Jump to content
The World News Media

Anna

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,679

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    98

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Anna

  1. Anna
    Is this a fact or fake news?
  2. Anna
    I don't think there is anything wrong with living a Christian life, I mean an honorable marriage, raising good children, working hard, keeping life simple. The irony though is they only sing about it, because most don't live like that! It's just feel good words. And there is a song about a dog going to heaven too! You would have thought that whoever put this picture up could have used a black dog, since Maggie was a black pup. I wonder if the person even listened to the words, lol. Which leads me to Tom's remark: Just shows we should not reply to a matter until we hear the whole thing! It's tempting though with a title like that, lol.
  3. Anna
    Hey! I like country music!
  4. Anna
    Do you not think the anointed don't do this? I know for sure they do. I know three anointed brothers who are also elders. It seems this is what your main gripe is really about
  5. Anna
    Yes, you're good at twisting and flipping words around I must admit.
  6. Anna
    She also insists that we believe that 99.9% of people will be destroyed (or whatever number it is) because Br. Lett said so, and that Br.Lett (or was it Morris) also decides who is wicked. I find it too tedious to argue such nonsense...
  7. Anna
    This is rubbish. That would be like saying you can't bond with your brothers and sisters or seek out friends from other congregations. You know very well that what was meant was that the anointed should not group together for the purpose of organizing a kind of "elite" club and separating themselves from the rest of the flock. The anointed feel they do not need to do this in order to be members of Christ's body. Christ's body is not dependent on physical or spiritual closeness only with each other. The anointed know they are part of Christ's body and humbly work with the congregation they are at, encouraging and supporting the rest of the flock. The Christian congregation does not consist of "us" and "them" but it is one united flock. It is after their resurrection all anointed will be physically together in heaven with Jesus, and they humbly wait for this. "Praised be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, for according to his great mercy he gave us a new birth to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an incorruptible and undefiled and unfading inheritance. It is reserved in the heavens for you" (1 Peter 1:3,4 )
  8. Anna
    I have heard it said (by elders too) that if we get to the other side, we may be surprised at who we see there and surprised at who we don't see there. Which goes to show that although we might have ideas, and judge others, we just don't know, only God does.
  9. Anna
    He is "essentially labeling"? I don't think so. He is only going by what Jesus said; that many more are on the road to destruction than those on the road to life. And no, he wasn't judging anyone, he leaves the judging to Jesus, as all of us do. Yes, we agree God reads hearts, and yes, He will determine who is saved, regardless of what we think. For those who whole heartedly believe in Jesus there is a warning; “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works* in your name?’ And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’" AND "Furthermore, everyone hearing these sayings of mine and not doing them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand". I had a class mate at school who believed in Jesus whole heartedly. She slept around and smoked.
  10. Anna
    I would say they are the same in that particular context. If someone is uneducated and only interested in basics, they are not going to be open to other ideas to be able to make an informed decision and therefor accept or not accept the good news. But Jehovah can read hearts, so he knows how the person might have reacted if their circumstances were different....
  11. Anna
    You know when they verbalize it, it means they are offended, and if they've done something bad, they need someone to blame. Those who are really stumbled are rarely aware they've been stumbled.
  12. Anna
    A simple answer to both questions would be yes. I don't think people in the slums of Calcutta have been spoken to by a JW..... at least not to the point of being able to make an informed decision* At Armaggedon, only those people who have rejected the truth about Jesus and God will be destroyed. People cannot reject something they have never heard of, or don't understand. *An interesting article here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1987128 It makes a point that: Very few are interested enough to want a Bible study. Making a living and bettering their station in life seem to be the only things on their mind. That, coupled with minimal, if any, education, makes it very difficult for them to accept the good news.
  13. Anna
    Par 12 WT 2006 "We therefore have reason to think carefully about our personal situation. Are we actually inside Jehovah’s arrangement of spiritual protection? When the great tribulation strikes, tears of joy and thankfulness will stream down the faces of those who have sought such protection. For others, there will be only tears of sorrow and regret." When you carefully read this paragraph, it is important to note it is addressing people who have access to the Study version of the WT, which is studied at the KH of Jehovah’s Witnesses. . I do not see a resident of the slums of Calcutta mulling over this WT. Logically, it cannot apply to those people who are not in a position to read these words, and therefore it must apply to those who are able to make a choice, i.e. those who are associated with JWs, know what they should do according to Jesus, but are sitting on the fence. (Or it it sitting on their hands?) The person in the slums can hardly have regret over something he was not aware of in the first place.
  14. Anna
    Sorry, this is going to be completely off the topic of Russel, but as you know I'm watching "The family" and the guy used the example of David for quite a sinister cause. He asked his "recruits" why did they think that after all the bad stuff David did, (he especially mentioned the adultery and manslaughter surrounding Bathsheba) God still not only forgave him, but kept him in his role as king and as representative of the future Messiah. One of the students answered pretty much as we would; because David was repentant and tried hard to do the right thing (or something like that). This was apparently the wrong answer. The right answer was because he was chosen. Which according to the guy in a nutshell meant that if you are chosen by God, it doesn't matter what you do. He convinced candidates that God chooses people in government today, to essentially be representatives of his Kingdom on earth. I had no idea that such an idea existed. I mean I know that politicians in the US tend to be religious (Christians), but I didn't know that they believe they are God appointed for that role. It was like a comparison to the anointed, except these were high ranking politicians. (So in a way this is kind of on topic). It was interesting because it was almost like a parallel to our (JW) Organization. It's almost like there is a false "God's organization' and a true "God's organization". In this respect it's easy to see the future conflict of these two "organizations" and some of the puzzle pieces are falling into place for me....from a different angle. @Araunawhere are you? ...Ok, I agree, this should be in a new thread....
  15. Anna
    I don't feel that comfortable with it either, too much of a specific date for my liking. It's apparently because Rutherford and Co were exonerated and released from prison in 1919 and started afresh with proclaiming the kingdom with renewed zeal. So looking at it in retrospect we now say they were at that time appointed by Jesus to perform that work as the slave and Russel was the one who prepared the way, according to Bible prophecy. (After the 1st century when apostasy set in, right up to 1919 the annointed were captive to Babylon and not doing anything of note and so they were not the slave.....that was one of the main themes of the Pure Worship book....the restoration of pure worship).
  16. Anna
    Yes, that's what we teach now, that he was the bones that started to rattle, but I added more to my original post, regarding what we taught about the slave before that.. Here:Added: Acording to this book; God’s Kingdom of a Thousand Years has Approached,” (1973, p. 345-47 “The Slave who lived to see the sign”) the slave was appointed in 33 CE. This is what we used to teach, that it was all of the annointed since that time. So since Russel was the only one who seemed to start uncovering Bible truths in the 19th century, then it's easy to see him taking up that role. Of course now we say "Russel and his associates" which makes the slave composite, not one individual. (Now we teach that it's not all the anointed but only the GB....and that is Witnesses main gripe, since she was ousted from the circle).
  17. Anna
    I used to hate them too, but they do help get the cutlery clean by preventing them from sticking together, like for example a spoon into a spoon. 😂 on the account that it doesn't take you all day so now you have more time to cavort on here instead?
  18. Anna
    I think for these very reasons he fits the description of someone supplying food at the proper time. For these reasons I wouldn't blame anyone at that time thinking he was the slave, and I wouldn't blame Russel for thinking that about himself either. I don’t know why we today say he wasn't the slave. Well actually I do...because it wouldn't fit our overall picture regarding 1919 when we say the slave was appointed, because he was dead by then.... Added: Acording to this book; God’s Kingdom of a Thousand Years has Approached,” (1973, p. 345-47 “The Slave who lived to see the sign”) the slave was appointed in 33 CE. This is what we used to teach, that it was all of the annointed since that time. So since Russel was the only one who seemed to start uncovering Bible truths in the 19th century, then it's easy to see him taking up that role. Of course now we say "Russel and his associates" which makes the slave composite, not one individual.
  19. Anna
    Just because I expressed that what he said may fulfill the prophecy regarding Governments turning on organized religion doesn't mean I agree with his sentiments about Jesus, or any of his methods that him and his high profile buddies may employ to achieve their goals. You on the other hand praise him and say that he "got it" even though in reality he actually didn't "get it".
  20. Anna
    I can't see it either. In fact I would think it was impossible to accomplish any mission without organization. Even those who say they are not organized actually are. It's "organized religion" that is a dirty word for some, and probably not for the word "organized" but for the word "religion" associated with it. "Organized religion" has given itself such a bad name. I am curious to see how the documentary develops (only seen the first episode) since their aim is to accomplish something without organization....
  21. Anna
    That's what Doug Coe in the documentary was insinuating. He also compared Jesus to Lenin, Hitler and Bin Laden, as examples of leaders who change the world through the strength of the covenants they had forged with their 'brothers'. I don't think I would want to agree with any of his sentiments .
  22. Anna
    I was a bit surprised that JWI posted his "experiment" in the open forum because here they are already convinced of what the experiment "proved". Plus anything here just gets mashed up by the likes of Allen Smith and his multiple personalities, or Witness whose only interest is to turn every scripture anti GB regardless of the topic, or patiently sitting on his hands who sees a conspiracy in all that the GB do and say.....
  23. Anna
    I thought as much after I deliberated over it for a few days. It was an interesting experiment. It made me realize that rather than the actual content, which I merely skimmed over like Tom, I was more concerned with the reputation or status of the person who wrote it. This was interesting because I see this mentality today. It's not only that we want to protect our belief system, but it goes deeper than that. It highlighted that many times it's not what is said but who says it. Perhaps this explains why some of us embrace some beliefs which we don't really understand fully, (or cannot explain ourselves) without bothering to really understand them because ... ahem.....because we trust those who put forward these explanations. If 1914 had been explained by an Indian Guru, I doubt anyone of JWs would be interested. Or perhaps it would be adopted, but its origins would be buried, just like John Aquila Brown and others who made 1914 calculations. So I hesitated, (although my instinct told me otherwise) because I know you like to dig deep but of late you also try not to stir the pot. My instincts told me you are trying to illustrate a point. The point that if we try hard enough, we can pick a few scriptures and make them fit something that we want support for. And if you have already built a certain reputation, especially trustworthiness, it will most likely convince others too. That just seems to be the rule as you say with people in general. Tom was more on the ball, being suspicious that you would make a 180 turn. And Pudgy the old dog realist heard a ring of the "cat thesis" (which I did too actually, and I do know you have a wicked sense of humour). My hubby and me have finished the one docu series and now we have started another Netflix one called the Family, this time about a Christian group (you've probably seen that too). It's amazing what people are capable of doing and believing. Of course when watching these documentaries I always compare our belief system, not so much the content but more the way we apply it, and thankfully, I always see how superior our application is to even so called Christians. One thing that struck me and gave me an idea, although this is off topic here but I don't think it matters now because we have all veered off since your "experiment" is over. Anyway, most will know that I am skeptical about Governments turning on religion, especially in the United States where it plays such an integral part of society and the constitution. Something that was said in the Family made me think of another angle. The journalist whose story this is, overhears Doug Coe, one of the leaders of the Family, saying to another member that "putting labels on religions such as "Muslim", "Christian" gets in the way of your prayers to Jesus .....organized religion detracts from Jesus...we've got to take Jesus out of the religious wrapping". This is IT! It's not that religion per say will be destroyed, but organized religion will be. One of the episodes is called One World Order. Arauna would be proud of me.
  24. Anna
    I bet you're fun at parties!
  25. Anna
    Also, the Bible promises all our hearts desires will be fulfilled... Of course these desires can only be pure. I doubt someone would get away with desiring 70 virgins. But surely wanting to see our beloved pet is a pure desire.....?
×
×
  • 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.