Jump to content
The World News Media



Recommended Posts

  • Member
5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Adam, natural inheritors of sin, and thus automatically start off on the wrong foot from God’s point of view. 

I think the operative word is predisposed.

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Some of them are working on it.

Do you honestly think they ever will? I don't recall when God gave man permission to alter his creation. I don't believe he is well pleased with the cloning going on with animals or hybrids.

I'm not saying there aren't mad or evil scientists that experiment. There is. Mengele comes to mind. There's a special place for them. Dante called it the 9 circles of hell. I think that's where mystics believe Judas resides in the center. In the upper quadrant, apostates. lol! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Views 10.5k
  • Replies 267
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Did Elon Musk buy this platform?

Often this happens when the person has reached a resolution to follow through, given their first opportunity. Their paralyzing dilemma resolved, they can give the appearance that all is completely wel

Where is your respect for truthful speech?!  Every single news report told that Police said that they were MARRIED and FORMER MEMBERS of the Congregation.  Why the contentious spirit?  Who are you

Posted Images

  • Member

@TrueTomHarley Indeed, people who take things out of context and use their own narrative can be crazy, just as crazy as those who follow them. Recently debated guy who says he is Christian, this person is very quick to attack, disparage, and mock people, specifically women regardless of their age be it they are good or bad, and 100% brands them as harlots, equating them to women who do provocative immoral things online.

He he himself debated a woman prior my response to him, who he angered and recorded or posted her reaction, and he justified via using 1 Timothy 2:12 out of context twisting it in a way to attack the person in question, all while making vulgar statements the woman and her husband in question; all of them being mainstream Christians, therefore all practices things unclean, even recently he angered some Catholic woman who became very expletive and threatening herself, and he was later found out to, in a debate with someone, he outright went after the man's wife after finding her online, and making vulgar comments, angering this person.

He was corrected by me and several people, but his followers, which he dubs his zombie brigade and warband, attack the truth of Paul's words. With support from his followers, his statement was simply, "I don't give an F, and I bet if Jesus was here, he'd agree with and drink a few beers with me." and "ok, but women who are childless and support feminism are not Christian."

Long story short, many people like this guy are out there. the person in question has quite the rap sheet (from what I can learn of this person), such as - Was found out to be possibly watched by the FBI due to a concern co worker who reported him, which resulted in Paypal cutting ties with him, prompting him to make threats of executing the anonymous person who did it. Has made extremely sexualized and vulgar comments to women online, even underaged. Has got into a heated argument with many people, including a 16 year old girl who, when her brother, got involved, she was attacked and harassed by this person's followers. The girl challenged him on the bible vs his views. He is also very childish.

How I got roped into that debate, I unintentionally made a remark to someone, which in turn, brought me response into that debate itself.

So the example like what the EXJWs are doing, as with others, even this guy I mentioned here, people need to be careful of things (for young boys, they should avoid the example mentioned), whom they follow, whom they listen to, like I said in the past, social media is where a lot of bad folks hang out, even predators, who can influence, turn the victim toxic themselves and or lure them.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

(for young boys, they should avoid the example mentioned), whom they follow, whom they listen to, like I said in the past, social media is where a lot of bad folks hang out, even predators, who can influence, turn the victim toxic themselves and or lure them.

I would say, the parents take the lead and should bear the responsibility to protect their children first. When others see the lack of responsibility coming from parents that lack interest in their own children, then outside education can help. Such education children receive from an educational institution or religion.

Parents or victims cannot simply shift the blame when their parents failed. A child warned in many ways by a religious institution or an institution of higher education and has dealt with society growing up cannot come back 30 years later to say I didn't understand. Where was that person when sex education was being taught in class? Where was that individual's interest when such things were being discussed by their parents?

  • But as early as 1912, the National Education Association called for teacher training programs in sexuality education. In 1940, the U.S. Public Health Service strongly advocated sexuality education in the schools, labeling it an “urgent need.” In 1953, the American School Health Association launched a nationwide program in family life education.

Does that excuse a child molester, a sexual deviant, or a porn freak? NO! That's why the wicked are punished, under Caesars and Gods laws.

Where does that leave the education institution? Can a school be punished because a child became a victim? In the past, thinking people didn't think so. People in today's society that are politically motivated are now shifting the blame that should have started with the parents and their household, to accountability with institutions and religion. Satan's design by manipulating man's laws.

Therefore, when people think and want to discuss such a problem, then it must be done in a fashion of solutions rather than blame. There is plenty of BLAME to go around to the ignorant. It begins with the parents.

I recall a case where a MOTHER encouraged her daughter to have sex with older men, so the mother could continue with her drug addiction. Later, a lawyer seeking a payout told her she could sue the city for failing to protect her. That person lost, and later that flaky lawyer was disbarred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

I would say to interested people. First, and foremost, LEARN the laws of the land, before any discussion is made. Then understand God's Laws, so there won't be a conflict between them. Then keep it in JW Closed Club where anything goes with disgruntled people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Try not to manipulate my words with your usual tactics. I said: "I’m sure you know by now that there is absolutely nothing in the diary indicating the year 588." I said this in direct response to your claim that the events on the tablet indicated 588. You said that the events on the tablet indicated 588. You said: "You can reference VAT 4956." . . .  "Why is this so significant? Pay extremely close attention to the language inscribed on this tablet" . . . "Year 37 of Nebukadnezzar, King of Babylon. Month I," . .  "Additional reports in this Diary include . . . Borsippa, . . . .This indicates that the conflict in that region in 588 . . . " No, you didn't actually say that. Besides I have no argument about 587. I only point out that ALL the astronomical evidence from the entire period shows that this was Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. You have never made an argument (either valid or invalid) that "my argument about 587 can also be interpreted as 588."  Not that it matters in the least, but Borsippa is NOT way further in distance from Jerusalem. It's about 10 miles CLOSER "as the crow flies" and nearly the same distance using the usual travel routes of the time. Perhaps that's why no one mentioned it before. However, even here, I have already posted the entire contents of the tablet, including the reference to Borsippa. Not that it matters.  I certainly hope so!
    • That's completely false. You invariably attempt to weasel your way out of your false statements by claiming that someone has distorted your words. You make false claims about them and claim that they are the ones in the wrong. Then you bluster with some barely-related material hoping it impresses someone (or yourself) into thinking you are some kind of expert or authority. That barely-related material you make use of invariably says nearly the opposite of what you had claimed, which you should have known had you just read the context, or understood what you were reading.  I'll get to the specifics at a later time on this particular point, but it is nearly the same as with almost all these matters. I have learned to expect you to NEVER admit an error, no matter how much evidence is shown. I don't expect you to admit your error on these recent points, but your "style" provides a revealing display of the lengths people will go to, in order to support a pseudo-chronology.   
    • In response to your email, it is important to note that the Watchtower chronology begins at 4026, adhering closely to the numerical indications in scripture. The significant distinction lies in the fact that not everyone begins at 4026; some might commence their chronology at 4004, for instance. Consequently, this creates a noticeable gap between those who employ different starting points for their chronologies. Consider that the new Bible Students have rejected Russell's starting point and instead adjusted it to align with Modern Israel. They have suggested a year around 3954, or something like that, I can't remember, but it seems unfounded. Some of their sects started Criticizing Russell about this matter, and it appears unjustified, as their own knowledge may be limited. Following the Watchtower's guidance is straightforward: align events with their corresponding numerical values. It is important to remember that the Watchtower does not view its chronology as an absolute, unlike secular chronology which seeks to impose its perspective. According to the Watchtower, the pivotal date for the divided kingdom is 997. Look it up in our archives and publications.  The Watchtower's chronology will always diverge from conventional chronology due to its distinctive starting point. The organization holds steadfast to the numbers in the Bible, guided by faith in scripture rather than human interpretations. Despite persistent challenges, the unwavering stance of the Watchtower remains unchanged, as it is grounded in divine guidance, not the opinions of anonymous and faithless individuals.
    • Consider this: if we assume that the tablet dated back to 568 refers to Nebuchadnezzar, and that the king issued an order for Borsippa, a city 12-15 miles from Babylon, then it suggests that King Nebuchadnezzar might have been in his palace giving that order, since logically it would have taken weeks or a month or so for a runner to dispatch such an order from Judah that was for Borsippa in 588/587, as historically suggested, since we can use the same date 588/587 for that event.
    • It appears that he is struggling to accept the reality that Borsippa is approximately 15 miles away from Babylon, and depending on who you ask for directions, it is about 617 miles from Jerusalem. Therefore, if VAT 4956 mentions the death of an individual by the order of a king, in Borsippa and disease then we can reasonably assume it was Nebuchadnezzar based on the 37th year language in that secular evidence rather than the Bible, it suggests that the conflicts in the region were more extensive. This clearly demonstrates that no single conflict can be definitively determined or pinpointed solely by relying on that tablet designated to the year 568, regardless of how convincing it may appear. Making an absolute claim would be dishonest if the information contradicts itself. The same can be said if someone uses the date designation of 587/586 or 588/587. Only people who are desperate would argue that.
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Recent Status Updates

  • 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.