Srecko Sostar

WTJWorg leaders from past, till today, showed a great desire for the "end of the world" to come in 1914, 1925, 1941, 1975, by the end of the 20th century, by the end of the overlapping generation" ... and, if we live long enough, we will still hear their new predictions in some new or changed format.

@Patiently waiting for Truthgave interesting view on issue when he said: Bible records states how everything was "good" in Creative acts about 7 Days or even with creation/creativity before those 7 Days. That could also mean without "evil" or without "error". If the environment and condition in Heaven around Satan was without evil and without sin, it would mean that nothing could corrupt one angel or any other angel. If we raise the idea that Satan had "free will", as humans, and chose to be evil, then we could shift the blame to “free will” as a gift from God. Because without “free will” he/we wouldn’t know we have a choice between two or more options. One might conclude that the existence of “free will” is actually a trap. Or we could say that dualism arose from the very creation of a person and it is a matter of the very moment when someone will stop being good and commit something bad. Furthermore, we have another very unusual thing in the Book of Genesis and in God’s statement. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” What does it even mean: Knowledge of good and evil? If there is a literal or symbolic tree that has information of what is good and what is evil, then it is inevitable that evil and good already exist in any literal or metaphorical sense. Did “good” produce any effect before Adam and Eve? Yes, because God says that everything that was created was "Good." Is the word “good” in both contexts synonymous? If so with the word "Good," then it cannot be otherwise with the word "Evil." It must exist, even in the very imagination of the person. In the person of God, angel, man, it doesn't matter. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” These passages should show that God, satan, and every angel knew, and should know, what "evil" is, without at the same time having to mean that as an individual he is "evil" or has done something "evil". In my opinion, this opens a paradox about the very concept of "good and evil". In other words, Adam and Eve could not possibly know what was "good" and what was "evil." God stated this in the quoted verse. By that, Adam and Eve did not know they were doing "evil" because they had no knowledge that “good and evil” existed at all, and more important what is difference, what is essence of them. But God and the angels knew the difference, according to verses. Furthermore, everything that is in the imagination of an individual may already exist, or will exist in some other form or model of existence, either spiritual or physical. It would mean that "evil" began to exist from the very moment when God and the angels showed that they had "knowledge of good and evil." And, since God exists eternally, then "evil", at least in the form of cognition, also exists eternally.... and so it will be in the future, because God cannot cease to exist, because he is eternal and immortal, as they say, and many of us believe it. Did man gain full knowledge of "good and evil" in Eden? I don’t know, because man’s imagination of how to do harm to others developed more and more after Adam and Eve. Consequently, the "knowledge" of what "evil" is also "grew". If gift of imagination and free will will stay with humans, then some future individual and future generation will be in possibility/ability to exercise his/their "knowledge/ignorance about good and evil" too.

All of this has been done by WTJWorg scholars over a period of 140 years ... and all of their interpretations are on shaky ground.

What did it take for GB, as the final result of the discussion/debate, to conclude/identify that this is exactly that political creation / state and not someone else? Russia is not the only country that has persecuted dissidents of any kind in the past or present. Nor is the only one haunting JW. And, as far as I can see it is a one of more important argument (persecution of JW) that supposedly identifies it as the “northern king”.

When "Charity" organization writing articles, in so called "religious" publications, about "Russia and its allies", that is one aspect of political engagement.

Are these publicly known allies or should secret allies and those who are yet to become their allies be involved? GB know anything about that? In their study article GB 9 times mentioned phrase Russia and its allies. But they never named those allies. STUDY ARTICLE 20 Who Is “the King of the North” Today? - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-may-2020/Who-Is-the-King-of-the-North-Today/

Supremacy is gained through information management and propaganda. Electronic media and video production fulfill this purpose nowadays.

Herbert is known for another idea. Namely, when it comes to praying for food, he expressed the view that it is not obligatory to pray for food that does not cost more than 1 DM (Deutsche Mark) ....... blink blink ?? Here and now I have shown my primitiveness. Instead of talking about ideas, I talk about people. How sad.

That’s right, sometimes we are burdened with internal conflicts. That’s right, sometimes we’re hypocritical as we expose other people’s mistakes. That's right, sometimes we publicly advocate general / social justice and truth, and yet something inside us tells us that it's not all exactly what it seems. And what can be done about it? It can get out of an organization in which people are not really ready to face their own and other people's conflicts about what is true and accurate and what is not. And to stop speculate.

Oh I didn't know they mentioned wearing a suit and tie in the scriptures. The Elders really did kick off at me when i used to attend meetings in an open neck shirt and no jacket in the heat of the summer. The summer weather that God himself created for our enjoyment, but by rules of men, people are made to suffer. One elder from Bethel and from the former congregation objected that it was wrong for me to go to the podium without socks. Namely, in the summer I would sometimes wear summer shoes, but without socks. It bothered him a lot and he gave me sermons / litanies about it several times. Maybe he did it because he was originally from Germany. So; order, work and discipline. ;))

Thanks. I seem to have reversed the meaning of the words (uncircumcised vs circumcised). :))) But it is always good to look for a supplement to some statement, even when the statement seems logical. Creative moments in the formation of something or someone can be challenging for all those who did not attend the act. So, it would not be strange if God created Adam beardless and gave him the opportunity to feel his beard grow day by day. Of course the question arises as to how Adam trimmed and shortened his hair and beard or whether it grew to the floor/ground in the first 40 years. :))

Some proof for such statement/claim would be nice to provide, please. If you gave only opinion/view, that is ok. Then, you don't need time to search for Bible verse :)) .

Yes, in the hierarchy it is important to give everyone (primarily male members) their share of power participation. A very well-touched topic about our “dark” side of character and how that need for power develops in controlled conditions. Of course, anything that is tried to be controlled can always become uncontrollable.

What is good to notice here? Beards were mandatory and circumcision was mandatory in ancient Israel. Jesus came and did not express his clear position on beards and circumcision issue. In fact, no one knows if he wore a beard or not. Given that he was the originator of the reforms in the Jewish religion by laying the foundations for a new way of worshiping God and breaking with the forms and traditions that were part of the "legacy of Moses", it would not be surprising if his appearance showed the direction of future change, that is, that external features are not proof that the individual is a member of a movement, organization, religion or ideology that represents "the only and true worship of God." Was his beard, if he wore it, the beard of a “real, true Jew" or did his beard deviate from the fashion and trend of other Jews? What if he trimmed her more than was allowed to be done - Lev 19 27? He “violated” many other norms of Jewish tradition and law. Jesus (the child) was circumcised at the behest of his parents. I am not aware of any biblical verse that says that Jesus supported or forbade or was neutral about the matter. But some of his followers, and later many other important members (apostles) of the congregation, preached and taught that circumcision was not an obligation. What is the situation in WTJWorg today? Beards have become banned since the time of Judge Rutherford (with some indications of a relaxation of measures, today), and circumcision is not banned if one wishes to do so. Issue on beard is in a way still a religious issue in WTJWorg. But it should not be because it is a meaningless dilemma and has its causes in the personal attitudes of WTJWorg religious leaders. Evidence? In the past, God determined forbidden things and punished people for things that He later marked as completely unimportant. If these things have become unimportant to God, the question is; Why are these things important to some people today ??

There have always been and will be people (angels in heaven) who will answer questions/issues about God in various and opposite ways. If these questions have already been answered, through those who have been or are now faithful to God, then there is no longer a need to prove it over and over again for every individual and for every new generation. Because that's how we could go on indefinitely. Every new born person on Earth should be able to choose between good and evil. So, according to such idea, evil and good would have to exist constantly in order for people to be able to choose and thus prove that they have "free will". According to the current interpretation, WTJWorg's answers to questions about evil and why God allows evil to exist to this day, questions about God and the Devil, Good and Evil could be debated as long as there are people. So infinitely into the future. Because every new generation thinks it knows more and knows better. And since no generation lives forever, the evidence dies with them. Written books and recorded films and which often times live longer than the people themselves are often not sufficient proof and lack the strength and persuasiveness for the new generation to accept all that people before it concluded about life and death, good and evil.

Agree. Simple proclamation of doctrinal interpretations and group or individual understanding of Bible text is not act of intolerance. On the other hand, the religious animosity that develops in the feelings of members of one church towards another, on a global level, is certainly a display of intolerance. And that is the reality in all religions not just in the JW church. So the question that is still relevant is: What do the leaders of every church do to reduce and curb religious intolerance, especially while publicly announcing the suppression of every religious option other than their own? To which group of tolerance does ignoring former members belong? To not say even simple hello on the street is strong proof and evidence how majority in JW organization are not only intolerant but show lack of everyday polite. Of course, there is JW members who don't obey every GB instruction in this matter or in some other. And that is nice to see. I "like" it, even i disagree with and don't "like" their religious belonging/affiliation.

Please, go on JWorg library and you will find publications that support conclusion and speak clearly how, in fact, JHVH will destroy all elements of "Old System". Where does JW's tolerance of members of other religions begin and end, also about tolerance of own members in JW organization who changing their "spiritual vision/view"? How do you show tolerance for different religious beliefs or opposing beliefs in general? Massimo Introvigne is in focus here, about his interpretations of "tolerance" toward WTJWorg and defense of JW members in Russia and elsewhere.

When you say; "given by HS to say", that is so close to idea of "been inspired by HS". Don't you think the same? Bible verse about such experiences in 1st century is about that "miracle". ...for the holy spirit will teach you in that very hour the things you should say.” Lk 12:12 nwt ...for what you are to speak will be given you in that hour;+ 20 for the ones speaking are not just you, but it is the spirit of your Father that speaks by you. Mt 10:19,20 nwt You used the words of Jesus written in these two gospels. The manner and appearance of HS action has nothing to do with the intellect and learned things that an individual adopts through life. Here we are talking about the ability of HS to act directly on a person at a given moment. This is also called “inspiration, influence, leadership, guidance”. And it happens outside the action of our will and consent or demand.

Well said. Although, the topic gets heated from the moment you send 8 million people to preach that all religions will be destroyed because they don’t believe the way they should believe in God, and that’s the JW way. At such a moment, the alleged tolerance of another’s religious belief becomes an empty phrase. On one side JW gave picture of how tolerant they as people are, but in same time preaching how they worship intolerant God who will destroy them/other people because of their religion. Does a JW member "like" someone else's religion? If he liked it, he might become a member of such a religion. But the JW member only likes his religion, and towards others he does not have such a kind of tolerance nor does he have it in such quantity that he would “like it”. Please nicely, let us explain what this might mean at all if a JW member have feeling and attitude; "I like other religions and I am very tolerant of them, but God will destroy them one day and i am glad that He will do it"? If it is so as you said what Massimo Introvigne stand for, then that is not JW way/model of "religious tolerance". OT records speaking about God who have no tolerance for false way of worshiping Him. Neither to worship some other God in different/opposite religion. And JW members also using such Bible verses to enforce and empower own religious attitude about this issue. By that, it is questionable about what sort of "religious tolerance" is about, here and now, inside JW Church.

Are Voltaire's texts a recommended read for JW members? Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.

It is well known that JWs do not consider themselves as a cult. But they are not considered self to be a “new religion”, also, because they claim their roots go all the way back to Abel. The cooperation between CESNUR and WTJWorg is based on which premise? That the JWs are a “new religion” but not a cult, however, also with a strong belief that they originated from the faithful Abel, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, which put them in the "oldest religion in the world? It follows from this collaboration with CESNUR that WTJWorg is willing to put JW in the status of a “new religion” because of opportunism, and thus renounces its supposedly unique origins dating back to the first days of man’s origin. The question of evil is not only a theological question, but also a philosophical one. From the aspect of the interpretation of the Biblical writings we come to the idea that the so-called "universal question aka issue" about which (1,2, or 3 "issue" or questions in WTJWorg theology about evil*) has long been answered by both humans and angels and by the Only Begotten Son. Well, the JW doctrine of why evil exists and why God allows it to this day and to an unknown day in the future is neither a satisfactory nor a solid doctrine. It is "light" that sometimes is in collision to other Bible records and events and even to some promises made by writers in God's name. *The Issue That All Creation Has to Face - https://www.jw.org/hr/biblioteka/knjige/Ujedinjeni-u-obožavanju-jedinog-pravog-Boga/Sporno-pitanje-s-kojim-su-suočena-sva-stvorenja/

With me? Almost nothing is wrong. What is wrong withe their "evidence"? Do you have some link, that we be able to look at those "evidences"? No, it is not. But you mentioned M.I. tolerance about religious ideologies. And we are witnesses how WTJWorg teachings promote how religious coexisting is not future for human society, but contrary, that all religions, except JW religion, will be destroyed by JW God. Well, is it question of simplified "interpretation" or is it JW doctrinal, cultural and social standpoint? Not necessary. And not in this circumstances we living now. But in "New World", GB members gave interpretations (spoken and written), how they will get power and be delegated, by God JHVH, that they as Kings and Priests will be able to do such things. Today, GB is able and in power to complete spiritual sort of "punishments". .... triangle of historical friends and enemies

In your world of your reality, does this statement also apply to GB and doctrines they promote? According to GB interpretation of Bible text, GB would not allow any faiths (in this system of things nor in the any future system), that is not under WTJWorg, to exist. WTJWorg GB is not voice for religious tolerance between religions. They also stifle any religious tolerance within their own church toward those who have different interpretations of the biblical text. How is this different from the WTJWorg organization and its teachings? GB claims to be the only mediator / channel for the communication of truth between God and people on earth today. They preach that they are the only true religion / truth in the world. GB stand on same position. ---------------------------------------------------- I am of the opinion, and @Witness also spoke about it, that the German court did not deal with reading and interpreting the WTJWorg editions (published for the public and the one for internal use) which speaks of the disputed elements. WTJWorg, I presume, simply made a statement in court that FECRIS was telling lies and slandering. Does FECRIS have studious investigations and knowledge/insight of WTJWorg such as ex-JW? It takes decades of working, reading, and linking events so that one can see what GB is teaching, how it changes instructions, and how the various BOE bodies and individual elders operate in a variety of circumstances. In ARC various depositions of JW elders + GB member we see good picture how "truth" becomes a lie. But such a lie works wonders. It liberates.... and fulfills Jesus' statement: "You will know the truth (will see the true face of your religious leaders) and the truth will set you free."

Dear Tom, when GB members call listeners on JWTV and in literature; "Trust Us because JHVH and Jesus have full trust in Us...", don't you think how GB statement is enough twisted (distorted) and how GB lives in their twisted world with twisted reality they constantly creating in JW Church? What ideology is behind the GB claim? For sure it is not about Idea, but about Ideology! Thus, we have a question; What did Jesus promote? Idea or Ideology? What was promoted by (what is behind) Massimo Introvigne, the German court and FECRIS? Ideology.