Srecko Sostar

....
 

You  not  understand  the  correct  point  @Srecko Sostar....  Some  of  us  were  thinking  wrong  about  that  importend  theme !    NO  MEMORIAL - T-SHIRTS !!!!   ONLY  our  special  tract - campaign,  thats  enough  and  better  for  the  people.
The  world - people  always  using  print -shirts  for  ALL...  We  JW  better  using  our  tablet  and  the  right  literature,  as  always 
THANK  YOU ! 

memorial get together and picnic tshirts... wear these amazing tshirts to your next get together in your congregation...place the orders now!


This is the first time I have ever seen such a thing.......
What do you think?

This just in from the Charlotte, NC Charlotte Observer Newspaper:
Sex abuse cases against Jehovah's Witnesses church settled
"The Associated Press   March 06, 2018 07:50 PM
Updated 1 hour 41 minutes ago
SAN DIEGO Two men who say they were sexually abused by a leader at Jehovah's Witnesses congregations in San Diego in the 1990s have settled their lawsuits against the church's governing body.
The San Diego Union-Tribune reports Tuesday that the settlements were finalized last week. Both sides say they aren't authorized to discuss the terms.
A New York state appeals court in November upheld $4,000-a-day penalty against Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York for failing to comply with a court order to hand over internal documents about knowledge of church leaders who had been accused of sexually abusing children.
Both plaintiffs say church elders knew of the abuse as early as 1982 but covered it up and allowed the leader to keep working with children."
In this case,  the Courts SUBPOENAED the records ( demanding that they appear ...) and it cost the WTB&TS $4,000 a day for every day THEY REFUSED.  Several months ago, it was up to 2.1 million dollars. 
What breaks my heart is that children are giving their ice cream money to an organization that pays a team of supposedly theocratic  lawyers ... to ACTIVELY obstruct Justice ..... for MONEY!
Same thing is going on in Delaware as we speak.
 

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article203828784.html#storylink=cpy

Pea's are green...just saying. And if a critique of your gods is considered persecution and bashing, you need to put on some big boy pants.

Good morning Allen. Thanks for informative links.
About your thoughts. 
Is it necessary to compare WTBTS with other "worldly" organizations or with "false religions"?
Does JWorg members have sufficient  insight into their organization to make such a comparison?
Is it permissible and is it good for a JW member to compare their religion with another if JWorg is the only true organization?
If yes, should they be compared to/with  better or worse organizations and individuals than WTBTS  and GB themselves is/are?
:))

You jw's sure do love to bash the catholic church, some things never change.

I received email with this information, old but new  
Again, it shows how Watchtower, as "mother organization" for JW, are trading and commercial company and who know what else/other identity will come on as time passes. 
http://www.goldmansachs.com/gsam/pdfs/growth-summit-2012/2012GMS_RECAP2.pdf
 

I received email with this information, old but new  
Again, it shows how Watchtower, as "mother organization" for JW, are trading and commercial company and who know what else/other identity will come on as time passes. 
http://www.goldmansachs.com/gsam/pdfs/growth-summit-2012/2012GMS_RECAP2.pdf
 

In the Shakespeare play, "Henry V"  the King was walking around at night, amidst the camped soldiers who had invaded France, to see what they were talking about around the campfires before another day of battle, slaughtering both French combatants and civilians.
These were battle hardened men ... veterans of many military campaigns .. who in this case were deeply concerned about the long wake of innocent bodies, and the rivers of innocent blood that they were creating to obey the political greed of King Henry. 
They had been taught from infancy that their sacred obligation was to obey the one that governed them, their King ... but their natural conscience was rebelling and they hated what they were obligated to do.
Paraphrased, "I hope we are doing what is righteous ... because if we are not .. because we are obligated to serve the King, he will have to answer to God for what we do here ...".
The Clergy had inculcated these soldiers that the King ruled by Divine Appointment .. that King Henry was God's "Faithful and Discrete Slave".
Those that do not know and understand History ... are doomed to repeat it. 
Especially so if they have "employment" where they can eat well, dress well, and sleep warm, and have the adoration of their minions.

... follow the money ... the trail ALWAYS leads to the TRUTH.

From a medical point of view, I would submit that it is not just the children, but very few JW parents themselves could "demonstrate an ability to understand the implications of the consequences of refusing treatment." I would also posit that very few JW parents have even fully considered the Biblical point of view on blood transfusions for themselves either. We can surmise this from the fact that the vast majority of JWs accepted what the Watchtower said about rejecting all organ transplants as final, right up until the time the Watchtower changed its position on them. Immediately, the vast majority of JWs accepted the opposite position about accepting all organ transplants as final. Clearly, JWs had not considered the matter for themselves, and had not been using their own thinking abilities or even their own conscience in the matter.
If any have had any dealings at length with persons on the Hospital Liaison Committees (HLCs) in various congregations, then it is likely obvious to that JWs do not generally make up their own mind on the matter of blood, either. We merely submit to the "mind" of the Watchtower. JWs continually consult with the Society or HLC members about what blood-related therapies could be acceptable to their conscience and which ones are not allowed to be acceptable to their conscience.
(Romans 14:1-5) 1 Welcome the man having weaknesses in his faith, but do not pass judgment on differing opinions. 2 One man has faith to eat everything, but the man who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let the one eating not look down on the one not eating, and let the one not eating not judge the one eating, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for Jehovah can make him stand. 5 One man judges one day as above another; another judges one day the same as all others; let each one be fully convinced in his own mind.
There is a relatively new problem that medical professionals and medical authorities have been dealing with and this is finally being considered in the laws of the "superior authorities." (Romans 13:1-5)
(Romans 13:1-5) 1 Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. 2 Therefore, whoever opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will bring judgment against themselves. . . . 5 There is therefore compelling reason for you to be in subjection, not only on account of that wrath but also on account of your conscience.
The new problem is that there are now several Jehovah's Witnesses who have "surprised" the medical professionals and medical authorities by asking that they or their child be treated as an exception to the general rule for Jehovah's Witnesses. They will accept blood or otherwise "forbidden fractions" for themselves or children and make this a matter of conscience. These Witnesses make this decision in spite of the risk to their spirituality and/or the risk to their standing and acceptance in the congregation. This new problem has already been discussed in several respected medical journals. It's difficult to imagine the complication that this can cause for hospital professionals, even where the HLC has done its best to explain the Watch Tower's position. (The medical journals even discuss the legal implications of keeping the final decision of the parent or child from getting back to the HLC or other representative from the congregation.)
Even putting aside the Biblical aspect for the moment (i.e., consideration about prospects for eternal life), many JWs simply reject that there is ever a time when a blood transfusion offers the best chance of saving (i.e., extending) the life of the patient. There are supposed to always be alternatives, and even if not available, the risks of blood transfusion have been so magnified that many JWs often believe that the medical risk of accepting always overrides potentially life-saving medical benefits.
But the Society has admitted that blood transfusions (and other blood therapies that JWs do not accept) are often actually life-saving (from a medical viewpoint, not a spiritual viewpoint). 
To understand the complications, therefore, let's assume that there are times when the Society is right and the medical authorities are right, and that there really are times when a blood transfusion (or related therapy) is the best chance for saving the life of the patient. We are only considering those types of cases below.
Now consider the Law, for example and consider what should be the JW view toward the "superior authorities" in the following circumstances? How much effort should the HLC (or other consulted elders) put into convincing parents or child to conform to current "Watch Tower" policy in these situations?
What is listed below are 28 different situations with the following "variables:"
The person faced with the question is either:
6 or 16 years of age  (6/16) - the 6-year-old is only considered in these cases with JW parents. Baptized or Unbaptized (B/U)  - only applied to the 16 year old, where a 16 year old may be associating with Witnesses even though the parents are not JWs Parents are JW or not JW (PJW/NJW) - "mixed" marriage where only one spouse is JW is not included in any scenario. The child herself either wants to Accept, Reject or is Unconscious [and without directive] (A/R/U) The parent of the child either wants to agree with the child's decision or disagree (PA/PD) - note that if child is unconscious, then disagreement with a stated decision does not apply (although it is possible that a child carries a blood directive that JW parents reject at time of emergency) In other words, as an example, case #1 means that the child is 16, unbaptized, parents are JW, but the child wants to accept a blood transfusion, and the JW parents agree that she can choose to accept it. Case #28 is a 6-year-old unbaptized child with JW parents, where the child wants to reject a transfusion, but the parents disagree, and want her to accept it in this case.
16,U,PJW,A,PA  16,U,PJW,A,PD 16,B,PJW,A,PA 16,B,PJW,A,PD 16,U,PJW,R,PA 16,U,PJW,R,PD 16,B,PJW,R,PA 16,B,PJW,R,PD 16,U,PJW,U,PA 16,U,PJW,U,PD 16,B,PJW,U,PA 16,B,PJW,U,PD 16,U,NJW,A,PA 16,U,NJW,A,PD 16,B,NJW,A,PA 16,B,NJW,A,PD 16,U,NJW,R,PA 16,U,NJW,R,PD 16,B,NJW,R,PA 16,B,NJW,R,PD 16,U,NJW,U,PA 16,U,NJW,U,PD 16,B,NJW,U,PA 16,B,NJW,U,PD 6,U,PJW,A,PA 6,U,PJW,A,PD 6,U,PJW,R,PA 6,U,PJW,R,PD The complication of a child having one JW parent and one non-JW parent, is not considered at all here, and might be further complicated by the acceptance of gender roles, where, for example, a husband who is a non-JW demands that he be accepted as the "scriptural" spiritual head of the family. Also, even where the parent and child are in agreement, they may still be at odds with either the medical professionals or the HLC. The "law" of the superior authorities can also become a concern, and may also be a concern that the JW parent (or child) will see differently than the HLC based on their conscience. All these scenarios might be a clue as to why the Apostle Paul rejected the kind of Pharisaism that would try to account for all the various scenarios and merely left "legal" matters up to each individual conscience.

I tried to do an estimated range once on this subject. I would have really doubted a method that researched every story about them, because no more than a small percentage would have had a story written up about it. (Newspapers tend to deal with the very young and/or photogenic. Otherwise, even if it bleeds, it doesn't lead; it gets buried.) I have had access to JSTOR and an awful lot of medical journals due to the fact that my son's Harvard ID allowed me to share a lot of those journals and library resources. There are a lot of interviews with doctors who have done studies on the difference in mortality rates from those who refuse most blood therapies and those who accept all blood therapies. But these are not statistics that most hospitals or doctors would like to have made public.
I get a much higher number based on extrapolating from these doctors who have done studies, but there is still a wide range of possibility.
There is a location here with a simple (incorrect) attempt: http://www.krev.info/library/pocetumrti.pdf
That article gives a number that appears high. If the number is correct, it makes a blunder in the method however in attempting to extrapolate the committed population of JWs to include the entire group of those who might attend Memorial (in effect). It also appears to assume a steady population of JWs. Also there is a difference in mortality during operations by doctors who are not as skilled in bloodless surgery (those who don't specialize in bloodless surgery) and those who normally use blood as a backup, but are forced not to have that backup. Elective and sometimes even emergency surgeries for JWs are often handled by doctors selected in advance for their willingness to respect JW beliefs. 
At any rate, I can't give a very good answer, but the minimum possible range that I see is still much higher than what you got for "100 years."

Wow! Where did you get this statistic from???

BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS
Watchtower Teaching WT forbids blood transfusions because of Genesis 9:4 ‘But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat’.
The WT teaches that a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood, because it resembles intravenous feeding. This doctrine was invented in 1944.
Bible Teaching and Historical facts:
1) Thousands of JWs and their children have died because they followed this WT error.
QUESTION: Would you really allow your baby to die because of this WT instruction?
2) Most JWs are unaware that their leaders have a history of making medical prohibitions,then later changing their minds to allow them. Examples include:
(i) Vaccinations were forbidden by the WT from 1931 to 1952. JWs had to refuse vaccinations because the WT taught that ‘vaccination is a direct violation of the everlasting covenant that God made’ (Golden Age, 4 Feb 1931, p 293).
Awake of 22 Aug 1965 admitted that vaccinations have caused a decrease in diseases(p.20)
QUESTION: How did the parents of children who died from not being vaccinated, feel when the WT reversed its view in 1952? How many of these children died needlessly?
(ii) Organ transplants were allowed by the WT up to 1967, but were forbidden in 1967 saying that ‘organ transplants amounted to cannibalism and are not appropriate for Christians’ (WT, 15 Nov 1967, p 702-4, and Awake 8 June 1968, p 21). Hence all organ
transplants were forbidden for 13 years, during which time many JWs died needlessly.
Then in 1980, the WT changed its mind to allow them saying that ‘organ transplants are not necessarily cannibalistic’ (WT, 15 March 1980, p 31).
(iii) Blood plasma and blood particles were forbidden to be used by JW haemophiliacs (Awake, 22 Feb 1975, p 30). Shortly after, the WT changed its mind to permit certain blood particles to be used, but failed to put it into print for 3 years until 15 June 1978, p
30 (WT). Only those haemophiliacs who phoned WT headquarters from 1975-78 discovered the change. Others were left to suffer and die.
QUESTION: How long before the WT changes its view on blood transfusions?
QUESTION: Why does the WT keep changing its mind on medical issues?
QUESTION: Is it right for an infallible prophet of God organisation (such as the WT claims to be) to keep changing its mind.
(iv) In 1984, they allowed for a bone-marrow transplant. Bone marrow is the very source of blood. However, they would disfellowship you for receiving a bloodtransfusion.
3) In Genesis 9:4 the context is God forbidding the eating of animal blood (as pagans did), not the transfusion of human blood. A blood transfusion is not intravenous feeding, because the blood so given does not function as food. When one gives a transfusion, it is not a loss of life, but a transference of life from one person to another. It replenishes and saves a life.
QUESTION: Since blood is not taken in as food to digest, but as life sustaining fluid, is it not clear that transfusion is different from eating?
4) Leviticus 3:17 ‘You must not eat any fat or any blood at all.’ (NWT)
QUESTION: Why do WT leaders forbid blood transfusions but allow the eating of fat? Why not forbid both? The WT is not consistently interpreting the Bible. Leviticus 17:11,12: ‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood’. Blood transfusion does not function as food, but simply transfers life from one person to another as an act of mercy.
Key: Leviticus 3:17 prohibits eating animal blood, not transfusing human blood.
QUESTION: Where is loss of salvation mentioned in Acts 15:9,11 for receiving a blood transfusion?
Key: Acts 15:28,29. A blood transfusion uses blood for the same purpose that God intended, (as a life-giving agent in the bloodstream). Drinking blood is not God’s intended purpose for
blood
Conclusion: Even though JWs try to support blood transfusions with Scripture, their real reason for believing it is blind obedience to the WT. If the WT organisation lifted its ban on blood transfusions, JWs would freely accept them if needed.
For the WT to admit they were wrong would cause too great a stir in their ranks. Therefore any changes must be presented as ‘new light’ in order to make it appear that ‘Jehovah’ is making the changes, rather than a few men on the governing body.
 

I agree with your sentiments, but the question is absurd and based on a false premise.
Any question based on a false premise can be legitimately ignored as a prima fascia absurdity.

Why does Jehovah only accept the worship of a man dressed up like Adolf Hitler in a business meeting?

The best dressed folks I ever saw were Mafioso types, the Governing Body, and of course, Penguins.

I know a lot of well dressed Baptist preachers and woman.

Since Jehovah God created men and women WITHOUT clothing .... and they DECIDED THEMSELVES THAT THEY WERE NAKED ... DECIDING FOR THEMSELVES what was "good" and what was "bad" ... perhaps the REAL question should be "SHOULD YOUR STYLE OF DRESS BE ACCEPTABLE BY NORMAL HUMAN STANDARDS TO OTHER HUMANS"
I spent some time in the Congo in 1974, and saw Brothers and Sisters in RAGS that would not be acceptable at any Kingdom Hall in the United  States.
I was a grown man with three children before I got my first warm coat .... it just never occurred to me that there was a way to keep warm in winter for Adults. It was such a revelation to me that I went back and bought a SECOND one, exactly the same, just in case they quit making them.
 

“And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.” Matt 8:20
"Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,
his upper rooms by injustice,
making his own people work for nothing,
not paying them for their labor.
14 He says, ‘I will build myself a great palace
with spacious upper rooms.Â’
So he makes large windows in it,
panels it with cedar
and decorates it in red.
15 “Does it make you a king
to have more and more cedar?
Did not your father have food and drink?
He did what was right and just,
so all went well with him.
16 He defended the cause of the poor and needy,
and so all went well.
Is that not what it means to know me?”
declares the Lord.
17 “But your eyes and your heart
are set only on dishonest gain,
on shedding innocent blood
and on oppression and extortion.” Jer 22:13-17
 

Should I be impressed by your comparison?  Should YOU feel triumphant by your comparison? As I told another JW who compared Wt’s failures as supposedly less than other religious organizations, excusing away Wt’s failed doctrines, as you are now excusing away Wt’s use of money…
… it is by your own admittance that you have brought the “mountainlike organization” down to the level of all other religions. If God were to back this “spirit-directed organization” would there be any comparison? This is a conundrum for JWs, continually weighing in a balance Wt’s failures, or in this case Wt’s visible accomplishments, with those of other false religions/prophets. You are essentially, comparing apples to apples, Satan’s religious empires within the world - with each other.  Thus, can you see, by Wt’s definition of “Babylon the Great”, that Watchtower is included? 
However, Revelation’s “Babylon” is a covenant – a promise of death, (Isa 28:15,18) and called a “mother”. (Gal 4:26,24; Rev 17:5)  “She” has many daughters represented physically by those in power; and since end time fulfillment of Revelation concerns God’s anointed ones and companions, “Babylon’s” daughters are the GB, since they rule through the Wild Beast that comes against God’s “saints”.    Rev 13:1,4,7,8,11,14-17
Watchtower can’t have it both ways; being part of the world through its various investments, stocks, money derived from other organizations, implore other countries to come to its aid when facing adversity; and yet, teach its members not to be part of this world.
Hold on to those scriptures you posted  -  John 4:24 (also 21-23) and Acts 17:24 (also 25)
 
 

good verses
5 Yet the Lord says, “During the forty years ...... i spend (spent) my 40 years in JW religion :)))) 1975-2015
4 But to this day the Lord has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear.  .... now i can see little, little more then before :)))

Space M. hi,
 let us skip the words "prophets and prophecies" in both aspects, as inspired and uninspired  
then we have "interpreters and interpretations" - not inspired :)) of course, GB are not the only one spokesperson for god as G. Jackson clearly gave his interpretation or explanation about that issue  
 

9 "Some may feel that they can interpret the Bible on their own. However, Jesus has appointed the ‘faithful slave’ to be the only channel for dispensing spiritual food. Since 1919, the glorified Jesus Christ has been using that slave to help his followers understand God’s own Book and heed its directives. By obeying the instructions found in the Bible, we promote cleanness, peace, and unity in the congregation. Each one of us does well to ask himself, ‘Am I loyal to the channel that Jesus is using today?’" - w16 nov p.15,16 p.9
jworg bible with comments;
The Good News According to Matthew
Overview of Matthew
Jesus’ Final Ministry in Jerusalem (21:1–23:39)
Matthew 23:2
seated themselves in the seat of Moses: Or “appointed themselves to Moses’ place,” by presumptuously claiming his authority as interpreters of divine law.

“The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watch Tower Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870. Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food. So how can we answer Jesus’ question: “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?” (Matt. 24:45) WT feb 2017
What if a man claims his expressions are not inspired, but still expects us to follow his teachings and obey his direction?  Does he then get a free pass from testing process?  If we are commanded to test an expression which a man claims is inspired from God, how much more caution should we exercise when the man does not claim inspiration, yet expects us to accept his words as if he were channeling the Almighty? - 1 John 4:1
“By word or action, may we never challenge the channel of communication that Jehovah is using today.” (w09 11/15 p.14 par. 5 "Treasure Your Place in the Congregation")
To claim one is not speaking under inspiration, while simultaneously claiming one is God’s channel of communication is to speak a contradiction.