Srecko Sostar

Who decided that you can have a beard?
Who decided that women can wear pants?
Who decided that you can say "simple hello" to a dfd person?
YHVH or GB?

lol

It is good to note that bans also have their counter effects. There is no guarantee that bans are successful, that is what experience tells us. People drink alcohol and drive motor vehicles relentlessly even though prohibitions are clearly posted and penalties are enforced.

Ideologically oriented and convinced people, in this case with religious beliefs, will resist the prohibitions of their religious freedom. JWs are not an only example of that. And other people, because of different beliefs, are ready to endure contempt and various prohibitions of society.

One question is always asked, is it worth suffering? When GB bans the wearing of beards for men or trousers for women, we wonder if the ban is worth enduring? JWs have proven it's worth. Because they also received liberation from those prohibitions. lol

But, Is it useful for a Russian brother to wear a beard? And Orthodox priests in Russia also wear beards, so maybe the end of the ban on wearing beards will not significantly affect JW men in Russia, because they could be mistaken for members of the "false religion".
GB abandons some of its bans, and there are various motives and reasons behind this. The fact that something is true, just, moral and pleasing to God plays the least role in all of this. It is about pragmatic reasons and the issue of money and material possessions. Also damage control, primarily due to the specific policy of running a massive international corporation, which is a religiously-ideologically colored hierarhical administration.

Each ideology is interwoven with its own extremisms, which are accepted by members within that ideology. WTJWorg and GB keep proving their own extremism which they project to their followers. And some JWs rebel within themselves against it, but then they become "apostates" and are expelled from the "society" because they are under "ban". Some leave and others stay despite the bans. Some remain in WTJWorg and balance the ban with their freedom.

So, as written in the article, bans are of limited effect. But in the meantime, you have to endure. Is it possible? Is it necessary?

How many JWs did the red warning light go on when they heard this?

"However, Gb decided that publishers can use their Bible-trained conscience to decide ..." -https://www.jw.org/en/news/region/global/2024-Governing-Body-Update-2/

The modern generations of JWs are unique because they heard an outrageous declaration. Imagine! As of today, GB allows you to use your Bible-trained conscience in certain cases that THEY approve.

It is scandalous to hear such a thing, and it is even more scandalous that JWs agree to worship in this way a group of self-proclaimed "guardians of doctrine". 

This is a direct attack on the free will of JWs people and this is an unprecedented attack on the main tool given to man by God, to have and to demonstrate personal integrity through the operation of his conscience.

We all here know very well that WTJWorg does not fully accept "natural conscience" because they say it is unreliable without God's Word.
But here at WTJWorg, they go six steps further. Now they claim that the "Bible-trained conscience", which JWs train under the supervision of GB, is also unreliable. Now they have publicly, again, exposed themselves as manipulators.
Obviously, there are no boundaries that GB cannot cross in this unjust and organized way of enslaving people.

10 hours ago, George88 said:

What happened to 5, 6, 7, 8 who do you appreciate, lol!

lol

It will come, you just have to wait a little.

15 hours ago, George88 said:

I recall the shift from asking for contributions to publishing the Watchtower literature. When the Watchtower announces the end of the preaching work, it will mark a significant shift for its members, akin to the closing of Noah's ark door. By whom will it be done: The Watchtower or God?

Before my time, they sold literature for money or exchanged it for some material goods (eg eggs or similar). Later we said that this "voluntere preaching work" was supported by voluntary contributions and that the tenant could give some money of his choice. Later it was stopped because it is money that was not declared as income and taxed.

Apropos the cessation of preaching. I think it's an outdated dogma because new "clarifications" have arrived, about how people being able to turn to God at the last minute and be saved. According to this new explanation, it no longer makes sense to rely on the idea, from the past, of "stopping preaching" and "closing the doors of the contemporary Ark".

George, you have to keep up with the organization! You're behind! lol

19 minutes ago, George88 said:

The criticism of "larchwood" is now irrelevant, as are any former members or witnesses trying to make a fuss over nothing. The times have indeed changed.

The news that could signal that times are changing at WTJWorg will be when they announce that donations of any kind are no longer being accepted. lol

JWs, Show Your Fashion Attitude!

lol

When beards were permitted it was explained that was because the view of those in the world had changed.

So what view has changed in the world so that JWs women can wear slacks? 

56 minutes ago, George88 said:

 

57 minutes ago, George88 said:

 

48 minutes ago, George88 said:

I acknowledge the recent update, but it did not prevent you and others from expressing criticism and sarcasm. However, if we consider the larger context, it's evident that the dress code is intended for those who scrutinize the attire of other nations. The aim is to balance the overall perception of the situation.

The theme here is "repentance" for those who have been disfellowshipped or have left. However, it does not apply to apostates and those Jehovah's Witnesses who enjoy creating division within their own religion, as it is being done here. Certainly, there are still certain conditions that apply to individuals here.

The expression, "the scene of this world is changing", is certainly the reality of WTJWorg, which is changing the scene of its own dogmatic construction by which it oppresses its own followers. 
"You must not greet an excluded person who comes to KH", was the previous order. As of today, that changes and the instruction instructs JWs to give a welcome, but not "too much of a welcome." lol

8 minutes ago, George88 said:

Who didn't see your criticism coming? lol!

"However, GB has decided  ....,"

https://www.jw.org/en/news/region/global/2024-Governing-Body-Update-2/

30 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Or maybe they all still hate beards, but one of them had to sacrifice his personal preferences to show that the GB will lead by example. Perhaps he drew the "short straw" as they say here. 

Maybe next time, another one will go without the tie: 

Have you heard about the update?

Welcome to the disfellowshipped who comes to meetings (but without extended fellowship), walks into the preaching service or to meetings without a tie and jacket. Sisters wearing slacks.
With or without some "restrictions" and more IF the clothing standard in particular country is such that it is "normal" among "people of the nation".

lol

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/categories/VODStudio

So he's one of those who wanted a beard? lol

There are two "facts".
One is that WTJWorg wants to establish Christianity as it was in the 1st century, because that would be, says WTJWorg, the only proper and true worship of God. Moreover, WTJWorg claims that their current form of Christianity is in fact like that of the 1st century, so this supposedly sets it apart from all other forms of Christianity which, again according to WTJWorg, are false Christianity.

Another "fact" was highlighted in the comment, which is that we live in the 21st century. That knowledge is supposed to be the justification for the various modified forms of religious activity and dogma that are part of the WTJWorg.
Aren't these two "facts" actually in conflict? In the 21st century, there is no copied model of worship from the 1st century. At least not at WTJWorg.
The pattern of Christianity from the 1st century does not know the institute of "unbaptized publisher". Please, what biblical passage or account is the prototype from which WTJWorg invented the model that exists today?

If it is in JWs interest to follow the example of Jesus and the example of the "first Christians", then the discussion on this issue should not be tiresome and irrelevant, childish. Because, even the slightest failure to conform to "pure worship" would place them in the group that Jesus rejects.

Jesus did not approve of the baptism of small children, because he did not tell them to repent and be baptized. He gave such a warning only to adults, men and women.
Furthermore, there was no form of "Bible study" in the 1st century. There were no deadlines for how long the "Bible studies" lasted, no specific written word, literature, no questions asked by the elders. There is no such biblical account that supports JWs practice today.

If it is something called "modernization" of original Christianity, then JWs should ask themselves further questions. Is respect for "children's rights as seen by the UN and EHCR" a modern practice that they should adopt? Should they adopt "women's equality"? Etc.

How can JWs determine the necessary balance between the old and the new? Based on which parameter? How will they measure what is "modern" and what is "outdated"?

Jesus was not an "unbaptized publisher". He was born as a Jew and died as a Jew. His baptism was not an indication that he rejected Judaism and accepted Christianity.
So, JWs baptism of adults has a different meaning and significance than that of Jesus. JWs baptisms of children are completely unbiblical. That is the "modern" deviation of Christianity in the 20th and 21st centuries.

52 minutes ago, George88 said:

I have not come across any comparison between the Watchtower Governing Body and the Pharisees. The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses strictly adheres to God's laws and faithfully enforces them, just as Jesus did. It is worth noting that Jesus did express criticism towards the Pharisees in this regard.

However, if the day comes when the Watchtower Governing Body starts to act like the Pharisees, spiritual Israel will recognize it, and God will judge them just as He judged those who added to the laws of Moses for their benefit instead of serving God's people.

God will also judge spiritual Israel if they choose to disobey Him, just as the natural Jews did.

I may be wrong, but I get the impression that you are a long-time member of the JW religion. If you are, then it's troubling that you haven't already noticed how the GB adds its own "wisdom" to the Bible. One of the last examples of "adding" (and/or "subtracting") is the abolition of counting the hours that ordinary JWs spend in service.
So, was the instruction to count the hours an "addition" to the Bible, or was the instruction to no longer count the hours a "subtraction" from the Bible?

Warning! Of course, this question is also "a trap". Because, no matter how you answer, you will show that GB is outside the Biblical standard. lol

2 hours ago, George88 said:

Wasn't that something the Pharisees did to assert their authority by adding to God's commands?

You say well. We can also agree that the GB adds its commandments, as did the Pharisees.

2 hours ago, George88 said:

10 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

The term "good" in the Bible is synonymous for "perfect". Like God's statement in Genesis; "...and it was good".

It is, however, it is not for "sinless."

I can only say that God did not call his creative works with word "sinless" (or "perfect") but only with word "good". Perhaps because "perfection" does not exclude "sinfulness". 

The capacity to sin is not some kind of "privilege" or "characteristic" of the imperfect, but also of the "perfect". Adam and Eve are proof that one can be "perfect" and commit sin.

On 3/6/2024 at 5:55 PM, George88 said:

Would you happen to know of such, those that deviate from Christ's teaching?

Is there any religion today that is not a deviation?

On 3/6/2024 at 5:55 PM, George88 said:

Did he remove human imperfections during his time on earth?

The people around him didn't even expect that. They were satisfied if he fed them or cured them of their diseases. Or he forgave their sins. Or while they listened to him speak. That made them feel good.

The term "good" in the Bible is synonymous for "perfect". Like God's statement in Genesis; "...and it was good".

1 hour ago, Pudgy said:

To find out what is REALLY TRUE ….…. just look out the window.

...and then convince everyone in the personal interpretation of that reality. lol

Basically, I conclude from these few sentences that you wrote, that in the first Christian assembly there was no concept of "unbaptized publisher".

Therefore, I present the following conclusion, WTJWorg has no biblical basis for its theological and administrative thesis and practice by which it presents this condition to candidates for baptism.

In the first century, the only condition for someone to be baptized was the act of repentance for their sins and faith in Jesus.