Srecko Sostar

3 hours ago, George88 said:

Absolutely! God's Holy Spirit is indeed in charge. Have you ever considered the countless instances in the Bible where God guided and redirected the Israelites and His people? It's truly remarkable how His divine intervention played out!

What part of that don't you understand?

It is not clear to me how you can call the transition from one distorted dogma to another distorted dogma "guidance and redirection from HS". lol

It is significant to note from the title itself, that JWs call for "evidence". I guess the most significant "evidence" for JWs, and their belief system and dogma, as they themselves point out, is the lifestyle of 1st century Christians and the biblical text. These two should be something that JWs will imitate and interpret in the modern circumstances of life.

Consequently, JWs will claim that their current way of life and application of the Bible is exactly the way the First Christians lived, while on other hand they consciously or unconsciously ignore the "fact" that they themselves have set their standards with their "performances, interpretations and dogmas" of religious practice which then project onto the past and claim that this is exactly how the "First Christians" lived.

So we have a reversal of roles and a thesis claiming that the way JWs worship in the 21st century is the same as the 1st century. This is how the reverse idea spreads, in which today's set of dogmas is presented as an original from the 1st century. That simply can not be true.

Furthermore, GB has a powerful system of interpretations that change from year to year. This very "fact" is "evidence" that the previous idea, their basic idea to which they appeal to prove their originality and accuracy as primitive Christians, becomes their own defeat.

The reported example of "greeting and fellowshipping" between current and former JWs provides "proof" of how the so-called "original" from the 1st century is being interpreted and modified into "True Christianity" of the 21st century.

Without going into details about the foundation and correctness of any of the previous, present or future practices of communication between these two opposing groups of people, i.e. faithful and unfaithful followers over a long period of time (with Christians in the 1st century as well as today's Christians in WTJorg) I emphasize all this as a clear indication that the question in the title is wrongly addressed and "condemns" former JWS in advance as people who do not see the alleged "evidence".

How can "evidence" for something, anything, be a WTJWorg interpretation that has been conducted and explained in one way for decades, and now takes on other properties and forms? 

Every dogmatic change of dogma is evidence that GB and JWs do not recognize "evidence" and what they are doing and what they believe.

16 hours ago, George88 said:

It was only in the Garden that they discovered Satan's attempt to exalt himself as a god. It was after this event that other angels began to emulate Satan's defiance of God's sovereignty.

Maybe that's true, maybe not. Do we have any evidence for this scenario?

19 hours ago, George88 said:

This site is not visitor-friendly; instead, it is a disgraceful haven for disgruntled witnesses who hold no significance.

And what if this forum is meant to gather information about how ex-JWs think, so that the folks at WTJWorg can prepare countermeasures? lol

20 hours ago, George88 said:

If I find myself in a conversation with someone who has left their belief system, and that person happens to say something that I agree with, I will acknowledge it.

It's commendable that you can talk to everyone.

4 hours ago, George88 said:

I cannot engage in an agreement with someone who has turned away, from their beliefs.

If I am interpreting correctly, you will engage in agreement with every Catholic, Protestant, Muslim and Hindu who has not renounced their faith, beliefs, but you will not engage in agreement on anything with a former JW. .... lol

4 hours ago, George88 said:

Christ and Antichrist, believers and unbelievers, children of God and children of the devil, truth and falsehood, light and darkness, love and hatred, life and death: these are the great contrasts under which he views the religious world.

Dualism is necessary, because without it we would not be able to see the opposite. If there are no lies, there is no truth. Without darkness there is no light. Etc. 

Everything would be a long straight line that proves nothing.

7 hours ago, George88 said:

This raises the question of how much influence Satan can exert on our lives if we allow it by withholding the truth and using manipulated, exaggerated, or deceptive facts.

Hiding and holding the truth out is often the hallmark of GB members and their lawyers. So I agree with you on how important this issue is.

7 hours ago, George88 said:

The questions you posted are related to the Bible and deserve a response related to it.

Ok. Give some interpretations, please.

We are now on page 4 of this thread. What is the goal of the question? Did Satan become "imperfect" after the first sin? Or irreparable? Does he belong to the "prodigal son" category or not? Adam and Eve became "imperfect" because of sin. Did Satan become "imperfect"?
If YHVH "punished" the people, what prevented him from punishing this wicked transgressor in the same way?
And don't answer me from JWs literature. Because that is not a strong enough argument.

13 minutes ago, George88 said:

Do you think that if the angels were aware of Satan's intentions to deceive mankind in the Garden of Eden, they would not have raised an alarm?

From the very moment Satan made the choice to deceive Eve, he began a path of constant deception. What sets this apart from the previously asked question? It essentially boils down to the same matter.

You asked a good question. As far as I know from the Bible, no angel ever sounded the alarm. Were angels not present during the conversation between Satan and Eve? If they didn't, then nobody knew what was going on. If one of them listened to it and did not react, then one must ask why?

Yes, since Satan initiated the process of deception, it stands to reason that all his words thereafter become suspect. However, this does not prove that he was not telling the truth before that unfortunate event. It also doesn't prove that he can't decide to start telling the truth. Because you yourself say that it's all a matter of choice.

10 minutes ago, George88 said:

Keep in mind that God granted angels the same free will as humanity. However, Satan chose to assert himself as God, despite not being so, @Srecko Sostar

3 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

"Does Satan always tell, speak the truth?"

It can also be like this:
"When did Satan start lying?"
"Did the angel known by the name Satan ever speak the truth?"

1 hour ago, George88 said:

How should the question be formulated in order to receive a clear and coherent response from you?

"Does Satan always tell, speak the truth?"

53 minutes ago, George88 said:

If you can't recall the passage @Srecko Sostar, it can be found in Matthew 4. The question arises, did Jesus comprehend that Satan was speaking lies or was he deceiving Jesus with a partial truth? One would assume that people would understand that the Earth and all of its kingdoms ultimately belong to God. Satan is merely the current caretaker. Therefore, could he truly give away something that he only has temporary possession of? Furthermore, if Jesus had accepted ownership of something that did not belong to Satan in the first place, what would have been the outcome for both Christ and Satan in the eyes of God? It's a matter worth considering. Think about it carefully and don't focus on your puppet master pudgy.

Every intelligent creature created by God with free will is capable of telling truths and lies. What is unclear about that? Or what in that conclusion is contrary to the words of Jesus?

Perhaps, if you want a different answer, you should ask a more adequate, more accurate question.

35 minutes ago, George88 said:

I am confident that when Srecko starts misrepresenting my words, as he usually does with you, I will have to deal with plenty of that.

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

However, scripture teaches that the responsibility of decision-making lies with responsible individuals, just as Jesus entrusted that responsibility to the apostles, who in turn delegated it to the Elders and successors thereafter.

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

If people are attentive to the actions and behavior of others, the observer, entrusted by God to take earthly action through scripture, should rely solely on that understanding. The instructions from the Governing Body do not have to be comprehensible to apostates; rather, they should serve to validate the beliefs of genuine witnesses and expose any imposters

To "clarify" this topic for the readers. This "spiritual heritage of management" culminated in the formation of today's GB. How does GB work? It governs dogmas, instructions, supervises, governs how JWs should live. How do they come to decisions? By voting of all GB members. If 2/3 of the members outvote 1/3 of the members, then the decision is considered valid. What does this say about the activities of the HS (Jesus and God) under whose "leadership" all members of the GB are allegedly act? This tells us about several possible implications.

1. not all GB members are influenced by the "same HS" when making decisions
2. HS does not "lead" all GB members equally and simultaneously, in harmony, in unity,
3. the decisions made by the GB are not united by "one spirit", that means the HS is disunited or the GB is disunited,
4. none of the JWs have a guarantee that the decisions made by the GB are the "will of God", that is, that they are for the benefit of the believers. God's will consists in the fact that the "sheep" do not go astray, but if the decision was made only because of 2/3 who overrode, overrule 1/3, then it is not God's will but human,
5. the annulled decisions of the previous GB prove that they were "human decisions" without "guidance by HS",
6. the previous statement (No.5) proves that even the current decisions of GB do not have to be "from HS"

12 hours ago, BTK59 said:

12 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Do you and GB believe that a repentant JW who is a murderer, thief, liar, etc. is in a better position than an unrepentant JW who has stopped believing in GB interpretations and openly admits it?

The authority to judge lies with God, not the GB. While God has the ability to see into the hearts and minds of people, the Governing Body lacks this capability. Repentance can be found in the genuine willingness of an individual to demonstrate it through their actions and behavior. Nevertheless, there is no assurance, as the human heart is capable of deceit.

If you think like that, then it is also clear to you that GB has no justification for making decisions about who can and who cannot be greeted.

12 hours ago, BTK59 said:

12 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

How is it possible for someone to be an "apostate" in a religion that is "apostate" in itself?
To briefly explain why I used the term "apostate religion" for JWs. Other religions that are "older" than WTJWorg claim that JWs broke away from the "true" Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox and similar Christian religions. On the other hand JWs claim the same for them. In all religions there are dogmas that are incorrect. WTJWorg also proved with their theological changes that they are not a "true" religion, because they should not change their dogmas if they were correct and true. If they changed the previous dogmas that were untrue, it also gives an acceptable conclusion that they will change the current dogmas as well, because practice and experience show that nothing guarantees that the current ones are correct.

This depends on who is making the observation. If this mindset originates from an apostate perspective, it is futile. Apostasy is the conscious denial of something valuable, a value that profoundly reflects on God. Believing that one's former religion holds no value to God renders apostasy meaningless. The crucial point here is true worship, not false religion.

You contradict yourself again and again, because you stated that only God sees the true situation. This means that you have admitted that GB, and also that you personally, do not know who is an "apostate" and who is not. Because, you say, the point is who makes the observation. Since the observation is made by "imperfect" people, their assessment of who is a "renegade, apostate" is based on shaky, unreliable, inaccurate and biased conclusions. GB regularly confirms, with their nonsensical instructions, that they have placed themselves at that level of power.

45 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Well, this depends on how you view repentance. Why would anyone want to associate with such a negative person who is a hardcore apostate with evil intentions and no chance of redemption? Indeed, there is no thesis involved, only the application of common sense.

God's people need to understand the scheme of things, but apostates do not. 

Do you and GB believe that a repentant JW who is a murderer, thief, liar, etc. is in a better position than an unrepentant JW who has stopped believing in GB interpretations and openly admits it?

How is it possible for someone to be an "apostate" in a religion that is "apostate" in itself?
To briefly explain why I used the term "apostate religion" for JWs. Other religions that are "older" than WTJWorg claim that JWs broke away from the "true" Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox and similar Christian religions. On the other hand JWs claim the same for them. In all religions there are dogmas that are incorrect. WTJWorg also proved with their theological changes that they are not a "true" religion, because they should not change their dogmas if they were correct and true. If they changed the previous dogmas that were untrue, it also gives an acceptable conclusion that they will change the current dogmas as well, because practice and experience show that nothing guarantees that the current ones are correct.

A paradox simply arises; What authority do the apostates who run WTJWorg have (from God) to call other members of their church by the same name "apostates"? In which arrangement, in which organizational structure does one class of apostates have a legitimate right to condemn another class of apostates? lol

Massimo Introvigne is a lobbyist for WTJWorg. So it's interesting to hear how an ex-JW from Norway comments on this lobbyist that WTJWorg likes to use for its defense. The most interesting is the new thesis of GB in which it creates a categorization of former members. According to their latest instruction, you can greet a former member (but only to a limited extent, without socialization) who wants to come to a meeting in KH. But another "type", labeled as "apostate" of ex-JW should not be welcomed.

So, GB sinks deeper and deeper into their instructions that "make sense only from their point of view", while ordinary JWs mostly cannot understand them, but are obliged to obey, because these are the "last days".

8 hours ago, BTK59 said:

The current perception of this site as a right-wing disinformation platform for conspiracy theorists is not surprising, given its present state of factual inaccuracies.

It is unfortunate that certain individuals taint the spiritual nourishment shared by others through the existence of both closed clubs and open forums. If I were the proprietor, I would opt to close the open forum and subsequently dissolve the closed club, merging them into a single entity. This would allow individuals, regardless of whether they presently identify as Jehovah's Witnesses or have previously done so, whether they are disfellowshipped or disenchanted, to freely express their apostasy and disinformation. This approach would effectively confine their deviations from the truth, maintaining the privacy they deserve.

Therefore, individuals such as myself would not be granted access, since it would be an exclusive club with strict membership criteria. However, the public wouldn't see their nonsense thus having no need for them to see any criticism, even though they claim the right to critique others without any objections. Quite ironic, isn't it?

In such a future of yours, the original JWs could have two sources of information; official WTJWorg site and Court Documents. They wouldn't watch these others because GB would declare it "hostile reading". lol

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

These individuals seem to believe that their arguments are not insulting, when in fact, they are far more damaging than mere insults.

You want to say that only those arguments with which you agree are acceptable (to you)?
Yes indeed, a good argument. Who wouldn't accept it. lol

Is this an insult?

COMMENTS ON THE ARTICLE: “JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES IN NORWAY: WHY THE OSLO DISTRICT COURT IS WRONG”

Av Rolf Furuli 8. March 2024

https://mybelovedreligion.no/2024/03/08/comments-on-the-article-jehovahs-witnesses-in-norway-why-the-oslo-district-court-is-wrong/

17 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Hence, your opinion holds no weight.

We will ask Jesus about everything when we see him,........... at least that's what GB Geoffrey Jackson says in his public testimony under oath. lol

9 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Therefore, the admonition of the apostle James was truly refreshing. In James 5:19-20 he imparts invaluable wisdom.

¹⁹ My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring that person back, ²⁰ remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

JWs preaching to sinners. How does it look? What do the JWs preach to them? That now men are allowed to wear beards and women are allowed to wear trousers. And according to you, that is "the truth"? lol

How will telling the truth or inaccuracy, errors, whatever, save you from all kinds of sin, when the Bible also says that you reap what you sow? Preaching interpretations from GB will certainly not cover your or anyone else's personal sins. In addition, if Jesus has redeemed you from sin, original and any other you commit, then works do not save, but faith and Jesus' sacrifice. On the other hand, good deeds are not done to redeem yourself from your sins and mistakes, because the redeemer is Jesus, not man alone. Some do "good deeds" because they are haunted by their own conscience or are under the impression of some (own or other's) belief.

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

 

error

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

An intelligent person would understand it to mean both. However, it seems that this is where you fall short. Therefore, when Jesus invited sinners to repent, it would mean a transformation not only of their hearts but also of their minds.

What quotient should be the intelligence of a person to accept Jesus?

I'm interested in how you measure the quality or quantity of that something in the heart, and I guess that would be a prerequisite for a person to accept Jesus, too?

What category does mind fall into in all of this?

Intelligence, heart, mind = ?.., transformation?

Can a person with reduced intelligence carry out the transformation?

12 hours ago, BTK59 said:

True intelligence lies in recognizing the importance of not giving heed to apostates.

lol

You're on the wrong track with your reasoning. Since the dilemma of "true and false faith" is a religious question, not an intellectual one. So, Jesus invites all people, regardless of their IQ, to join him. In his sermons, Jesus appeals to the heart, not to the intelligence. So, if you want to defend your position with the Bible, then it is not a "sin" but a "failure".

12 hours ago, BTK59 said:

What relevance does the word "definition" have in relation to your particular regional Orthodox religion? It appears that you are defending that false religion that defends the heinous crimes of Russia's Putin. How much child abuse has that abusive person caused to Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia? Pause and consider the numerous forms of child abuse. Why aren't you addressing this issue here? That's right, you just want to act foolishly and selectively.

Please look at the map of Europe and the country where I live. It is not Orthodox but Catholic. You don't need to "attack" something that I don't defend, because that doesn't make sense for discussion.