Srecko Sostar

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Are you privy to the degree Jesus did that after his ‘eat my flesh’ remarks gave enemies the pretext to persecute the congregation for cannibalism?

Jesus had his reason for speaking. But even his listeners had good reason to be offended by what was said. I believe many of them remembered their ancestors and the prophecies that were fulfilled.

Therefore in your midst parents will eat their children, and children will eat their parents. I will inflict punishment on you and will scatter all your survivors to the winds. - Ezekiel 5:10

Then he asked her, “What’s the matter?” She answered, “This woman said to me, ‘Give up your son so we may eat him today, and tomorrow we’ll eat my son.’  So we cooked my son and ate him. The next day I said to her, ‘Give up your son so we may eat him,’ but she had hidden him.” - 2 Kings 6:28,29

And what to say. If in the 1st century they preached eating the body of Jesus and drinking his blood then no wonder they were persecuted. 

I don’t think Jesus said anywhere that they preach it, but to preach the good news about Jesus. Even the JWs stopped preaching directly about the guilt and destruction of the Catholic Church. Why? Because that would be hate speech, I guess.

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Honing in on the imperfections of the doers will allow you to discredit anything. The only ones not making mistakes are the ones not doing anything (as though that itself is not a mistake).

The general fact is that we are, usually all, generals after a battle. But real generals also analyze their actions after the battle to be more successful next time. Everything is subject to criticism and questioning.

Doing nothing is wrong. But is the persistence in doing wrong things proof that we are still doing something good because we have convinced ourselves that it is better than doing nothing?

Preaching that Armageddon will take place in certain years or within a certain period gives some hope to people who believe in it. And after a failed theology, there are “generals and ordinary surviving soldiers” who comment on it.

We could accept the claim that accepting false hope is better than no hope at all. With such an idea, we could believe the claim that JWs have reached a high/er standard of faith and hope compared to some other people. 

Are JWs more honest and moral people than others? So now, do you really want to brag about that?

9 hours ago, Dmitar said:

Can you explain why you believe and organization that follows scripture,

I find that this organization often follows its own interpretations of the Bible/scripture.   

17 hours ago, xero said:

Do you have any scriptures prescribing the disposition of the dead? Nope. Just that you're unclean if you touch a dead thing or person.

Sorry, it was only a questions that arose; How many individuals touched the body of the dead Jesus, on Earth? And was that considered an unclean act? Who took away the body of Jesus that could not be found? And is that unclean act, aka did they become unclean because of it? Is the body of the dead Jesus unclean?

9 hours ago, Mr. Lifeson said:

No, I'm talking about the animal sacrifices. From my understanding of Genesis, before Adam and Eve's disobedience, neither the humans nor the animals wanted to kill one another. Since they all lived according to God's Will before the fall, I assume that it was God' Will for humans and animals to not kill one another.

So what I don't understand is what exactly made God approve of humans killing animals and bringing their corpses to Him as a way of honoring Him. Did Abel come up with this idea on his own or did he learn it from his parents or from someone else? And whoever the first human that got the idea of killing animals was, why wasn't this human told by God that killing animals causes them suffering and is against God's Will?

Cain bringing grains to God is a bit more logical in the sense that they ate grains, so it was something along the lines of: "when us, humans, share food with each other, we enjoy our presence more, so maybe if I share food with The Being Who created me it will make This Being enjoy my presence more." So he brought grains, the food that he grew from the ground, to God. Granted, The Bible doesn't say that it was the best grains he had, so I understand why God would not regard Cain's offering. But the idea of bringing food to God is still grounded in logic, when compared to the idea of killing animals (which is basically destroying God's creation, bringing its remains to God, and telling God that you destroyed His creation as a means of honoring Him).

The idea of sacrificing to the god/s is not unusual, because people sacrificed to the god/s, because they want god/s to protect them or help them. To some extent, this is about bribery. Sometimes it is a way of thanking the god/s.
One aspect of why people made sacrifices is that they did not understand the laws of nature. Because they felt helpless or felt some debt to the Unknown. That is how god/s of all kind came into being.
The idea that people are obliged to make sacrifices to god/s does not exist in the initial (Bible) descriptions of the relationship between God and man (Adam, Eve, Abel, Cain ...).

WTJWorg explains that the most important reason why God rejected Cain’s sacrifice was that he had no faith, and Abel had. Meat and bloodshed also play a role, but WTJWorg publications do not claim that this was the sole reason.

But giving material or symbolic or spiritual or physical sacrifices to God should not be a practice in which the relationship between God and man should be developed. After all, it is said that God himself said and had it written in the Bible that obedience is more important to him than sacrifice.

The thought of having to kill someone to please God is terrible, frightening.

4 hours ago, Dmitar said:

On 12/27/2021 at 12:23 AM, Mr. Lifeson said:

I've been wondering about that for quite some time. I never understood why killing parts of God's creation was something that God would find acceptable. It makes zero sense to me.

What makes you think, the death of Abel was acceptable to God? Is that what you understand from @Srecko Sostar,

It is true that i have problematic grammar, but your confused conclusion is funny.  

9 hours ago, Matthew9969 said:

On 12/24/2021 at 7:56 PM, Arauna said:

He is up in heaven - so he sends his Holy Spirit.  Surely you understand this?

Jesus sends "his" holy spirit?

8 hours ago, Arauna said:

9 hours ago, Matthew9969 said:

Jesus sends "his" holy spirit?

Apologies.... you know what I meant. Without getting technical - God is the sole source of Holy Spirit and Jesus has been given all authority.  "  That is why I am going away. The Holy Spirit cannot come to help You until I leave. But after I am gone, I will send the Spirit to you. - John 16:5-7

 But after I am gone, I will send the Spirit to you. - John 16:5-7

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. - John 14:16

I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit -  Mark 1:8

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. - John 14:26

When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me, - John 15:26

I just want to notice. If, according to WTJWorg, HS is just some kind of energy, then every person in heaven and on earth has their own spirit or energy. The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are God’s children. - Romans 8:16.  God is holy so his spirit is also holy. Is Jesus as a person on earth or as a person in heaven holy? If it is then his spirit is holy, too.

From all this arises a really interesting question: which spirit Jesus sends, his own or God's. Can Jesus send the spirit of another person, his Father, and vice versa? Or is it logical to send his own HS?
HS is also called the spirit of truth, and Jesus claims that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. It seems how Bible verses above speaking in both ways.

13 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The WT explanation of the wild beast is instantly recognizable. You don’t have to agree with that interpretation to see how the International agency for peace and security is “an image” of the various governments and how it derives its power from them, and that through it ALL the nations  (ten horns) briefly combine to rule.

I think it is unrealistic to claim that all UN members have influence over the UN General Assembly and their decisions on behalf of “all nations”. There are several in the UN who are the only ones who have the right to veto all decisions, also those that are influential and powerful enough to undo any action by other UN members and to exert influence over them.

In addition, various interpretations of the WTJWorg about the “northern and southern kings,” and “Gog of Magog” call into question the construction you have interpreted about the UN.

13 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It is that of the leadership of a religion that represents 1/1000th of the world population that even now, most are only vaguely familiar with and many have never heard of it at all. Seriously? Whereas the WT interpretation is recognizable worldwide, very few people have any idea of what “anointed” Christians are. They don’t even know what it is, and yet your grudge against them comprises the cornerstone of your belief system

To understand the prophecy recorded in Daniel chapter 11, we need to keep in mind that it identifies only rulers and governments that have had a direct influence on God’s people. And even though God’s servants make up only a small portion of the world’s population, they are often at the center of major world events. Why? Because Satan and his entire system have one prime objective—conquering those who serve Jehovah and Jesus. - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-may-2020/The-King-of-the-North-in-the-Time-of-the-End/

If the whole UN wants to destroy WTJWorg then they should be well aware of the JW ideology that makes them want to destroy you. 

The king of the north has supported the king of the south in one key endeavor; they “put in place the disgusting thing that causes desolation.” (Dan. 11:31) That “disgusting thing” is the United Nations. -https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-may-2020/The-King-of-the-North-in-the-Time-of-the-End/

WTJWorg considers its Organization the only holy place on Earth because it is where God is worshiped in truth. How did the northern and southern kings put the UN in your “spiritual temple”? Or how will they put it in the future?

But your magazines add confusion. We read this:

 In the first fulfillment, the “standing in a holy place” occurred in 66 C.E. when the Roman army (“the disgusting thing”) attacked Jerusalem and its temple (a place holy in the eyes of the Jews). In the larger fulfillment, the “standing” will occur when the United Nations (the modern-day “disgusting thing”) attacks Christendom (which is holy in the eyes of nominal Christians) and the rest of Babylon the Great. The same attack is described at Revelation 17:16-18. That event will be the beginning of the great tribulation. - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2013530#h=13:0-13:842

WTJWorg is Babylon aka Confusion. 

--------------------------------------------------

PS 

 So the restoration of spiritual Israel in 1919 to a radiant spiritual prosperity, which continues and expands to this day, stands as evidence that Babylon the Great fell in that year. No longer does she have power of restraint over God’s people. Moreover, she has come into deep trouble within her own ranks. Since 1919 her corruption, dishonesty, and immorality have been widely exposed. In most of Europe, few people go to church anymore, and in some socialistic countries, religion is regarded as “the opium of the people.” Disgraced in the eyes of all lovers of God’s Word of truth, Babylon the Great now waits on death row, as it were, for the execution of Jehovah’s righteous judgment on her. - https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/Revelation-Its-Grand-Climax-At-Hand/Babylon-the-Great-Has-Fallen/

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

You sound like a protestant.......

:))) This could be interpreted as the Bible being a Protestant book, too.

God supposedly wants man to love him with all his heart. Love is the most sacred quality, because God is love. And love is exclusively a matter of the heart and only then of the soul and mind. The temple of God is in the human heart. Therefore, the heart is the holiest place because the Temple is the holiest place. Man himself is the temple of God according to the Bible. If in the past the Temple of God was the holiest place on earth (in Jerusalem), then the only place where God can dwell today is, nowhere else, but in the heart of a person.

“Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand),” - Matt 24:15 

The whole chapter is complex and sometimes contradictory in expression.
But one could observe the transferred meaning of two literal things. One literal thing is this graphic representation and the next literal thing is a biblical quote.

It occurred to me to conclude like this:

The holiest place in the universe is in a person’s heart. If 80% of the space in the heart of JW members is occupied by GB (man and his religious system) then this inevitably leads to disaster.

1 hour ago, Dmitar said:

Instead of putting a confused emoji, I'll just ask you to explain your thought. The Church of Christ is Christianity as a whole. However, not all Christians obey the sanctity of God and Christ. Therefore, the Church of Christ is the Body of Christ. Are you referring to a brick and mortar house of the Lord that is used as grounds to worship, like the synagogues  and the first Christian congregations were used? The house in itself has no meaning, rather a place for Christians to unite and encourage one another under the Lord. So, a House, Church, Congregation, etc. that is used as a house of worship is sanctified by God's Holy Spirit.

An atheist would not think of such things, and condemn such placement, while an agnostic might think, worshiping God under the stars is enough.

42 minutes ago, Dmitar said:

Did Jesus not change that? Do, you believe, Jesus found no use for the First Christian Congregations? If not, why do you believe that? Why would you think the apostles found no problem with them, but Jesus did, if that's your understanding.

If God wants to establish the "original" intention/plan/will (about which we speculate based on reading of a few passages from the book of Genesis) then it seems acceptable to me that man worships God “under the stars”. In a primary, primitive way.
Contrary, worship systems, all of them, even those that some call “the best,” those within the old nation of Israel, and that achieved with the 12 Apostles and then in the 1st Congregation, are prone to corruption. Reality and history prove it. 

Literal walls and spiritual walls have a lifespan. During existence, damage can (and does) occur, failure occurs. There is a need to renovate or build a new building. The existence of 2 Testaments confirms this. Why wouldn't there be a 3rd Testament? Or a complete return to the Original?

27 minutes ago, Dmitar said:

worshiping God under the stars is enough.

It seems to me that this is exactly what the worship of God looked like in the beginning.

40 minutes ago, xero said:

Without friction there isn't growth.

Agree. Of course it is not so simple.

33 minutes ago, Dmitar said:

in Christ, as determined by His church and God's words.

Does this "Church of Christ" carry this name or have a specific, another name today?

54 minutes ago, Dmitar said:

Summary: Definition The Christian life is the life of repentance, faith, and good works lived through the power of the Spirit and with the help of the means of grace as the Christian is conformed to the image of Christ to the glory of God. 

Can you explain how you define, Christian Life?

I was in two forms of the Christian life. Until they became JW, my parents were Catholics and we lived as Catholic Christians (until i was 7 y old). Later they accepted the teachings of JW and with my parents I was raised in that spirit. So, accepting the faith of my parents, I became a Christian according to the beliefs and interpretations of WTJWorg.
I stopped being a Christian as defined and interpreted by the doctrine of WTJWorg.

Do I consider myself a follower of Jesus Christ? I think this is a question that should be asked more often by all those who feel they belong to some - every Christian ideology / theology.

10 hours ago, Dmitar said:

Christian life.

Please define/determine "Christian life". 

11 hours ago, xero said:

Good point!  It could be like a game, where you only answer w/scriptures and if the person on the other end can't get the point, then it's like holy spirit doesn't want them to understand. You do that when you start getting people bloviating or showing off or looking like they just want to start something. I used to ask people at the door whether they really wanted to know (when they asked a question in a cranky way) or whether they're just trying to start something. (Of course we haven't been to anyone's door around here in a while)

It can also be an expression of competition and the ability to refute the opposite side with quotes. What the Spirit of God has in all this, on both sides involved in the discussion, does not have to be part of reality, but only on our ideas of reality. And our needs / skills to show ourselves stronger.

Of course, this (quotes) should not be wrong because it can give the other side food for thought. But it can come back like a boomerang if the other party has the knowledge to neutralize some biblical quote with another biblical quote or with reality. Quoting some biblical passages is, many times, part of the interpretation of a certain group of believers, and the interpretations are often times on shaky feet and are not a reflection of the workings of HS. WTJWorg has proven this many times.

9 minutes ago, xero said:

  Where there is no wood, the fire goes out,And where there is no slanderer, quarreling ceases.+ - Proverbs 26:20

²  A stupid person takes no pleasure in understanding;He would rather disclose what is in his heart.+ - Proverbs 18:2

But you contribute with "wood" by posting citation/verses. :)) 

27 minutes ago, xero said:

Zašto mislite da postoji posebna klasna razlika "Pomazani" i "Nepomazani" u bilo kojem od savjeta danih u CGS-u? Egzistencijalnu razliku koju su neki tvrdili da su "superfini apostoli" Pavao je osporio kao vrući zrak. Jesu li to bili "Pomazani"? Koga briga? Bitno je ponašanje. Kao što sveto pismo kaže: "Bolji je živ pas od mrtvog lava", isto je istina i Isus je to istaknuo kada je dao ilustraciju o "Bližnjem Samarijancu". Da je Isus danas živ na zemlji, mogao bi nekoga šokirati iz samozadovoljstva zamijenivši "Samarijanac" s "Otpadnikom". Jehova je sudac i on, naravno, Isusu smo delegirali stvarnu instanciju presude (koja se tek treba dogoditi) tako da bi naša jedina briga trebala biti naša vlastita vjernost Jehovi. Neki se možda razlikuju ili dovode u pitanje naš integritet, ali to će se dogoditi. Ova uporna i opsesivna zabrinutost koju neki imaju o tome tko nosi ili ne nosi nevidljivu čarobnu kapu je izvan mene. Za mene to pokazuje da se osoba treba obratiti čovjeku u ogledalu i pustiti druge da učine isto.

As a former JW, I was also taught that the Bible (I guess it's just NT) was written for 144,000. Whether that's true or not I leave to the discussants. I suppose, among other things, this meant that they bear primary responsibility as “bearers of light” because of their special relationship with God through Christ. But today, I’m not entirely sure if that concept can be accurate. We are talking, here, about 144000 as a literal number according to WTJWorg.

But that’s not what prompted me to comment. Does the GB have special legitimacy, as “anointed” or as “FDS” or as “elders” or as some other type of entity in WTJWorg so that they are worthy of “full trust” from JW members? That would be in the context of your comment, and support ascertainment that any kind of “super important apostles” (self appointed GB, Helpers, all sort of administration) are irrelevant, also today, like those in the past.

JW members (the vast majority of them) are lost in their illusions they have accepted from WTJWorg. Because they consider all the people around them, who are not JWs, “enemies” and only themselves the only righteous and honest people, who are, as they say, the only true worshipers of God, it brings them into one of the most dangerous situations one can find oneself; proclamation of self-righteousness.

13 hours ago, Dmitar said:

I would you much rather you quote scripture and not some organization you have a problem with.

Scriptures have their advantages, but they also have their disadvantages. It is not a book on natural sciences, geology, biology, zoology, etc. For many of the things we are discussing we will never find a biblical quote. Or do you think it's possible?
If possible, then let’s say, who in this JW Open Club can quote some biblical passage that supports the thesis of JW Christians that blood components and fractions are that what they are not, or that they are not what they are? 

Many have a problem with WTJWorg, not just me. Loyal members have a bigger problem, because they are inside and I am outside :)) The fact that we are in the JW Open Club and that we are developing various discussions under this platform shows that you are not quite right in that assessment.

6 hours ago, Dmitar said:

11 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Let say this way. If we assumed that God expected Adam and Eve to do something in life, be it physical, intellectual, emotional or ideological/theoretical, then it cannot be under the burden of a “curse”.  Adam and Eve had to deal with the same “program of work” regardless of the change in their status before God. It is obvious that God made it difficult for them to carry out his own original plan. 

How does this square with the fact man was made perfect. Had man continued to be perfect in the Garden, how would they know what plants had illicit use? Then, there would be no such sinful placement upon man with such cursed ideology.

According to the WTJWorg interpretation, Adam and Eve along with their descendants lived long after their expulsion from Paradise. So they did not die the day they sinned. Various ideas about how long a biblical "day" lasts add to the confusion. We might speculate that their long life is a legacy of the remaining traces of “perfection”.

WTJWorg’s next idea is that Adam and Eve were aware of each of their actions. If so, then at the time of creation they already knew what to eat and what not. Or do you think that by being expelled from Paradise they became demented and forgot what could be eaten.  

It is difficult to understand God, especially after so many interpretations of him generated by religious leaders.  

5 hours ago, Dmitar said:

Is that not the topic of this thread, or have we moved on to another topic? You state, "at the time of their creation" as a point of reference.

You're right. But one topic cannot do without another. Trying to elaborate on the topic of animals and their diet before and after the Flood is difficult without trying to find out their original state, ie the relationship between all species of animals and the type of diet in the initial stage of existence. If I may remind you of my older comment on this (as well as on many other topics); We can only speculate.  

13 minutes ago, Dmitar said:

11 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I agree that work/working (as a concept, principle, call ..,) is not a punishment or a curse.

The curse mentioned in Genesis is an expression of God’s anger and temperament at a given moment.

How are these two points not be considered, contradictory? 

Let say this way. If we assumed that God expected Adam and Eve to do something in life, be it physical, intellectual, emotional or ideological/theoretical, then it cannot be under the burden of a “curse”.  Adam and Eve had to deal with the same “program of work” regardless of the change in their status before God. It is obvious that God made it difficult for them to carry out his own original plan. 

24 minutes ago, Dmitar said:

Since Adam was to tame the animal kingdom, what lost of perfection by man, be diminished toward the animal kingdom? What impact would that have for the animal kingdom to become carnivores?

So have we not realized that no one has an argument for one thesis or another. Were they herbivores or carnivores (or both) at the time of their creation. Or that changed later (Flood time point). Regardless of the conclusion, it is evident that most living beings can adapt their way of life to conditions and changes in nature.

15 minutes ago, Dmitar said:

Can you expand on this thought, since you believe I'm meant directly with man, and not its subsequent sin?

"God pronounces a curse upon mankind after Adam and Eve's sin. It is not that working is a curse; God had previously told them they were to dress and keep the Garden. Rather, the curse is the burden of providing for oneself in a world that has turned its back on God.

I agree that work/working (as a concept, principle, call ..,) is not a punishment or a curse.

The curse mentioned in Genesis is an expression of God’s anger and temperament at a given moment.

In some other evil deeds done by men, God was not so enraged nor did he act fast on the transgressors. For example, he gave people at least 120 years of life before the execution of the flood. The execution of Armageddon, interpreted by WTJWorg, did not take place within 2000 years. 

30 minutes ago, Dmitar said:

Can you elaborate what this means to the animal kingdom?

The question is, have animals “lost” their "perfection" because of man? Is the sin of Adam and Eve transferable to animals or only to the human descendants of Adam and Eve? WTJWorg says that Adam’s children inherited sin from their parents. Where does it say that animals inherited human sin? If animals did not inherit human sin, if animals did not violate God’s command, then why would they “lose perfection”? WTJWorg says that animals were created mortal and that they died in Paradise. So, being mortal does not mean being sinful. So also, to be perfect means to be mortal.