Srecko Sostar

1 hour ago, Pudgy said:

My guess is that the actual percentages are closer to 15% being right and 85% wrong.

In warfare, this is known as a massacre.

If we transfer this assessment now to the question in the title of the topic, Did everyone notice ... then we need to notice at least two, three things:
1) That a large part of JW members will not notice the differences between text in the paper form and  in digital form of already published publications.
2) That newer generations of JW members have no idea what happened and what is happening to them “right under their noses” about history of own Organization.
3) That changes to the official text on WTJWorg applications can happen in an instant, and that what you read this morning may look different if you read in the afternoon. So, for some readers, it may create insecurity in their own mind and memory, which means the mental and emotional instability of an individual.
4) That digital technology enables a great possibility of manipulation

.., etc

52 minutes ago, Arauna said:

I think all you guys on here who live in the past - without context-  have something missing from your thinking processes - to state it bluntly.  History mongers - looking through past actions and words with a fine tooth and judging it by today's standards. To look to the past without a historical context.  I did many things in the past which embarrasses me thinking of it today because it was done in a different time frame when values and many more things were different etc.

I look at Rutherford and realize he understood that the last world government will be fascistic.  I see he made the right conclusion but for the wrong time period.  I can learn something from that.  Do you learn something from the past or are you just embarrassed?  

 

Many times it can be heard that some people, when asked about their lives, say that they would repeat everything and would not change anything. They are very happy with their marriage, their job, their achievements, etc.
My opinion on that is such that I would not really agree with such conclusions. Maybe I think so because I’m not happy with my life (for a very, very long time).

But regardless of me, Arauna said it well when she says that she herself has many things from her past that she is ashamed of today. So, it could be that some other people today conclude that their "historical context" is such that they can be completely satisfied with everything they have achieved before and therefore would not change anything if they could be born again or get another chance for another lifetime.
In a religious sense, perhaps even GB today thinks, that the "historical context" of WTJWorg is such that they should feel no shame for anything. Judge for yourself if it makes sense for GB and JW members to look at their past (as an Organization and active members inside) that way.

On the other hand, repeating, once or more, your life in exactly the same way would mean depriving yourself of new experiences, new delusions, new lies, new successes, new truths, new sorrows and joys in some unique, new and different context.

Sometimes a man “holds on” to what he has, because he is afraid of the different, because he is afraid of the unknown. Maybe it’s just a sign that we’ve stopped being young.  

Yes, one should look at the past in the context of the past. And it should be said, publicly, how that past (from the Organization) is full of misconceptions. And don’t forget, your past is the cause of your present. And the present will define your future. Do we have a chance to save ourselves? As individuals? And you as an Organization?

31 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I couldn’t care less about dates…..so give it a rest …no honest hearted true brother would do what you are doing to prove your personal point…you are relentless in your crusade…    you are like a a broken record and I for one no longer even read your ramblings and copy and pastes….

You told me that I needed to look again for something I hadn't remembered reading before. This doesn't mean that all this rambling and cutting and pasting is for you. I really doubted that anyone would take much of an interest. But as long as I am going through a lot of material again, I thought it best to share what I was finding. Especially because such a review is always an opportunity for me to pick up on several things I hadn't noticed before. And there's always a good chance that several of my conclusions are wrong, so I put a lot of them out their for public scrutiny, where they can be corrected by others.  I'm sure I'll also run across what I missed before (the passage that you saw) and I'd very much like to find it. 

Hi. This quote was made by @Thinking  not by me.  

31 minutes ago, Thinking said:

That comment about a fellow brother shows you have a real problem with ego….and a great need to be right……can you prove he did that…..or could that come under a false accusation against a fellow brother……Personally I don’t think anyone knows and you need to stop chasing this and be a little bit humble and stop shoving your thoughts down everyone’s throats…Whoever  did it could see it was causing disruptions and unnecessarily contentions and debating proving fruitless……and none of it promoting peace  amongst brothers….you do well to perhaps give some credit to whomever did it and stop your self promotion of your belief.

I couldn’t care less about dates…..so give it a rest …no honest hearted true brother would do what you are doing to prove your personal point…you are relentless in your crusade…

you are one big red flag to me!!!!

you are like a a broken record and I for one no longer even read your ramblings and copy and pastes….

@JW Insider gave an opinion on who deleted the topic and why. What's so accusing in that about that other brother?

You should have read the last comment from Rando that he sent me. It was troubling what this man thought of those who thought differently from him. And how he allows himself to pronounce a severe condemnation/judgement of another.

In my opinion JW Insider has outstanding intellectual abilities and I don’t see any aspiration for self-praise. But even if I am wrong in my perception, it does not invalidate the results of the research and presentation he has shown. I hope he will stay on this forum in years to come.

15 hours ago, ApostaBabe Linda James said:

So my question is

The questions make sense. If God did not participate in the creation of human governments, which should be logical, because why would he create competition for himself, then these "kingdoms" are not his, but from those who established them.
We should establish historical events that show the emergence of “human rule”. It should then bring to light the possible moment when it was God who became the “owner” of all these past kingdoms (and today’s legal successors). What biblical account confirms such a conclusion? The appearance of Nemrod? But nothing speaks in favor of God appropriating or producing that kingdom. JWs only deal with the term - "God allows it to exist".
According to the development of events visible from the Bible, God was in some way involved in the creation of the Jewish Kingdom. The Jewish Kingdom was ultimately still (became and remained) human rule, thus part of the “political” picture at the time, and through the state of Israel it still exists today.

If God was ever the owner (I won’t say the creator of human kingdoms), at what point and why would He hand over all control and ownership to Satan? Let us not forget that God greatly regretted creating man. Would he then, and yet, contribute to the creation of competition in the form of “kingdoms” that he voluntarily gives to Satan? Or is it perhaps a matter of creating a seemingly invincible system on the opposite side, which God would destroy in the future to prove himself the greatest?

15 hours ago, ApostaBabe Linda James said:

What if this refusal of Jesus to worship the devil, was in fact an act ( possibly even a revolutionary act ) of refusing to acknowledge the devil's authority over "all the kingdoms of the world," Jesus showing his followers how to walk in his footsteps, ( hence "footstep followers." ) and we too can refuse to acknowledge the devil's authority over "all the Kingdoms of the world," and act in the same manner?

We can deny/refuse whatever we want, but we can still be reached by "someone else's reality". In the past, before becoming president of the new Yugoslavia after World War II, Tito was arrested and brought before a court in 1928. At the process of the trial he said that, he consider this court incompetent and recognize only the court of the Communist Party. But he was still sentenced to 5 years in prison.

16 hours ago, ApostaBabe Linda James said:

But then again if this authority was given to the devil by Jehovah, then I probably have no business questioning it, now do I?

No authority is happy when questioned  
 

The cost of computers, energy and cryptocurrency storage exist. But they may be significantly smaller than paper and coins. Either way, the future will be changed and lives will be changed ... drastically.

13 hours ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

Here in the UK the government sometimes does 'compulsory purchase' orders so that a person has to sell their property.

I think there are several models around that in Croatia. Sometimes the matter is resolved in court because the private owner is not satisfied with the small offer for redemption. And, sometimes the state can expropriate property from the owner because of a higher interest for the state and the public.

16 minutes ago, Arauna said:

In fact there is good indication that those who were perfect and chose to sin do not show remorse. 

Sorry, but i can witness how some IMPERFECT persons also sin and do not remorse. What is final point of your standpoint when evidence show only this: IMPERFECT individuals can act in two ways - to show remorse and to not show remorse. 

If Bible state that people are made in image of God.....that would mean how PERFECT individuals have same quality - to show same feelings, attitudes as IMPERFECT.

Bible stated this:   The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. Gen 6:6

Regret vs. Remorse - https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/stop-caretaking-the-borderline-or-narcissist/201507/regret-vs-remorse

The main difference between Remorse and Regret is that the Remorse is a advanced emotion and Regret is a negative conscious and emotional reaction to personal past acts and behaviours. - https://www.askdifference.com/remorse-vs-regret/

The Difference between Regret and Remorse - https://education.onehowto.com/article/the-difference-between-regret-and-remorse-12141.html

2 hours ago, Arauna said:

They did not have remorse..... the bible does not show this.

This is some proof .. for what? Things not written not exist? 

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

You can live in the most beautiful of places that are still a hell hole because of the people that live there…the hell hole was what he would have made that place into  a emotional hell hole…full of fear and anxiety.

Of course, I agree. I hope you would not mind if say little more about this issue. According to some idea/guess from you or other about land outside of Eden, it looks bad, in my eyes, that God was not satisfied with enormous feelings of guilt, fear, disappointments etc in Adam and Eve, but He put more burden and punishment on them by physically made their life miserable. No one force God to curse the land and animals, nature as whole because of Adam and Eve. 

Have in mind how God explicitly told them they will die, just die .... not that they will suffer emotional and physical and mental pains because of eating from tree, not that land will be cursed, etc for next 8 or 9 centuries of their life !?!

29 minutes ago, Thinking said:

^{no need to apologize as we really don’t know…that’s just my understanding of it at this point….when we eventually find out the truth of the matter we may all be gob smacked  with the real facts …}

^{that question I had pondered on myself sometime ago…..so I’m open to having to change my mind…I’ve just never read an acceptable alternative….}

 Font size 8 will be better for me to read  

On 6/17/2021 at 4:16 PM, Pudgy said:

2.) Was it an existing Land of Exile that he was banished to, or did it BECOME a Land of Exile after his arrival?

16 hours ago, Thinking said:

2)  must have been even worse than where his parents were banished to???..I mean if he went there it would end up as the hell hole of the world.

Gen 1:29 -  Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

In this verse it would be possible to conclude how all Earth and ground are prepared for and, in fact giving food, not only for humans, but for animals too. Or, if we conclude how only Eden was filled with animals and first humans, then animals outside of Eden was starving and humans also. 

Some controversy or dilemma came from Genesis 2

5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Here, report said how there is no shrub and plant. What, then, did the animals that were created thousands of years before humans eat at all? Reason for not existed shrub and plant was - missing of rain and no work from human hands. 

After, verses speaking about God who worked and planted ground of Eden, but rain was not needed as in first picture, because of streams and rivers which gave enough water for plants of all kind. Does this mean how streams and rivers inside Eden was sufficient for plants but not outside of Eden? Again, if so what have eaten all animals before Adam and Eve and before Eden? 

One thing is need to be take in consideration. After every creative day God said how every thing was "good". In this terminology, today we explain this as "perfect", without something that would missing. Animals were perfect, earth were perfect, the natural cycles were perfect. If God planted Eden and made it better and more beautiful than the rest of the planet Earth, does that mean that everything outside of Eden was “hell”? Why, when God says that all creation was "good" aka "perfect"?

On 6/17/2021 at 4:16 PM, Pudgy said:

1.) When Cain was banished to the Land of Exile, who was it already there that he was GREATLY afraid would kill him?

6 hours ago, Thinking said:

1:..I’m guessing that watching his father and mother live a long life he knew his reputation would follow him where ever he went and I’m sure..many ( yet to be born ) and who knows how many other brothers and sisters there were…..would have not felt thankful for bringing them into a cursed situation….so he was thinking about his future…

Apologize, but i don't see how this is answer on question. Who are people you described as ..many ( yet to be born ) and who knows how many other brothers and sisters there were…? 

40 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Who can prove that you and your friends  who agree with you are NOT following your own desires. 

Who can? I suppose ... Third Party can prove or disprove that.  

41 minutes ago, Witness said:

to suit their own desires,

WTJWorg leaders from past, till today, showed a great desire for the "end of the world" to come in 1914, 1925, 1941, 1975, by the end of the 20th century, by the end of the overlapping generation" ... and, if we live long enough, we will still hear their new predictions in some new or changed format.

7 hours ago, hgp said:

But Satan could choose evil in a world without evil, couldn't he? Doesn't that show, evil doesn't have to exist in order to choose it?

@Patiently waiting for Truthgave interesting view on issue when he said: 

1 hour ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

I don't think 'evil' existed in the beginning so Satan didn't actually 'choose evil', he 'created it'.

 Bible records states how everything was "good" in Creative acts about 7 Days or even with creation/creativity before those 7 Days. That could also mean without "evil" or without "error".

If the environment and condition in Heaven around Satan was without evil and without sin, it would mean that nothing could corrupt one angel or any other angel. If we raise the idea that Satan had "free will", as humans, and chose to be evil, then we could shift the blame to “free will” as a gift from God. Because without “free will” he/we wouldn’t know we have a choice between two or more options. One might conclude that the existence of “free will” is actually a trap. Or we could say that dualism arose from the very creation of a person and it is a matter of the very moment when someone will stop being good and commit something bad. 

Furthermore, we have another very unusual thing in the Book of Genesis and in God’s statement. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

What does it even mean: Knowledge of good and evil? If there is a literal or symbolic tree that has information of what is good and what is evil, then it is inevitable that evil and good already exist in any literal or metaphorical sense. Did “good” produce any effect before Adam and Eve? Yes, because God says that everything that was created was "Good." Is the word “good” in both contexts synonymous?
If so with the word "Good," then it cannot be otherwise with the word "Evil." It must exist, even in the very imagination of the person. In the person of God, angel, man, it doesn't matter.

22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 

These passages should show that God, satan, and every angel knew, and should know, what "evil" is, without at the same time having to mean that as an individual he is "evil" or has done something "evil". 

In my opinion, this opens a paradox about the very concept of "good and evil". In other words, Adam and Eve could not possibly know what was "good" and what was "evil." God stated this in the quoted verse. By that, Adam and Eve did not know they were doing "evil" because they had no knowledge that “good and evil” existed at all, and more important what is difference, what is essence of them. But God and the angels knew the difference, according to verses.

Furthermore, everything that is in the imagination of an individual may already exist, or will exist in some other form or model of existence, either spiritual or physical. It would mean that "evil" began to exist from the very moment when God and the angels showed that they had "knowledge of good and evil." And, since God exists eternally, then "evil", at least in the form of cognition, also exists eternally.... and so it will be in the future, because God cannot cease to exist, because he is eternal and immortal, as they say, and many of us believe it. 

Did man gain full knowledge of "good and evil" in Eden? I don’t know, because man’s imagination of how to do harm to others developed more and more after Adam and Eve. Consequently, the "knowledge" of what "evil" is also "grew". If gift of imagination and free will will stay with humans, then some future individual and future generation will be in possibility/ability to exercise his/their  "knowledge/ignorance  about good and evil" too. 

8 hours ago, Arauna said:

So has the catholic church....... but ...One first has to identify the time period we are living in according to Daniel 11.  And Revelation 13 and 18, 19.  One has to identify the Image of the beast and how close it has come to rule.   Then one can identify where we are in stream of time and who is the king of the North in this time. 

All of this has been done by WTJWorg scholars over a period of 140 years ... and all of their interpretations are on shaky ground.

10 minutes ago, Arauna said:

They just identify - they do not do political discussion.  Their job is to identify and to teach only the bible - How to get through Armageddon.

What did it take for GB, as the final result of the discussion/debate, to conclude/identify that this is exactly that political creation / state and not someone else? Russia is not the only country that has persecuted dissidents of any kind in the past or present. Nor is the only one haunting JW. And, as far as I can see it is a one of more important argument (persecution of JW) that supposedly identifies it as the “northern king”.

3 minutes ago, Arauna said:

They cannot write a political magazine.

When "Charity" organization writing articles, in so called "religious" publications, about "Russia and its allies", that is one aspect of political engagement.  

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

Russia and its allies.

Are these publicly known allies or should secret allies and those who are yet to become their allies be involved? GB know anything about that?

In their study article GB 9 times mentioned phrase Russia and its allies. But they never named those allies.

STUDY ARTICLE 20

Who Is “the King of the North” Today? - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-may-2020/Who-Is-the-King-of-the-North-Today/

5 hours ago, Witness said:

video-taped

Supremacy is gained through information management and propaganda. Electronic media and video production fulfill this purpose nowadays.

Herbert is known for another idea. Namely, when it comes to praying for food, he expressed the view that it is not obligatory to pray for food that does not cost more than 1 DM (Deutsche Mark) ....... blink blink ??

Here and now I have shown my primitiveness. Instead of talking about ideas, I talk about people. How sad.

50 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

“It is remarkable, that persons who speculate the most boldly often conform with the most perfect quietude to the external regulations of society.” Nathanial Hawthorne 

That’s right, sometimes we are burdened with internal conflicts.

That’s right, sometimes we’re hypocritical as we expose other people’s mistakes.

That's right, sometimes we publicly advocate general / social justice and truth, and yet something inside us tells us that it's not all exactly what it seems.

And what can be done about it? It can get out of an organization in which people are not really ready to face their own and other people's conflicts about what is true and accurate and what is not. And to stop speculate.

39 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

8 hours ago, Anna said:

They are not ordering anyone on how to dress, they merely remind them of scriptures such as: 1 Tim 2:9 and 1 Pet 3:4

Oh I didn't know they mentioned wearing a suit and tie in the scriptures. The Elders really did kick off at me when i used to attend meetings in an open neck shirt and no jacket in the heat of the summer. The summer weather that God himself created for our enjoyment, but by rules of men, people are made to suffer. 

One elder from Bethel and from the former congregation objected that it was wrong for me to go to the podium without socks. Namely, in the summer I would sometimes wear summer shoes, but without socks. It bothered him a lot and he gave me sermons / litanies about it several times. Maybe he did it because he was originally from Germany. So; order, work and discipline. ;))  

5 hours ago, Arauna said:

The bible indicates that it was offspring of Abraham who first received this instruction to cut the foreskin. So obviously everyone was born with a foreskin. This was an indication to Abraham's offspring of the promise. Moses later wrote it down as part of the Law.   It is obvious that Adam was born with his foreskin.....and that an effort had to be made to  take it off!  LOL.  I never thought I would ever hear this absurd quest for  proof - LOL

Thanks. I seem to have reversed the meaning of the words (uncircumcised vs circumcised). :))) But it is always good to look for a supplement to some statement, even when the statement seems logical. Creative moments in the formation of something or someone can be challenging for all those who did not attend the act. So, it would not be strange if God created Adam beardless and gave him the opportunity to feel his beard grow day by day. Of course the question arises as to how Adam trimmed and shortened his hair and beard or whether it grew to the floor/ground in the first 40 years. :))