Space Merchant

Not denying anything. Unitarian theology is Socinian/semi-Socinianism, vastly different from Arianism, thus making us not Arian or Semi-Arian. There is a huge difference. Plus in the past, the Polish Reformation separated from the Calvinist. Plus core beliefs and principles of a group doesn't make them 100% Arian or for what Arius had taught. Most Unitarian opponents do not even know what Socinian even is. That being said, the Jehovah's Witnesses are often referred to as "modern-day Arians" or they are sometimes referred to as "Half/Semi-Arians", usually by their opponents and or those who do not like them. There are some similarities in theology and doctrine, the Witnesses differ from Arians, examples being: saying that the Son can fully know the Father (something which Arius himself denied), denial of personality to the Holy Spirit (Arians believe the Holy Spirit had a mind of it's own, and a personality, so to speak). The original Arians prayed to Jesus and he alone while Jehovah's Witnesses pray to God, with the mediator being Jesus Christ, hence, no one goes to the Father expect through me, John 14:6 - Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." The verse that tells us Jesus is the mediator, 1 Timothy 2:5 - "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus," Other groups which oppose the belief in the Trinity are not necessarily Arian. The Iglesia ni Cristo, Christadelphians, Seventh-Day Adventist and others. Unitarians themselves are typically Socinian in Christology and not Arian. Binitarians believe that God is two persons, the Father and the Son, but they believe that the Holy Spirit is not a person. Once again, there are difference, unless you can name a true Arian church that not only deny Trinity, but prays to Jesus, believes that the Holy Spirit is indeed a person, and that Jesus doesn't know his own Father who is also his God, etc. (There is more difference on Arians vs Non-Arians, but I leave that up to you for research). Anyways for me, I am not shy about understanding the beliefs of others, but beliefs that has no foundation, base, or understanding is obviously not something that originates with God.  Plus it is not only the 4th century you should be looking at. It is from the 2nd Century with the Early Christian Schisms (and Trinity Origins) to the 4th and onward. Luckily for you I will provide you with video links so you can better understand the council and the creeds that became a reality in those days: Â

No problem, apparently on another forum it is a meme if you are a non-Trinitarian they will assume your faith right off the bat, sometimes with negativity, but I am use to it. I do know of the history, and the controversy behind it, even of what isn't mention. Also, Biblical Unitarians are typically or some what Socinian in Christology, not Arian or Semi-Arian. What you mentioned about writings, I invite you to check out these two videos on a clear analysis on the Nicea controversy, the things that has not been mentioned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLqm4KYqQlU&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBUbhN-4waE As well as this book: https://books.google.com/books/about/When_Jesus_Became_God.html?id=CUxsmAEACAAJ&hl=en Whereas Robert doesn't take sides, but clearly explains the things that went about prior to and during the Council, even afterwards. That being said, what I mentioned about the blog-post, there is several who believe that "a god" is correct over "was God". There are more who speak on the rendering of John 1:1 then just the one guy you mentioned. I remember seeing a guy who spoke in behalf of JWs on YouTube who has put together an excellent presentation regarding the Coptics and why the JWs as well as those who agree with the rendering of John 1:1. If I find that video I will post it, I will essentially have to go YouTube diving to find it, the video is that old, other videos also share the same information in regards to John 1:1.

Paul was a prisoner who was to appeal to Caesar, yes, but was told to make the gospel known regardless when an angel spoke to him to get the gospel out in Rome and to Caesar (stand before Caesar). This was also brought up in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, whereas it is mentioned that Paul successfully defended himself and continue onward to preach the gospel, eventually going to Rome a second time, only to this time be condemned by the malevolent ruler. If such a case came to that as mentioned, Paul would speak, however those for those who have committed any vile act inside a church, Paul would, or he would instruct the leaders of the church to remove the member(s) who have committed something bad, especially if the person is unrepentant. In the end, this is in terms of defending one's faith and the freedom to preach the gospel, Paul would not just sit there and accept that the gospel of God should be halted permanently, he will attempt to make his opinions of the matter known, as for those who have done something bad among the church, Paul has mentioned on what to do with wrongdoers in the among them. As for if Paul would defend his brothers and sisters. From Paul's perspective, he would have done anything to make sure the gospel has been preached and never cease, and he doesn't seem like the man to have given up easily or keep silent, especially when threaten, this man was courageous. Paul instructed the Christians to obey the Law of high powers and to be good citizens regardless of the type of character the leaders have. However, persecution during those times got evidently worse, even to the point whereas Christians who gave into persecution and or given up in faith began to betray their brothers. Paul, as well as the Christians who listened, would never give in to persecution and they won't curse God or denounce their faith in him as well as Christ on the spot. Christians in the past have suffered persecution for their faith, even fighting to prevent any halt in their preaching or speaking of God's Kingdom. If Paul was alive today, he would be among the many who will do whatever it takes to defend God's message and prevent it from stopping due to heavy persecution from Man. Which makes you think, if every Christains was persecuted and had given up, I doubt no one would have really known who God is, or Jesus.

For the record, I am a Unitarian Christian (I have respect for brothers and sisters in Christ who are aware of Trinity falsehood, as well as improve as Christians) and have stated this briefly before, we to believe that the translation of "God" when referring to Jesus should either be "a god" or "was god", especially in context with John 14:6. Not sure if you are aware, but even before the Jehovah's Witnesses existed, let alone Bible Students, "a god" was used, in addition, some don't always use "a god", some use "was god (or was divine)", if you took the time to look up the history of John 1:1 translations by some scholars. I merely cited how other scholars have interpreted John 1:1, regardless, made mention to how these scholars had it to further prove that before the Witnesses took on this rendering just as the others have before them had done the same, and you can see most tend to use "a god" or "was god" (as well as divine in some translations), for this was no a JW only rendering. For John 1:1 in question, since you brought up the Coptics, The Sahidic Coptic Translation used an indefinite article with the word "god" in the final part of John 1:1. Those ancient translators realized that John's words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God, thus, The Word "was god" or "a god", but not Almighty God. I find it rather odd that some would have intended the first sentence in the gospel of John to imply the existence of a god other than Yahweh/Jehovah, and for me personally, as stated before, this is not the Jehovah's Witnesses own interpretation either for others have translated that verse to what it truly is, but that just goes to show, it's all in how one interprets, whether not grammatical rules were in play or not. Also some use the Coptic john 1:1 in a sense has "divine" or "a god" for they see it that the grammar in the Sahidic Coptic strongly suggest "a god". Here is an old blog-post, there is more with the same final conclusion on why "a god" or "was a god, etc fits perfectly compared to "was God": http://coptictruch.blogspot.com/ There is also information from a Hebraic point of view, but that may just be for another time. That being said, The scriptures itself shows us that John's introductory words (1:1-5) refer to the beginning of the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Word proclaimed through the ministry of God's Anointed, Jesus of Nazareth. The Word of John 1:1 is the Word proclaimed through the ministry of Jesus. Plus it would seem ridiculous that one who is a Bene Elohim is a creator of all things, when the root of Bene Elohim is that Bene Elohims came into existence because of God, who caused them to exist to begin with, hence, Son(s) of God and or Son(s) from God. This term also identifies Christians, since we are Sons of God. Trying to prove Jesus is God through John 1:1 is like attempting to proving that El Gibbor is the same meaning as Almighty Father, or that teaching/and or Jesus doing The Shema is non-existent from a view of Trinitarianism, when it is clearly evident that Jesus did do such.

At least there isn't head bumpin' like a death metal spectator or any rolling on the ground, or as they say it in my neighborhood, "catching the holy ghost" as the shenanigans take place. In my eyes, Christians should be able to enjoy themselves from time to time.

In short, preventing the message from the bible from being known (Freedom of Worship/To practice a Faith) will result in those of a Christian faith to stop anything that would silence any knowledge and or teaching of God. Religious or Political Adultery is when one, or in this case, a faith, be it Muslim, Christian, etc becomes affiliated with global decisions that has that has big outcomes, examples being the UN conference, The Reformation of October 2017, Religion Summit with Religious Leaders from around the world who "support government/organizational views' i. e. siding with the US on the decision made in regards of Jerusalem. As far as I am aware, The Watchtower's views. From a Christendom based standpoint, these things are deemed evil, however, when it comes to protecting God's word, one must not just ignore, for Satan himself will do everything in his power to cease any knowledge of God from being known and or falsifying God and who he is, examples being the Teaching that God is a 3-in-1 or that Jesus is God, things of that nature. Just like early church Fathers, as well as followers and students, they do defended themselves via invitation, like what is historical displayed through the Council of Nicea. In this situation, The Jehovah's Witnesses had representatives attend OSCE via invitation. All in all, there statements only proves that they were there due to dealing with human rights issues as well as religious ones. You can find their statements with a quick search here: http://www.osce.org/gsearch?qr=Jehovahs+witnesses+statement They didn't have mutual plans, they're statement, as to other faiths at OSCE were to speak on religious issues. in Olden times, It didn't stop the students of John, Peter, and Paul or those Pre-Nicene Christians prior to and after the council. Believe it or not, religious folk, long before all the denominations existed, did defend bible truth and their followers when time calls for it, especially in the realm of Christian persecution (since the world of Christianity today see human rights violations as a major issue, thus such meetings even exist). From a Christian's point of view, they will do what is needed in God's eyes to make sure that the gospel continues to spread and that nothing would cease the message from getting out. In this day and age, not only it is a matter of getting the gospels out, but also in regards of Human Violations and Rights. God does see what is in the hearts of man. He also sees what those who follow would do in order to preserve truths, protect its followers, and making sure the gospel reaches people; not ceases, or in this case, what the New Testament have stated on when the gospel spreading will cease. Such a thing cannot be stopped by Man, hence why it is understandable that they attempt to do something to prevent any harm to missionary work or the teaching of scripture. As for the OSCE, as stated before, they were invited to these meetings, just as others who were invited to speak their mind. At the end, for example, if I had the power to attempt to shut down Christianity, denomination after denomination, surely to prevent any mistreatment of members, as well as halting any knowledge of God, you'd probably be the first to accept invitation from those who seek to stop my actions, especially if I had the resources to halt freedom to practice worship/religion that would effect a great multitude of people, perhaps ban and suspend those who get in my way, you would know that even God wouldn't want such a thing to happen, let alone Jesus himself or the Angels who also watches Man on earth. The thing is here, Christian minorities will do what is needed to prevent such persecution being done to them, especially if it hinders one's ability to freely practice their faith and worship of God. Also if I won in that example I have given, the first course of action was to tag warrants for investigation for any man or woman who is caught uttering anything from scripture, should I succeeded in this example (or my own little parable if you will), Christians would consider my actions vile, perhaps even far worse. In this sense, it is a reality that some face today, even Jehovah's Witnesses (mainly in the Asian and European countries). Being representatives at the OSCE isn't strongest argument against Jehovah's Witnesses. The presentations are to the OSCE to promote religious freedom, an activity in itself the Christian denominations are 100% open about, even Jehovah's Witnesses. They openly go to court and meet with politicians if it will promote freedom of worship. I myself know if God doesn't want his word to be lost, halted, falsified and or tarnished, he would use his people to correct these wrongs and or speak up to prevent any of such from happening. My other sources, the ones I left out from my previous post: http://www.osce.org/odihr/268401?download=true http://perimeno.ca/TheEuropeanAssociationofJW - Egypt.pdf http://perimeno.ca/JW - statement to the OSCE Sept - Oct 2008.pdf Final note: Paul confronted Cesar, not only making the gospel known, which was also mentioned on Euseblus's documents.

Defending of one's religion doesn't make them part of what you claim they are, in addition, world religion leaders in general are part of the Israeli Interfaith and said members of the Interfaith NGO are sponsored by ECOSOC and or UNICEF (any sponsor affiliate that enables one to aid UN in decision making), putting them in the chair when it comes to UN affiliations and decision making, NGOs who are not sponsored and or don't meet DPI criteria, remaining as a associate member, don't have that luxury. The other thing is, Jehovah's Witnesses, as well as several denominations are not gullible, examples being the Religious Reformation of October 2017 That being said, in a short and simple answer: Because the Jehovah's Witnesses and or any religious denomination who attended the OSCE, does not automatically make them part of the World's Religious System, UNLESS, said religious groups are the one's pulling the strings behind everything and aiding that of Superpowers, governments, UN decisions, and the like. Plus it wouldn't make sense that the Jehovah's Witnesses helped in making decisions either besides defending religious/human rights, for France has robbed them financially, Russia has been a Dog on Bone when it comes to the religious denomination of JWs, as well as the UN's Anti-Semitic nature to some religious groups (Members of Islam, Jewish, other from Christian denominations, including JWs) in the past. Defending rights doesn't make one part of the World's religious system, evident through early church Fathers and even students of Jesus' Apostles. I have paraphrased the below to keep it somewhat short instead of literally posting a page of information. First you need to understand what it means, OSCE means this: Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_for_Security_and_Co-operation_in_Europe The OSCE conference the representatives of civil society sit with governments on an equal footing. Its extensive attendance list also included representatives of Jehovah's Witnesses; individuals from Poland, Russia, Germany, and or any persons in the European area that attended. Not sure of the actual date, but if I am not mistaken it took place around September 24 - October 5, 2007. The Jehovah's Witnesses made something fairly clear in one of their Awake magazines from 1997, whereas the topic in question says this: OSCE—What Is It? Will It Succeed? It says: From Jehovah's standpoint, is it alright for a worshiper of his to attend conferences of a worldly political organization, such as the OSCE, and address its delegates? Regarding Eusebius (Well known Church Father, best imho), who is highly regarded by many as "The Father of Church History," and who attended the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 C.E., convened by Roman Emperor Constantine, a A Watchtower article (2003, 7/15 , pg. 29-31) states the following: The article, quoting from James 4:4, rightly notes that the friendship with the world is enmity with God, and if this applied to Eusebius back in 325 C.E. then it certainly applies also to Christians today, including the Jehovah's Witnesses. As the scripture goes on to tell us, "Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is constituting himself an enemy of God." There is good reason why God has told his people not to put their trust 100% in the nobles among them, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs." - Psalms 146:3-5; compare to Jeremiah 17:5-8, 13. The leaders of the Jehovah's Witnesses know full well that one cannot be partaking of the table of God and the table of demons, without inciting Jehovah to jealousy -1 Corinthians. 10:20-22. We personally do not know or aware of the things being done behind closed doors by the ones we look at to as our leaders, but we do know that everything is seen and heard by God, him with whom we have an accounting. Examples of this is Moses Sister Miriam and Aaron, even though Moses wasn't with them as they spoke, but God knows, God's eyes is on all who walk the earth, on the creatures that roam the lands and in the sea, in addition, this reflects Isaiah's prophecy rings for God's people today based on Isaiah 9:15-17. Information on the Reformation: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41817418 Note: I will not go into detail of what it signifies, but this has caused mass concern for those within Christianity, well those who hasn't submitted themselves to side with the world religious leaders whereas for it's intentions and goals with aid from the UN. This event has put most Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses to have a common opponent, even some who are neutral with JWs share this common enemy. What can be said is the Reformation is something that is not a good thing, to the world leaders and religious leaders of false teachings, yes, but never to those who know the bible, those who know God and Jesus, they won't fall to tactics like that so easily. As for World Leaders, they are all join together, thanks to the UN, they were able to start their conquest for Peace. Be careful of whom you cast your stones at. Source: http://perimeno.ca/Letters_1107_OSCE.htm

Some people just don't have time for the press lol.

This is what real cult behavior looks like, the doctor didn't see things like this:  The fact of the matter is, there are people who want to learn who God is and who Jesus is in order to gain life that is eternal and everlasting, John 17:3. But some blind teachers tend to stray people from the truth and into accursed teachings, as Galatians 1:1-8 describes. One of the very reasons why Muslims tend to mock Christianity because of what majority of Trinity believers turned Christianity into. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2L0b2z6WsM (more silliness) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crqgGy2MDJY (Crazy Christian Children Preachers)   Some Christian with cult-like behavior tend to have some "style" compared to those who seem possessed; gotta admit, this Christian guy dances better than me tbh.   Children Edition: Â

It is kinda funny how some who use John 1:1 and claim Jesus is God has no idea of the biblical, historical and scriptural context via manuscripts. That being said, it is correctly translated to "a god" or "was a god", and such as been stated waaaaaaaay before Jehovah's Witnesses/Bible Students have been established. I will not go into detail because when I tend to explain something, I go full on context, and I believe the Jehovah's Witnesses are in the write for correcting the wording in that text. Other variations of rendering John 1:1 also exist (simple wiki search): You see here most tend to go with "a god" or "was a god", in addition, ancient Greek differs from modern Greek. In ancient times, they rarely use uppercase letters. NOTE: some translations tend to use Divine or divine, Deity or deity, vice versa. what is 100% true regardless of translation, "The Word was With God". Another thing to add, Jesus can't be God the Father because A::: Shema Yisrael, something that Jesus had to do since he was a Jew born in the law and he included this in prayer to God and B::: When Jesus was a Baby, Zechariah thanked God, even giving God praise in Luke 1:68, 69, he began to speak due to Holy Spirit bestowed upon him for Zechariah spoke to God pretty much about Lord Jesus who was still in the womb of Mary. Jesus is refereed to as the Horn of Salvation, in English, The Savior (Born Powerful Savior). Sahidic Coptic to English - In the beginning existed the word and the word existed with the god and a god was the word 14th century: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word" – Wycliffe's Bible (translated from the 4th-century Latin Vulgate) 1808: "and the Word was a god" – Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London. 1822: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.) 1829: "and the Word was a god" – The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829) 1863: "and the Word was a god" – A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863) 1864: "the LOGOS was God, This was in the Beginning with God" – A New Emphatic Version (right hand column) 1864: "and a god was the Word" – The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London (left hand column interlinear reading) 1867: "In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God" – The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible 1879: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979) 1885: "and the Word was a god" – Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885) 1911: "and the Word was a god" – The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911) 1935: "and the Word was divine" – The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago 1955: "so the Word was divine" – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen. 1956: "In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity" – The Wuest Expanded Translation[16] 1958: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed" (J. L. Tomanec, 1958); 1962, 1979: "'the word was God.' Or, more literally, 'God was the word.'" – The Four Gospels and the Revelation (R. Lattimore, 1979) 1966, 2001: "...and he was the same as God" – The Good News Bible 1970, 1989: "...and what God was, the Word was" – The Revised English Bible 1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" – Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany 1975: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975); 1978: "and godlike sort was the Logos" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin 1993: "The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God, in readiness for God from day one." — The Message, by Eugene H. Peterson.[17]  I speak to defend the scriptures, and that is what I intend to do.

I will be brief (kinda) because I have made note of such a while ago by some Muslim guy was trying to put all Christians into one category. To understand why it says what it says in Matthew 28:19, you'd have to go back a verse, as well as look at other verses in context with the one you are focused on, from a perspective as a Christian and from a perspective as on how early Christians interpret it (An example would be Church Father and Historian Eusebius). What Jesus was saying in Matthew 28:18 is that the Father has given him, the Son, all authority. We must now check out as to how this occurred. This authority is administered by the Holy Spirit in the disciples who baptize all nations. The reason Father (Yahweh/Jehovah), Son (Yeshua/Jesus), are mentioned together here is because we have just been told all authority has been given by the Father to the Son, in this sense, Jehovah God has bestowed authority and power to Lord Jesus Christ. With this in mind, the reason Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned altogether is because this authority given to Jesus is administered by his servants via the Holy Spirit. So when we come to the book of Acts and see them baptize in the name of Jesus we should not see this as contradicting Jesus' instructions in the gospel of Matthew. Baptizing them in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit wasn't really something they were supposed to say out loud when they were baptizing. Jesus was explaining on what terms they would be doing this baptizing. Since Jesus had been given all authority he would now send out these disciples in HIS name because HE had been given that authority by the Father. And Jesus sent them out by filling them with the Holy Spirit (John 20:22), hence the meaning of Baptism and or Ritual Washing/Mikveh, that the follower is now following the teachings of this teacher. To insist that name here is a proper name of the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is an hermeneutic violation of the immediate context ignoring the fact that all (singular) authority/power had been given to Jesus alone as seen in Matthew 28:18. This occurred when God raised him from the dead (Risen Jesus) and seated him at His right hand, hence God given authority. The one thing which the singular name is pertaining to is the one authority of God the Father (Yahweh/Jehovah) through God's Son (Yeshua/Jesus) in God's Holy Spirit (God's Active force and or his hands/fingers as described in both Psalms 8:3, 19:1 and in Luke 11:20/compare to Matthew 12:28). The disciples are to do these things in the name of the authority of the Father, given to the Son, by the Holy Spirit, this is why Jesus commanded his disciples to do nothing until they had received the Holy Spirit from on High (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4-5,8; 2:33,36). The interpretation presented here is demanded not only by the ancient concept of a name but the force of the immediate context and the consistent testimony of the Scriptures. As such, the word name is not a reference to one identity, but to one plan and purpose of authority. Another thing to know within the origin of Baptism (this is kinda off-topic), there is a custom called The Mikveh (מקווה). The bible does not use the Mikveh, however, it is used in context, as seen in Genesis 1:9, described as a "collection of water". In 1 Corinthians 1 :14-16 Paul explains baptism of individuals, in this sense, a teacher who baptizes his disciples in an immersion of water, in the Mikveh, in his name, which means that the follower is now following the teachings of this teacher, which is evident in Paul's actions in the New Testament, coming his disciples. This is what is met in Acts 2 :38, which signifies that when one is baptized in Jesus' name, it means they now follow the teachings of Jesus.

Well majority of Christendom does (share in the dislike/hatred) others just dislike or consider it wrong, but do their best to speak truth to those in the Catholic Camp. Even greater now for reasons being what took place in late October 2017 caused an uproar in the Christian communities of all. In a sense, the Reformation is a collection of Religious Leaders who comply with what Pope Francis is doing, so it is understandable from the perspective of Jehovah's Witnesses. That being said, ever group has it problems for we are all imperfect, the very thing that binds us all together because we inherit such from Adam and Eve.

As I stated before, there are many Russians who don't like where things are going, they fear a Soviet-Era based Russia, and the worse is yet to come as March 2018 continues to come closer by the day.

Yes this was heard, however you fail to know everything else that surrounds Australia itself in regards to its laws and customs. However bashing of one's religion is "childish", but it seems evident from a man who likes to waste his time. For me I respect the Jehovah's Witnesses a lot, this is coming from a guy who knows Christian history and manuscripts of the oldest source, which the Jehovah's Witnesses stick to. Believe it or not, a friend of mine who is a Jehovah's Witnesses is the reason why my brother is no longer a depressed wreck because of an "issue" he had before he moved out, a clean and new man. Other then that, they are doing a lot of right bible-wise and as a Christian compared to most. FYI, if you are one of the guy's I ran into before, please tell your troop to not make fun of the Manchester Bombing whereas people were killed in cold blood. It would put my heart at ease when you guys actual act "human" when such things take place. At the end of the say there is good people, and there is bad people, and only bad people will have the intent to do bad whereas the opposite will have the intent to do what is good.

There is a lot going in Russia that some do not realize, and has caused an uproar in the Russian community; I stated this before and what I say is true. That being said, as March 2018 draws near, the FSB and Kremlin continue to play the same tactic with opposers, so called "Heroes" and religious minorities. It is better to see things going on in Moscow by looking up news in Russia by the media that has not been blocked by the State Duma.

To thing the internet would meet such a terrible fate by the likes of this guy (Even Mark Hamill aka Luke Skywalker doesn't like him): and his Reese's mug  Â

Looks Project Blue Beam-sque to me. http://educate-yourself.org/cn/projectbluebeam25jul05.shtml Also a reminder of the "fake sky" thing of 2016.

All I know is my buddy, who is a Jehovah's Witness, his uncle is like one of those guys who is ready for ANYTHING. They know a thing or two about survival because camping was something they do a lot, his uncle on the other hand was more advanced in these things, even knowing what plants is edible and how to survive in an environment that yields no electricity, no light, etc. He is one of those guys who knows how to live without the use of electronic devices, so I know who to go to when things go down. My friend mentioned several months back there had been EMP and nuclear drills going on in the Tri-State area, closer to New Jersey there was the Gotham Shield (not a Batman thing, but this was real) thing going on, which only a few people were aware of. Not only you will have to worry about getting through the day by surviving off of food,water and essentials, but you'd have to be subtle and stealthy as possible, for people will go nuts like in a post-apocalyptic type vibe. So people will be lone wolves or be in groups to kill, steal, and kidnap people. Then you have to worry about wild beasts for they will run rampant, i. e. since the zoos will be down, possibility of wild beasts getting out in the streets, woodland areas and the like. I think I went overboard lol, but the thing is. Survival is possible, as long as you are food ready and water ready, but there will be a chance, a high chance, of people going lone wolfing or wolf packing on those who have things, and Anything goes, anyone who is armed will try and do something, others who are armed or know some type of defense techniques will be ready to defend themselves and those they protect. One has to be very wise to stay below radar, avoid conflict and try to survive. In today's society, people tend to care more for electronics, then food itself. This guy gives a good point on the day of Black Friday:

To be fair, there has been a Jehovah's Witness group that had been recorded giving supplies and water to people and some guy uploaded a video of this during the whole Texas Hurricane thing. Opposition eventually came to this video and did whatever it took to vote down, dislike and eventually get the video removed/or user made it private because the hate in the comment section was off the charts, an hour later a video popped up from another user claiming JWs didn't do anything at all. I know this because I am that One Storm Trooper that hangs around the block a couple times, if you catch my drift lol. Since I watched the video before it got removed, not only did the JWs help their own, but they did indeed help others, the same could be said for Mexico and Florida and Puerto Rico. Not everyone Christian can prove works by opening a shelter, school, etc. The only thing that matters is the good YOU can do as an individual Christian and promote the teachings of Jesus Christ about his Father and the Kingdom that is to come. I was told by someone in a place I use to work at, he was a non-religious guy who respects Christianity (only a few denominations), he had said to me that if Jesus was alive today, he would do the good that he can do with the little he has, and one of the main important things that matters most is getting the gospel of the good news across by any means necessary, and that is what counts. But building those things would be a plus, but it isn't necessary to get the message out.

Yeah the bible was written for all. But there are those out there that want to or has altered the bible so people can cherry pick it. Believe or not, this Trinity belief that some seem to toot around is the sole purpose as to why Christianity in the US and the EU is declining fast. Only those that know the truth remain steadfast. That being said, I have recently delved deep into looking into manuscripts and the history for some, like the Septuagint for example.

Hipsters tend to think of the most wildest things, this one fits the bill.

It makes you think you know, sorry if I get a bit of off topic. There has been a lot of talk about Religion, a lot of UN stuff, and a lot of Religious unity things in the light of October 2017's reformation. What is going on in Jerusalem now, US Evangelicals inside the White House wanted this, disregarding the chaos going on in the Holy City as if nothing is happening there.There has been unnecessary deaths, a lot of them that the news isn't talking about.

Russia is getting alarming powered up by the church and state, meanwhile they claim victory of an enemy that can't really be defeated in the Middle East. This goes for the other things taking place in Europe, Asia and the Emirates. 2018 is gonna be that one roller coaster right that made you scream like you never scream before.

Next thing you know, robots will turn on humans. As if movies and games taught us anything, you anger the machines, they will retaliate. It all comes down to intelligence. Elon Musk sure loves his A.I. So far A.I.s can get a success rate in doing surgical tasks, gaming, getting information, can destroy anyone in a game of chess, and more. In otherwords..... SKYNET! Â Â

Venezuela itself has been and is relatively dangerous now with all the things taking place prior leading to what the country is now and possibly for the future. Brazil as a whole is dangerous.