Srecko Sostar

As i understand @Anna commented this is fake news. 

What do you think @Isabella ?

9 minutes ago, xero said:

You're on your own as far as I'm concerned. Two reasons,first your responses have a chat-bot quality to them and second none of this is interesting.

Thanks for fed back information  

6 hours ago, xero said:

Like I said. You can talk about whatever you want to talk about and some of it's interesting, but quite frankly a lot of what you're into is for me "been there, done that".

Ok. And what are your expectations about me and my comments? Perhaps other people have different view than you and will find it is acceptable to/for them. 

6 hours ago, xero said:

Don't imagine you're the only one who's ever done a deep dive on the times the WTBTS has gotten it wrong.

How you came to such perspective, that i imagine something about myself? You don't have to answer, it is just my incidental thought. More important is, how does your "analysis" of me contribute to the matter we are talking about? 

WTJWorg The administration has changed its mind? On what grounds and motives? Some are mentioned in the article (money issue). Indeed, we can speak of the hypocrisy of those who are the “leaders” of this organization.

Arguments by some to justify non-cooperation were that the CSA was not “institutional violence” but “domestic violence” (Holly Folk from Cesnur) or that WTJWorg had no “institutional setings” with which to participate in reddress.

11 hours ago, xero said:

What I get from this is not that you're concerned about Christianity, the process of inspiration or an examination of these things from a historical or biblical sense, but rather you're focused on the WTBTS.

Is there any particular reason for us to discuss more about other religions and organizations at the JW Open Club?

Current and former members gathered here to exchange opinions, views, beliefs, experiences ....,

1 hour ago, xero said:

It can be applied to anyone, however we cannot leap to being wrong as being inspired by a deceiving spirit. The 1st century Christians were documented as being wrong on many issues and at many times.

One can also be used even if one has no favor w/Jehovah.... "⁴⁹  But one of them, Caʹia·phas,z who was high priest that year, said to them: “You do not know anything at all, ⁵⁰  and you have not reasoned that it is to your benefit for one man to die in behalf of the people rather than for the whole nation to be destroyed.”a ⁵¹  He did not say this, however, of his own originality, but because he was high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was to die for the nation, ⁵²  and not only for the nation but also to gather together into one the children of God who were scattered about." John 11:49-52

But again, you appear to be striving towards the need for extra-biblical inspiration, and this is a "need" unacknowledged by scripture.

Not my striving, just observation and some sort of thinking about issue.

Let me explain, please. Who was inspired in the 1st century? Christians? Which Christians? Every Christian? Only Writers of Letters and Books of Bible? Men, women, children? Missionaries? Elders? Etc.

WTJWorg said how "gifts of miracles" aka "inspiration" stopped in 1st Century. But the expressions of the spirit in the first assembly were not the only in "miraculous works." What about teachings? JW members  are said First Christians to have had wrong predictions and expectations, thus trying to justify the wrong doctrines for today’s GB and JW. Were the apostles "guided by the spirit" or inspired by the spirit? "

How did they work "miracles"? Under "guidance or inspiration"? 

WTJWorg publications using verse: Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement,*+ but test the inspired statements* to see whether they originate with God,+ for many false prophets have gone out into the world. - 1 john 4 1

... and teach members to using these in everyday life to not be deceived. How will JW recognize the inspired expression? How will JW test the inspired expression? How will JW refuse to believe in an inspired expression? .... if he himself is not inspired to be able to see the difference? How will an uninspired individual cope with an inspired expression?

So it’s not about my insistence on the topic, it’s about how to recognize truth from lies. Is it easier / harder to recognize an uninspired lie or an inspired lie? :))

4 hours ago, xero said:

false spirits which inspired the

4 hours ago, xero said:

1 Kings 22:1-53

Can the use of these biblical passages, to unimportant individuals like me, be applied to GB because they adopted doctrines that later turned out to be wrong (false). This can be explained in two ways, which you would, I would say, “suggest through the first few minutes of the video”: 1) by the influence of the “deceiving spirit” from the outside and 2) by the influence of the “deceiving spirit” from the inside.

26 minutes ago, xero said:

If you're serious about understanding OT issues relative to inspiration/issues which today we consider to be wrong, you should read Paul Copan's "Is God a Moral Monster". There are multiple issues to be considered. Hyperbole, numbers of individuals involved (modern textual analysis of texts), allowance of activities vs promotion of the same. I've had a few email exchanges w/professor Copan and he's been quite helpful in all this.

But we're back again to cases of historical inspiration as recorded in text, vs possible inspiration today and how to scripturally determine whether it's warranted today (scriptures actually argue against this "need") and when it was warranted (and why, and how validated) in the past.

It's been my experience, however that there's a lazy man's approach to all this which John MacArthur touches on in the 1st five minutes of his discussion of his recent book "Strange Fire". It's worth your time to at least listen to the 1st five minutes.

 

.. how they approached truth ... 

... word of god as something outside of them ....

.. they approach the truth of god as something inside them ...     

... subjectivity leads to all kinds of mistakes ...

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

Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.”[c] 39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. - John 7

In which version is it possible to make more mistakes?

When are you "guided, lead by the spirit" (GB claim they are guided)

or

when are you "inspired by the spirit" (GB claim they are not inspired)?

7 hours ago, xero said:

Not just the GB. If you've read any of John Macarthur, or Gleason Archer (Old Testament Introduction), the issues behind inspiration are discussed and match up 100% w/that of the WT's handling of what is considered "inspired". Both of these would have called JW's a "cult", and yet when it comes to how one considers what is and what isn't scripture and how to tell if some novel statement made outside of scripture these are in agreement.

I don't think you've done your homework on this. You need to go back and do your homework.

For example; When Moses wrote “under inspiration, things like - ”don’t murder", or when he wrote that "soldiers can have captive virgins and take them if they want but they have to kill all her family before", - I wonder if passing/adoption/writing such regulations requires only influence of "inspiration" or can it be done/achieved in another way, without inspiration. 

6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Yes, in my case, it is warranted

6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Those doubts were self-inflicted

Well, in case of (when people are in) "doubts" you think how that state is "self-inflicted".

In your "case" you explained your position with "self-warranted" which is why you are allowed to do things you would not otherwise approve of (allowed) others.

6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

since I'm dealing with NOT one but two standards of Bible understanding. in order to set the record straight, I separate myself from all.

Do these standards you mention have a name by which they can be distinguished?

9 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Incorrect - I have spoken to people from these ' inspired churches' who make up a lot of things as they go along and say they are inspired by god's spirit.  Usually these inspired things are closer to spiritism than the Bible.  The Bible is our "inspired" source.

Obviously we have a different view of the meaning of the term "inspired", but also of the manifestation of the action of the spirit, if / when someone is "inspired". Simply put, "being inspired" does not only mean how someone walks on water or speaks a language they have never learned, walks through a wall and the like. 

3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

3 hours ago, xero said:

The only reason people argue against these accounts when it comes down to it is that they 1. Don't believe God Exists 2. Therefore miracles don't happen.

Yes, a wonderful thought indeed, BUT, even JWs on here don't seem to believe in miracles anymore.

One of most indicative "miracles" is to be "inspired by God (HS)". GB deny every possibility that individual or group of people can be "inspired" by God today. 

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

If you insult me, I will insult you

I don't know how JW member (not only you dear Cesar) can so repetitively, resolutely and drastically advocate a position that is contrary to the public proclamation of WTJWorg and even more important to the teachings of Jesus ?!

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Therefore, my opinion of people here is very different with that of my worldwide brotherhood.

I am respecting your freedom to this (and other) opinion about "people here" and "people of your worldwide brotherhood". I am sure that you in the same moment have perception and idea and guess about reality, that many people in your "worldwide brotherhood" feel and think similar to "people here", but they are not here to tell us that. 

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

It would be false if you don't understand its context John. I see Srecko contradicts himself by the laughing emoji after stating it was a good example. That just continue to verify his mental state.

Let it put this way: Person can understand context for WTJWorg interpretation about 607 to 1914 to 1975. Is that (understanding) enough to make WTJWorg ideas to be true?

It is not (only) about mental state of individual , but more about how WTJWorg doctrines shape and direct mental state of person. Continuity continues :)) 

22 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

Can you imagine everyone in a congregation confessing their sins to each other .  I confessed one of my sins in a group study once and everyone looked horified. 

It is a very awkward and embarrassing situation. Even if we discreetly told someone what was going on, that person would often tell it to others so that our private confession could be publicly known in front of many. So, many would be "healed", not just a sinner :)))

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

So, John 8:7

You chose a good verse. He dissolved the Judicial Committee and the executioners (stoning) with a few calm words. Under Jewish law and this law in the JW Congregation, adultery is a “gross sin” and cannot pass without the intervention of elders. Jesus showed that the elders and members of the Jew Congregation in this case have nothing to do and/or deal with her affairs.

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

This is a common problem - family members beg elders to not tell the police.  This is why I say that many here do not think of how the families feel or think. They do not think of the family dynamics, except about the reporting.

Yes, i think i recall you or someone else mentioned this issue, about family members wish about not reporting. It will be interesting to hear more about this. About JW members (or as general) not reporting to police and also, how about not reporting to elders too.

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

and God inspired them to be published. Learn then.

Yes, i am learning exactly now. Please, will you clear here, about what God inspired them to be published? 

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

So, Jesus didn't go before the judgment of the Pharisees and before the Roman court. Good to know how much knowledge you bring to the table.

Oh dear God! Stick to context of comment. Jesus didn't act in roll of elder in Judicial Committee with another 2 elders and making decision about brother X or sister Y. I hope God will bless you this time and you will see the point :))).

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Since I'm not your keeper and your state of mind is in question, I have to ask silly questions because of silly thoughts you have. 😏

:)))

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

As far as I remember the congregations were not yet completely established. There were only disciples who followed him.  He was not part of the Jewish Sanhedrin and went into the synagogue to read the Hebrew scriptures.  

It can be. Some or enough patterns in New Jew congregations was from Old Jew system, as i can see. Eg. Apostles have meetings without presence of woman, as in case immediately after Jesus death. Jesus had spiritual meetings with apostles but their wives and children were not present. Sort of Men's club. Yes, Jesus made some extensions while speaking with women, but many important meetings were without women, without families of disciple. Perhaps their wives were not interested in new movement or been preoccupied with care for family. 

 By the way, when we talk about women and apostles. The 3 Gospels report that the women saw the empty tomb and went to tell the apostles. However 1 Gospel (according to Mark) says that they did not go to tell anyone anything. Some explanation?

34 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

Mathew 18 : 16 & 17

But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that 'every word may be strengthened upon the testimony of two or three witnesses.'And if he fails to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he fails to listen to even to the church, let him be to you as the pagan and the tax collector.

Or NWT

“Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go and reveal his fault* between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. ¹⁶  But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, so that on the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter* may be established.p ¹⁷  If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nationsq and as a tax collector.

We are not talking about everyday conversation, we are talking about SIN in the congregation. 

Also i think the apostle Paul made it known  

1 Corrinthians 5 v 1

Actually sexual immoralitya is reported among you, and such immorality as is not even found among the nations—of a man living with his father’s wife.

So, once again it seems your GB / Org do not obey scripture 'as they see it', because they do it all in secret. 

We are not talking Data protection here, we are talking obeying God. 

Many of us here know how GB and elders in JW congregations interpreting, how these verses in Mat 18 is about "minor sins". All "gross sins" must be reported to elders (not to police or other secular authorities).  

In such way of interpretation JW people can't apply verses 15 and 16 for "serious sin". 

But they are in obligation to apply verse 17 for "serious sin". Is CSA "serious sin" (or crime)? In WTJWorg interpretations that is matter for elders first/primarily. Only recently Organization gave permission to members to report that same thing (CSA) to secular governments. 

Now, is lying or stealing "serious sin"? What items from Chapter 18 do JW members apply in such a case? Do they report that to police, or only to elders? Or they are free to handle that individually?

By now i see how Shepherd book (2019) speaking about things as fraud, slander, manslaughter, to some level connected with some sort of notification to/from secular authorities, and specifically/only about CSA in connection with secular governments and reporting.

All in all question you made is proper: What do they (GB) obey? And what they teaching members to obey?

9 hours ago, Arauna said:

I feel the law is acting unjustly by retroactively blaming organizations when they themselves were to blame for the confusion in the first place. 

I can agree with your comment about issue.  

This sentence I singled out is very reminiscent of how WTJWorg blaming its members because they, reportedly/allegedly, didn’t understand what was written in the publications, so they began to believe in something they themselves thought was written in magazines (1975 is a great example from history that even today is part of JW talks in congregations and on JWTV).

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I think your beef goes well beyond this or any other discussion and it is simply that there is a shepherding mechanism among JWs. Next it will be at shepherds themselves, next congregations themselves. Will it go all the way to a beef that there is a God himself?

Atheists "eat beef" without God. Believers "eat beef" with God.

Well, what then?

8 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Srecko, do you understand the word guideline?

Guidelines. Is this something that GB publishes (books, letters) and tells elders through seminars on how to proceed?

8 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Now, with this theocratic culture you speak of, that started with Christ

As far as I remember Christ did not participate in the "Judicial commissions/committees" of his time... 

8 hours ago, César Chávez said:

are you suggesting the Watchtower NOT change policies to adapt to current secular laws? 

... and he told, give Caesar what belong to Caesar.

8 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Do, you believe, it's everyone's business, when secular authority doesn't even consider that? Do you, personally know what your local officials do every day, every hour of the day, every minute, every second? Now don't lie!

.........Would this be normal in your mind?

Why you ask me "silly" questions, on which you already know the answers?  

6 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I don’t know what you are smoking, but what you have underscored in no way contradicts my point and in no way validates yours. On the second portion I speak a bit less confidently, for I have no idea what point you are trying to make, nor even if you are making one beyond merely laying down words.

GB determines in what matters a "brother" may be sued. Does that mean you can sue him in things that GB didn't approve of, yet? Why does GB consider that it has the right to determine when it is allowed to go to secular court and when it is not allowed? What “biblical passages” support these human rules?

:)) smoking and inhaling, what is difference