How were JW elders who were really Communist Spies appointed by "Holy Spirit"?

[Dmitar]

54 minutes ago, xero said:

"Lived experience" is crap. Those are just anecdotes and these mean nothing. You don't go from some anecdote or some gas you might have at the moment and conclude anything about the external world based on those kinds of things.

I see Christian life dos not dwell in your life. It's a shame when one becomes the very instrument of our own discontent of others. Perhaps one day, God will heal what you have broken.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

58 minutes ago, xero said:

No one cares what apostates have to say, even people who don't like JW's despise apostates.

This brings us back to 'What is an Apostate' ? 

apostate

/əˈpɒsteɪt/

a person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle.

1. abandoning a religious or political belief or principle.

   "an apostate Roman Catholic"

    

   So I am an apostate of the Watchtower / JW Org. 

    

   Why would people who dislike JW's despise a person that left the JW Org ? 

    

   And as you already know an Apostate Roman Catholic could become a JW. So being an apostate of a specific religion does not mean that a person is turning away from Almighty God or Jesus Christ. 

    

   People that don't like JW's may well be Ex-JWs, so they themselves would be apostate to the JW religion  

    

   Oh dear, the plot thickens. Coffee time .

[TrueTomHarley]

29 minutes ago, NoisySrecko said:

I am unaware a moniker can be considered unkind. Perhaps you can explain this?

Perhaps we should ask @Srecko Sostar. Does he consider NoisySrecko a jibe? Or is he flattered?

1 hour ago, xero said:

Lived experience" is crap

Friend, do you think such language is appropriate? Especially on a day when one notable land devotes itself to thanks?

[Dmitar]

2 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Does he consider NoisySrecko a jibe? Or is he flattered?

Can you explain your personal interpretation of what "noisy" is by definition in contrast to the name Srecko? I understand Srecko can mean luck. However, philosophically, it stands out.

The Given Name Srecko

Bold and sweet, it is a name considered by many parents.

An auspicious name, it is one that will be admired.

Definition I use:

Of a person or group of people), stridently seeking to attract attention to their views. 

How is this in your view a jibe or unflattering? Perhaps you see something other than genuine. However, if Srecko feels offended rather than be mirrored in excellence by name. I will be happy to rename my moniker at your pleasure.

Does everything have to be quarrelsome to you as a follower of Christ? On a previous post, you suggested I give you an example for your consideration. Consider this example 1.

[Dmitar]

20 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Friend, do you think such language is appropriate? Especially on a day when one notable land devotes itself to thanks?

You would have to ask, xero on crafting such displeasure from his behavior.

[xero]

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Perhaps we should ask @Srecko Sostar. Does he consider NoisySrecko a jibe? Or is he flattered?

Friend, do you think such language is appropriate? Especially on a day when one notable land devotes itself to thanks?

How about "dungy" as in "dungy idols". To be true to the emotional content and derision present in scripture it should have been "sh*tty idols". It isn't as if these were smeared w/dung. It was a judgment.

It's totally appropriate.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, NoisySrecko said:

Does everything have to be quarrelsome to you as a follower of Christ?

You may be right. Stand by for my latest persona: NoisyNoisySrecko.

[Pudgy]

......

 

 

 

[xero]

5 hours ago, NoisySrecko said:

I see Christian life dos not dwell in your life. It's a shame when one becomes the very instrument of our own discontent of others. Perhaps one day, God will heal what you have broken.

You don't know what you're talking about. Fake x-ians spend a lot of time trying to look shiny. No one is shiny.

[JW Insider]

Looking back for a moment to those comments about Rittenhouse. I had said:

Quote

I have a feeling that Rittenhouse might have been far too anxious to give the impression that he was an important, heroic good-guy protecting a "white town" from BLM overreach.

To which you responded, in part:

On 11/24/2021 at 9:41 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

I have to admit, if you viewed in that way (which I don’t in this instance) it does change your view of the outcome.

I based what I said mostly on his false claim to be an EMT which you can see in the video. But I must admit that it was also partly based on the types of people often drawn into such violent confrontations. We now know the sketchy background of the person who began chasing Rittenhouse shortly after pushing a dumpster fire, who was taunting and yelling at people to shoot him while using the n* word multiple times. That man's "friend" actually shot a gun while joining him in chasing Rittenhouse, and we learned more of the sketchy background about him too. But I also admit that it was based partly on Rittenhouse' own claims of support for the "Proud Boys," some of whom have declared themselves to be White Supremacists. Shortly after pleading not guilty Rittenhouse also flashed the common W "white power" hand signal while apparently posing in a picture with the Proud Boys (which was evidently while he was underage drinking at 18 in a bar with them.)

I put no trust in the Washington Post, where I saw the above picture, but it fits a view of him that can make better sense (to me) of the overall circumstances surrounding the case. Often there are outside bits of evidence that paint a picture of the person that even the jury is not supposed to see, so that they can better focus on the circumstances of the particular case, instead of being prejudiced by the actions of the person outside that particular case.

[Pudgy]

Even people with limited or non-existent qualities of virtue, honor, good judgement, or propriety have the natural right of self defense.

When the Nazis tried to take over the Earth 75 years ago, they were met on the battlefield by every manner of defending soldier that has ever been on a battlefield. Liars, thieves, bullies, adulterers, fornicators, drug dealers, drunks, crazy people, men who went to war as an excuse to kill, or rape and pillage, or any other despicable human quality ...as well as those who met the enemy for the most noble and patriotic or wholesome reasons that there ever could be.

When two despicable, immoral, bigoted racist people meet in mortal conflict, the fact that one is scum of the earth, and the other is a low down pig is immaterial.

The only thing that matters is ... who is the aggressor and who is the defender?

Laws of tribes, peoples, and nations vary ... but all things that live ..... if they can manage it .... have the NATURAL right to defend themselves .... if they choose to exercise that natural right.

A Jury of 18 heard the testimony, and a jury of 12 selected decided Rittenhouse was attacked FIRST, and defended himself as any reasonable man would have done.

.... and irregardless of his moral character, philosophy, politics or choice of "friends" ... he had an absolute natural RIGHT to do so.

 

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

Should it even matter to a true Christian ? Should a true Christian get emotionally involved in the things of 'this world' ? 

Are you people acting as judges of others where it does not involve your own life ? 

Yes we judge others when it concerns us, but why get involved when it is just 'part of the world' ?