The Bible and Politics (and Israel and Russia and . . . )

[George88]

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The conversation went like this:

Your conversation lacks substance. It appears that you are trying to impose your own political views and interpretation of scripture. Paul was referring to how the natural Jew alienated themselves from God's grace, a situation similar to what you and others are doing here. Now, those who align themselves with Christ's message have the chance to be saved through Christ's and God's guidance and our obedience, a privilege that you do not possess.

You have complicated the situation by promoting a false narrative about the application of scripture. Reflecting on Paul's words leads to knowledge and obedience. How can a dissenting natural Jew find salvation? They can find it just like a spiritual Jew, or any Gentile, by embracing God's principles in his words and implementing them "correctly" in their hearts and daily lives.

Regrettably, one cannot effectively impart the virtues of God while masquerading as a conventional Jew.

1 Timothy 2:4-6 King James Version
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

33 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I met Dr Peter McCullough in Tampa when he was staying directly across from my wife and I in our hotel room. My son and I talked to him in the lobby briefly. I am not quite as impressed with him now that he has tried some questionable methods to turn his own work into a money-making machine. But Rogan and McCullough were both very good sources about Covid. 

I think these guys have some astronomical legal bills—even their licenses are under constant attack & some have lost theirs—and for that reason I cut them slack.

[George88]

Although avoiding political discussions within a family is important, you seem to be quite engaged in them here, especially in this closed club. If that's not the case, then you should eliminate any references to China, Rwanda, Venezuela, child abuse, and so on to truly reflect that. This is why I thought it was funny aside calling yourself a Jehovah's Witness.

You made me spill my juice on that one, lol!

[TrueTomHarley]

17 minutes ago, George88 said:

You made me spill my juice on that one, lol!

Well, whose fault is that? Next thing, you will be calling me a cult leader for having manipulated you into spilling it.

It is not shocking to be informed, though neither is it a sin to opt out. One firebrand brother on X stated emphatically, straight out of the blue, “Jehovah’s Witness are NOT INTERESTED in politics!” Well, actually some of them are, I told him. ‘I think what you are looking to say is that they do not take sides. 

‘They are NOT INTERESTED IN POLITICS!’ he roared back and then blocked me.

[George88]

5 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Well, whose fault is that? Next thing, you will be calling me a cult leader for having manipulated you into spilling it.

Well, this is a thought. lol!

6 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It is not shocking to be informed, though neither is it a sin to opt out. One firebrand brother on X stated emphatically, straight out of the blue, “Jehovah’s Witness are NOT INTERESTED in politics!” Well, actually some of them are, I told him. ‘I think what you are looking to say is that they do not take sides. 

Witnesses who are in good standing do not engage in politics. They possess the discernment to distinguish between words and actions. Therefore, making statements inconsistent with one's behavior does not uphold credibility.

Perhaps defending that is what cult leaders do.

9 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

They are NOT INTERESTED IN POLITICS!’ he roared back and then blocked me.

They do exist here! I fail to see your reason for objecting. I'm not so heartless as to block you as frequently as you have banned others when you're upset.

If you want to have a clean conversation that doesn't involve criticism as much as you people criticize the Watchtower and it's policies, why not keep it in your pants. In this case, the closed club. What did you say about those jerks?

[TrueTomHarley]

29 minutes ago, George88 said:

If you want to have a clean conversation that doesn't involve criticism as much as you people criticize the Watchtower and its policies, why not keep it in your pants. In this case, the closed club. What did you say about those jerks?

You don’t want to know. They’re holding a ice cream social for the candidates in that wicked place.

[George88]

35 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

They’re holding a ice cream social for the candidates in that wicked place.

Does this mean they invited Elton John to play candle in the wind? 

[George88]

Therefore, Paul's words are not merely inductive, but rather transformative. Anyone, who willingly obeys God, demonstrates loyalty to His words, and by obeying Christ's words, one has the capacity to attain salvation. It is not as limited as your proposal suggests.

In political terms, being "Persona non grata" would have no effect on Paul's words if people are willing to understand scripture properly.

Think along the line of solidarity when dealing with Ruth 1:16 and what loyalty means in Jesus words in Mark 12:29-31. Is anyone being left out?

Romans 1:16 New International Version
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.

Is this being Holier than thou?

[JW Insider]

28 minutes ago, George88 said:

Does this mean they invited Elton John to play candle in the wind? 

I also have trouble extracting a sense of humor from AI tools. 

[George88]

Then stop using AI Tools, since it's clear you have none, at least not where it counts. Now to please your kind of friends, I can see it.

[TrueTomHarley]

I think we can take Geo Jackson’s words as a template. ‘You don’t want to take sides,’ he says, and to show the challenge of keeping neutral, he uses the example of contesting politicians in Australia, one of whom wanted to draft people of Jackson’s age into the military and one of whom did not. Now that would test your resolve to stay neutral, he said, nonetheless you must do it.

If he was as ignorant of politics as some seem to think is the gold standard, he would not have even known which politician’s views would be to his benefit and which one would not. Of course, I leaned into him on this point, informing him that:

2 hours ago, George88 said:

Witnesses who are in good standing do not engage in politics. They possess the discernment to distinguish between words and actions. Therefore, making statements inconsistent with one's behavior does not uphold credibility.

I’m sure he gave my words all the consideration they deserved before instantly turning his attention to other matters.

[Anna]

On 4/11/2024 at 11:56 PM, JW Insider said:

In fact, I've seen strong political views among Witnesses who only use the line "we don't take sides in politics" when they wish to shut down an argument they disagree with.

Lol, so true!

 

I always found it funny when we get articles about staying neutral, as if we must not get upset when governments do bad things.

We all know that ultimately all governments will be removed by Jesus,  but how should that stop us from voicing our opinion about certain current situations? It seems that the concern is that we don't get so involved, as to the point of taking sides, and forgetting Jesus's role in the future on the matter. But is that realistic? Would a Witness really do that? Forget? I know I wouldn't but perhaps some would? Then again with all the talk about Armageddon being just around the corner how could anyone forget?

Interestingly, the visiting branch Overseer that we just had at our assembly last weekend was going on about how bad all the governments are and that soon they will all be destroyed. My hubby whispered in my ear: "well that's going to endear us to them all" (he had in mind the situation in Norway in this instance). I thought maybe because this was just a small assembly there was no fear of a " little birdie" telling anyone how we can't wait for all the governments to be zapped. But then I started wondering how long will it be before some governments start getting irritated by that kind of talk? I mean isn't that what happened in Russia? We know Russia is no respecter of human rights and punish our people in a way Russians know best, but what about the more "civilized" nations that are becoming more and more "woke"?

I am thinking at this rate we may end up getting "attacked" first, before any other religions, lol.