The Military as been deployed to deal with people outside the Lockdown, which was no coincidence for those that said it will happen, some of us, whom were canceled for saying that. Now this has become a reality.

Germany, The United Kingdom, etc will follow before the US takes hold of this dark winter to come, which the powers that be, Babylon and others will profit off of.

@Patiently waiting for Truth @Srecko Sostar Well now, since you are both adamant about the subject of the spoken Bible errors among JWs, then either of you can answer the 2 questions. And for that, 1 John 4:1 can be used here upon waiting, hence what was said below - 

15 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Basic knowledge about WTJWorg tell me they are in error in things in which they teach and act erroneously. I am  with that cognition. 

We can start with that, in regards their NWT,  to them ministering to people during the pandemic, hence the subject of the thread.

13 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

You are closer to their thinking than I am. I can only quote their allegations that could give a possible answer to your question. But since you read their publications yourself, I am convinced that you can guess what the explanation for your objection to their translation of the Bible might be. That in the sense, “we are not inspired", "we are not perfect", "we thought", "Jesus thought" and the like.

Srecko in all respects you mentioned Basic Knowledge. You called out the Jehovah's Witnesses in error on Scripture before concerning the Bible. Those 2 questions are for you.

It has nothing to do with publications. The images and notes below were from other sources, primarily from JW facts, similar to what you brought forth in the past.

Also of course, no one is inspired, in the same sense as apostles/prophets of old. We already talked about that months ago regarding Prophets Not Inspired.

Anyways, you can take as much time you need with this one since the 2 question are Textual Analytics based:

35 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

Storm Trouper you are a complete JOKE 

Where is your evidence, Butler?

Also, I am an avid debater, for years in person, online, etc. so an appeal to motive does not work on me, and it does not work on avoiding a question. If you did debates, you'd know to avoid appeals.

35 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

You are a PHARISEE but you cannot see how wrong you are because you are soooo concerned in being a 'Truther'.

For not supporting immoral conduct? again you bring up Truther when it was not mention here, not realizing what it means. The focus on this thread is homosexuality and conduct, you even addressed the view, and the article was presented in full to conclude the focus being the conduct.

35 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

I don't have Gay friends, but I do have female relatives that live with female partners.

It is an example question. But the fact you reacted as such shows your folly. The question was asked to address how you would react in regards to the subject matter - You can still answer that question.

35 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

I do not ask them about their sex life.

How is acting about their sex life? The question is should you end up in a situation, how would you response. You are a former JW are you not? Why hit the breaks there.

35 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

It is none of my business.

But in situations in regards to the general public you can be asked about this. This is no different from a random guy asking, for example, Anna who is a JW as to why she does not salute the flag and for what reason, likewise as to one can ask why @Kick_Faceinator likes Bill Gates, or @Pudgy why he as a dog for a picture, or, as someone addressed to me, as to why I have a Storm Trooper as a picture - in turn, there is a reason and a why to every response, hence the second question. If COVID-19 kept you under a rock this long, you are forgetting such things arise in interaction with people in society.

35 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

They have their lives, i have mine.

Now that is an interesting mindset. Is that what you will say to someone who addressed to you why you do not want to entertain them in their event and or partake in it?

35 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

But I would help them if they needed help in an emergency. 

And there is no problem to that. But the focus is on conduct, being a good neighbor has already ben established.

35 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

I also do not go to parties, gay or other.  i do not serve at parties, gay or other. 

Then why get angry for us calling out conduct? You even equated this to it being a stupid question to ask.

35 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

I do not generally use the word Gay either. Homosexuals are homosexuals and that is the word i use. 

Well if you have been living under a rock for several years, the terms are intertwined with each other, hence modern society.

35 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

Matthew 9 : 13. The words of Jesus,

Berean Study Bible
But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” 

This is referring to the tax collector in the Gospel of Matthew who later became an associate of Jesus, is the In it, it highlights Jesus’ repeated insistence of mercy in addition to sacrifice. This is the point I made to @Alzasior Lutor already in regards to people fighting off, having enough will power and self control to fight temptation, which is the case with homosexuals who do not want to practice the known conduct in all things in the realm of homosexuality, mainly if such persons seek God. But the verse you are using misrepresents the focus on those who abide by immoral conduct.

My comment [Cela étant dit, la position de la Bible est raisonnable et correcte, avec tous les hommes. Il ordonne simplement à ceux qui ont des pulsions homosexuelles de faire la même chose qui est requise concernant la fornication (1 Corinthiens 6:18). Les hétérosexuels qui apprennent à connaître Dieu et sa Parole, se conforment aux normes de la Bible employées appliquent la maîtrise de soi face aux tentations, et en résistant et en se contrôlant, ils font tout ce qu'ils peuvent pour plaire à Dieu, et abandonnent bientôt tout ce qui est mauvais.]

translated reads:

That being said, the Bible's position is reasonable and correct, with all men. He simply commands those with homosexual urges to do the same thing that is required regarding fornication (1 Corinthians 6:18). Heterosexuals who come to know God and his Word, conform to the Bible standards employed, apply self-control in the face of temptation, and by resisting and controlling themselves, they do all they can to please God, and soon give up all that is bad.

21 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

So it seems that one has chosen who is worthy and who is not, to receive God's message through Christ. 

A man of God does not support immoral conduct. It isn't about worthiness, but you made it a big deal not resulting the focus was on conduct, hence you lashing out, hence the point made by EVERYONE HERE to you.

Luther, Kick and Pudgy to not like the conduct - case and point.

21 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

If that person on here (who pretends to be a dog ???) has chosen homosexuals as not being worthy of receiving God message then that is as good as condemning homosexuals to death. 

You are twisting @Pudgy words. His point was it is a waste of time because those who practice the conduct in homosexuality don't bother with God's Word. If a man refused God's word when it is professed, that was his decision based on his free will. This goes as far back as @BroRando's thread about Noah's Day. Noah told the people of what is to come, but they did not care, he continue to the next person, on to the next. Likewise today, but unlike Noah, some listen, but the majority, or anything pertaining to LEFT-WING will never, ever listen. Leftist do not care about what you have to say about God because their ideology is God accepts everyone and their conduct.

21 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

Answer to your first question is NO I will not be going to any Gay Parade

But you were pressing everyone here who refused homosexual conduct. You saying this just shows you agree with us all this time, but don't wish to say that you are wrong.

You'd still go to service them food even though you are not involved in the parade as is with commit?

21 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

NO i will not be watching it via any means.

So you agree with what we say about conduct. You were being hypocritical all this time on purpose - God is witness.

21 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

However it seems you know more about their activities than I do, because i didn't even know such a thing was taking place.

It was sourced in the NYT website concerning their events, which I was able to lookup.

But it does not excuse your ignorance to their conduct.

21 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

But in this way you are doing the same as (the dog person) you are lumping them all as one.  

We are focused on the conduct within homosexuality itself. I like how you say this after you show yourself to be in agreement now.

21 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

It seems that JWs and their followers just love to lump people together.

This is beyond JWs, it is people in general, mainly since the article which you linked is Left Wing. A Conservative who isn't religious will tell you the exact same thing, i.e. such as Steven Crowder and or those like him.

21 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

and now it seems they lump all homosexuals together.

Focus was on conduct if you noticed.

21 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

Is it because you are frightened of PEOPLE AS INDIVIDUALS ?  

Who said we are scared? No one. If you speak of fear, you should have no problem going to a Gay parade if not involved.

Also you didn't answer the second question

Note - You do not have to be a Left-Winger to adhere to their Theology. All they need is you and their influenced put on to you by means of various media and or MSM, hence your reaction to an NYT who is known for using these tactics. They did this in regards to the Pandemic and January 6th. You fell to Alt-Right influence last year concerning to Australia.

1 hour ago, Space Merchant said:

Bonus Question: Your Gay friend/co-worker invited you to a party focused on family friendly dancing, everyone there is to have a partner, 100% male. Would you go? Or would you at least serve if not a among the dancers? And should you refuse to go with him, his question to you is "why not come with since we've been friends and worked for a while?" - How would you response?

Yep Germany, Italy, Australia, and a few others will follow suit. Truthers have been calling this before the virus has toughed US soil to cause some damage, likewise with COVID-19 pills and Booster shots.

1 hour ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

Storm Trouper you have much to learn about serving God properly. 

You attitude gives you away, as does the French person's (who's name I can't remember). 

You may have a head full of Facts, but you do not have a heart full of love. 

 

Butler, I am well aware and versed of Textual Analytics. Again, you only brushed the surface. and the question was directed to Srecko, and for a reason - not you. One of the reasons I said you are free to create a topic for that verse. What attitude am I displaying here? The fact that history and Bible Hermeneutics exposes you for having Gnosiophobia/Sophophobia?

That being said, I do have love, being Bible strict does not mean the person lacks love, let alone them being involved with helping missing persons and teaching. I have enough love to avoid misinformation, that of which I abide by.  The fact I do not support the conduct of - same sex marriage, does not mean I lack love. But you have the free will to content to immoral conduct in this regard, which contradicts you even uttering Romans 12:9. Not to mention you evidently ate what Leftism has not reading anything in full.

If I lacked love you'd prove it, but like I addressed before, you could not.

Facts, no, I attest and proclaim history be it Christianity as a whole or the Bible, and the history around to as why it is as such now. I am familiar with history in all respects to various things, even that of the UK, as is with what the MSM is not telling people and or lying in the face of the general public. Reasons for this is because unknown to you, for what I know and the people I have met, they are aware of history being erased and or re written in some respects, even ore damaging for this has poured into the higher education system. This is why in regards to The Trinity and Interfaith, misinformation, falsehood and conspiracy is problematic, and these things I hate. Reasons why when it even comes to misconceptions of faiths, be it JW, Unitarianism, Islam, etc. I point out truth and facts, reasons being because misinformation is often spread among them. Even for Trinitarians, I know my enemy well enough to not fall victim to misconceptions concerning them either. Case and point.

Babylon has swept away the unsuspected, and perhaps it may do the same for you too if not careful.

I will leave it at that. If you want to speak of such claims, make a thread; granted you haven't thus far and shy away from your other on speaks volume.

Also it's Storm Trooper not Storm Trouper.

52 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

 

You decide ? 

Decide what? And no one really commended anyone to death, just we do not condone the conduct, or anything the Leftist used to push the point. In @Pudgy defense to a degree it is a waste of time to tell them what is moral conduct and what is not.

So, my question to you, is, is it likely

So you will gladly go to a Gay Parade (UK based since you are there), perhaps the upcoming one in London next month - Physically or Virtually?

(and oh yes, thanks to technology and the pandemic, they got it virtual too)

Saturday, September 11 2021 Pride in London Parade

This is a simple Yes or No question

Bonus Question: Your Gay friend/co-worker invited you to a party focused on family friendly dancing, everyone there is to have a partner, 100% male. Would you go? Or would you at least serve if not a among the dancers? And should you refuse to go with him, his question to you is "why not come with since we've been friends and worked for a while?" - How would you response?

Also I like how you purposely cut the whole statement out, for what reason? An obvious one. This is what I said.

1 hour ago, Space Merchant said:

[3] Who has condemn people to death? Because we see same sex marriage as something not holy? Or perhaps we don't like the conduct? Again, the person is not the issue, the conduct is - you ignored this several times. Something...

1 minute ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 7%3A53-8%3A11&version=NIV

John 7:53-8:11

New International Version

The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]

 

This still isn't an explanation, and again, the question was for @Srecko Sostar. There is a reason as to why the response was made. You, only scratched the surface, just barely.

7 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

New World Translation, online on JW Org. 

Luke 17 : ³⁵  There will be two women grinding at the same mill; the one will be taken along, but the other will be abandoned.” ³⁶  ——

Matthew 24 : ⁴⁰  Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken along and the other abandoned. ⁴¹  Two women will be grinding at the hand mill; one will be taken along and the other abandoned.

Strange that the verse should be left out of Luke, but used in Matthew. 

My questions concerning spoken errors was for @Srecko Sostar, not to you. You are free to make a topic about this verse, if you want a shot at debating that. The subject matter, to him, well to you now, is The Jehovah's Witnesses NWT Bible claims/errors. Granted it stems from the claim of a Restorationist group aligned with Prosperity Preachers, so the 2 questions addressed is for a reason concerning basic knowledge between the two.

That being said, explanation in this regard; the latter can cast the first stone due to his comment.

@Alzasior Lutor Il ne répondra pas à la question, mais je le ferai, et je serai bref, et "Attente patiemment la vérité" ne répondra évidemment pas parce qu'il affiche ce que la Leftist dit. Il y a des homosexuels dans la société d'aujourd'hui, que ce soit en Amérique, comme cette histoire, et dans les pays européens, en Asie, etc. Ensuite, vous avez ceux de la foule adhérant à la conduite de l'homosexualité, un homme ayant des relations sexuelles avec un autre homme, ou un femme à une autre femme, plus encore, même épouser un ou plusieurs partenaires du même sexe. La conduite est tellement ouverte, qu'elle est enseignée aux enfants, ils sont influencés par les médias, les dessins animés, même le système d'enseignement supérieur.

Dans la Bible, il nous dit ce qu'est le mariage, entre un homme et une femme, Un homme quittera son père et sa mère et il doit s'en tenir à sa femme et ils doivent devenir une seule chair. (Genèse 2:24), dans le Nouveau Testament, il est écrit, car Jésus a confirmé que ceux qui sont liés par le mariage devraient être un homme et une femme. (Matthieu 19 :4). La majorité des chrétiens le savent, même votre foi des Témoins de Jéhovah le sait. Le Nouveau Testament continue en mettant l'accent sur le fait que pourquoi l'homosexualité est mauvaise.

Maintenant, aujourd'hui, nous devons aimer tous nos voisins, et c'est ce que nous devons faire, mais comme indiqué, la conduite est mauvaise et nous ne devrions pas être impliqués dans une conduite comme les autres, qui l'acceptent ouvertement. Dans l'état d'esprit des gens aujourd'hui, même NYT, ils veulent que les gens aiment non seulement la personne, mais la conduite elle-même, c'est pourquoi quand il s'agit d'histoires de la communauté LGBTQ, cela est souvent poussé, nous pouvons le voir dans l'histoire .

Cela étant dit, la position de la Bible est raisonnable et correcte, avec tous les hommes. Il ordonne simplement à ceux qui ont des pulsions homosexuelles de faire la même chose qui est requise concernant la fornication (1 Corinthiens 6:18). Les hétérosexuels qui apprennent à connaître Dieu et sa Parole, se conforment aux normes de la Bible employées appliquent la maîtrise de soi face aux tentations, et en résistant et en se contrôlant, ils font tout ce qu'ils peuvent pour plaire à Dieu, et abandonnent bientôt tout ce qui est mauvais.

J'ai répondu pour lui parce qu'il allait faire une tangente dans l'espoir de vous ralentir.

Cela étant dit, tout ce qui concerne la conduite de l'homosexualité est considéré comme négatif par beaucoup de gens, pour vous les Témoins de Jéhovah, pour nous, et même pour les gens qui ne connaissent pas vraiment Dieu. La Left (Leftist/Left-Wing) est l'opposé de la Right (Conservative Right/Right-Wing) conservatrice. Concernant l'homosexualité, un seul côté, la droite, ne déteste pas la personne, juste sa conduite - c'est le cas de ces mentalités politiques aux États-Unis et dans l'UE, qui est majoritaire.

5 hours ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

However my point still stands. How do you as individuals treat homosexuals ? 

Also there seems to be the point that even though that daughter is an EX-JW her parents have not shunned her. 

Whereas some on here seem to think they have the authority to condemn people to death. Running ahead of God and Christ. Which of you think you have the right to do this ? 

[1] Christians are to dislike the conduct of the person, mainly concerning same sex marriage. Not only they avoid the conduct, they tend to avoid anything pertaining to it, i.e. going to a Gay party, parade, Pride Day, etc. Some even refused service, as we can remember the Christian Bakery story. As for the Non-Religious, they do the same. The Leftist view is that you have to like the person AND the conduct, not one or the other, hence the usage the term homophobic. If the person is a homosexual, so be it, for he will have to answer to that, but the conduct is problematic.

[2] You mentioned shunning originally. If you read the story, you'd realize that in regards to same sex marriage, mainly in a Bible strict household, the reaction various for some, in this case, shock, disbelief, anger and strife, on topic of that, Western culture seems to be what thrives in the Household. The person in question chose to limit contact because she was aware of how same sex marriage does not sit well with the family.

[3] Who has condemn people to death? Because we see same sex marriage as something not holy? Or perhaps we don't like the conduct? Again, the person is not the issue, the conduct is - you ignored this several times. Something @Pudgy and @Alzasior Lutor attested to, as have I.

• To not accept two men/women marrying each other is not running ahead of God.
• To not accept the conduct, is not running ahead of God and Christ.

Also

6 hours ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

Which of you think you have the right to do this ?

Right as to what exactly? I see in Scripture we are to respect our neighbor, which we can credit @Kick_Faceinatorfor citing, however, as for conduct - we don't.

After all, if I remember you cited Roman 12:9, which is a call back to my response to you about homosexuality. Cling to what is good, for we not in position to do so?

@Kick_FaceinatorThere was still some interaction between the family and it is obvious of where the mindset is, a Western mindset since the was a Philosophy coined. More so there was a limitation (limited). As pointed out, depending on the person(s), their reaction differs, and granted the every story is Left Leaning, hence NYT, anyone who shows some ill reaction and or not approving of for same sex relationship is automatically branded as homophobic, regardless of religious standing. More so, it lies in the acceptance of the conduct or not - which is clear because the family in question does not accept same sex relationships, thus them being uncomfortable and act in this manner is evident. This is the same case with some of the Bi and Pansexual stories pushed by the Left, granted all their articles concerning the LGBTQ community is to emphasis and push more and more people to accept the person's conduct.

23 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

The difference between a child’s mind, and an adult’s mind is that an adult makes reasonable, practical judgements. 

This is why children in the US and the UK are literally exposed to the philosophy and teachings stemming from that practice. In fact, they are as exposed as a solider standing in front of a battalion of the enemy in an open field. This is why people have a problem with the Higher Education system and everything connecting to it.

3 hours ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

his is your own judgement against them. So it seems that you no longer see them as people but just one specific group who would be a 'complete waste of time'. 

@Pudgy is right here, this is more evident to the Left-Wing comments on the NYTs article and what it is under. Talking about God and Scripture is a waste of time, and this is obvious due to the fact Desmond is Amazing exist, and or the fact that we have the fact that people are in some instances are okay with exposing themselves to children, thus stemming from that community.

As for the point. No one hates the person, but their conduct is the problem, the reason why the family reacted the way they did through various interactions. More so, acting out on said conduct, which in turn can have a negative effect on a child, who could easily end up as another Desmond. This is why I told you in the other thread, it matters to know what is taking place in the world besides what the real enemy is preaching. @Pudgy has most likely been in the trenches, just as I have and @Alzasior Lutor, hence the reason for out responses.

That being said, it is going to get more difficult for anyone who professes the Bible unless they are of the Interfaith, who accepts homosexuality and Spiritualism 100%. As I said, to a degree, Philosophy with Christianity does not mix well together. Especially Coherentism, which is philosophical epistemology.

Also

6 hours ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

You and Space Merchant seem to be of the same personality. You both seem to enjoy twisting topics just to get attention for yourselves.

You are talking to someone who has dealt with Leftist for years now, granted they are a tool in what is to come pertaining to the Beast. Anything pertaining to the Left is to push acceptance. There is no disdain for the person, but the conduct itself.

I do not twist topics, and I would rather die on my knees than not see how the NYT operate.

The article is there 100% to read. Although it is the story of this person, but you ignore the fact the Leftist drive articles to push for acceptance. Granted you are in the UK, you have no idea how Leftism act, let alone, what they do to get people on their side.

10 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Basic knowledge about WTJWorg tell me they are in error in things in which they teach and act erroneously. I am  with that cognition. If you and others think otherwise, it is yours and their right to dissent.

It still does not excuse the New Thought slander. I mean, you did cite Restorationism yourself.

That being said, Basic knowledge in regards to the Bible and the history of Christianity, we can stick with that, especially concerning JWs - we can go with the Bible first. And the fact you bring this up, reminds me of what you stated a while back regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses version of the Bible concerning error - I guess we can start with that, with just 2 questions.

My response to you:

NOTE: Jehovah's Witnesses were spoken of as committing various errors because of their New World Translation (NWT) of the Bible, and they teach that their action on this was because the errors were considered not inspired, hence 2 Timothy 3:16 (All scripture is given by inspiration of God). Not only they were spoken of as removing part of verses, but in their translation, removing a verse/passage entirely.

Concerning errors -  [1] can you explain to me why the Jehovah's Witnesses removed Gospel of John 7:53–8:11 from their translation of the Bible and some have not? Let alone change parts (Partial Verses Omitted) of a verse?

That passage isn't the only example, but we have a few others, as seen below:

Also they were spoken of as in error for verses like Acts 7:59, 60 and the verses in Matthew, it was even addressed here - 

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/161040/acts-7-59

[2] Why did the Jehovah's Witnesses make this change to the 2 verses?

13 hours ago, Witness said:

For you, it is all about restorationism.  For the general JW it is not about being part of restorationism, or being a Restorationist. 

As pointed out, it is not of my saying, it is the history itself, you are just as much of a Restorationist, as is, the majority of Anti-Trinitarians out there, be it a group or not, mainly in this modern age. What Subordinationism Christianity has birthed, Restorationism, has not changed. There is a deviation of Restorationism, should those accept the creeds instead of speaking out against it.

You're confusing beings with roots. There is a reason why I mentioned roots, as is what it means, something that is an origin or source (as of a condition or quality).

14 hours ago, Witness said:

If the shoe fits...notice I didn't capitalize "prosperity preachers".  Another "shoe" would be calling them, "fortune seeker preachers/teachers".  I am not concerned with those you call officially, Prosperity Preachers, thus I haven't slandered them.  

You're deviating from your lie now. Again, you were adamant about those speaking a lie, but to lie about a legitimate rival to Anti-Trinitarian, Jw or not, was willful on your part. I do hope you realize people can see that, especially a multitude of Anti-Trinitarians, for, to this day still battles with those in the prosperity camp, especially in regards to what they did some years ago that resulted in the interfaith nonsense.

Witness, it is slander to call Anti-Trinitarians prosperity preachers, you should have stuck with your false prophet notation instead of equating anything with Anti-Trinitarianism with a slanderous rival of which they dealt with for many, many years. The irony in this you speak of Babylon the Great alone, not realizing a potential threat. Therefore, Kosenen was right about you.

Learn the difference between the two.

14 hours ago, Witness said:

This is just a suggestion, (but I would rather you not do so  please) - become a JW for about 20 years at least, then get back to me.  We'll talk about the organization's "history" of false teachings.

You say this every time you evade addressing questions. But if we are to take it there, somehow a former JW adhere to a bit of New Ageism, and deconstruction of God's Order. Or cannot hold their own without the slight mention of a former faith.

So, as to my question, address it - If they're Prosperity Preachers as you said, what is the reason for Jehovah's Witnesses to be preachers let alone adhere to Commission and why they do not believe in the Trinity? 

You are a former JW, are you not? the answer should not be this difficult.

That being said, I find it quite ironic that for your 20 years, yet you proclaimed adhere to a guy, even defended without fact, who said your former faith hid literal poison in the basement of the churches, or perhaps believed in an untruth believing it to be truth, thus professing it yourself. The Biblical Facts thread comes to mind.

14 hours ago, Witness said:

Wait a minute, who am I slandering, Prosperity Preachers or the GB?  The GB willingly slander any who reject their falsehoods, just want to make this clear.

You referred to JWs as prosperity preachers, let alone Anti-Trinitarianism. That in of itself is slander.

GB you can speak of, I care not, but it is the obvious accusation of New Thought theology, which in of itself, does not make any sense.

13 hours ago, Witness said:

As GB Splane said, false teachers introduce ‘a few grains of truth mixed in with falsehoods, and inspired by the demons’. (1 Tim 4:1,2; Rev 16:13-16)  

This ahs noting to do with the question addressed to you. The prosperity theology or it's root, New Thought, has nothing truthful about it, which is evident from their inception and what transpired, and their role in Babylon.

13 hours ago, Witness said:

He knows what he's doing. 

What does this have to do with the question addressed to you concerning the commission and the Trinity?

13 hours ago, Witness said:

The only commission they are adhering to, is their own.

Everyone who came out of the Great Commission, be it they hold on to their Restorationist roots or not, adheres to it. The Commission itself is rooted in Matthew 28:16-20 and to the gospel being taught to the Nations, hence Matthew 24:14; Mark 13:13. The Commission is the instruction of the resurrected Jesus Christ to his disciples to spread the gospel to all the nations of the world, and as we see in Scripture, it was later entrusted to the church to continue this command. In regards to majority of Anti-Trinitarians, even that of the JWs, to them, although the general public agree/disagree with some of their notations, they recognize them for adhering to the Great Commission, such, even pointed out by the non-religious.

Going back to the first century, the Commission was held strongly, since Pentecost 33AD and onward, even in the face of Bishops. Restorationists, those that maintain said roots, do not have their own Commission. In fact, the Great Commission sits on the basis of Matthew 24:14 alone; even then, Restorationist of the 19th century didn't know everything, but they sought to learn despite their counterparts moving into the direction of Creeds.

That being said,  the Commission was addressed many times and what it signifies, even to you, at one point you even ignorantly brushed it off as a Unification Church.

14 hours ago, Witness said:

Many times the subject of "core teachings" has come here. 

Not really. Majority of threads speaks of JWs alone, rarely is there any topic of "core teachings" on the forums concerning who God is, and or of Scripture. The only one ever brought forth, you turned it into a JW thread when the focus should've been Scripture and what is conveyed.

Plus, history is rarely spoken of in terms of Christology alone.

14 hours ago, Witness said:

Yes, JWs hold onto a few grains of truth, and turn a deaf ear to all the lies.  (2 Cor 11:3,4,14,15)  Matt 24:24,25

This has nothing to do with the question addressed to you concerning their roots vs. the claim.

The question remains below:

If they're Prosperity Preachers as you said, what is the reason for Jehovah's Witnesses to be preachers let alone adhere to Commission and why they do not believe in the Trinity? 

@Alzasior Lutor Je sais que les Temoins de Jehovah ne font pas de politique, mais cet article est associe au The New York Times, un journal Left-Wing. L'article, enfin tous les articles sur le mariage et les relations homosexuelles, ou sur la sexualite l'encouragent parfois, et quiconque s'y oppose, est considere comme homophobe. Vous pouvez meme le voir même dans les commentaires. Ils ne se soucient pas de la foi JW, mais de la Parole de Dieu, et ils appellent la Parole de Dieu homophobe. Va meme jusqu'à ajouter la philosophie qui est adoptee par le christianisme dominant.

Bien que ce soit un cas malheureux de ceux qui appliquent la culture americaine, puisque les gens reagissent comme ils le font aux relations homosexuelles, savent que la conduite est mauvaise, ils ne peuvent pas resister a la Parole de Dieu - ils tiennent toujours.

18 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

I wish I was clever enough to find the reference where by @JW Insider suggested that at one time a member of the GB was 'probably' a homosexual. 

This? As addressed in his comment.

Also EDIT: in the comments for the article, the only commenters in it are Left Wingers. Some of them made a remark that the Bible, God's Word is homophobic. 

And to his credit, some of his remarks:

@Alzasior Lutor Well this is something. Et bien c'est une surprise, quelqu'un qui parle francais. Mais comme je l'ai dit a l'autre gars. L'homosexualite est une mauvaise conduite, immorale. Bien que vous ne puissiez pas hair la personne (selon la culture et les gens) cela peut varier, cependant, la CONDUITE est mauvaise, detestable a Dieu. Et ce qui est mauvais, cette conduite, nous ne l'acceptons pas.

Le truc, c'est que les gens peuvent le voir, s'ils sont Temoins de Jehovah ou non. Le mariage homosexuel n'est pas vu sous un bon jour par la plupart.

16 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

What do those who know, who are well learned about history, say on question: Does the devil believe in the Trinity?

Anything pertaining to lying about God, yes. People in the past were suppressed, even killed over it; mainly those forced to accept the Creeds of the Triune God.

It opened doors to the teaching that their is life after death, having visions even though the apostles have all died out, and the list continues, but at the center of it all, is Jesus Christ.

The history is important because of how close early Christian teachings were eradicated and overwhelmed by the new teaching, one of the reasons you have old Bishops who kept calling our heresies, one in question was Irenaeus of Lyons.

This goes for Bible Translations too, for that history was wild on it's own. This led to many believing verses and passages that are either not true or do not line up with Strong's.

So in short, the core battleground for Anti-Trinitarians and Trinitarians is concerning Jesus and the Bible. If the history of Christianity or the Bible isn't even concerned, it would be problematic. We are lucky this history isn't lost. You do not have to know everything, but at least the basics, with just basic understanding, it becomes a benefit.

10 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

https://www.nhregister.com/shoreline/article/Officials-Waterford-Jehovah-Witness-building-16377704.php

Officials: Waterford Jehovah Witness building damaged in blaze.  

Aug. 10, 2021Updated: Aug. 10, 2021 5:42 p.m.

WATERFORD — Local officials are investigating the cause of a fire late Monday at the Kingdom Hall Jehovah Witness building.

Director of Fire Services Michael Howley said a neighbor first noticed the fire outside the structure, which is located at 57 Clark Lane, around 9 p.m. Monday.

 

This is in regards to JW church burnings, not the historical church burnings of Canada pertaining to Indigenous peoples, children. The ongoing debate is outside of religious talk, more so on history, granted many people paint ALL Canadians as the bad guy regarding this.

5 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

As for my current ongoing debates, they're concerning Church Burnings, child sex abuse in relations to the Canadian Church Burnings,

That being said, the debate is historical based, mainly when you're dealing with Centrist.

The NYT has been kind of iffy granted it is Left Wing. The article reads that the person's parents have both sides, abhorring same sex marriage, but still respecting the person in question, granted, it is the conduct that does not sit right with those outside of the MSC paradigm, hence what you got highlighted:

1 hour ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

My parents play both sides by telling us that they love and accept my partner while also sympathizing with my sister’s disgust for same-sex relationships and her view that mine ought not to be welcomed into the family.

So it is no surprised as to why homosexuality is discouraged. 

The article is pretty short, the NYT isn't known to have long articles, mainly when it commits to their narratives.

1 hour ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

Of course we know that same sex relationships are wrong, but I know of people in such relationships, relatives in fact, and i know that I have never ignored those people and never 'shunned' them.  This article shows how different family members, all JWs, deal with it differently.  I hope all of you handle such situations in a loving way, though of course each persons conscience may differ. 

It is bad, and it should be condemn, and such conduct results in various reactions compared to most, be it in a religious household or not, mainly if culture playing a factor in this, granted the person in the articles mentions traveling between countries. The sister did not shun her totally due to what is read in the article, but, she shows a high level of annoyance and disgust of same-sex marriage, granted she becomes intertwined with said conduct knowing of what Scripture says on the homosexuality.

• The article addresses how same sex relationships is seen by the person and the family, even a child involved as to which the idea of same sex relations is something the child in question.
• The person in question puts a lot of allusions to sexuality, even adding the MSC view of it vs. JWs.
• The family wasn't really shunning each other, but had limited contact, mainly for the fact the news of same sex relationships hit them are, to which you have one side for sexuality and the other speaking as to why embracing said sexuality is an err. The person in question relocated/distanced herself.
• Article mentions Creeds, Anti-Trinitarians do not hold to creeds, even by means of Family for the notation of Homosexuality derives from Scripture. This goes hand in hand with the remark of tolerance in this regard.
• In the article, Coherentism was mentioned, which is philosophical epistemology. So the article makes remarks to not just Homosexuality, but adds philosophy in it, even make a comparison. Christianity and majority of philosophy do not mix.
• It is also evident the adoption of a subnet of Western culture is very strong here too.

Full Article below, granted people do not have a paid sub to NYTs.

NOTE: The NYT is among the Left wing sources that is in high support of the LGBTQ community, the article you mentioned is on the list - https://www.nytimes.com/spotlight/lgbtq

I am in a deeply committed, “finally found the one” relationship with another woman. But my oldest sister, close to everyone else in my family, has declined to meet her, and we have been estranged for the past two years because of it. I’ve been unwilling to have a relationship with my sister that does not include my partner. Although my family are Jehovah’s Witnesses, this sister is a particularly stringent one. I left the religion at the age of 18, having never been baptized. My parents play both sides by telling us that they love and accept my partner while also sympathizing with my sister’s disgust for same-sex relationships and her view that mine ought not to be welcomed into the family. A few months ago, I asked a sister whom I do have a relationship with to take my young son for two weeks at her home in the Midwest and requested that my other sister, because of our strained relationship and the pandemic, not be allowed to visit him. My estranged sister grew enraged and showed up anyway. She was allowed in, and no one ever apologized to me. I felt violated and betrayed.

As a result, I relocated with my son to a temporary rental near the university where I am a student, and I keep a distance from all my family members. Though it has meant less contact between my son and his grandparents (with whom he is very close), I took this step to protect my own mental health. Since then, I have been accused of taking my son away and “using my son as a weapon,” and these claims have circulated in the family even though we have visited my parents multiple times in the last several months. And in the past few years, my oldest sister had regular FaceTimes with my son when my mother was watching him. It has never been my intent to take away his aunt. All I’ve ever asked of my oldest sister is to meet my significant other and have a more normal relationship with us.

The times we have visited have not been free from drama: Once, when my father was talking on the phone with my estranged sister, I even overheard her say disparaging things about me. How can they expect me to feel comfortable visiting when this kind of upsetting thing might occur — and my son might even overhear it? I have tried to delay confrontation by saying I am busy finishing my studies, but my family feels my coldness and will not stop confronting me. This confrontation, in turn, feels a lot like gaslighting: How is it my fault that they feel this way about same-sex relationships? My family continues to deny that my oldest sister has done anything wrong, and they don’t see their complicity in the matter. I asked for mediation and even offered to cover the costs, providing my estranged sister did the legwork of finding the mediator. When they finally contacted a mediator, the professional mediation team, after individual consultations with us, concluded that there was “no mediatable issue.”

Am I wrong to insist that my oldest sister meet my partner if she wants a normal relationship with me and my son? Am I wrong to take a step back from the rest of my family and limit our contact because of their role in condoning this? And my most nagging question: Is there really no mediatable issue? Name Withheld
In a perfectly just world, everyone in your family would celebrate the successful, loving relationship you and your partner enjoy. (Congratulations, by the way.) You are owed acceptance and support, and those who deny this to you are in the wrong.

End of story? Clearly not. Jehovah’s Witnesses are among the Christian faith groups that espouse a “hate the sin, love the sinner” attitude toward homosexuality. It’s possible that your mediators withdrew because they feared tangling with religious doctrine, which can indeed make fraught situations even more so. If your oldest sister told them, accurately, that the family’s creed, as promulgated by its Watchtower Society, disapproves of homosexual acts, they might have concluded that there was nothing more to be said or done.
I’m a little more hopeful. First, while you’re understandably hurt and affronted, you’re also eager for reconciliation. Second, your parents and your other sister also want everything to work out — and happily spend time with you as a couple. Complications, of course, set in immediately. First, precisely because they want family harmony, they’re caught between you and your oldest sister. Second, they’re presumably not departing from their faith and its views about sin; they’re simply not challenging you on this.

It’s easy to dismiss tolerance as weak tea. Yet it’s what makes most families — most communities — work.

This is tolerance in the classic sense: They are putting up with, or looking past, the fact that you and your partner have a sexual relationship. In many circles these days, “tolerance” has a bad name; shouldn’t we really hold out for respect? It’s easy to dismiss it as weak tea. Yet tolerance of this sort is what makes most families — most communities — work. Tolerance enables people with different belief systems to live together, sometimes peaceably, sometimes lovingly. That’s no weak tea. You naturally object that these three family members are putting up with — rather than challenging — your sister’s disparagement of you, as well. But this would seem to be because they love you both. They don’t want to be fighting constantly with either of you, and they don’t think either of you is going to change.

You, too, are practicing tolerance, of course: You are putting up with the mistaken belief that there’s something wrong with the exercise of your sexuality. Although your family members belong to a creed you’ve rejected, you have reached a modus vivendi with them that seems mostly to have worked. You keep your self-respect by making it clear whenever they do wrong by you.

That happened when your non-estranged sister allowed your oldest sister to spend time with your son after you explicitly asked her not to. Yet (the voice of tolerance says) the sister looking after your child was in a difficult situation, with an angry sibling at her door. It’s understandable that she took the easier way. And you’d like your son to continue having a relationship with his grandparents and his aunts. So, now that you’ve made it clear what you think, there seems little point in trying to get them to acknowledge they erred in indulging your intolerant sister. What you can insist on is that you won’t leave your son with your parents again unless they promise that he won’t be with your oldest sister or otherwise exposed to disparagement of your relationship.

And they’ll accede to this only if they can persuade themselves that it isn’t a rejection of their eldest daughter. Yes, this is all maddening, and yes, there will be people who will zealously urge you to sever your ties with the lot of them. But for you, I suspect, amputation would leave you with phantom limb pain; you’ll still be fuming about their baseless claims and rehearsing majestic, irrebuttable arguments.
How much contradiction can you live with? Many philosophers, over the generations, have thought it terribly important that all our beliefs be consistent; according to “coherentism,” a belief is justified if it coheres with our other beliefs. In real life, the normative and factual beliefs we hold are a patchwork quilt. (I suppose that’s particularly obvious to me, having grown up on two continents with friends and family members belonging to very different ways of life and modes of thought, but it’s true for all of us.) Hence your family’s seemingly untroubled desire to maintain a loving relationship both with you and your intolerant sister. Concord, not coherence, is the goal.

Your most consequential choice is about what you want from your stringent sister. Christian traditions are rich and complex. As a result, people often pick out the parts that suit them. I confess to preferring the more open and loving side of Christianity — Christ’s caution that we shall be judged as we judge, that we ought to mind the beam in our own eye before we attend to the mote in the other fellow’s. So don’t give up quite yet: Remind your sister of these teachings. Even if homosexuality were wrong, hatred or contempt for conscientiously mistaken family members would be wrong, too. And unlike your sexuality, your sister’s attitudes are something she has it in her power to change. In this context, the Watchtower Society specifically directs our attention to its rendering of I Peter 2:17: “Respect everyone.” You have choices to make. So does she.

@Patiently waiting for Truth Kathgar is a British-Arabic Jehovah's Witness, last I seen him he said CSA is low due to most institutions being closed, but he did say in areas such as London, CSA is at it's worse, even after the Justice system debacle. Granted of how long he has been pushing on misconceptions and educating people on the matter, there should be more aware of CSA, mainly in the past 4 years now. JWs won't be preaching any time soon because of what the, in this case, The United Kingdom, will end up doing very soon. London is somewhat open, which explains why preachers congregant in Hyde Park.

@Srecko Sostar It isn't of interpterion. It is based on history. Even if we go back further, we can see the division between both parties concerning the Christ. Although Restorationism is a root, it's parent is practically Suborinationism, which was driven out by those who professed the teaching that later became known as The Trinity Doctrine. We also have the historical events of Bible Translation, which was brutal for some. This also connects to how paganism entered Christianity. Trinitarians, and those of the Prosperity Theology, are against Anti-Trinitarians whole heartedly, likewise, Anti-Trinitarians do not like their counterparts, and it has been this way for the longest time, so much so, as pointed out, Islam got involved too, which should tell you something.

That being said, when people do not know a bit of their history, they'll end up making wild assumptions.