Space Merchant

No religious institution has ever stopped. Regardless, the people are the church, not the building.
That being said, people have been preaching the gospel still, including me, although I cannot go to Africa and the like or even my own country, but I connect with those I speak with. Likewise, with the children who look up to me and others, we are still in communication with them, and by means of example they apply and they teach.

Not anytime soon. Hence, they will most likely commit to their activities within the confines of their homes and or if any of who they minster to allows them to visit.
The end is not here yet, so the gospel is still ongoing, for Jesus spoke about the Commission.

@Srecko Sostar In a sense, Higher Education can be used as a tool by the Devil. This is why people nowadays are starting to see this, that is, if they carefully see the things unfold in front of them and trend their path within the education institutional spectrum with caution.
That being said, there are a lot of Millennials like me, as is with Generation Z, and the soon to come, Alpha, who are taking different paths, and most are not going towards the default. In a sense, think of it this way, in every video game regardless of genre, there is always a default setting set by the programmer and or developer, the player can change said settings and do not have to submit to the default, some do, some do not. Likewise with higher education, the default path is set before such folks, but that is not always the 100% path. Plus as said before, there is a danger in higher education, I need not have to post, link and cite examples and articles on the matter, nor do I need to speak on my own experience.

@Srecko Sostar In a sense, Higher Education can be used as a tool by the Devil. This is why people nowadays are starting to see this, that is, if they carefully see the things unfold in front of them and trend their path within the education institutional spectrum with caution.
That being said, there are a lot of Millennials like me, as is with Generation Z, and the soon to come, Alpha, who are taking different paths, and most are not going towards the default. In a sense, think of it this way, in every video game regardless of genre, there is always a default setting set by the programmer and or developer, the player can change said settings and do not have to submit to the default, some do, some do not. Likewise with higher education, the default path is set before such folks, but that is not always the 100% path. Plus as said before, there is a danger in higher education, I need not have to post, link and cite examples and articles on the matter, nor do I need to speak on my own experience.

The simple answer is No. Granted, that some would just see such and such as providing tools for them and nothing more, and with said tools they can go on their own to some level and or degree despite being in the community itself.
As for the latter, the pastor did not take up the non-Restorationist view, especially the concept of some teachings of that time, hence why met up with others and the Restorationist Christian group was formed, aka The Bible Students. This was by no means of schism and or a split, just the fact that the mainstream ideas were not as accurate vs. the legitimate ideas concerning God. The other part, you have it backwards, Bible Students have split on their own prior to becoming JWs if I am not mistaken and only a few of them continue with their own following, for this is something not too common.
More so, some followings have deviated into teachings of Scripture that is vastly different. For instance, there are certain things that one Biblical Unitarian believes vs. the other Biblical Unitarian, for information 4Jah2me posted, that Unitarian in question has a vastly different view from me. Or, we can take up our last discussion, for I do not believe in a Romanic practice for good reason, but you openly defend it.
That being said, it all comes down to of WHO, be it group or individual, is applying what the early church has done.
History repeats itself and the battle of the 4th century is still ongoing.

Gnosticism is a religious concept and or idea, which various quote differently from Christianity. It has been around for some time after Christianity as well. It was well established in the Mediterranean until about the 2nd century when the Fathers of the early church viewed this Christological theology a heresy. The reason I've mentioned them is due to the fact in The Chosen, they had Nicodemus quote and or paraphrase apocalyptic text, which is something that MANY Christians take issue with.
That is why I mentioned the disclaimer prior to pointing out Non-Bible canons, however, to the common viewer, they see these canons as truth, so it is our duty, you, me, even everyone here, to speak the truth of the matter should the situation calls for it.
Sad for speaking what is indeed true? Should I allow the onlooker to believe that this is what is in the Bible?
That is agreeable. But remember, you should always be ready to explain the truth about the Christ if the situation calls for it. So regarding Nicodemus, you should be ready and willing to speak the truth should someone take up the Gnostic view of his words in the film.
Remember, as Christians, we speak nothing but the truth, and evade misconceptions and falsehood. The truth and the facts in this matter is absolute.
 

Clearly - No, but it seems you haven't understand what was conveyed. As for this statement of yours, by this remark of yours, it is easily seen you have taken the misguidance of the mainstream media and applied it to your own.
Do not always eat from the hands of the MSM, otherwise you will become like them. The issue is not about race, but, it became a race issue because the media is swinging the axe of racism, which in turn, begets action and negative influence.
The best thing for you is for me NOT to dive into this issue (that is if you can see the truth out of the falsehood regarding this issue), for the last person on here who did this was enthralled when race, sex, and CSA was involved, and so and so deemed me a racist for quoting facts from the FBI.

The UN has a hand in both political parties as is with religious and educational institutions and the like that are part of their movement 100%, i.e. Kairos Movement, PEAK, Together, etc. granted this connection is to bring forth both peace and security.
Regarding Charlottesville, after the chaos that went about regarding a crowded Unite the Right protest where white supremacy members were involved, as is, with the tragic death of a young woman named Heather Danielle Heyer. I mentioned this a couple of times because some of us are aware of how the United Nations operate in full force, some to which both me and JTR understood and even discussion on whereas others such as Witness was unaware of what the UN resolutions are and how they operate from the 1900s and onward. Going back to the case of Unite the Right, after Heyer's death, they used her as a martyr to further spark racial tension and anarchy, granted during that time, the protesting was not as high level such as the one today and it died down. After the event The United Nations took this opportunity to speak of a totalitarian based narrative in order to control the people, in addition to that, they began to focus their attention on the 1st amendment, which if they had their way, you, me and even the JWs here will have a lot of trouble from that point onward. The actions of the UN resulted in a lot of angry people, and due to this, they had to step back a bit. The UN only moves in as the heat of tension begins to rise, either in the US and or elsewhere in the world, for instance, because of them, we almost had a lot of trouble with the Syrians.
As of present day, as stated, their movement is subtle, but their motive is still the same, even one of it's still connected members, Nikki Haley, had said something ridiculous the other day, and her words is an example of increased violence and chaos, should you question her about the comment, she has no answer for it, as is with her past statements, for she honestly believes this is the right path.
It is one of the reasons, I said a while back that... No one likes the United Nations and those that do are supporting them, even going as far as to seek sponsors from them. As well as: Those in the conquest of Peace and the other faction in the conquest for Security is a MAJOR THREAT to real faithful God fearing Christians - be on your guard whereas on the other side of the spectrum, there is brutality and violence.... The UN and connected allies who are on their side are on the Conquest of Security. Which was evident with their members in the past, examples such as Nikki Haley.
That being said, a lot of Christians are aware, especially what went down with those in connection such as Kairos in Washington DC, and parts of the US. We are not fooled, and to be fooled by such only enables you to be devoured by such an enemy.
This is why it is critical, very critical with absolute certainty for Christians to know who their real enemy is. As much as I disagree with pagan practices and the Triune doctrine, I do not wish such an enemy even against those I refute, for this enemy can bring quite the damnation upon an individual and or group.
The rabbit hole is even deeper, too much to explain here, but this is just but a peddle on the surface as of now. With that in mind, I suggest paying attention, otherwise you can easily, without knowing slip into the hands of this enemy, such as many out there, even people who profess God and his Christ become victim quite swiftly.

That's good.
And that's why I bring it up. These other issues don't bother me. Still, I think we should be honest about them and only discuss these issues when it seems that some Witnesses believe we need to hide our past, or tell new people that something was really nothing. However, if you want me to be bothered about the religion in general, then show me where I should support war and nationalism and Trinity and hell-fire. I know that there are some arguments a person could make on a few of our major doctrines, but the overall sense I get from the Bible on those issues matches up to the Witness view. Also, I don't consider chronology to be a major issue, nor do I think that the GB is the FDS. But I have nothing against the usefulness of a GB, and I think they should be a part of the FDS.
As usual, you bring up CSA, and I agree that our moral standards should prove to be higher than elsewhere. But perhaps Jesus should have had less prostitutes following him, too. I'm more concerned about the level of emphasis, focus and correct counsel on CSA and other moral issues. I don't claim we are better than everyone else on every issue. But I like the most recent policies, even though I spoke out against the weakness of previous polices.

https://sputniknews.com/uk/202005221079386943-uk-ministry-of-justice-has-open-mind-on-raising-minimum-age-to-18-to-stop-child-marriages/
I thought this article was interesting, particularly as @Arauna seems to say that the world and all it's governments are totally immoral and that all schools and colleges teach immorality etc .........
Here in the UK a politician is trying to have the legal age of marraige raised from 16 to 18, to stop child marraiges. 
Conservative MP Pauline Latham is seeking to pass a bill which would “revoke parental…consent which permits the marriage…of a child and to criminalise child marriage…under the age of 18.”
I just thought it gives a bit of balance to the usual JW cry of 'the world is wicked' 'all non JWs are wicked' etc....  I do like a bit of balance. 
The article is dated 22nd May and I have no idea of the outcome, but it's nice to read about a politician that is trying to do something positive to held young people. 

I had a couple of concerns with The Chosen after analyzing episode one.
[1] Regarding Nicodemus - When he went to deal with the woman, known as Mary of Magdala, he quoted a apocalyptic text and or made mention to it. That is a whole lot of detail for another day on it's own, and a fish way too big to fry, therefore, a pan must be ordered from Amazon.
[2] Regarding Mary Magdalene - Before her so called reveal, she was dubbed the name "Lilith". This name pertains to the mythical Gnostic beliefs about Lilith, a demonic figure in the Genesis Act of Creation whereas some view this person has Adam's first wife prior to Eve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith). I believe this was her given name granted that she was possessed by demons, but still.... Would it not make sense to not give Mary this name, despite her situation and perhaps do not reveal who she is until the name? But instead, they kept this name and connected it with the reveal. We know of her history, but to dub her that name was kind of out of the blue. Some would point to Isaiah 34:14, which reads:
And wild animals shall meet with hyenas; the wild goat shall cry to his fellow; indeed, there the night bird [or identity uncertain] settles and finds for herself a resting place.
However the misconception of translation results in the use of demon, and or Satyrs (something of which I and an assist from JTR Rook, refuted Cos on regarding the KJV as is with explaining the findings to Tom), which are mythological humanoid creatures with goat leg/feet and their upper bodies being normal human. Other times, the term for Lilith is tied to a Succubus, which is also a mythological demonic figure. The truth of the matter is that the Prophecy of Prophet Isaiah continues to foretell that the populace of Edom will evidently be  wiped away and replaced by wild animals, in the coming desolation. Although we are talking about goats here, some people would think otherwise, or some shaggy looking goats. A bit off topic, even in some cultures whereas some of the people do partake in demonic practices, I should know because it is true in for some of my people, they have something quite similar to Satyrs. Moreover, the inclusion of this name, well, from what I've seen results in people thinking that this was indeed Mary's name prior, that percentage has little Biblical Knowledge and the other side are skeptical, on the fence, and or confused as to why she is called that. Then you have the movie junkies out there that say it is to add mystery.
Although there is more items from the first episode, I will simply leave it at these two things. My only hope is that they do not include TAW, which most Hollywood movies regarding Jesus have done thus far, because that passage is a spurious one, but people seem to think it is true when 267+ ms says otherwise.
That being said, there was indeed a VERY CLEAR disclaimer at the very beginning stating that the series isn’t word-for-word and it’s no replacement for reading one's Bible, in fact, it encourages to read the Bible, however, the onlooker can still get confused, then again, there are some who are confused. We should be willingly to explain credible biblical history, should there be a call for it.
But alas, tis be only episode 1. In a sense, if I may call it as such, it is as if the Bible was taken and made into some separate continuity of it's own likewise to that of the notion used quite a lot for a DC or Marvel comic, as is with a re-imagining.
 

Unfortunately you missed the point, Ann, sadly for you, the term in question has nothing to do with the realm of modesty and or culture (granted you are a few months late of said subject). The term itself derives of the shifting of a male's mentality to the opposite sex, molding them, likewise with girls. Even going as far as to alter and or change the reproduction system, which is on the extreme end (Srecko knows what I am talking about, hence is wild remark in the past).
The term "putting a boy in a dress" in detail means to make it okay for males to dress up as girls and or women, even encouraging that boys can date and or have a mate that is of the same sex. This idea is prompted in most schools and pushed in media, such as books, games, what have you, i.e. Vogue educating children on brazen conduct such as sodomy and other gross practices. This term and it's terminology is not supported by all, hence why parents have and will continue to take action, sometimes in a confronting fashion. Moreover, this new ideology in society is prompted heavily and evidently, you will have, no scratch that, you have dozens upon dozens of "Desmonds" running around.
That being said, now that you understand what is being conveyed, tell me, does this disturb you?
Now, hence the term, it is jarring.

If you believe this as such is both odd and confusing granted in disagreement with several said core teachings from God's Word (i.e. you had recently judged everyone as guilty without even knowing them, their background, etc. that logic of yours is akin to some Americans think all police officers are guilty, as of recent events, when THAT isn't the case - hence the latter remark is befitting), more so, several verses in some of your other responses to which I made comment to reveals the correctness of what is incorrect by sheer misguidance.
That being said, you've now stumble upon your own realm of contradiction which correlates with your other responses. Also regarding the other, is somewhat Restorationist, hence the latter being correct in this sense.
Also you bring up information from our last disccussion:
You stated elsewhere that they said it, mind quoting it please? Because as of what I said a year or two ago, there is an ExJW, who was deem a media martyr, in this sense, who says otherwise.

No, you had shown the material to the community to take a look at it, this is not about you, if you unless you want it to be. I bring this up because after watching there was a discussion elsewhere. Others believed that the non Bible canons are TRUE, this is the reason I stated the following
So, for any onlooker, they believe this to be true despite the disclaimer. On the other side of the spectrum, you'd have to deal with the Gnostics, for debates with them is but of that of a rabbit hole. But to quote one of the viewers "Lilith will most likely be be an empowering biblical hero" For you and I, as well as Witness, we are aware of who Mary is, clearly compared to the latter, we are not the confused type, and or among Gnostics, but I am not sure if anyone here understands Gnosticism.
I can see that, I am not aware of Judaism, but from the view of Jews, they are not happy about Non-Canons, in fact, so the fact that the angels of Enoch were mentioned, save for one, it as caused some thought, even to the viewers who are aware of the gospel of John.
Indeed, but as long as you understand the actual history, you can be among those to convey truth to the misguided and or confused onlooker. As grime as it is, especially when the description from Hebrews was in more detail, that is of what happen to our Lord and Christ and what happen after that.
Well that is why I mentioned the disclaimer, wherever this series is mentioned, not only in the series, but also by others who has read the Bible, they always point out the disclaimer.
True, but the little things added, we need to be careful of, we must do the research if need be. This was the case I have with other films regarding Jesus when the movies included TAW, whereas TAW isn't Bible canon, to the point it was omitted from majority of Bible Translations.
No one is unhappy, however, elsewhere when some Bible readers had to convey, we had a run in with Gnostics, which was not fun for some people.
 
Some comments, this is primarily from those who read the gospel of John,and or the Greek text.
That said, there is always a positive and a negative. In my case, it is good, but should someone think something not true and true, it us up to us, the readers of God's Word, to explain the Scriptures.
[1] Shame on CBN for condoning a series that adds to scripture and omits important things also. It doesn’t matter if you wanna call it “artistic license” or that this is for “entertainment”. Jesus doesn’t want the message of the word of God (the gospel) used for those purposes. He is the son of God and was crucified! Nothing about that is to entertain or produce art! This series has added and subtracted to Gods word and that is ANTI CHRIST! It’s heretic and blasphemy. Satan is very deceptive and will use even what happened to Jesus to deceive people. GOD WILL JUDGE THESE PEOPLE! Some of these actors are not even believers! God says what does light have to do with darkness? NOTHING!
[2] Second commandment issues aside, can a movie, even a good one, give us a better representation of Jesus, His ministry, His life, death and resurrection than Scripture do? I understand the human want and need to visualize events, but God has charged us to spread the Gospel through the simple means of Grace. We don’t need movies, we only need the Word, water, bread and wine.
[3] Is it Bible based? Yes, very much so. There is fictionalization aspects as I said in my review. They give personalities backstories to Matthew, Peter and Thomas that are not in the Bible. But they do it consistently with what we do know - Peter’s temperament is fiery, for example - to tell the story. Where the Bible does cover the conversation they go generally word for word. The Woman at the Well conversation covers the entire encounter - though they do add in some things but again consistent with character and often to explain theology. So it tells the message of the Gospel clearly and consistent with the text but then colors in the stories.

Hermeneutics is rarely wrong, nor are scholars who partake in such as is with the honest Bible reader, so it is not a viewpoint, it is sheer textual analytics of what the Bible teaches and conveys. Debate is only sparked if anything in err and or misconception and or a lie is brought forth, for us CSE people, no kindness is for such deeds and something must be said. So if there is a term and or the like of which you yourself do not fully understand, the Bible speaks the truth of the matter, and of course, this spirit of which you speak, you often times embrace it, hence contradiction in the progreess in a subtle fashion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics
You are free to ponder upon my origin: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/

If you believe this as such is both odd and confusing granted in disagreement with several said core teachings from God's Word (i.e. you had recently judged everyone as guilty without even knowing them, their background, etc. that logic of yours is akin to some Americans think all police officers are guilty, as of recent events, when THAT isn't the case - hence the latter remark is befitting), more so, several verses in some of your other responses to which I made comment to reveals the correctness of what is incorrect by sheer misguidance.
That being said, you've now stumble upon your own realm of contradiction which correlates with your other responses. Also regarding the other, is somewhat Restorationist, hence the latter being correct in this sense.
Also you bring up information from our last disccussion:
You stated elsewhere that they said it, mind quoting it please? Because as of what I said a year or two ago, there is an ExJW, who was deem a media martyr, in this sense, who says otherwise.

Unfortunately you missed the point, Ann, sadly for you, the term in question has nothing to do with the realm of modesty and or culture (granted you are a few months late of said subject). The term itself derives of the shifting of a male's mentality to the opposite sex, molding them, likewise with girls. Even going as far as to alter and or change the reproduction system, which is on the extreme end (Srecko knows what I am talking about, hence is wild remark in the past).
The term "putting a boy in a dress" in detail means to make it okay for males to dress up as girls and or women, even encouraging that boys can date and or have a mate that is of the same sex. This idea is prompted in most schools and pushed in media, such as books, games, what have you, i.e. Vogue educating children on brazen conduct such as sodomy and other gross practices. This term and it's terminology is not supported by all, hence why parents have and will continue to take action, sometimes in a confronting fashion. Moreover, this new ideology in society is prompted heavily and evidently, you will have, no scratch that, you have dozens upon dozens of "Desmonds" running around.
That being said, now that you understand what is being conveyed, tell me, does this disturb you?
Now, hence the term, it is jarring.

Unfortunately you missed the point, Ann, sadly for you, the term in question has nothing to do with the realm of modesty and or culture (granted you are a few months late of said subject). The term itself derives of the shifting of a male's mentality to the opposite sex, molding them, likewise with girls. Even going as far as to alter and or change the reproduction system, which is on the extreme end (Srecko knows what I am talking about, hence is wild remark in the past).
The term "putting a boy in a dress" in detail means to make it okay for males to dress up as girls and or women, even encouraging that boys can date and or have a mate that is of the same sex. This idea is prompted in most schools and pushed in media, such as books, games, what have you, i.e. Vogue educating children on brazen conduct such as sodomy and other gross practices. This term and it's terminology is not supported by all, hence why parents have and will continue to take action, sometimes in a confronting fashion. Moreover, this new ideology in society is prompted heavily and evidently, you will have, no scratch that, you have dozens upon dozens of "Desmonds" running around.
That being said, now that you understand what is being conveyed, tell me, does this disturb you?
Now, hence the term, it is jarring.

Well certain people on here only believe their own viewpoint on scripture.. So it is a waste of time trying to debate sensibly with them. 
The funny thing is with some people that if you don't fully agree with their viewpoint, they tell everyone that you have made a mistake. Um, could it not possibly be them that has made a mistake ?  Oh no, well not with a certain man anyway. He thinks he is always right. Then he expects others to admit a mistake which they haven't actually made.
I tend to go quiet sometimes for two reason. 1. I start to think deeper about a subject. 2. I don't want to waste my time arguing, as arguing is so negative. 
But that man tends to harp on and on when a person does not reply to him. I think he feels hurt. He seems to demand a reply, which makes me laugh at him. He is so full of his own self importance. I can understand why he would 'defend' the Governing Body of CCJW. They both always think they are right. 

Good thoughts, @4Jah2me. I eventually watched the whole season, enjoying every minute of it.

The Chosen isn't supposed to be correct to scripture. But you know that anyway. I wonder if this is just yet another dig at me.  Such a shame. 
It is about the lives of the Jewish people at that time.  
I've watched the first Series and I think it is very good. I don't want to watch Jesus being killed, i want to watch Jesus when He lived. And to see his disciples and how they interacted. 
It is totally way off from the Bible. But well worth viewing. Why ? Because whilst you are watching it your mind is concentrating on Jesus, His disciples, the Jewish way of life, the 'nasty' Romans, and the general feel of what it would have been like. 
It's a shame some folks have to dissect it. I get the sense that such ones must be rather unhappy in their lives. 

@Arauna Exactly. I am not sure if you are aware of this, but they have been teaching in some schools that a man being with a man and a woman being with a woman is okay. A while back, I posted a video of a girl defending what the Bible says, but she was shut down and was put in the wrong for it. Around the US, there has been some schools that ban the usage of Bible verses, and consider the Bible as hate speech, or you have the system manipulate God's Word being making it seem as homosexuality is okay, in some instances, there is also drag-queen involvement in some learning institutions and or gatherings. On the other side of the spectrum, you have the media whereas they push the notion of pornography to children, as is with brazen conduct, which is accepted in today's world.
That being said, there are people out there who are skeptical about higher education, for the notion that this view is exclusive to the Jehovah's Witnesses is false, there are people out there with Spider-Sense level of concern when it comes to the education that their kids are getting, and often times opt for Homeschooling, and or simply sending their child to learn a trade instead.
That is also agreeable, the parents should know what their kid is learning, also, what their kids are doing (i.e. a parent would not know that the teacher put their Son in a dress and painted his fingernails with polish).
For the last bit it is a both of a yes and no. They do include ideas that would mold a child into becoming an atheist. Other times, if it is known of what the child's faith is, they can often try to mold the child to think some things in the school system is okay for God, or they test the child's faith by other means. In my case, I recall when I was younger, the teacher used the other children to push be into partaking pagan practices, even using emotion and the like, but such event I resisted. But now that is mentioned, granted for anyone they've mold, the other children and or teens can become somewhat of an opposition.
I mentioned on here before, to which to Srecko laughed at it, to help the children. In order to help, we must teach them the right way, and even stated if we can teach them about strangers, how to resolve conflicts, we can teach them about sex. To 4Jah2me's credit regarding child abuse, main thing that predators are happy about and seem to always be successful in their crimes is the fact that the child has no knowledge of sex, no knowledge when it comes to strangers, as is with no knowledge of knowing the dangers regarding child abuse thus it is stated that predators find such a person an easy victim. The schools will not teach the children this, so to prevent more bad deeds, we start by teaching, doing the best we can with solutions, and in my experience, this helped A LOT, in turn, I thank the communities and people I know who put this into application!
That is why I love this saying "For each, Teach One, Reach One" it is a very basic thing to do, but less people seems to be doing it, let alone promote it.
That being said, putting 100% confidence in the education system, even higher, can reap consequence. Essentially, higher education is like a bumpy road. The path is ahead, however, the more bumps you stumble upon, eventually your car would end up on the side of the road or broken down. An observant driver would do everything to stay on the road, but a distracted driver would succumb to the consequence of his or her car breaking down somehow.

Changes start with the people should they apply these changes, mainly in regards to the solution of teaching. Otherwise there will always be problems, if people do not even read what is presented in front of them and or what is natural for them to do. This goes for, practically the majority of the US, as can be seen in this Pandemic.

According to the Bible, it says otherwise. This statement shows that you are far from knowing it it means to be "Part of the World" and or "Having the Spirit of the World", which is a bit more fitting. Granted each and every individual can all between the cracks, some can climb their way out, others do not. This also includes those who willful have intent to do bad and various sins, and or their ill will form of justice.
There is a clear distinction between God's standards and that of man. It is also safe to note that in categories regarding morals and the like, the standards lie there too.
That is because child sex abuse is indeed everywhere in the world, in every institution. The prime suspect in all this is related to how the world views sex. No one is ignorant of the fact that child abuse happens in various religious groups, however, the main problem people seem to miss, and not even take the advice of child sex abuse and neglect services is to resort to TEACHING the people, both children and adults, in order to prevent and or minimize sex and or physical abuse. The tragic thing is, some people laugh at the solutions for helping children (like the one guy currently in this thread), as is, with ignoring the fact of the sex/race in this notion, of which another, who also is on this forums attested to racism, when the facts from the FBI says otherwise.
The secondary statement of yours do not really make sense, unless you are willing to clarify.
I have never seen them, or anyone else make such a claim. Therefore, if something was never stated and or mentioned, how can it be disproved? In fact, no one in the US and or the EU, etc. have a standard that is beyond anything or anyone. The sole reason for this is due to the fact of imperfection. One can be clean morally and mentally, but that does not negate the fact that the person is imperfect and can stumble into sin. Recall the story of the Son of Jesse, King of Judah - David?
As for the secondary statement, you really need to know what it means when the Bible says not to be part of the world.
And yet it does not stop you from telling lies or being dishonest? The Spirit of the World consist of more than that.
You do realize that, if a person has love and has mercy, they can still be part of the world, right? Another jab of you not knowing fully well the notion.
You just spoke of judging, yet here you are.
Regardless of the faith and or other group, there are good people and there are bad people. Should a man of one or many groups commit to grave sin, his actions does not define masses. To think as such you are now, is borderline bigotry in this sense, which is no different from those who treat and bash a man, woman or child because of the actions of someone who is of the same sex and or race, even though they themselves have nothing to do with the ill intent.
@Arauna It would seem the fact that someone had stolen @4Jah2me 's cookie jar, triggered what we are seeing now; it is as if the dealing with Butler again.
EDIT:
Of course, bravo and thank you, once again for proving me point (I believe the 7th time thus far). I believe you dropped these words before you logged out, QCM, and it may be safe to say you disagree with better solutions for children, which is a shame because that is what child abuse and neglect services promote:

@César Chávez Agreed, that is what I was saying elsewhere. There was a collective of some kind in the early Christian churches. Even for those that broke away to formulate what currently mainstream Christendom, they have some kind of Religious order and or structure as well.