Space Merchant

@TrueTomHarley Yes. I have often seen in other communities that if they do not make a school, a hospital and or the like then they are "Not of God" or "Not of Christ". Many people seem to be missing the point of what it means to be of God and his Christ.

That is an odd statement. There was actually a governing body of Christians in the 1st century, but certainly far different from today's religious leaders. Even during those times, there as been others as the latter grow old and die and others take their place.

@4Jah2me That just shows you do not know US and or international law regarding copyright (I also like to point out that even the non religious who pinned this story know more as well regarding said law). If the material is actually for them, and they can distribute as they see fit, why say otherwise? Therefore using this verse in regards to this shows you have no idea what you are going about, therefore using the verse and or passage out of context. We can also see you are in motion with your own notion and feelings vs. actual fact. That being said, I am still awaiting for the evidence from your last statement which you claim. Mind you, elsewhere you spoke of deceit and lies, I would quote you too if need be. So if the later claim was indeed a lie, how speak of it as a truth? To use that verse in this regard, was not your deed a wicked one? Therefore, my statement concerning you is fact and true: You can hate them til death, but to go about something that is false is, to quote you, deceitful and a lie. At least be honest about something, hence, if the copyright laws said, as seen in this situation, why speak otherwise? The only way one can actually put the faith group to the test if they haven't registered said material, in this case, that would be a win for faith leaks because for the JWs it would be difficult, but the reality is, the content is registered. Second, most of us know Bible Principles very well, but, not many not the context of said Bible Principles and or Biblical fact, often times, the collective would use THEIR exegesis and emotions in the face of something factual in Scripture, which shows the clear separation between the True and the Mainstream. It is not the need of money regarding faith leaks, as of how everyone is seeing it, it is regarding material produced by them that is taken, and, some even attested to the idea that said material was stolen. But yes, no different from an Embargo.

@TrueTomHarley It is ironic because the very sighting of the 503 (c) again reminds me of how the latter said otherwise in the past. But someone who gives food to those in need are capable, people who are unable to and or not doing it, it does not mean they are negative, but some would think otherwise, for I recall, Jesus instruction was the focus, although the other things are nice as well, but one should not go off from what is commanded, something of which people tend to forget about.

It would seem as though the church mouse can no longer speak of said claim - which is understandable because the engineering of their own demise was the root of said downfall, thus backfiring. Long story short - The image/article provided in the last response does not, and has never stated 1975 was indeed God's Day. The irony of it all is elsewhere the notion of "deceit and lies" was professed, but here we see a different story. To quote myself: A bit hypocritical, don’t you think? That being said, as for the topic, the way I see it is that I want to note the following from some of the articles I've read thus far: The Witnesses say they created 74 “original motion pictures” and have copyrights on them. But those movies were obtained and uploaded to FaithLeaks.org, a place where whistleblowers can anonymously submit material. The Truth and Transparency Foundation — run by the same people — then took that material, researched it, and published an investigative piece on the matter. Somewhat related, but I also like to point out that: Most institutions, even religious groups, do not want specific meetings recorded for various reasons, i.e. said meeting information will go forth to another group and into another language, etc, however, would later release said meeting and or produce the same meeting elsewhere in another language. This is not too far off from The Media’s Embargo regarding books, video games and or video game companies (I'm looking at you - Nintendo), movies, comics, and more. For at times breaking said Embargoes there are consequences, likewise if anyone is playing around with copyrighted material. If the material, in this case being media such as videos are registered copyright and or some office, then the Jehovah’s Witnesses can sue the uploader, in this regard, being the website and or owner(s) of Faith Leaks, and they can sue for damages on a statutory level, meaning, should they see fit, video(s) individually (each one), not to mention the fees for lawyers in some degree. Now, if they don’t have this material registered, then it would be limited to the latter option, in addition, they would they have to commit to having proof, which if this was the alternative, it would be very difficult on the Jehovah's Witnesses' end. Regardless if it is material from the Jehovah's Witnesses, a YouTuber, Musician, Artist, etc. If the material is also close to the original in all sense, even if used in commentary, criticism, parody, etc. You’d have to fall into the fair use category to evade such things, but not all the time an opportunity is an easy one to gain, and one should expect what is to happen. That being said, as a point I’ve made, if the material is indeed copyrighted, then posting it entirely, 100% is a breach and to some extent, some might see it as piracy. So in this situation, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have a point in relation to this situation. Not knowing the basics of copyright would have people jump to conclusions, as is seen here, so much to the point, there are those who are either religious and or not religious making this point. That being said, if these are copyrighted materials, then posting them in their entirety is piracy in some degree. So the JWs have a point in that case. Moreover, some are stating this to be stolen content, which is another can of worms of it’s own, hence to profess fair use regarding stolen content only spells T.R.O.U.B.L.E. you stole. Under US Law, from what I have been looking into regarding copyright, is that whether the non-copyright-holder makes money off the copyrighted material, in addition to that, the legitimate holder of said copyright has 100% control and exclusive rights to said material, and they themselves can decide and determine how the material is used. Therefore, the latter really does not have the ball in their court regarding the legality of things, likewise to that of a Comic Book Junkie who made an attempt to record, perhaps the Batman movie using nothing more than his or her cellphone within, in turn, to produce it has their own. Or for our parting friend, JTR aka The Rook, if he created a magnificent movie and I was the cellphone guy and produce said material elsewhere somewhat as my own, I'd have hell to pay for my actions and the consequences of my actions would follow suit. Although I am still looking into copyright things myself, I do not see what is stopping you, and or said collective. Well, said collective failed regarding Trust Funds and the like, Non-Profits, tax-exempt under section 501(c)s, Benefactors, Copyright, Concordances, NGOs/UNs registrations and resolutions, tenets, and the list continues.

Some of Rook's jokes are also humorous I also see his post not as binding to mixing things up. But yes, anyone is welcomed back, this goes for any forums or other media, but should things change, you'd have to adjust to these changes.

@4Jah2me Really..... Surely this is not the best you can do for I nearly mistook it as a joke, also this is the same thing John Butler pulled a while back, same with Screko, and somewhat of a worthy Christian history challenger - COS (who in turn set the wheels of debate and was the start of everything), So to you, 4Jah2me, close but no cigar. But the attempt..... Was quite elementary. As with the very first statement ever made as I told Butler, I am a Biblical Unitarian, which is both fact and true, however, as pointed out, not ALL Unitarians are the same, for example, the notion of pre-existence and no belief in pre-existence concerning Jesus (I suggest you check your link to that website, for you have a nasty habit of not looking at your sources clearly) and a list of other things such as textual criticism, excommunication, homosexuality, etc, more so, others, even the universal ones think otherwise. Reasons why I have mentioned that there are various forms of Unitarians, as pointed out in my first debate with Cos on this form regarding the history of the church and church fathers. Moreover, as I also mentioned to Butler, I have an issue with INTERFAITH, even pointed out that some Unitarians are part of it, as for me, I am no part of Kairos, nor am I a part of the EII. But I invite you, if you type in "interfaith" in the search, you will find most items pertaining to me: Now, this below And what are you trying to prove with this point? I do invite you to try however. Moreover, the other bit is a bit odd. Which is contradicting because from my history here, I take issue with misconceptions and other things, I do not try to promote unity of all faiths despite their is some common ground concerning God and or the Christ. There are Let this sink in, one of my remarks about interfaith among a dozen:

Both references and the the like shows for it, granted what makes it confusion is the interaction of Sheba to Solomon, especially her comments towards him, which is practically God blessing him, and the fact she saw that God was the mastermind behind Solomon's wisdom and prosperity, we also see that regarding Solomon, it is in accordance with the promise. Would it not have made sense to had cited Deuteronomy 4:5-7? It does make a bit more sense, especially if you were to pass the information to the learner, whom would read and take on the conclusion of the concept of a chosen people rather than the latter. As for Jacob, Deut. 9:5 and Deut. 7:6, would also make sense. I also forgot, Malachi 1:2 is another one, regarding Jacob, going with your statement that fits perfectly. As for the first citation it is right as I said because the marginals I can see pointing to such, not to mention the notations that are at it's company.

It's the material. The material is free to use, however, in some instances, if there is other material that is not public and or made private and soon to be public, then you have a problem, mainly if said information is sensitive and can jeopardize not just the entity, but specific persons, I remember giving you a real in life bloody example that took place in one country. Said published material is indeed free of charge and use, so that statement of yours is a bit off. The article points out something a tad bit different, Srecko.

It is wise to understand as to why this was spoken of regarding Abraham. In Scripture this was noted several times. That is also true, but one should not be confusing both concepts.

We know of the 1st Century church, the point of which you missed is the instruction. Pay attention. And your point? The churches of old, likewise, as is with what happen 325AD and beyond. Right in your thinking? I haven't see anything from you concerning Biblical Unitarianism. If so, give some insight because I see nothing of the sort from you. It is not about tolerance. It is about cutting through conspiracy and misinformation, granted this forum was a controversial setting for speaking such things as is with church history. I do the same with Islam, hence I destroy conspiracy with factual fact in said sense. As is with Judaism. If you haven't notice, I study religion. There IS one way to serve God, and as pointed out in the past, said path not many is aware of it, and or on that path, trying to get there. And yet your other remark said otherwise. But this is true of you, your assumptions get the better of you, even when when the Bible speaks the truth.

What some fail to see is that Jesus gave instruction on how the church is to function. Even if you tell someone this a number of times, as is done on this forum on occasion, they forget very easily, for they do not truly read what is stated. Now, despite these instructions, the men Jesus entrusted, and later other men, were not perfect, therefore, early points in the church's history one can see what was went down, as is with church practices among the early Christians. That is correct concerning God's Laws, however, some are a bit confused on God's Laws, and, I know Srecko loved this one, how it correlates with Biblical Facts. But yes, when we take up God's Laws and the principles found in Scripture and do well to apply them, we can grow spiritually, and our faith will be strong, but just as a muscle trained by body builders, as is with our faith, we do must continue to train it so it is always growing and staying strong, likewise, as with the Faithful Servant passage, spiritual food and milk is gain through that network as well. That being said, I do not know how anyone can think as him, granted, I am still flabbergasted by the last decision with him regarding Ba'laam, even prior to my ministry tours with some folk, that notion was still absurd in all sense. All in all, the core of it all is understanding God's Word, what it means, and how to apply it.

Learning correctly from the Scriptures is all that someone needs, especially you yourself, from what I can see. Once one understand God's Word, it does not stop there, they continue to progress and build up their faith in the profess. Regardless if someone is a JW, Biblical Unitarian, etc, they can learn too, it is not difficult. When one learn as such, they can develop spiritual growth with ease. I'm only issue is conspiracy, falsehood and misconception. My biggest issue is Trinitarianism and the later manuscripts that commits to error in Scripture. That being said, this just shows you assume things without knowing. I believe there is a lesson in the Bible for that, perhaps apply it, and maybe you too can take your own advice and medicine in regards to spiritual growth.

@César Chávez Despite such, the origin of material is of the original source regardless, as mentioned before, such is the same with all institutions. We should not also forget of how the law works too, something of which people got confused with and assumed things with other things, for instance the whole situation about ARC concerning the JW faith. That being said, us Unitarians know of the owner as well, despite the fact all of us, regardless of faith, suffer from the actions of a few men and women with brazen ideas, this is to be expected. But at the end of the day, material under such notion always belongs to whom it originated from, especially if said material was used in a way that differs from origin and or the like. As I mention to Rook, outside of the religious space and into cooperate, it is FAR worse if the institution roles were in reverse, in a sense, such would kill you without you being deceased, but still alive, or in an understandable form - cancel culture in a permanent form.

It seems some people do not know what being "No Part of the World" means. For starters, to be "No Part of the World" is to avoid the Spirit that is driving this world, and or we BU's call it, "The World's Spirit". We are to avoid a form of thought that promotes wickedness and or intent to do bad, something of which is very common in today's world, as is with the fact that some people do this either knowingly and or unknowingly. As 1 John 5:19 points out this world originated not with The Most High, but rather, the so called Elohim of this world, for if one does not know this notion, I believe a Bible Study Group session should be in order. Should one develop such intent and a way of thought, results in one succumbing to The World's Spirit, for not being careful, would land one into this messy spider web, thus becoming among the sons of disobedience should one allow such a breach, hence Ephesians 2:2 (also see Ephesians 6:10-18). One can easily become part of the world, should they adhere to immodesty in action and or appearance. Admiration of Nationalism and or partaking of the wild beast, hence the so called Mark. Dwelling into picking a side in the political spectrum when it is to God's government you must adhere to. And so forth. Now, although we are to respect the authorities out there, should any authority's action crosses over to that of God's Law, then that is where some action is to be taken. That being said, to do all things of God and in, especially when it comes to our actions and thinking, despite our imperfection, we are do strive to do such, and to do good. We cannot speak for others, but as an individual, or like-minded folk, we are to apply the ways of Yah.

@Health and Medicine Well one thing for certain, granted this is a new and unknown virus, we cannot be too safe and in the clear to think as such. So best to see how it all plays out.

@Kosonen Difficult to say if somehow everyone is deemed an enemy, and said individual is quickly judged by the common man, even if mere mistake is present with a correction to follow it up.

Actually, the head of the Church is still the Christ, therefore, Christ is still the leader of the Church despite not being on earth. The Bible tells us that he provided the keys to his followers and gave instruction on how to handle things, in turn, the church congregation of Christians were built up, as to be seen with the majority of 1st Century Christians after being given the gift to do the work, but the latter statement is indeed true. Jesus was never gone for good, he is at the right hand of The Most High, Elohim, Yahweh. Although he has been made superior, as we read in Hebrews, that does not necessarily mean he is down for the count, especially the fact his command and instruction is to be done before God gives him the "OK" to make his return to gather his people. The commission of the gospel is to be done without fail, and so thereafter, we know what is to come.

Well it is a good thing a friend of mine got her husband out of India weeks in advance. That being said, people think that the season would do away with this virus, but they are very wrong. The longer this goes on, the more power is to be expressed.

Rook has done it before. He's part of the family pretty much.

@4Jah2me And So I saith to thee, Give me a direct """"quote""""" of them stating Armageddon will happen in 1975? Example: Frosted Flakes, random I know, but proving a point. The slogan of this cereal brand is "They're Great!" and their mascot is an anthropomorphic humanoid tiger named Tony. Who said the quote directly as stated? Tony the Tiger. Now, all you did was post a picture of an article (haven't you read it), of which was posted several times over on this forum, and debunked. For further detail, to make a claim that they said 1975 was indeed God's Day was to occur, I do not see what is stopping you from quoting said claim, in this case, the name of the person who said it and where it took place. I got another example for you "Beauty is in the Eyes of the Beholder" who said it? Margaret Wolfe Hungerford. Other than that, the way I see it, a strong sermon often tends to make people speculate, and jump to conclusions, as noted last time. I think someone stated something before as projected, but the claims out there that say otherwise does not hold enough water. I will note your response because I do not want another Glasgow (Srecko knows, and he was sorry for it) to happen: That being said, relating to the topic at hand, as we speak, if something of someone is in use, especially without permission and or improperly, they have the right to take action. EDIT: Thank you for proving me point, again. Now - Your claim would be a strong one, if they had indeed made the claim. The only thing in that article of yours that I am somewhat not easy with is the King James Version of the Bible, nothing more. As I pointed out, before your arrival, we had spoken about this before, that is why I mentioned Rook, JWInsider and the others, regarding the subject, this is one of several threads for 1975.

@TrueTomHarley Likewise, in the debating community of which I am from, everyone (and their mother) will know if you left and or return, and whatever you say and or have done, is always in memory, be it something positive, negative, silly, thought provoking, etc. Granted said community, even me, we are as such and for good reason we remember these things, even mistakes that we've made, but a mistake doesn't result in a person to remain on the ground. For me case, an absurdly flabbergasted based response, I usually make a comment to, often times if I am too quick and or forgetful, I to can make a mistake. That being said, all the things Rook said, I do not forget, I still recall the comments we made about "Unicorns" in the Bible and The Second Amendment.

That would have to be looked into. That being said, there's always the Issac Newton route.

The irony of it all, it was your sources that let me to the articles. If you haven't noticed, anything related to Wikipedia, at the very bottom there are citations and notes, when you search for said citations, it takes you to a number of books and or articles. Therefore, I was agreeing with the cited sources of which you proved, it was not by my own hand. If it was not for your Wikipedia quotes, I may not have been able to find more information, such as The Jubilee Year. I don't appear to be superior, not at all. That is why it can be said, when I told you to prove it, you failed a number of times. Someone doing research and finding the truth of the matter does not mean they are superior, it means they put in the time to do the work. This was discussed at least 4-5 times on prior, with JWInsider, Anna, and a number of others, including me weighing in on this. All of us, have pointed out what the Jehovah's Witnesses stated, moreover, what the meaning of Salvation is. Therefore, all that would need to be done is link the thread in question to prove said point. No. If I recall, I haven't uttered salvation at all on this thread in particular. I have elsewhere, and also stressed elsewhere that Salvation can be lost and or gained (regained). Clearly, you do not understand what was conveyed. Of course, Non-Trinitarians understand what it means to gain/lose salvation, you are responding to one - @Space Merchant. Other denominations, however, who most are not Anti-Trinitarian, state otherwise, for if one is saved, they can never lose salvation, which, if we go to the Bible, does not make sense, not to mention the verse we see in Jude. How so? Made made claims which you cannot be proven, I even invited you to prove them, which you had failed. Regarding a Prophet Inspired and Not Inspired, the Bible itself offers more proven than you assuming. You even alluded to my point, which thus makes it correct. If you go back to your comment, you made 2 claims regarding me, not the JWs. I told you to prove it, you haven't, this was the same end result as our first discussion. If the Bible speaks truth on what an inspired/no inspired prophet is, why do you say it is wrong? If I agree with the Bible, and you disagree, where does that leave you? I agree with the following verses, therefore, because of this, and your claim, it shows you are in error [Matthew 24:14, Luke 4:18, Acts 2:18, 19 and Romans 12:6-8] - you have a Bible, do you not? Read these verses, or simply read my refute response to Witness, of which I quoted a few comments up. Do you even understand the Parable of the Faithful Servant? As anyone can see, you've added your own assertions, every notion I pointed out in regards to this Parable is correct, especially when it comes to the flock and spiritual food. It is not that I agree with you, it is the fact you are going upon your own understanding, and not actually looking into Scripture to convey the truth of the matter. If I had not mentioned the Parable, you'd include something vastly different regarding what A Faithful Servant is. I suggest you re-read the below. The Bible holds more truth vs. mere assumption and or understanding. Again, MAN cannot assume such. When it comes to Chosen Ones, those that are chosen is between God and that individual. To make such a statement there is hell to pay in regards to the White Throne. Reasons why a majority of us Christians are neutral when it comes to this is for not wanting to beget a costly mistake. That being said, be it that they are or not, if I recall, among their community, it is said they have a number of chosen ones among them, it is not soley 8 religous leaders. Because I do research it irks you this much? If you did not know something and I pointed it out, you consider this being all knowing and superior? A mere rendering buttered your biscuit in this regard and if I point that out being knowledgeable is deemed a threat to you? You are beginning to remind me of Srecko now with the Donkey, Abraham and Glasgow discussions of the past (and it is for good reason I bring up reminders of old discussions, should specific points be made again). Also, if I recall, you were the one who brought all this put, as I tell many here, a do a response to a response, nothing more. That being said, you ignore what is true to fit the information you wish to convey, likewise with the Bible, you have little to no understanding of what a prophet inspired is and or not inspired, thinking that someone who is not inspired cannot grasp the holy spirit, when the Bible says otherwise. You cannot fool anyone, and it is no surprise you walked right into it by making these claims, not to mention you were the one to link the Wikipedia, somehow you do not agree with the very source which you linked. Perhaps next time remember this: If you are going to use a wiki, make sure the citations are NOT against your claims, otherwise, it can only prove to engineer your own err at the end of the day, i.e. said claim of yours stated that they said Armageddon would happen on 1975, but there was no claim made by them to suggest such, anywhere. Other than that, regardless, as for the topic at hand, although there is some level ground, however when this go beyong that, it is their information, they can do as they please with said information, for it originated from them and is provided by them, produced by them and shared by them, in terms of law and the like, it is for them, even outside of that, this goes for ALL entities, institutions, and the like.

@admin As I have been telling people, they do not know what to do with a virus they never faced before. So pretty much, they are throwing ideas at the wall hoping that something works. At the end of it, people suffer from it. As of recent, children under 5 are at risk, as is with women who are pregnant and or soon to give birth to a child. Black and Latino communities, still, are hit hard by this, and the lock-downs have driven people to go crazy, whereas others, have be pushed to take action. NOTHING will be the same after this is over. That being said, I had my corrals with some, but the the craziness out there, some actions are uncalled for, such as the below, regarding COVID-crazies, Karens and snitches. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/05/21/mississippi-church-burns-down-lawsuit-arson-suspected/5237387002/