Srecko Sostar

33 minutes ago, George88 said:

It appears that your perspective is slightly misguided. The crucial aspect isn't merely comprehending scripture, but rather implementing that comprehension into action.

Have you observed any other religions faithfully practicing all that Christ taught his Christian followers? If you believe there are "many," then it seems that there is a discrepancy between what is actually happening in this world and the practices of other Christian sects.

I had to laugh at your idea that only one religion (WTJWorg) has been able to resist (over 140 years) every human weakness while manipulating/using God's Word for the supposed benefit of followers. The GB admits that they are imperfect and that they make "mistakes", while at the same time expecting complete obedience to all the instructions they give to their followers. Any other hierarchical organization is susceptible to corruption, but WTJWorg is not? So George you and millions of your JW brethren, collectively believe in these contradictory ideas, still?

There is no form of hierarchy without abuse of power. Unless the leader is very gentle and soft and allows everyone everything. But even then, he will have more sympathy for some people, and some will not be to his liking.

42 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

In regards to the second part of Bro. Jackson’s answer, what do you think is presumptuous, arrogant, about claiming to be the Governing Body? Was Jesus arrogant when He claimed to be the Son of God? (No, because he is the Son of God.) It is not arrogant to claim something if you have it. Nor is it arrogant to claim to be what one actually is. Also, claiming that one’s own Congregation is the Congregation Jesus established is not triumphalism or sectarianism even when the person making the claim is mistaken.

If I misunderstood or mischaracterized your statement about this point, then I apologize and please follow up.

You understand the GB member's statement exactly as every faithful JW should; "When GB speaks it is the same as Jesus speaking." This part of understanding applies to the entire JW brotherhood.

How should this same statement by a GB member be understood by the world? Like this; "We (GB) are not the only ones who understand the Bible correctly and we are not the only ones who speak in the name of God. We are part of a broad community of believers in Jesus like many other religious communities."
A few (8) years later, another important new cognizance came that GJ didn't know about at the time, namely, that GB doesn't know (correct answers).

15 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Choices could be made strictly based on that which is rational. But when we chose to believe something that is not based on rational thought then we have an added responsibility to be cautious how we use and project our choices.

 At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not. - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20131115/seven-shepherds-eight-dukes/

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The Great Courses professor (David Kyle Johnson: The Big Questions of Philosophy) says that it does makes sense. It alone is logically consistent. He traces it to Augustine and says, ‘Maybe God permits evil because it is essential to his pursuit of his greater goal of allowing free will.’ This is essentially what the Watchtower says, though they develop it more.. Moreover, you who sniff because uneducated ‘dumbbells’ say it today might not sniff upon learning that a highly esteemed and educated philosopher also said it.

I completely agree with the comment by @Many Miles. 

Man's free will has nothing to do with God's decision to allow or not allow something, in this case evil. If God's will decided to allow evil, he did not do it because of my free will, because my free will has no influence on God's free will.

But God's free will to allow evil makes me unhappy. And it threatens my free will. It means that God is actually restraining my free will because his free will is more powerful than mine. It means that the idea of a person's free will loses its meaning, if mine is overpowered by someone else's free will.

Second thing. Quoting educated members of academia who support WTJWorg ideas is a ruse. How many educated scholars WTJWorg does not quote in its publications because their views are critical of the Society's doctrines or completely refute them. Do not use this method on experienced forum members. (We've covered 607 BCE in topics here. The scientific community says that's not the correct date, but JWs don't accept them.)

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If you do damage, or allow damage to happen, and you can fix it, that makes huge difference from one who does damage, or allows it to happen, and cannot fix it.

One who does harm to others should be prevented from continuing to do harm.

The one who allows someone else to harm his fellow man should be asked why he allows it. 

It remains to be seen whether the one who allows another to do harm can actually fix things. Usually, the damage is repaired by a third party, not by those who participated in the problem. The doctor is treating the wounds of those injured in the bar fight, but he did not take (active or passive) part in the conflict.

It is said that God did not prevent people from making war, because making war was a free decision of the warring parties, or at least one party, and the other had to defend itself even though they did not want war. Is God a doctor? Mediator? Or the Observer? Because God did not mediate in the reconciliation of the warring parties nor did He resurrect them after they died.

The Bible says; Whoever knows how to do good, but does not do it, it is his sin.

"Therefore, if someone knows how to do what is right and yet does not do it, it is a sin for him".- James 4:17 NWT

Allow me a few more thoughts on the aforementioned "controversial issue".

WTJWorg has a doctrine that says; it takes a very long time to answer Satan's challenge about who has the right to rule over people. Well, they say, how JHVH could have destroyed Satan immediately, but that would still leave doubt in God's justice.

This could mean that the angels in heaven were ignorant of the nature of God and his virtues. This could mean that the angels grew up in a climate of doubt and mistrust of God from the very beginning, so it was easy to persuade them to believe Satan. This could mean that all that time (say, millions of light years) was not enough for the angels to develop "complete trust" in God. Everything said also applies to people, of course adapted to the spatial and temporal frameworks on Earth.

So, the famously silly claim that God allows evil on earth because his credibility must be proven and that it takes time, a very long time, in which, among other things, millions of innocent children and adults will be subjected to the greatest suffering and torture, does not hold up to the argument .

Angels don't need any further evidence that Satan is wrong and God is right. As for humans, they have never seen God anyway, nor do they have any insight into the relationship between God and Satan. The only thing they can do is read the Bible and "invent" explanations and assumptions.

The idea of a "Universal Court Case" is a construction of people who came up with new ideas by reading the Bible. Jesus, who is the unique "witness for the living God" did not provide such material in his teachings that this WTJWorg doctrine could be developed.

At the end of the day, if there is such a great and inevitable need to prove some kind of "Universality" that belongs to God, and how that "Case" includes countless millions of years in the past and countless millions of years into the future, then I would say that it is already long ago answered.

Since the book of Job is taken as the "biblical argument" of this WTJWorg doctrine, then I can say that in this sense Job gave the "Universal Answer". To further insist that every child, man and woman (born after Job) should be subjected to horrors in the name of the same cause is silly.

The second turning point is the life and death of Jesus. He answered the same question once more. Job, as an imperfect man, passed the test. Jesus, as a perfect man, passed the same test.
So what else needs to be answered?

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

”How do you know if an animal is venomous?” they say, and then answer: “If it bites you and you get sick, then the animal is venomous.”

If every man named Paul is bitten by a snake, then all such people will not care about the bite. lol

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

universal court case

In my days (1970s) it was kind of summed up in the questions of who is the true God and will man choose the God whose name is YHVH or will he choose the false Gods of Babylon the Great. And the question, does YHVH have full right to rule.
It turns out that man, not God, answers both questions about the status of God. A bit strange, isn't it?
The man answered only one question; Who will he choose for. Only because it is about the freedom of choice that people have.
The question of who is the true God and whether he has the legal right to rule is not for man to answer. Because how can "created matter" answer that question? Not at all. If a man chooses his master, this does not speak of the status of the master, but of the status and condition of the man who is given the opportunity to choose. One can argue; "my lord is good, just, merciful, generous, etc." But then it is primarily an expression of the perception of a man, who has actually never seen his master or talked to him, in this case. It is the product of some other experience in a person, outside of the classic, well-known and experiential way of getting to know another person.

Today's believers, as well as many from the past, primarily "got to know" God through the upbringing and teachings of their parents, people and/or reading the Holy Scriptures.
Every other "experience" of God is up for debate. Biblical characters mostly literally heard "God" (or angels) with their ears, experienced through visions, through supernatural manifestations. Today, say JWs, this cannot happen, and if someone were to claim that this happened to them, then JWs will say that they are under the influence of demons, drugs or mentally ill.

Our personal choice, about own selection of one of the organized religions headed by YHVH, which spreads to other people through street or house preaching, gives testimony to our choice of religion. It cannot answer the question whether God has a legal right to be God. It is presumptuous to attribute such importance to oneself, to a human being. If God is really God then he does not need our confirmation, consent or testimony that he is really God who has the right to rule. It is utter nonsense that God is so dependent on human testimony. Angels in heaven are not stupid. Everyone should have seen and understood who their God is, if they were with him every day of their lives. They don't need an answer to such a human question posed by WTJWorg.

So, what kind of universally, controversial, disputed question (Universal Court Case) do JWs actually answer?

There are irregularities in nature that are studied as chaos theory. Even in this chaos there is a certain order, but that order is different from our usual understanding of order and organization. I am reading a written work and there it says.

There are three basic characteristics of chaos:
1. disproportion between input and output;
2. inconspicuousness of the entrance;
3. unpredictable output

In the last few years, the application of chaos theory in social phenomena has been seriously considered. It is interesting that in the last 10 years or so, a number of physicists have moved into the field of sociology and political science.

They realized that some nonlinear equations that describe certain processes, even those that describe quantum physical events on at the level of the atom, can be applied to social and political phenomena, with the proviso that instead of the flow of liquid, for example, the transfer of information is considered: that instead of a phase transition, where a parameter suddenly changes, in society, for example, a law can change, and that instead of an essential phase transition can have a political revolution, so systems of differential equations that describe physical processes are applied for describing changes in society. By solving this system of equations, treating society as a chaotic system, one tries to predict the likely outcome. Politicians in the West are now closely following these pioneering studies.

Organizational chaos represents disorder, confusion, commotion in the organization. Organizational chaos means that the organization is in a state of entropy. Entropy is a measure of disorganization of the system, it is a state in which the system falls apart. The tendency towards disorganization, that is, organizational chaos, is a natural tendency of the system. organization as a measure of order in the system, the entropy of the system and its tendency towards organizational chaos is reduced.

My comment:

The schisms within the initial, Russell's WTS, and later other doctrinal turmoil under other presidents, indicate a certain chaotic state and consequently dramatic changes that the Society goes through, constantly. They could say that the leadership's pursuit of order and control is possible, but it is also not impossible to have disorder and chaos.
What kind of chaos could or should YHVH have anticipated, foreseen before the creation of angels and men?

9 hours ago, George88 said:

Given the historical context and circumstances, it can be argued that the purpose of carrying a sword for the apostles was not for actual use but for self-defense.

One of the self-defense tools highly recommended by WTJWorg, when it comes to women, is to scream loudly. They never encourage them to take an actual self-defense course.

Please clarify what is the difference between "actual use " and "self-defense"? When is the "sword"  really used in actual defense use, and when is it used in self-defense?

12 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

You blockhead. I mean, Duh, if anyone discards belief in God they necessarily focus on only the inconveniences of being Christian in the present system, which no Witness would ever deny there are some, but they are compensated by realities to come.

If there really is a God, and if there really will be a new system in which He rules unopposed, then he will enforce his own standards. Just like during that circuit assembly in the early 70’s in which two resurrected ones were bellyaching over everything under the sun, impervious to the correction that the loving elders (who weren’t packing guns) were pouring on like syrup, then the lights went out, there was a loud zap and a flash from heaven, and they were gone! Oh, yeah—a ‘dramatization’ it was.

Blockhead? lol

I thought that by now you already had the chance to know my sense of humor and some kind of irony and sarcasm in some of the written sentences. Well, for such things, we don't need to "conduct a Bible study" in order to master the material. Or do we? lol

9 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

I don’t know how else to say this, so here goes…. 

Do we REALLY want Elders in the Congregation to carry guns?

In the near future, when the WT JWorg takes over this world, then someone will need to be in charge of carrying out the judgments of the Judicial Committee. Who else but armed elders? 

I watched this interview and find it worthy of our attention.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/mike-rowe-the-biggest-lessons-i-learned-from-dirty-jobs-5534995

3 hours ago, Thinking said:

We have a police officer who carry’s a gun etc in his line of duty and he witnesses……times are a changing…

He can go to field service and conduct Bible study with people, i guess only this. According to articles from 2005 and 2017, your elders are not working according to the regulation if he have duties in congregation (carries microphone, reading, public speech etc. lol.

Unless, you can provide written WTJWorg material that say opposite.

 Can a Christian maintain a good conscience if he accepts armed employment?

Engaging in secular work that requires carrying a firearm or another weapon is a personal decision. But armed employment exposes one to possible bloodguilt if one uses the weapon and to the danger of injury or death from an attack or reprisal. A Christian carrying such a weapon would not qualify for special privileges in the congregation. (1 Timothy 3:3, 10)—11/1, page 31. - https://www.jw.org/hr/biblioteka/casopisi/w20051215/Sjećaš-li-se/

Christians strive to be exemplary. (2 Cor. 4:2; 1 Pet. 5:2, 3) After receiving Scriptural counsel, a Christian who continues to keep a gun for protection against other humans could not be considered exemplary. He would therefore not qualify for responsibilities or special privileges in the congregation. The same applies to a Christian who continues to carry a firearm as part of his secular work. How much better to seek other employment! 

 - https://www.jw.org/hr/biblioteka/casopisi/strazarska-kula-proucavanje-srpanj-2017/posjedovanje-oruzja-radi-zastite/

10 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

So, they are not just lies. They are harmful lies. They are lies that are near-universal in the church world. The GB has mounted a successful sustained, and worldwide assault on them. To ignore this and instead flail away about mistakes they may or may not have made is astoundingly small-minded to me.

The phenomenon can also be explained in this way. Okay, if that's acceptable to you. 

12 hours ago, George88 said:

Did Jesus prevent the apostles from carrying swords?

Well, GB does not prohibit the carrying of weapons for private or official use. But those JWs who have it are not ideologically eligible/acceptable for any ministry in the congregation. With Jesus, the apostles were eligible/acceptable for service. So GB does not follow Jesus. Clear as a sunny day. lol

3 minutes ago, George88 said:

cross

WTJWorg is not honest about this, too. Encyclopedia Britannica is not consistently cited in JW publications.

1 minute ago, George88 said:

the current viewpoint of Watchtower.

Emphasis is on "current".

lol

8 hours ago, Pudgy said:

Do you have a link to those WT pages?

Link to book:

https://www.academia.edu/34138714/Ever_changing_teachings_of_Jehovahs_Witnesses_The_most_important_changes_in_the_doctrine_of_the_Watchtower_Society_in_the_years_1879_2015?email_work_card=title

Link to WT magazine:

https://archive.org/details/WatchTowerAndHeraldOfChristsPresence1910-1919/page/n1545/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/WatchTowerAndHeraldOfChristsPresence1910-1919/page/n1547/mode/2up

WTJWorg teaches believers that "truth" must be based on the Bible. Anything contrary to "Bible truth" is called, by WTJWorg, a "lies" or "false teachings". 

Quote from https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2018603?q=religious+lies&p=par

6, 7. (a) Why are religious leaders who lie especially guilty? (b) What lies have you heard religious leaders tell?

⁶ Religious leaders who lie are especially guilty because they endanger the future life prospects of those who believe their lies. If an individual accepts a false teaching and practices something that is actually condemned by God, it can cost that person his eternal life. (Hos. 4:9) Jesus knew that the religious leaders in his day were guilty of such deception. He told them to their face: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you travel over sea and dry land to make one convert, and when he becomes one, you make him a subject for Gehenna [everlasting destruction] twice as much so as yourselves.” (Matt. 23:15; ftn.) Jesus condemned those false religious leaders in the strongest terms. They truly were ‘from their father the Devil, a murderer.’—John 8:44.

⁷ Whether called pastors, priests, rabbis, swamis, or by some other title, religious leaders abound in the world today. Like their first-century counterparts, they are “suppressing the truth” from God’s Word and have “exchanged the truth of God for the lie.” (Rom. 1:18, 25) They promote such false teachings as “once saved, always saved,” the immortality of the human soul, reincarnation, and the foolish idea that God would condone homosexual lifestyles and same-sex marriages.

I have not noticed here that WTJWorg is full of understanding towards the religious leaders of other religions. They do not credit them with good intentions and sincerity in their belief in "their own truth". What will we do with it then? I believe that WTJWorg is misleading its believers. That is my "experienced truth". With what arguments can someone turn my "truth" into a lie?

Since I do not claim that my knowledge, experience ("truth") came because I was "guided by HS", nor do I claim that it is the only correct and authoritative one for millions of other people, then that does not make me, it doesn't put me in a category of a "false teacher". The most anyone can do is call me an idiot or delusional.
In contrast, GB claims that they are the only ones appointed by God to spread the "only truth" found only in WTJWorg. Then it completely changes the way this group of religious leaders should be viewed/questioned. As far as I know, they did not say that "they believe" how "the truth" was written in the publications. They say that this is "the truth" and that there are no other truths but theirs.

8 hours ago, George88 said:

Srecko, all you need to do is look at the Wikipedia commentary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette

 

What was WT position about national flag in 1917:

Thank God for the privilege of living in the United States! While
we all recognize that it is not a perfect government, yet it is the best
of all earthly governments. Every one who lives under the flag of the
United States should be loyal to that Government as against all
earthly governments. No citizen of this country could be a Christian
and do violence to the Government of the United States. To be loyal
to the law of God he must render unto the United States Government
everything that is not in contravention of the divine law. – Romans
13:1-9.

DISPLAYING THE AMERICAN FLAG
Suppose the city or state officials should issue an order requiring,
or even requesting, that all persons display the American flag. What
should we do? We answer, We think it would be right to display the
flag in obedience to such order or request. The American flag was
adopted as an emblem of liberty. It is the national emblem. While
some have insisted that it now represents war, this is hardly in
keeping with the facts. It may represent war to those who desire war,
but to those who love liberty and peace, the flag represents liberty
and peace. However that may be, the displaying of the American flag
can do injury to no one. If commanded or requested to display the
flag, it should be done, out of respect to the Government under which
it is the privilege of Christians to live. If an American was the guest
of the British Government and was requested to display the British
flag and refused to do so, it would be showing disrespect to the
British Government, his host. If a Christian, who is an alien amongst 

all earthly governments, should, while journeying amongst them, be
requested to display a flag of the country whose benefits he is
enjoying, and refuse to do so, such refusal would be failing to show
the proper respect to such government. Recognizing that the
Government of the United States has been the special refuge of
Christian people from intolerable persecution; that it was founded as
an asylum of religious liberty and freedom of speech, every one in
America should take pleasure in displaying the American flag -
especially when requested so to do. It does not mean that by putting a
flag on your house you would want to go to war. Since the Bethel
Home was established, in one end of the Drawing Room there has
been kept a small bust of Abraham Lincoln with two American flags
displayed about the bust. This is deemed entirely proper, having in
mind what Mr. Lincoln did for the Government and for the people of
the United States, and in this we see nothing inconsistent with a
Christian’s duty. (The Watchtower May 15, 1917 pp. 6085-6086,
reprints).

5 hours ago, George88 said:

Srecko, all you need to do is look at the Wikipedia commentary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette

 

Quote from your source in Wikipedia:

(Justice) Jackson warned that "[t]hose who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard".

My comment:

What a country can ask of its citizens is no more or less than what WTJWorg asks of its followers. Things are quite clearly placed in the same or very similar frameworks. If you do not submit, you will be rejected and isolated. What then is the fundamental difference between secular and religious? There is no such thing. Both sides are prepared to take drastic measures to eliminate the ineligible.

8 hours ago, Many Miles said:

the society offered an alternate

I heard in a conversation with an elder (many years ago, 15 or more), I think it was in Bethel, how the Organization waits for the secular authorities to offer it an alternative solution for a matter, and then they  says whether it is acceptable or not to Society. He rejected any possibility that the Organization would propose a solution. Interesting how mindset of people in WTJWorg is changing.

10 hours ago, George88 said:

Simply put, Pastor Russell's position on an oath of allegiance is of respect for human authority, while his real allegiance lies with God and with the "King of Kings." His citizenship was in heaven.

A MATTER OF CONSCIENCE

ACTS 24:16: “And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offense toward God, and toward men.

“Of course, no country forces aliens into the army; and were it recognized that true Christians are aliens as respects earthly governments, the whole question might solve itself. The Bible Students’ claim is that the followers of Jesus have their citizenship in heaven, and that by giving their obedience to the heavenly Lord they renounce in a degree their allegiance to earthly kings — governments. It is for this reason that we have long advocated that the fully consecrated abstain from voting on political issues. if they so vote, they are identifying themselves with the earthly kingdoms, and might properly enough be called upon to shoot as they vote — to support the government which they helped to create.

Many of us know that the early WT held the doctrine that all members of the movement would go to heaven. Then, in the early 1930s, they changed their doctrine. Another example of "old truths and new lies" or "old lies and new truths", take it as you will.

In both cases, we have difficulty literally living with such an idea. From which authority do you have documents such as birth certificate, identity card, passport, etc.? Do not talk about religious fictions and ideas about one's identity.

If a JW in the USA is a foreigner to the USA authorities, then where is his evidence that he is a citizen of Jesus' Kingdom? How can he prove this when according to WTJWorg theology, the invisible Kingdom has existed since 1914 and has not issued any certificates to its believers. Moreover, Jesus said that he would separate the sheep from the goats (separate its citizens from non-citizens) at some future time.

If we want to take it as a measure of belonging to the Kingdom (citizenship), then the personal aspiration and faith of an individual is the only "document" of belonging, but only as an empty form without the signature and seal of the competent service that may accept such an individual as its own citizen.
Even more, the right to citizenship, according to the interpretation, is obtained only after the final test at the end of the 1000-year Kingdom.
Who do today's JWs belong to? To those whose documents you have in your pocket.

The rebelliousness of citizens towards their own authorities has its justification in some matters and circumstances. But that applies to every government.

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I want to make a little joke about the idea of JWs who are considered to only be "foreigners" in some country they live. Do JWs have dual citizenship? In which "country" are they tax residents? Will they be double taxed?

Do JWs have dual citizenship? In which "country" are they tax residents? Will they be double taxed?