TrueTomHarley

Many times during the 40 year period of wandering, the Jews then were called a stiff-necked and rebellious people. What were they stiff-necked and rebellious about in your opinion? Do you think there is anyone who corresponds to them today? If so, who? If not, why not? What lessons has everyone learned?

It is a play for everyone. Christians "are a theatrical spectacle to the world," of which "the scene of the world is changing." The sooner that is realized, the better off everyone is. It is not the present life that Paul describes as the real life.

Alright. YOU account for them wanting to return to Egypt, where they'd experienced nothing but misery, just a month after crossing the Red sea - and being ready to stone whoever would stand in their way! Give me an explanation for THAT! Let me see if I think you actually believe what you are saying. I don't back down a word. If people want to bitch, they will bitch.

It is possible you are right. But there was a time not too distant ago that Russia wanted to take a respected place among the world community of nations.

Now you've piqued my curiosity It is never on anything doctrinal or about timing of the end. When it comes, it comes. The present explanation I am always ready to acknowledge as the present explanation. Sometimes it stands the test of time. Sometimes it doesn't. It all will come out in the wash. I don't care too much. It is enough that Christianity offers a rewarding way to live. The things that strike me are my own scriptural 'gems' that I can put to good use in working on my personality. Or in reflecting upon how God has dealt with me. Or how he hopefully will. Or how Hebrews 4:12 is seen to divide soul and spirit in so many ways. Or - well, you get the idea. Many Witnesses do this. Though, there are many who simply give 'the answer' from the paragraph. That's fine and an important part of picking up 'the pattern' the truth. In time, people find depth in many verses, even if they have not been formally commented upon, and they zoom in there. But it is never doctrine that gets me going. The essential doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses have been in place for over 100 years and the things that come up today for at-times intense examination are essentially but footnotes.

I am of the unusual opinion that if you are going to ban Jehovah's Witness activity is Russia, then it is a good thing, not a bad thing, to also ban the New World Translation and seize the branch headquarters building. Each drags in people who might not otherwise care. Human rights people protest when Witness activity is banned, but it is partly offset by: 'well, they ARE a pain and they DO call unannounced at inconvenient times. But when you ban the Bible - even ringleader Dvorkin thought that was going too far. It plainly is a Bible; he doesn't like it, but it plainly is one. His country looks like a nation of goons. He is as if to say: 'we cut them off from U.S. organizational and monitory support. That's enough. Break both their legs and they will die! You don't ban the Bible as well, which only make us look like a country where Fred Flintstone is chief. I say ban it for exactly that reason. The academic community couldn't believe it. The Russian expert witness to the Court, an ex-JW, has an education that "doesn't correspond to anything" (mathematics degree) and she just "copies any sort of nonsense off the internet." She had the court harrumphing that it doesn't say 'Bible' on the cover, but 'Sacred Scriptures,' also that it said Hebrew and Greek Scriptures instead of Old and New Testament. She had them perturbed over its use of the name Jehovah, and then it was pointed out the Russian Orthodox version also uses the name. They got concerned that the Jehovah's Witness Bible doesn't support the Trinity and our people showed them that the Russian Orthodox translation also doesn't support it. The Court is plodding about in matters of which it is completely ignorant, Dvorkin fumed, and it shows painfully. Good. Let the record reflect that. The decision regarding the branch headquarters draws in the potentially much more influential business community. Said the Witness representative: "Of course, we will appeal this decision. It is based on nothing, except the desire of the prosecutor's office to simply seize the property. We did not hear a single legal argument. This is expropriation. Russia encourages foreign business to invest in the country, but what investments can be made if the property is not protected and can be seized at any time?" I say it is a good thing for them to seize the building. It cannot serve its intended function anyway. Let it serve its new purpose of calling attention to lawlessness. One Russian news source opined they will ultimately give it back accompanied by huge financial damage penalties. Witnesses will take the matter to the ECHR and also, since the Watchtower Society is American-based, "the American one," whatever that means. If you are going to go unjust, do it big time and make sure everyone knows. The Governing Body saw to it that the initial trial was videotaped in the largest venue possible. That video is widely available. At one point the Russian judge asked the Ministry of Justice whether it had prepared for the trial, so unsupported was their case. In the end, he did what he knew he had to do if he wanted to keep his job, but his interaction with them clearly exposed a sham system, which was repeated at the appeal, repeated again at the trial over the Bible, and again at the hearing to confiscate the branch headquarters. And it was repeated in the case in the imprisonment without trial of Dennis Christensen, the first Witness jailed post-ban, and a Danish citizen. The Ministry of Justice insists he is a dangerous criminal. His last religious act was to preside over a typical Bible study at the Kingdom Hall. His last non-religious act was to build a playground (he is a carpenter) for the children. His second-to-last non-religious act was to take part in a public park cleanup for which the congregation received a certificate of appreciation from the town officials. A lot of people don't like Jehovah's Witnesses - they are a hot-button topic in several ways. But they do know that rule by law and even common sense is a good thing, not a bad thing and when they see it so arbitrarily violated, they get more worked up than they would over Witnesses themselves.

It's a bit heavy-handed, i admit. Maybe R.L. went down in flaming fire before @JW Insider hurled him out the door. But the capitalized word softens it. It is always well to recognize the overall context. I don't think the context - not just sentences but paragraphs fore and aft - indicate Witnesses need feel strait-jacketed.

OH NO! I just saw the latest release. Caleb and Sophia are surly teenagers now and they go to your house to beat you up! They have heard how you trash them. I have capitalized one word, which I think explains it all. Neither comments not thinking need be boiler-plate. See my previous post on this thread.

Too many seem to think these two things are mutually exclusive - growing spiritually and following theocratic headship. I do not. Paul spoke somewhere about the pattern of the truth. Be around long enough and you pick up on the pattern. To say to headship: "you're all wet!" is not part of the pattern. There is no biblical precedent for it, beyond an individual yoyo or two like Naman that one must do end runs around. But muttering against theocratic headship on any significant scale is always associated with disaster. Spiritual growth does not require you butt heads with it. It is better enabled if you do not. I comment frequently in my home congregation. I write a lot. I almost never give "the answer" from the paragraph. I have picked up on the pattern of the truth, and it is not necessary or even desired for a mature one to simply spit out what is in writing. Often I am surprised that where I go within the pattern, no one seems to have gone before. Sometimes I am surprised that they stick to what is (to me) dull and do not reach for things more subtle and interesting. Maybe I could set up my own "Institute of Deeper Understanding" but I don't. Others will catch on if it is worth catching. Or it may turn out that I am wrong - or just irrelevant and what intrigues me is just so much mental cabbage. I am amazed at how many think it is necessary to walk in lockstep. It isn't. That said, I would never blow off as nothing counsel about obedience. Even counsel about hanging out verbally with unsavory ones I do not blow off - I would be much worse without it.

Says who? Only he himself. People on this forum would waste no time concluding he was just covering his rear end - he had no idea what he was doing, so he kicked the can down the road 40 years. Maybe he was some sort of swami or something to do the cloud and fire trick, but after 40 years, it would get old with everyone here. His leadership could easily have been disputed, even during the plagues. He was just in the right place at the right time, that's all. It would have happened in any case because 'all of Jehovah's people are holy.' Once he crossed the Red Sea, there were 40 years in which to get fed up with him. In fact, they got fed up with him within the month, cloud or no cloud. That is the lesson we ought to take away, I think, and see if we can avoid doing the same. At any rate, where else will you go? Srecko may be starting up something. hehehe :)))))))) But unless you want to join him, you may do best to get your head around the present routine to the extent you can. Where you can't, then don't. You don't have to, unless you enjoy privileges, in which case there are some things in which have to adhere more closely - the same as you would if you were the representative of any outfit. People apply their full powers of critical thought to the present. But if they did it to the scriptural record, nothing would stand up. In fact there are people who do that and they have concluded that every other paragraph was written by someone new.

Why not, please explain For the same reason I don't just waltz right in there. Had Moses been directed to put up a chain link fence instead of a curtain, I would feel differently Moses made so many missteps that if you trace his footsteps in the Sinai over 40 years, it looks like he was drunk. Step away from whatever 'privileges' you have in the theocratic organization. Seriously. They are not a privilege to you. They are a burden. If you represent the organization in some capacity, say as an elder, than you do have to reign in some personal freedoms. You don't have to do it as a regular rank and file (and yes, for this post only I will allow the hierarchy model) publisher. You can just rediscover the joys of doing the basic ministry and serving God. Discover the joy of following rather than taking the lead. Help whoever you want to help, not just those you have to. Many theocratic activities are not 'instead of' - they are 'in addition to.' Back off so that you can do the 'instead ofs.' You will be serving Jehovah from a different vantage point. So long as you do not act outrageously, setting up a literature cart with your own pamphlets at the Kingdom Hall, for example, you will find that no one interferes. Grow a beard if you like - it will make less waves than if you try it as an elder. Both you and they will be happier. You are chaffing over organizational things. Step back for a time. Sometimes servants who should do not want to because they have gotten too used to the idea that their own gifts and input is essential. I know what I speak of in this. Presumably, you love the basics - ministry, association, Bible study, prayer. Focus on them. In time you may work out whatever issues you have - for they are not ridiculous or groundless, just overemphasized in your head I think - and you can make yourself available again Are they 'controlling?' Yeah, I know where you are coming from, but I would not view it that way. It is relative. From the world's point of view (anything goes) they are absolutely tyrannical. But if you weigh their conduct against the freedom of speech and independent thought commented upon in the scriptures, they are within the ballpark. Some things are arguable - they could be tweaked this way or that. I'm not crazy about everything I see. But it may be that being 'taught by Jehovah' will entail things that are not the way I would do it. It is not as though everything I have done in my life has turned out brilliantly. It is what it is. At any rate, I do not see any alternative other than that outfit Witness runs. Or be like JTR. Raise your loved ones as Jehovah's Witnesses and tell them 85% of it is crap. Good luck juggling that one. Exactly. Step away from that one. He will drive you nuts. Maybe he will be retrained someday, for they are trying to get him to not be such a yoyo. Maybe he himself will flame out or even be removed. But he's gotten under your skin too much. Step away and you will recover in time. When you return you will have the tools to either put up with him or knock him out of the theocratic park,

Actually, I just thought it was a good idea.

If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If it were all hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But now God has arranged each of the body members just as he pleased. If they were all the same member, where would the body be? - 1 Corinthians 12:17-19 It is enough that Witnesses can entertain whatever notions they want on these periphery teachings - you are far too hung up on asserting they cannot. What they cannot to is grab hold of the wheel of the bus. Many verses speak to promoting sects and stirring up divisions. This is not difficult and I cannot understand your harping on this. If you can't accept something, don't accept it. Nobody says you have to shout these things from the rooftops. It is increasingly hard not to take these complaints of yours as the complaints of Korah: 'that is enough of you because all of Jehovah's people are holy.' People here are searching for the divine/human interface. It is perfectly okay to do if you assume there IS no divine/human interface - that it is all a matter of human politics. Just be honest about it. But if you concede there is one - I am uncomfortable trying to peek between the curtains of the tabernacle into the Holy compartment - which is why I don't go there. And it is not getting caught by the attendants of the priest or even the priest himself that worries me.

If you ignore it, lady - a plain and clearcut brilliant truth - it's not really my problem, is it? Let us toy with the number 2022 a bit and see what profound truths are revealed: 22 take away 20 is what? Two!! And what numeral is featured most often in the year 2022? Two again!! How many times is it featured? Three! Here we see that this  flash of light even has the added advantage of separating the sheep from the goats. Those who accept it for the right reasons - three times for emphasis - enter the gates as a slam-dunk. Those who accept it for the wrong reason - it proves the trinity - are toast. I mean, no offense, @Anna, but - Duh!

Well, we could always go to open mikes at the circuit assembly and let the rank and file, um, people who are there, come up and give their testimony.

Seriously, I think this is the key. If you can't do anything about it - and you cannot, nor could he, apparently - you ask yourself just how big of a deal-breaker you think that it is? If the answer is that you can live with it, do so.

I am going to go out on a limb slightly. 2022!!! Be Ready only 1457 shopping days left for someone to buy your home.

I don't do the following often, for it is a little mean. I wouldn't do it just on account of a differing point of view. I reserve it for someone obnoxious and condescending from the fundamentalist religious world, someone trying to denigrate the work Witnesses do, someone saying dismissively: "No thanks. I'm Christian." As though they own the word. I reply that only a Christian would do the work I am doing, adding "frankly, I'm a little surprised you're not doing it yourself." Always it vanquishes the smug smile. Â However, one does not stop there, upon seeing that the blow has landed. Immediately you move on to soften it somehow, perhaps by returning to whatever you were discussing in the first place. Â I am not thrilled speaking with these ones. If they try to start a fight - and it is always over the Trinity - I deflect. Hopefully I share my verse and leave it at that. Â When I offered a verse to one of these fellows, he immediately wanted to know my religion. Anyone else I would tell immediately, but to him I acted as though - well, it's rather a personal question, don't you think? I mean, this is the Bible. What is more Christian than to talk about it? Â Too many of these folks have their scholarship defined by their beliefs, and not the other way around. Too many have had a religious awakening of some sort. How do you tell them that their experience is not theirs? I don't try. If they find what they learned by revelation confirmed in Scripture, they are happy, but they are not unduly put out when they find it is not. Â Reliably, being saved by faith and not by works will come up. 'Of course,' I reply. 'Everyone knows that. But the works don't hurt, to they? They certainly give us some street cred.' Â What about "there has been a child born to us...his name will be called wonderful counselor, mighty God, prince of peace," he challenges. What about it? I reply. Does he think I should have a problem with it? Why should I? Â He will have to get a little more specific than that if he wants to get into a shoving match. No scrapping on my watch.

We learned not to do it again. Have you noticed any other years since ballyhooed as the big one?

I think they just don't want to find themselves saying something crucial and the sons-in-law of Lot think they are joking. I find it hard to quarrel about that (and am not saying that you do). I don't think they know themselves, going back to the verse that says they are but brothers and just one is the leader. I think they look at the likelihood of ISIS walking the same beat with grenades that Officer O'Malihan once walked with his nightstick, and people donning genders as they once donned clothes, and they think the time of decision may soon arrive - best to be prepared.

Every day I write several pages for the World News Forum. My wife always cuts it down to a line or two. She says that's why she does it, too. Why couldn't you have gotten married at the Justice of the Peace and spared this poor brother?

You should have stayed where you were. The end did come in 1975 but only in Zaire.

I think it is an attempt to put the issue to bed by people who are dumbfounded that their was of framing it is not as clear to everyone as it is to them. Many comments from those disgruntles assume an us versus them mentality - the boss class dictating to the worker class. I honestly do not think they look at it that way. I honestly do not think it is that way. I think it is the way of Matthew 23:8-10: But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. ...Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. They do not view themselves as leaders, but as fellow brothers who are taking the lead. There is a difference. The leader is Christ. When they say "some brothers thought such-and-such" they mean themselves as much as any in the ranks. They do not draw a distinction between themselves and the rest of the brotherhood. Having floated the idea, which was valid due to the 6000 years, they did not push it unduly. If they had pushed it, all district overseers would have pushed it, not just Sunitko and a few like-minded zealots. There is plenty of 'blame' to go around. It is enough to say: "some brothers thought..." The way they view it, and the way we do well to view it, is the spiritual way of Matthew 23. The way some here view it seems to me the fleshly way: the bossman class dictating to the worker class.

There is a lot of that going around. There ought to be a vaccine for it.

Health authorities are now saying the current flu vaccine will be but 10% effective. There had better be a lot of apologies - that's all I have to say.