Jump to content
The World News Media


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


b4ucuhear last won the day on April 12 2020

b4ucuhear had the most liked content!


About b4ucuhear

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,195 profile views
  1. Frankly, this is a rationale and line of thinking I would expect Satan the Devil to accuse God of. There can be no question that Jehovah is a loving God who is interested in the welfare of his creation. After all, look what he has done and provided for us - including his own son. He didn't owe us anything. As sinners, all of us were already under the sentence of death. It was an underserved kindness and gracious gift from God that any of us could have a salvation we could never merit/achieve on our own. They idea of Jehovah's name being sanctified and made holy has much broader implications th
  2. There is a difference between not seeing eye-to-eye on certain matters or even recognizing the fact that sometimes things happen within the CCJW that shouldn't happen. Even best of friends or husbands and wives will disagree on matters once-in-a-while. But being in "opposition" is taking it a step farther. It indicates a mental attitude or inclination that is almost always negative, contrary with an agenda - even trying to "draw disciples after themselves." Please don't twist my words to suit your argument by insinuating I had suggested all who disagree "should join together/be united as
  3. "Pointless..." "absurd...bad...pretentious..." "loopy and self-important..." "like opening a door with two broken hinges..." "What if a frog had wings and could fly...some strong personal opinions with no basis in fact." Apparently 4Jah2me is not alone in that observation. Frankly I thought the same myself. Even when there are some points that might merit consideration, I can't imagine how many of these crank letters are sent to the society expecting to be taken seriously. A negative agenda is often accompanied by a myopic view. A view coloured by biased lenses - seeing on
  4. non sequitur It depends on whether the human decision was based on God's standards. Job, Jesus, Jeremiah...were all pariahs at one time, but not in Jehovah's eyes. Humans are limited, not miraculously inspired, imperfect, and can be easily fooled - especially when they want to be - when it is the path of least resistance. Other times there is simply little you have the authority to do anything about. But you know that already right? No. I have no idea of what your are trying to say here. Sorry. No. Seriously? You know they are imperfect right? Like you,
  5. There is much, much more to be said in answer to this than you are making out. I don't usually buy into "they question how something was handled because they don't have all the facts" line - especially when in many cases it's the ones making the accusations on certain things that DO have all the facts. So I see that explanation sometimes as a dodge. But I will have to say that in this case, you apparently do not have all the facts - even if there are at times exceptions and legal considerations involved that provide an exception. But this has been hashed over many times before in numerous thre
  6. It's not all that uncommon that elders decisions are overruled or reversed on appeal (I wouldn't say it's common either though). In the case of one of the anointed elders, Bethel didn't even allow an appeal (not surprising since an appeal would have put more eyes on what they were endeavouring to cover up and he was exposing. It would have made them look pretty bad actually). But there is a provision that probably thousands of appointed men have made use of over the many decades that allows for an appeal in writing of the decision if the person feels strongly they were not dealt with fairly/sc
  7. It would be unfair to paint with too wide a brush to basically say "everyone" is "always" this or that. Many/most brothers who serve as elders are loving shepherds who just want to do what is right. Who love Jehovah, love their families and love their brothers and sisters - regardless of whether you share their beliefs or not. But as has always been true, (whether in the times of the patriarchs, Israelites under Law and even the Christian congregation), there have been men who were "bad actors" who were anything but loving. Who grasped at positions of authority for totally the wrong reasons. D
  8. I tend to agree with that statement. It can appear that some of the questions, while feigning interest, are little more than "click-bait" trying to lure JW's into yet more counterproductive interchanges - to attack them and try to weaken their faith. It's a trap the way I see it. While examining the "facts" and how much merit opposing points of view may have, can be valid in my world, there comes a point where you know that with some people it will be just a pointless back-and-forth. They used to be with us but no longer are and I respect their choice to leave. But why would I want to engage w
  9. I don't see anywhere that "hovah" (which is it's own and separate word) is used in relation to, or as a description of God/Jehovah in the Bible or even "a god of" ruin, disaster. Only from you. There are at least 16 occasions - none of which point to God as being described. The fact that "Jehovah" has letters within it that spell out an entirely different word, does not warrant suggesting the whole word/name is contaminated because of that. I guess by your way of thinking, we should never refer to the town of "Shittim" because of...well you can figure it our for yourself. And on top of that, S
  10. To me, the problem arises when you attempt to slice and dice a name/word that is not meant to be and infer meanings that were never intended. For instance just using the example of "fortune" listed earlier. "Fortune" is one word. But if I slice it up into "for" as in pro something and "tune" as in music, I might come up with the conclusion that "fortune" actually means someone is Pro-Music. An entirely wrong definition of what "fortune" really means. But to be sure, before I finish this response, I will attempt to find a better example that directly relates to this discussion. Be back in a whi
  11. Why then did so many faithful Jews use "theophoric" names that incorporated the Divine Name as from the tetragrammaton in the names they used for their children if it's meaning was so disgusting? from Wikipedia: The name of the Israelite deity YHWH (usually shortened to Yah or Yahu, and Yeho or Yo) appears as a prefix or suffix in many theophoric names of the First Temple Period. For example, Yirme-yahu (Jeremiah), Yesha-yahu (Isaiah), Netan-yah, Yedid-yah, Adoni-yah, Nekhem-yah, Yeho-natan (Jonathan), Yeho-chanan (John), Yeho-shua (Joshua), Yeho-tzedek, Zekharya (Zechariah). "
  12. Sometimes, I think we go overboard in insinuating the worst for words that have lost their original meaning in modern parlance and that have become just an expression for which there doesn't seem to be a better alternative. Years ago, (maybe even for some today) it was considered bad form to use the word "fortune" or "luck" - insinuating if we used those words we were invoking or crediting the "god of luck." Which to most people would seem absurd, but not to all - "unfortunately." I was reminded of how many people were on that bandwagon (along with other so-called deep insights people had dug
  13. Anthropo (man/human) as in anthropology - a study of man and morphe/morpho (form or shape) is the basis for the idea of anthropomorphic expressions. It’s a fancy expression to describe a simple idea: that of imputing physical attributes to something that is not human. It’s easier to grasp for some people using cartoon characters like Mickey Mouse as an example. We know that mice don’t wear gloves, have fingers, talk, drive cars etc. But giving them human form, shape, (anthropomorphic) characteristics makes them appealing as cartoon characters. But in the context of a Biblical discussion, it is
  14. "...all the nations have fallen victim...Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins and do not want to receive part of her plagues..." So you are saying that means: "Get out of New York?" What about everyone else on this planet who is affected that doesn't live in New York? Or am I not understanding your thinking here? I know you are convinced in your own mind about your interpretation, but if, after repeatedly writing the GB about your opinions to "correct" them and teach them (your) right interpretation and they didn't agree with you; the elders in your
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.