. But now you are comparing that with ex-JW's that are used to living under the JW rules. The early Christian way was a totally new way of living to the Jews. But if you are calling ex-JW's apostates then those ex-JW's know what life is like as a JW. Totally different circumstances. Why ? Because ex-JWs are looking at the GB / JWOrg / W/t and comparing it to God's written word the Bible / Bible standards. 

Let's go back to this :- 

“We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have taken advantage of no one,” says the apostle at 2 Corinthians 7:2,  

I only have to write three letters here . C, S, A.  Tom and others you KNOW that the GB / JW Org / W/t is in trouble in, Australia, America, Canada, UK, Netherlands, and I'm probably not completely up to date on any others.  Now if only one third of the accusations are true that is still a lot of Pedophilia in the JW Org, and still a lot of mishandling of 'justice for victims' from a scriptural viewpoint. Something about 'looking after widows and orphans' etc.... 

We could mention also about baptism and how the JW Org makes it more than just confirming dedication to God through Christ, but includes becoming part of the 'club' and obeying GB rules. (But that is a totally different topic). 

Having their mind on earthly things” is where its at today, and there are endless people who obsess over petty freedoms at the expense of totally missing the real ones

Petty freedoms, but why petty restrictions ?  The suit and tie, the Beard problem. Why put in place restrictions that are TOTALLY NOT SCRIPTURAL ?  And who gives authority to those that make these petty restrictions ?  That brings us back once again to this :- 

“We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have taken advantage of no one,” says the apostle at 2 Corinthians 7:2

The GB have stolen the recognition that ALL Anointed are the Faithful and Discreet Slave class. The GB have exalted themselves above the other Anointed, Luke 14, v11....  The GB have strongly hinted at the instruction that the rest of the Anointed should not get in touch with each others , but should remain in subjection to the GB. 

So here I have given proof that what Paul speaks/writes about is in no way similar to the problems in the JW Org today. 

The ones that Tom calls apostates will vary as all people are individuals. But Tom seems to need to think that apostates have deserted God and Christ. No Tom, many have just woken up to the falseness of the GB and it's two orgs. 

Once again I will end by saying that God may totally cleanse the JW Org and then use it, or God may start a new organisation of truthful Anointed ones. 

Sorry, I forgot one of the most important points too. Tom is comparing totally UNINSPIRED MEN therefore leading an uninspired organisation, to the Early Christian organisation which was full of INSPIRED MEN INCLUDING PAUL. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Once again I will end by saying that God may totally cleanse the JW Org and then use it, or God may start a new organisation of truthful Anointed ones. 

The Witness organization cannot possibly be as bad as you charge, for the Devil is not that bad. You are a loon, John, wildly overstating all of your points, substantial or trivial, implacable to any persuasion to back down even a little on any of them. Nothing shows more clearly.

More later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The Witness organization cannot possibly be as bad as you charge, for the Devil is not that bad. You are a loon, John, wildly overstating all of your points, substantial or trivial, implacable to any persuasion to back down even a little on any of them. Nothing shows more clearly.

More later.

Quote : You are a loon, John, wildly overstating all of your points,

Here again Tom @TrueTomHarley  uses this mental problem thing. He just has no other answer. 

Tom you know that what I have written above is all true. Even IF I was mentally disturbed, as you pretend, it would not make my statements less true. 

As for the Devil not being that bad, who are you trying to kid ?

Didn't the devil get prophets to give false prophecy ? 

Didn't the devil get the Israelites to offer their children in the fire to Molech ? 

The Nation of Israel served the devil so much that they were punished for it many times. 

And in the end the Jews murdered GOD'S SON JESUS CHRIST.

So don't try to tell me the Devil isn't that bad. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

So don't try to tell me the Devil isn't that bad. 

And John has no sense of hyperbole, rather unfortunate, because Jesus uses them frequently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

And John has no sense of hyperbole, rather unfortunate, because Jesus uses them frequently.

And Tom is only on here to make money from his books. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And Tom is only on here to make money from his books. 

Aren’t you in Britain? Don’t you have some exotic cars there that I could buy? What was the last auto that James Bond tooled around in?

My current project is to go through Dear Mr. Putin - Jehovah’s Witnesses Write Russia paragraph by paragraph to re-examine wording. I have already done so to (mostly) fix a self-devised system of punctuation. 

That book has caused me more trouble than my other three put together, mostly because of the manner in which it was written.

Once I have completed the task, I will look into releasing it on audio, as an author-read narrator. 

There are many many things that I am not good at, in fact, almost everything. However, public reading is something that I am good at. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Sorry, I forgot one of the most important points too. Tom is comparing totally UNINSPIRED MEN therefore leading an uninspired organisation, to the Early Christian organisation which was full of INSPIRED MEN INCLUDING PAUL. 

The early Christian Church consist of inspired and uninspired men. Yes Paul was inspired, however, Clement, Chloe, and Epaphras were not, as is with others, regardless, all of them were faithful servants of the Christ and worship Jesus' God, and wanting to do right in their church of which they reside. More so, men and women of the church congregations, not all of them were inspired either, as imperfect ones, they fall short to sin and falsehood, example would be the whole situation with idols, The Temple of Artemis, those who became apostates within the church and were eventually kicked out.

After the Apostles died, there is only uninspired men, however, such ones are still faithful spirit led Christians of God and followers of Christ, wanting to do right in the church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Forum Statistics

    61,681
    Total Topics
    114,539
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,509
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    Rosjes128
    Newest Member
    Rosjes128
    Joined




  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Just for interest, here is an interview with prince Andrew. It's acutely embarrassing the excuses  he makes and the denials.... Read comments, they are entertaining  
    • Yes. Just watched it. I like that you talk about the broad effects of the impact whistleblowing has had in this particular area. It's not just the Witnesses, but many institutions. Many guilty people would have probably got away with sexual abuse 20 years ago, but not so much today. Even royalty have been put under the microscope. History is rife with stories of rich dirty old men having sex with underage girls and getting away with it. When enough people make noise, it can't be ignored.
    • Maybe this was in the sense of these "bad elders" rejecting the counsel given by "good elders" who were quoting Bible books and the Mosaic Law (as transmitted through angels), or these "bad elders" were speaking out against sayings of Jesus and inspired writings of the apostles, as if they held no value to this time they were in, so many decades after Jesus originally spoke them. Also (less likely) Jude quotes the book of Enoch, specifically a part about the judgment of angels, and he appears to refer to another book about the "Assumption of Moses." We don't know how much more of those books were accepted other than the portions referenced, but these books were part of a genre that gave names to dozens of angels and referenced many more hierachies of thousands of angels. Good point! I doubt it. There are too many scriptures, and too much context that shows what Paul was up against in trying to get the congregations to accept and understand the concept of "grace" or "undeserved kindness." (Along with "law" "legalism" "works" "righteousness" "sin" "conscience" etc.) Paul had to write chapters, nearly whole long letters, on the subject, and it even put him for a short while at odds with the Jerusalem council. Probably it is sometimes. But the whistleblowing of the CSA cases all over the world have drawn attention to a lot of things that go on in the world where the abused victims felt powerless. In many institutions, including once-hostile work environments, this is actually changing for the better. The threat of monetary sanctions has made even rich men who could once get away with anything (as Trump claimed), think twice. It has definitely helped in some suburban schools and even corporations I once worked for. I suspect that many priests and elders who once thought they would get away with anything are now more apt to think again before abusing persons.
    • The old method of handling this was to use the expression "present truth." Many adventists including Seventh Day still use the expression. It's based on a mistranslation of 2 Peter 1:12 where the KJV said: Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. The tendency among 19th century Adventists was to see a "chronology" element or "time" element in the English expression that did not exist in the original Greek. Therefore, the idea was that: even when in the midst of learning or teaching falsehood, it was still "present truth" at the time, and what is now "present truth" could turn out to be false in the future, but it will always have been "present truth" because it's always the best we had at the time. From the Greek, this is better translated as "the truth that is present in you" (American Standard and NWT).  A similar rush to see a time element in the English translation was done by Barbour and Russell and others who had been associated with Adventists. Here's an example from Leviticus: (Leviticus 26:28) 28 I will intensify my opposition to you, and I myself will have to chastise you seven times for your sins. This was originally the primary source for Russell's 7 times = 2,520 years, and the 7 times of Nebuchadnezzar's dream about his own insanity was only a secondary source. But we have since learned that Leviticus here didn't refer to chronological "times" but the sense was "7 times as much" as in "I will hit you twice as hard, or three times as hard, or seven times as hard." This was already in the context, but chronologists and numerologists rarely notice the context until they have already formed a time related doctrine. (Leviticus 26:18-21) . . .“‘If even this does not make you listen to me, I will have to chastise you seven times as much for your sins. . . . 21 “‘But if you keep walking in opposition to me and refuse to listen to me, I will then have to strike you seven times as much, according to your sins. Now that we have noticed this, we have been stuck with using Nebuchadnezzar as if his wicked Gentile kingdom somehow represented Christ's Messianic non-Gentile kingdom. (Another contradiction between 1914 and the Bible.) We still tend to make a "chronology word" out of things having to do with time when we translate the Greek word for time as "appointed time" instead of what might better be translated as "opportune time." Note that it's the exact same word "time" in these two verses: (Ephesians 5:16) 16 buying out the opportune time for yourselves, because the days are wicked. (Luke 21:24) . . .and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. Neither the word opportune nor appointed is found in the Greek, only the word time. But the more typical meaning is "opportunity" as in: Will you find the opportunity to do this? Will you find the time to do this? Not: Will you find the appointed day and hour to do this? We have added a more specific chronological sense that usually isn't necessary in the Greek.  
    • Elon Musk shows himself to rather out of touch with science. He is using his money to make a name for himself by driving forward with some outlandish plans. He is an embarrassment to his own employees sometimes when he quotes pseudo-scientific ideas that have been obsolete for decades. (One of these was the idea of using nuclear explosions to make Mars inhabitable.) But his optimism to get employees to "make it happen" will drive some scientific progress in spite of himself. Even here, however, he has often just attached his name to some idea that came out of Japan or China or some US or European scientific think tank that was never associated with Musk. He attaches his own unrealistic timelines to these ideas, however, and then begins to lose credibility.  This particular idea has some merit, but there is a lot more expense in creating the infrastructure than people realize. There is the mining of the elements that go into solar cells, the manufacture of solar panels, the trucking of materials to such a solar hub, the infrastructure to build out the lines from the hub across the USA. Currently these types of expenses reduce the ROI value of this particular type of renewable energy so much that it makes carbon (coal/oil/petroleum) seem much more desirable for generating power, and for which an infrastructure is already in place. When viable, I would like to see how close to Hoover Dam this could be built to re-use some power lines that emanate from there, and already reach to many southwest states. Perhaps an even better idea would be to find a place near Yuma or Mexicali, so that half of the power would be used to desalinate water for Mexico and the US by piping saltwater from the Gulf of California, then freshwater back out with a mountain or salt and minerals as a byproduct.    
    • I think that's exactly correct. But we know that as Christians we are still under under a duty to question, reflect, test, prove, meditate, and "make sure of all things." We must do this even if it were an angel out of heaven giving us the interpretation, according to Galatians 1 and 2. And Paul specifically applied that thought to the way the Galatian congregation(s) should have tested and made sure of the incorrect counsel coming from council of elders at Jerusalem, because evidently some were too quick to accept that counsel just because it came from those who seemed to be pillars in the congregation. To Paul, he said, it didn't matter who those men were, or what they seemed to be, and he even included Peter, James and John in that idea of who to question. John himself later wrote that we should test the inspired utterances (1 John 4:1). I have. And the Watchtower has also claimed to have found MANY previous misinterpretations of prophecy which interpretations they said came from God, and yet warranted a redefinition of that interpretation. In fact I quoted you one of several places where the Watchtower has admitted exactly what you say you have not found: *** ws17 June p. 13 par. 16 Set Your Heart on Spiritual Treasures *** At times, our understanding of a Bible prophecy or a scripture may be adjusted. When that happens, it is important to take the time to study the adjustment and meditate on it. (Acts 17:11; 1 Timothy 4:15) We not only need to understand the main differences between the old understanding and the new one, but we also need to pay attention to the details of the new understanding. I've seen you accuse others here of blasphemy, when they defended the Bible, and yet you are able to make a statement such as that! Yes, certain Bible Student congregations continued to follow the Barbour/Russell advent timeline, which included Rutherford and the Watchtower editorial board, up until about 1927, with some intermediate adjustments over time to what Russell had said about 1914, and 1915, and with some brand new ideas about 1918, and 1925. Russell's concerted effort to "finally understand his own chronology" barely changed a thing, except for a few changes to some Great Pyramid measurements, and some vacillations between 1914 and 1915, and a change around 1904 to push the period of tribulation to the few months after 1914 instead of the few months (or years) before 1914. I would agree that Edgar's pyramid scheme hardly influenced Russell. That's because Edgar only wanted to get even more details on the subject, and completed most of this work after Russell had already published all he had to say on the Pyramid. Also, Russell was already satisfied enough with the details he had borrowed from Joseph Seiss. You say: "Perhaps, that is where the confusion lies" but there is no need for any confusion at all. Russell's works include all the necessary details, and they are all easy to find. If we wish to discuss Russell's own published views, we don't need to worry about the many other groups that sprung from Barbour's and Russell's teachings. I think I know what you are talking about. I think the admins or moderators here consider it spamming when someone overuses a long string of a dozen or more dislike emojis at the rate of one per minute on the posts of people they dislike, and a string of a dozen or more "like" emojis at the rate of about one per minute on their own accounts of different names. I think once a person is caught doing this once, it's dangerous to keep doing this with even with a smaller string of up-votes and down-votes. Sometimes the give-away to the game is when the down-vote is simply a negative response to a Scripture or a direct quote from the Watchtower.
    • I would like to expand on the above quote. New truth/old truth......in the same WT in the preceding par (15) it says; "We discovered some priceless truths when we first began to associate with God’s people. These could well be described as “old,” in that we have known and appreciated them from the beginning of our Christian course. What do such precious truths include? We learned that Jehovah is our Creator and Life-Giver and that he has a purpose for mankind. We also learned that God lovingly provided the ransom sacrifice of his Son so that we might be freed from sin and death. We further learned that his Kingdom will end all suffering and that we have the prospect of living forever  in peace and happiness under Kingdom rule". So the "old" truths here are defined as old from the point of view of age. These are the backbone, basics, elementary, fundamental or key doctrines as JWI describes at the outset of this thread. These have not changed. Then there is the "old" as defined in par 16; "old understanding". So we are not talking about any new truth as in newly discovered truth, but an adjustment or new understanding of what has already been taught previously. In this case it really doesn't make sense to call something old truth and new truth because truth can only be one. If it's not truth, its falsehood. So in my opinion, unless something is "old" established truth, the backbone of our Biblical doctrine, then anything else that falls into the "viewpoint" category of "truth" (or the shadow that is thrown) should not have to be accepted as the "absolute Truth", and should it really become "a part of our collection of Bible truths"? (Of course with any kind of truth, whether relativism, universalism (absolute truth) etc. one can go into great depths of the philosophy behind these concepts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth) (Interestingly, JWI WT quote is from the simplified version. The normal study version does not say "a part of our collection of Bible truths" , but "our own treasure store".)        
  • 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.