Srecko Sostar

WTJWorg has always maintained that the Bible is consistent with itself, regardless of the various authors and the time period in which the text was written. This example shows something second, third or fifth. I might jokingly or mockingly suggest that the "light of understanding" or the "new light" had not yet dawned on Paul and James, or that none of the "doctrinal guardians" of the time had shown them any "clarification" of existing dogma. Revision. Perhaps the problem is that they were "inspired by HS" at the time. Therefore they could not be wrong when speaking or writing. Today's "doctrinal guardians" are only one level lower, they are only "guided by HS", so any "accidental error" in speaking or writing an interpretation can easily happen to them without them realising it in time. I would like to ask a question. Were the writers of the Bible aware that they were "inspired", as the term "inspired" is explained today? Or were they merely "guided"? Because this example points to a discrepancy in an important, fundamental, central, core teaching. ...and maybe it's just a problem in the translation that can easily be solved with a new digital edition where a few letters are changed, so that no one will notice any change in the future. The new people will not know how it was before, and most of the current people will forget that it was different. lol

What does a person have to be, to want to be photographed with cardboard and papers. lol

He is not the only religious leader who supports nonsense.

Quote from article: In response to concerns over the scope of the project, the applicant has proposed building heights up to 75 feet in exchange for designating half the acreage as open space. The proposed MU3 district allows for building heights up to 45 feet. The applicant said that because of the topography, 75 feet buildings would appear smaller than the 45-foot buildings. Indeed this building on the right looks lower than the one on the left.

Yes. Every religious institution is guilty of something.

I. Blessing in the sacrament of marriage 4. The recent response of the Holy Father Francis to the second of the five questions posed by the two cardinals[4] offers the possibility of further consideration of the question, especially in its pastoral implications. It is about avoiding "recognizing as marriage something that it is not".[5] Therefore, rites and prayers that can create confusion between what is contrary to marriage and what is fundamental to marriage as "an exclusive, permanent and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the birth of children" are inadmissible.[6] This belief is based on the timeless Catholic teaching on marriage. It is only in this context that sexual relations find their natural, appropriate and completely human meaning. Church teaching on this matter remains constant. 5. This is also the understanding of marriage that we find in the Gospel. Therefore, regarding the blessing, the Church has the right and duty to avoid any type of ceremony that could contradict this belief or lead to any confusion. This is also the meaning of the Responsum of the then Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which states that the Church does not have the authority to bless same-sex unions. 6. It should be emphasized that when the sacrament of marriage is celebrated, it is not about any kind of blessing, but about a gesture that is reserved for an ordained minister. In this case, the blessing of the ordained minister is directly related to the concrete union of a man and a woman who, with their consent, establish a permanent and indissoluble union. This allows us to better emphasize the risk of mixing the blessing, given to any other union, with the rite of the sacrament of marriage. https://www.bitno.net/vijesti/vatikan/fiducia-supplicans-evo-sto-pise-u-dokumentu-koji-spominje-blagoslov-parova-u-neredovitim-situacijama/

I should find a good and accurate newspaper article that conveys their decision and explains this move by the Church.

Half an hour ago in the central TV daily they said that the Pope blesses persons and not their relationship.

WTJWorg does not have a railing/parapet on its roof, but has window bars.

Who is dividing the JWs? This is done by GB members. A GB member, like Geoffrey Jackson, says: JWs know for themselves by reading their own Bibles if the GB instructions are wrong and decide that GB is giving bad instructions and will not obey them. Another GB member, like Steven Lett, says: You must not think and feel that you were right when you followed the advice and instruction of my colleague Geoffrey Jackson who allowed you to object and express your dissatisfaction with the instructions that were wrong.

Can the same water source provide salt water and fresh water?

Wearing a beard is allowed. But in order for the beard to grow and be able to be shaped nicely, it takes time. Meanwhile, the man will look unshaven and untidy, as if he has neglected his appearance. How will it be viewed in the congregation? How will your wife, children, family and friends view it? The cult's decisions generate further debates and bring unrest among the members. It has already started. And again JWs will ask to be given "answers and instructions". Indeed, a parody.

I see that @Anna upvoted this comment, and she replied me how I was looking at the matter wrongly. What is the difference between this and my comments Anna? The snowball is rolling and getting bigger.

You gave me an excellent new perspective through the example of Aaron and the Golden Calf and the Stockholm Syndrome. That is why I commented before that the spiritual condition of JWs is in great danger. They agree to have Modern Aaron (GB) tell them who and what YHVH is. They have come to love their Kidnappers, they depend on their words so much and most JWs cannot leave them, cannot escape.

My speculations are optional. They can become effective if you take them seriously. But it is mostly an option of one's free choice. In contrast, speculations coming from GB are dangerous at the start. To forbid the wearing of beards in Rutherford's time was nothing more than distancing, by those who caused the schism, to break any resemblance to Russell. Later, the leadership of WTJWorg found excuses for the ban in the appearance of some "worldly" people who participated in various social movements of the society. They claimed that wearing a certain model of hairstyles and external appearance of the face (beard in men in this case) should be avoided because this way JW can be mistakenly identified with, for example, rebels in society. At the same time, wearing suits and ties and flawless hair and shaved face, GB has never identified with a certain number of corrupt politicians and businessmen who are dishonest. For some reason, they forgot to mention that detail when they were giving advice to their followers about their appearance. I agree that it is nice to see neat and tidy people (with or without beard). But we don't live in a perfect world, whatever that means. The Spiritual Slavery that reigns within JW followers requires a "clear and unequivocal answer/instruction" as to what is allowed and what is not allowed with a beard. That demand for "answers" from GB is actually a reflection of the devastating spiritual condition of the flock in so called true Christianity aka JW Church. If so many people in WTJWorg are unable to have/achieve unity in diversity and freedom of choice over something the Bible has never questioned, then there is no "salvation" for all of you either literally or figuratively. You, JWs, are unfortunately condemned to total dependence on a few men who are not even capable of knowing right from wrong. WTJWorg cannot reform itself for the better. I agree with @Pudgy, WTJWorg is run by accountants and lawyers.., and by religious leaders who willingly, voluntarily agree to falsehood.

Well, didn't GB tell you a long time ago: Don't think and conclude logically, because our instructions will not look/be logical.

It is quite possible that there are a number of men in JW congregations who wear beards. Because of this, they cannot be excluded, but they are rather "unused" for various functions within the Church. In the chronic shortage of "manpower" for "congregational positions of responsibility", it is possible that this change is aimed at this target group. It is also possible that some who wear beards have put themselves in that position on purpose, for the reason that they do not want to be burdened with any responsibilities in the Organization. Also, a certain number of PIMO members (physically inside, mentally outside) chose to wear a beard just to stay connected with the congregation only for free social contacts (because they are not excluded), and on the other hand, so that they cannot be held accountable because they are in the category "spiritually weak individuals". Changes are made because the Organization is in trouble, not because God has loosened the reins of His Chariot.

The answer to that is simple to give. View all illustrations in WTJWorg publications. Angels have beards. Jesus has a beard. If Jesus and the angels are the image of the invisible God, then YHVH also has a beard. Another reason for this is that no one from the WTJWorg Art Department has ever seen the angels or Jesus before and after he ascended into heaven, yet they portray them as if they saw them wearing beards. So, the perception of the "guardian of the doctrine" and the artist set the rule. WTJWorg publications have Jesus without a beard in the past and Jesus with a beard after doctrine have changed.

The GB has allowed what the Bible has never forbidden. Truly unprecedented! GB's personal arbitrariness in forbidding believers to wear beards came because of the alleged alignment with the "heavenly chariot"?? Can anyone in their right mind believe this? As if to say, "The angels have started wearing beards, or have for a while, so it is time to level the playing field for JWs on earth too". How a GB member explains the turnaround in doctrine? Yes, you read correctly, this is about doctrine. Like every other instruction and order published in the WTJWorg. So we have these elements that prompted the GB meeting and its discussion: 1. frequently asked questions about beards (implying that JW men want to be like people in the world who wear beards by choice) Why is this question important to JW men, anyway? 2. doctrinal change is related to the "scene of this world is changing" (i.e. adapting to the "low" standards of this "satanic" world, which is "getting "worse" by the day, is an acceptable price for the coexistence of "believers" and "non-believers") How about firm GB claims, "We shall never change" our doctrine/rule about this and that? 3. responsible people from politics and business wear beards (i.e. the external differences between those who "serve "God" and those who "serve "Satan" are to be eliminated)They compare themselves to the people of the "worldly elements" who, they say, will be destroyed because they are "God's enemies". The instruction manual for the new doctrine reads: A JW person should not take a stand for or against a new doctrine. Although some JWs have faithfully followed the former prohibition against wearing beards, no one should regret this today, because it is an indicator of spiritual immaturity. And most importantly, JWs should not have their own opinion on this new issue of beards, nor should they promote anything that contradicts the new GB instructions. We can conclude that the elders should have prevented any promotion of beards in the past. From now on, they should prevent any attempt to promote the regular shaving of the beard. We also conclude that this is just a preparation to finally allow the sisters to wear pants whenever they want. God bless you all with this new ...something.

The article you presented cites many secular sources, hence the "human perspective", which WTJWorg alarms its members against, in general. A few Bible quotes do not make WTJWorg an expert on child abuse. You have not actually contributed any arguments that would elevate the "spiritual help" of the Society over the professional help provided by a professional secular institution. The Bible does not even mention what types of violence against children were known, visible in biblical times. Nowhere (as far as I know) does the Bible explicitly condemn (sexual or other) violence against children, nor does it give specific insight into how such children can be helped.

So, what you are saying, incest through rape should not be considered CSA. Now Tamar's age should be inconsequential to the act. However, can you refute the articles, that is my main point. Incest Under the Law Sexual relations between family members who are not spouses, formally known as incest, is illegal across the U.S. because of the harm that it can cause to family relationships. States also recognize that children from incestuous relationships tend to struggle with genetic defects, which is another reason for prohibiting incest. Laws may prohibit sexual relations not only between blood relatives but also between certain people who are not blood relatives, such as adopted parents and children, stepparents and stepchildren, and foster parents and foster children. Close cousins are covered, but distant cousins may not be, unless they live in the same household like siblings. Meanwhile, some states outlaw marriages between close relatives, even if they do not involve sexual relations. Incest often can be charged as a violation of a different law, such as child abuse, child molestation, rape, or statutory rape. A prosecutor can choose which type of charge to bring. Also, if a relationship does not technically qualify as incest under the definition in that state, the prosecutor may be able to charge the defendant with a different sex crime instead. Pursuing an Incest Charge Consent Consent is not a defense to incest. A prosecutor can bring an incest charge against someone who knowingly engaged in sexual relations with the type of person covered by the incest law. If they tried to engage in sexual relations, but no intercourse actually happened, a prosecutor might bring an attempted incest charge. A defendant cannot defeat a charge on the basis that the other person consented. If the other person did not consent, the defendant might face a rape charge as well, which could lead to much more serious penalties. If the other person was below the age of consent, the defendant might face a statutory rape charge in addition to the incest charge. If the people in the encounter were close in age, the prosecution typically can bring charges against each of them. If one person is much older than the other, such as a parent and a child, only the older person may face charges. They may be viewed as a perpetrator and the younger person as a victim. If both people were under the age of majority, the prosecution might bring the case in juvenile court. There are few defenses in these cases, other than challenging whether the incident happened. One procedural defense that may arise is the statute of limitations. Sometimes a long time passes between the incident and its discovery. Like most crimes, incest is subject to a statute of limitations, which requires the prosecution to bring charges within a certain period after the crime occurred. A defendant may get the case dismissed if they can successfully show that the statute of limitations has expired. Statute of Limitations Incest is generally subject to a statute of limitations and may not be charged if too long a time has passed since the occurrence. Penalties for Incest Incest is often charged as a felony, as are crimes like rape and statutory rape that are related to it. This means that a defendant who is convicted may face years in prison. If it is charged as a misdemeanor, the defendant may spend several months in jail. Also, the judge may order the people involved in the incident to be separated. A child of a parent convicted of incest may be taken away and placed in foster care. If a conviction of a sex crime accompanies the incest conviction, the defendant may need to register as a sex offender. https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/other-crimes/incest/ The article does not answer the topic, whether JWs are discriminated against in the Netherlands.

If you want to provide evidence that the Bible directly, clearly talks about CSA (CSA according to today's criteria) and lists it as something God forbids, please go ahead.

If you want to provide evidence that Tamara was a minor at the time of the rape, and that the crime thus falls under the CSA according to today's criteria, please go ahead.