Srecko Sostar

The laugh is because of the last sentence in the Warning.

Overlapping generations, beards, abolition of hours, daily lawsuits and more will cause an impact that few, if any, are prepared for.

"Flesh, blood, spirit and breath" - 4 components of life. Please, what are the fractions of these 4 main components and what are they called? lol

One of the important features that members of the GB took into account for "clarification about wearing a beard" includes imitating the trends that prevail in the world of politics and business. This is clearly stated in Update by Steven Lett. (starts at minute 10:00) Quote: "Furthermore, as time has passed, we have noted that in many countries it is acceptable for men who hold responsible positions in business and government to wear beards..." That same Governing Body (consisting of elders) wrote this: "If an elder establishes a rule based on culture, he is not acting according to the Scriptures. Younger men must be evaluated, not by personal or cultural viewpoints, but by the measuring stick of God's Word. - 2 Tim. 3:16, 17." - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-august-2018/do-not-judge-outward-appearance/ Another in a series of contradictions of this "Theocratic Government" in WTJWorg. Double talk. Imitation of "the world". Adapting to "world trends". Disregarding one's own standards. "Lowering" own standards. In the world of WTJWorg, certain patterns of behavior change depending on the current circumstances in the environment (especially in the USA). We have the opportunity to see two ways in which the GB applies the so-called "Biblical Principles". In one model, the GB tries to "force" the government of a country to respect the JW's right to freedom of thought, speech and worship as implemented and practiced by WTJWorg, usually through court cases or mass letters campaigns. In the second model, they find reasons to adapt the so-called "biblical principles" to the social and cultural changes of "worldly people and their institutions".

Maybe, but both are happening at the same time today.

Jesus risked his life for another, like David's soldiers. How would Jesus feel if someone said now; No, I don't want your sacrifice Jesus, that's still too much. Why did you put yourself at risk in the first place? In the example with David, he asked for water. The soldiers considered it a great honor to please their king. Did sinners desire the sacrifice of Jesus? Not. He gave blood to everyone to "drink" because he wants to help them. David refuses "water" aka blood and that makes him a hero in your eyes. Does the one who refuses "blood" aka salvation from Jesus become a hero?

Do you want to say that God doesn't like cookies?

Do all cake ingredients have the same importance (in general and for you)?

A new GB member explained recently that all this is Jehovah's way of working, which is; -the GB promotes a wrong doctrine, -the doctrine is implemented and enforced without exception, -the disobedient are sanctioned, -after a while the doctrine undergoes a change, -it is promoted as a "new light", -obedience is demanded, -no feeling of disappointment is allowed, -it does not allow anyone to manifest their feeling how even in the past he/she knew that the abandoned doctrine was wrong, and now he/she is proud of himself for it. All in all, they shift all responsibility for their stupidity to God, because, well, that's God's way, not man's.

From these and other biblical quotes, it is important to note that the people who wrote something in the Bible, said for themselves that they said something under the influence of God. Or others claimed it for one of them. They believed that what they write or speak is under God's influence. There is an anointed class within JWs who believe they are the anointed. And there is also a class of people in JW who believe such a claim, as well as those who do not believe such a claim. So, the belief/conviction of people in the past in their own role in this process is no more reliable than the belief of people today in their current beliefs in this or that or in themselves. When the GB claims that they are anointed and led by the spirit, it does not have any clear evidence confirmed by God. It actually remains in the vague cloud of their general belief in themselves and the belief of the people around them in their statements and claims. This whole thing is clouded by the fact that the GB separates the meanings of these two words which actually mean one and the same thing. There is no difference between "being inspired" and "being guided" by someone or something.

The same with me. It seems that God has no problem with determining how much blood a person can take into his body. You shouldn't take a lot, but if it's a little it won't be a problem, take it.

WTJWorg has always maintained that the Bible is consistent with itself, regardless of the various authors and the time period in which the text was written. This example shows something second, third or fifth. I might jokingly or mockingly suggest that the "light of understanding" or the "new light" had not yet dawned on Paul and James, or that none of the "doctrinal guardians" of the time had shown them any "clarification" of existing dogma. Revision. Perhaps the problem is that they were "inspired by HS" at the time. Therefore they could not be wrong when speaking or writing. Today's "doctrinal guardians" are only one level lower, they are only "guided by HS", so any "accidental error" in speaking or writing an interpretation can easily happen to them without them realising it in time. I would like to ask a question. Were the writers of the Bible aware that they were "inspired", as the term "inspired" is explained today? Or were they merely "guided"? Because this example points to a discrepancy in an important, fundamental, central, core teaching. ...and maybe it's just a problem in the translation that can easily be solved with a new digital edition where a few letters are changed, so that no one will notice any change in the future. The new people will not know how it was before, and most of the current people will forget that it was different. lol

What does a person have to be, to want to be photographed with cardboard and papers. lol

He is not the only religious leader who supports nonsense.

Quote from article: In response to concerns over the scope of the project, the applicant has proposed building heights up to 75 feet in exchange for designating half the acreage as open space. The proposed MU3 district allows for building heights up to 45 feet. The applicant said that because of the topography, 75 feet buildings would appear smaller than the 45-foot buildings. Indeed this building on the right looks lower than the one on the left.

Yes. Every religious institution is guilty of something.

I. Blessing in the sacrament of marriage 4. The recent response of the Holy Father Francis to the second of the five questions posed by the two cardinals[4] offers the possibility of further consideration of the question, especially in its pastoral implications. It is about avoiding "recognizing as marriage something that it is not".[5] Therefore, rites and prayers that can create confusion between what is contrary to marriage and what is fundamental to marriage as "an exclusive, permanent and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the birth of children" are inadmissible.[6] This belief is based on the timeless Catholic teaching on marriage. It is only in this context that sexual relations find their natural, appropriate and completely human meaning. Church teaching on this matter remains constant. 5. This is also the understanding of marriage that we find in the Gospel. Therefore, regarding the blessing, the Church has the right and duty to avoid any type of ceremony that could contradict this belief or lead to any confusion. This is also the meaning of the Responsum of the then Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which states that the Church does not have the authority to bless same-sex unions. 6. It should be emphasized that when the sacrament of marriage is celebrated, it is not about any kind of blessing, but about a gesture that is reserved for an ordained minister. In this case, the blessing of the ordained minister is directly related to the concrete union of a man and a woman who, with their consent, establish a permanent and indissoluble union. This allows us to better emphasize the risk of mixing the blessing, given to any other union, with the rite of the sacrament of marriage. https://www.bitno.net/vijesti/vatikan/fiducia-supplicans-evo-sto-pise-u-dokumentu-koji-spominje-blagoslov-parova-u-neredovitim-situacijama/

I should find a good and accurate newspaper article that conveys their decision and explains this move by the Church.

Half an hour ago in the central TV daily they said that the Pope blesses persons and not their relationship.

WTJWorg does not have a railing/parapet on its roof, but has window bars.

Who is dividing the JWs? This is done by GB members. A GB member, like Geoffrey Jackson, says: JWs know for themselves by reading their own Bibles if the GB instructions are wrong and decide that GB is giving bad instructions and will not obey them. Another GB member, like Steven Lett, says: You must not think and feel that you were right when you followed the advice and instruction of my colleague Geoffrey Jackson who allowed you to object and express your dissatisfaction with the instructions that were wrong.