Jump to content
The World News Media

All Eight Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses members are now individually named on two New York Child Victims Act case documents


Jack Ryan

Recommended Posts

  • Member

Arauna completely missed the boat again:

Quote

 

    9 hours ago, AlanF said:

    fact is that natural selection weeds out the bad mutations; at least, it did until the advent of modern medicine.

 

Arauna had claimed that mutations in humans over a long period of time would have resulted in their extinction by now. Therefore humans must have existed for a short time, presumably the 6,000 years allowed by the Watchtower Society. I gave the above comment as part of a proof that her reasoning was unsound.

Rather than dealing with my entire disproof, Arauna sidestepped all of it with the irrelevancies below, most of which I've chopped out since they have nothing to do with our discussion.

Quote

 

In one cell one needs a minimum of 150 proteins to function. A protein has a specific sequence of DNA material that can only fit in a specific way and is folded in a specific way. ..... very complex.

. . .

Mathematically it is impossible to get even one cell developed in 500 billion years - we need time beyond what scientists are saying is the age of the universe.

 

So once again, Arauna, if your reasoning is correct--that humans that originated 4-6 million years ago would have gone extinct by now due to excessive accumulation of mutations--how do you explain the fact that the cat sub-family that has existed for some 5 million years still exists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 38.7k
  • Replies 636
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

When speaking with others of a different point of view, it is important to treat them with a modicum of respect. It is important not to taunt and ridicule and insult. Of course, if such is your only o

Good point Srecko. I don't think it's entirely fair to blame the GB for creating a "certain" environment inside congregations though. In fact, (we know everything passes through the GB's hands fo

@Arauna How do you actually know that the GB members  " never personally touched a child (actually too innocent  to comprehend how wicked people can be - too good for this world), " ?  There is i

Posted Images

  • Member
56 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If someone is doing the deeds and saying the sayings of Jehovah’s Witnesses, then that person is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. If someone refuses to do that, how can it be said that he or she is still one of Jehovah’s Witnesses? The “improvement” of the new announcement over the old is that congregation members recall from the Bible just how a person who has served Jehovah and then willfully rejects that life is to be viewed. They think of “treat him as a tax collector and man of the nations,” that Jews had “no dealings” with. They think of “not even eating with such a man,” “never saying a greeting.” They will recall the counsel to “reject empty speeches that violate what is holy, for they will lead to more and more ungodliness, and their word will spread like gangrene,” (2 Timothy 2:16-17) and it comes to mind just how one deals with gangrene.

Recently, @JW Insider drew my attention to different meaning about wording: Jehovah's Witnesses and Jehovah's  witnesses.  First one is using only for religious movement, religion, specific group of people or legal entity (started in 1931). The second description is about every individual who accept JHVH, worship and obey him or have some role in JHVH plan, purpose.

In that way, i would say how some person, member of JW organization, can be dfd from Organization and as such is not considered anymore as one of Jehovah's Witnesses (the legal entity under WT Society supervision). BUT that not automatically disqualified him as individual who can continue to be Jehovah's witness according to Isaiah or any other Bible verses where is described how acting person who living according to JHVH will and Jesus' teachings. (specifically here is about doctrinal differences)

To living according to JHVH will and Jesus' teachings, NOT NECESSARY  mean how person HAVE to be inside particular Legal Entity, in this case, WT Society, CCJW or any other of Watchtower sister' companies !! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
31 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Recently, @JW Insider drew my attention to different meaning about wording: Jehovah's Witnesses and Jehovah's  witnesses. 

He’s making a big deal over nothing. They had a sticky W key on the main typewriter back then, and the brother who should have fixed it had gone apostate.

37 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Recently

The other version I hear is that Vic Vomidog, who was in charge of writing back then, became ambitious.

He no longer wanted to be known as a witness.

He wanted to be known as a Witness.

After his can was kicked to the curb, brothers took a look at what was in the hopper. Next up it was going to be Jehovah’s WITNESSES.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Wow! TrueTomHarley, aka Vic Vomidog, here quotes himself several times, after mistakenly taking me to task for quoting myself. Of course, he had simply misread my post.

Quote

 

    On 11/23/2019 at 6:31 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

    After changing the wording, then say, as did G Jackson, “the Bible says that there will be such and such, and we are doing our best to fulfill that pattern.” Surely THAT should not be illegal.

Doubtless it is the same with the announcement that replaces the one about disfellowshipping.

It used to be announced from time to time that “so and so has been disfellowshipped.” For several years now—what is it? maybe 10? it is “so and so is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

 

A process like that has been going on a lot longer. Until some time in the 1960s DF'ings were announced with something like "so and so has been disfellowshipped for fornication". At some point, I don't remember exactly when, that was changed to "for conduct unbecoming a Christian". At least one lawsuit was brought for libel or whatever, resulting in simply "has been disfellowshipped", to avoid liability for defamation.

Quote

It gets the job done, and it avoids the problem of being attacked over the fact that “disfellowship” is not a word that appears in the Bible—and so villains try to spin it as an evil corporation of man-made rules “controlling” the minions.

But that's exactly what it is. Such conduct is precisely what pegs the JWs as a "high control group". I.e., a cult.

Quote

The revised announcement has all of the “upside” and none of the downside of the former one. “Upside” is in quotes, of course, because it is a downer when the announcement is made. It is a moment of silence, all fidgeting, daydreaming, and chattering halts. It is a very sad time, even if everyone concedes the necessity of it, and the road to recovery is not so plain at all.

It is rarely necessary. It is also more than a bit arbitrary. I've seen cases where one judicial committee decided to disfellowship, and upon appeal another reversed it. Occasionally the Society itself is called in to resolve the matter.

Quote

There may not BE a recovery. DF is a last-ditch measure of discipline, when all else has failed, to jolt the transgressor, but more importantly, to safeguard the congregation from the influence.

In theory, yes. In practice, it's often simply a punishment visited upon someone by corrupt elders, or even corrupt Watchtower officials.

Quote

 

To be sure, it can be perceived as mean-spirited, and it certainly is here by many persons who in most cases are opposed to JWs regardless, but given the way humans are built, the case can be made that values of the congregation cannot be preserved “without spot from the world” any other way. That is the lesson drawn from the book Secular Faith, by Mark Smith—a book the WT has quoted for a separate but related reason:

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/in-defense-of-shunning.html

Of course opposers will rail at it because the well-being of the congregation is of no concern to them.

 

The "well-being of the congregation" is entirely subjective. Many JWs have quit and disappeared into the woodwork, only to find years later that some corrupt elder from his old congregation--even a decade later--has tracked him down and initiated DF'ing action. Something like this happened with my wife, so don't tell it doesn't happen.

Quote

If someone is doing the deeds and saying the sayings of Jehovah’s Witnesses, then that person is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. If someone refuses to do that, how can it be said that he or she is still one of Jehovah’s Witnesses?

It can't. But the Society is completely hypocritical about this. It has a specific policy that if someone quietly becomes inactive, elders should leave him alone. This is usually the case, but not always. There is always the chance that corrupt elders will actively pursue the person and try to DF him. Such a person has no chance that an appeal will reverse the DF'ing. And often his relationship with still-JW relatives is permanently ruined.

To be consistent, the Society would have to have a policy where someone simply leaving the cult would be officially designated as "no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses" and shunned accordingly. But that is even more cultish than the present policy is, and the Society knows it. A policy of "you cannot leave without dire consequences" would result in massive lawsuits, being a Mafiaesque policy.

Quote

The “improvement” of the new announcement over the old is that congregation members recall from the Bible just how a person who has served Jehovah and then willfully rejects that life is to be viewed. They think of “treat him as a tax collector and man of the nations,” that Jews had “no dealings” with. They think of “not even eating with such a man,” “never saying a greeting.” They will recall the counsel to “reject empty speeches that violate what is holy, for they will lead to more and more ungodliness, and their word will spread like gangrene,” (2 Timothy 2:16-17) and it comes to mind just how one deals with gangrene.

Those scriptures are grossly misapplied. 1 Corinthians 5:11 has Paul telling people to avoid mixing in company with "anyone called a brother" who violates certain moral standards. But if someone leaves the cult and fails to do the various normal JW activities, JWs no longer view him as a brother, and so, following the Bible's words, such a person should logically no longer be subject to congregational ostracism.

Quote

Thus, it is indisputably the Bible that directs congregation members. It is the Bible that tells them what to do, and for now, it is not illegal to follow the Bible.

Nonsense. It is the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, through its various subsidiary corporations, that directs congregation members. If this Society changed its corporate policies on DF'ing and all manner of other things, all congregations would follow--on pain of DF'ing for "ignoring Lordship" or something like that.

Quote

Opposers want to spin it that they are fighting a “corporation;” they are temporarily thwarted with this announcement. They are forced to reveal that it is not the corporation they are opposing, but God, insofar as the Bible represents his thinking, which to Jehovah’s Witnesses it does.

Ah, a better statement of "the Watchtower Society's words are the same as God's words" can hardly be found. As the May 1, 1957 Watchtower said (p.274):

<< If we are to walk in the light of truth we must recognize not only Jehovah God as our Father but his organization as our mother. >>

Quote

It is a better announcement than the previous one, not just for thwarting opposers, but also for us. It clarifies even for us that the Bible directs our conduct. The only “sin” that the “corporation” has committed is educating members as to what the Bible says on all aspects of life.

That's all pretense. Every JW knows, on some level, that even if he can demonstrate from the Bible that some Watchtower teaching or policy is unscriptural, he must follow the Watchtower Society, on pain of disfellowshipping. The Society's direct violation of Jesus' commands in Luke 21:7-8 proves it.

Quote

It allows more internal freedom to examine just what those verses above and others like it actually mean in all areas of life, such as the ones people carry on here about—ones involving minors, ones involving words as well as deeds, and what kind of words. All of this re-examination is going on now, I am convinced, even if every minor little tweak is not heralded with the announcement that malcontents insist upon, mostly so they can get right to work at undermining it.

As I told a Watchtower official 20 years ago, if the Society cleaned up its act with regard to three things--blood, child abuse and disfellowshippiing--almost all opposition would dry up. There's virtually no chance of that, and opposition will continue.

Quote

With young people, the obvious tweak—and I think it happens now—will be to cut them some slack when they err, as young people almost by definition are apt to do.

That would be a good thing, especially in view of the Society's policy of encouraging very young people to join the JW cult. A young person baptized at 10 years of age should not be held to adult standards of conduct, nor be disfellowshipped--not for any reason. Such a young person had no real understanding, on an adult level, of what baptism means--an explicit and apparently legally binding joining of the JW cult.

Quote

A sign that today indicates most Witnesses are well aware that the Bible directs their conduct, and not an organization, is the frequent complaints of those who have gone POMO—physically out as well as mentally out—that they are kept at a distance by family members even though no announcement was ever made—not of “disfellowshipping” nor “no longer one of JWs.” They rail and rail about this—the ‘brainwashing goes really deep,” they say. They cannot link their “shunning” to an announcement, and thus they are forced to conclude (though they refuse to) that members are allowing themselves to be directed by the Bible and not some human organization. Close family members have discerned that someone has turned away from Jehovah, and they don’t need an announcement to apply scriptural direction to the situation.

Totally and self-servingly wrong. The gross brainwashing characteristic of JWs means that they only think they're obeying God rather than men. But the fact that when the Watchtower Society tells them to believe something the opposite of what they had believed, or to act in an opposite manner, proves that it is the Society, not the Bible, that controls their minds.

Quote

 

    On 11/23/2019 at 6:31 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

    AlanF relates: “I asked him point blank: “In one sentence, is it or is it not true that elders are *directly* appointed by holy spirit?” He hesitated, hung his head, and answered, “No.”

The man who studied the Bible with me and “brought me into the truth” had problems with this and went apostate himself—he may be sitting at Alan’s right hand now.

 

Yes, we're having coffee together.

Quote

Several were baptized through his efforts, and he later went back to try to undo some of the “damage” that he had done. To my knowledge, however, he had no success in this.

Some do, some do. So what?

[ Irrelevant ramblings deleted ]

Quote

So.....fast forward now to after my baptism, and I run into Douglas at a circuit assembly. He is glad to see me, of course, and I him—we had met only one or two times after circumstances had taken us separate ways. This time he was different, however. This time he was not so enthused. This time he asked me—baptized less than a year—whether I thought ministerial servants and elders were really appointed by holy spirit. “Well, sure...I mean, I guess so,” I responded. It struck me as an odd question, and the next thing I know, he had gone apostate, he and his wife (though his wife later returned). In hindsight, I think that he felt he deserved to be a ministerial servant and was disgruntled at being passed over.

My experience was quite the opposite. By age 24, in 1975, I was not the least interested in being a "servant" of any kind. Nevertheless, I was appointed as a Ministerial Servant. How? One Thursday evening, during the Service Meeting, and without ever having told me, the Presiding Overseer announced, "Alan has been appointed ..." I was quite angry but held my peace, and began duties as the Accounts Servant. I swallowed my resentment.

But I was painfully aware that, contrary to Watchtower teaching, I had NOT been appointed by holy spirit. In fact, it was that breach of my free will that helped me understand the Society's deception on "appointment by holy spirit". I saw plenty of exceptions to that rule.

So as usual, TTH/Vic, you don't know what you're talking about. You're much like what God did in the Bible story of "Balaam's Ass".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Srecko Sostar said:

Quote

Recently, @JW Insider drew my attention to different meaning about wording: Jehovah's Witnesses and Jehovah's  witnesses.  First one is using only for religious movement, religion, specific group of people or legal entity (started in 1931). The second description is about every individual who accept JHVH, worship and obey him or have some role in JHVH plan, purpose.

That's right, and is according to standard English word usage. "Jehovah's Witnesses" is a proper noun, a name. "Jehovah's witnesses" is a generic group claiming to be witnesses for Jehovah, which of course, any group can do.

Quote

In that way, i would say how some person, member of JW organization, can be dfd from Organization and as such is not considered anymore as one of Jehovah's Witnesses (the legal entity under WT Society supervision). BUT that not automatically disqualified him as individual who can continue to be Jehovah's witness according to Isaiah or any other Bible verses where is described how acting person who living according to JHVH will and Jesus' teachings. (specifically here is about doctrinal differences)

Exactly!

Quote

To living according to JHVH will and Jesus' teachings, NOT NECESSARY  mean how person HAVE to be inside particular Legal Entity, in this case, WT Society, CCJW or any other of Watchtower sister' companies !!  

This is completely lost on braindead JWs who think they're serving Jehovah rather than the Watchtower Society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Guest
Guest Tom Henry
49 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Recently, @JW Insider drew my attention to different meaning about wording: Jehovah's Witnesses and Jehovah's  witnesses.  First one is using only for religious movement, religion, specific group of people or legal entity (started in 1931). The second description is about every individual who accept JHVH, worship and obey him or have some role in JHVH plan, purpose.

In that way, i would say how some person, member of JW organization, can be dfd from Organization and as such is not considered anymore as one of Jehovah's Witnesses (the legal entity under WT Society supervision). BUT that not automatically disqualified him as individual who can continue to be Jehovah's witness according to Isaiah or any other Bible

Legal entity, no! I don’t see where the first century churches were “obligated” by the prevailing laws to form a legal entity as secular law now requires. But that’s not what should be considered even from people inside the ORG that have a hard time defining their role as a witness.

The structure Jesus was referring to was not a physical church but the church of Christ. Members that are worthy to be part of his body. Therefore, unity and seeking those with the same goal is paramount.

How can anyone be part of Christ’s body, if they defy the basic foundation Jesus set out to build? People here want to excuse their understanding in order to do what they want to do in life without consequences. Good luck trying to justify that action come judgement day.

The old saying is fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, well you get the picture. That also goes for people that use inconsistent bible applications to sway others to their corrupt views. To God, that is less forgiving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
31 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Even the Sermon on the Mount would be discarded if it ran 1000 pages. I can’t read that crap. Learn to write concisely like everyone else and I might answer.

Ha Ha Ha! You just say that because you are stupid and afraid of Alan.

He is killing you with his arguments!

Only, @AlanF, it troubles me that you think I am TTH. I know that you cannot be misled, but maybe you are just a little bit here. 

Don’t be thrown off that both he and I have said “pompous pillar of pettiness.” It is a common phrase that anyone might use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

TrueTomHarley engages in his usual gross, transparent hypocrisy. Having posted a very long 'article' to which I responded in part, he said:

Quote

 

    8 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    So as usual, TTH/Vic, you don't know what you're talking about.

Even the Sermon on the Mount would be discarded if it ran 1000 pages. I can’t read that crap. Learn to write concisely like everyone else and I might answer.

 

This is not only gross hypocrisy, but a fine example of Orwellian doublethink.

Below are a couple of excerpts from an article I wrote around 1992: "Thinking Ability and the Watchtower Society": https://critiquesonthewatchtower.org/old-articles/2006/02/thinking-ability-and-watchtower.html

First excerpt::

https://critiquesonthewatchtower.org/old-articles/2006/02/thinking-ability-and-watchtower.html#geo

<<
George Orwell's View

An excellent description of the tyranny of authority carried to an extreme, and of the mental gyrations required of its subjects, was given by George Orwell in his 1949 novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (Remember "Big Brother is watching you"?). He described a totalitarian society called Ingsoc (from 'English Socialism') in which a supreme state had imposed a kind of theocracy on the populace -- in effect, had created a "Kingdom of Heaven on earth." The novel was intended as a serious warning about what could happen if certain totalitarian trends that Orwell saw developing during and shortly after World War II were allowed free rein. The supreme group at the head of the state was the Party. In order to insure that everyone thought along Party lines, the Party carefully altered facts to suit its present situation, and rigorously trained people to go along with it. Orwell wrote:

    Whatever the Party holds to be truth is truth. [Part 3, Ch. II; p. 252 hardcover; p. 205 paperback]

In order to ensure that whatever the Party held to be truth was rigorously followed, a thought process called doublethink was enforced. Doublethink, as Orwell conceives it in Nineteen Eighty-Four, "is a vast system of mental cheating":

    Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies -- all this is indispensably necessary. [Part 2, Ch. IX; p. 215-6 hardcover; p. 176-7 paperback]

>>

Second excerpt:

https://critiquesonthewatchtower.org/old-articles/2006/02/thinking-ability-and-watchtower.html#geo

<<

In practice, whenever clear errors in organizational teachings or policies are pointed out to Witnesses, they will either refuse to acknowledge them or deny their importance. They deny it even to themselves, to avoid an intolerable internal conflict between what they know deep down to be the truth and what they have been taught. The denial is automatic and almost unconscious, because they have been trained this way from their earliest experience with the Watchtower Society. The process is strongly reminiscent of another kind of mental gymnastic George Orwell described in Nineteen Eighty-Four:

    A Party member is required to have not only the right opinions, but the right instincts. Many of the beliefs and attitudes demanded of him are never plainly stated, and could not be stated without laying bare the contradictions inherent in Ingsoc. If he is a person naturally orthodox (in Newspeak a goodthinker), he will in all circumstances know, without taking thought, what is the true belief or the desirable emotion. But in any case an elaborate mental training, undergone in childhood and grouping itself round the Newspeak words crimestop, blackwhite, and doublethink, makes him unwilling and unable to think too deeply on any subject whatever.

    .... The first and simplest stage in the discipline, which can be taught even to young children, is called, in Newspeak, crimestop. Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity. But stupidity is not enough. On the contrary, orthodoxy in the full sense demands a control over one's own mental processes as complete as that of a contortionist over his body. [Part 2, Ch. IX; pp. 212-13 hardcover; pp. 174-5 paperback]

>>

Naturally, TrueTomHarley and a few others, applying doublethink and crimestop, will pretend not to understand this material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

member of JW organization, can be dfd from Organization and as such is not considered anymore as one of Jehovah's Witnesses (the legal entity under WT Society supervision). BUT that not automatically disqualified him as individual who can continue to be Jehovah's witness according to Isaiah or any other Bible verses where is described how acting person who living according to JHVH will and Jesus' teachings. (specifically here is about doctrinal differences)

True. It does not automatically disqualify him, but usually it does. I listened to a tape recording of an Irish bother in the 80's who was disfellowshipped for apostasy. I quote him:

 “ I will say to you brothers and sisters over there, don’t be afraid, serve Jehovah with all your heart, if some start to believe the Trinity, well, allow for that. Many godly men believed the trinity down through the ages of human history. I like what one of the Roman emperors said, if God is offended, he can handle it, actually he said if the gods are offended, let them handle it. But Jehovah is not offended at men’s ignorance or innocence, he understands  our background, our sociological conditioning.......our educational standard, he can grasp all that, and allow for that......In fact my prayers are so much closer in speaking to Jesus, in fact I did ignore him over the years, but I have been speaking to him much more since, and I find that great.....”

As you can see, most of what he says there, flies in the face of scripture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
21 minutes ago, Tom Henry said:

Legal entity, no!

Yes or No?! How NO changing the fact that WT had been established according to secular laws and that JW is under same set or laws, established as working cells around the world? First in form of Name for purpose to be somehow different from other Christians and as separation from Russell influence. Later as legal entities that continue working under WT Society direction.   

What 1 century Romans have with JW's known under that name today ? Jews and later Romans persecuted Jesus's Witnesses not Jehovah's Witnesses.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
11 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Naturally, TrueTomHarley and a few others, applying doublethink and crimestop, will pretend not to understand this material.

You read too much into this. You are a windbag, that’s all, and an unbelievably nasty one at that. 

I can deal with one malady or the other, but not both of them in tandem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,670
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Apolos2000
    Joined
×
×
  • 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.