Equivocation

I kind of figured because the story of Kyle Rittenhouse has everyone involved. There were some livestreams of some people talking about the case, and someone coined "Silver Haired Truther". Not sure if you know anything about that. Yeah, and right now misinformation is on full 100% blast, so much so, even at my University, it is causing people to believe things that are not true, and if you say something that is true, well, it is like a trainer battle (a plus if you catch that reference lol). But yeah, Satan has tricks, we just have to be on our toes.

Well the situation is getting worse. Whatever New York does New Jersey, a blue state, might end up doing. Other then that the situation provided memes lol, not too many people are happy or laughing in dark times so... 😆

I never really follow news but it usually gets into social media and apps. I often see people mention media even on here so my question is why is there such a strong push for false information? No into politics but the whole Biden thing is crazy. From what I have seen, seems like hate voting to get this guy into office and people are getting censored out of the blue as well as taken out of context.

I still play videos games, I grew up playing them, even remember the first games I played on Sega (Sonic 3D Blast, Megaman, Bubble Bobble,) and Nintendo (Super Mario 64, Bomberman, Super Smash Bros, Mario Party) lol 😆 From there I got into Fifa, NBA 2k and Madden, then the majority of racing games such as Need For Speed, Crew, my favorite, Gran Turismo. I currently have this on the infamous, hard to find, Playstation 5 lol 😆 Even better when playing with company. Plus it has replay value. Although I play games still, you need balance and time management. Work, School, Leisure time and what is on top of all that is Bible study and meetings. Unlike my younger self, I don't play games like crazy. Also Mario Party gave me blisters, many kids had blisters lol. The only thing not so fun about video games not regsrdless of what genre someone plays is the Microtransactions, essentially you don't own all of the game you bought.

@Isabella So where is the Animal Cruelty? 🤔 It is not uncommon for well trained pets to roam when their owner isn't present. I mean, some people have been doing this so it wouldn't put it past me that this brother did. @xero Sometimes people do leave their pets out if trained. So I guess people are not pet owners will come up with their own assumptions on things, not realizing what is the truth in the matter. Also Climate Change can be over exaggerated by some to the point that they entertain the idea that 'culling the herd' would be beneficial. Then you have the UN thing regarding Climate Change. Crazy stuff. Oh boy the usual suspects again @Space Merchant and @Patiently waiting for Truth.... I guess I know who brought up CSA this time and once again I see who is in the right here.🧐 @Patiently waiting for Truth As someone who is still technically a youth, perhaps the youngest one here, there is some form of CSA on social media, so I wouldn't say that's hypocrisy because it has been going on for a while, even Facebook's predecessor, Myspace. So CSA is everywhere not simply in religous congregations, or in schools or clubs. It's own social media too. Anyways, I dunno man, I wouldn't call him a lair. He just 'cross examined' everything related to CSA in order to press you to answer a question which is parallel to current and long deleted threads which you were involved in. Usually if he recounts something related to what is said or directly, chances are it isn't a lie, I noticed he pulled a few jabs from that one thread I will not mention because it'll just send this thread into another off topic conundrum. But he IS RIGHT, that question could've easily been answered but you kept it dragging along only to paint yourself in the wrong. You are literally proving his point even through a cross examine tactic about Facebook and CSA. Dunno were working for Facebook and Watchtower defense came from, since Merchant operates on a logical with centered reasoning and you don't. Smh. The simple answer would be, you wouldn't leave despite it happening on Facebook. I guess now Facebook is as he puts it, your Kryptonite. It also makes sense for him to even bring it up because of the mass censorship that went down after the Facebook whistle blower thing, and some of that censorship not only revolved around politics, but CSA too. I know a bit of this because my own professor, one of them, seems to be a die hard blue check mark guy, not reader. Although he knows I am JW he at times lowkey try to encourage ideologies that are not in line with God's standards. Other then the Truther thing, him and the only other guy who was affiliated with Jehovah’s Witnesses, are spot on with certain subject matter. Anyways, please next time this thread is about Animals and or Animal Cruelty. I don't see why you added Child abuse into this but the Revelation of Facebook should have kept you in check. NOW THEN as for the topic, there isn't much evidence of that being Animal Cruelty, and the fact you don't judge as you claim, that contradicts what you said on this thread. Here in America, some people do leave their pets unattended ONLY if their well trained domesticated pets. Likewise with any uncanny animals people tend to have in the house such as chickens, ducks, etc. Yes, people do have pets like this. This excludes anything such as a snake, lizard, etc. Certain animals even if trained you cannot leave alone because they can potentially become prey to predators. So this JW who leave his dog out is most likely trained and as the Merchant stated, there is a Rule of Thumb when it comes to these situations. Obviously he would NOT leave his dog unattended if was NOT trained. Although it is done here, even in other cultures that is applied, even for some in our community. So I don't know why someone who assume something without some form of credible information. As for Climate Change, other than this whole thing supposedly effecting people, it does to animals too. Clearly Bill Gates isn't doing much with that private jet he is using. @Space Merchant I kind of see what you did lol. Anyways, you are right, CSA is a problem on social media, even Facebook. There were rumors were the algorithm of Facebook and all under it, make it difficult to even track suspects on the platform. And it isn't a shock to people, me included, of what's going on on there, even what is allowed to the point people would find loop holes in the system. This was the case with YouTube and Reddit a while back too. Like I said, I am most likely the youngest one here and I grew up in the social media space. There is always some bad apples on the platform, also those who encourage bad behavior. Now again since this is ANIMAL CRUELTY we are talking about, I seen what people do with animals on there, not good. There were some people who would harm even kill an animal for likes and attention. Like what you said, Facebook can't be a replacement to anything pertaining to realism, and real people in a social setting are not on this validation high to do such a thing when it comes to harm towards other people and animals. Other then that, this is why people need to be careful but at the same time you can't do much with all this censorship going on. Crazy to think someone but this stuff is true. "WATCH ME KILL A CAT ON FB LIVE" and should someone announce that, the Watchers will come give likes and view such Cruelty. The world can be twisted at times. Smh 😐 @TrueTomHarley Well it isn't too surprising if some people will ignore that information willfully. I guess now we can start using the term 'predictable' since that is being thrown around. @Pudgy Yeah, some people can be cruel to animals. I have a few family members who try to take in resuce dogs. One of my family members is a rich guy but humble. As Space Merchant puts it, there are people who are cruel online but at the same time there are those who utilize such tools to help, which is what my relative does. He has a lot of space to hold dogs, so far he has a about 7, 2 dogs he saved, the history of those dogs were in dog fighting matches which is highly illegal.

What do you think of the following below, like the other passage that was discussed, these are said to be spurious or forged, be it added or removed, whatever. Let's keep this BIBLE SCRIPTURE ONLY, for once this thread needs something neutral instead of the world war III stuff going on, reasons why I asked if ANYONE really changed Simply just quote whatever verse or passage, and show your findings. If you have to interact with someone else, only use Scripture and your findings. Consider this a Bible based activity. Mark 16:9-20 Revelation 1:11 1 Timothy 3:16 1 John 5:7 Acts 10:48 Acts 16:7 Hebrews 1:3 Ephesians 3:9

Yes some would say that, but it goes back to what was originally written and what came later. For there were reasons as to why some verses, passages and even some books were not added to Scripture. SM mentioned something about a talking cross 0_o, which is new to me, and if that was in the bible, that would confuse me. It all comes down to the authorship of apostle John. The only people who defend this passage are often the kjv bible crowd, along with Triune believers.

Good evening witness, I just explained to you the reasoning behind that verse, even went as far as to paraphrase the reference. So, I am not sure how you took it as a wrong response. That other bit is kind of irrelevant. I also do not think there is a lockdown of spiritual food. Spiritual Israel? Isn't it obvious? Ok, I think you are goin waaaaaaaaay overboard there lol Why would someone inspired like John ever be at fault when taking part in what Jehovah has given him to do? That does not make sense. It is a good passage, but if the story can't be 100% true in determination, why would anyone say that it is? There was most likely a good reason as to why it was not included, and that passage is not the only one. The history of John 7:53-8:11 was always talked about for a very long time, this is nothing new to Jehovah's Witnesses. I mean, it would be pollution of God's Word if we were to add to it with something we cannot know for certain if it is true, as well as the fact that early on, there was a reason to omitted it. If one bible had the passage and later removed it, that should tell you something. You haven't explained what this has to do with the omitted verses.

Yes, the kjv bible - And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. The NWT reads - As they were stoning Stephen, he made this appeal: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Other translations also left out God, and kept Lord. Notice in all of them, only the kjv and the new kjv shows God. This is as you pointed out another verse often used by some, and we can see that there is a problem. The fact that "God" is mentioned this close with Jesus being mentioned here, some would assume Jesus to be God. This is one of those verses some people, I just the new thought crowd, trinitarians and even some former jws often attack the NWT on, not realizing that "God" isn't part of the verse. Revelation 1:11 is a conundrum on it's own, and an obvious form of forgery. Well I guess very true since it can be seen here lol. Although a good passage, sadly, it isn't part of Scripture. Why would you think some people would go to great lengths to "add" or "remove" to trick many, even resulting false teachings? I mean we got the whole trinity thing squared off, and immortal soul teaching. Even while preaching, we run into these things sometimes.

Hey evening - Not sure what does this all have to do with Greek Scriptures. Kind of focused on the Bible itself, no dramas, so I don't see why all of a sudden we have to go there. I wouldn't call it prove or not, it is more so speculation, but most people don't think it to be true.

There was the Vulgate I think, but that was later if I remember correctly, nothing early.

@JW Insider Thank you, the thread alone has more detail. It wasn't much when @Patiently waiting for Truth said the 2 points he addresses, which didn't have that much detail as seen here - 1. Jesus allowed an immoral woman to wash His feet with her tears, then wipre His feet with her hair, then she anointed His feet with oil. Then Jesus said to her "Your sins are forgiven you " 2. The Jewish way of life, The Law, demanded death. However the New way, through Christ, demanded mercy and forgiveness. Jesus and the disciples never punished anyone by killing them. But this thread alone has more detail as to what I was asking for, not sure as to why he didn't bring that up early before his usual boxing match with SM. Although debatable, majority of people see it as spurious, even us JWs, reason why I cited JW library, and my pervious post was from a study, where I quoted my old comment about the history of that passage. Even while preaching, there are people who do not consider this as part of the Scriptures, even more when it was used much much later on in some translations. Thanks again because you took literally a minute to do this vs someone else who took days.

They left it out just like the rest of those who understand textual Analytics. If The Book of John was completed, and centuries later, out of nowhere the passage was added just like that, then that is a problem, and that is what caused people to make a note as to why it was removed. Therefore, The story of the adulterous woman was inserted into The Book of John too late to be a genuine record of Jesus’ dealings with this woman. It may be one of the most charitable stories in the entire Bible, which it looks to be just by reading it, worthy of reflection, however, and sadly, it is not a true story, and anything spurious, be it verse or passage is noted as an exaggerated story (or unauthentic). Likewise with other verses mentioned. On the JW Library, it states the following - The earliest authoritative manuscripts do not have the passage from Joh 7:53 to 8:11. These 12 verses were obviously added to the original text of John’s Gospel. (See App. A3.) They are not found in the two earliest available papyri containing the Gospel of John, Papyrus Bodmer 2 (P66) and Papyrus Bodmer 14, 15 (P75), both from the second century C.E., nor are they found in the Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Vaticanus, both from the fourth century C.E. They first appear in a Greek manuscript from the fifth century (Codex Bezae) but are not found in any other Greek manuscripts until the ninth century C.E. They are omitted by most of the early translations into other languages. One group of Greek manuscripts places the added words at the end of John’s Gospel; another group puts them after Lu 21:38. That this portion appears at different places in different manuscripts supports the conclusion that it is a spurious text. Scholars overwhelmingly agree that these verses were not part of the original text of John. A3 - Greek Text: In the late 19th century, scholars B. F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort compared existing Bible manuscripts and fragments as they prepared the Greek master text that they felt most closely reflected the original writings. In the mid-20th century, the New World Bible Translation Committee used that master text as the basis for its translation. Other early papyri, thought to date back to the second and third centuries C.E., were also used. Since then, more papyri have become available. In addition, master texts such as those by Nestle and Aland and by the United Bible Societies reflect recent scholarly studies. Some of the findings of this research were incorporated into this present revision.

That does not answer the question - you are just giving somewhat of a miniature summary of the passage. I said [Anyways, my question to you see, do you believe Jesus really saved an adulterous woman, even though it was never recorded in the earliest available mss sources we have come to know?] If Jesus really saved an adulterous woman as seen in John 7:53-8:11, why is it this passage came much, much later when the Book of John was essentially completed? If this passage was canon, it would not have been a later addition, and ALL Bibles would have this passage. I pointed out that nearly 267 early mss does not have those verses about the adulterous woman, so it is a spurious passage, false. This was my comment, if you haven't read it - He didn't save an adulterous woman because the passage was never canon. If it was canon, then an explanation could have been given the day the question about the passage was first mentioned. If Apostle John, who was an inspired person, didn't write the passage, then who are we to assume, or confirm that he did when the mss is available to us? The only people who consider it as true are those who constantly affirm that the KJV is the one and only true Bible. This passage is also in the same light as Acts 8:37, and the other verses mentioned.

1. Any available early source. The NWT follows this, and the same thing for some other Bible Translations 1a. He is mostly a Textual Analyst and or studies it, and Hermeneutics, so people like that should know what early mss are used, and why the later ones are often not used. If I am not mistaken, Bible Unitarians take that seriously. 1b. Since the JWs were referred to as Restorationist, Restorationists usually follow the earliest sources, likewise, the mention of other Bible translations besides the NWT that does the same thing, for example Acts 8:37 being in the KJV Bible, but not in the NIV Bible. 1c. Expert Translators who are aware of Textual Analytics or experts of Hermeneutics. 2a. The Scriptures are inspired, that is the reason why 2 Timothy 3:16 was mentioned. God's Word is inspired. 2b. Yes, that is why we have modern Bible translations in a readable language. 3. Any expert or people who study Textual Analysts or Hermeneutics. For example, knowing the original version of Revelation 1:11 compared to the later one. Likewise with Acts 7:59, the original did not say "God" in the text. Exaggerated because it is spurious and a not inspired text. This is why I mentioned how it is not found in the earliest mss. The illustration/parables were found in the earliest mss. Srecko, I think you are getting confused as to what an exaggerated story/narrative is. My last comment explained everything. Because the illustration/parable was found in the earliest sources and was part of the inspired text. The Adulterous Woman passage was never in the earliest sources at all, and was added much later on from an unauthentic source. Buddy, about Jesus, you seem to be applying elements that counter the story Jesus was telling to push a lesson. Anyways, my question to you see, do you believe Jesus really saved an adulterous woman, even though it was never recorded in the earliest available mss sources we have come to know?

Well you did respond to it with Luke 17:36. I read the one about homosexuality, he challenged you on Romans 12:9 "cling to what is good/abhor what is bad" since you took his comment out of context to Tom he trapped you with the obvious homosexuality question. I notice if someone takes something out of context, he enables the other person to push the point, so I can see how he got you. His point to Tom was people who often are in apostasy will do bad things. There are some points to his comments if you really read them, it isn't choice, often times he is right, mainly when lines people up into their own understanding uses it to his advantage. So to what he said to Tom, Christians need to cling to what is good, and not what is bad. But you were confused on superior authority, you said to look at what you quoted and I did. I still don't see what was taken out of context from the images. And I don't see the misuse of Scripture for Romans 13. Telling people although worldly authority are superior and that God is superior isn't taking control or confusing people in the congregation. As to what I made comment to, we understand there are people of authority in the world, and there is Jehovah and Jesus who has authority as well. Nah, you're good, nothing to be sorry about, you can add on anything at anytime.

@Srecko Sostar @Patiently waiting for Truth I figured this might help you out a little. It isn't much, but you can start from there - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_verses_not_included_in_modern_English_translations @Space Merchant I got to say, that was a wild setup to entrap people about Bible Errors questions. This is why when I found out about missing verses, I was not all-knowing about the omitted verses when I was challenged at one time. It took my a while to learn these things and understand why those verses were not found in the NWT and some other bibles.

I read both, but I don't see as to what was taken out of context, especially with my comment of Roman 13 which solidifies the view of superior authorities be it rulers in the world, or that of Jehovah and Jesus, who are of the highest authority. You can see the distinction between both comments, more information if you read the full pages:

Bans issued, be it temporary or permanent always have a reason behind that, and only Admins and Co-Admins know the reason. And I doubt it may have been an IP ban. If I recall, Admin is not one of Jehovah's Witnesses, Admin runs an forum, and anything that violates guidelines, the Admin deals with and or if someone reports it. In a situation like that you can't real defend yourself unless it is a temp ban and you can be given the opportunity to write an appeal. If Admin was a JW Elder, people like Witness and Srecko would not be here, even Space Merchant, and the other clubs would not exist. If he is here, there won't be any problem against him if he says his name. But from what I have been reading a lot of people think you are him, I mean, @JW Insider comment was very compelling and those screenshots, even Tom and Anna were compelling in their comments, but you being John doesn't really matter. I was only reminded of the Admin deleting John's Ebonics thread, and Admin explained why the thread was closed; parts of what was said in that thread can be searched. But like I said, it doesn't matter anymore.

@Pudgy There is always dogecoin lol @Space Merchant I can see the Christian Stack exchange people are always debating as usual, I now understand why you are from that community and the other one mention. What about Canada Church burnings, Truther stuff related lol, and is this recent? I'm not aware of churches owned/used by Indigenous people - first time hearing this. @Patiently waiting for Truth There has been burnings of religious places of service for sometime now, either arson or by accident. Some burnings are done with intent, for there are reasonings behind it. Sometimes during an investigation, not much is mentioned and often times it becomes water under the bridge. As long as no one got hurt, that in of itself, is a good thing.

In the workplace, you are bound to meet people like this. Co-workers, whom you work with. The answer to that would be, I would tell him I won't attend, or take some form of responsibility for this event. If I am told WHY, my answer would not only I am a JW, but also tell the person as to, in a respectful manner, as to why I can't attend via Bible examples. We do these to be very respectful, and I know it was address already, to not mingle with conduct or customs that are not in God's favor. @Pudgy To a degree, it can be a waste of time depending on the person, but there are people who will listen. Believe it or not, some people out there can conquer this imperfections and be a follower of Jehovah God and Christ. I can't read French, but someone translated it already. The article is a little bit pushing for acceptance of same sex marriage. The bible makes it clear marriage should be between a man and a woman.

I think it is pretty obvious, that around the world, different towns, cities, etc. there will be some minor instances of persecution, mainly from people who holds aggression when it comes to the Bible. For example, if we are preaching in a small town in Florida, in that small town we may face persecution, but at the same time, in that town, there are those wanting to know, even learn about the good news. So Jesus was very clear in his words, in fact, we even see similar examples that we can learn from from our early Christian counterparts. Jesus already knows what the future holds. The very reason why he said what he said to the apostles, which we can learn from today. Jesus is indicating that his disciples will not complete the preaching about God’s Kingdom before the glorified King Jesus Christ arrives as God’s judge. So we have a long way to go. So as followers of his, we are to carry out this work.

@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.

I don't believe we've taken Romans 13 out of context, we do follow laws, but remember, laws and everything pertaining to it varies in different States/Countries, for some actions in, let's say New York City, isn't the same in New Jersey or Florida, vs. some states in the United States vs what you have in the United Kingdom, for if I am not mistaken, variation of laws and rules in different parts of the UK. As for Romans 13:1-2 (I made this comment a while back on a different forums) - An expression at Romans 13 : 1 designating human governmental authorities. That scripture has been variously rendered : “Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God.” (NW) “Let every subject be obedient to the ruling authorities, for there is no authority not under God’s control, and under His control the existing authorities have been constituted.” We/Everyone must obey the state authorities, for no authority exists without God’s permission, and the existing authorities have been put there by God. Jehovah God, though not originating them (compare Mt 4 : 8, 9; 1Jo 5 : 19; Re 13 : 1, 2), has allowed man’s governmental authorities to come into existence, and they continue to exist by his permission. However, when he chooses to do so, Jehovah can remove, direct, or control such authorities in order to accomplish his will. The prophet Daniel declared regarding Jehovah : “He is changing times and seasons, removing kings and setting up kings.” (Da 2 : 21) And Proverbs 21 : 1 says : “A king’s heart is as streams of water in the hand of Jehovah. Everywhere that he delights to, he turns it.”— rf. Ne 2 : 3-6; Es 6 : 1-11. There is Reasons for Christian Subjection There being no reason for Christians to set themselves in opposition to an arrangement that God has permitted, they have good reason to be in subjection to the superior authorities. Governmental rulers, though they may be corrupt personally, would not normally punish others for doing good, that is, for adhering to the law of the land, for every state/country have different laws; a few that are identical. But a person who engages in thievery, murder, or other lawless acts could expect an adverse judgment from the ruling authority. One guilty of deliberate murder, for instance, might be executed for his crime. Since God authorized capital punishment for murderers after the Flood (Genesis 9 : 6), the human authority, by executing the lawbreaker, would be acting as God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath upon the one practicing what is bad. Romans 13 : 2-4; Titus 3 : 1; 1 Peter 2 : 11-17. Christian subjection to the superior authorities is not based merely on their ability to punish evildoers. With a Christian, it becomes a matter of conscience. He is submissive to human authorities because he recognizes that this is in harmony with God’s will. (Romans 13 : 5; 1 Peter 2 : 13-15) Therefore, subjection to the superior authorities—to world based political authorities—could never be absolute. It would be impossible for a Christian to preserve a good conscience and do the divine will if he broke God’s law because that is what the political authority demanded. For this reason, subjection to superior authorities must always be viewed in the light of the apostles’ statement to the Jewish Sanhedrin - We must obey God as ruler rather than men.” Acts 5 : 29. Since the governmental authorities render valuable services to ensure the safety, security, and welfare of their subjects, they are entitled to taxes and tribute in compensation for their services. The governmental authorities can be termed God’s public servants in the sense that they provide beneficial services. (Romans 13 : 6, 7) At times such services have directly assisted God’s servants, as when King Cyrus made it possible for the Jews to return to Judah and Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. (2 Chronicles 36 : 22, 23; Ezra 1 : 1-4) Often the benefits are those shared by all from the proper functioning of the authorities. These would include the maintenance of a legal system to which persons can appeal for justice, protection from criminals and from illegal mobs, and so forth. Php. 1 : 7; Acts 21 : 30-32; 23 : 12-32. Of course, a ruler who misuses his authority is accountable to God. Wrote the apostle Paul - “Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written - ‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says Jehovah.’” - Roman 12 : 19; Ecclesiastes 5 : 8. As for the Locust bit, if I were you, I would check out the references, for it better helps to understand it. If I remember correctly, Witness argument was that the Locust did not represent the Anointed. If the thread you are talking about where SM and Witness were in a Kickboxing match about, those statements made vs what you mention now might be contradictive. As for your 2 points: That is just two examples of MISUSE of scripture (or lies) from the Watchtower / JW Org / GB / Leaders. I don't think there was a misuse of Scriptures, mainly if you read between the lines. So us being in subjection to the law has not changed, in fact, people we minister to recognizes that because they are aware of authorities and God's view of things. So, if you condemn other religions for misuse of scripture, why do you not also condemn JWs ? He isn't talking about Religion, he is talking about groups, and often times they preach that God creates evil, resulting in people blaming God for creating badness and or the death of loved ones, and other problems in the world. Verses often used for example would be Habakkuk 1:5-11. We preach that God does not create evil, in fact, we often use James 1:13, to show people that God is not reasonable for these bad things. We also do not use forged or not inspired text, this is why SM essentially "entrapped" you with "Textual Criticism-sque" questions. In his eyes, he practically baited indirectly baited you into saying something about omitted verses, which allowed him to prove his point about omitted verses and former JWs. He didn't condemn us because he knows we already know the answer to both those questions, that is why no one said anything and just watched - it was a clever move. Just to help you and Srecko out, I'll answer both because for him, he knew both of you would avoid answering.

@Space Merchant Now that you said that I remember the thread where Admin did say something before the thread made by John was deleted. TBH, I was angry because back then, I loved my family and to this day I continue to love them. My late uncle was not a Jehovah’s Witness, but he was a firm believe in God and respected what we were doing, preaching the good news, even at times offered aid. In our culture, it is offence for someone to not just speak ill of something in that particular culture, but to speak ill of them as they are dead and buried in death is what angered me at the time. On top of that there was the Ebonics – that thread I believe might still be on this forum somewhere. As to all you said and imaged, I didn’t think that was John until you mentioned angered teen, and the notes you gave about racism. What was the reason as to why John goes by a new name now? Because I still see Anna’s, Tom’s and your reply and random reactions, and you occasion keep saying "JB". ----------- Hey good afternoon @Witness, us Jehovah’s Witnesses do follow the Commission. As Jesus commanded, we are preaching the Good News of Jehovah God’s Kingdom around the world. Although we are in the middle of the Coronavirus pandemic, we are still doing just that, as is build up not only our faith, but to those who come to know the Kingdom message, and they very much appreciated that, and what we are doing. As for Porosity preachers, they’re the opposite, for they really do not have preachers, and the heads of the mega church don’t really do anything much. An example of this is what happened in Texas, for them compared to what we did some years ago – truly a difference. This is why my last quote also make the distinction, and to what SM said. Even to this day, Charismatic Christians often speak ill of JWs and anyone who does not believe Jesus to be God. So I take it as to that being the reasoning behind the "Trinity/Commission" question that was asked and as to why Francis Chan was mentioned. Also, that other bit was kind of weird 0_o. To revel in fleshly things or desires is to openly partake it in. That is kind of the opposite of what we do. I am morally sound. ------------------ @Srecko Sostar, it has nothing to do with activism tho - this is the reason I mentioned "points made in a discussion", no one was an Activist, but rather, gave their points on the issue of child abuse itself, and the visiting student was focused on those 2 points in the discussion related to child abuse. In addition to that was the very reason why I said whenever the topic of sex abuse is brought up, information is given, including insight on the Watchtowers and Awakes relating to the topic. The Bible speaks Christian principles, even going as far as to encourage and or teach others on this - in this case, morality. So, it still would not stop you from talking about it when being in multiple discussions about child abuse. For instance, just in this thread alone, it was brought up, some insight should have been given, so doing nothing could have been made into something. Like I said, our first interaction, you were very vocal about child sex abuse in some congregations. About Activism, it is the fact of campaigning for policy or action of using vigorous campaigning to bring about change. Activism consists of efforts to promote, impede, direct, or intervene in social, political, economic, legal, or environmental reform with the desire to make changes in society toward a perceived greater good. They can form through mandate building in the community, petitioning elected officials, running, or contributing to a political campaign, preferential patronage (or boycott) of businesses, and demonstrative forms of activism like rallies, street marches, strikes, sit-ins, or hunger strikes. Understandable. You don't have to be an open person in the general public. But online, you are very open, I can see that, and elsewhere. Alienation, probably not because not only we're aware of sin, we are aware many things, if we were truly "Alienation" we would be oblivious to everything taking place, this goes for problems affecting not a human society, but the general public, mankind as a whole. Reasons for not referring to human societies because every pocket of people are different, sex, race, background, etc. so to equate it to that is a little vague. My friend, we aren't talking about Activism, or to make change. The issue of morality stems from Scripture even, for if there is a danger, counsel can be given in a discussion about the subject matter. It does not matter if someone is young or if someone is old - you are on a platform where child abuse is openly discussion even at random, it shouldn't stop you or anyone from providing insight. Perhaps now would be the best time to do so. Like I said, there was only one thread that was Bible heavy on the matter because of discussion, if that can be done, you can do the same, after all, you can create threads as someone on this forum, since you did nothing, you can do something now. Therefore, you can do something. Does not have to be anything major either. I say this because for some ExJWs they don’t really cover these things.