Srecko Sostar
-
Posts
4,635 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
75
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Posts posted by Srecko Sostar
-
-
10 hours ago, George88 said:21 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:
Should a "perfect" man and an "imperfect" man be judged according to the same standards and rules?
Although some may find the concept strange, the undeniable proof lies within the consequences of Adam's judgment in the garden, and the subsequent fallout. Was it part of God's plan for this to occur? No! However, as imperfect beings, we are now burdened with living with the consequences. Therefore, we have lost the privilege and distinction of being perfect like the man whom imperfect humans unjustly killed.
Sorry, but I really don't see any answer, to the question, in this comment.
-
-
9 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:
Should a "perfect" man and an "imperfect" man be judged according to the same standards and rules?
Let's take a hypothetical situation. In Eden, Adam and Eve have children. Now there are almost 100 perfect of them in Eden. At one point one begins to steal, another begins to lie, a third kills his neighbor, a fourth commits adultery, and a fifth begins to worship the moon when the night is clear.
What will God do? If it is assumed according to the Biblical record, He will drive them out, expel, of Paradise.
How God deals with lawbreakers who are imperfect. According to the Law of Moses, the punishment for most transgressions is death or severe retribution.
An observer would conclude that the punishment is lighter for perfect offenders and heavier for imperfect offenders. -
18 minutes ago, George88 said:
Imperfections
Should a "perfect" man and an "imperfect" man be judged according to the same standards and rules?
-
19 minutes ago, George88 said:
Doesn't this depend on the preferences of the residents? What would happen if you are married and your spouse dislikes that color? This assumption is too general.
Yes, that's what I'm talking about. The term "free will" or "choice" has general as well as specific applications.
21 minutes ago, George88 said:Does this illustration depict the difference between a child doing something wrong and a parent simply feeling overwhelmed by the challenges of daily life? You are outlining two separate perspectives.
Well, you don't think that little troublemakers always do wrong, do you?
Even when they make a bit of a mess in the house because of their game?Have adults forgotten their childhood?
lol
-
11 minutes ago, George88 said:
Are you suggesting that there's an issue with drinking alcohol without getting intoxicated? It's important to recognize that people have different alcohol tolerances, and individuals need to be aware of their limits. While one individual may be able to comfortably consume 6 beers without feeling impaired, another person might feel impaired with just consuming 2. There is no specific standard as you are suggesting.
Yes, the concept of "free will" can be applied here as well, related to setting benchmarks and standards, eg a person's weight and percentage of alcohol. If we want to be realistic, all alcohol is an intoxicant. Tobacco is an intoxicant, as are some other types of plants that some people take for "mood". Some intoxicants are legal and others are illegal.
I know some JWs were bothered when some other JWs could drink a lot. Whose "free will" should we "silence"? Those who drink a lot because "you can't see on them" that they drank a lot? Or those whose conscience is offended when they see others drinking a lot?22 minutes ago, George88 said:What problem do you have with people having fun? Are you now going to complain about how witnesses, eat, sleep and work?
None. No.
23 minutes ago, George88 said:I frequently engage in conversations with former witnesses, and there is no issue until they start imposing their uninformed biblical beliefs. If you haven't noticed, I'm doing that with you. Disprove it? Therefore, your claim of a "ban" holds no truth and is therefore baseless.
If you remember, there is plenty of information about the official position of WTJWorg which prohibits that kind of communication. You and the like are a good example of how "doctrinal unity" does not influence some individuals to act "uniformly". lol
26 minutes ago, George88 said:Could you please explain how a sheep could coexist with a pack of wolves without becoming their prey?
So isn't that already explained?
Even in the 1st century, Jesus said that the wolves were in his flock. -
7 hours ago, George88 said:
Put it simply, Srecko, if the terms of punishment are established in secular law, they are also established in God's law. Replace the term "free will" that you are advocating with the term "choice."
Free Will -- Harris, Sam [Harris, Sam] -- 2012
Moral Responsibility
The belief in free will has given us both the religious conception of “sin” and our commitment to retributive justice. The U.S. Supreme Court has called free will a “universal and persistent” foundation for our system of law, distinct from “a deterministic view of human conduct that is inconsistent with the underlying precepts of our criminal justice system” (United States. esv Grayson)1978). Any intellectual developments that threatened free will would seem to put the ethics of punishing people for their bad behavior in question.
The great worry, of course, is that an honest discussion of the underlying causes of human behavior appears to leave no room for moral responsibility. If we view people as neuronal weather patterns, how can we coherently speak about right and wrong or good and evil? These notions seem to depend upon people being able to freely choose how to think and act. And if we remain committed to seeing people as people, we must find some notion of personal responsibility that fits the facts.
The only remaining question to consider in each instance is, to what extent.Yes, I believe we are a little under-capacitated, not intentionally, when we speaking about the term "free will". Mostly, in fact always, we equate "free will" with "choice".
I have never thought deeply about this topic, but I have a feeling that behind the term "free will" there is something else, something more that we do not see or know.
We have accepted the basic concept, that free will equals a choice between two or more things, as the only definition of free will.For example, the comment you posted talks about an aspect of free will that is associated with "moral responsibility", with "sin", with "punishment", with "good and evil", with "right and wrong".
However, if one chooses to paint the walls of one's room blue rather than another color, then no human or divine "law" can be applied to sanction one's "choice". Because in this case it's not about whether someone has a sense of "right and wrong", it's about someone's taste for colors. And that taste for colors can be subject to the judgment of other people too, but that enters into another dimension of "condemnation or approval".
I have only illustrated how the term "free will" has a different meaning than the one used in the religious or criminal-law context of past and present humanity.Or for example this. The parent returns home from work. He is tired, not everything went as planned at work, traffic jams and nervousness. He enters the house, the children have their needs, they ask to eat, they are hungry or they have made a mess in the house because of the game. The parent starts making noise and maybe punishes the children with a slap or hits them. Is it this only about the concept of the parent's basic "free will" to react that way, or did a combination of circumstances lead the parent to a mental and emotional state that led him to make a "bad choice"?
-
7 hours ago, George88 said:
Believers exhibit, with general features of resemblance, considerable personal differences;
Yes, there is that diversity among JWs.
In my many years of association with JWs, I encountered individuals who liked to have fun in a society where a lot of alcoholic beverages were consumed.
There was also a competitive spirit when the JW brothers met to play football.
Now I come across individuals who make contact with ex-JWs despite the general ban on contacting ex-members.In one video from the ex-Mormons, they spoke highly of the unity that was seen in immediately encountering the hospitality of like-minded people, Mormons, in other countries. This is a significant characteristic of JWs as well. It was enough to say you are a JW and you would be accepted by almost every other JW anywhere in the world. This is a positive aspect of "unity", beyond any doubt.
But this example only proves that "the truth" is not only found among JWs. Here, Mormons have the same kind of "truth" about fellowship and unity, and I believe other religious communities as well. -
-
7 hours ago, George88 said:
Great! Applying it in its proper context shouldn't pose any difficulties. God values the presence of "good" free will rather than "bad" free will. If you grasp this distinction sooner rather than later, it will lead to a better outcome for you, or not. lol!
You are truly fantastic. Now you are introducing a whole new terminology and thesis into JWs beliefs system: "good free will" vs "bad free will".
Are you perhaps in the class called "GB Helpers"? lol
-
18 minutes ago, George88 said:
It's important to recognize that God did not create Satan; instead, He created an Angel who chose to rebel and become Satan. These are two distinct identities arising from the same creator. The transformation from good to bad was a result of personal choice, not a direct act of God.
As I already said, "free will". lol
-
1 hour ago, George88 said:
I hope that the courts will expose former witnesses for trying to distort scripture.
In court it is not about biblical quotations/scripture, but about the results, the consequences of the instructions that have been institutionally embedded through the Legal Entity aka WTJWorg and JWs.
-
1 hour ago, George88 said:
Only someone who disrespects and denies the existence of God would hold such a belief. This is the root of your issue - presuming that you have the authority to question God, which you don't.
JWs explain that God left Satan and Adam and Eve alive so that questions about who has the right to rule and similar questions about God's justice could be answered. Because if God immediately punished them with death, the angels would have doubts as to whether the rebels were right after all.
This actually means that God has allowed his authority to be questioned, by humans and angels, until today. So, you didn't reason correctly, and you didn't understand the answer I gave. Your comment means that if you are a JW, you haven't studied the official theology of the WTJWorg enough. And neither were they when they explained the events in Paradise that way. Because such explanation by GB open door to comment in the way i gave.
-
The easiest way to refute WTJWorg and Jehovah's Witnesses is their own literature. Here is another of the many examples that prove how GB loses all credibility when they wants to sue states/governments and former members of its church.
"No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family." - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102009251
Institutional rules based on GB interpretations of the Bible have exactly this effect - forcing only one type of worship that is determined by GB theology even though the person feels threatened by it.
Compulsion to choose; or family or religion.I hope that the Court in Oslo will expose the hypocrisy and misrepresentation of all those who represented and defended JWs in court.
-
33 minutes ago, George88 said:
The Watchtower adheres to secular laws in a manner that does not violate God's laws.
and in continue you said this:
34 minutes ago, George88 said:You are promoting disobedience.
With first claim you you in fact said how WTJWorg promote disobedience against secular laws (by interpreting Bible text as they see it is fit to their understanding). lol
39 minutes ago, George88 said:Disobedience carries consequences.
In both ways.
40 minutes ago, George88 said:How can one possibly engage in a debate with the Almighty? When did humanity assume a position of superiority over God in your perspective? God bestowed His laws for us to embrace, while also granting us the remarkable gift of free will.
The very fact that "free will" exists allows man to be "superior" to God, in a certain way. It may sound strange, but God cannot force you to do as He wants. Well, His "omnipotence" over man is only in the possibility that God will "kill" you because you do not want to listen/obey Him. But what is actually proven by that? Only that there is someone physically stronger than an individual or the whole world.
If God "gave free will" to people, He gave them a powerful tool (weapon) against Himself. In a way, He equated them with himself, and occasionally in some situations people became, conditionally speaking, "superior" in relation to God.
When God gave free will to people, He knew what good and bad things could come from it. So, people should not be judged for choosing to use their free will. It is only a consequence of the "opportunity" given to them. No one is to blame. Neither God nor people.
Consequences of free choice? It is just the result of a consensus reached about what is considered "good" and what is "bad". And as we can see, the benchmarks, principles are changing, even at WTJWorg.
-
-
7 hours ago, George88 said:
Your recent post on freedom of religion contradicts you. It is crucial to understand that every institution has the right to worship God according to its own beliefs, and neither you nor any government should impose restrictions on how they establish their bylaws. The Watchtower, for instance, defines its principles based on scripture. Unless you have substantial evidence to challenge scripture, your activism serves no purpose.
I am of the opinion that "every institution" should primarily act in accordance with the Law that comes from "secular authorities".
JWs misinterpret the Bible when they say that world governments are under the "authority of Satan", because such an interpretation is contrary to the statement we find in the same Bible in Rom 13, which says: "1 Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. 2Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves."If you will say that the apostles showed that one can be disobedient, because they said; "We must obey God rather than men", then let's keep in mind that the apostles were disobedient to the "religious authorities" when they said this. That is context.
Every other example of disobedience on the part of believers (Jews or Christians) that we find in the Bible, and is connected with political, i.e. secular authorities, is only proof that the secular authorities, if the law is such, will be able to punish you without remorse. And in that case, the statement from Romans 13 will prove quite clear and logical context.
Whether any of this in life is fair or not is up for debate as much as whether "WTJWorg theology" is fair or not.
What is or will be the perception of a believer or a religious community, is their problem. Whether one of them will consider it as "persecution" or simply "punishment of a disobedient citizen or religious institution" is a matter of interpretation. And that is a wide field that can be manipulated in the public space.
God says, "if you don't obey, you will be punished". The Government says the same.
"Religious authorities" in the form of JWs elders can engage in "punishment" as part of their own "interpretations" of the Bible and other texts in their publications. But they are subordinate, lower than the Law of a state. Many religions, such as WTJWorg, because of this status, often use "theocratic methods" to circumvent the Law.
The most common method is to misrepresent the facts, distort them or completely hide them. They do this, very often, in the public space, in front of the media and in the courts and in front of other "secular" institutions.7 hours ago, George88 said:It is troubling to see governments and ex-witnesses condemning the Watchtower's use of the Bible as its constitution. It reminds me of Hitler and Nazi Germany. This comparison is deeply concerning and should not be taken lightly.
WTJWorg is teaming up with some political bodies to fight for "their religious freedoms" against some states where the laws are not favorable to JWs. The parallel you are talking about also exists in such a relationship between JW religion and "satanic" political bodies . You are conflicted, aren't you?
The courts are of the opinion that the existence of various religious communities is necessary for the pluralism of society. JWs have the opportunity to be registered and active because of this attitude of the state. They can exist because of "pluralism".
On the other hand, WTJWorg and consequently JWs have the view that pluralism is harmful. This can be seen in their preaching activity, i.e. "educational and humanitarian program" in which they condemn all other religions as "false religions", in which they condemn all political bodies as "satanic instruments". It is also seen in the relentless "persecution" of anyone who disagrees with GB theology.
So, hypocrisy in its full force.
-
2 hours ago, George88 said:
Does Jerome's opinion really matter to God?
He presented arguments from other sources. It's up to you to take them seriously.
-
A detail that could perhaps be important for the court in Oslo, but also globally, is this: Is ostracism towards disobedient former members the product of an institutional order, rule, doctrine, practice?
Many ex-Jws have left WTJWorg because they do not agree with JWs doctrines. Such members, we can say, actually "change their religion" in such a way. In this context, WTJWorg must not exert any kind of pressure on such persons because such behavior falls under "religiously motivated hatred and persecution" against those who do not share the same religious beliefs as JWs.
So, I think that JWs should look more deeply at the way and consequences of their own interpretations of certain biblical quotes. While WTJWorg appeals to the UN rights and freedom of belief/religion, at the same time JW religious leaders and JW members grossly violate them with their own actions.
-
2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:
Even then, Lopes added, Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t force members to limit or cease association with former congregants, whether they’ve been disfellowshipped or withdrawn voluntarily—that’s up to individuals. - https://www.baptiststandard.com/news/world/jehovahs-witnesses-sue-norway-after-registration-revoked/
Real instructions found in WTJWorg publications:
Regarding everyone who “does not remain in the teaching of the Christ,” we read: “Do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.” (2 John 9-11) We do not have spiritual or social fellowship with disfellowshipped ones. The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, page 25, stated: “A simple ‘Hello’ to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshiped person?”
Is strict avoidance really necessary? Yes, for several reasons.
- https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/gods-love/disfellowshipped-person/
Conclusion is these: JW force members to limit and cease association with former members. In other words, WTJWorg representatives (members and non-members) tell untruths aka lies.
-
-
9 hours ago, George88 said:
It's about viewing things through the lens of reality.
1. A fictional, actually false reality that is presented to "Caesar"
Even then, Lopes added, Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t force members to limit or cease association with former congregants, whether they’ve been disfellowshipped or withdrawn voluntarily—that’s up to individuals. - https://www.baptiststandard.com/news/world/jehovahs-witnesses-sue-norway-after-registration-revoked/
2. Reality and practice inside JWs congregations
"Despite our pain of heart, we must avoid normal contact with a disfellowshipped family member by telephone, text messages, letters, e-mails, or social media."
"If, however, a baptized Witness makes a practice of breaking the Bible’s moral code and does not repent, he or she will be shunned or disfellowshipped."
- https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/
-
@George88 Let's not equate "distancing" from WTJWorg and its doctrines and practices with circumstances that lead to the creation of a different dynamic in mutual relations with people with whom we were previously "hung out" as members of the JWs community.
There will be various and varied reactions. Some will completely reject the possibility of contact with ex-JW, others will at least be polite and say hello on the road, and some will sometimes want to talk about anything.
Some ex-JWs really miss contact with family or friends who have remained JWs. Some other ex-JWs are bothered by the lack of culture when they happen to meet former "brothers". For some it ceases to matter and they can deal with "fanatical JWs", who consistently adhere to the WTJWorg's institutional instructions to completely cut off relations with ex-JWs, without much trouble.Jesus had no problem communicating with all kinds of people, from little children to decent people to hardened lawbreakers. We, ordinary people, generally cannot imitate that way of dealing with other people. And we are not even obligated, because we have the free will to choose who we want or don't want to deal with.
I respect that "choice". What I don't want to appreciate and respect is the "hate by GB decree" that imposes "shunning". -
25 minutes ago, Manuel Boyet Enicola said:
I fully agree with doctrinal unity. But uniformity? Mmmm, creation shows us to leave room for variability.
WTJWorg aka GB has no "doctrinal unity" going back 140 years until today. Nor does today's composition of the "Main Ecclesial Body" aka GB, which leads JWs all over the world, show "unity of doctrine". Every now and then they "abandon, reformulate or clarify" the previous "firmly established Biblical Truth".
But that's why GB makes an extraordinary effort to create and maintain "uniformity".
Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity
in Topics
Posted
No.
Many ex-JWs still believe in God and the Bible. What they did was simply change their religion, which they have every right to do because of their free will. For that they should not be declared apostates by WTJWorg.
Do ex-JWs have free will to talk about their former religion and what happened there? Yes, because it belongs to the freedom of expression and opinion. Are ex-JWs free to argue criticism with help of WTJWorg official literature, and other digital material? Yes, because that is the best way to expose the deception.