Srecko Sostar

JWTV viewers should ask themselves; Can and should one imitate the faith of a TV preacher? GB has found an excellent way to spread manipulation. They have criticized TV preachers in the past.
 
TV Evangelism—God’s Way?
If Jesus Christ were on earth today, asserted TV evangelist Jim Bakker, “he’d have to be on TV.” Why television? Because, according to Bakker, “that would be the only way he could reach the people he loves.” Like Bakker, an increasing number of fundamentalist preachers in the United States feel that television is the best medium for spreading the Word of God. Yet, a 1984 study showed that, for the most part, TV evangelists “reinforce people already committed to evangelical religion.”
Interestingly, in a letter to the editor of the magazine Ministry, one reader wrote: “You said they [television sets] are the church’s most powerful gospel seed-sowing tools, and yet God says the most essential work is house-to-house visitation—soul hunting. . . . Our Saviour loved to get away from the multitude, and then He went from house to house—soul hunting. The one-soul audience was His delight. . . . Can we not do the same?”
According to Jesus Christ, the purpose of the Christian ministry was not just to ‘spread the Word’ but to “make disciples.” (Matthew 28:19, 20) He directed his followers to go to people’s homes. (Matthew 10:7, 11-13) The apostle Paul accepted this preaching method and said regarding his ministry: “I did not hold back from telling you any of the things that were profitable nor from teaching you publicly and from house to house.” The personalized house-to-house ministry of the disciples reaped good results.—Acts 5:42; 20:20.
If Jesus laid such emphasis on this method of preaching in order to make disciples, why do many evangelists prefer TV as their medium? The Courier-Mail of Brisbane, Australia, notes that TV evangelists “make up to $120 million a year selling salvation. They appear in a blaze of electrified power and glory on 300 TV stations, and are worshipped like pop idols. . . . For all their tactics, these men who claim to manipulate even God, come down in the end to a straight business deal. Send them $10 and they will send you to heaven.” - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1986845?q=religion+on+tv&p=par  WATCHTOWER 1986
 
Religion on TV
● “Religious programming has proliferated enormously in the past decade,” reports The Plain Dealer. A two-week survey in 40 U.S. cities turned up 18,845 religious programs broadcast during that period. “These included everything from worship services to game shows, cartoons, variety shows and even soap operas with a religious theme,” says the paper. “Analysis of the programs found that characters were disproportionately male, white and middle-class. Characters who worked for the church were overwhelmingly male; so were the wealthy and the powerful.” Solicitations for money were also common. “During an average hour, viewers are asked to donate or buy products valued at $189.52,” the article states. “Programs featuring a preacher or a revival meeting plead the most; they ask for an average of $328.78 an hour.” - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101984289 AWAKE 1984
RELIGION GOES “ON THE AIR”
One of the factors limiting attendance at church has been the invention of devices to carry entertainment into the home. Especially true is this of the newest device, television. Of 190 ministers surveyed in the Louisville, Kentucky, area late in 1952, “most agreed that video was serious competition for the church: In 50 congregations, attendance at evening services has dropped 10 per cent.” So, not to be outdone in this progressive age, religion has gone “on the air.”
Jumping at the first opportunity, they opened their “air-borne” assault in 1949, over the Du Mont television network, with the “Morning Chapel” program, featuring leaders of Protestant, Catholic and Jewish faiths. By November of 1953 interest in religious TV was so great that the Lutheran Church’s “This Is the Life” dramatization could lay claim to being “by far the most widely telecast program in the world,” broadcast by approximately 125 American TV stations, shown throughout Canada and regularly featured by the British Broadcasting Corporation. Later, on January 31, this year, Catholic Bishop Fulton J. Sheen’s “Life Is Worth Living” edged out the Lutheran program, tallying up over 169 stations, to gain first place on the networks. The Catholic Herald, of January 8, claimed over 15 million listeners for the bishop. Today, rather than religion’s being on the defensive against secular TV, the reverse is true. Milton Berle, Sid Caesar, Hopalong Cassidy and company have gained a most unusual competitor, the church. -https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1954805?q=religion+on+tv&p=par WATCHTOWER 1954

Now I understand why WTJWorg has an increasingly confusing theology.., and it's only going to get worse if they all of them in heaven keep arguing over interpretations and who is smarter and greater among them.

That’s why I never wanted to be an Elder or anything.
If you screw up as GB, as an example, with being a “Guardian of The Doctrine”, you can destroy tens of thousands of lives if you get it wrong ….. in one 18 paragraph Watchtower article.
Of all the times that being wrong has resulted in “New Light”, never once have the writers apologized for ruining peoples lives with “Old Light”.
Please correct me if you can prove I am wrong.

In order to be able to discern whether what GB is saying and doing is meaningful, it is not necessary to strive for special benchmarks or standards in theological or biblical terms.
Propaganda programs on JWTV and statements of GB members before various secular bodies, along with written texts distributed to the clergy class aka elders and the lay members class aka rank and files members, show that they do not deserve to be trusted.
For example WTJWorg publications and other digital content repeat the litany that they are the only ones to whom God reveals His truth and that they are the only "channel". On the other hand, G. Jackson claims before judge of ARC that they are not the only ones who are God's spokesperson. The double personality of G. Jackson or is it really the true spiritual and mental state of the collective GB as the main ecclesiastical body? 
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/file-list/Case%20Study%2029%20-%20Transcript%20-%20Jehovahs%20Witnesses%20-%20Day%20155%20-%2014082015.pdf
 
35 Q. And do you see yourselves as Jehovah God's
36 spokespeople on earth?
37 A. That I think would seem to be quite presumptuous to
38 say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using.
Notice, the lawyer did not ask him if they were the only ones on earth who spoke for God. But the GB anointed himself found it necessary to say just that, they are not the only ones.

Regardless of whether we would agree on whether something is a core teaching or not, the more important thing is whether a core teaching is correctly explained or is it just a nonsensical interpretation. 
WRJWorg GB has proven many times that it has no basis to call itself a chosen or appointed spokesman of God who distributes spiritual food in the name of God at the right, proper time, while at the same time saying that it is normal to be imperfect and to distribute imperfect (incorrect) spiritual food to people who believe them unconditionally.
 

Taking the symbol of bread and wine is a JW practice once a year. From your interpretation, it means that they reaffirm the same contract every year. That's a little funny.
How will the dead benefit from the ransom? The dead cannot make decisions. So Jesus needs to resurrect them in order for them to become alive and then make a decision. But this (resurrection) means that the ransom was already applied to them by the very act of resurrection, because all sin is paid for by death already. Ransom is an act of mercy, not of conditioning.
 If the resurrected do not want to accept GB theology then what will become of them?

When we read the bible we think about it.

Regardless of whether we would agree on whether something is a core teaching or not, the more important thing is whether a core teaching is correctly explained or is it just a nonsensical interpretation. 
WRJWorg GB has proven many times that it has no basis to call itself a chosen or appointed spokesman of God who distributes spiritual food in the name of God at the right, proper time, while at the same time saying that it is normal to be imperfect and to distribute imperfect (incorrect) spiritual food to people who believe them unconditionally.
 

What is the behalf, value of spiritual food in 1078 languages when that food is subject to constant changes and contradictions and manipulations to make it look like everything is arranged properly, "to fit" as Mr David Splane said, when it is not.
What nonsense is this when a GB member says, and a WT magazine writes, that Jesus did not promise  perfect food? It shows that at least two. That GB members are pompous clowns, or that they consider their listeners to be mentally narrow people who do not know right from wrong.
How can JW members not see that, in fact, the GB blames Jesus because the spiritual food in 1078 languages, which the GB proudly pronounces, is not perfect, is full of error and is untrustworthy.

Unfortunately for you, even this extended context doesn't help GB. Here GJ says that, we view ourselves as ...,
GJ did not dare to claim before Judge that Jesus chose and appointed them, but says, in fact, that their own feeling/emotions and theological ideas are the cause of the self-selected role in which they are just one of many who are spokesmen for God.
Any JW who does not see the true state of affairs that is being revealed more and more day by day is living in his own fantasy and cognitive dissonance. Maybe it's not nice to say, but I feel sorry for all of you.

Unfortunately for you, even this extended context doesn't help GB. Here GJ says that, we view ourselves as ...,
GJ did not dare to claim before Judge that Jesus chose and appointed them, but says, in fact, that their own feeling/emotions and theological ideas are the cause of the self-selected role in which they are just one of many who are spokesmen for God.
Any JW who does not see the true state of affairs that is being revealed more and more day by day is living in his own fantasy and cognitive dissonance. Maybe it's not nice to say, but I feel sorry for all of you.

What is the behalf, value of spiritual food in 1078 languages when that food is subject to constant changes and contradictions and manipulations to make it look like everything is arranged properly, "to fit" as Mr David Splane said, when it is not.
What nonsense is this when a GB member says, and a WT magazine writes, that Jesus did not promise  perfect food? It shows that at least two. That GB members are pompous clowns, or that they consider their listeners to be mentally narrow people who do not know right from wrong.
How can JW members not see that, in fact, the GB blames Jesus because the spiritual food in 1078 languages, which the GB proudly pronounces, is not perfect, is full of error and is untrustworthy.

They are affected by the syndrome of their own greatness and importance. They tend to change theology.

I understand that the 144k and the gb are the only ones under the new covenant?

I see Sir you made copy/paste from this link -  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/come-follow-me-for-aaronic-priesthood-quorums-and-young-women-classes-doctrinal-topics-2021/14?lang=eng
Well, yes, Russell believed that the truth is always the truth, even if Satan said it. Mormons are also people who believe they are telling the truth regardless of not believing the same doctrines as WTJWorg.
This second highlighted sentence, which is bold, is interesting - "It can be easier to obey the commandments when we understand the reasons behind them."  In fact, it is the opposite of GB's claim that they should be trusted and how members have to follow their instructions even if JW members do not understand them.
WTJWorg religion is manipulative.
 

I see Sir you made copy/paste from this link -  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/come-follow-me-for-aaronic-priesthood-quorums-and-young-women-classes-doctrinal-topics-2021/14?lang=eng
Well, yes, Russell believed that the truth is always the truth, even if Satan said it. Mormons are also people who believe they are telling the truth regardless of not believing the same doctrines as WTJWorg.
This second highlighted sentence, which is bold, is interesting - "It can be easier to obey the commandments when we understand the reasons behind them."  In fact, it is the opposite of GB's claim that they should be trusted and how members have to follow their instructions even if JW members do not understand them.
WTJWorg religion is manipulative.
 

I save my eyes from reading through all the comments - it is hard if one has problems with eyes.  I do not pick up small spelling mistakes either

Did Russell write that somewhere in his diaries, memoirs? 
You claim that he was looking for a new approach in one of the countless "false religions"? Funny.
Unnecessary and unimportant conclusion. Adventists and Russell are not the only ones who show zeal and still remain in their delusions. And the Pharisees were zealous. Zealots were also zealous and many other groups. JWs are also zealous, so this does not save them from useless and dangerous interpretations and actions. And Paul was a zealous persecutor in one part of his life.

My comment is linked to a link that someone else posted as authoritative. So, the "mistake" is with the other participant in the discussion.

(By the way, greetings and warm Christian affection 🥰 to you, my brother @Srecko Sostar, I think this is the first time we've had the pleasure of conversing on a thread in this forum...)

That Jewish God is unusual and unpredictable at times.  ..., Jewish people too.
 
It is not always possible to find the right diopter on the first try.  

Elephant tusk
 

 
Elephant skin
 

 
Elephant hair
 

 
Elephant mama
 
(It's just the perspective.)
 
 
Amen! ☺️ What seems to be unusual and unpredictable may actually be something familiar and constant, when viewed in context with the right diopter.
 
Jehovah was dealing with a stubborn, physical-minded people. They lived around people who sacrificed children and had multiple immoral relations and slaves. Jehovah permitted them to have animal sacrifices for awhile, but that changed when Jesus came. Jehovah permitted them to have slaves with regulations, but that began to change when Jesus came. Jehovah permitted them to have multiple wives, but that changed when Jesus came.
 
The people were warlike. (Think of what Simeon and Levi did in Shechem.) They lived among nations who were bloodthirsty. Jehovah regulated their warfare so it wouldn't be worse, but that changed when Jesus came. 
 
Jehovah hasn't changed. Jehovah is reasonable, and He knows how stubborn people are. He doesn't expect more than they can give. He is patient. He has been so patient.
 
The Bible record of the Old Testament records many things that people did. Just because Jehovah had it recorded doesn't mean He approved of some of the things the people did. Just because He regulated it doesn't mean it was the ideal way He wanted things to be. 
 
Some things that appear "harsh" at first glance are better understood with more details. 🙂
 
Jesus said if we don't understand at first, to keep asking for details, and we will get them.
 
 
I have heard people say that too. Why do you think some people say "that Jewish God is unusual and unpredictable"? What specific situations in the Old Testament do you think most people misunderstand, @Srecko Sostar ?

What was she reinstated as?
Did you stop viewing her as your sister for awhile and then you changed your mind?
Why did you abandon her when she needed you most, if she was potentially spiritually weak or sick?
Didn't Jesus tell an illustration about taking care of a beat up unconscious person?
If you considered her to be spiritually unconscious, how could you just abandon her and leave her for dead?
What do you mean by "status"?
Did Jehovah have the spirit come down in bodily form like a dove so that you could be aware of His approval of her or the lack thereof?
How do you measure genuine repentance if you can't read the heart?
Where does it say anywhere in the Bible the process utilized by the congregation at present for these "reinstatement" rituals?
If you can't literally see "the Devil take her over" as you say, why would you conclude such a thing?
And if that did happen, how could you leave her with him and expect counseling to help?
How did you measure that one, that she "left Jehovah's hands"?
How do you know she ever "left Jehovah's hands" if you can't see Jehovah?
If she had been visiting with you for a period of time, as you make it sound, why didn't you forgive her the very first day she came to you, since Jesus said "if you brother comes to you even 77 times a day and repents you must forgive him..."?
Why would you make her suffer by treating her as an outcast in God's house just because of some dumb rules from headquarters that are opposed to Jehovah's holy spirit and Christ's commands?
 
(Just wondering.🥹 From my point of view, that whole "reinstatement ritual" seems pretty "worldly"/satanic. Not really what Christ would do at all. I know you're just following orders from the GB. Please, @boyle, I do hope you will reconsider that someday. I just know Jesus has so much more good work for you to do in the future, and even now, to comfort people like the Christ did, if only that GB rhetoric wasn't getting in the way of showing love.)💖

Hi, @boyle. Was this is the Watchtower article you were talking about? It's from April 2016, "Maintain Your Neutrality in a Divided World" - it's reviewed again in the midweek meeting this week.
 
Here's the thing, the scriptures cited in the article don't support the points that are made in the article. Below are some of the scriptures cited in the paragraphs that are about "neutrality". I also will attach screenshots from the article, but I can't see how these specific scriptures are supporting the statements of the writer of that article...(by the way, this Watchtower is the one also that said Jehovah's Witnesses don't vote...)
 
Matthew 22:21 "They said: “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them: “Pay back, therefore, Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God.”"
 
Jesus was talking about paying taxes. He wasn't talking about neutrality. In fact, paying taxes isn't really neutral if you think about it, because it funds the military and abortion clinics in some places and political leaders. Paying taxes is one of the least neutral things you can do. And yet Jesus said to do it.
 
Isaiah 2:4 "He will render judgment among the nations And set matters straight respecting many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares And their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, Nor will they learn war anymore."
 
This verse is about not taking part in war. It doesn't talk about politics or social issues or voting.
 
John 6:15 "Then Jesus, knowing that they were about to come and seize him to make him king, withdrew again to the mountain all alone."
 
This verse doesn't say that Jesus wasn't interested in social issues. Jesus obviously was very interested in social issues. He fed the hungry. He comforted the depressed. He ministered to the sick and downtrodden. He raised money for the poor. He taught about fair treatment for women and those people who others were prejudiced against.
 
When Jesus left the scene in that verse, it wasn't because he didn't care about social issues. It just wasn't his Father's time for Jesus to be king yet. It wasn't about neutrality. It was about timing.
 
John 17:16 "They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world."
 
The entire chapter of John 17 is about life and truth and joy and being united in love with Jehovah. There is nothing there about politics or neutrality. It's all about love. "No part of the world" means not acting like Satan, the ruler of the world. It means not being attached to his way of doing things, which is the way of hate and pride and competition and selfishness. It doesn't mean "don't support a soup kitchen" or "don't donate to save the whales" or "don't vote for a local representative for city hall." 
 
1 Peter 2:17 "Honor men of all sorts, have love for the whole association of brothers, be in fear of God, honor the king."
 
This verse doesn't talk about neutrality either, but it is cited right after a sentence in the article that talks about it again.
 
Ephesians 2:2 "in which you at one time walked according to the system of things of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience."
 
The verse here is used in the article to condemn protesters. When Jehovah's Witnesses did information marches like "Religion is a Snare and a Racket", were those like a form of protest against false religion? When Jehovah's Witnesses wrote letters to Putin, wasn't that a form of activist campaigning? Being active in protesting a situation does not necessitate that that expression is a "disobedient" one from God's point of view. When we protest that our brothers are arrested in Russia for keeping their integrity and manifest that protest by means of an appeal to the government authorities, that is not "the spirit of disobedience" yet it is a form of protest. So is the organization also not being neutral when they preach or appeal for the arrested brothers? 
 
John 16:33 "I have said these things to you so that by means of me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation, but take courage! I have conquered the world.”
 
Conquering the world means conquering hatred. It is not about "neutrality" in social issues.
 
(There are other issues mixed in with "neutrality" in the article the way it is written. Idol worship is bad, yes. Pledging allegiance to a flag is a form of idol worship, yes. Murder is bad, truly. Jesus told us not to pick up the sword. We have specific commands that tell us not to kill and not to do false worship. But what does that have to do with the neutrality issue as applied in the article, which does not have any scriptural grounds as the article is written? Personally, I have no desire to either vote or to get involved in political issues, but I don't like it when the scriptures are misapplied and twisted to make it look like they're saying something that they're not really saying.
The video that goes along with the article is even more ridiculous. After reading the Watchtower article, the poor lady feels guilty for watching the news. Another one feels bad because she cares about people. And the young guy feels bad for liking soccer games. The real thing they should feel bad about is worshipping the governing body and obeying men ahead of obeying God, since that's false worship of idols and disobedience to Jehovah.)