11 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Genesis 3:16 being one some will point to as well as Paul's use 

What you like to prove with these verse? Do you want to prove how Hierarchy in male-female religious and other principles (God told this to Adam and Eve AFTER they were been exiled from Eden) is HIS original purpose for male and female creatures? God just stated what will generally be  status and how relationships will generally look between male and female in future society that is without God, but under control of devil. Dear Mr. Space, this kind of verse is kind of "Prophecy", kind of looking in future based on circumstances and insight in human, as perfect and imperfect human. We can tell here how God have seen the future of human society and tell just one statement about that. By no means He, as God, not giving here any Command about how must look hierarchy in family, in congregation, in society. He just see what will happen from now on, as result of expelling from Paradise (or Sin, as you wish).  

So as result of sin and imperfection male come to be ruler over female, generally.  

You said how "some will point as well as Paul's use".  Some Bible scholars, i assume, or your friends? Who are that some? Doctors? Professors of archaeology? Who ever they are, they have their opinions with more or less accuracy. So what? Would it be first time that educated and non educated people are wrong in conclusion? You and that some point how Paul must have in mind Genesis 3:16, but Paul not give his reference to Genesis 3:16 BUT to the LAW. Very clearly written. Why you want to make me to read something that is not written in this same verse? Do i have some dyslexia or vision problems and can not see the word Law in Genesis 3:16?

In this God's words you reading how His intention is/was  to regulate male-female relations and put male over female. But that is only your interpretation of Genesis 3:16 and nothing more. In period when all was Perfect, there is no single verse about God's plan that Adam have to control Eve. Read your Genesis chapters 1-3. Nothing about so called "theocratic order" and female place on position you suggest that exist from the Day of Creation. Counting how Adam was first and Eve was second telling nothing how God was made Adam Head of Eve. What verse in Genesis said such?

When talking to God, Adam did not say to God how Eve not respected him as husband and disobey what he told to her. No, he said: "The woman you put here with me"—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”  This have no sound how Eve is second-class in hierarchy. She was there with him. Because God put her there and Adam was aware of that fact. 

Adam was also aware of command about ruling, but ruling over the animals and earth only. Not over the Eve! Here is also one of the reasons why he not acting in different manner, as Head who would reject or accept the idea (so how today the JW congregation would expect him to do so)  when Eve offer him the fruit. He was not in such position, or he not thinking of himself as in such position because, we see how  his answer to God say something else -"The woman you put here with me"

Again, i call you politely  to show Verse from the Law about this, because Paul said in his expose how "For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says." 

Ones again, Genesis 3:16 is not part of the Law.  :))))  , on the contrary "some will point" that this is Prophecy. 

Here is example how WT neutrality looked before. Before "new light". Before "new understanding", Before "new interpretation". Before "things get from bad to worse".

"....I will support and defend Constitution of US against all enemies, foreign and domestic...So help me God."

On other hand this two also showed some kind of "neutrality", according to own "conscience". And with WT Company approval, i guess.

“The Joliet, Illinois, “Herald-News” quotes a local spokesman for one group affected by the law as saying: “JehovahÂ’s Witnesses, not only in this country but throughout the world, always take a neutral stand towards the government. ItÂ’s not that we donÂ’t have respect for this country. ItÂ’s just that you wonÂ’t find JehovahÂ’s Witnesses saying a pledge of allegiance to any country.””Watchtower 1980 Feb 15 p.30

1 hour ago, Space Merchant said:

[Claim 2]: Those pushing the old Galatians 3:28 Card

??? interesting name (Old Card) for bible verse and Bible book inspired by Spirit. Isn't whole Bible one context, not only one chapter or one book, or one Letter. Someone pushing this verse, someone pushing other verse. How can that be wrong? :)))

1 hour ago, Space Merchant said:

[Claim 6]: Being Silent

[The Response]: The passage in question does indeed say women should be silent, however, if anyone understood the context of this passage, they’d realize that it is due to disorderly conduct that was taking place in The Church of Corinth. Those in Corinth succumb to conduct that is not Christian like.

That is your understanding. They have (congregation) some kind of "inspired chaos". Paul in the beginning of chapter preferred more if some have gift of prophesies then gift of speaking language. But both gift are gifts of spirit and no one of those who was "inspired" (male or female) can not chooses what they personally like more and tell their wishes to Spirit and after heard the personal wish of person, Spirit change his mind and decide to give some other gift to that person. It is possible, but this comment is only for discussion about possibility here.   

Chapter said that all such "Inspired chaos" was happened when they assembled in church. So, it seems how Spirit himself was source of that "chaos". Imagine 50 person in your congregation. And suddenly all came under inspiration of Spirit, and all are so exciting to tell others what Spirit speaking to them. Is that wrong? How to stop Spirit of his power, and say, "hey dear Spirit, Paul said you have to wait with your manifestation because 10 brothers and sister already waiting in line  to get to the stage." :))

About your interpretation how "to be silence" is applied to the male also, not only for female. But CONTEXT is here:

  27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. 

Only reason for KEEP SILENT is lack of INTERPRETER! (and this advice is only about if person have gift of speaking tongues) And according to Paul, even 2-3 person can speak in the same time.

Is that also something that is happening in congregation today? Are JW restoration have in program of meetings that 2-3 person speaking aloud in the same time. They should have if want be as it was first church in Corinth :)))  no matter if they today not speaks in tongues,  but if they want they can on International Conventions. :))

On the contrary advice  for the woman is this:  

34) the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. (35) If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

But what if Paul here using some other people idea of "silence"? What if this 2 verses is not HIS ADVICE how woman should behave in the church? But what if Paul only quoted (using same words, idea) that was came from some other people in this congregation? 

Verse 36 say:  36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached? 

Perhaps this people, leaders, elders? or whatever they have been, are addressed with this verse 36. What if Paul said; "You brothers as elders, in position of leaders of this congregation put command that woman can not participate in congregational activity, that they can not speak, ask questions, give own interpretation and understanding, asking why this why that .... And because of your view of woman in generally as second-class members, you put a regulation how all woman must be in silent while on meeting. Because of that I, Paul,  am asking you - Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?"   

NEXT: 34) the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.

Please tell us WHAT LAW says also that Woman must be in silence in Congregational meetings? About what Law Paul has talking? Law of Moses or some other Law? What verse in Law of Moses? What verse in some other Law? Rabbinic Law, Roman Law, Greek Law?

Divisions in the Church

10 I appeal to you, brothers,1 by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no pdivisions among you, but that you be united qin the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is rquarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that seach one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow tApollos,” or “I follow uCephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 

Chloe is woman, sister of the Corinth congregation, obviously in position of leading the church. And she has important contacts with Paul and with handling things in cong. 

Just opinion, as always :)) Nothing that must be established by the Law of the Media and Persia.

21 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Could not a Prophetess also be a housemaid? 

I assume they have to work for a living.

Offering Alms to Monks

The first Buddhist monks did not build monasteries. Instead, they were homeless mendicants who begged for all their food. Their only possessions were their robe and begging bowl.

Today, in many predominately Theravada countries like Thailand, monks still rely on receiving alms for most of their food. The monks leave the monasteries early in the morning. They walk single file, oldest first, carrying their alms bowls in front of them. Laypeople wait for them, sometimes kneeling, and place food, flowers or incense sticks in the bowls. Women must be careful not to touch the monks.

The monks do not speak, even to say thank you. The giving of alms is not thought of as charity. The giving and receiving of alms create a spiritual connection between the monastic and lay communities. Laypeople have a responsibility to support the monks physically, and the monks have a responsibility to support the community spiritually.

....

It is a common practice in Zen to make food offerings to the hungry ghosts. During formal meals during sesshin, an offering bowl will be passed or brought to each person about to partake of the meal. Everyone takes a small piece of food from his bowl, touches it to the forehead, and places it in the offering bowl. The bowl is then ceremonially placed on the altar.

Hungry ghosts represent all of our greed and thirst and clinging, which bind us to our sorrows and disappointments. By giving away something that we crave, we unbind ourselves from our own clinging and neediness to think of others.

source: https://www.thoughtco.com/offering-food-buddhist-rituals-and-traditions-449750

1 hour ago, Space Merchant said:

you are not a fan of Abraham

now i am in dilemma. To be fan of you or of Abraham? :)))) 

1 hour ago, Space Merchant said:

or is this another one of your mind games

pick for yourself what you like more

1 hour ago, Space Merchant said:

can you be more specific 

i think how you are not entitled do hear more privileged information then I already said  in public, details about. So i will not tell a "lie", "half truth", "white lie" or "misleading information", but "be in silence" and suffer consequences (verbal persecution) of such decision :)))))   

stay well!

Very long ago, there was one JW sister. She died. She had a husband and a son. Her husband also died. Her son is alive, he is now cca 70 years old and he is a longtime elder. That sister, his mother, Zorica, was anointed. What I remember, about her very well today, is that how she always spoke with a voice that was the voice of authority. It was the teacher's voice, who giving lessons. After she made a comment in the kingdom hall, no one, but no one nor the elders added their comment or correction to her comment.
Perhaps she was a person of such a character, and did not adopt the "spirit of gentleness and silence" while sitting in the KH :)))) expected for JW sisters, mothers, and women. But she spoke with the authority of the one who is equal or even above the elders position.
I was always wondered how her son, elder, felt because they lived in a house that was her and her husband and been in the same congregation.

2 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Does this mean that Bill can date, if Hillary goes to prison?

yes, if he change his sex/gender  :)))))

maybe i am not good in try to switch myself to US humor, but you know...that is me :))

Galatians 3:28 New International Version (NIV)

²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 

This same Paul here said very advanced and almost innovative thought. He abolishes all the social divisions that are characteristic of the society in which they lives. I primarily think of Jewish society and religion as an indivisible part of the Jew people. Eliminates the difference on the basis of nationality. Eliminates the difference of status on a social scale caused by position or origin in society. Eliminates differences caused by belonging to sex, gender. (It not surprised if some talking how First Christians was the Religious Communist with the ideas of a classless, egalitarian society that shared their land and their other property and similar.)

Why these 3 stumbling stone are connected and put "in one bag" with clear  answer on problems that this 3 listed items causing till today?  

When he talking about "you are all one in Christ", he undoubtedly talking about New Religious System of that NEW SOCIETY that try to forming New Congregation. Not New "Jew Congregation". Of course they are not been able to escape all obstacles and traps which drag them into the old system of worship of God and the religious hierarchy that existed in Jewish religion for so many centuries. They were not so strong to cut all ties with old things. Because "new light" that shined on them, for short time, was to much new for them to be that something what would be possible to incorporate into something new formed. And that they themselves did not know how this newly-found faith should actually look like in structure, in the relationship between the members, between the sexes.

Perhaps Paul was highly "Inspired" while he dare to talking about such taboo theme - male and female are equal to the such point, to such level,  that sex/gender even not existing in Congregation of God, not existing as question, as principle, as stumbling stone, as difference, as controversy.

So they mixed old thoughts with new thoughts. Paul is one example. We find his commands to congregation about "silenced woman" and on other hand with full confidence he talking how "we are all one an equal".   :))

Here is context of verse i mentioned in the beginning, to see "whole picture" how he ( and I/me, hehehe) came to unity of sexes :)) because we are all: 

Children of God

²³ Before the coming of this faith,^[j] we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed.²⁴ So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. ²⁵ Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

²⁶ So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, ²⁷ for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. ²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹ If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

1:26] Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
[1:27] So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
[1:28] God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

NO INDICATION how God was said anything about a hierarchy that favors a male over a female.

[2:18] Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner."
[2:19] So out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
[2:20] The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner.

WHY this chapter told that God made some soft of omission, when 1 chapter say that God create both of them without time gap. How could be that Creator made all in pairs, but missed to see how male man would be lost, lonely, unsuccessful without female man "Helper". If male need helper in person of female, then he (Adam and all Adam till today) needs HELP in ALL what he/they need, have to do. According to verse, he need to have HELPER AS PARTNER. NOT helper as female servant, female slave, female mute.

A man is incomplete without a woman! Verse said so! So how we come to the point that woman must be in "silent" in all things, not only in so called "spiritual" things connected with faith, beliefs,  worshiping.  

In WT religion husband or male must to have last/final word on anything, according to GB bible scholars teachings. With or without "helper" help/helping :))))

IS IT PROPER FOR A WOMAN TO SPEAK, TEACH AND PROPHESY?

By Witness, Yesterday at 01:12 AM in Jehovah's Witnesses 

• wt doctrine on women vs. scripture

YES IT IS!

Spirit who giving inspiration not choosing person, who will be employed for acting for some purpose, based on sex/gender. 

Answer on that is giving by life itself, not by the book, even if that book called Bible. 

Male species in human society ruling the world, generally. And this world with so many male leader's  became very ugly.  I don't how would look the world if female would take charge. Maybe not so much better too. But, why not to try :))))   

I do not know US laws regarding archives and records. However, I guess there is no difference in the fact that the State Archives, the National Archives of any country, do not collect all the records that arise in the work of an institution (no mater of what sort of private or legal body is case). There are different activities within an organization or institution, depending on the type of company, association, society, or how it is registered within the trade and other laws of the country in which it operates.

Depending on the type of society (corporation) in question, there are laws, regulations on how to handle business documentation. There are deadlines for custody, there is a freedom to decide (according to some rules) which documentation will be kept and how long, and which will be destroyed. Sometimes private documentation (I'm not just talking about texts, but everything else what can be of  the interests for society, objects, pictures, and so on) can be given on guard or to sell to the National Archives.
Documentation on material and financial work is to a great extent in the interest of the state and there are legal provisions there.
Also for information about employees.
For a lot of the other papers, and WT is a private company, I think the free will of the owner is to decide what to do with documents, writings and notes and the like.

In case of WT, think, they can do what they want. But to how long, no one knows. Obviously they makes a plan how to secure them self from own wrongdoings, and not only to be accurate with the law.

15 hours ago, Witness said:

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 

8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 
9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.

Paul's words here, as also those how/about, woman must be in "silence" (various forms of spiritual, intellectual, religious "silence") you mentioned, seems to me as his personal establishing, ratification of Patriarchal, Jews, Old Congregational, Man's view about how society (male society) have to, should to behave, act toward woman of all age.

He wrongly interpret bible verse 7 in Genesis, by my perception. If verse said that God created male and female on HIS IMAGE, then both are GLORY of God, not only man. Or, how  woman is glory of man. What woman? Married woman? What with unmarried woman? Then they are not glory of no one? Maybe to mother and father? Or only/just  glory of father, because mother has no such importance? 

In verse 8 Paul twisting report about Adam rib and Eve's creation from rib. What if such description is not literal way how God created Eve? But if it is literal, then Paul's conclusion must not be going in correct way. Is that (interpretation) his wish how things between man and woman have to be? And also by such verse he supports general view on woman by Jew society, and not only Jew's  but of all other in those time. And as i recall Paul never get married. Why? Only because preaching?

Verse 9 also, once again try to established same conclusion. If God created all living creatures, did he first create all male animals and all male plants, and then, latter, afterward female part of same species? Should we, can we support such argumentation also with verse 9? I do not think so. Looks funny. I don't think how any reasonable person will put things in such logic and order. But Paul and any modern Paul today perhaps would be able to come into such idea, for goal to establish an support male domination over female.  

JHVH is Father and Mother in one person, because of act of creation. 

Although the Bible in its text contains a lot of male nouns for God, it also contains nouns that describe God in the form of a woman (female).
Bible scholars in the WT organization teach that God does not have sex (which would mean that God is neither male nor female).
On the other hand, the first book of the Bible says that God created the first man and woman in his own image, in his own likeness. From this it is easy to conclude that God, the Creator has the characteristics of both sexes (so-called male and female traits, features) because all those characteristics came from God who has all traits that exist in form of male and female creatures.

There is a very large resistance, in society, when a person wants to change their sex (gender) or love more then one woman. God created, says the Bible, all in this world. He created creatures that are monogamist and bigamist. He created those who sometimes show homosexual tendencies. But he also created those creatures that change their sex throughout their lives. So, for Him nothing can make surprise.

If God created a male and female as He Himself, any division in a formats that are characteristic of/for some religious organizations is completely wrong.

9 minutes ago, admin said:

@Srecko Sostar and @Space Merchant  please start a private message to each other or on each otherÂ’s walls. 

This thread is about a different topic. Thank you. 

Please learn to start new threads on new tooics.  

Hi. I decide few  moments before not to discuss more. Thanks for intervention

30 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

Oh really now? Spiritual Warfare, as I made it mention to you months ago and I mention it to you now is what it is, you do not need a link to the Watchtower to tell you what it is because they know, as to MANY others know what Spiritual Warfare is as well as Civil Disobedience, which is enforced and made know and in use, according to Apostle Paul and his own actions that comes from Civil Disobedience. This same action was expressed by several in the Bible, as well as a majority of them being women, since we know Sarah is in the discussion, I mention she is seen as a HERO for if she and Abraham didn't do what they did, there would be no Promise and they did what they could to protect that promise by preserving their lives by means of their own reasoning only for God to not only intervene, but allow them to continue living so that promise can prosper - Jesus Christ, is what came from said Promise.

Are you that daft, Serecko? But I guess to you if you had to put your hands in this passage, you probably have Abraham, and or his Son be no more, perhaps Rehab and you, being in Johnathan's place would have sold out David to Saul and every man and women who originated from David would not have existed, again, the Christ would have never came and God's Promise, by means of Abraham's Seed would be gone for good.

You fail to understand what Spiritual Warfare and Civil Disobedience is.

For Spiritual Warfare is what it is as well as what Civil Disobedience, two peas in the same pod, is what it is and yes I defend what is said of these things and how our early Christian counterparts, and those we came from, did the same to preserve one thing and one thing only, anything pertaining to God's Purpose and Will.

But is is very sad to see you attempt to pull a Watchtower publication or article on the matter when everyone around the world knows what this means and will say the same thing. But according to you, Abraham should have said Sarah was his wife, and should Abraham die, it is on you.

Unfortunately, anyone who knows Spiritual Warfare and Civil Disobedience, will say the same thing and know when it is justified, you can cry about Watchtower all you want but the reality is they, as do all persons, know about what I speak of which originated from the very Bible itself, both in action and terminology. It does not take a  rocket science, or perhaps in this case, a Jehovah's Witness, to understand that because they do know it like the rest of us who know exactly know what  it entails.

Granted if the actually truth would put God's Purpose and Will in Jeopardy, thus putting a killing blow to God's Promise and Prophecy regarding of the coming Prophet. No Abraham = No Prophet = No awaiting of a Savior = No said Messiah to sit on David's Throne.

Abraham, as well as Sarah's actions pretty much helped them dodge a bullet or two (or what I like to say: dodged the hornet's nest) in order to preserve that Promise, the very reason why even some to this day consider Sarah Fearless God fearing woman, a hero, and a number of other things.

QUOTE: Sarah  - Sarah demonstrated faith and obedience while believing God's promises. She left her comfortable and familiar surroundings to launch her journey with God. ~ (Women of The Christ)

Abraham preserved his life for the Promise of God comes from him, Sarah, who complied with her Lord, Abraham, for she and her husband knew that they have enemies who do not know God and do not fear God, they also had people outside of their own people who have no ideas of who God is and will do and can do vile things to God's people. It is also known that Abraham's and Sarah's people are the most hated are often the ones to be targets by others, for such ones usually kill the men and take the women and girls as plunder to be servants, slaves and or wives, having them believe in false gods, rather than the True God, and by means of their offspring because they are taken by these people, their children and their children's children end up believing in false gods also.

Jesus being Born from the line of Abraham is not selfish, in fact, God was the one who spoke of this Promise to Abraham, why else you think Jesus talks about Abraham seeing the light of his day and or that he was before Abraham? By means og God, Jesus was able to be born of a woman, Mary, due to Abraham being alive for his people to even exist, we know how Israel came to be, why consider it as selfish?

The only reason Pharaoh and Abimelech were affected was not because of Abraham's reasoning and or of Sarah' who didn't say anything to preserve Abraham alive, but rather, they, being people who clearly didn't believe and or know God, eventually found out when God intervened for Sarah, as well as Abraham, moreover, this only happen when they were either about to touch her and or marry her when she already has husband (the one she calls her brother), in Abimelech's case, God read his heart and sees him as a good man and he spoke to him, the very reason we can see the conclusion to this second sister-wife narrative, and clearly Abimelech was pretty much cool with Abraham at the end, whereas in their conversation, Abraham revealed his intentions and when he and Sarah actual spoke of the whole brother-sister thing, for technically, she is really his sister. Abraham even prayed for Abimelech and Abimelech said he can live anywhere he wants on his land.

So it is a HALF-TRUTH, as some would say.

And now I see you care about some of the conclusion, you shy away from it before and it was asked.

• So a quote: (Genesis 12:10-20) Abram (later called Abraham) is pressured to move to Egypt in order to evade a famine. Because his wife (also his half-sister), Sarai, is very beautiful, Abram asks her to say that she was only his sister lest the Egyptians kill him so that they can take her. On arriving before the Pharaoh, the Egyptians recognise Sarai's beauty, and the Egyptian princes shower Abram with gifts of livestock and servants to gain her hand in marriage. Sarai thus becomes part of "Pharaoh's house", but God sends a plague. Pharaoh restores Sarai to Abram and orders them to leave Egypt with all the possessions Abram had acquired in Egypt.
• Quote: Genesis 20:1-16 narrates the story of Abraham emigrating to the southern region of Gerar, whose king is named Abimelech. Abraham states that Sarah, his wife, is really his sister, leading Abimelech to try to take Sarah as a wife; however, God intervened before Abimelech touched Sarah. Abimelech complains to Abraham, who states that Sarah is his half-sister. Abimelech rebuking Abraham by Wenceslas Hollar. Abimelech asks Abraham, "What has thou done unto us?" Abimelech then restores Sarah to Abraham, and gives him gifts of livestock and servants by way of apology, and also allows Abraham to reside anywhere in Gerar. Abimelech also gives 1000 pieces of silver to Abraham to reprove Sarah by a "covering of the eyes". Abraham then prays for Abimelech and the king and his wife and concubines are able to conceive children; they previously could not.

And yet he and Sarah feared those who didn't know God and those who are enemies to their people, who are already know to have done some damage. His people had enemies and his people knows about those whom they never been in contact with. We see the Egyptians, over the years have indeed become enemies of Abraham's people for they feared that his people will surpass them and we already know even in prior to that how brutal the Egyptians were, therefore, it is no question to understand Abraham's fear.

In a sense, it is like being among a room of those who hate you for your race and or color, you know who hates you, but you do not know who if someone in that room will strike at you and or harm you, on the other side of the spectrum, it results in the victim in question to see all men like this, but soon realizing that there are those who are unaware of the struggle and battles the victim faces.

Abraham was not obvious to unknown nations and enemies of his people and of God. If he comes to an alien in region not of his own, he, and his wife already had a plan in motion because he feared for his life for his life is what is a piece to the puzzle in regards to God's Promise, and Sarah, who was with her husband and knows of the Promise, did everything to comply with Abraham, thus keeping him alive, calling him his brother, when really Abe is her half-brother and she is his half-sister.

They are nor reports, they are scriptural passages and or biblical accounts. Yes they find out who God is because both men were about to touch Sarah. Now if God didn't come through and Abraham was discovered, these people, who do not know God, would have had their way with the both of them for they didn't think much of such a people to begin with, perhaps Pharaoh would have been far more brutal to live up to how his people operated.

Jonathan saved his best friend, David from being killed like a dog in the street by his Father, who would most likely toss David into a shallow grave, and Johnathan will most likely be punished, badly, for hiding his friend, seen as an enemy of his Father.

• Jonathan was the son of Saul, king of Israel, of the Tribe of Benjamin, and David was the son of Jesse of Bethlehem, of the Tribe of Judah, and Jonathan's rival for the crown of Israel's King. This man, who is best friends with and loved him like a brother, saved David by tricking his own Father and helping David flee and avoid death by the hands of Saul,he even drove his Father mad by saying the following: ‘It would be a sin for you to kill David; he has done nothing wrong.’. For if he had not done so, he would have been punished and David would have been killed, dead, by a man who seeks him out like a wild animal. No David, No Jesus being born in Bethlehem, no one to stick on his Throne and the Prophets who spoke to David would have been made out to be lairs of what the Seed is all about.
• Rebhab the Prostitute, should she had spoken the truth with the guards sent by the King of Jericho, she would have been killed alongside the spies, and her WHOLE household would have been killed, granted she wanted to save herself and her family because they believed in the God of Israel, the only reason she helped the spies, thus having lied to the guards who didn't think much of her because she was just a prostitute. The situation would be far worse because The King of Jericho, who had killed the spies if Rehab complied, would have had the upperhand on Joshua and the HEREM (חרם) would have been on not the King's side, but Joshua's side, for no spy was able to give any information because the spies were already dead, alongside Rehab and her family.
• The situation could have been another way, but still equality as bad whereas spies were never sent, and when the Battle of Jericho began it would have ended differently, but this time no red cord hanging out the window because Rehab have been indirectly slain with her family in the city, thus resulting in those who were for God, killing those who were also for God, again, for Rehab believed in the God of Israel, heard of him and what he has done and wanted to to serve him, and wanted her whole family to be saved also, but again, no spies, she ends up slain, and even if the spies came and she didn't lie, she would have been slain alongside the spies, perhaps brutally too for spies were not the thing that a King likes.
• Now we have Apostle Paul, he speaks of being obedient to the government and authorities, which is indeed what we must do. But he also spoke of any of whom of these two who puts God's Purpose and Will, be it preaching the gospel, serving, reading the Bible, and or other, you are to take action, thus paves way for Civil Disobedience, and Paul was very concise in this action and it's justification, for Paul would turn on a power in order to defend God's word and truth and what his Son, Jesus had professed, and he stood firm til death in this, the very reason why the practice is done today regarding Spiritual Warfare.

Therefore it is not a surprise to see such a thing happen.

The list goes on and on and on, and a majority among the list is women of the Bible. Such as Miriam, Deborah, Jael, Ester, and look, we also have Sarah, among this group of God fearing women and dozens more, so you are kind of outmatched by the likes of women, Sostar.

Him being alive resulted in Issac being alive, down the road, we have David being alive, to the days of Mary being alive, and oh look- The Birth of Jesus Christ in Bethlehem.

The fact you before mention Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem but have issue with Abraham's actions shows you contradict your own self, let alone show you have flaws and a confusion of things.

Take out Abraham and that path to Jesus is gone and God's promise would be both the first and the last Promise broken.

When it comes to protecting anything pertaining to God, Spiritual Warfare and Civil Disobedience is most undoubtedly, justified and always and will ever be as so until the End Times lead into Great Tribulations into the God's Day of Judgement, H'Armageddon. During a time of peace no man would be able to and or commit to threatening their authority on to God's actual authority within his purpose and will, by means of the one he placed as King of HIS Kingdom, and most likely when the specter is given back, no one would be able to box with God at that point - That is a battle not only you cannot win, but neigh infinity impossible to even commit.

So I do the same as Apostle Paul had done.

I agree with Paul, but do you agree with him also?

• There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
• No unbelief made him [Abraham] waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God,

I agree with Jesus, do you?

They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did.

I concur, you can't see any line because you stopped at saying Abraham lied 2 times boom, you're done, but never spoke of what took place afterwards, only when it was mentioned to you, you briefly speak on the matter, you didn't even acknowledge of what God told the ruler of Gerar for God read his heart, and in the end, God restored his people. You have no idea of the sister-wife narratives of Genesis, that happen 3 times, mind you, and you do not know that Jesus Christ himself being on the earth was the result of Abraham's actions, and Abraham has been spoke of very highly for why else and where else to you think the phrase "The God of Abraham, and of Issac, and of/or Jacob (Israel)" came from? We don't have to stop at Jesus either, for if Abraham died, no 12 Tribes, Israel would not have existed and so will Jerusalem, not there.

You have to be really, really weak in biblical understanding to not see the actions of a man and his wife and what it actually led to in Bethlehem and what is soon to come, and you continue to do everything in your power to shift and evade and try to go around as to what is being said.

And here we go with WT this and that, the sister-wife narrative has been talked about for years, Sostar, everyone knows it and it is not a surprise the JWs know it too, and we also have Muslims and Jews, even Samaritans who know this account because they know the Tanakh very well and perhaps more compared to you, Sostar, and they will say the same thing when it comes to Abraham and Sarah, which ironically, can be found by searching, it is not that hard, if you can find a publication from the WT as if it was a breeze in the wind, what is stopping you from looking into the sister-wife narrative in the Bible committed by the family of Abraham? Perhaps fear of being in the wrong, as usual and sudden things go missing without  trace. For if you have forgotten, you tend to have a such a view on lies, but we cannot forget what you had said a while back which was indeed a lie, just a reminder. Wouldn't it put you in a hypocritical light but in contradiction to what is professed by you here in regards to Abraham's account? But has for the topic had hand, and knowing of their origin, Restorationist are NOT inspired nor have they EVER claimed to be inspired; even predating the Great Awakening, such claims are unfounded and alien to the world of Christian history.

My only concern is truth and being close to the truth, and nothing but the truth, and profess it (said this several times to you before). I even told you before, I am well aware of others who either speak of and or attempt to be close to what is true and those far from it, as well as being against those who teach the accursed (as far as anyone can see I detest the Trinity because it is unbiblical, far more than my dislike of the KJV/TR/1245/JC), anything that is not of the Early Church, but rather, of the mainstream, of this I refute and I am against it, but should anyone speak of deceit and or a lie regarding the Early Church and or some Christology be of of Christendom and or Islam (my only reasons is because of racist, and haters on those that have nothing to do with terror), expect to get a critical answer, as is done with the account of Abraham and his situation.

Distorted attitude? That is unfounded. I am serious, strict, have some odd way of speaking, tends to briefly make remarks,at times in Ye Ol English (Anglo-Saxon-like), a truth seeker be it religious and or other, low-key humorous, knowledgeable and concerning, as well as collected, I do not distort anything, nor do I speak on behalf of man's understanding on a variety of things, nor do I profess deceit because even my own culture detests/HATES deceits and ill actions of men, that Cultural Shield (bouclier culturel/Boukliye Kiltirèl) is unbreakable and upheld very strongly, even by infants, therefore, you can't do as much (why I like the fact that I am and will always be a true islander at heart). Once again, Srecko Sostar, I like to see you prove this claim vs. the amount of evidence, supporting evidence, practices and the like, even regarding this account on Abraham's behalf, of which can and will be used against you with a strong case of hermeneutics, for such will be to much for you to the point that even Watchtower publications cannot save you out of the dark box you put yourself in and that would be quite the ignoble - on your part.

That being said, I side with Abraham's decision, for he did what he did for reasons that are known and understood. He did so in order to persevere not only his life, but God's Promise of which will come by means of Abraham's own seed and the prophet whom everyone awaits - Lord Jesus Christ for HE is that Seed and the Heirs are part of this Seed, both being of the Spiritual House, both under the New Covenant, both of Spiritual Israel, both of Heavenly Jerusalem. You keep yourself closed from what comes from one man, and should that one man have died for not being subjected to Spiritual Warfare/Civil Disobedience, his wife who also did this for she is seen as a Hero by women today who read the Bible, the things mention would have been there to begin with.

I will put this example for and you below,  and in this example you are in a position of which pertains to your own understanding when others around you commit Spiritual Warfare/Civil Disobedience that is somewhat in similar fashion of that which was expressed by others in scripture in a position of when is Spiritual Warfare - Justified, when in a position to commit Civil Disobedience - Justified, and as usual, you will not answer, so I will answer what will be in display below for you - it will not be in your favor if we are to include your understanding of what Abraham and many others, have done:

In the example above, the family clearly took the position of Abraham, Jonathan, Sarah and Rehab in order to protect the last Bible in that country, you on the other hand, in this example, jeopardized everything, for if you complied with your own household, in a Dark Era of a time would have actually learn of who God is in secret, about his Kingdom, about his Son, everything while enemies loom to seek to destroy every trace and every word that connections to the Bible. But you do not see, and therefore you yield among your own understanding, and the end result. I can tell you this much, real tribulations are nothing compared to this example and will be far worse.

So in short, Abraham and the others, were in the right here.

Ok, you have your way, i have my way.We agree that we disagree. All best!

41 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

The only reason Pharaoh and Abimelech were affected was not because of Abraham's reasoning and or of Sarah' who didn't say anything to preserve Abraham alive, but rather, they, being people who clearly didn't believe and or know God

this is so strange! and you have authority to call me names and say how i am "daft" :)))))))))))))

11 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

Abraham preserved his life for the Promise of God comes from him

Where is Bible verse that say how Abraham choose to lie because of given promise. Bible verses we used until now show how he lie because of fear for his life. He is not mentioned any promise in context with Pharaoh or Abimelek. 

3 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

But according to you, Abraham should have said Sarah was his wife, and should Abraham die, it is on you.

perhaps i am "daft" according to your judgement.....but your upper statement reveal something strange  :)))))

14 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Any chance you know when and where he said it because I really do not see it anywhere, so that would be nice.

i hear that on radio station loong ago, and it is in link i send, Jutarnji list.

14 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

(possible translation: Nikada ne lažem, ali ponekad kažem istinu, i to je mnogo pristojnije.)

" ponekad kažem istinu"  - wrong translation, have to be - "samo ponekad govorim neistinu"

ponekad kažem istinu = sometimes i tell  the true

samo ponekad govorim neistinu =sometimes i  talking the untruth

11 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

What Abraham and Sarah did was indeed a form of Spiritual Warfare

11 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Therefore, what they did was an act of Spiritual Warfare/Civil Disobedience.

11 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Both Abraham and Sarah had the same reasoning and it was in good intentions in regards to Spiritual Warfare,

11 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

So Spiritual Warfare regarding both couples was justified

AND NOW some quotes what means "Spiritual Warfare" according WT JWORG, organization you support and defend. So, let read some clear meaning in sentences: (source- https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1957327

Perhaps some will wonder as to where the line is to be drawn between use of theocratic war strategy in hiding the truth and the telling of lies. First of all, let it be noted that whenever one takes an oath to tell the truth he is obligated to do so. ...Likewise, when a Christian is placed on a witness stand he is obligated to speak the truth if he speaks at all. At times he may prefer to refuse to speak and suffer the consequences rather than betray his brothers or the interests of God’s work. And, of course, there is no occasion for use of war strategy when dealing with our Christian brothers. In dealing with them we tell the truth or tactfully remind them that what they seek to know does not concern them.......Lies are untruths told for selfish reasons and which work injury to others. Satan told a lie to Eve that worked great harm to her and all the human race. Ananias and Sapphira told lies for selfish reasons. But hiding the truth, which he is not entitled to know, from an enemy does not harm him, especially when he would use such information to harm others who are innocent.........So in time of spiritual warfare it is proper to misdirect the enemy by hiding the truth. It is done unselfishly; it does not harm anyone; on the contrary, it does much good.....................Today God’s servants are engaged in a warfare, a spiritual, theocratic warfare, a warfare ordered by God against wicked spirit forces and against false teachings. ........ At all times they must be very careful not to divulge any information to the enemy that he could use to hamper the preaching work.

If somebody want to justifies Abraham act by this WT explanation, let he do it, but i do not have to join.

1) Using arguments how Abraham never "give an oath" to Pharaoh or Abimelek, that he will answer them with truth on their questions.

2) Abraham not choose to "refuse to speak and suffer the consequences", but to speak what he think it is suitable to speak.

3) Lies are untruths told for "selfish reasons" and which work "injury to others." Did Abraham been selfish or not it depends on our perspective and is subjective. Did his act injury others?? Yes, because reports told us what was happened with Pharaoh's and Abimelek's family and people. 

4) "hiding the truth, which he is not entitled to know, from an enemy does not harm him", Again, reports told what suffers came on Abraham's "enemy". 

5) So in time of spiritual warfare it is proper to "misdirect the enemy by hiding the truth." It is done unselfishly; "it does not harm anyone; on the contrary, it does much good." Misdirect the "enemy" by hiding the truth is what Abraham have done. He was hiding the truth. And that did harm them. What is so "much good" in to be killed, infertility, terrible plagues because somebody not told you the truth??

6) "they must be very careful not to divulge any information to the enemy." Abraham used tactic to reveal information that makes confusion in "enemy" lines. With result that "harm people" whose hospitality he ask for. 

7) "Perhaps some will wonder as to where the line is to be drawn between use of theocratic war strategy in hiding the truth and the telling of lies."  

I can see this line between , and you Mr Merchant, as patron, protector of WTJWORG teaching and techniques on this issue, try to convince me how lie and line is somewhere else. No, this time you are in position to stand for a distorted attitude on what is a lie and what is the true. 

11 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

really do not expect much from you because regardless o anyone says, granted you seem to be in somewhat of an agreement with someone elsewhere on this topic.

This goes in conspiracy theory :))) dear friend. I have no accomplices, collaborator or supporter on this or any else public or not public forum, web site and so on. if someone give me like or up-vote that is not because i and such person have some deal/arrangement. 

Cheers!

2 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

As for the last part, I do not care about politicians, and using them in what i being talked about here - is absurd and silly. Other than that, would it kill you and or give you despair to not mention the name of a person who made the quote? Cite what ye speaketh Srecko, or thy claim is invalid.

hehe, but politicians is in group of those who belong to "secular authority" about which Bible spoke how Christian must obey (Romans book) so if you consider self as Christian you should to care about what they have to say, at least to some level. As brief example of that is when Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem in order to obey "secular authority" command. In their case we see how they care about "politicians" :)) and what they say.

quote is from Andrija Hebrang, he was Minister of Health in those time when said this famous quote.

 https://www.jutarnji.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/da-li-je-hebrang-lagao-ili-govorio-neistinu/2828324/

https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrija_Hebrang_(sin)

2 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

I never said Abraham never told a lie, I merely stated as to why he did it,

well, finally you agree with me that he in fact told a lie. :)) thanks