By JOHN BUTLER
I do find it kinda' funny that JW's love to talk about billions of people being removed / destroyed / killed / murdered at Armageddon. Billions of people.
And for what ? Well JW's say it's for not serving God. But they will also say it's for not being a baptised JW.
Well we do know for sure that God either deliberately had, or deliberately allowed, the destruction of Jerusalem in circa 70 C E, and for what ?
Well the Bible shows us it was for not serving God properly, and for killing God's son.
BUT when I suggest that the Governing Body should be removed or destroyed, oh dear, the JW's they get really upset ya know.
Governing Body = 8 men. Jerusalem = how many, men, women and children, thousands of them.
But oh dear, now it would be murder. So what was it back then ? Your see JW's live in a dream world, wrapped up in cotton wool, they just cannot face the real world.
The Governing Body do not serve God properly. That is clearly visible to anyone that honestly wants to see it.
The Governing Body are destroying JW Org, and if JW Org is God's true Organisation then the GB are deliberately working against God and against God's intentions.
Humans that deliberately work against God and cause problems for God do not last long on this Earth.
The Bible shows much proof of this, such as those that opposed Moses.
I am expecting the GB to be removed, one way or another. But only if God really wants to use the JW Org / Watchtower soc for His own purposes.
If God does not want to use those Orgs then it would seem sensible for God to set up a new Org for His purposes.
The only problem with the GB being 'removed' is that JW's will call it a 'sign of the times' and 'persecution', but if God causes the removal then I'm sure He will put them straight.
Those people that say that the GB cannot be removed / destroyed, are those people that worship the GB. And those people that worship the GB may probably need removing too.
The world is wicked, it belongs to Satan. The Earth is wonderful and it belongs to Almighty God.
For God to save this Earth and for Him to save a few humans too, drastic things have to take place. Drastic things have to take place.
Was Jesus Crucified on a Cross NO..mp4
By Israeli Bar Avaddhon
Referring to those cities that would not listen to the message, Jesus said that on the Day of Judgment he would be more bearable to Sodom and Gomorrah than to them - Matt. 10:14, 15; Matthew 11: 20-24
Before saying that he used a hyperbole, we would think about another writing.
Matthew 12:36 says, "I tell you that any unprofitable word that men will say will account in the Day of Judgment."
If we only read what has been written without seeking articulated interpretations, it is well understood that "they have said" is in the past, referring of course to what has been said in this life and not what they could have said in the future (in fact, Jesus he is condemning the Pharisees who have just asserted that He drives out demons by Beelzebub).
Let's think about one last writing.
In 2 Timothy 4:14, the Apostle Paul said, " Alexander the coppersmith did me a great deal of harm. Jehovah will repay him according to his deeds "
Jehovah would have repay his works when?
Before his death, that is in the first century?
Did Jehovah perhaps intervened to punish all persecutors of Christians in the first century?
Is it not clear that the Apostle Paul is saying that Jehovah would remember the actions of this Alexander on the Day of Judgment?
The fundamental question is therefore the following:
We are certain that when the apostle Paul spoke the words in Romans 6: 7, he meant what we believe he understood?
By Brother Rando
Many religions teach an array of traditions and customs from reincarnation to entering into another realm. Should we put our trust into traditions and customs? “In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.” (Genesis 3:19)“For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all, nor do they have any more reward, because all memory of them is forgotten.” (Ecclesiastes 9:5)“ Do not be amazed at this, for the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out,” (John 5:28)“And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.” (Rev 21:4) Would you like to learn more?
By Bible Speaks
Death! What a Sting!
26 "And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing."
(1 Cor.15:26) NWT
11."He has made everything beautiful in its time.
He has even put eternity in their heart; yet mankind will never find out the work that the true God has made from start to finish." ( Ecc.3:11) NWT jw.org
By Guest Nicole
No one likes to talk about terminal illness, but the stigma surrounding this subject is being punctured a bit by a growing realization: In the U.S. these sorts of tragic situations are exacerbated by a lack of planning beforehand, unnecessary medical procedures and associated discomfort, and — less important — a great deal of expense that does little or nothing to improve outcomes. We “do” death worse than a lot of other wealthy countries.
How can we improve this? One answer has to do with where people who are dying spend their final hours and days. There’s a growing pile of evidence suggesting it’s better to die at home, where you’re more likely to be surrounded by friends and family and be relatively comfortable, and less likely to be subjected to pointless invasive medical interventions.
This is an area where there haven’t been a great deal of large, careful studies, though, which is why a Japanese one just published in the journalCancer is so important. (There isn’t yet a link up, but I’ll add one once it is.)
A large team of Japanese researchers led by Jun Hamano of the University of Tsukuba examined the records of 2,069 patients who died of cancer — 1,607 in the hospital and 462 at home. They were curious whether this would make a difference for survival time, measured from when they were first referred to the hospital in question for treatment. “To the best of our knowledge,” the authors write, “this is the first large-scale, prospective, multicenter study” asking this question. And it’s an important question to ask: If patients who spend their final days in a hospital live longer, after all, it would complicate the argument that dying at home is a preferable outcome: Different patients and families might have different opinions on whether an extra, say, ten days is “worth” a little more pain, potentially invasive procedures to extend life, and so on.
What the researchers found, though, was that patients who died at home actually lived longer, or at least as long, as patients who died in the hospital. This has important ramifications for medical decision-makers in terms of how they frame the options available to patients and their families: The finding “suggests that an oncologist should not hesitate to refer patients for home-based palliative care simply because less medical treatment may be provided.”
Importantly, the authors highlight two factors that could account for the fact that staying in a hospital didn’t increase survival time: Those who died in the hospital were given significantly more parenteral hydration (IV drips to keep them hydrated) and antibiotics. Neither treatment seemed to impact survival time, which tells a familiar story of hospitals doing procedures that might seem effective but that don’t actually extend patientlife.
This was a study that took place only in Japan, so it could be the case that things work differently in the U.S. or elsewhere. Still, we have a trend on our hands here: Most of the evidence on end-of-life care seems to be pointing in the same direction, which is that deaths in nonhospital settings, when feasible, offer better outcomes. Not that this is an easy thing to discuss.
Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
Most OnlineNewest Member