Space Merchant

Wrong. The Pharisees used scripture and facts to ask their questions. That shows you don't know as much as you pretend to know. 

Pharisees used lies in the face of the Christ, but, the trick question was to root out a reasoning. So you linking that to the Pharisees was false, and it shows willful error
If you want to go down that route, I can easily quote you for Romans 12:9 which you used said verse to defense problematic issues that is not of God's favor. Man of God you say, but you do not abide by context, therefore you said what you said because you fled from the question.
Utter Pharisees again, and I will gladly link your quote.
That being said, while you were in hiding, the general public do interact with homosexuals in the workplace or in public, and to the homosexuals they are not psychic, they do not who you are or your views of homosexuality, therefore, if one asks you, you are in a position to explain to the person as to why you can't do this or that, in this trick question - why a Christian should not involve himself with such things, and how to convey to the homosexual the reason.
Quite the hypocritical mindset, on your part, Butler.

Quite interesting, but I believe someone has addressed how Christians are to operate in the face of superior authorities, more so, I hope you realize their is a distinction between the usage of the term. Granted the distinction and the already professed explanation of Romans 13, you'd have to do more than that to rely on such.
 
This was address a while back, so what is the point to bring this up now? Witness was debated on this in 2018, and in the reputation, she was confused on who the angel of the abyss was and did not connect who the locust were properly, likewise with The Destroyer, and the misuse of Greek Strong's, as shown here:
Also, references were ignored, therefore, it was amissed that  Revelation 9:7 is symbolic, thus pointing to to Joel 2:4, 5.
That being said, it is also noted Locust is used as a representation several times, figuratively.
Where is the evidence of misuse? Because you seem to even miss the context and references of the latter itself. In regards to Locust, I can easily make quotations to a few pieces of commentary. Likewise with Romans 13, and how Christians operate in this sense, which is no different from the early era of Christians.
Emerging Faiths, not Religions. There is a difference. As was addressed omitted verses and the like have not been used by the latter.
That being said, I find it humorous that the 2 questions addressed was in relation to JWfacts, however, you allowed a JW to answer them.
This essentially proves the point of what Christians and Muslims speak of concerning Former JWs, most of them are lost, as is, misguided.
John 7:53-8:11 and Acts 7:59 were very easy, this is why I used those verses on purpose due to the fact JWfacts deem these are legitimate verses, but the evidence say otherwise.
That being said, the attempt you made with Luke 17:36, shows the lack of knowing history of Scripture. You are free to make some spontaneous reaction if you wish, but the facts still stand as tall as a skyscraper.
You don't need to answer them, but you attempt with, again, Luke 17:36, which tells already, and it proves my point 100%. Not all men who leave their former faiths are that knowing despite the fact they claim to be. The do not dwell on research, in so much of a way, to an extent, build their faith.
That being said, it is funny how your own weapon of choice, JWfacts, ultimately resulted on you falling on your sword. If you actually lived up to your new name, you should know that if one actual sought truth, they'd understand as to why verses are removed/changed, for what reason, as is knowing what is inspired and what is not.
@Srecko Sostar A shame. And before you spoke a lot about Bible errors committed by JWs, yet the deviation of 2 elementary questions that were Textual Analytics focused spun you around. If you want another one, there's 1 John 5:7,8. More so you brought this up in the discussion regarding women leading churches.

The Military as been deployed to deal with people outside the Lockdown, which was no coincidence for those that said it will happen, some of us, whom were canceled for saying that. Now this has become a reality.
Germany, The United Kingdom, etc will follow before the US takes hold of this dark winter to come, which the powers that be, Babylon and others will profit off of.

As pointed out, it is not of my saying, it is the history itself, you are just as much of a Restorationist, as is, the majority of Anti-Trinitarians out there, be it a group or not, mainly in this modern age. What Subordinationism Christianity has birthed, Restorationism, has not changed. There is a deviation of Restorationism, should those accept the creeds instead of speaking out against it.
You're confusing beings with roots. There is a reason why I mentioned roots, as is what it means, something that is an origin or source (as of a condition or quality).
You're deviating from your lie now. Again, you were adamant about those speaking a lie, but to lie about a legitimate rival to Anti-Trinitarian, Jw or not, was willful on your part. I do hope you realize people can see that, especially a multitude of Anti-Trinitarians, for, to this day still battles with those in the prosperity camp, especially in regards to what they did some years ago that resulted in the interfaith nonsense.
Witness, it is slander to call Anti-Trinitarians prosperity preachers, you should have stuck with your false prophet notation instead of equating anything with Anti-Trinitarianism with a slanderous rival of which they dealt with for many, many years. The irony in this you speak of Babylon the Great alone, not realizing a potential threat. Therefore, Kosenen was right about you.
Learn the difference between the two.
You say this every time you evade addressing questions. But if we are to take it there, somehow a former JW adhere to a bit of New Ageism, and deconstruction of God's Order. Or cannot hold their own without the slight mention of a former faith.
So, as to my question, address it - If they're Prosperity Preachers as you said, what is the reason for Jehovah's Witnesses to be preachers let alone adhere to Commission and why they do not believe in the Trinity? 
You are a former JW, are you not? the answer should not be this difficult.
That being said, I find it quite ironic that for your 20 years, yet you proclaimed adhere to a guy, even defended without fact, who said your former faith hid literal poison in the basement of the churches, or perhaps believed in an untruth believing it to be truth, thus professing it yourself. The Biblical Facts thread comes to mind.
You referred to JWs as prosperity preachers, let alone Anti-Trinitarianism. That in of itself is slander.
GB you can speak of, I care not, but it is the obvious accusation of New Thought theology, which in of itself, does not make any sense.
This ahs noting to do with the question addressed to you. The prosperity theology or it's root, New Thought, has nothing truthful about it, which is evident from their inception and what transpired, and their role in Babylon.
What does this have to do with the question addressed to you concerning the commission and the Trinity?
Everyone who came out of the Great Commission, be it they hold on to their Restorationist roots or not, adheres to it. The Commission itself is rooted in Matthew 28:16-20 and to the gospel being taught to the Nations, hence Matthew 24:14; Mark 13:13. The Commission is the instruction of the resurrected Jesus Christ to his disciples to spread the gospel to all the nations of the world, and as we see in Scripture, it was later entrusted to the church to continue this command. In regards to majority of Anti-Trinitarians, even that of the JWs, to them, although the general public agree/disagree with some of their notations, they recognize them for adhering to the Great Commission, such, even pointed out by the non-religious.
Going back to the first century, the Commission was held strongly, since Pentecost 33AD and onward, even in the face of Bishops. Restorationists, those that maintain said roots, do not have their own Commission. In fact, the Great Commission sits on the basis of Matthew 24:14 alone; even then, Restorationist of the 19th century didn't know everything, but they sought to learn despite their counterparts moving into the direction of Creeds.
That being said,  the Commission was addressed many times and what it signifies, even to you, at one point you even ignorantly brushed it off as a Unification Church.
Not really. Majority of threads speaks of JWs alone, rarely is there any topic of "core teachings" on the forums concerning who God is, and or of Scripture. The only one ever brought forth, you turned it into a JW thread when the focus should've been Scripture and what is conveyed.
Plus, history is rarely spoken of in terms of Christology alone.
This has nothing to do with the question addressed to you concerning their roots vs. the claim.
The question remains below:
If they're Prosperity Preachers as you said, what is the reason for Jehovah's Witnesses to be preachers let alone adhere to Commission and why they do not believe in the Trinity? 

On the contrary Witness, these aren't philosophies, they're historical accounts concerning Christianity, mainly when it comes to origin. A Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental things, about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language, majority of which does not correlate with Christian Christology. Such questions are often posed as problems to be studied or resolved. Now, Christian philosophy differs greatly and most of the time, it is against what is in the core teachings, to some degree, the Scriptures alludes this when it came to anything that is accursed.  Christian philosophy is the set of philosophical ideas initiated in 2nd century to the present day, and it continues to now, I even refuted some of it here. Christian philosophy emerged with the aim of reconcile science and faith, starting from natural rational explanations, some of which generated over the centuries with its independent scientific and philosophical theories,  which even correlates with the idea of coexistence. It is also the direct result of paganism from some, like the Greeks.
Sure you can choose, as you stated, but isn't that in of itself spreading a lie to inform everyone that Restorationist are what they were against even prior to the 19th century Great Awakening? Remember, you spoke heavily about slander and lies, even that of misinformation, but clearly, you, misinforming people the difference between a Restorationist, be it a Jehovah's Witnesses, even you, also a Restorationist to that of anyone of the Prosperity Theology, derived from New Thought. Even when the facts are presented, you purposely refuse, which is telling because you were always open to facts when it fits your favor, although in some cases an err.
This is evidently the simplest of a historical accounts in Christian history, anyone can read.
That being said, if they are considered such by you, can you explain why they adhere to Commission and not believe Jesus to be God when 100% of Anti-Trinitarians do not believe Jesus is God? I mean, you were pretty clear on John 1:1, were you not?
These aren't my terms, they are straight from historical accounts and facts. It is evident you have Gnosiophobia in this regard. The irony here myself, Srecko and Evo essentially cited all historical sources, and said information was presented many times. I see this as a sad remark on your part because you just the following of mixing New Thought with Restorationism.
That said, it isn't my definition, if I recall, I was not born in the days Restorationism came out of it's predecessor - not of us were, at is. And God knows what you'd say if we bring up Subordinationism, which is essentially what birthed Restorationism.
This is willful slander regardless of disagreement with JWs. In this regard you only prove JWs to be right concerning misinformation. Although you can give point as to why GB is wrong, but to commit to a lie to even push your resolve is bad, mainly in the face of those who dealt with New Thought Christians. This is why people like Francis Chan always wins, and more and more people are swept by Babylon, from misinformation such as this.
So if they're Prosperity Preachers as you said, what is the reason for Jehovah's Witnesses to be preachers let alone adhere to Commission and why they do not believe in the Trinity?  Prosperity Preachers do not have preachers besides them and their circle and they hold the Trinity to an extremely HIGH regard. They are among the worse to deal with because of Interfaith involvement.
So this should be answered then - If they're Prosperity Preachers as you said, what is the reason for Jehovah's Witnesses to be preachers let alone adhere to Commission and why they do not believe in the Trinity? 
It isn't a worldly term, it is direct notation the Apostolic Age whereas Subordinationism existed. After the councils and everything that transpired, such ones came back as Restorationist in an attempt to not just restore the church, but the Scriptures. This is the reason why you have the notation of the 2 camps concerning God and Christ, with the latter believing Jesus is the Son of the Living God, Matthew 16:16.
The Jehovah's Witnesses are still considered Restorationist due to their history, even as Bible Students, and those who predate them - the facts were brought up.
Granted you like Bible Gateway, here you go concerning The Age of the Apostles - https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Apostolic-Age
You were adamant of history before, so why the change?
It isn't much of a dig up when you can simply look at the history of Christianity. You also just confused New Thought with literally Anti-Trinitarianism. If I may add, as I recall you briefly attested to New Ageism from your source in the past and you never corrected your statement, you were checked on that and informed on what New Ageism actually is. Again, even an err and not knowing can reap problems.
If that was the case, then you would not have been called out on this in the past, even now concerning Christian history.
Then Kosnen would not have checked you also for he speaks of himself as chosen. In his defense, he knows Christian history, and would not reduce himself to ignorant slander, which in turn, can cause people to be misinformed.
That being said, I suggest you learn the history because you showed yourself to be very brittle in this regard.
And thanks to you, you just have legitimately gave Prosperity Preachers some canon fodder granted all of this is public.
No Anti-Trinitarian would make such confusion, even if you are not for JWs.

The problem here is, what was linked and shown to you were historical facts. Anti-Trinitarians who are trying to be like, strive to be are Restorationist, you are technically one yourself - the primary reason - you do not believe Jesus to be God. I suggest you read study up, to confuse it with New Thought Theology is just willful ignorance.
It is that mentality of which Kosenen was correct about.
That being said, ironic how you express ignorance on the history, as you have done with New Ageism.
But like I said, Prosperity Preachers were as such and the fact that they get less heat coming their way only makes Babylon stronger.

@AraunaUnfortunately, this is the case made by a lot of people. At times former members of a faith group just go on their way, most of the time, if they seek God (Allah), they end up adopting a lot of ideas that. If not there, most disgruntled few stem into apostasy. Then you have the rift between former members and those that dwell on odd ideas, hope at times, will combat each other, in some instances, they'll end up defending their former faith against a former faith brother or sister, in other cases, it spawns Christian Infighting also called infighting of faith where as it is like a 2 or 3 way wrestling match at times. Even outside of Religion, this applies to the common man or woman regarding views, even in the higher education system regards students.
That being said, as the fact and point I made clear to the latter regarding Televangelism, the root of JWs and Bible Students, even the rest of the Anti-Trinitarian camp who make up Restorationist, wouldn't even consider such. It is one of the very reasons why back then Prosperity Preachers were dominate due to having such technology to do what they do, and to this day, there is still the enemy aspect between them and Anti-Trinitarians. The history is clear, but as you see, people refuse to even do research and assume things, conjuring misinformation themselves. It amazes me how some ignore the fact of what the real enemy is doing, therefore, when Babylon sweeps, there would not be anything to say for such ones because they've been told.
But let's imagine your faith does Televangelism, that would mean siding with Babylon wholeheartedly. This is why, in reality, you wouldn't be able to regardless if you tried, granted, Babylon already deems you an enemy. 

@Srecko Sostar I see why he asked you both those questions, it was based on not why us Jehovah's Witnesses use a translation that omits the verses in question, but rather, to make a distinction between people who knows about what is in the inspired text and what is not in the inspired text. So, since both you and @Patiently waiting for Truth are former Jehovah's Witnesses, even Witness - those were got ‘cha questions, this is why I said to @Patiently waiting for Truth he technically entrapped you both into Textual questions.
Space Merchant said -
NOTE: Jehovah's Witnesses were spoken of as committing various errors because of their New World Translation (NWT) of the Bible, and they teach that their action on this was because the errors were considered not inspired, hence 2 Timothy 3:16 (All scripture is given by inspiration of God). Not only they were spoken of as removing part of verses, but in their translation, removing a verse/passage entirely.
The answer to that note is: Those who consider later additions in the Scriptures, the majority, to be true, but in reality, to a degree they’re in error/incorrect. This accusation is prominently from Triune Believers, Preachers, and of course, Property Preachers since they were mentioned here. Those images, which he said, he pulled from the apostate website known as JWfacts concerning the NWT. The only reason the NWT is talked down by them is because it was produced by Jehovah's Witnesses, reasons why the JWFacts images compare other translations to give the reader an idea, in their eyes, why Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong. In reality, most people we come into contact who knows the history about the Bible, are aware about omitted verses and understand as to why we didn’t include the verse in the NWT.
His first question - 
The answer to that is that we are not in the wrong, same with the majority. He said "Textual Analytics” and “Hermeneutics” so that plays a part in the questions asked and gives one an idea as to what he is attempting to do by asking you.
John 7:53-8:11 isn’t inspired text - The Adulterous Woman (Pericope de Adultera) - John7:53–8:11 isn't Bible Canon/ is unauthentic, making it, viewed by most, as spurious and false; an exaggerated story. From what I’ve gathered, there are 267 Greek manuscripts, which are the earliest versions, and are considered the most important by Textual Analysts and or those who follow and are well-versed in Textual Criticism, would point out that none of those 267 contain this passage about the Adulterous Woman. Newer Bible translations that were compiled, and wrote after the more ancient manuscripts were discovered, either omit/remove the passage or add a note or reference along with the passage, stating it was not found in the more ancient manuscripts.
Like this passage, this is the same case for Mark 15:28 and Luke 17:36. Verses, such as Matthew 18:11; 23:14; Luke 17:36 are missing in the NWT used by Jehovah’s Witnesses. These verses are, as pointed out, not in the Common Bible. The reason is because these verses do not belong in the Bible even though many older translations included them. The original manuscripts of the “New Testament” books (the Christian Greek Scriptures) are not available today for use by translators. No one has discovered a Bible book autographed, as it were, by the apostles Paul, John, or others. Yet it is evident that soon after the originals were written, copies began to be made for use by the early Christians. The later copies, those farthest from the originals, tended to have more mistakes, not to mention the weak evidence regarding these types of verses - which brings us to the verses in question.
@Patiently waiting for Truth It is only strange at face value, but if you paid attention as to why he even brought up Textual Analytics, the answer would have been obvious, even if the parts were taken from another book to be “added” elsewhere, it is uninspired.
Same thing with Revelation 1:11, which it was “changed” to make it seem as though Jesus Christ is God, in the NWT and some Bibles, you see the original compared to the changed verse, the image displays that perfectly.
Space Merchant’s 2nd question is
Also, they were spoken of as in error for verses like Acts 7:59, 60 and the verses in Matthew, it was even addressed here - [2] Why did the Jehovah's Witnesses make this change to the 2 verses?
The answer to that is there wasn’t much of a change, like the first question. The argument was pushed by those who believe Jesus is God and since those images are from former Jehovah’s Witnesses, it looks as though they share that same view because of the word “God” which was added to the verse. The fact it is nowhere to be found in the NWT, resulted in the heavy criticism from Triune believers and ExJWs.
Those 2 questions were relatively easy. Seeing that no one was going to answer that, I just decided to say something. I guess you can say I did a solid for both of you.

This is in regards to JW church burnings, not the historical church burnings of Canada pertaining to Indigenous peoples, children. The ongoing debate is outside of religious talk, more so on history, granted many people paint ALL Canadians as the bad guy regarding this.
 
That being said, the debate is historical based, mainly when you're dealing with Centrist.

It still does not excuse the New Thought slander. I mean, you did cite Restorationism yourself.
That being said, Basic knowledge in regards to the Bible and the history of Christianity, we can stick with that, especially concerning JWs - we can go with the Bible first. And the fact you bring this up, reminds me of what you stated a while back regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses version of the Bible concerning error - I guess we can start with that, with just 2 questions.
My response to you:
NOTE: Jehovah's Witnesses were spoken of as committing various errors because of their New World Translation (NWT) of the Bible, and they teach that their action on this was because the errors were considered not inspired, hence 2 Timothy 3:16 (All scripture is given by inspiration of God). Not only they were spoken of as removing part of verses, but in their translation, removing a verse/passage entirely.
Concerning errors -  [1] can you explain to me why the Jehovah's Witnesses removed Gospel of John 7:53–8:11 from their translation of the Bible and some have not? Let alone change parts (Partial Verses Omitted) of a verse?
That passage isn't the only example, but we have a few others, as seen below:


 
 
Also they were spoken of as in error for verses like Acts 7:59, 60 and the verses in Matthew, it was even addressed here - 
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/161040/acts-7-59
[2] Why did the Jehovah's Witnesses make this change to the 2 verses?
 

 
 

@Patiently waiting for Truth You essentially initiated the debate, so hold to that respect. But I see you are attempting to avoid debate by trying to bring this old game up, JB.
 
But since you asked for it, why not? Let's go through some receipts:

As for evidence, there are several examples. @TrueTomHarley and you were going about Watchtower religious leaders, governing body, where which Tom coined if "Are you sure you are not John Butler" you brushed it off, stating what he said was rubbish, adding to the fact, Tom would be above that, thus denied it.
 
Even here

Both you and John Butler often speak of the same thing in the same patterns concerning WT, GB, CSA, and both of you always have a negative reaction to @Anna, @TrueTomHarley, @Arauna. Not only the mention of such, but also the same mannerism, and the reaction towards from @Witness and @Srecko Sostar is often not the same.
If you haven't noticed, the meme you reacted to, was a lowkey test. Which had nothing to do with race, you you claim racism. Butler did the same thing with the evidence/facts provided by the FBI concerning Child Sex Abuse regarding the demographics of the abuser, going as far as to even post a video of old school Hip-Hop. When can called out for purposely angering a Teenaged Jehovah's Witnesses, he got angry (this resulted in John essentially crying to Admin to do something)
 


Which is equated to the recent one as seen below

 
The irony is, the only person who is aware I am Black, or as you say "a man of colour" was Allen, Tom and John Butler, but only Butler was the one to constantly bring it up In fact, only John brings up that TERM as shown here in the search history - https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/search/?q="man of colour"&quick=1
The irony is it was only directed to me alone. The first time you mentioned it, you put heavy emphasis on this notation as shown below:

 
You angered @Equivocation a while back when using Ebonics and mocked his uncle, who isn't a Jehovah's Witness, but helps them, thus you past judgment, to the point you cried out to Admin when Srecko or Witness didn't come to help you, this resulted in Admin shutting down the thread, and to @Equivocation's credit, if he is asked of what happen, I am sure, him, being a Jehovah's Witness, will recall said account.
Then we have @JW Insider raising suspicion of you being him.

In that thread, we see you showed no reaction to @JW Insider. To which you later went on a rant regarding Billy The Kid in this shared link [JW Insider connecting the dots]' Even Harley called it out.
@Anna even got on into this as shown here

Even to her, no reaction, for as pointed out, your reaction are somewhat spontaneous depending on who said it and how:

 
 
There is more, but I will leave it at that so in regards to your questions
Known because I was among the early persons who know about the situation with Billy, only JWI committed to deducing it when you on several occasions denied it, this also goes for any allusions.
You did, @TrueTomHarley was among the first to mention that, Allen, Billy, etc. You even attest to making a remark as to people who assumed you to be him, and we can see that in both your spontaneous reaction, despite claims. This is also evident to the mannerism as shown above. At one point even @Witness was accused of being Butler, but that was false due to the fact her mannerism differ from yours/JB.
You even speak of yourself in 3rd Person, as is hold an legitimate defense if John Butler is coined by anyone whom you at times do not agree with.
Need I say more? - God is witness.
Oh and yes - there is more, but I drop the mic to what is stated above.
That being said, let's also not forget @Srecko Sostar called you out as John - 
 
Same person, yet wears a different mask, in the words of Butler - 

Twisting my words yet again. 
Where did I call Truthers liars ?
Where did I call Jewish leaders liars ?
Yes I will close this topic also, because you SM just want to stir up trouble for no reason. 
THIS TOPIC WAS ABOUT HOW THE WORDS TRUTH AND TRUE LOST THEIR MEANING BECAUSE THEY ARE OVER USED 
 

I didn't ask for research, you were asked as to what a Truther is as per segment I.
Falling for what, you were told if you made an accusation it would spawn a debate.
 No need to.
Here is the name of your topic

 
The debate revolves around 3 things:
What is a Truther, hence the accusations, What is truth of the Scriptures, and the notation you profess for Matthew 9:13
 
That being said, if you can't hold up to even that, it just shows what people think of former Witnesses, as to not only people on this forum, but to even guests who come here.
You won't be asked again. For you are displaying Evasion - Question Dodging.

I did, as is the notation of you speaking of yourself in 3rd person to deviate - hence Tom and Anna in this regard. I also missed someone else - Leander H. McNelly, who called it out, and your reaction was nowhere to be found compared to your reaction to Tom and Anna.
Because you are him, that is why I purposely left out JWI's conclusion.
Why would there be a need to get you removed from this forum? You speaking simply shows guests what becomes of former JWs, simple as that, which proves the claim over at CSE and other Abrahamic Faiths as factual.
That being said, you are free to abandon the 3rd person mantra to fool people, you can even rename yourself as what you were originally called, it makes no difference.
Anyways, I believe we had a debate going on, you seem to be wasting time, which proves my claim of you unable to debate. Very shortly, I will conclude segment I.
Srecko coined it, I merely respond, and you reacted, more so you asked for it, hence the end result.
 
EDIT:
As expected, hence the notation of your reactions equating to the latter

@Alzasior Lutor Il ne répondra pas à la question, mais je le ferai, et je serai bref, et "Attente patiemment la vérité" ne répondra évidemment pas parce qu'il affiche ce que la Leftist dit. Il y a des homosexuels dans la société d'aujourd'hui, que ce soit en Amérique, comme cette histoire, et dans les pays européens, en Asie, etc. Ensuite, vous avez ceux de la foule adhérant à la conduite de l'homosexualité, un homme ayant des relations sexuelles avec un autre homme, ou un femme à une autre femme, plus encore, même épouser un ou plusieurs partenaires du même sexe. La conduite est tellement ouverte, qu'elle est enseignée aux enfants, ils sont influencés par les médias, les dessins animés, même le système d'enseignement supérieur.
Dans la Bible, il nous dit ce qu'est le mariage, entre un homme et une femme, Un homme quittera son père et sa mère et il doit s'en tenir à sa femme et ils doivent devenir une seule chair. (Genèse 2:24), dans le Nouveau Testament, il est écrit, car Jésus a confirmé que ceux qui sont liés par le mariage devraient être un homme et une femme. (Matthieu 19 :4). La majorité des chrétiens le savent, même votre foi des Témoins de Jéhovah le sait. Le Nouveau Testament continue en mettant l'accent sur le fait que pourquoi l'homosexualité est mauvaise.
Maintenant, aujourd'hui, nous devons aimer tous nos voisins, et c'est ce que nous devons faire, mais comme indiqué, la conduite est mauvaise et nous ne devrions pas être impliqués dans une conduite comme les autres, qui l'acceptent ouvertement. Dans l'état d'esprit des gens aujourd'hui, même NYT, ils veulent que les gens aiment non seulement la personne, mais la conduite elle-même, c'est pourquoi quand il s'agit d'histoires de la communauté LGBTQ, cela est souvent poussé, nous pouvons le voir dans l'histoire .
Cela étant dit, la position de la Bible est raisonnable et correcte, avec tous les hommes. Il ordonne simplement à ceux qui ont des pulsions homosexuelles de faire la même chose qui est requise concernant la fornication (1 Corinthiens 6:18). Les hétérosexuels qui apprennent à connaître Dieu et sa Parole, se conforment aux normes de la Bible employées appliquent la maîtrise de soi face aux tentations, et en résistant et en se contrôlant, ils font tout ce qu'ils peuvent pour plaire à Dieu, et abandonnent bientôt tout ce qui est mauvais.
J'ai répondu pour lui parce qu'il allait faire une tangente dans l'espoir de vous ralentir.
Cela étant dit, tout ce qui concerne la conduite de l'homosexualité est considéré comme négatif par beaucoup de gens, pour vous les Témoins de Jéhovah, pour nous, et même pour les gens qui ne connaissent pas vraiment Dieu. La Left (Leftist/Left-Wing) est l'opposé de la Right (Conservative Right/Right-Wing) conservatrice. Concernant l'homosexualité, un seul côté, la droite, ne déteste pas la personne, juste sa conduite - c'est le cas de ces mentalités politiques aux États-Unis et dans l'UE, qui est majoritaire.

Hence the following mentions of Anna and JWI and Tom, as for what was addressed in said thread. You used 3rd person mannerism in order to evade the suspicion. Reasons why I addressed Harley, Anna and JWI, as well as Tom afterwards.

Obviously not. It has nothing to do with desire, just denial. It was all thanks to you by the way to not confirm it, but to make John react to this revelation, hence past remarks.
Plus he asked for it. So I presented.
That being said, I asked you 2 questions.
 
EDIT
And there you have it - @Patiently waiting for Truth reacted as was address with the notation of Anna and JWI - mic dropped - case closed.

@Patiently waiting for Truth You essentially initiated the debate, so hold to that respect. But I see you are attempting to avoid debate by trying to bring this old game up, JB.
 
But since you asked for it, why not? Let's go through some receipts:

As for evidence, there are several examples. @TrueTomHarley and you were going about Watchtower religious leaders, governing body, where which Tom coined if "Are you sure you are not John Butler" you brushed it off, stating what he said was rubbish, adding to the fact, Tom would be above that, thus denied it.
 
Even here

Both you and John Butler often speak of the same thing in the same patterns concerning WT, GB, CSA, and both of you always have a negative reaction to @Anna, @TrueTomHarley, @Arauna. Not only the mention of such, but also the same mannerism, and the reaction towards from @Witness and @Srecko Sostar is often not the same.
If you haven't noticed, the meme you reacted to, was a lowkey test. Which had nothing to do with race, you you claim racism. Butler did the same thing with the evidence/facts provided by the FBI concerning Child Sex Abuse regarding the demographics of the abuser, going as far as to even post a video of old school Hip-Hop. When can called out for purposely angering a Teenaged Jehovah's Witnesses, he got angry (this resulted in John essentially crying to Admin to do something)
 


Which is equated to the recent one as seen below

 
The irony is, the only person who is aware I am Black, or as you say "a man of colour" was Allen, Tom and John Butler, but only Butler was the one to constantly bring it up In fact, only John brings up that TERM as shown here in the search history - https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/search/?q="man of colour"&quick=1
The irony is it was only directed to me alone. The first time you mentioned it, you put heavy emphasis on this notation as shown below:

 
You angered @Equivocation a while back when using Ebonics and mocked his uncle, who isn't a Jehovah's Witness, but helps them, thus you past judgment, to the point you cried out to Admin when Srecko or Witness didn't come to help you, this resulted in Admin shutting down the thread, and to @Equivocation's credit, if he is asked of what happen, I am sure, him, being a Jehovah's Witness, will recall said account.
Then we have @JW Insider raising suspicion of you being him.

In that thread, we see you showed no reaction to @JW Insider. To which you later went on a rant regarding Billy The Kid in this shared link [JW Insider connecting the dots]' Even Harley called it out.
@Anna even got on into this as shown here

Even to her, no reaction, for as pointed out, your reaction are somewhat spontaneous depending on who said it and how:

 
 
There is more, but I will leave it at that so in regards to your questions
Known because I was among the early persons who know about the situation with Billy, only JWI committed to deducing it when you on several occasions denied it, this also goes for any allusions.
You did, @TrueTomHarley was among the first to mention that, Allen, Billy, etc. You even attest to making a remark as to people who assumed you to be him, and we can see that in both your spontaneous reaction, despite claims. This is also evident to the mannerism as shown above. At one point even @Witness was accused of being Butler, but that was false due to the fact her mannerism differ from yours/JB.
You even speak of yourself in 3rd Person, as is hold an legitimate defense if John Butler is coined by anyone whom you at times do not agree with.
Need I say more? - God is witness.
Oh and yes - there is more, but I drop the mic to what is stated above.
That being said, let's also not forget @Srecko Sostar called you out as John - 
 
Same person, yet wears a different mask, in the words of Butler - 

@Witness This is an ongoing debate that was initiated. To your respects, you can make a thread about what you quoted if need be.

I'm not sure what "quote" you are meaning?

@Patiently waiting for Truth Please address Segment I. We are not playing the game of going around the focus subject. Debates do not play the same rules as discussions often professed here.

@Patiently waiting for Truth You are in an ongoing debate - your response should be in the other thread, not here. Respect the rules of the debate - thank you.
Also @Srecko Sostar called you John, and you show no reaction to being called John, Butler, or JB, and you talk about him a lot and have the same mannerism.