Jump to content
The World News Media


JW Insider

Recommended Posts

  • Member
On 12/28/2019 at 7:58 PM, JW Insider said:
On 12/28/2019 at 5:17 PM, Anna said:

I can see that 1914 is decisive to our faith not so much because of it being the last days, but because the appointment of the FDS hinges on it

That comes across as too cynical. If there is an appointment of a special class to "feed his little sheep" why could it not just "pop up" inspirationally at any time or place that the need is great enough.

I am thinking the same, but I don't think they see it that way. It seems that specific dates are very important to them....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Views 15.6k
  • Replies 259
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yes, and that according to Bible chronology, the FDS was appointed in 1919. So if 1914 was questioned, when were the FDS appointed? It would remove that whole aspect of what we have been taught, inclu

You are saying that they (GB) hang on to 1914 because if they get rid of it, they relinquish a Biblical base of authority. It's "nice" to have a Bible passage that talks about you and it's even "nicer

Quite so. And the understanding we have now, as proclaimed by the GB of Jehovah's Witnesses and supported by their application of Scripture, would appear to me to bear this out. The various persp

Posted Images

  • Member
13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Interesting points, in that it made them witnesses of what they saw through the "eyes" of their faith. Faith is assured expectation of things not seen. They saw the resurrected Jesus, but he was in a different state, "materialized." In time, they all had faith that this was not a demon or just any angel materializing as Jesus, but Jesus himself, the one they had previously witnessed in person. Up to 500 persons saw him in this state. And through the outpouring of the holy spirit at Pentecost they realized what they were receiving, in faith, that this was what Jesus had promised after he would sit down at the right hand of the Father's heavenly throne. As a group, however, they witnessed this, too. Stephen had a vision of Jesus standing at God's right hand. (Makes no difference if you are sitting or standing when you are at the right hand of the throne of majesty.)

We raised issue on some other level. They witnessed to their faith and hope, and to some literal manifestations. But precisely said, they not witnessed in a way that we consider as word "witness" primatly means. It would be as someone today gave testimony as witness on Court about something, and he say to Judge: "I didn't saw what happened but I believe i know what happened because this was promised to me that will happen. And things that i saw are exactly that."   

Religious people today depending on testimonies made by people in the past who not witnessed to some events, to some they did. Also, people today put trust on people who wrote about this things and also to translators. And finally, people put their trust on spiritual mediators aka church leaders, who are strong force that drive faith and hope of people in particular direction. 

12 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Therefore, it doesn’t need to be repeated by Christ. It doesn’t matter if people in his day were witnesses to a supernatural event. No one in this lifetime is a witness to that event.

People in Jesus' days was under promise and expectations that day will SEE supernatural events as Proof how individual who doing this is Send By God. I think how WT Society take this position in their explanations. So, miracles are of important things that surrounding life and faith of people in Israel from the very beginning. Without miracles, many of events described in Bible, would never happened and history will be different and present will be different. No matter did such miracles really happened or not. Christian faith, before and today, would be in some other format without miracles. Christians in 1 century was totally in miracles of all kind. Today, things are different. 

12 hours ago, César Chávez said:

It is by faith that we accept those events to be true, just like faith gave a person insight to understand the end of the gentile times in 1914 way before the event of WW1 happened.

faith gave a person insight to understand the end of the gentile times in 1914 way before the event of WW1 happened.

If i understand what i read before about this correctly, faith he had (Russell) gave him wrong insight and understanding. Other people' faiths, around Russell, also accepted same things that made them to be in wrong expectations too.

It seems how "faith" (own or other' people) is not trustful. It is not what makes things come true. Faith of man, who is blind, who believe he will see, not makes him cured of blindness because of mere faith. Someone who has power to do miracle, have to cure him from blindness. Than, this man' faith have value and justification. Otherwise is superstition, empty hope. Faith (to believe something) not need knowledge. Because knowledge would say, miracles are not possible. Do we have some "special" knowledge? WT Society teaches how 1 century miracles are not possible today. 

Russell had some "special" knowledge and some "special "faith". And that ended in past. His legal heirs wants to make all that as progress on a way to "ultimate knowledge and faith".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

@Srecko Sostar Fantastic comment. You are very deep thinking. But can you explain the last paragraph please. 

Indeed the first century Christians, and even the Jews around at that time, were given lots of 'signs' in ways of miracles, curing all sorts of disease, turning water into wine, producing food enough for 10.000 people or more (I think they only counted the men), raising the dead et al.  It was as much seen by the physical eye as it was faith.  But now it seems, no one expects miracles.. No one but me maybe. 

I loved the bit about Russell having 'faith'. gave him wrong insight and understanding. Other people' faiths, around Russell, also accepted same things that made them to be in wrong expectations too.

So it is today it seems with the GB and JWs. 



@Outta Here   Quote " And the understanding we have now, as proclaimed by the GB of Jehovah's Witnesses and supported by their application of Scripture, would appear to me to bear this out."

More GB worshipping at it's best :) The blind leading the blind and wow, that is a massive pit they've fallen into. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
17 hours ago, César Chávez said:

It is by faith that we accept those events to be true, just like faith gave a person insight to understand the end of the gentile times in 1914 way before the event of WW1 happened.

Russell was an excellent student of the Bible. He knew it well. He wrote about the Bible very capably. He preached it. He clearly had insights into many of its teachings and principles. He could use scripture to explain scripture. He could show excellent rational insight along with spiritual insight. He showed faith and he showed discretion and wisdom. And he was one of the most interesting men of his time, because was very aware of the world around him and used this knowledge to help explain some of these insights, but usually without getting too bogged down in the secular, political or scientific arguments of the day.

But, faith or no faith, he had absolutely no insight or understanding about the end of the gentile times. He made no prediction about a world war. He made absolutely no prediction about 1914 that came true. He made absolutely no prediction about the gentile times that came true.

Russell thought the "end of the gentile times" was the equivalent of the FULL ESTABLISHMENT of a Jewish government in PALESTINE, and the FINAL END of the United States government and economy, the FINAL END of the United Kingdom's government and economy, the FINAL END of the Turkish government and economy, the FINAL END of the Chinese, Japanese, Russian, German, French, Norwegian, and Mexican governments and economies, too. ALL HUMAN GOVERNMENTS would fall in 1914/1915 and it would be the FULL establishment of a divinely backed Jewish government in Jerusalem, with the re-establishment of Israel in Palestine.

We can only pretend that he got something right, because he predicted that the chaos of the complete fall of all these non-Jewish governments, along with the rise of Israel in Palestine, would result in a time of trouble that would END in 1914, and then around 1904, he changed it to BEGIN in 1914, and indicated that this chaos in the vacuum of any human political institutions would end in a matter of months after 1914, most likely ending in 1915.

Which part of his "insight" or "understanding" of this matter came true? Which part was correct?

It's true he started some backpeddling on his understanding in 1904 (mentioned above), then 1910, then 1913. That's because his view included some expectations that he considered unlikely in view of the time left. 

Russell didn't think Jesus' invisible presence would start in 1914. Russell didn't think that Jesus' kingship would start in 1914. Russell didn't think a great battle would be fought between Jesus and Satan in 1914. There's NOTHING that we NOW think happened around 1914, that Russell predicted, and he NEVER thought that any of those things (that we now believe about 1914) had happened even after he saw the events of 1914 for himself.

So where does anyone get the idea that Russell got even one thing right about 1914 prior to 1914?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
19 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

But it could still continue for ten or more years.

Several times I have heard this expression from you. I like to think that it could be ten or less years. It helps to keep on the watch.

On 12/30/2019 at 7:47 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

“And we are witnesses of these matters, and so is the holy spirit, which God has given to those obeying him as ruler.”

I even think that it is today’s emphasis on “critical thinking” that serves to downplay the above verse—as though obedience has nothing whatsoever to do with it—as though it is all a head matter that we ought to be able to figure out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

But can you explain the last paragraph please.

Do you mean this?

5 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Russell had some "special" knowledge and some "special "faith". And that ended in past. His legal heirs wants to make all that as progress on a way to "ultimate knowledge and faith". 

"Special knowledge", in sense it was different than that of main Christendom (Catholic church) but also similar or sourced in other smaller religious groups. And "special faith", in sense he want to believe he found "new and better" or even as he had been chosen for "mission". I wasn't studied about this things as i should. @JW Insider handled with more materials (and have better memory than me :))) to bring out so much or enough quotes (WT publications) to support discussion, to give corrective perception on issues like this, and to introduce reader into unknown possibility, reality.

WT Society and today successors of religious inheritance (all doctrines and methodologies used to find "the truth") aka GB carry a sort of "burden" of that past. Perhaps they are somehow "forced" to stay on  such track, path of the past, don' know. If they are aware of fact  how past doctrines are not bringing to the future but contrary, holds them in ambys of past spiritual wrongs, because they are afraid of making clear and painful cuts, it is understandable, but also makes whole situation hopeless. It can be, based on experience we see till today, how easiest way to escape from spiritual "errors" they found in idea of "progressive understanding". According to this, Bible Truth never changed, but human (GB) understanding does. To this idea one thing also remain not understandable: what is Bible truth? Because no one is able to say - where we are now standing, on what point in this progress?! How much steps exists from point A to B in this progressive understanding? Because they made a claims how human living at close end of this system they assured themselves, as many time before, how this  "present truth" must be good enough and supported by God. With this attitude you are on a good way to be deceived and self deceived.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
7 hours ago, Anna said:

I am thinking the same, but I don't think they see it that way. It seems that specific dates are very important to them....

You are saying that they (GB) hang on to 1914 because if they get rid of it, they relinquish a Biblical base of authority. It's "nice" to have a Bible passage that talks about you and it's even "nicer" when that particular passage mentions a measure of authority and trust in advance of even greater authority and trust.

I'm just saying that the reason they see the passage as speaking about themselves is because of 1914 first. Based on the importance given to that date, they expect to see certain actions that Jesus must have taken, or that it would seem reasonable for him to take. So it's kind of backwards to imply that they hang on to the date because of the authority. They hang onto the authority because of the date.

But I'm also saying that this authority would be there anyway. Sure, they lose a little if they give "FDS" back to all the anointed, or even if they spread that authority around to include all the elders, or all Witnesses who support [feed] other Witnesses in any way, materially or spiritually or emotionally. (Recall that the verse once meant the anointed feeding the anointed, because the domestics were the anointed, too.)

Common sense tells us that the purpose of elders in a congregation is to provide teaching and examples to follow and good judgment when it comes to dealing with difficult matters that might arise. We follow their lead. We listen. We copy their example. They persuade us to follow with good teaching and good examples.

How much more would we think that the ones we consider qualified as elders over the global congregation would be worthy of even more respect. And we would be just as willing or more to follow their lead, listen, copy their example, etc.

This is why it really came as no surprise to many Witnesses that the GB took upon themselves the entire role they interpreted to be the role of the FDS. To most Witnesses, the FDS always meant the GB anyway. The GB already represented the rest of the anointed in general, who had no say anyway. It was the GB, as head of the departments for Writing, Teaching, Service, Correspondence, etc., who were already considered the top of the "Bethel" headquarters hierarchy. It didn't matter if a certain thing was written by a member of the "other sheep," it was still considered to be under their direction. I actually asked a pioneer sister at the time if she had heard about the new GB=FDS doctrine right after that point from the Annual Meeting was announced on the website. She honestly thought that this was nothing new.

In other words, something like this same respect for their teaching and example would have happened naturally as a matter of course. It has probably happened in every religion known to man. There have even been other religions that speak of their leadership councils as governing bodies. The level of agreement by the "rank-and-file" Witnesses (as Anthony Morriss III calls us) is just like other religions: a function of the emphasis given on the importance of this level of agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I even think that it is today’s emphasis on “critical thinking” that serves to downplay the above verse—as though obedience has nothing whatsoever to do with it—as though it is all a head matter that we ought to be able to figure out.

Of course, there's also an implication throughout the context of Acts, that God does not give that holy spirit to those who obey men. That's one of the reasons for this very topic of 1914, as uncomfortable as it might seem to even question it.

Of course, obeying God as ruler and not men, doesn't preclude us from "obeying" our congregation elders (Heb 13:17). But there is no contradiction here, because the word used for the word obey here has a range of meaning. And that range of meaning is pinned down in the very context of Hebrews 13 and elsewhere. 

In fact, we might as well deal with it because there will be some who think it is "disobedient" to even consider the questions about 1914. It's the same as questioning God's arrangement, some say. Just like questioning 1925, or the hourly quotas for publishers and pioneers, would have been the same as 'questioning the Lord himself' in Rutherford's day.

When Hebrews 13 says "Be obedient to those taking the lead among you" it's obvious that the term "among you" referred to congregation overseers/elders. We extend this to mean the elders who preside in a "headquarters" arrangement from the various Branches, especially the Governing Body residing in the United States Branch. But the word here does not mean "obey" in the sense of "you must obey God as ruler." In Acts 5:29 that term includes the idea of submission to a ruler or magistrate (i.e., God).

The definition of "obey" in the context of Hebrews 13:17 is perfectly summed up in this verse that doesn't even use the word obey:

(Hebrews 13:7) . . .Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith.

The root meaning of the term is actually "persuade." Hebrews 13 uses the verb "peitho" here, and Peitho was the goddess of persuasion. That's actually the first meaning in Thayer's Greek Lexicon:

1. Peitho, proper name of a goddess, literally, Persuasion; Latin Suada or Suadela.
2. persuasive power, persuasion: 1 Corinthians 2:4 ἐν πειθοι — accusative to certain inferior authorities.

Strong's NT Definition is:

πείθω peíthō, pi'-tho; a primary verb; to convince (by argument, true or false); by analogy, to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); reflexively or passively, to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty):—agree, assure, believe, have confidence, be (wax) conflent, make friend, obey, persuade, trust, yield.

Note that "obey" hardly makes the list.

Even the NWT doesn't say in Hebrews 6:9 that "in your case we are obedient to bettr things." Instead it says:

(Hebrews 6:9) 9 But in your case, beloved ones, we are convinced of better things. . .

In the very verse after Hebrews 13:17, the word "trust" is used, in these of being "persuaded" or "convinced" that we have a good conscience.

(Hebrews 13:18) . . .Carry on prayer for us, for we trust we have an honest conscience, as we wish to conduct ourselves honestly in all things.

I know you didn't say that this type of obedience contradicts our Christian duty to question and therefore to make sure of all things. But Hebrews 13 often comes up by some as a reason to deflect from that Christian duty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

There is no need to believe anything GB or WT says or writes. The Bible is the authority. We should believe in Jesus and what he said. And we should believe the apostles who Jesus had appointed and their writings. And if anyone goes above that, then apostle Paul says:  

Galatians 1:8 "However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 minutes ago, Kosonen said:

There is no need to believe anything GB or WT says or writes. The Bible is the authority. We should believe in Jesus and what he said. And we should believe the apostles who Jesus had appointed and their writings. And if anyone goes above that, then apostle Paul says:  

Galatians 1:8 "However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed." 

Pretty much what Br. Jackson insinuated, but this was to worldly people. It has yet to be put in plain writing for the congregations because it seems that many do not see it. (unlike you).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

The WT has very few times touched Galatians 1:8 (I suspect the writing commitee understands that this can easily be turned against themselves, because many WT doctrines are not well founded in the Bible)

But I found a perfect application in JW online library from a WT from 1952

  • 9 Who can start a new religion, contrary to God’s written will and Word? “Even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond what we declared to you as good news, let him be accursed,” wrote the inspired apostle Paul. (Gal. 1:8, NW) If even a high and mighty angel from heaven cannot start a new gospel without being accursed, then certainly no man on earth can do so with immunity. Any who declare as gospel or good news something that is different from what is recorded in Jehovah’s Word is accursed in God’s sight, whether he is sincere in his declarations or not. Sincerity does not make a wrong thing right.


    10. What proves sincerity and zeal alone are insufficient?

    10 Clearly indicating that sincerity or zeal in a religious organization that is not following God’s Word is insufficient, Romans 10:2, 3 (NW) declares: “I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God; but not according to accurate knowledge; for, because of not knowing the righteousness of God but seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.” These persons had zeal and they must have been sincere, but they did not act in accord with accurate knowledge of God’s Word. They did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own. In their stubbornness and pride in thinking their own religious ideas right and zealously trying to prove them so, they failed to subject themselves to the righteousness of God and his Word.

    11. How does Romans 10:2, 3 fit false religions today, and to what extreme may they even go?

    11 That is the way it is with so many false religions today. They have their creeds and doctrinal beliefs, pluck texts from their setting to support them, and brush aside any scriptures that contradict them. They zealously press on to establish as righteous their own beliefs, not allowing God’s Word to have final say on the matter and not listening to that Word in its entirety, but selecting what suits their purpose and wresting what does not, rather than conforming their belief to the untwisted, unwrested, pure word of truth in the Bible. Such ones lack meekness and teachableness. They are proud, they are stubborn, they refuse to admit wrong. Clinging tenaciously to their self-will in religious belief, they make themselves idolaters according to the divine rule. .........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Definitely should try the Bond roll here when you get a chance: this is a mom and pop place that does a great job  
    • An interesting concept, bible discipline. I am struck by the prevalence of ignorance about spiritual discipline on "Reddit." While physical and mental disciplines receive attention, the profound impact of spiritual discipline on a person's physical and mental well-being is often overlooked. Is it possible to argue against the words of the Apostle Paul? When he penned those words in Hebrews 12, he was recognizing that there are moments when an individual must be "rebuked" in order to be corrected. Even Jesus himself established a precedent when he rebuked Peter and referred to him as Satan for failing to comprehend what Jesus had already revealed to the apostles. Did that imply that Jesus had an evil heart? Not at all, it was quite the opposite; Jesus had a loving heart. His need to correct Peter actually showcased his genuine love for him. If he hadn't cared, he would have let Peter persist in his mistaken ways, leading to a fate similar to Judas'. There is a clear emphasis on avoiding the apostate translation and its meaning, yet many seem to overlook the biblical foundation for the reasons NOT to follow the path of the fallen brethren or those with an apostate mentality. Those individuals have embraced the path of darkness, where the illuminating power of light cannot penetrate, to avoid receiving the righteous discipline based on God's Bible teachings. They are undoubtedly aware that this undeniable truth of life must be disregarded in order to uphold their baseless justifications for the unjust act of shunning. Can anyone truly "force" someone or stop them from rejecting a friend or family member? Such a notion would be absurd, considering the fact that we all have the power of free will. If a Witness decides to distance themselves from a family member or friend simply because they have come out as gay, who is anyone within the organization to question or challenge that personal sentiment? It is unfortunate that there are individuals, both within and outside the organization, who not only lack a proper understanding of the Bible but also dare to suggest that God's discipline is barbaric. We must remember that personal choices should be respected, and it is not for others to judge or condemn someone based on their sexual orientation but should be avoided under biblical grounds. No one should have the power to compel an individual to change their sexual orientation, nor should anyone be forced to accept someone for who they are. When it comes to a family's desire to shield their children from external influences, who has the right to challenge the parents' decision? And if a family's rejection of others is based on cultural factors rather than religious beliefs, who can impose religious judgment on them? Who should true followers of Christ follow? The words of God or those who believe they can change God's laws to fit their lives? How can we apply the inspired words of Paul from God to embrace the reality of God's discipline? On the contrary, how can nonconformists expect to persuade those with a "worldview" that their religious beliefs are unacceptable by ostracizing individuals, when God condemns homosexuality? This is precisely why the arguments put forth by ex-witnesses are lacking in their pursuit of justice. When they employ misguided tactics, justice remains elusive as their arguments are either weak or inconsistent with biblical standards. Therefore, it is crucial to also comprehend Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 9:27. The use of the word "shun" is being exaggerated and excessively condemned by those who reject biblical shunning as a form of punishment. Eph 5:3-14 NIV 3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person — such a man is an idolater — has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.  6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7 Therefore do not be partners with them.  8 For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light 9 (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) 10 and find out what pleases the Lord. 11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. 13 But everything exposed by the light becomes visible. The impact of the message becomes significantly stronger when we emphasize the importance of avoiding any association with unrighteousness and those who remain unrepentant. In fact, it becomes even more compelling when we witness how some individuals, who dismiss biblical shunning as a method of discipline, excessively criticize and condemn the use of the word "shun". Therefore, Jehovah's Witnesses do not shun people; instead, they choose to focus on the negative actions being committed, which is in accordance with biblical teachings. This should be construed as ex-Witness rhetoric. Now, let's consider why ex-Witnesses specifically target one particular religion. What justifications do they provide when other Christian denominations also adhere to the same principle grounded in the Bible? Chapter 1 - Preface Both must therefore test themselves: the one, if he is qualified to speak and leave behind him written records; the other, if he is in a right state to hear and read: as also some in the dispensation of the Eucharist, according to  custom enjoin that each one of the people individually should take his part. One's own conscience is best for choosing accurately or shunning. And its firm foundation is a right life, with suitable instruction. But the imitation of those who have already been proved, and who have led correct lives, is most excellent for the understanding and practice of the commandments. "So that whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  It therefore follows, that every one of those who undertake to promote the good of their neighbours, ought to consider whether he has betaken himself to teaching rashly and out of rivalry to any; if his communication of the word is out of vainglory; if the the only reward he reaps is the salvation of those who hear, and if he speaks not in order to win favour: if so, he who speaks by writings escapes the reproach of mercenary motives. "For neither at any time used we flattering words, as ye know," says the apostle, "nor a cloak of covetousness. God is witness. Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome as the apostles of Christ. But we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children."   (from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2) Divine promises 2. The manner of shunning, in the word escaping. There is a flying away required, and that quickly, as in the plague, or from a fire which hath almost burned us, or a flood that breaketh in upon us. We cannot soon enough escape from sin (Matt 3:7; Heb 6:18). No motion but flight becomes us in this case. Doctrine: That the great end and effect of the promises of the gospel is to make us partakers of the Divine nature. (from The Biblical Illustrator)  
    • Clearly, they are already demanding your exile. Yes! It's unfortunate that Pudgy spoiled a great discussion about science. I hope the discussion can continue without any more nonsensical interruptions. Just a suggestion since they are on your heels. Wow! You speak! It seems you have a lot to say! Now they are going to treat like, who do you think you are, mister big stuff! Are those aliens now going to imply that anyone who speaks out against the five or six key contributors to this site will be treated as though it is George just because those in opposition speak the language they hate to hear, the TRUTH? They are seeking individuals who will embrace their nonconformist values and appreciate what they can offer in shaping public opinion contrary to the established agenda of God and Christ. Their goal is to enhance their writing abilities and avoid squandering time on frivolous pursuits, mainly arguing about the truth they don't care for. They see it all as a mere game, even when leading people astray. They believe they have every right to and will face no biblical repercussions, or so they believe. They just want to have fun just like that Cyndi Lauper song. Be prepared to be belittled and ridiculed, all the while they claim to be angels. Haha! By the way, please refrain from using the same language as George. They appear to believe that when others use the same words, it means they are the same person, and they emphasize this as if no one else is allowed to use similar grammar. It seems they think only they have the right to use the same or similar writing styles. Quite amusing, isn't it? See, what I just placed in bold, now I'm George, lol! Now, let's leave this nice science thread for people that want to know more about science. I believe George left it at "Zero Distance."  
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

    • lauleb  »  misette

      merci pour ton travail très utile. tu es une aide qui fortifie
      · 0 replies
    • Pamela Dunston  »  T.B. (Twyla)

      Hi, TB
      I would like to get the weekly meeting and watchtower materials  and the 2024 convention 
      Attend the 2024 Convention—“Declare the Good News!”
      notebook, I just recently got a new computer, If don't mind my brother to add me on and allow me access to our study again.
      Thank you, so much
      Sister Dunston
      · 1 reply
    • SpiritualSister 24  »  DARLENE2022

      Hello, Darlene, I just love your name, I had a cousin named Darline, and had a classmate also named Darlene! It's a pleasure to know another Darlene! Especially a Spiritual Sister! There's some websites, Ministry Ideaz , JW Stuff.com, and Etsy that I use to order my yearly buttons for the Conventions! They always send me what I order, and their also Jehovah's Witnesses, that send us the merchandise we order!  You can check out these websites, and they might have what your looking for! I hope I have been helpful in assisting you, Darlene! Agape love, Shirley!😀
      · 1 reply
    • SpiritualSister 24

      2024"Enter Into God's Rest" Circuit Assembly! 
      · 0 replies
    • Janice Lewis  »  T.B. (Twyla)

      Hello Twyla, when will the weekly study material be available. I am a member.
      Janice Lewis     lewisjanice84@gmail.com
      Thank you
      · 1 reply
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
    • Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
    • Most Online

    Newest Member
  • 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.