Srecko Sostar

1 hour ago, xero said:

He also made Adam uncircumcised.

Some proof for such statement/claim would be nice to provide, please. 

If you gave only opinion/view, that is ok. Then, you don't need time to search for Bible verse :)) .   

Yes, in the hierarchy it is important to give everyone (primarily male members) their share of power participation. A very well-touched topic about our “dark” side of character and how that need for power develops in controlled conditions. Of course, anything that is tried to be controlled can always become uncontrollable.  

What is good to notice here? Beards were mandatory and circumcision was  mandatory in ancient Israel. Jesus came and did not express his clear position on beards and circumcision issue. In fact, no one knows if he wore a beard or not.

Given that he was the originator of the reforms in the Jewish religion by laying the foundations for a new way of worshiping God and breaking with the forms and traditions that were part of the "legacy of Moses", it would not be surprising if his appearance showed the direction of future change, that is, that external features are not proof that the individual is a member of a movement, organization, religion or ideology that represents "the only and true worship of God."

Was his beard, if he wore it, the beard of a “real, true Jew" or did his beard deviate from the fashion and trend of other Jews? What if he trimmed her more than was allowed to be done - Lev 19 27? He “violated” many other norms of Jewish tradition and law.

Jesus (the child) was circumcised at the behest of his parents. I am not aware of any biblical verse that says that Jesus supported or forbade or was neutral about the matter. But some of his followers, and later many other important members (apostles) of the congregation, preached and taught that circumcision was not an obligation.

What is the situation in WTJWorg today? Beards have become banned since the time of Judge Rutherford (with some indications of a relaxation of measures, today), and circumcision is not banned if one wishes to do so.

Issue on beard is in a way still a religious issue in WTJWorg. But it should not be because it is a meaningless dilemma and has its causes in the personal attitudes of WTJWorg religious leaders. Evidence? In the past, God determined forbidden things and punished people for things that He later marked as completely unimportant. If these things have become unimportant to God, the question is; Why are these things important to some people today ??

9 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

What’s wrong with it?

There have always been and will be people (angels in heaven) who will answer questions/issues about God in various and opposite ways. 
If these questions have already been answered, through those who have been or are now faithful to God, then there is no longer a need to prove it over and over again for every individual and for every new generation. Because that's how we could go on indefinitely. Every new born person on Earth should be able to choose between good and evil. So, according to such idea, evil and good would have to exist constantly in order for people to be able to choose and thus prove that they have "free will".

According to the current interpretation, WTJWorg's answers to questions about evil and why God allows evil to exist to this day, questions about God and the Devil, Good and Evil could be debated as long as there are people. So infinitely into the future. Because every new generation thinks it knows more and knows better. And since no generation lives forever, the evidence dies with them. Written books and recorded films and which often times live longer than the people themselves are often not sufficient proof and lack the strength and persuasiveness for the new generation to accept all that people before it concluded about life and death, good and evil. 

22 minutes ago, hgp said:

Even if your conclusions were correct, saying, that some organisation(s) will get destroyed in the future is not an act of intolerance.

Agree. Simple proclamation of doctrinal interpretations and group or individual understanding of Bible text is not act of intolerance.  On the other hand, the religious animosity that develops in the feelings of members of one church towards another, on a global level, is certainly a display of intolerance. And that is the reality in all religions not just in the JW church. So the question that is still relevant is: What do the leaders of every church do to reduce and curb religious intolerance, especially while publicly announcing the suppression of every religious option other than their own? 

30 minutes ago, hgp said:

That is intolerance. And JW don't go there. Not even near. In fact they are as far removed from intolerance as possible.

32 minutes ago, hgp said:

I think you have your own definition of "tolerance" that differs quite a lot from the dictionary. What does "tolerance" mean in your dictionary?

To which group of tolerance does ignoring former members belong? To not say even simple hello on the street is strong proof and evidence how majority in JW organization are not only intolerant but show lack of everyday polite. Of course, there is JW members who don't obey every GB instruction in this matter or in some other. And that is nice to see. I "like" it, even i disagree with and don't "like" their religious belonging/affiliation.    

13 hours ago, hgp said:

Funnily JW don't believe this. In our view God won't destroy any one religion....

Please, go on JWorg library and you will find publications that support conclusion and speak clearly how, in fact, JHVH will destroy all elements of "Old System". 

13 hours ago, hgp said:

Tolerance is not for stuff you like, it's for stuff you don't like. You don't have to tolerate your beloved partner but the pesky In-Laws.

 Where does JW's tolerance of members of other religions begin and end, also about tolerance of own members in JW organization who changing their "spiritual vision/view"? How do you show tolerance for different religious beliefs or opposing beliefs in general? Massimo Introvigne is in focus here, about his interpretations of "tolerance" toward WTJWorg and defense of JW members in Russia and elsewhere.

6 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I wonder what it is they would be given by Holy Spirit to say in that hour? What sort of words would be given “as a witness to them?”

When you say; "given by HS to say", that is so close to idea of "been inspired by HS". Don't you think the same? Bible verse about such experiences in 1st century is about that "miracle". 

...for the holy spirit will teach you in that very hour the things you should say.” Lk 12:12 nwt

...for what you are to speak will be given you in that hour;+ ²⁰  for the ones speaking are not just you, but it is the spirit of your Father that speaks by you. Mt 10:19,20 nwt

You used the words of Jesus written in these two gospels. The manner and appearance of HS action has nothing to do with the intellect and learned things that an individual adopts through life. Here we are talking about the ability of HS to act directly on a person at a given moment. This is also called “inspiration, influence, leadership, guidance”. And it happens outside the action of our will and consent or demand.

6 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The uncommon good sense of the former to realize that just because you don’t like a faith, that doesn’t mean it should be illegal.

Well said. Although, the topic gets heated from the moment you send 8 million people to preach that all religions will be destroyed because they don’t believe the way they should believe in God, and that’s the JW way. At such a moment, the alleged tolerance of another’s religious belief becomes an empty phrase. On one side JW gave picture of how tolerant they as people are, but in same time preaching how they worship intolerant God who will destroy them/other people because of their religion.

Does a JW member "like" someone else's religion? If he liked it, he might become a member of such a religion. But the JW member only likes his religion, and towards others he does not have such a kind of tolerance nor does he have it in such quantity that he would “like it”. Please nicely, let us explain what this might mean at all if a JW member have feeling and attitude; "I like other religions and I am very tolerant of them, but God will destroy them one day and i am glad that He will do it"?

If it is so as you said what Massimo Introvigne stand for, then that is not JW way/model of "religious tolerance".

OT records speaking about God who have no tolerance for false way of worshiping Him. Neither to worship some other God in different/opposite religion. And JW members also using such Bible verses to enforce and empower own religious attitude about this issue. By that, it is questionable about what sort of "religious tolerance" is about, here and now, inside JW Church.

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Voltaire (probably you know) is from the 17th century, and is considered founder of the Enlightenment.

Are Voltaire's texts a recommended read for JW members?

Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The group Introvigne heads, CESNUR, (Center for the Study of New Religions) is roughly the opposite of FECRIS, the latter which, if they had their way, would ban them all as “cults.” “New religion” is the scholarly term for any group originating in relatively recent times.

It is well known that JWs do not consider themselves as a cult. But they are not considered self to be a “new religion”, also,  because they claim their roots go all the way back to Abel. The cooperation between CESNUR and WTJWorg is based on which premise? That the JWs are a “new religion” but not a cult, however, also with a strong belief that they originated from the faithful Abel, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, which put them in the "oldest religion in the world?
It follows from this collaboration with CESNUR that WTJWorg is willing to put JW in the status of a “new religion” because of opportunism, and thus renounces its supposedly unique origins dating back to the first days of man’s origin.

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If there is an answer to the “problem of evil,” it will be found in the new religions. Of course, my view is that it will be found specifically within the the tenets of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The question of evil is not only a theological question, but also a philosophical one. From the aspect of the interpretation of the Biblical writings we come to the idea that the so-called "universal question aka issue" about which (1,2, or 3 "issue" or questions in WTJWorg theology about evil*) has long been answered by both humans and angels and by the Only Begotten Son. Well, the JW doctrine of why evil exists and why God allows it to this day and to an unknown day in the future is neither a satisfactory nor a solid doctrine. It is "light" that sometimes is in collision to other Bible records and events and even to some promises made by writers in God's name.   

*The Issue That All Creation Has to Face  - https://www.jw.org/hr/biblioteka/knjige/Ujedinjeni-u-obožavanju-jedinog-pravog-Boga/Sporno-pitanje-s-kojim-su-suočena-sva-stvorenja/

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

What on earth is wrong with you?

With me? Almost nothing is wrong.

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Do you really think they would have provided no evidence to back up their claims?

What is wrong withe their "evidence"? Do you have some link, that we be able to look at those "evidences"? 

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

“Interpretation of Bible text” is not what is on trial here.

No, it is not. But you mentioned M.I. tolerance about religious ideologies. And we are witnesses how WTJWorg teachings promote how religious coexisting is not future for human society, but contrary, that all religions, except JW religion, will be destroyed by JW God. Well, is it question of simplified  "interpretation" or is it JW doctrinal, cultural and social standpoint?  

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

But if they would “not allow any faiths” they would call for violence against them.

Not necessary. And not in this circumstances we living now. But in "New World", GB members gave interpretations (spoken and written), how they will get power and be delegated, by God JHVH, that they as Kings and Priests will be able to do such things. Today, GB is able and in power to complete spiritual sort of "punishments".

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

French government sponsorship, and its VP is the driver of anti-JW narrative in Russia.

The German Court

 .... triangle of historical friends and enemies

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Any statement by any person represents “ideology.”

In your world of your reality, does this statement also apply to GB and doctrines they promote?

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Introvigne would allow all law-abiding faiths to exist. FECRIS would not.

According to GB interpretation of Bible text, GB would not allow any faiths (in this system of things nor in the any future system), that is not under WTJWorg, to exist. 

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Introvigne himself obviously doesn’t agree with Jehovah’s Witnesses in all things, maybe in none of them. Otherwise, he would be one. He is not. He is Roman Catholic. What he is is a voice calling for tolerance between religions.

WTJWorg GB is not voice for religious tolerance between religions. They also stifle any religious tolerance within their own church toward those who have different interpretations of the biblical text.

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The United States [bipartisan] Commission on International Religious Freedom denounces the “anti-cult” ideology (of which FECRIS is a foremost part) for its “pretension to standing as the final arbiter of religious truth.”

How is this different from the WTJWorg organization and its teachings? GB claims to be the only mediator / channel for the communication of truth between God and people on earth today. They preach that they are the only true religion / truth in the world.

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

... FECRIS will not let stand. So it is that they presume to stand “as the final arbiter of religious truth.” 

GB stand on same position.

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

I am of the opinion, and @Witness also spoke about it, that the German court did not deal with reading and interpreting the WTJWorg editions (published for the public and the one for internal use) which speaks of the disputed elements. WTJWorg, I presume, simply made a statement in court that FECRIS was telling lies and slandering. Does FECRIS have studious investigations and knowledge/insight of WTJWorg such as ex-JW? It takes decades of working, reading, and linking events so that one can see what GB is teaching, how it changes instructions, and how the various BOE bodies and individual elders operate in a variety of circumstances. 

In ARC various depositions of JW elders + GB member we see good picture how "truth"  becomes a lie.  But such a lie works wonders. It liberates.... and fulfills Jesus' statement: "You will know the truth (will see the true face of your religious leaders) and the truth will set you free."

11 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Perhaps in your twisted world that would work, but not in any world respecting integrity.

Dear Tom, when GB members call listeners on JWTV and in literature; "Trust Us because JHVH and Jesus have full trust in Us...", don't you think how GB statement is enough twisted (distorted) and how GB lives in their twisted world with twisted reality they constantly creating in JW Church? 

What ideology is behind the GB claim? For sure it is not about Idea, but about Ideology! 

Thus, we have a question; What did Jesus promote? Idea or Ideology?

What was promoted by (what is behind) Massimo Introvigne, the German court and FECRIS? Ideology.

quote: That defamatory statements about the Jehovah’s Witnesses come from Russian official documents does not mean that organizations in democratic countries are free to reprint them. - https://bitterwinter.org/fecris-sentenced-in-germany-for-defaming-jehovahs-witnesses/

Is this, above, German Court ruling, opinion or something else? Or is this M.I interpretation?

According to JW interpretations about Bible and Romans 13 in particular, every secular government are equal before God. No matter is it about more or less "democratic countries" or or about other political ideology. In such point of view, all good and bad decisions aka "official documents" made by "democratic" or by "not-democratic" countries have same value. And people are free to choose to obey or not to obey, to trust or not to trust in such "official documents". With various outcome made by individual or group decision. In case of Russian JW they made their choice with knowing in advance what could and would look like going against "official documents".

We can "reprint" (copy/paste) WTJWorg official site articles or videos and say what we think about it. Or do M.I thinks we have to be silent about it/them?

WTJWorg publications (especially in the past) were full of freedom of (hate) speech against other religions, especially the Catholic Church. So, what's the problem now? Maybe the difference is that JW’s attacks on other religions are justified in JW’s eyes? Because other religions are false and their doctrines are false? And their traditions are wrong? So it's free to attack them?
Catholic priests told their members not to read literature from JW. What do JW elders and GB tell their members? The same thing, not to read anything that comes from other religions.

Today, “hate speech” in WTJWorg concentrates on former members. Who wants to deal with such things as listening to arguments from both sides and giving opinions? Maybe the German Court? It seems to be interesting to them, so maybe they will deal with it in the future as well. :))

16 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Here is a German Court that ruled how most of the “anti-cult” organization, FECRIS—most of their charges against Jehovah’s Witnesses were false.

Unfortunately, I can only comment on an article by M. Introvign, and M.I. it is known to us from a particular and specific context from before.

It would be good to have court documentation, so that I would be able to give a clearer "opinion".

The article shows a detail that includes Russia and its judiciary with the JW and with "Western democracy." In this case, German democracy gives an opinion on Russia and its domestic policy towards the JW. This creates a problem and doubts the objectivity of the German court. On the other hand, we have the example of American courts that do not want to enter into theological debates and evaluate what and how which religion teaches and how it disciplines and guide its members. It does not discuss the internal rules and methods of church bodies. According to the article, this is also about such things.

quote: The court also found that FECRIS distorts the theology and practices of the Jehovah’s Witnesses with the intention of defaming them

WTJWorg in Germany seeks the opinion and approval of the court that certain JW theology and practices are correct. From whose point of view should it be correct? Court view? They also ask the court to declare certain observations of external observers to be false. It is possible that someone at FECRIS did not do a good research so he said the inaccuracy. ... quote: (Sometimes, it is unclear whether FECRIS activists, who claim to be experts on “cults,” are in bad faith or simply incompetent. They published the case of a 17-year-old Dutch girl who died during a measles epidemic in 2013 after her parents had refused vaccination for religious reasons and implied she was a Jehovah’s Witnesses. In fact, she was a member of a Calvinist Christian Reformed congregation, i.e., belonged to a church known for being a staunch opponent of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.)

How the elders (and JW lawyers) in the Judicial Communities working, is evident from some other court documents and videos. If the elders were to make their notes available, (if they were written) rather than destroyed them as instructed by the GB Legal Department and representatives, then perhaps this “story” should be different. 

quote: The German Jehovah’s Witnesses asked the District Court of Hamburg to examine 32 statements. The court found 17 of them defamatory, one partially defamatory, and 14 non-defamatory. 

What is the content of these 14 and 1/2 ? They are true, right? Can you find out what this is about?

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

But we prefer to ‘do battle’ with them in the marketplace of ideas, not by ruling them illegal and muzzling them.

"the marketplace of ideas" :)))

This forum with JW Open Club is marketplace of ideas, too. How would you describe the participants confronting their ideas?  Who are the buyers and who are the sellers? What is their business ethics? Are there any restrictions on what ideas are allowed? ... etc.

12 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

The Scriptures admonish us to trust in Jehovah to right all wrongs.—Psalm 42:10, 11.

GB Interpretation:

With a little help by/with from WTJWorg GB Lawyers/Legal Department? 

In all four cases, either YouTube or Facebook are asked to hand over “all identifying information, including subscriber registration information” including their “name(s), address(es), telephone number(s), [and] any electronic mail addresses” associated with the allegedly infringing accounts.

You Tube and Facebook could easily avoid this. They only need to declare themselves a kind of religion and appoint their employees or volunteers as clergy. They could then invoke the priestly privilege of not disclosing privileged information about their members.

Because WTJWorg and JW are actually legal entities, they are a firm / business. In this context, everything they "intellectually" produce is their "property". BUT, there is a problem of another kind. WTJWorg claims that all of this/that is “spiritual food” that comes from God and Christ, because they are, reportedly, led by HS to write magazines and books, to make songs and movies. If it is truly “spiritual food from God,” then it is not the property of WTJWorg and JW nor in any way. Neither in a legal sense, nor in an intellectual sense. Nor is it for moral and ethical reasons. For they cannot prove before any Court, or Judicial Committee, that it was God who chose exactly them to defend the intellectual-doctrinal property of God or Christ.

If WTJWorg and JW have a problem because of the content or the way other people comment, criticize, or reveal the religious teaching of the JW Church, then that is another topic. Well, doesn't it say in the Bible: For free you have received, for free you have given. If WTJWorg and JW truly believe this, then WTJWorg's lawsuits are completely outside the teachings of the Bible. 

By this it would be that the requirement/lawsuits sought by WTJWorg and JW is contrary to Biblical principles. Any and each JW who acts contrary to Biblical Principles is not a Witness for either YHVH or Christ.

The irony and hypocrisy is that WTJWorg teaches how members have to suffer evil and not retaliate against “enemy attacks”, but wait for JHVH to give comfort and strength to endure. Strength To Endure, not Strength to Fight Back. :))

10 hours ago, JW Insider said:

person who uses the account

I just noticed some newbie NoisySrecko created new account and, imagine, down-voted your comment. Must be some troll and clone who want to create chaos. :))

Name Srecko is specific and rare even in Croatia. To use it here in a small community / forum (JW Open Club) in English language, it must be some attempt to divert attention, intent to undermine, manipulate, cast doubt, etc. Similar to when Real- JWInsider appeared. It must be how we really "living in The Last Days" :)) hehe

9 hours ago, Matthew9969 said:

One of my older sisters died just a few weeks ago, (she was only 59),

Sorry to hear that. My condolences.

On 5/17/2021 at 8:28 PM, Witness said:

When my youngest brother died just recently

Please accept my deepest condolences for your loss.

On 3/28/2021 at 9:13 PM, LNN said:

Interesting question posed to me by a 97 year old facing his death. 

From my point of view, and the short life we all have, the idea, purpose, and meaning is a general transience and misery with few moments of self-deception about pleasure and joy.

3 hours ago, WyattEarp said:

 

I appreciate your enthusiasm. Allow me to correct my mistake. I was referring to the burning of private congregation data that none witnesses have used in the past to bring forth their claims the Org was burning evidence. Since I saw the word “burn” used. It reminded me of that.

The Org of course would not find it necessary to burn Christian books like the Nazis did. This is not the first time the Org has recommended past publications, be discarded or returned to the Org. There are several factors that might be considered. One can be the, redundancy. Past publicans have been digitized. Another one can be as the sister mentioned. A third can be, some past publications had typing errors or expressions that opposers use to highlight they’re argument about it being a false religion.

One being, the term “twentieth century”, when it should have read differently. This of course would be a technical error for clarification, not a demonstrative error to prove the Org, false. 

My comment have nothing with "enthusiasm" of any sort. I conveyed information regarding the creation and storage of documentation within an institution. And if that organization, like WTJWorg, is engaged in publishing, among other activities, then there are some technical and legal norms.

Private congregation data? ....and clergy/laity privileged relationship, too ? What is your  definition of  "Private Congregational Data"?

WTJWorg IS Private Company. Well, (does) that would mean how all documents inside WTJWorg organization are private?

JW Congregations are "private companies" inside WTJWorg Private Company. Elders are "appointed" or installed by GB (top managers or ecclesiastic-hierarchical board of directors) to collect various information about members and their activity (rank and file primarily). Members agree, more or less, about that. Who can and would have interest to  see information/data about other members, about congregational activity, money, elder's decisions etc? Only few inside, i guess. Elders was instructed how to collect and how and when to destroy private and official notice, data, documents, memos and similar.

Magazines and books are another part of same issue. You speaking about "redundancy, digitization, typing errors, and technical errors in understanding (wrong) interpretations". Poor explanations and excuses you offer with this.