Thinking

26 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I'm trying to see your perspective here, and it made me go back and look through the threads that I remembered him in pretty well. I was surprised to notice that in the worst-case posts I had recalled, that he wasn't the one who started it. Others were being nasty, and calling him a "fool" before he responded in kind, but he was less apt to watch his vocabulary even if others were escalating. I also noticed that he was adamant that someone should try to respond to his point rather than constantly dodging and weaving and diverting. 

But I recall once seeing him refer to Arauna as foolish in a chronology topic, and either Tom or I let him know he was picking on "sweet old lady." (Sorry if that offends, Arauna.) He responded that it didn't matter how old anyone is, if they is going to spout nonsense with such conviction, then age is no excuse; she is going to hear where she is wrong. 

It's true that it's easier to ignore empathy and emotion in an online discussion if you are just here to defend your [strong] opinions against the [strong] opinions of others. I know a couple of people who are brilliant intellectually, but who are "on the [autism] spectrum" and have that exact trouble in real life, and they are always getting in trouble with others. I counseled one who has problems at work because he does OK with others in a meeting format, and one-on-one, but he writes scathing emails, and raises his voice with co-workers on the phone. I had also noticed that at meetings he did better when he looked at people's faces when disagreeing with them. I told him about this, as a way to help, but he said he grew up with "Asperger's" and would never look at a person's face when he talked to them. 

As a moderator I remember having to warn Alan a couple of times and sent that warning up the flagpole to the admins:

But who's counting? LOL

Unlike others who got warnings (who would dig in their heels and get suspended), AlanF would respond humbly and contritely and explain himself without making excuses.

 

Can you share some of his good posts…..was he billy the kid once? 

10 hours ago, Anna said:

What?

It’s an old teaching..may or not be true ..I have see even studies  from the world concerning this 

3 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

I notice whenever I ask this question, no one ever answers it. 

They carried a donkey full of scrolls I presume….

2 hours ago, George88 said:

Sure they did. It's called nose hair. Ha! Ha!

As I mentioned before, the organization should consider allowing women to have hairy armpits to blur the lines between traditional femininity and feminist expression. We could even take it further by allowing women to embrace their natural leg hair and wear provocative clothing to challenge societal norms. If certain witnesses are going to criticize us for embracing change, why not challenge conventions on every front, including dress codes? Why not allow elders to dress and smell however they like?

Scripture states that we should present ourselves as approved by God. However, should we remove this clause as it is being promoted by inappropriate individuals?

In this manner, the Watchtower will be indistinguishable from False Religion (Christendom). The attitudes being expressed here mirror those of the Pharisees and false religion, enabling a select few to align with the organization without acknowledging their hypocrisy in attempting to dictate when they refuse to be dictated to. The sources of knowledge being embraced by individuals here are indeed intriguing.

 

a brothers nightmare …

16 hours ago, xero said:

My point is that when you can take what amounts to everything but the cell wall, just so long as you do it in small enough pieces just sounds to any unindoctrinated observer as pharisaical nit picking. 

 

You must be a vegetarian then.?

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Oh them…lol…yes I think them rather Uuuk…

1 hour ago, xero said:

Soul patches and hair donuts should be grounds for immediate disfellowshipping and so should those with man-buns.

What’s a soul patch.?

21 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Many this kind of nonsense has to be hashed out before another leg of influx can begin. Sort of like the hundredth year anniversary of hauling out the nonsense that was trinity and hellfire. After all, Pudgy has pointed out that, given that this is the truth—that is, the collection of teachings so that the Bible makes sense, you would people would be beating down our doors to get it, rather than the reverse.

Somewhere on social media there is the list, counting time—crossed out, no-beards—crossed out, and next on the list is ‘ties.’ I can’t see these ever being crossed out, but maybe we can reach the point of not insisting upon wearing them in the jungle (rain forest).

There are many on line who will gloat over the fall of us as a people….let them..they forget they may be getting sifted as well.

11 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Many this kind of nonsense has to be hashed out before another leg of influx can begin. Sort of like the hundredth year anniversary of hauling out the nonsense that was trinity and hellfire. After all, Pudgy has pointed out that, given that this is the truth—that is, the collection of teachings so that the Bible makes sense, you would people would be beating down our doors to get it, rather than the reverse.

Somewhere on social media there is the list, counting time—crossed out, no-beards—crossed out, and next on the list is ‘ties.’ I can’t see these ever being crossed out, but maybe we can reach the point of not insisting upon wearing them in the jungle (rain forest).

We sometimes don’t wear them over here..especially in stinking hot summers.

4 hours ago, Many Miles said:

I/2 is a fraction. Right? Is 1/2 the parts that constitute "soul" soul?

Oh, and cryosupernatant is, as a fraction, MORE than 1/2 the circulating blood in your veins this very moment. Is cryosupernatant "blood"?

Oh, and white cells are, as a fraction, about 1/100 of the circulating blood in your veins this very moment. Is white cells "blood"?

Crazy talk…all you do miles is try to confuse with false intellectual talk…your very good at it …..i think your a straight out stirrer…that lacks even common sense…. I shall be blocking you as I think you are a very sly man……you came on here with one purpose in mind…..so I’ll leave you too it,

9 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I think this is true. A lot of people have made the argument that blood is 80% water, or that the major component called plasma is 90% water, and we know there is nothing wrong with water. This is still a bad argument.

It reminds me of what David might have said if some of his men said, "David, you said you wanted water, and a lot of men were bleeding, but we found a way to separate the water from their blood. Here! Won't you have this bottle of water we got for you?

Some of these posts are as dumb as I’ve ever seen….

2 hours ago, Anna said:

 

I tend to agree.

I agree with him as well…all this thread does is make me stronger in my personal stand 

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I agree that it is. But that's if we are trying to claim we can take some fractions (especially the one you just alluded to) and claim we are still abstaining from blood. I'd say that it should be a matter of conscience if one accepts those fractions, but just don't go around claiming that you are still abstaining from blood. You are accepting blood, because your conscience has allowed you to take a risk that such a use of blood, even though technically not abstaining, is potentially life-saving. Also, that it is not the same as eating blood, and is still showing respect for life and the life-giving properties of blood itself. If it is a breaking of God's law, then it's only because one's conscience allows for the higher principles of Jesus about life over law, and the increased freedom of conscience that Paul promoted. 

Stop judging others ,,,,Miles and you are the biggest Judges here….if you have made your mind up to take blood or transplants then go ahead..do it..none of it is my business …nor what I do..is yours…..what I’m seeing here is self righteousness in the extreme…..

51 minutes ago, xero said:

Is this where someone shows me the scriptural distinction between minor blood fractions and blood?

At some points of argumentation it begins to sound a lot like the kinds of arguments abortionists give.

"When does life really begin?" "How many clumps of cells does it take before it's considered a human?"

 

Nope I don’t think there is one because it’s the PRINCIPLE behind the abstain from blood.

You eating fractions when you eat the meat..yeah some of it’s washed with pink dye to make it look good but there is still fractions in there.

jehovah knew when you bled an animal you would not get all of the  blood out…but he is teaching us his right over us..the principle of the blood letting …

I’ve seen a number of Roos hung up and bled with their head cut of and skinned..hardly any fat on them …but they had muscle..and the blood in them was  visible …yet they had been correctly bled……...they butchered them cooked and ate them …lots of fractions in that meal….antidotes apparently have fractions in them.   Some medicines do..and people don’t even know it…so stop straining  the Nat and concentrate on the principle of abstaining from blood….anyway that’s how I see it…we are all different on it and going by scripture none of us are wrong. I respect your view but it’s not my view and this is where we get into not judging each other I suppose.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

That seems likely that there are two different contexts. But the two contexts of faith and works are very understandable because they are so intrinsically tied and therefore relatable. If you had first heard only James' "motto" you would understand why Paul was transforming it to make a point, and if you had first heard only Paul's "motto" you would understand why James was transforming it to make a point. A relatable "synthesis" is possible.

But in terms of what we can and can't eat we have two extremes that are not relatable. The differences are so extreme that a Jamesian Christian would react much like @Thinking just reacted before. Something like: "Well, if Paul says we can eat meat sacrificed to an idol, then that's like Paul saying fornication is now OK." 

So, right or wrong, I'm just thinking that a different perspective --which has already been posited by several Bible commentators in the past -- is the most likely one that the WT would consider if the blood doctrine were to be given a complete adjustment. And, to be clear, that perspective is the one that says the directive against "blood" and "things strangled" was important for Jewish acceptance of Gentile believers during a specific time when Jewish-Mosaic norms were still extremely strong among MOST of the original Christians. Jewish Christians didn't trust Gentiles to be truly ready for Christianity. Here are some of those more obvious reasons:

• At the time, Gentile pagan rituals included direct forms of polytheistic idolatry.
  • And Gentile Christians had therefore come from cultures where multiple gods were accepted at once, so that a Gentile Christian might think it was OK to accept Jehovah as God and Jesus as Lord, but still think it was OK to continue the rituals for other so-called gods.
• Gentile idolatry and the religious temples themselves were often associated with immorality. Some pagan festivals highlighted drunkenness (Bacchus) and fornication (Emperor cults, etc) and other obscenities related to fertility, phalluses, etc.  
• Greek and Roman pagan feasts and rituals included eating bloody meat, drinking blood, and might even allow someone to bathe in the dripping blood of a freshly sacrificed bull (Mithraic). 
• Greek and Roman mystery cults did not announce their secret rituals which allowed Jews and Christians to become suspicious of even more grotesque practices.

No..dont twist my words and meanings…yes I said that ….but my conclusions on transfusions come from the way Jehovah viewed blood all the way thru the scriptures…thus  I am not a Jamieson  Christian but a scriptural one….well I’m trying to be..

I also am not fanatical ..I for one know fractions are in certain medicines and as the brothers pointed out..if one wants to be fanatical then one would not be able to have blood tests as all blood should be poured out on the ground and not used for any purpose.

So this  isn’t about straining the gnat…I see it as showing respect for blood as the life is in the blood….and that belongs to him.

I tried many years ago to shoot holes in this….even a loop hole…sure would have made my life a lot easier. As time and science moves on..all I can say it has proven to be a highly dangerous substance and must be used with the greatest of care…speaking of that blood is not properly screened for the parasites of Lyme…which is really a pandemic in the states and across the world.

They are finding hundreds of different species of just one of the parasites …still I feel as comfort my  people says….my stand is based on the scriptures ALL of them… I don’t agree with the WAY we disfellowship people…Jesus set the bench mark for that when he forgave Peter….also Paul exclaimed to the Corinthian cong for being to hard on the Adulterer….and there was a danger of the man becoming over saddened……yes he gave counsel to remove him…but it is my understanding it was only a matter of months when he directed them to bring him back into the brotherhood…anyone can correct me on that.

As a people we tend to beat disfellowshipped one’s down …tho I do see that slightly changing….trouble is when the GB say something it seems like a number of stiffnecked elders stick to their own thoughts…..we have new elders and I have seen ones reinstated very quickly.

so my thought is everyone can do what they want…but be careful when you are responsible for a newly interested one….

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I think the reasoning the WT would go with will be something like this: The Acts 15 decree said to abstain from food polluted by idols, and from the meat of strangled animals, too: 

 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.  Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols [εἰδωλοθύτων], from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

There is a very specific Greek word for "food polluted by idols." [εἰδωλοθύτων] Paul used that exact same specific Greek word in 1 Cor. 8.

Note first what Paul says about "food sacrificed to idols." [εἰδωλοθύτων]:

(1 Cor 8 ) Now about food sacrificed to idols [εἰδωλοθύτων]: We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. But whoever loves God is known by God. So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: [εἰδωλοθύτων]:We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

And Paul goes on to imply that you as a Christian could actually go ahead and eat this meat sacrificed to an idol right there inside the pagan idol temple itself. But that it's not a good idea because of the weak Christian with a weak conscience who might see you and can't understand why you might be eating food sacrificed to idols in any place.

Then in 1 Cor 10, Paul goes on to say that we don't even need to question whether food was strangled, or whether it was bled correctly, or whether it was sacrificed to an idol. The only thing to be concerned about are those people with weak consciences who are still around and who think we still need the Mosaic Law. (Or at least they were still around in Paul's day.) 

Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”^[ If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” [εἰδωλοθύτων] then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

So a very specific thing that Acts 15 told Gentiles to abstain from was food sacrificed to idols. Yet Paul said go ahead and eat it without any qualms of conscience. Paul said to eat whatever an UNBELIEVER puts in front of you to eat; eat ANYTHING sold in the meat market. This could easily include bloody, strangled meat. ANYTHING!! An unbeliever didn't even necessarily follow the Noahide Laws, much less the Mosaic Laws. 

There were people in Corinth who thought they could argue that fornication and idolatry were OK. Some might consider celebrating the Lord's evening meal along with one of the big idol feasts that each city often held. Paul said that was idolatry, and Paul said to Flee from idolatry. Some were evidently "proud" that the congregation could put up with a notorious fornicator, but Paul gave arguments in 1 Corinthians about why fornication was always wrong. 

So if you follow Paul, you might find that bloody meat and food sacrificed to idols was now a matter of conscience, but you couldn't argue for idolatry and fornication.

The best explanation must therefore be that the holy spirit led those Christians who were still zealous for the Law of Moses to find a reason for some useful compromise. It would be necessary for Gentiles to follow this compromise for as long as Gentile Christians needed to associate with Jewish Christians who were still zealous for the Law.

Acts 21: Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.

But after 70 CE, no Jewish Christians could be zealous for the Law any more. If you thought you had to follow any part of the Law then you must follow the whole Law, and the whole Law required the temple. The book of Hebrews shows how the entire temple arrangement had become fulfilled for Jewish Christians. There were no more sacrifices and the city of Jerusalem was not a city that remains, so Jewish Christians (Hebrews) needed to now go OUTSIDE the camp, once and for all time:

(Hebrews 13) Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by eating ceremonial foods, which is of no benefit to those who do so.  We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat. The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood.  Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore.  For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come. Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that openly profess his name. And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.

I get what you are saying but if the society said this then each would have to stand before Jehovah on their decision..and have done the homework……for me…well I will take the same stand as now…and again if they did that..it would come down to legal issues..not spiritual..and they would as they have to now stand before their God…

It would remind me of organ transplants….and the change they had on that…if I had lost my son because of that…..I’d be furious…now you can have a heart transplant and it’s celebrated…without blood….so your thought on it is not out of the possibilities.

Even now with organ transplants I’m on shakey ground….not for myself..as I’m at the end scale of life anyway..but if my son got ill and they offered him heart and lung transplant…I probably would feel relieved and want it….how does one know…I guess that scripture that says if you sin against your own conscience then it’s wrong….im too tired to find it.

55 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

My speculations aren't worth the time to read them, but I'm guessing a timeline like the following: 

2024: No more Circuit Overseers. (The reason that the District Overseers were let go was not because they were costing too much money for cars, convention travel, etc, but because they tended to draw too close a connection between the Headquarters (WTBTS) and the direction followed within all the congregations. This resulted in some legal problems when WT lawyers claimed that the elders shepherd the flock on their own, and the guidance from HQ is not rule-based but only principle-based. But the same legal issue applies with Circuit Overseers.

2025: Shunning is now a matter of conscience. We should all be wary of our associations, but exactly how we implement a shunning policy is up to each one of us. Scriptures will include some Mosaic Law principles related to immediate family, and especially Jesus' parable of the Prodigal Son who was welcomed from afar off, before the father knew anything about motives or repentance.

2026: Blood related therapies in any form are now (officially) a matter of conscience. 

2027: All Bible prophecies said to have a specific fulfillment in 1918, 1919, 1921, . . even into the 1940's will now be officially off the books.

2028: Head coverings now a matter of conscience. But no sister will dare conduct in front of a brother without one.

2034: October 1st "JW Broadcast" and additional GB announcement on October 2nd both offer renewed speculation about 1914 + 120 years = 2034 (i.e. "on or about October 4th, 2034")

2034: Amidst winks and nods, and even some outright laughter, the Annual Meeting will be announced for Sunday October 8th 2034 with simulcasting everywhere to all congregations. Expect announcement that "after careful consideration over the previous several days" ...the 1914 doctrine will be dropped completely at this meeting on October 8th.

2034: Great Tribulation and Armageddon begins October 9, 2034.

So Brother Rando was right..

2026…so I could argue that means fornication and idol worship was a matter of conscience 

I like your speculations but I dont want to wait for ten years………tho the 120 yrs thing is a big thing in my mind.

22 minutes ago, Anna said:

A lot of talk here about some possible ulterior motive to the lifting of the beard ban (although it hasn't been a "ban" for some years now, but still, WT illustrations kept using the no beard as a sign of spirituality). It really was a little hard to fathom whether the GB were for or against beards and were just trying to be subtle knowing there is no Biblicaly sound reason to outright ban them, but they didn't like them and wished no one really wore them. Sometimes WT's subtlety forces one to read between the lines, but often it can give those in responsible positions (elders) too much power because those bits between the lines can be individually interpreted. And this is evidently what happened. 

Finally the GB's hand was "forced" to speak clearly so that every Tom, Dick and Harry understood. After all, wouldn't it be silly if the brotherhood fell apart over a beard misunderstanding!

But has anyone wondered about all these pretty big changes (hour requirements, pulling two disfelliwshiping videos, another chance during the GT and beards) coming shortly after the rearrangement of the members of the GB? 

 

Yes I have…but I was waiting for someone else to bring it up…….

10 hours ago, Many Miles said:

I think the current GB realizes it has a compilation of messes on its hands that can only accrue problematically. It's trying to dig itself out. But the fear is the pile is too deep. Ultimately the 1914 thing will implode on itself. Just a matter of time. Ultimately the blood policy will implode on itself. Just a matter of time. I think the society is looking for an exit ramp. Too many problems, too many informational sources. It'll only snowball.

That’s what you want to happen…..I see this as corrections being made…that were well overdue…for whatever reason ..I’m very grateful.

Im very wary of you miles as so many on line start out warm and fuzzy..but they do not build up their former brothers and sisters but tear them down…not in a straight out  way…

Your scars do not give you the right to throw seeds of doubt around..endangering one’s who may themselves be struggling in this world and spiritually.

You have left the organization…..that’s your decision..and I respect it…even understand it….but you should be very very careful that you yourself do not  end up with blood on your hands.

10 hours ago, George88 said:

My point is that no one here has the authority to judge the Watchtower. Only the Pharisees allowed themselves that power, which led to the death of Christ. So, where do you all get your authority from?

Based on what I have observed, I am skeptical that your actions align with the principles of being a good Christian or a Jehovah's Witness. Of course, I am not specifically addressing you as an individual, given that you are disfellowshipped. However, when it comes to the others, it is truly astonishing how they have compromised the depth of their souls. Whatever you may choose to share holds no significance for me, as it is merely a reflection of the others.

He’s not disfellowshipped.

On 12/17/2023 at 1:51 AM, Pudgy said:

I wonder what REALLY prompted this out-of-the-blue with no indication dramatic change?

Not some esoteric contrived fantasy explanation to maintain authority ….

THE REAL REASON?

On 12/17/2023 at 3:49 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

Well, didn't GB tell you a long time ago: Don't think and conclude logically, because our instructions will not look/be logical.

On 12/16/2023 at 9:26 AM, Pudgy said:

I am happy the Brotherhood, and my sons, are now free of this tyranny.

It would have helped,  had there been an apology for all the ruined lives.

There was not.

There won’t be an apology or a “ we should have handled that differently”

as then it’s getting into legalities……I know you have been seriously hurt…and it’s a crying shame that only those with such scars really get what you are saying.

Im happy for your sons too and also my grandchildren…a different era of things..and Jehovah remembers those who have drifted….he doesn’t forget them.

On 12/17/2023 at 3:49 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

Well, didn't GB tell you a long time ago: Don't think and conclude logically, because our instructions will not look/be logical.

That was WILD TALK ….😵‍💫

On 12/17/2023 at 1:51 AM, Pudgy said:

I wonder what REALLY prompted this out-of-the-blue with no indication dramatic change?

Not some esoteric contrived fantasy explanation to maintain authority ….

THE REAL REASON?

It may come out later…….

3 hours ago, xero said:

The thing is, that one thing I go back to, is not so much that the humans behind the organization have been brilliant, or their ideas were literally from Jehovah's mouth to their ears (or even what was imagined w/regard to those who imagine themselves to be anointed) is this: Jehovah uses organizations to accomplish his will and purposes. With all it's defects this particular organization has highlighted and stuck to many important fundamental points. No Trinity, no hellfire, the kingdom is a government, Jesus is the king of that government, the need to personally get on board with preaching personally. It was the only one annoying enough to get my attention back when I was an unhappy atheist. "1914? Are you kidding me? That's pretty specific. How did you get that?" It little matters to me now that certain things I'd expected didn't take place as I'd expected, or even as I was led to believe. The people I was introduced to were really different and different because THEY believed what they were saying. There was a personal cost to the individual to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses. One can't say that about most nominally Christian organizations. Disfellowshipping, as painful as it is and has been is a critical factor as well, though I disagree with it's use as a tool to silence those drawing attention to perceived or real failings. In the end it is and has served in my view, Jehovah's purposes, though I'll admit to believing that it is not the only one in history or even today to be doing so. I think of the dragnet illustration,and the organizations admission to be part of that dragnet, and I  believe that this is so, and though I couldn't attach myself to any other organization I still feel that it's up to each individual to work out his own salvation with fear and trembling (all the while I can't admit to so much trembling any more at this stage of my life, recognizing that I'm about as good as I can get right now and that's not so great either, so as the saying goes "so sue me" and "you can't get blood out of a turnip" if someone wants any more out of me. I trust Jehovah will deal with me justly (whatever that might be) and I'm OK with that). If a person feels that some other organization would better suit their spiritual growth, then they have the personal responsibility to go with them. I won't curse them if they choose to go even if that wouldn't be my choice.

What comes to mind as I ramble is "Greetings!  Consider it all joy, my brothers, when you meet with various trials, ³ knowing as you do that this tested quality of your faith produces endurance. But let endurance complete its work, so that you may be complete and sound in all respects, not lacking in anything..." James 1:2

People and organizations are like art. There's a proper viewing distance. Sometimes I see trees, sometimes I see the forest. Sometimes I see defects, and sometimes I see these as an opportunity.

In all this I look for Jehovah and to him and the guidance of his Son, and not to the humans who may or may not be moving in harmony with the Holy Spirit.

For some reason that also reminds me of this clip from "Enter the Dragon"

"Don't concentrate on the finger"

This was a very good post…but for those who have extremely deep scars it’s hard to read or hard to digest….i think just acknowledging the wrongness goes a long way in healing……( they are not actually doing this but they are still changing things )……. SOMEONE is making them bend their knees on certain things…..and he will use whatever he has at hand to do that…..personally I am of this mind……and I keep reminding myself I must still keep bending my knee to that someone…I know who he is using…..he will correct those people not so much for them/me…but for his own name sake.

That was a excellent clip!