Jump to content

Srecko Sostar

Eternal life and knowledge of Them

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Srecko Sostar -
Arauna -
4
82

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

JW's preach about Kingdom, Armageddon, and Eternal Life. This eternal life shall be in the future, after the last ordeal/exam at the end of the Kingdom of Christ, that is, at the end of 1000 years of that Kingdom.
The concept of eternity and therefore of eternal life for man is great desire of all people. No one wants to die, unless he is very old and infirm or severely ill or in great suffering. But many people, even under such circumstances, have desire to survive and live. 
 

JWs are not sure, will they get eternal life. But they have great hope for it, if they remain faithful to God, as they say.
Because of such stand, it is interesting to note the famous words written in the Bible. "And this is an eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." - Mat 17
This is where we meet the equalization of terms. Knowing God and Jesus = Eternal Life. Conversely, eternal life = the knowledge of God and Jesus.


What JW's doing to get knowledge of God (and eternal life as result)? They read the Bible, they read WT publications, they listen to lectures, going preaching ..etc. The program for getting to know God and Jesus consists of, for the newcomers, in the Bible study system, attending meetings, preaching, and baptism. Consecration and baptism should mean that these new members have had by then, to that moment (cca 6 months  or 1 year) came to know God and Jesus enough to give their lives to Them .... and to have hope for future eternal life.

Further question applies to both, newly baptized and those who have been "in the knowledge of God and Jesus" for decades. Do you have eternal life? Do you have it now? 

JW's are very sure how they know the truth and Them, now.  What is the truth? To know Them. Jesus also said: I am The Way, The Truth and The Life. What Life? Eternal Life or some other Life? As result of what JW's know, we should, supposedly, conclude how JW's have: The way, the truth and the eternal life, because of how this facts are presented by them, about knowledge they have. 


JW's will say how they will get it (eternal life), after the end of 1000th year Kingdom. But Jesus said how eternal life IS knowing Them. When?.... when you/they will know Them? In 1 century, after every Jesus' lessons and speech? Or after teaching that people received by Apostles who had been "inspired"? Or after people have been educated by Russell' publications, and get to know Them in such way? Or through preaching methods incorporated by JW organization?  

Well, if JW's say how they will get eternal life in the future, that would mean how they don't know God and Jesus today. Jesus spoke about different logic: To know Them means you have eternal life. Do you know Them now? If you say, Yes, this would mean you have eternal life now. 

But i see another issue here, too. God (and Jesus) living from eternity to eternity. In that sense, all what is connected about knowing Them is outside life span of every human. Possibility to know God and Jesus is impossible to human, because we are not eternal. Even with future aspect that some of us will live forever, it is not enough time to be in position to collect (with mind and heart) all what is possible to know about Them. In our position today, as people who lives 70-90 years, it is also impossible to know Them in such short period.

We coming to these questions too:

About what knowledge (in quality and quantity) Jesus spoke?

About what eternal life (when and what sort of life....You will be in paradise with me, today, or after 1914, or after Kingdom ends... etc.) Jesus spoke? 

... or you can suggest some other questions too :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Knowing them - jehovah AND jesus.  How many religions do you know which openly preach Jehovahs name AND jesus.  

Jews know the name of God and refuse to use the name, muslims made the God of the Quraish tribe their God, most Christian's pray only to Jesus and do not accept that his soul was in death 3 days - so do they "know" him? 

I can go on and on..... I hope you get the drift. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @Arauna for participate with comment.

To know someone's name is definitely very important. But it can be just beginning or start to get to know somebody. In some or many cases, all our "knowledge" about another person stops with this first step - knowing his/her name. 

We also have another thing with Bible names. Some of them (individuals) have more than one name. For example: Bible scholars said how Jesus has several names. Does he had each of these names only for separate period of time, and for special role he had for particular reason? Or does he has all this names in every and each period of time no matter of what his special name or title speaking about him and his participation in something?

To know name or names is not sufficient for complete knowledge about person who carry that name. Perhaps it is "revelation" for people to see how God has the name - JHVH. But is that fact automatically bring them to position of having or not having "eternal life"? But on contrary too, for example, we have people of Moses time and before. Some verses give impression how Jew slaves in Egypt and Moses didn't know the name of God. But that not stopped them to worship him and to have hope in him. Even without knowing his name, they were in privileged position. God loved them and want to free them from slavery. God wanted to give them "eternal life" in promised land. Despite the fact they didn't know his name. 

By this i just want to show how God can do miracles and give favor and mercy and love to ignorant people - to people who don't know first and fundamental thing of every relation - The Name.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your kind reaction Srecko.   When I know your name i am cannot say I know you. One has to have walked with that person for some time to know their qualities, what they like and do not like.

Same with God.... we have to know more than his name..... when we have walked with him for some time and read his word we know his qualities and what he likes and does not like.  Even though we cannot see him - we can later on really love him from the heart because we understand and know who he really is.

If someone tells you that your best friend stole something..... you can defend him and say he will never do that......because you know him well. In the same way we defend jehovah when people accuse him of bringing evil on them or does not care about them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By Srecko Sostar
      The WT Society interprets that JW elders have the right not to disclose secrets to the police and to other government agencies regarding child abuse when members of the organization give them information, whether they are victims or perpetrators.
      In this appeal, WT lawyers defend this right by invoking the Catholic Church and their clergy. In fact, although the WT Society and JWorg claim to have no priestly class as the Catholic Church, they do want the same privileges for their elders, before the bodies of the law, as Catholic priests do.
      What is the doctrine in the Catholic Church regarding "confession"? What is the doctrine of the WT and JW Organization regarding "confession"?
      The Catholic Church allows their priests to listen to the voluntary confessions of their believers and to give them comfort and forgiveness in the name of God as part of Christian mercy. Priests must never reveal to anyone the confession secrets they have heard from believers.
      The WT JW organization teaching that the believers of their religion should also confess their sins to their "priests", who are the elders. Although in the formal every day language, words "confession of sin" are viewed in different way, different picture than it is in Catholic church, it can be said that it is formally the similar idea as in the Catholic Church. Awareness of one's sin may come to elders in two ways: as a voluntary confession of one's sins before one or more elders or when a member of the Assembly declared the sin of another member of the organization.
      There are two outcomes for a JW believer after the elders find out about a sin. He will either be allowed to remain as full member of the assembly, or be expelled/dfd from the organization.
      What does that tell us? Although the WT JW organization claims that it is incorrect and unbiblical when a Catholic priest forgives sins to a Catholic believer, we are free to observe that in their treating, JW elders towards their member, they act in the same way as a Catholic priest. By allowing JW sinner to remain to be a member of the congregation, they, as the Judges of the JW Church, forgave him. They forgave him on their's behalf, on behalf of the injured party, and on behalf of the assembly. In the event that they had excluded sinners, it would mean that no one had forgiven him. This kind of treatment denies the allegations regarding the Catholic Church about who have right to "forgive sins".
      Certain Bible passages teaching assembly members to be prepared to forgive the sins of other members. This actually means that there is a basis on which one sinner can forgive sins of a another sinner. If so, then it means that some sin can be forgiven, not just by the directly injured party, but by any other member of the congregation. Every member can, if he wants and wish, but he is not forced if he does not want to.
      But in the Catholic Church, a believer who has the burden of sin and wants to confess it in his church, goes to only one priest, not two or three, and confesses his sin only to him. In this case, sin is confessed to only one person. And that forms the basis for the "secret" in the Catholic Church. Because the secret is revealed to only one person.
      In the JW congregation, "confession of sin" gets another level of "secrecy." The secret does not remain verbally spoken between two people, but the "secret" extends to 3 or 4 people, maybe more. However, it is very important to note that the "confession" is also documented in writing. According to what i know, a Catholic priest does not making (mandatory) written record for the sins of his believers. JW elders, by contrast, must make a "confidential file" kept in the archives and / or destroyed if it would be said so by the authority of the higher hierarchy body.
       
      It is unacceptable that the WT JW organization invokes the Catholic Church and their "penitent privilege", or "confessional secrets" between believers and chaplains (soul carrier, shepherd), as the basis by which it operates within its own organization and regulates the spiritual life of believers in the JW Church.
      The "confessional secret" in the Catholic Church  and "confession of sin" before the elders in the JW assembly are two things.
       
    • By Srecko Sostar
      JW members are instructed by this GB member to trust their leaders aka Governing Body. On other side Bible has many verses that warning people about that issue. Well, it seems how human influence and even manipulation is on work. Just few Bible verses as evidence: 
       My dear brothers, do not trust every spirit. But test the spirits to see if they belong to God. - 1 John
      Do not rely on a friend; do not trust in a companion. Seal the doors of your mouth from her who lies in your arms - Micah 7
      Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings, who cannot save. - Psalm 146
      For your own sakes, quit trusting in mere man,Who is only the breath in his nostrils.*Why should he be taken into account? - Isaiah 2
       
       
    • By Srecko Sostar
      Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations,+ baptizing them+ in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, - Mat 28:19 nwt
      WT Society have changed few times, in last 140 years, baptismal questions.
      Also they stopped to respect, obey Jesus command quoted above. At some moment (perhaps about 1970's , please correct this guessing if it is wrong) JW person who immersing new member into water doing that silently. They do not repeat this Jesus words while baptizing "disciples". 
      What do you think about this?  Whether the absence of spoken words (in the name of ....) is the reason why such baptism would be considered invalid? Or, that is not matter?  

    • By Srecko Sostar
      TEACHING BOX 16A - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102017945
      Is Christendom the Antitypical Jerusalem?
      In the past, our literature has referred to Christendom as the antitype of apostate Jerusalem. The conditions in unfaithful Jerusalem—including idolatry and widespread corruption—certainly remind us of what is happening in Christendom. However, in recent years our publications, including the one you are now reading, have not taken the type-antitype approach to prophecy except where the Bible provides a clear basis for doing so. Is there a solid Scriptural basis for referring to Christendom as the antitypical Jerusalem? No.
      Consider the following: Jerusalem was at one time a center of pure worship; later, its inhabitants turned apostate. By contrast, Christendom has never practiced pure worship. Right from its inception in the fourth century C.E., Christendom has always taught false doctrine.
      In addition, after Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians, Jehovah restored the city to his favor and it again became the center of true worship. Christendom, on the other hand, has never had God’s favor, and once it is destroyed during the great tribulation, it will never rise again.
      In view of the foregoing, what may we conclude? When we examine Bible prophecies that were fulfilled on unfaithful Jerusalem, we may say, ‘This or that reminds us of what we see in Christendom today.’ But there appears to be no Scriptural basis for referring to Christendom as the antitypical Jerusalem.
       
      First, perhaps is about Lexicon, Vocabulary  in JW Culture. When JW Church and members talking about "Christendom" they refer firstly or mostly to Roman Catholic Church and all Churches and Denominations that believe In Jesus Christ...but in wrong, false and idolatrous way. But JW consider themselves to be Christians too, but not part of "Christendom" (by this they quote can be consider as Christendom.  "....we are Christians who do our best to follow the example set by Jesus Christ and to live by his teachings." -https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/are-jehovahs-witnesses-a-cult/
      Why this linguistic distinction is so important to JW? To be, sometimes, called with name "Christians" but want to run miles away from word "Christendom"?
      Christendom - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Christendom
       noun - English Language Learners Definition of Christendom
      : people who are Christians
      : the part of the world where most people are Christians
      But another thing is of bigger importance. Do you remember how many articles and books and magazines taught you all, over such long period of decades, on so many meetings and congregations baked up with so many Bible verses and Study paragraphs about who is Jerusalem and who is Christendom and all that stuff??!!
      And now they figured up, they rowed deep, Under Spirit Motivation and Guidance, to tell you how Now there is No Single One Solid Scriptural Basis to believe in that teaching, doctrine, dogma! 
      Do You really believe how Church Leaders and Guardians of Doctrine in WTJWORG know what they are talking about , as those who watch for your souls?! 
        
    • By Srecko Sostar
      Many people wish, want to know what is, how looks Context about some issue. That is because of reason to be able to understand more and better some issue, and if they have to make some decision about to be sure they will make good choice.  
      Here is example how WT "scribes" manipulates with Context !!!!!! 
      Reasoning from the Scriptures, page 89, Cross; The Imperial Bible-Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: “The Greek word for cross, [stau·rosʹ], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. . . . Even amongst the Romans the crux(from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.”—Edited by P. Fairbairn (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 376.   Text in red color is missing text in Reasoning book. Very important CONTEXT. Oh, context always problem with you:))) _____________________________________________________ The Imperial Bible-Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: “The Greek word for cross, [stau·rosʹ], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. But a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek speaking countries. Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole and this always reminded the more prominent part. But from the time that it began to be used as an instrument of punishment a transverse piece of wood was commonly added; not, however, always even than.....  The following text continues, describing the types of crosses and the ways in which the convicts were murdered...,others extending their arms on a patibulum. There can be no doubt, however, that the later sort was the more common and that about the period of the gospel age crucifixion was usually accomplished by suspending the criminal on a cross piece of wood. But this does not itself determine the precise form of the cross; ....  the text continues to describe 3 types of crosses.—Edited by P. Fairbairn (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 376.   Please, if you know some more examples about similar "intellectual dishonest" give example   
    • By Srecko Sostar
      Just one of many changes WT made in recent years. 
      19 In review, what have we learned? In the beginning of this article, we raised three “when” questions. We first considered that the great tribulation did not begin in 1914 but will start when the United Nations attacks Babylon the Great. Then, we reviewed why Jesus’ judgment of the sheep and the goats did not begin in 1914 but will occur during the great tribulation. Finally, we examined why Jesus’ arrival to appoint the faithful slave over all his belongings did not occur in 1919 but will take place during the great tribulation. So, then, all three “whens” apply to the same future time period—the great tribulation. How does this adjusted view further affect our understanding of the illustration of the faithful slave? Also, how does it affect our understanding of other parables, or illustrations, of Jesus that are being fulfilled during this time of the end? These important questions will be considered in the following articles.
      source of paragraph: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2013530
       
      Here in this paragraph we see just some of many changes from past teachings in Watchtower ideology.
      Well, questions are as follow:
      What is The Truth?
      Can The Truth Stop To Be True?
      Does The Truth have the Owner?
      Why do some people like to claim that Only They know a Certain Truth?
      Does some Truth exists outside of our awareness of the existence of such truth?
      Why do we argue how some Truth or Truths can never change?
      Why can not we name The Truth, which has ceased to be true, that it is a Lie or at least Not The Truth?
      Do these truths from paragraph 19 cease to be true on the day of publication in the Watchtower Journal on July 15 2013 or are they, in fact, have never been The Truth?
       
  • Forum Statistics

    61,565
    Total Topics
    113,563
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,488
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    Robert Cumulus
    Newest Member
    Robert Cumulus
    Joined




  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Uh oh. You are reacting (and I thank you) to my Dawkins post on the wrong thread. Be prepared for an onslaught from @AlanF about how STUPID you are!   He is not the same—JTR is an absolute saint by comparison—but I used to occasionally include off-color words in my posts just to see him, who could launch the nastiest and crudest of tirades, get all bent out of shape that I has said a naughty word.
    • Why I enjoyed your piece : it cclearly identifies the cantankerous way all darwinists act...... the religion seems to affect them this way.   Mr Dawkins has embarrassed himself quite a lot since he became a celebrity for the cause......  I think the best video I saw of him is when he said that aliens seeded the earth. ..... in a discussion on the origins of life. ..
    • Loved your contribution above.  The propaganda regarding the  "religion of peace" hides its extreme and barbaric violence.  True, JWs are the true religion of peace for refusing any political division in our ranks (not taking sides) or going to war to fight any of this system's battles. It is encouraging to be able to identify this nation on earth. I studied the "religion of peace" ...... most people in UK call it by this name now because one can get 2 years in prison for islamaphobia.  One can mock a Christian, burn the bible, call jesus an adulterer and make funny pictures of him but do NOT hint at  anything against the "religion of peace".  Oh-  I am comparing the injustice of the world in its bias treatment of JWs again in OCD way...... that will trigger Mr. JAH2......
    • This is not technically true. Admittedly, there was much opinion, but there was also at least one bit of solid information content: It would be very hard to dispute with that one.
    • I think a lot of people suspected that pretty quickly, especially as their top 3 issues appear to be the same, and as time goes on, even their pet peeves match up. I don't know for sure that JB was "DF'd" from the site, but it's the impression I got because there was some kind of warning, and then he was gone. At this point if they are the same, I don't think it matters in the slightest. But the reason I jump in on this topic is because I don't want anyone to be confused with my use of the term DF.  According to JB, he was treated as if DF'd in his congregation, even though he was not officially DF'd by a committee of elders. Not all of the reasons for this treatment were clear. Now that you have suspected that 4Jah2me was DF'd, I just figured that the JB story ought to be a reminder that it's always possible 4Jah2me was never DF'd either. 
    • Tweeted Richard Dawkins one fine day (11/13/19): “You could easily spot any Religion of Peace. Its extremist members would be extremely peaceful”  Can it be? Is Richard Dawkins referring to Jehovah’s Witnesses—universally known for being “extremely peaceful” yet declared “extremists” in Russia? If so, I will take back the relatively few bad things I have said about him. I have not really said THAT many bad things about him. At times, I have even been complimentary. When he blessed the atheist buses rolling out in London, I said that he raised a good point—his was a reaction to existing “hellfire’ buses, with advertising from the church. He did wuss-out, though, with a: “There probably is no God.” Probably? It wasn’t until I began following him on Twitter, though, that I noticed how breathtakingly contemptuous he was toward anyone who disagreed with him—not merely about God, but also on geopolitical things—and then I did say a few mean things. For example, I said of him that “he does not suffer fools gladly, and a fool is anyone who disagrees with him.” However, he has largely repented over this online meanness. I’ve noticed it over the months. He has not banished it entirely, but it is much less prevalent, so that I regret that I ever said what I did.  The temptation to be disdainful of opponents is well-nigh irresistible, particularly if you think that they are willfully choosing ignorance. I have (more or less) mastered the temptation, of course, but I have a source of effective and unending counsel that he does not. This is no more concisely stated than it was at a recent Watchtower Study. A Bible verse considered how we ought “do nothing out of contentiousness or out of egotism, but with humility consider others superior to you.” (Philippians 2:3) Practically speaking, this advice is not easy to implement. It may even strike one as nonsensical—how can everyone be superior to everyone else? Said that Watchtower: “The humble person acknowledges that everyone is superior to him in some way.—Phil. 2:3, 4.”  Of course. In some way everyone is superior to everyone else. Search for that way, hone in on it like a laser beam, and it will not be so difficult to treat even opponents with respect. “Disagree without being disagreeable” is the catchphrase today. But Professor Dawkins does not have this advantage. Much of his tradition would sway him in just the opposite “survival of the fittest” direction. So he must be given credit for his new, somewhat softer, online personality. Possibly someone who has his best interests at heart—perhaps his wife—said, “Richard, you sure do come across as a cantankerous crank on Twitter,” and he deliberately walked it back. It’s commendable. Now, I don’t think Richard had Jehovah’s Witnesses in mind with his tweet. He probably has formed his views of them through the contributions of their “apostate” contingent, and those views could hardly be blacker. I looked down among his comments to see whether any of those nasties had reared their heads. Perhaps here was an example: “Not entirely true. Extremists usually have their own misinterpretation of scriptures.” I responded to this one: “If “misinterpretation” results in a religion of peace, perhaps it is not a misinterpretation after all. Perhaps the mainline view is a misinterpretation.” Is that not a no-brainer?  Another one, disagreeing with the above tweet: “Actually no. Most extremists do exactly what is written in their book. ‘Misinterpretation’ is used as an argument by believers that cherry pick morals that fit our secular ethics today.” I know this type, too. This is the type that finds slavery in the Bible or war in the Old Testament and rails at the “hypocrisy.” I responded to this fellow as well: “Everything has a historical context and to deliberately ignore such context is to be intellectually dishonest. If our side does it to theirs, we never hear the end of it.” He blew up at this reference to context. Evil is evil, he carried on, across all places and time-frames. These characters are very predictable—you could even write their lines for them and not be too far off. Has “critical thinking” made us all nincompoops? It was once thought the most intelligent thing in the world to consider historical backdrop; one was irresponsible, even deceitful, not to do it. Very well. If he is going to trash, with blinders affixed, the source that I hold dear, I will do the same with his source: “You should turn your critical thinking skills upon Ancient Greece, the definer of it. When time travel is invented, history revisionists will give a friendly wave to American slaveholding forefathers as they race back in time to fetch wicked Greek pedophiles—it was an enshrined value of that world—back in irons.” He was not chastened by this. Hijacking Twitter as his personal courtroom, he cross-examined: “Is the holding and beating of slaves, as described in Exodus, morally acceptable? Yes or no?” I countered: “Is the raping of children as endorsed by Ancient Greek society morally acceptable? Yes or no?” Incredibly, he was not dissuaded. “Last chance!” he shot back. “Is the holding and beating of slaves, as described in Exodus, morally acceptable? Yes or no?” “To the blockheads, I became a blockhead.”—Paul (sort of) —1 Corinthians 9:19-22,” I tweeted back: “Two can play the game of obstinacy. Last chance: Is the rape of children—it was enshrined in Ancient Greek society—morally acceptable? Yes or no?” Then I went away, and when I came back, he had deleted all this tweets so that it was hard for me to reconstruct the thread. However, someone else had pointed out a grave sin I had committed: “Thomas you are guilty of the moral equivalence fallacy.” Am I? I suppose. You can sort of guess by the wording just what that phrase means—I had not heard it before. At least it is in English. I once heard a theologian quip that if there is a Latin phrase and a perfectly clear English phrase that means the same thing, always use the Latin phrase so people will know that you are educated. But my “moral equivalence fallacy” is still is no more than considering historical context, a praiseworthy intellectual technique for all time periods except ours.  Besides, I actually had posted something about slavery long ago. But it is not a topic so simple that it can be hashed out in a few tweets, and so I declined to go there with this fellow, who would debate all the sub-points. If God corrected every human injustice the moment it manifested itself, there would be nothing left. The entire premise of the Bible is that human-rule is unjust in itself and that God allows a period of time for that to be clearly manifested before bringing in his kingdom—the one referred to in the “Lord’s prayer”—to straighten it all out. In the meantime, the very ones who work themselves into a lather at religion “brainwashing” people are livid that God did not brainwash slavery away once humans settled upon it as a fine economic underpinning. If Dawkins’s tweet and my response hangs around long enough before burial in the Twitter feed, I would expect some of our malcontents to observe as they did in Russia, where the only evidence of extremism cited is proclaiming “a religious view of supremacy.” Huge protest will come at how Jehovah’s Witnesses practice shunning and thus “destroy” relationships and even family. But views inevitably translate into consequences and policies. Refusal to “come together” with those who insist on diametrically opposed views is hardly the “extremism” of ISIS—and yet the Russian Supreme Court has declared that it is, with the full backing in principle of those from the ex-JW community—the ones who go crusading, which is perhaps 10%. I’m going to write this up as a post and append it to his thread. Let’s see what happens. Probably nothing, but you never know. Plus, let’s expand on that particular Watchtower some more. The particular article covered was entitled: “Jehovah Values His Humble Servants” (September 2019 issue—study edition) Unlike nearly all religious services, Witness meetings are ones that you can prepare for. You can comment during them. They are studies of the sacred book, not just impromptu rap sessions, acquiescencing to ceremony, or sitting through someone else’s sermon. You can prepare for them, and you are benefited, as in any classroom, when you do. The focus here, as it so often is, is on practical application.  Humility draws persons to us. Haughtiness repels them, and thus makes next to impossible the mantra to “come together.” My own comment, when the time was right, was that haughty people can only accomplish so much—it may be a great deal, for haughty people are often very capable people—but eventually they run up against the fact that nobody else can stand them, and so people are motivated to undercut their ideas, even if they are good ones, out of sheer payback for ugliness. Humble people, on the other hand, may be far less capable individually, but their efforts add up. They know how to cooperate and yield to each other in a way that haughty people do not. Someone else on that Dawkins thread, an amateur wit, played with that them of unlikely extremists: “Jehova's witnesses are peaceful but their extremists are better extremely annoying...” Why fight this? It is a viewpoint. Viewpoints are not wrong, because they are viewpoints—right or wrong doesn’t enter into the equation. Better to roll with it. I was indeed on a roll, and so I tweeted back:  “I will grant that they can be. Still, if you had a choice between a team of JWs approaching your door and a team of ISIS members, you would (hopefully) choose theformer. Those 2 groups, and only those 2 groups are officially declared “extremist” in Russia.” And with that, I included a link to my ebook, “Dear Mr. Putin - Jehovah’s Witnesses Write Russia.” I am shameless in that. No matter how many books I sell, it is not enough. I don’t sell them, anyway. The book is free, a labor of love. It is an application of the theme: “If you have something important to say, don’t hide it behind a paywall.” It is the only, to my knowledge, complete history of events leading up to and beyond the 2017 ban of the Witness organization in Russia. As to the latest developments there, another one was herded off to prison, who, making the best of a sour situation, or perhaps genuinely finding value there, said: "I want to thank … prosecution. I don't just thank you, but thank you very much, because thanks to you my faith has become stronger … I see I'm on the right path." Of course. It is unreasonable to oppose so vehemently a people totally honest, hard-working, and given to peace—and yet the Bible says that such will exactly happen. How can it not serve to strengthen faith?
    • According to scientific knowledge, the entire universe is in two states every day: something becomes and something disappears. Life on Earth is in the same status. I am disappointed with suffer of creatures on Earth, too. And can't connect with "my picture" of God as i accepted through JW Bible interpretations and my own interpretations, then and now. What if we made wrong pictures about Creator? .... based on wrong or failed text? 
  • 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.