Srecko Sostar

If you cannot forgive your enemies, the most you should do is forget them.
Torturing them is cruel, unfair, and barbaric for enemies ... and MORE so for your own family!
I should know ... I am a self proclaimed Barbarian, and I know about such things.

It is my considered opinion, BTK46, that the corruption of that scripture is YOURS.
The Truth is not a license to slice up your family members, fathers, daughter, sons, mothers, etc, and cut their tongues out with shunning ...  it is an advisory that those on the OUTSIDE of the Christian Congregation will wage war against you with both figurative and literal swords ( or bayonets and rifles, etc....) .... much as is the case in how we are being currently treated by the Russian Federation, with their police power to enforce their edicts.
That scriptural advisory is a warning to us about what to expect, and why.  It is not a license for disrespecting your Mother and Father, and abandoning your Family for their  reasons of conscience, for in doing so you show that Love Always Fails, when confronted with the option of revenge and vindictiveness, and cruelty for the sake of consolidating assumed authority in order to suppress rebellion.
It does NOT suppress rebellion ... it just creates bitter enemies where before there was none before, and fills them with a terrible resolve for being cast off and treated unfairly, and with contempt.
Disfellowshipping is necessary ... but HOW it is currently done is like being hit hard with a felt lined silk glove, with a steel fist inside.
Remember ... it's the ENEMIES swords we need to be aware of ... not our own.
We today do not have the right to stone someone to death ...or maim and cripple them the way we do it now.

I agree completely. I gave Anna a big up-vote on her comments because she pointed this out when she said: "then technically and legally the JW lawyer did not lie, but allowed others to assume something else, therefor it could be said that he was misleading."
I understand that the entire point was to mislead, and I hope everyone will see that this simply means that the Society's representative here knows that we should not be proud of our current practice. Therefore we are ashamed.
I know these things always take too long, but we (mostly the WTS leaders) have been shown to be ashamed about our stance on things before, and it has resulted in changes. I think we can now be almost 100 percent in agreement with our current stated stance on CSA procedures, for example. We have been shamed into admitting that corporal punishment of a violent nature against children is wrong. I think we will soon stop saying, as Brother Herd has said, that shunning our disfellowshipped children is analagous to casting out demons.
Also, I know it's another controversial topic that many will strongly disagree with, but in the last few years I have also come to realize that we are wrong to have a policy of "disfellowshipping" children, by allowing them to die, when their temporary life on earth could very likely be lengthened through blood-related medical treatments. In one recent case I know about, it has been clear that if those medical treatments can lengthen a child's temporary physical life on earth, we are to tell the parent that no matter what their own conscience says, their conscience is not allowed to allow the child to receive the treatment. The Biblical principle of pulling a small lamb out of a pit even on the Sabbath is too strong for me to think we should impose the WTS's rule on our own conscience and then on a child's conscience so that they are disfellowshipped through death. It's a way in which we practice having no natural affection, and is related to our acceptance of Brother Herd's comments. 

You’re being an apologist. It doesn’t matter if he didn’t technically lie (which I still believe he is doing). At best, it’s intentionally VERY misleading. Someone outside of the org will easily misunderstand this Bethelite lawyer’s  comments to believe the org is more tolerant than it actually Is.  It’s no different from the org saying similar things about disfellowshipped family in the JW.org FAQ section. They know what they’re doing. The org has a public and private voice and they’re very different. If the org has the truth, it should speak the truth instead of hiding behind legalese.

I have selected various quotes of yours from the topic,  “Whitewash”: 
Witness knows I believe this, he only says I do not because what I say is indeed true concerning God's people. Witness' absurd claim that Spiritual Israel only consist of the chosen ones is false and there is no Scriptural support whatsoever, granted that God's people consist of ALL persons concerning the Christ.
So in a sense, it shows that Witness slanders even in the face of Scripture and still holds claim to be a chosen one.
Because you are ignorant. If God says or does something, who are we to go around his Word, let alone take and or add to it, which is against God's Law? We already see an example with Spiritual Israel whereas not only you ignored those of the spiritual house and insist only the chosen ones are of this house, you deliberately stated there is no Bible evidence to what is said, and yet we have everything concerning the New Covenant in the Bible as evidence.
That being said, so it is ignorance, willfulness, when the Bible informs you on Spiritual Israel. 
We already know who Spiritual Israel is. The problem is, you purposefully ignore that Spiritual Israel consist of all of God’s people, not solely and only the chosen ones as you proclaim, which puts your past statements into contradiction concerning the Spiritual House, that of Spiritual Jerusalem.
Exactly, but those of Spiritual consist of all persons in union with the Christ. But you had professed earlier that only the chosen ones are of Spiritual Israel, missing the mark on what the New Covenant is all about.
I haven’t twisted for speaking the truth. You yourself had twisted the truth by purposely not acknowledging the fact that the New Covenant consist of ALL of God’s people who have faith in Jesus, but you preach that it is only the chosen ones who are of Spiritual Israel. Therefore, you had twisted the truth, more so, even much we can go back to your other thread to see how much in err you truly are.
We do not need links, we solely need the Bible. Also, your link only addresses the chosen ones, the focus here is Spiritual Israel, all of God's people.”
 JWInsider asked you, “Do you really think that Spirtual Israel is made up both the earthly class and the heavenly class?” 
SM:  “Yes. Spiritual Israel is made up of all of God's people, all under one teaching of the Christ, all in union with Christ, and like him, they too have the fullness of God dwelling in them, and each and every single one of them dwell in the Spiritual House as is with God's Temple, that is, the Christ.
I have my reasons for defending even the minor things of the New Covenant due to how mainstream Christendom has tainted it, and I am not the only one who defends such as well. And there are those who speak wrongly of the Covenant wrongly, and far worse and in this regard, the correction by means of the Bible must be made.
But for someone to not recognize those who are in the same house, it is an insult for those who share in the same teachings that stem from Christ, Jesus."
JWI: "I get it.  I just wanted to make sure you knew whether or not you were disagreeing with the current Watchtower position on the topic.  You appear to be disagreeing with the Witness doctrine."
Just a question, SM; is the WT and all JWs, now “ignorant”, “willful” in making “absurd claims”?  Have they “twisted the truth” and caused you “insult”, teaching this perceived falsehood concerning Spiritual Israel as well as the New Covenant? 
Is the Watchtower organization still part of "Restorationism", or are they now part of “mainstream Christendom” by “tainting” the understanding of the New Covenant?  Will you continue to sympathize for their work since they have ‘missed the mark’? 
Those under the New Covenant:
1 Pet 2:5,9; Rev 5:9,10
I’ve already explained how the rest of the children of God benefit from this fulfilled promise of life, in the Kingdom of God. 
I'm not the one who put a red Superman cape on Jesus. 
I'm curious where you may have found me, since only here am I known as "Witness".  I have not strayed far lately.  Perhaps you are mistaking me for someone else who shares the same message I do.  

The Glasgow thread before I exposed you, you called yourself an honest reader. Luckily I saved your quote because I knew that day after you've been exposed, you'd wipe out everything. You called yourself this when I asked you if you read through the actual story rather that follow a video that spread misinformation.
Not really when there is evidence. Your own response fits you however.
Why would I when there is legitimate proof of which I had saved?
Then perhaps next time, do not ask questions, get an answer, and go into an Alice in Wonderland laced warpath.
How so? You want to know what else is shameful? Laughing at ideas conveyed by child services to better help and protect our children. Here is another one, stating the fact that God is okay with sex organ change. Here is another one, conveying the ideas and odd interpretations that has nothing to do with the Bible. As is with the Satanic lies professed by you in the other thread.
That being said, despite both you and Witness being deluded and depraved concerning the Bible and other things, I have more pity for the latter than you because you are the type of fellow that are the oddballs of every Bible discussion be it a public domain, forum and or in person. Therefore, it is easy to deal with you if need be, especially regarding one who can't even give answer to his own claims.
 
Aside from that I believe the last response regarding inspiration and Paul, there were some things addressed to you - please do not avoid them for a second time.
Edit: I know you will react with a laugh. A sign of a man, because this is ALL you do when you get shut down easily. So laugh commencing in 3...2......1.....

On the contrary, the org should value the people who can respectfully discuss and critically examine doctrine like what is done here...Berean-like ones that test out the expressions they hear against the Bible. Instead, direction is not up for debate and people are told to even submit to “illogical” direction from the organization. So what the org will become is a bunch of yes-men who don’t know how to think for themselves.

Rutherford and his associates were not released in 1919 because they had been declared innocent. They were simply being released on bail, because the case was on appeal. A payment of $10,000 each gave them release until the case would be fully retried. Note that even up to January of 1920, they were still being told the case was going to be retried on April 7, 1920. (This is the Brooklyn Daily Eagle from January 20, 1920.)

But by April it was looking less and less like they could ever get a conviction. The "Proclaimers" book presents the situation like this:
*** jv chap. 29 p. 654 “Objects of Hatred by All the Nations” ***
Nine months after Rutherford and his associates were sentenced—and with the war past—on March 21, 1919, the appeals court ordered bail for all eight defendants, and on March 26, they were released in Brooklyn on bail of $10,000 each. On May 14, 1919, the U.S. circuit court of appeals in New York ruled: “The defendants in this case did not have the temperate and impartial trial to which they were entitled, and for that reason the judgment is reversed.” The case was remanded for a new trial. However, on May 5, 1920, after the defendants had appeared in court, on call, five times, the government’s attorney, in open court in Brooklyn, announced withdrawal of the prosecution. Why? As revealed in correspondence preserved in the U.S. National Archives, the Department of Justice feared that if the issues were presented to an unbiased jury, with the war hysteria gone, the case would be lost. U.S. attorney L. W. Ross stated in a letter to the attorney general: “It would be better, I think, for our relations with the public, if we should on our own initiative” state that the case would be pressed no further.
On the same day, May 5, 1920, the alternate indictment that had been filed in May 1918 against J. F. Rutherford and four of his associates was also dismissed.
Obtaining an appeal does not mean that they would win on appeal, but it does (at least temporarily) "reverse the judgment" of the first trial. The next trial could have turned out even worse for them. But soon after the war was over on November 11, 1918, other appeals of 1918 Espionage/Sedition cases were losing their "teeth" and being overturned, and sometimes just being dropped altogether, so it was becoming more difficult to successfully try such cases in late 1919 and early 1920. (Eugene Debs was a glaring exception, and unrelated to religion.)
Judge Howe, himself, makes it sound as if he knew all along that they would be released much sooner and Howe was in agreement that they should get bail, and even says he expected the President to commute their sentence after the war. (Howe had played up his support for President Wilson for years, and had communication and contact with him while running for Governor of Vermont, which is apparently why Wilson appointed him to a Federal judgeship as soon as Howe lost the election for Governor.)

Those 5 calls to have the defendants come to Brooklyn was not such a hardship on most of the defendants, because they lived at Brooklyn Bethel -- except for Rutherford who lived in Southern California. He complained that he was dying. Only a couple of months after his release on bail, he got sick and developed pneumonia. This was more than 20 years before he actually died, but he really was seriously ill back in 1919. This could even have been tied to the conditions in the Atlanta penitentiary, or perhaps in the worse conditions of the local jail back in 1918 before they were transferred. Some newspapers reported that Rutherford said he was "dying" and the courts stopped forcing Rutherford to make the trip from California to Brooklyn.
This is a bit out of order but the situation by October 1919 made it look like the Feds were not quite ready to give up on the case, but were already being pushed to declare it a non-case (abandonment of action, "nolle pros"). It doesn't mean they think you are innocent, but they are giving up trying to prove it, and it becomes as if the case never happened.

BTW, when the Proclaimer's book says "As revealed in correspondence preserved in the U.S. National Archives" these are the same archives I am quoting from, although most of the newspaper quotes are coming from clippings from Newspapers.com. Also, archives of the "Brooklyn Daily Eagle" are available for free online. 

I was not being ironic, this badges with names will be helpful for sure :))

THREE REASONS:
I think that because I believe that NO ONE has the slightest idea when Armageddon will come, and having been burned in 1974-1975 by peer pressure and constant propaganda to react as if it would have come in 1975 ... ( I was a coward, and caved ...), and because globally we are living in the very best times that have ever existed in the history of all civilization ... by ANY metric, possibly ALL of them, perhaps I was trying to say what Newton said about that.
I certainly did not believe it would be in 2060, or as early as 2032, etc. only that of all the sources available anywhere in humanity, past or present, if he had published his thoughts on this matter, I would SERIOUSLY be inclined to believe whatever Newton said, over any other human source, because of his track record of ALWAYS being right about what he published.
It's amazing about how much pure, clean intense white light you can get from just plain common sense.
.... which is not all that common, as we have repeatedly seen.

The funny thing is that what he was saying is a legitimate Christian belief, even we Jehovah's Witnesses believe this too so it is not only us so that teachings isn't soley exclusive to Jehovah's Witnesses. The fact that the quote of his was actually from some dude who wrote a lot about the New Covenant (Don Stewart) can easily be found (BY THE POWER OF THE INTERNET lol) shows that to be true also.
As far as I know, Stewart is a Theologian, well from what I can see, he isn't one of Jehovah's Witnesses but he knows what the Covenant is about and said the same thing about what was said here.
I don't really have much questions because I read, meditate and apply what I learn from the Bible. If that is a problem for you then you really need to check yourself. I rather not read any less because I apply what Joshua 1:8, we studied about this today actually. 
Oh Frida, oh Frida, intentas esforzarte solo para parecer tonto... Seeing you are denying the name given to you by the Athiest fellow from that very old discussion, to which you deserved it after irritating him. That's cute and all, but that name is your brand, and it sells, and you legit, actually have a family member linked to you by that name, tu mejor amigo. But yeah bro, worked that brand, do you.
As for my participation, it was related to what I made a comment to. What you just say irrelevant.
But seriously, bro... You had a chance to say something wise, but you ended up taking out your own ankles outside of a basketball court, epic fail mi chico jajaja
Come on, amigo, surely you can do more than shed some chuckles, ah if you don't like Frida, Chuckles is another good one.
 

[on the OTHER topic of Yugoslavia/Serbia/etc]
Srecko, It's about the same take that Edward Hermann has on the topic: https://monthlyreview.org/2007/10/01/the-dismantling-of-yugoslavia/
I can no longer locate the Parenti essay as it is down, but just got it from the "wayback machine."
https://web.archive.org/web/20190331172008/http://www.michaelparenti.org/yugoslavia.html
I reference Parenti, rather than Hermann, because Parenti is so much more succinct.

It seemed to me that some of the information that the ex-JWs had tried to prepare the prosecution with was unrelated to the case and was merely brought up to prejudice onlookers against Witnesses. Things can be done wrong, or said wrong, and still might have almost nothing to do with the case at hand. The place for the discussion of such things is in the context of how to improve our viewpoint and make it more in line with our own claims. It should not be used in order to stretch the truth about our lifestyle to make it seem like it could be matched up with extremists. If the State/Nation thinks it has a case against a person or group, let the State/Nation present it honestly so that the person or group knows what the real problem is, and can fairly defend themselves -- or even offer solutions and fixes.

Apparently, it is okay with you if the group teaches false doctrine, as the WT has and does.  But, according to you, no one must bring up the false doctrine, but accept the group (with their lies) since they propose to be Christians that fit your definition of "Christian". 
I am sorry, but it is not me that is the hypocrite.  It very well could be you.  

I had the impression that this was Newton's whole point. It was not that he was serious about actually predicting a date for the end of the world. I think it was to show contemporaries that the same "data" that "prophecy hounds" always made use of in order to prove something will happen within their own generation, could just as easily be used to point to something hundreds of years in the future.

What I like about Newton is that as opposed to Russell, Rutherford, Franz, the 1990 leadership and the 21 century leadership is that he "predicted" the "end" to be NOT in his lifetime. All the others did. Interesting.

Interesting question. In the Russian case I think there is a lot of evidence that it's the Russian Orthodox Church behind the curtain, because sometimes they come out from behind that curtain.
In the case of the IBSA in 1918, I think that the earliest complaints about bias came from the fact that it was former members of the IBSA who helped the courts find evidence and make a case. In fact, the Watchtower itself complained that it was the former members who didn't like the way Rutherford took over for Russell. The WTS specifically blamed former directors who had been dismissed by Rutherford.
So if a religion is to blame at all, it would be Russellites. I think history repeats itself here too, as there is evidence that ex-JWs helped the prosecution in Australia and Russia, for example.

When i was arrested by Civil Police and handed to Military Police and after they transported me to place where i have to serve army, they treated me as Soldier even i was in civil clothes. Later i understand that all young people who passed age of old (17) when they went to medical examination /recruitment / and been put in evidence for serving in army,  were  under the law  and considered as future soldier, especially in moment when you are literally, physically inside Military Camp.  

I wrote word "reader" -  ONLY this word, and not - honest reader
You are Constructor of other people sentences ! 
Do not add words that i had never say !
I think that i will stop further conversation with you !
Shameful !!! 

When i was arrested by Civil Police and handed to Military Police and after they transported me to place where i have to serve army, they treated me as Soldier even i was in civil clothes. Later i understand that all young people who passed age of old (17) when they went to medical examination /recruitment / and been put in evidence for serving in army,  were  under the law  and considered as future soldier, especially in moment when you are literally, physically inside Military Camp.  

So, you don’t have to define a repentant heart, you are able to “just know” a repentant heart when you see one.  I suppose it would be a lot easier to detect, if this heart returned to “Jehovah’s organization”, where God has supposedly lived for the last 100 years.  Acts 7:48-51; 17:24,25,29-31
Yet, if I say, I am saved through the grace of Jesus Christ, and not through an organization and its “faithful slave”; and I am told by the elders I still must repent for rejecting “Jehovah’s organization”, who is it that is telling a lie?  Acts 4:12; 15:11; Luke 9:35; John 5:43; Luke 21:8; Matt 24:24; Rev 13:11,15
Who really needs to repent?  Rev 3:17-20
 
Thirty-some years, and 4 VW vans later (one a 1974 bus), I now worship the Father in Spirit and truth.  John 4:23,24  I have repented for giving my worship and devotion to a form of idolatry that is getting more absurd by the day.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

When i was arrested by Civil Police and handed to Military Police and after they transported me to place where i have to serve army, they treated me as Soldier even i was in civil clothes. Later i understand that all young people who passed age of old (17) when they went to medical examination /recruitment / and been put in evidence for serving in army,  were  under the law  and considered as future soldier, especially in moment when you are literally, physically inside Military Camp.  

I'm still learning about it.
The book "The Finished Mystery" was the initial focus of the investigation, but it was still only a part of the problem. When Rutherford decided to try to sell the books with a couple of offending pages cut out of the book, this was not something that the courts or any officials had asked for. It was just Rutherford's way of hoping this would appease the authorities, since specific claims about seditious statements claimed had focused on those pages. The FBI said that cutting out the pages was was not a solution.
Many of these personal solicitations and letters and public speeches were at least indirectly related to the book, The Finished Mystery. But many of them probably were of another nature, based on the evidence that the FBI collected , as some letters and solicitations were for the purposes of Rutherford giving legal advice to those who wanted to avoid being drafted, or avoid fighting even if they were being drafted.
Although it was obvious that Rutherford wanted to be able to help people avoid conscription, to avoid direct military service, and even to avoid supporting the war through alternative service (e.g. hospitals), I have never yet seen anything that would be considered out of line for an attorney trying to give "unofficial" legal advice. But in wartime, such activities are scrutinized much more closely. I think that if there had been direct proof that Rutherford had solicited or encouraged persons to write him for legal advice about getting out of military service, that this could have made sentencing and bail considerations even more difficult for them. The book itself along with other statements made by Rutherford could have been construed as encouragement to help Bible Students find ways to avoid conscription and military engagement.
Also there was a lot of communication between Rutherford and his associates related to the book, the ban on the book, and other means of getting the book published. The book was being reproduced in Watchtower format as special editions to the Watchtower. It was also being reprinted in a publication by a long-time friend of Russell and the Bible Students who published a magazine called "Overland Monthly." Additionally, there were multiple languages that the book had been translated into, and it was important to know whether any of those translations had used even stronger language against the war (than the English version). The book and the ban on the book were being discussed in those early copies of the Kingdom News tracts. Also the fact that the Finished Mystery contained a lot of information from Russell's pre-1917 writings made the FBI look into how the book was produced, and looked into the actual author of the offending parts, and whether some of the original Russell quotes would have made other Russell writings just as liable (as Russell writings were still being distributed). The FBI was also interested in whether the current 1918 meetings and assemblies themselves were still promoting similar statements to those which were found in the book.
I should mention that I am using the term FBI loosely, as the official communications of those handling the investigation includes those from among and between personnel in the Department of Justice who were not in the Bureau of Investigation, attorneys and officials outside the Department of Justice, and even the War Department.  But most of the communications I have read are from agents and officials of the Bureau of Investigation itself (under the Department of Justice). It was not officially referred to as the FBI.
As I get a chance, I might begin sharing some samples of the evidence that the FBI collected.

causing insubordination, disloyalty and refusal of duty in the military and naval forces of the United States of America when the United States was at war . . . by personal solicitations, letters, public speeches
Please, what do you know about this?

If you really believe something is the case, and you tell someone else ... and what you tell them is NOT true ...  you are NOT a  liar ... you are merely wrong.
If you KNOW something is NOT true, and tell someone else, only THEN is it a lie.
That is why credibility is so very important ... so the one receiving the information can correctly evaluate MOTIVE.
If it is difficult to determine what is truth... what is merely wrong ... and what is an outright lie ... FOLLOW THE MONEY..
The tracks money leaves, always tells the truth.
If someone is hiding their tracks ... they are hiding the truth.
They are lying about something.
.... perhaps everything.