BTK59

Starting a discussion on how Christmas is evil and pagan, how the star was the hit man on Jesus from satan, All the crazy stuff jw's and you dogs of the jws view christmas as a demonic satanic pagan holiday. I predict this discussion going in hundreds of different directions. 
I just go to this while I'm on work break as I have better things to do in my personal time, when I'm not at work. Guess it's a personal satisfaction when jw's try to classify christmas celebrations as reasons why Jehovah is going to kill them.
Maybe I should ask the question......why is Jehovah going to kill everyone who partakes in celebrating the birth of salvation? Or more simply, why is Jehovah going to kill everyone who doesnt celebrate the birth of the governing body?
Jehovah seems to want to kill everyone, isn't there anyone to talk him out of it? Maybe the govering body?

Do you believe that everyone in Jesus's time, including the apostles, had beards? This idea seems irrational.
The power of the Holy Spirit rests solely with God, who grants it. Neither the Elders nor the Governing Body have the power to bestow the Holy Spirit upon anyone. Any belief otherwise is mistaken. Therefore, this cynical view is flawed.

Your perspective is simply incorrect. In the past, this might not have been a topic of conversation, but times have changed. The way people perceive a respectable appearance has evolved from being an issue to being a norm. Is it fair to solely blame the worldview for this shift?
Your choice of the word, "tranny," to describe the agreement between fellow believers seems rather inappropriate. However, it is important to note that the Watchtower takes the matter of global trends and styles very seriously. When Jehovah's Witnesses present themselves to the public, they do so as representatives of God. I'm curious, are you suggesting that God is a tyrant?   The decision by the GB most likely stems from the need for a level playing field, as other countries do not have a problem with beards. It may have become an issue when witnesses noticed different cultures sporting beards at international assemblies. Now that the playing field is level, why should anyone care?

It's alarming to witness someone so ready to defend something trivial by embracing exaggerated claims. I would argue that the truth lies somewhere in between the culture of past and present, and it's up to us to use our common sense to see through the distraction of the disgruntled. The truth is not always black and white, and it requires a thorough examination of the facts deciding who is on the right side is essential. I strongly believe in religious freedom and oppose any form of oppression that restricts people's worship. Unlike the Vatican, which seemed to endorse the death penalty in the past for those who interpret scripture differently just like the British suppressed religious freedom and then were willing to kill their fellow Christians over it, I'd advocate for a more tolerant approach. However, getting into arguments over insignificant things like beards seems rather trivial and immature. Let's leave that type of thinking to schoolchildren and focus on the true matters that make a difference.
When I read the Constitution without inserting my opinion, it becomes apparent that it offers a valuable opportunity to grasp the exact wording and the intentions of the founding fathers.

Apostates always highlight trivial matters. It's interesting to see if witnesses accept the exaggeration. I often ponder why many in the Catholic faith prioritize being clean-shaven over traditional practices. What was once respectable in the past is now deemed acceptable in the present.
A: First of all, there is at present no law in canonical discipline which forbids beards, so our reader can be tranquil as to the legitimacy of the practice. With respect to local laws there are some religious orders which recommend that its members either shave or, on the contrary, have a beard.

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/beards-and-priests-4752

Allow me to clarify unequivocally: this is not a rebuke, but rather an observation. Should anyone perceive it as a rebuke, it is solely because they are excessively sensitive to personal matters.
I appreciate the symbolic gesture, but it would be even more valuable if you refrained from deleting individuals solely based on your emotional reactions. I understand that moderators have certain privileges, such as being able to mark someone and then, just like that, they disappear. But think about it: is it fair to delete someone just because they happened to prove the regulars wrong and showed that they don't know what they're talking about? Are you guys bored in the closed club where it's currently quiet? Instead of hearing crickets, does it appeal to everyone to increase the traffic here to hear the powerful roar of a lion, devouring the souls of the innocent? Seems your monikers continue unimpeded, while you blame others for having to create a different account just to return. How is that fair play?
I comprehend the tolerance of abuse and foul language exhibited by the individuals endorsed by this group.
Additionally, I have observed a tendency to selectively enforce the bylaws. I believe there was an issue concerning the number of downvotes. Could you please explain that? If people are not permitted to express their dissatisfaction with an unappealing post simply due to ignorance, what purpose does the downvote function serve? I came across a post that raised an invalid concern about the inability of a poster that creates a topic to lock it, especially if they believe it will attract unnecessary negative comments. The rules seem not to favor the poster in this situation. Can you explain the reasoning behind this?
It is important to include a clear disclaimer regarding bylaws on your website. It is crucial to recognize that only moderators have the authority to lock a topic, not the individuals who initiate the discussion. It appears that this website is attempting to suppress individuals by altering its bylaws simply because they dislike being confronted with evidence from scripture and common sense. While it is within your rights to manage your site as you see fit, it is important to be consistent in your decisions and refrain from blaming others for creating new accounts when faced with your regulations of deletion. There is no justification for criticizing individuals for a situation that your own decisions have created.
If you want to address issues like "rebuke," "superiority," and "unreasonable language," "harsh behavior," it's best to start with yourselves before addressing others. Am I going to be removed for sharing my views on this website? I hope not.

It's alarming to witness someone so ready to defend something trivial by embracing exaggerated claims. I would argue that the truth lies somewhere in between the culture of past and present, and it's up to us to use our common sense to see through the distraction of the disgruntled. The truth is not always black and white, and it requires a thorough examination of the facts deciding who is on the right side is essential. I strongly believe in religious freedom and oppose any form of oppression that restricts people's worship. Unlike the Vatican, which seemed to endorse the death penalty in the past for those who interpret scripture differently just like the British suppressed religious freedom and then were willing to kill their fellow Christians over it, I'd advocate for a more tolerant approach. However, getting into arguments over insignificant things like beards seems rather trivial and immature. Let's leave that type of thinking to schoolchildren and focus on the true matters that make a difference.
When I read the Constitution without inserting my opinion, it becomes apparent that it offers a valuable opportunity to grasp the exact wording and the intentions of the founding fathers.

Apostates always highlight trivial matters. It's interesting to see if witnesses accept the exaggeration. I often ponder why many in the Catholic faith prioritize being clean-shaven over traditional practices. What was once respectable in the past is now deemed acceptable in the present.
A: First of all, there is at present no law in canonical discipline which forbids beards, so our reader can be tranquil as to the legitimacy of the practice. With respect to local laws there are some religious orders which recommend that its members either shave or, on the contrary, have a beard.

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/beards-and-priests-4752

Your perspective is simply incorrect. In the past, this might not have been a topic of conversation, but times have changed. The way people perceive a respectable appearance has evolved from being an issue to being a norm. Is it fair to solely blame the worldview for this shift?
Your choice of the word, "tranny," to describe the agreement between fellow believers seems rather inappropriate. However, it is important to note that the Watchtower takes the matter of global trends and styles very seriously. When Jehovah's Witnesses present themselves to the public, they do so as representatives of God. I'm curious, are you suggesting that God is a tyrant?   The decision by the GB most likely stems from the need for a level playing field, as other countries do not have a problem with beards. It may have become an issue when witnesses noticed different cultures sporting beards at international assemblies. Now that the playing field is level, why should anyone care?

Do you believe that everyone in Jesus's time, including the apostles, had beards? This idea seems irrational.
The power of the Holy Spirit rests solely with God, who grants it. Neither the Elders nor the Governing Body have the power to bestow the Holy Spirit upon anyone. Any belief otherwise is mistaken. Therefore, this cynical view is flawed.

Buuaacck buck buck suawaaack, cluck, cluck.

Read the U.S. Declaration of Independence, in it’s entirety. 
86% of the Colonies endured British tyranny as “the way things are”.  Only 14% were willing to put their lives on the line to defeat arbitrary tyranny.
For them the issues were not trivial.

Severe persecution of Brothers FOR 80+ Years for unscriptural reasons is NOT a trivial matter.

How does one perceive an organ? Does it circulate? This is precisely why an organ transplant is such a crucial decision. Certainly! You receive a piece of another individual. Over time, the body assimilates that organ and claims it as its own. The blood that courses through that organ is one's blood, rather than belonging to someone else.
What differences exist in the dynamics between flesh and blood?
The transfused blood eventually gets replaced by one's blood. However, the impact that recurring transfusions have on the human body is still unknown to science. Let's consider individuals who require multiple transfusions as a result of diseases or cancer.
We must address the question of what sets the article in 1972 apart from the year 2023: Science. Back in 1972, transplant recipients were not immune to rejection and often required additional blood transfusions. You also faced the problem of blood not being adequately screened, leading to instances of hepatitis after transplants or transfusions. In these cases, the introduction of a foreign harmful body would alter the dynamics of one's DNA within the body.
Regardless of the situation, scripture remains unequivocal, leaving it to each person to comprehend and make a wise judgment.

Before speaking on behalf of God, let us first consider carefully the multitude of passages in the Bible that would require refutation, such as 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, Romans 12:1, Leviticus 19:28, and many others.
What is the best approach to answering specific questions: with careful consideration or instinctively?
 

Overlapping generations, beards, abolition of hours, daily lawsuits and more will cause an impact that few, if any, are prepared for.