Alessandro Corona

Because Jehovah's Witnesses are the only Christian denomination that do not believe in the trinity. 

No, as a Christian I have an obligation to warn everyone when they are being misled. Even if it means losing my friends, their blood isn't on my hands,  I warned them all as much as I could. 
Paul said the same regarding a group of people he was preaching to. 

yes you would. I am basically an apostate to them because I don't believe it. 

Since we don't live under the mosaic law anymore, and tattoos were not mentioned by Jesus. they are not a sin. Jesus never commented on Pork, yet we eat pork, but it was a sin in the old testament. So why is eating Pork not a sin, but getting a tattoo is? There is no scripture supporting this stance. 
When does a tattoo become a sin? When you get one because of idolatry. When you engrave images on yourself that represent false gods, idols, etc. 

No, as a Christian I have an obligation to warn everyone when they are being misled. Even if it means losing my friends, their blood isn't on my hands,  I warned them all as much as I could. 
Paul said the same regarding a group of people he was preaching to. 

No, as a Christian I have an obligation to warn everyone when they are being misled. Even if it means losing my friends, their blood isn't on my hands,  I warned them all as much as I could. 
Paul said the same regarding a group of people he was preaching to. 

We both know of the changes in doctrine that the wt has made through out the years, so we don't need to rehash those but rather reflect on the attitude and demand for conformity at those times. Here is where I see this as a problem, and maybe other's will not, the requirement to obey the gb or whomever was in charge at the time of said changes in doctrine. what comes to mind here is the exact scripture that bruceq quoted:
So you have admitted that the wt has changed doctrine, but you do not judge them or see them as been judged, but here in 1 Tim we see that the word of God has spoken about such matters in the context of what we are talking about. What I do not grasp is how anyone can align themselves to a group or group of men who's foundation is based upon incorrect teachings of doctrine. Its like saying that the Baha’i faith, if they are good people then the foundation of their beliefs will come around. Is Mormons are just good people, then after a while their doctrines will just fall into place? Catholics too? See my point.
 
 
I agree to an extent here, yes these are qualities in which God has instructed us to be. It should be second nature within our character as we serve Him through serving others. 
 
yes, I agree.
 

I would suggest, everyone read this. It is written by a former bethelite who was disfellowshipped for calling out Rutherford on the use of spirit healing and Ouija boards, it also goes into detail about how one of the original Awake (golden age) writers was demon possessed and later wrote the finished mystery. 
demonism_and_the_watch_tower.pdf
Rutherford has also been quoted as saying that one of the 24 elders of Revelation revealed to him the identity of the great crowd. Before this he made claims that Russell was leading the watchtower from beyond the veil. Then he later stated that the 1/24 elder who revealed to him the identity of the great crowd was Russell himself, which means the resurrection had to have happened some time before 1935. The fool went as far as to say that even demons tell the truth. I am not making this up, these are Rutherford's words. Russell was also involved in the distribution of a book written by a demon through automatic/angel writing called seola, later renamed to of angels and women. Samuel Herd has even come out and said it was a fantastic novel. So you can see the type of judgment the leadership of bethel really has. 

the Boreans were commended for questioning Paul. 

Since we don't live under the mosaic law anymore, and tattoos were not mentioned by Jesus. they are not a sin. Jesus never commented on Pork, yet we eat pork, but it was a sin in the old testament. So why is eating Pork not a sin, but getting a tattoo is? There is no scripture supporting this stance. 
When does a tattoo become a sin? When you get one because of idolatry. When you engrave images on yourself that represent false gods, idols, etc. 

Even before C.T.Russell was born, commentaries on Bible prophecy included  dozens of potential dates. Nearly 200 years ago, a couple of them even included 1914 as potentially significant time period. The "1914 presence" doctrine, however, is only about 75 years old.
All the ideas behind the Watch Tower's version of the 1914 doctrine have already been discussed for decades now, and all of them, so far, have been shown to be problematic from a Scriptural point of view. Since the time that the doctrine generally took its current shape in 1943, the meanings and applications of various portions of Matthew 24 and 25 have already been changed, and the timing of various prophesied events and illustrations have changed. Most recently, the meaning and identification of the "faithful and discreet slave" has changed. And the definition of "generation" has changed about half-a-dozen times. This doesn't mean that the current understandings are impossible, of course, only that it has become less likely from the point of view of reason and reasonableness.
Besides, for most of the years of teaching this doctrine, we have had the flexibility of extending the "1914 generation" from a possible 40 years, up to 70, then 75, then 80 years. And this has been applied to teenagers who saw 1914, 10-year-olds who saw 1914, then even newborns who saw 1914. With every one of these options already tried and stretched to their limits, we finally were forced to convert the meaning of generation from its most common meanings and give it a new "strained" meaning that has no other Biblical parallel. (See Exodus 1:6; Matthew 1:17; 16:4; 23:36; Luke 11:50)
But that flexibility is still seen as the last reason for hope that the Watch Tower Society might have still been correct in hanging on to 1914. Since the Bible says that a lifespan is 70 or 80 years and 1914 + 80 = 1994, the "generation" doctrine in its original form (1943) could remain stable until about 1994. Of course, a lifespan could technically reach to 120 years or more, and Gen 6:3 even gives vague support to the idea that the "1914 generation" could last 120 years, until 2034.
The current alternative solution is to make the generation out of the length of two lifespans, which technically could be double 120 years, or nearly 240 years from 1914. That would have had the potential to reach to the year 2154 (1914+240) except for the caveat that it can, by its new definition, only refer to anointed persons who discerned the sign in 1914 and whose lives overlapped (technically, by as little as one second) with the lifespan of another anointed person representing the second group. If persons from each group don't really discern their own "anointing" until age 20, for example, this would effectively remove 40 years from the overall maximum. 1914+120-20+120-20 = 2114. We could also assume a possible lifespan of more than 120 years, but otherwise, the new two-lifespan generation could potentially make the generation last 200 years. This "technical maximum" is not promoted currently, because for now we look at examples like Fred Franz who was part of that original generation already anointed and who saw the sign, and the typical example of an anointed brother who was apparently "anointed" prior to Franz' death in 1992 would be someone like Governing Body member, Brother Sanderson, who was born in 1965, baptized in 1975, and was already a "special pioneer" in 1991. His is currently 52.
However, the generation problem is just one more problem now which we can add onto the list of all the other points that make up the 1914 doctrine. Here are several points related to 1914 that appear problematic from a Scriptural point of view:
All evidence shows the 1914 date is wrong when trying to base it on the destruction of Jerusalem. (Daniel 1:1; 2 Chron 36:1-22; Jer 25:8-12; Zech 1:12, 7:4; Ezra 3:10-13) Paul said that Jesus sat at God's right hand in the first century and that he already began ruling as king at that time. (1 Cor 15:25) Jesus said not to be fooled by the idea that wars and rumors of wars would be the start of a "sign" (Matt 24:4,5) Jesus said that the "parousia" would be as visible as lightning (Matt 24:27). He spoke against people who might say he had returned but was currently not visible. (Matt 24:23-26) Jesus said that his "parousia" would come as a surprise to the faithful, not that they would discern the time of the parousia decades in advance. (Matt 24:36-42) Jesus said that the kingdom would not be indicated by "signs" (Luke 17:20, almost any translation except NWT in this case) The "synteleia" (end of all things together) refers to a concluding event, not an extended period of time (Matt 28:20) Jesus was already called ruler, King and even "King of Kings" in the first century. (1 Tim 6:15, Heb 7:2,17; Rev 1:5; 17:14) Wicked, beastly King Nebuchadnezzar's insanity and humiliation does not represent Jesus as the "lowliest one of mankind." (Heb 1:5,6; 2:10,11; Daniel 4:23-25; cf. Heb 2:7; 1 Pet 3:17,18) The demise of a Gentile kingdom cannot rightly represent the time of the rise of the Gentile kingdoms (Daniel 4:26,27) The Gentile kings did not meet their demise in 1914. (Rev 2:25,26) The time assigned to the Gentile Times that Jesus spoke about in Luke 21:24 is already given as 3.5 times, not 7 times (Revelation 11:2,3) The Devil was already brought down from "heaven" in the first century. (1 John 2:14,15; 1 Pet 5:8; Luke 10:18; Heb 2:14) The Bible says that the "last days" began in the first century. (Acts 2:14-20; 2 Tim 3:1-17; 1 Peter 3:3-5; Heb 1:2, almost any translation except NWT in this case.)

Since we don't live under the mosaic law anymore, and tattoos were not mentioned by Jesus. they are not a sin. Jesus never commented on Pork, yet we eat pork, but it was a sin in the old testament. So why is eating Pork not a sin, but getting a tattoo is? There is no scripture supporting this stance. 
When does a tattoo become a sin? When you get one because of idolatry. When you engrave images on yourself that represent false gods, idols, etc. 

Since we don't live under the mosaic law anymore, and tattoos were not mentioned by Jesus. they are not a sin. Jesus never commented on Pork, yet we eat pork, but it was a sin in the old testament. So why is eating Pork not a sin, but getting a tattoo is? There is no scripture supporting this stance. 
When does a tattoo become a sin? When you get one because of idolatry. When you engrave images on yourself that represent false gods, idols, etc. 

the Boreans were commended for questioning Paul. 

Satan, literally. 
The elite, ruling class are known Satanists. 
The Prince of Persia was a codename for the demon in charge of the royal realm of Persia. 
Satan is called the king of Tyre, because he is king over the realm of Tyre. 
Remember, he could have given Jesus all the kingdoms. 
 
 
 

Because Jehovah's Witnesses are the only Christian denomination that do not believe in the trinity.