6 hours ago, sami said:

@JOHN BUTLER I'm sure anyone can find a scripture to suit their own needs. 

sami  - Why have you not done that then? I'd like to see that scripture that says to wear clothing where your private parts protrude whether upper body or lower body.

@JOHN BUTLEROne other point on the clothing of brothers and sisters.  Assemblies and conventions are where the young ones / single ones go to find a marriage mate. Well they are not supposed to be looking 'in the world', so it has to be at the conventions. Not everyone wants someone from their own congregation. 

Hence the young and single want to look like young and single and who can blame them. Just because the GB are old frumps doesn't mean everyone has to be... And just because you don't like something doesn't mean everyone has to dislike it.

 

sami - I wonder how people attracted the opposite gender before the mass production of obscenely designed clothing? Could be Christian personality and spirituality would and has attracted the special person one would want to spend their lives with, HUH!!

When dealing with someone who has sold themselves to the mainstream Christendom, they yield upon their own understanding, opinions and emotion instead of the Bible, thus becoming easy prey to the E.I.I. the embodiment of Babylon's religion (as millions and millions, including those of a former faith denomination), from Israel, to the US, to the world and soon their little event will take place in Texas.

That being said, God knows who is form him, those who think they can approve for God are kidding themselves, thus such ones remain lost and or lukewarm.

@Gone Away His focus is regarding Suicide, and the views of those from ancient times to now of Suicide being a Sin, mainly taking into the account of what one of the laws in the Ten Commandments states [thou shalt not kill - Exodus 20:13], in regards as to why such one commits Suicide.

The verse and or Law from the Torah also as several references, including 2 more from the OT, such as Genesis 9:6, Deuteronomy 5:17, James 2:11, 1 John 3:15, and Revelations 21:8.

7 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

This part I don't agree with, or maybe I'm not following you completely.

As to what part is it what I said here that is of confusion to you? To be brief, if a sinner dies, he would no longer be able to sin, for a dead man cannot do anything at this point, a dead man cannot sin at all as he would in life, however any sin he has done when he or she use to walk the earth, they'll have to answer for, for because of God's Purpose, His Will, His Order, such ones would indeed be brought back to be judged, this goes for all men, even those who commit suicide in regards to the situation of as to why they did so to begin with.

7 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Without faith in Jesus, none of your/my sins are forgiven. Yes, our sins are washed clean by the blood of Jesus, by means of faith, not by us dying. Jesus didn't die for all mankind in the sense of those who reject Him, but rather those who put their faith in Him.

Jesus died so that man can believe in him. For God his Father, is spoken of as loving the world, that is, the world of mankind in need of redemption from sin, the very reason the sacrifice was in play here, we know this because of John 1:29, as with any verse that connects to this verse via reference.

Of course there are those who reject him, but you must take into account even those who reject him end up turning back around, thus accepting the Christ and accepting that he is Lord and believing that the God of the Christ raised him [Jesus] from the dead, for God wants all kinds of men to be saved to gain salvation and to endure until the conclusion of the End Times and the Day of God's Judgement that will be unleashed to those who strongly reject what is true and those who contend against God's Word, those who assume and or think such that is being asked is burdensome when such is to be done.

Even with Jesus' sacrifice we are to maintain faith for it is something that is a hard fight to contend for it, according to the slave of the Christ, of which I professed before in what was said in Jude 3.

7 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

This is where the Romans 6 verse is misused in my opinion by all who claim that upon death all people's sins are erased. This is also where I was drawing the question. If one believes that suicide is a sin and that Romans 6:23 absolves all sin upon death, then suicide cannot be wrong/sin because instantly that sin would be erased, nullifying the whole thing. 

Romans 6:23 isn't being misused here. Death itself is a sin, or as the Bible puts it, the sting of Death is sin, and to us of mankind, such a thing will continue to creep on to us until Death is done away with for good.

When someone dies, mainly if someone is rejecting the truth, he/she will have to answer to God in front of the White Throne, even should that person take his or her life willfully depending on the situation, some, who do take their life although the act is indeed a sin, such ones will have to answer for God still, and as I said before, God is a God of mercy.

Like I said, the reason why suicide is viewed as a sin by most is because of what the Law in the Torah stated about murder, taking a life, thus committing murder, mainly if it is done so in a situation that is not the best, is sin, be it if you take the life of others and or yourself, granted that life itself is indeed a gift from God, that being said, such things usually depends on the the individual and as to the reason as to why the act was committed.

Other than that, this view has been around for a while, predating all of us, hence the very reason I mentioned City of God.

In the end, no one can escape judgement, for every decision we make, mainly if some are in the wrong, we will have to answer for and God will be the judge of that.

6 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I would continue to converse with you about 'truth' but then I would probably be going off topic as this topic is about Forums  vs Social Media.  

 

The truth has already been spoken, many many times. You can speak your resolve still while being on topic, for people on social media and on forums who are true to themselves will most defiantly speak the truth, mainly when faced with falsehood against what they view, their race and or even their very culture. The shy ones, who tend to speak up feel empowered to do so via social media and online, they speak their peace but will be met with opposition and in the midst of people, those who come to defend the truth that is being spoken of.

For instance, regardless of your background and or where you come from, you will have people fit you into a sole stereotype and or group because of your color, we can have a black teenager who sees lies about people regarding his own ancestry online, knowing the truth himself he will speak it and clearly he won't be able for both ally and foe will be present on the internet.

On the internet people can make claim to be something, to pretend to be someone or something, but in reality, depending on their situation they themselves know it is a lie. People tend to do such because in reality they feel worthless and or other, lacking, so to speak, others use the internet and social circles on here because in real life they are depressed and or distance, for example, a young man can dwell in online video games to interact with people who do not judge him because in real life he is met with those who are against him, bringing up information and falsehood to slander him, his name, his race, where he is from and so forth.

Now, when it is regarding anything of God, we should not pretend and or try to, for in the end we will have to speak for the decisions we make, even brought back out of the dead to do so for death won't exempt anyone from judgement, mainly if so and so does bad things and or had bad intent, from anything violent, to immoral, to brazen conduct and or lifestyle, etc.

That being said, as to what you said, you are incorrect to say such things are of the world when you yourself just stated you use face book. The proper thing for you to have said is that we have social circles and forms on the internet that connects people with each other and those with same views, ideas and opinions, form relationships and so forth, but at the same time, such a thing is like a curse for people who are of wickedness will have bad intent and use such a tool to do bad things.

You were very wise to bring up Luke 10:21 also, but you should have also made a point as to such of what happen to Jesus is also happening to Christians today, there are people who mirror that of Pontius Pilate of Roman, Italy out there too, as with the Jews and or anyone from Earthly Jerusalem.

For a man can use a hammer to build a house, another man can use that same hammer to commit murder, we do not blame the hammer, we blame focus our attention on the individual who has the hammer in his hand. In this sense regarding social media and or any media form on the internet whereas communication like this is present, we have people who build houses with the hammer and people who, having bad intent, wanting to cause harm with that same hammer, the tool used by both the good and the bad.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

You are very deep Space Merchant. Above my intelligence and my knowledge. 

I am above no one, I merely accept truth, and solid facts regarding the information at hand, for we can take up all the knowledge in the world, but we are still slaves for what is true. Plus if you noticed, I have been encouraging you to learn and apply reason, for if a fellow man gives such criticism, best to take it when said empiricism can make you improve.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

However I like to think on this scripture where Jesus spoke to his heavenly Father :-

In that very hour he became overjoyed in the holy spirit and said: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have carefully hidden these things from wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children. Yes, O Father, because this is the way you approved. (Luke 10 v 21) 

I like this verse, and a good person I know who goes by the name Soulja of God, he likes this verse so much as such to make it the very basis regarding coverage of worldwide events, some of which is most likely unknown to all of you here maybe.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I don't try to be clever or to annoy anyone. I'm just me, sometimes happy sometimes sad. 

As for truth, which Roman was it said to Jesus, "What  is truth ?"  

You should be clever with anyone and since we are on topic of forum/social media, everything and anything you say has to be truth and of the truth, be it of something factual and or biblical, and you speak of it regardless of who is professing errors, something to which I hold strong conviction to.

At times when being knowledge of something, you will be met with hatred and yes, even trolls, you will have those who will even persecute you not solely on your faith, but of the color of your skin and I get that a lot, and this is the same fate the young children who express their stories of whom shared with me, and to those younger than them, also face, some of us, if not all, can relate, for hatred can stem even in the online/internet space.

The very reason I do not agree with you on what I posed in question, for good intent can come about tools that are in use to spread information while we defend what is true when those in opposition speak and do things of bad intent, some of them coming from emotional and opinion based views that result in negative action and or harm to others.

As for the last bit, the context of the passage is clear: Pontius Pilate, in question, is of the what the truth is in general, in no connection to what truth Jesus is speaking about, hence previous verse. Furthermore, Pilate asked a rhetorical question, in addition, he didn't even wait around for an answer. The very reason it why we can call Pilate the one who is jesting, someone who is obviously making a mockery of the Christ.

He is also the one to agree to condemn Jesus to crucifixion, after the Jewish leaders professed to him that Jesus a clear and present threat to Roman occupation through his claim to the throne of King David as King of Israel in the royal line of David.

Just like the situation with Pilate and Jesus, as well as the Jewish leader, even today such examples can be seen and people, who stand as such, just as Jesus was, are persecuted and made a mockery of, even on the Internet, hence, forums and social media.

What is truth? Should I speak the truth some will accept it, others will hate you and or become angered by said truth, but truly I say to ye, the truth sets you free, and at the same time, for some the truth does indeed hurt.

Those for the truth will continue to speak while others will simply speak in riddles and lie and or make false claims and accusations - anywhere and everywhere on the internet.

Those who are true to themselves will stand up and speak.

13 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Well said. And If JW parents adopt some non JW baby, after several years son/daughter get baptized as JW and after some time stop to be JW by diss or dfd. Then what would happen? This adopted child would be abandoned and ignored by foster family. What a beautiful life !?     

This is where you fail here, Srecko Sostar, I pointed this out because you yourself think the family unit is of blood only, has nothing to do with JWs, but if your heart wants to make it as such, anyone who is subjected to anything that results in grounds for excommunication, all church ties are cut.

At least if you are not going to go about on your own word, do not make the obvious shift and or change.

Anything in relation to Excommunication/Expelling still stands be it of blood relative and or adopted one, for church ties be it restored and or cut effects anyone.

That being said, I admire your effort and attempt, but no cigar. If you forget what you said and as to what I made a response to, re-read everything you posted prior to this response.

Also we have yet to see where you are getting Mathematics from, of which remains to be.... Unseen.

14 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Oh dear we get back to the same point i tell you every time. 

No, my friend, we are focused and are on topic here, for the pieces on the chess board has not moved and nor shifted. For this is regarding the word "Naked" in the passage, be if of Jehovah's Witnesses or not, the focus of the verse is in the Bible and it is the Bible I will speak of, you can continue to bring up JWs but the very original source of the Bible still stands, and your former JW counterparts are aware to the fact of what the word means in the Greek text, to which you are putting in application the literally vs. the Bible.

14 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I'm only interested in what the JW Org and their Governing Body do and say. 

Ok..... So what of John 21:7 regarding the word Naked? I see in their translation it says the following:

Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter: “It is the Lord!” Now Simon Peter, on hearing that it was the Lord, put on* his outer garment, for he was naked, and plunged into the sea.

*- Or “wrapped around himself; girded about himself.”

According to their understanding of the massage, as stated already:

• the disciple whom Jesus loved: That is, the one whom Jesus especially loved. This is the fourth of five occurrences mentioning a certain disciple “whom Jesus [or “he”] loved” or “for whom Jesus had affection.” (Joh 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20) It is generally believed that this disciple was the apostle John, the son of Zebedee and brother of James.—Mt 4:21; Mr 1:19; Lu 5:10; Joh 21:2; the reasons for this identification are given in the study notes on Joh 13:23; 21:20.

• naked: Or “lightly clad.” The Greek word gy·mnosʹ can have the meaning “lightly clad; in the undergarment only.”—Jas 2:15, ftn.; see study note on Mt 25:36.

You spoke of being one of Jehovah's Witnesses yourself, formerly, so I ask you here what issue you take with the word Naked when the Greek Strong's matches up with what their Bible professes?

Like I said, we are focused here when it comes to the Bible, and the verse in question is in the Bible of all translations, even the JW one. I don't need to bring up the verse on Bible Hub because that was the final link to which I posted in my last response, but I can quote myself for you:

15 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

John 21:7 on Biblehub: https://biblehub.com/john/21-7.htm

And now we have this:

14 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

When the Governing Body put the word naked in that scripture they did not expect that every reader would do deep research to find out what naked means in Greek. Come on SM I think you are the one making mountains out of mole hills here. 

Are you sure? As with all translations that have footnotes, references and the like, it tells you exactly what a word in a verse means or what the passage is in connection to, etc. When this is regarding nakedness, it can mean several things and since we know Peter is a fishermen and fishermen at the time girdled their under garments, it is no surprise.

The word "naked" has always been in scripture, mainly in this specific verse, the very reason I said, and I quote:

15 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

In Greek, the word for this [naked] is gymnos/gumnos in actual Greek writing, it is γυμνός and it's Strong's number, in Greek, is 1131. This word has about 15 occurrences in Scripture and it means what the Strong's say: nakedness, poorly dressed, under garment only, again, Biblehub even points to you of where to find these occurrence, John 21:7 being one of them.

Go to any Bible website that gives context for such words, everyone here likes biblehub, you show yourself to be very liking of the site of which I can see on this forums, yet when Biblehub is used it is a different story - as which can be seen here to everyone even guests and elsewhere. I invite you to read, from Bible Hub, for it is, as you said it yourself, very interesting indeed.

I also pointed out this:  Strong's 1903 ἐπενδύτης > https://biblehub.com/greek/1903.htm

Here is what Biblehub had to say which is identical to what your former faith reads, for perhaps this will ring some bells for one who was formerly of Jehovah's Witnesses:

Quote

He girt his fisher's coat unto him (for he was naked).--That is, as the words in the original clearly imply, he put on, and girded round his body the garment which workmen customarily used. This seems to have been a kind of linen frock worn over the shirt, and the Talmud has adopted the Greek word here used to express it. The word occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and the rendering "fisher's coat" probably gives a correct idea of what is meant.

The common usage of the Greek and Hebrew words answering to the English word "naked," makes it probable that St. Peter was wearing some under-garment, and that reverence for the Lord, into whose presence he is about to go, led him to add to this the outer frock. (Comp. Acts 19:12.)

14 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

When the Governing Body say something they are saying it to 8 million baptised people and another 8 million Bible students. I don't think the GB expect them all to research each and every word they say and write. 

In understanding the views and mind of Jehovah's Witnesses, their own religious leaders encourage them to do research in what the Bible says (you should know this, how this this slip from your radar), for if they didn't expect or have known no manuscript(s) information to be learnt by those of their community and or evidence to such then in God's name would they even be put on their website, thus they make available to the public?

To make matters even worse for you, on your part, this same information is scattered all over the internet, clearly not everything is bad on the internet when you have those who are true to themselves who speak but, mainly in the light of Biblical Theology, those even learning themselves.

That being said, I stated before, to JTR and others that the Jehovah's Witnesses are sitting at 8.45 million adherents (source), possibly, 8.5 million and they are growing fast for a minority faith community while on the other side of the spectrum mainstream Christianity is on a heavy decline and is being surpassed rapidly by Islam and I read somewhere Judaism is in the mix.

And that is their faith group alone, the numbers are far more bigger when you include study converts of JWs which is around like 21 million+ I would have to double check statistics in religion again for the numbers can change.

Other than that, back to focus regarding the verse in the Gospel of John for I will not let this glass of water spill over like elsewhere.

Now, Christians are suppose to make research and learn, for the Bible does speak about taking in knowledge of the Christ and his God, John 17:3 and ALL references, even outlined ones, being clear or what was said by Peter himself regarding accurate knowledge or perhaps Paul, I know you read things regarding Paul and his works; just as the Christ read and observe the law and learn about His God regarding the Law, we should read and research the Word daily to take in knowledge of God, of Jesus, of the Kingdom, the teachings of the Church and so forth, research is not a bad thing, for it keeps your the spiritual mind and body whole and strong.

14 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

When the word naked in written in English in an English Bible, it means exactly that naked.  If they wanted to get the idea over that Peter was 'lightly clad', 'in his underwear' they would have written that. 

The English Bible adheres to manuscripts (check out Biblehub for it is indeed interesting), naked in the Greek text can be something entirely different in the English dictionary, just like what was states on Bible Hub regarding the word naked to today's language vs. that in the Scriptures.

So comparing the 2 will not help you with your resolve.

It's no idea and for you to say such only proves the point further that you truly do not read the word for context and or understanding, you do not need a JW to hold your hand to gain biblical context, it is Biblical Fact, the fact you are still remain ignorant to manuscript evidence of the oldest sources we have only shows that you defeated yourself here with this one verse, you yourself even made it known, which can be accessible on Biblehub, as with the another  interesting verse where you most likely overwhelmed with the truth, like I said, why is it now something different with you, Butler? Biblehub is right there, and I know you have access to it, you revealed such before.

Go do the research because if you read the Bible, best for you to understand it because if you lack mainly in something so elementary and minor, how can you teach the Word if you do not understand it yourself, even going as far as to assume said word is identical to the English word when the Strong's, in Greek mind you, shows you the references and occurrences of that one word? For if you do not accept truth of this matter, you will not be able to teach the elderly, other adults and or children, not even toddlers, for even they know everything has context when they read something as simple as Dr. Seuss's Cat in the Hat or Green Eggs and Ham.

14 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Enough said. 

I take the words of our church fathers and the Bible, I do not take your understanding for you reveal your own word to be of what this topic is about, Traditions of Men, in this sense, you display the obvious man's understanding here.

Do the research and then return here or simply remain silent as the truth stares you in the face, furthermore, do not speak of something you are still unaware of, for as Jesus used a child in his example to his disciples, we are to learn, we are to apply - you, must do the same.

That being said everything explained to you cannot be proven wrong, and the Bible has been used against you quite easily, even the source of the Bible itself and the evidence and Strong's we have in this day and age.

Therefore it can be said here, the one who mostly makes the attempt to speak of Traditions of Men, is most definitely the very one to be practicing Traditions of Men, and it is obvious and clear.

The truth has been professed to you, do what you will, for the truth isn't for everyone and sometimes the truth is too much to handle for it is that great. You have been burned, and rinsed.

7 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Admin said : With a forum, you can create your own personality unique for that forum. You don't need to reveal your real name, or photo.

This is true, but a forum is still listed under anything and everything social media. Anyone can go on the internet and say that they are Batman, they can lie about their age and or background, they can identify themselves that they are a Toaster with strict conviction.

9 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

My reply was : Um, so people can pretend to be someone else and tell lies and do all sorts of mischief 

Indeed, and even lies can be believed as truths as well as conspiracy, thus being used against those they target and or deem as a, in their eyes, a threat, other times for ill intent and or an attempt to become viral in some cases, of which there are many, many examples of.

10 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

You said : No one is pretending anything,

I rather you not twist my words, I stated that regarding this response: And lets not pretend that any JW doesn't have some outside interest.

The very reason it was the last one in my response, to which I even concluded by saying: Whatever decision one makes with his or her time they will answer for that, mainly if their intent is of bad taste, regardless of who you are.

So I ask you, Butler, what did you not get in what I have stated in regards to my response to you so I can make it even more detailed and clear?

13 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Um, your user name is : Space Merchant, Biblical Storm Trooper. With a picture of a Storm Trooper  

And there is a reason as to why I use the Storm Trooper image and what I have been called by the late young one who loved Storm Troopers, the very reason I maintain this avatar. I am actually an islander, for my own culture and background is entrenched in the islands itself, I am refereed to as a Biblical Storm Trooper because of my Biblical studies and this young one knowing how I am seeking all kinds of knowledge regarding God, I am referred to as such, hence his word sits in my memory and very soon I will see this young one again when he is rearrested by the Christ by means of God.

The name Space Merchant comes from short stories my mother made when she was a child, and I figured, the name was not taken here so I reside with it.

20 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And you still say 'No one is pretending anything' ?

Read and understand what I stated before you yield about empty assumptions or ask for better clarification if you are still lost, for if you had noticed I was being very specific on a portion of what you said.

22 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Wow, so you are a real Storm Trooper, fantastic. 

And when they hear his voice and they come out of their tombs and such ones being reunited with lost loved ones, this will be among the many things I will speak to the young one of what I had endured before the conclusion of the end times.

That being said, mainly in regards to my own experiences and history, I am not one to pretend things, therefore, I hold conviction to what I say and to what I myself make note of and research, especially when it comes to the Bible.

Everyone can say or do things on social media, but there are those who are true to themselves and do not kid, they do not lie, they do not speak of conspiracy or yield upon something in terms of emotional and position based on mere opinions.

As for a forum, it is no different, for just like anything and everything on the internet, you have a mixed bag of persons all over the place. This also goes for the virtual space, i.e. those who are in the realm of online video games for some are true to themselves, thus not here to play pretend while others are lying to themselves and fool around, even those who reveal themselves to have very bad intent and causes such both verbally, and at times, physical should they meet the person.

19 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Are but who's choice of modesty ? Oh of course the GB's and the Elders.  

Maybe what Jehovah wants of every one is a bit of individuality.    

Are I've just noticed you say 'JW' standards, not God's standards. 

The Bible speaks about modesty and such is followed by all persons with different backgrounds, cultures, etc. Not everyone who lives in Africa, or Span will be 100% identical to such ones like Americans in terms of food, clothing and or other.

The only people who take issue with such things are those who have the mentality of Yale University Students who are dubbed as Snowflakes.

Other than that the point made by Librarian is there, nothing really is notable unless you make it seem this way.

19 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Perhaps I have missed something ... but I thought everybody in this picture was dressed appropriately ... even though the Brother in the Tan suit looked afraid he was about to become a hand puppet.

 

The Brother in the above picture, on the left with the pale blue shirt has his shirt sleeves partially rolled up ... is that it?

Is that the problem?

 

 

I do not see a problem here, granted it is easy to tell the depiction of where these individuals are, could be in certain areas in the EU and the majority, the US, granted the image was most likely made there.

No indication of anyone being in Spain, Africa, or perhaps Scotland.

On 9/30/2018 at 12:03 AM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

This is especially true with Sisters that are so ugly they would scare paint off a dump truck.

What some may see as ugly may be seen as something of gold and beauty to someone else.

That being said in terms of appearance, I have been compared to in likeness some guy called [nerd/clown] Xavier Woods, and have been called that even I do not even look like the guy.

 

But hey, it is what it is.

On 9/30/2018 at 3:11 AM, JOHN BUTLER said:

Yes, well it does belong to the world. As for trolls, I have been called such. Unfortunately some people use the term when they don't like what a person says. 

But, it was on Facebook, that I first heard about the child abuse within the JW Org. Well I wasn't going to hear about it in the congregation was I ? But of course i dismissed it for a long time as being 'trolls', 'haters' etc. However when they started posting links that seemed to have some 'cred' then I started looking into in with an open mind. 

I actually like Facebook. It's great fun if used properly. 'Pages' about classic cars for instance, one of my hobbies and loves. And lets not pretend that any JW doesn't have some outside interest. 

If it is of the world, why are you using it, let alone why are you here or using the Internet? Unless you didn't mean to say such or otherwise. And as for Facebook, okay if used properly, but is it not of the world as you stated just now? Like I said time and time again, people with good intent and those with bad intent can use and or affiliate themselves with anything and or anyone, examples being surely you do not know about those on Facebook who in secret exchange information regarding child human trafficking and so forth or perhaps manipulators on that platform and or the very fact your every move is being monitored, etc.for not everyone uses Facebook properly, I myself do not use Facebook at all and speaking about Facebook I suggest you change your password and but a 2-step due to recent hacks of many users.

The same point I made to Srecko assume in his own cryptic message in his own word that the birds provide for him regarding internet access.

Social media is both a blessing and a curse, it can be used for good intent while for others bad intent. Being informed of something be it late and or at an expecting time does not define you as a hater and or troll. Haters are those who rally and entice hatred of a person and or group, to the point of mob mentality, examples being anyone who is of the same ethnic group of me can say all white Americans are evil, surely I do not believe that for I believe there is good people and among the good bad people, nor do I adhere to racism and discrimination even if it comes from blood and or friend or foe, etc.

Social media can spark conspiracy and even going as to the point to cloud information and or sources until research is made to find said truth in a bail of hay, examples like being aware of what Israel and US allies are doing that the general public does not know about, and or any action made to take out a person and or group of people and so forth.

No on is pretending anything, only you brought this up. Whatever decision one makes with his or her time they will answer for that, mainly if their intent is of bad taste, regardless of who you are.

Also read up on the behavior of trolls on the internet, it is important to know these things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

As far as I know majority of trolls, in the religious space are Anti-Religious, little to no one who is religious is a troll for they are the ones defending themselves against trolls.

On 9/30/2018 at 5:11 AM, JOHN BUTLER said:

The only part of your comment i will bother to answer is the point of Peter being naked whilst fishing.

I say naked because the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses have put exactly that in their translation of their newest Bible. 

If they see fit to use the word naked then i presume they mean naked. And they say they are guided by God's holy spirit. 

Please remember, I am only interested in what Jehovah's Witnesses say and do, and what instruction their leaders give them. 
 

Like I told you about 2 Corinthians 5:20 regarding substitute/supplicate as with the understanding of ambassadors,

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/70398-2-corinthians-520-substitute-or-supplicate/?do=findComment&comment=108183

if the Strong's match up, there is no error and or problem. Once again you have proven yourself to be totally oblivious to the Greek Strong's, for last I checked Jehovah's Witnesses, as with other Christians follow both the Hebrew/Greek Strong's accordingly vs. those who do not, be it oblivious, ignorant and or dumbfounded to this fact, 1 Timothy 3:16 being an example whereas JWs are blamed for removing GOD/THEOS from the verse when in reality, other translations did the same because, wait for it, GOD/THEOS was never in the oldest source, something of which it was professed before, and one occasion I went off overboard, not going according to my updated notes on the matter, thus confusing myself, but in the end, the correction has been made.

Maintain your focus on Biblehub (https://biblehub.com/nas/john/21.htm) regarding verse 7 because if I use other sources with Strong's the evidence of being oblivious will stack up against you, so this will be very lite. Now, the word naked Or “lightly clad, poorly dressed, and or the wearing of only an under garment. In Greek, the word for this [naked] is gymnos/gumnos in actual Greek writing, it is γυμνός and it's Strong's number, in Greek, is 1131. This word has about 15 occurrences in Scripture and it means what the Strong's say: nakedness, poorly dressed, under garment only, again, Biblehub even points to you of where to find these occurrence, John 21:7 being one of them. Like I said in the last thread, you enjoy the use of Biblehub, use it properly, take a good look at the Strong's of a specific word and grasp it fully, otherwise you will be grilled for it. If this was CSE they would grill you thrice-fold, if this was Hyde Park, well, at this point it is like sending a man unarmed into the field of combat, therefore, understanding this information is crucial, for anyone can read the Bible and but to understand it, what the words mean and the context will show who knows their Bible and who does not, hence why I will respond here and tell you to, on your screen Mr. Butler, take time to read into the Strong's before you make a response like this.

Read, observe, meditate and apply: http://www.godrules.net/library/strongs2b/gre1131.htm | https://biblehub.com/greek/1131.htm | https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/dictionary/viewTopic.cfm?topic=IT0006261

As for the Jehovah's Witnesses, in their note and study they even state the following: naked: Or “lightly clad.” The Greek word gy·mnosʹ can have the meaning “lightly clad; in the undergarment only.”—Jas 2:15, ftn.; see study note on Mt 25:36.

That being said, to speak on Jehovah's Witnesses regarding John 21:7 is rather weak on your part, granted of as to why and where they adhere to in terms of Textual and Biblical Criticism and correct use of Strong's being at play here and since this can easily be seen by those who knows such this, can see that you are incorrect, thus being in the wrong.

And I said what I said because of what you said here: 

On 9/29/2018 at 4:50 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

I can't understand why Peter went fishing in the nude anyway. It must be a dirty smelly job.

But my point was that Jesus never rebuked Peter.  However the Elders will tell a brother off for attending a meeting whilst not wearing a tie. 

And

On 9/25/2018 at 12:28 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

A witness must be dressed in a tidy manner at all times (even though Peter went fishing naked).

Hence the response.

On 9/30/2018 at 5:58 AM, JOHN BUTLER said:

I'll give you an instance. My brother 'invited' me to his house to help him take a ceiling down which he was having replaced. 

It was a very old ceiling, the house being over 100 years old. The work was very dirty. We took the ceiling down and left it of the room floor as there was lots of dust. So he suggested we went to McDonalds for some food to let the dust settle and clear our heads of the dust and grime. I agreed. However he changed his clothes to look smart before we went out. I said we would be continuing work when we returned so I would not change. Thereby came the difference of opinion. He said we should look smart at all time and I quoted God's word about Peter being naked and Jesus did not rebuke him. 

It is therefore my opinion that this 'being smart at all times' is teachings of men, not of God.

I can see the reasoning of being smart for meetings and field ministry, but not whilst working. 

Oh yes, the plasterer arrived to put up the plaster board and do the finishing work. He is a brother. He was so scruffy in his work overalls covered in paint and plaster i just had to laugh. 

Changed his clothing to look smart? As in smart what are you purposing here, Butler? There is no issue with someone having a change of clothing after doing some form of work, example would be working in a medical field where blood is on your work clothes, and so forth, so and so can either change into causal, a suit, what have you to go anywhere, some even choose not to change depending on the situation and or if their closing is not that messed up and or defiled.

This is another example of something you profess that is of your own and not of God, for what I see here is your brother made his decision to not retain clothing that is messed up, but rather go and change, so I do not see how this example pushes your resolve when you yourself revealed this is of your own opinion but never speak on what the Bible says.

As for anyone who puts their lives for the Missionary Work of the Good News Gospel and of the Messianic Age, such ones have to be modest while out and about doing this service, for Jesus himself was spoke of cleanness, as is spoken of in the Bible, so therefore, he making he decision to change his clothing, change out of his work clothes into something clean and presentable, is no issue at all.

So to say that is a Teaching of Men only reveals how wrong you are and basing something so minor on your own emotion and opinions, when you yourself stated you read the Bible, when the Bible speaks of cleanness about 45+ times and of being of modest appearance.

That being said, for that last part, in my eyes, a person who does the work of his hands is a show of someone who is hard working, mainly when you can see it on his or her hands and on their attire.

On 9/30/2018 at 5:58 AM, JOHN BUTLER said:

Thereby came the difference of opinion. He said we should look smart at all time and I quoted God's word about Peter being naked and Jesus did not rebuke him. 

Learn what the word "Naked" is in both Greek and Hebrew, do not make the same mistake Srecko does when comparing an English Dictionary in an attempt to counter the the Strong's itself, hence the pother thread I linked and you being totally unaware of such and assuming the man, a Fisherman of all people, was totally naked, or as you said, in the nude, when the context defeats you before it was even presented.

I also suggest looking into the history of Fishing regarding those times and onward, people use to do the same method even to this day whereas they stick to the old and yet still working techniques.

I do not see why the rebuke when Jesus himself knows the job of Fishermen, let alone him speaking of the Parable of Drawing in the Net (Matthew 13:47–52).

Other than that the next time you want to explain something, do so without yielding upon your ever so obvious man understanding vs. biblical understanding, for if one is to understand what is included in the Traditions of Men, using Man's Understanding regarding a passage and or verse is an evident one, which can be seen displayed by you here- Mark 7:8 [1-9] (see Galatians 1:14, Colossians 2:8)

As for our JW counterparts, or you since you are formerly a JW, on this forum, even their own word speaks against you in this matter: Remember, the Pharisees of Jesus’ day were inclined to make big issues of minor matters, sometimes of infractions of rules based on human standards and not on the instructions or principles of God’s Word. By one-sidedly emphasizing minor things, they obscured the weightier things of God’s Word. (Mark 7:1-9, 14, 15, 20-23; Matt. 23:23)

Read more, and research - know the difference of what is leavened and unleavened (1 Corinthians 5:8) otherwise you start a battle and lost it before it even starts.

John 21:7 on Biblehub: https://biblehub.com/john/21-7.htm

@James Thomas Rook Jr. Jesus spoke of natural disasters that will happen even into our day. Such things will effect every and all persons regardless if a person is good and or bad, for the rain hits our heads and the sun shines on us and the fact that we all get buried in snow. Regarding the deceased, what happens to them can happen to any of us, any time, for death is like a chain you carry everyday until one day said chain gets you caught up in some mess.

That being said, the only thing assuring in all this is the fact that the Christ knows who is on his side and the side of His God, and such ones will once again walk the earth for they will no longer be held powerless in the earth in Hades.

Death comes for us all, JTR, you cannot hide from it, you cannot cheat it, you cannot reason with it, you cannot pull a Bug's Bunny on it either, when the time comes, to Hades one sleeps, until the day comes when you will rise after being told to come out, and Death itself will be defeated for good, symbolically, thrown into the Lake of Fire.

2 hours ago, Jack Ryan said:

@Space Merchant  True Christian JW's are supposed to 'quit being fashioned after this system of things' and put away national identities and embrace the JW culture above all.

There is NO place for such nationalistic pride within the JW community. But that is for another discussion.

Meanwhile... no skirts above the knee for sisters!!!

AND while we are at it.... those tight pants... FORBIDDEN!!!

"You must be perfect". or else.... sisters will gossip about you as in the illustration above.

Welcome to the mentally warped world of JW fashion and life. Hypocrisy at its best.

Dresses of one's cultural background isn't some extreme fashion sense, it isn't even view as such binded to that culture and so forth and you do not have to share the view of the Jehovah's Witnesses to realize this, for it is obvious, therefore it isn't something of a nationality identity, it is something embedded in the people itself, examples being in Africa, you would see Africans don garbs and or robes affiliated with their place of origin, the same goes for parts of Asia, The Middle East, parts of the EU, etc, for it is no different from men/women wearing a suit/dress in the Americas, but it would seem Americans do not know any better and or take into account things outside and overseas.

It isn't of national pride, granted of what I have already stated. Unless to can show me, anywhere that such is of national pride regarding someone being born into said culture and so forth, but that information will and forever will be  unfounded with you.

No one is perfect, if we were perfect, we wouldn't be born sinners, we wouldn't be succumbing of death and sickness and there would be a fallen angel who is like a beast ruling this world as we speak. Or else? No church goer will go about speaking gossip of a woman who is from Africa and dresses in a way because she is from Africa.

As for gossip, the only thing said is how how so and so posed or as is stated "sexy pose" aka "hand(s) on hip", nothing is said about the dress expect for the fact that such a dress of Spain is not taken likely elsewhere outside of it's place of origin, perhaps a woman dressed this way who roams about New York will be looked at funny and talked about but in Spain it is common - this goes for any tradition garb/dress/outfit that comes from their place of origin, for instance, a Kibou Garb will draw attention in the US, even gossip, but not in Japan, furthermore, I even stated, and you also, this was an International Convention, meaning JWs, and guests are all included here. Anything international, someone can come as a Pikachu and not be talked about, yet roaming about as a Pikachu in the states will result in reactions and unnecessary attention and gossip.

No, it is only hypocrisy if you lack in the culture and history of others, assuming everything is of national pride when no such thing is the case. People, mainly the Spaniards only where such is due to where they are from, where they are born, they do not express pride here, they only show of who they are and hat cultural background they are from. But by all means, Ryan, I'd like to see you attempt to inform these people to dress in a normal suit and or dress as is done in America, perhaps do the same in Africa and Japan, surely they will not be too pleased.

That being said, one being prideful would be obvious, they'd put themselves front and center and are not of any religious following and or in connection to such. As for you, you show the mentality of those who are mad and bad in a  crusade regarding cultural appropriation, only this time, the Religion Edition.

Open your eyes man and learn these things, this is coming from a guy who is aware of such because he himself [me] is also binded by culture and having a background strongly connected to this culture, and obvious not showing any national pride.

9 hours ago, Anna said:

Hmmm, I don't think it would go down well with the shoppers at Tesco if I went to the store in the buff.

I guess he wants Christians to sport the Charismatic Christian-look, Man-Bun included, somewhat tight pants, a Levi jacket and dark shades. For last I checked, a man who is to take the lead among the church is to suppose to shepherd the sheep that flock, not be borderline prepared for yoga sessions on a Saturday afternoon. Modesty is key, and it is important, just as it is important to maintain cleanliness.

That being said, Tesco? The Northern Fire Service Companies? If it is them, I assume those guys always dress the part for their business in a modest fashion.

On 9/25/2018 at 12:28 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

I really do have a laugh at your comments. Although to read that you say i am right is nice.

Would it not be wise to respond to JTR on the topic of which he posted in rather than start an entirely new topic that has little resolve?

On 9/25/2018 at 12:28 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

The only reason why that I can fathom is that the GB love having control over people. And, like the Pharisees, they make up their own rules known as 'the traditions of men'. 

A church who harbors leaders and or stewards, having authority over people of the church is not a Tradition of Men and it is hypocritical to think of it as such.

The structure of the church is of God's Order, the very reason we see in the Greek New Testament churches, with those being of authority in the church, hence being the head, and under them stewards and overseers, pastors, bishops and the like, the head with the church work as one, the head is only there to advise and instruct so that the church does not stray, did you miss what took place in the First Epistle to the Corinthians of how things went South only for Paul, write to them to correct the issue in a peaceable matter, even heeding word from a resident in the area regarding the issue?

Apostle Paul and anyone who is entrusted authority in the church is not a Pharisee, if you think of such, I suggest you tear out anything in relation to the church out of your Bible, as some have when this was raised to them.

Like I said before, the Jehovah's Witnesses are Restorationist, they do not make up their own rules, they go about following the Early Apostolic Church in order to keep the church spiritually upright, modest, maintain faith, nothing more.

On 9/25/2018 at 12:28 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

Traditions of men in the JW Org :-

They are not different from Biblehub, Blueletter, UCG, Biblestudytools, Christaintoday, BibleGateway, Bible Org, and over a dozen others.

The social media platform is to not only profess the faith, but of what the Bible teaches. Examples being, if we are to understand as to why they do not celebrate Christmas, they will inform you and give the reason, furthermore, you can go back centuries, predating them to find out even Christians at that time did not like Christmas at all for it was not something to be practiced by Christians, I informed Matthew6969 about this sometime ago and at that time I was more of facts vs. going about things from memory.

So how is telling the history of the Christ Tradition of Men? Surely if you say this of their own platform, you should be able to give an example and or point. I do not see anything out of whack in this sense, therefore, this statement of yours is a bluff and or unfounded.

On 9/25/2018 at 12:28 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

Men must wear a suit and tie. Women are not allowed to wear trousers, must wear dress or skirt.

Modesty, enough said. If modesty is not among them, Gang-Stalkers will be going to their churches in masses, and the category of Gang-Stalkers I am referring to is those with intent to go after men/women and subdue them into sexual immorality, something of which is very common and is seen all the time, thus those who claim to be Christian are not Christian for their actions and or what they have done, more or so, becoming a Gang-Stalker themselves.

A Christian should always be clean, always be modest, this is something the individual and or the church must adhere to without question. To do otherwise is only inviting of bad habits and or other associations that brings forth more unnecessary things into the church, regardless of who and or where.

On 9/25/2018 at 12:28 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

A witness must be dressed in a tidy manner at all times (even though Peter went fishing naked).

The Disciple of the Christ, Simon Peter was lightly claded, granted, the implication that he was wearing some kind of inner garment while working, and likely was not naked. Did you really think, Peter, a Fisherman, would go 100% willy, nilly, breeze between his legs and knees while going fishing? He wouldn't jump into the water with his everyday clothing, so he strips of his outer garments, leaving him with his inner garments when going fishing, mind you, this is how it is done in ancient times, for Peter girded up his outer garments, even the art of this verse/passage shows this, as seen here:

 

I suggest you take a GOOD look at Strong's 1903 ????????? > https://biblehub.com/greek/1903.htm

If you really think he went in there 100% birthday suit, you missed a lot of what is going on here, and you do not pay attention to the Greek Strong's in this sense when it shows you the truth of the matter. That being said, if Simon Peter was alive on earth in 2018, most certainty he wouldn't be going into the sea with a suit and tie, or his good clothing he bought at Marshall with perhaps his iPhone in his pocket that contains his Scriptural Notes and studies, water damage would waste all of that.

On 9/25/2018 at 12:28 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

A Man is not allowed to be alone with a Woman he is not married to, unless it suits the elders of course.

This is because in today's day and age, as with us being imperfect, fleshy desires can be made manifest, just as sin can manifest in actions being done and or by doing nothing or not doing what you are suppose to do. This rule also stems in the likes of culture, mainly if you know the type of person the man and or woman is.

When it comes to the church, people have to be careful, for even those among them can step away and stray from what the bible teaches, and will commit to actions that will surprise the church and or others.

For surely, John, if you had/have a wife, you wouldn't want her being in the presence, alone with someone who does not really give a care for your views, beliefs and or background, for his intent will be something of minor to something major, mainly if you yourself do not trust the guy, in my language such ones are refereed to as Boy [fille] à la recherche de problèmes, a man/woman who seeks trouble.

So any extra precautions is often necessary so one does not stumble, it can be done by the church and or a family itself, or relative.

On 9/25/2018 at 12:28 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

A Witness can only celebrate the things the GB say they can.

As far as I know, Jehovah's Witnesses main celebration is the Sacrifice the Christ has made for you, for them, for me, for all, in short, it is refereed to by them as the Memorial of Jesus Christ.

For Jesus never spoke of celebrating his birth, but rather, to remember his death and what it signifies.

These Traditional Holidays of Men do not stem from the Church, Christmas is an example because Jesus' birth is unknown and it was never on December, those who make claim can easily be defeated with a passage and Jewish Customs without much an effort.

People nowadays think Christmas is a Christian Holiday not realizing that even back then this Holiday was banned by Christians for a large number of reasons.

So if a Pastor says do not celebrate that or this, he is telling you. You have free will, you either take his word because it stems from what the Bible speaks against, or go about your own dwelling and celebrate such, not realizing anything of how the practice is in relation to spirits taking up a home, and or Sun God worship - the choice is yours.

Believe it or not, a lot of Christians, even Jews and Muslims do not celebrate most of the Holidays that most, mainly in the US, celebrate.

On 9/25/2018 at 12:28 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

But, if you are saying that every man only has a woman friend to have sex with, then that is a narrow minded viewpoint. But it seems to be the viewpoint of the GB. To accuse people of having sex just because they have been in the same building together seems a bit OTT in my viewpoint. And then what of two brothers or two sisters ? Would the GB accuse them of the same these days ?  I've known brothers that live together in the same house, oh dear ! 

When sexual impulses arise, people who are unmarried will most likely end up having intercourse, mainly such is very, very, VERY common today since the mentality of I Don't Need to Marry to Have a Relationship is on the rise, families being started when those who create the family structure are not married at all.

For marriage is something of importance to God and we, as Christians should respect and honor that. The Bible says a man will leave his mother and father to be his wife, never has the Bible says a Man will leave his mother and father to live with his wife, and then get married.

And those that do, have to keep themselves in check, mainly when the whole marry ceremony didn't even take place yet, keep it together until marriage or you only show you were not ready for marriage to begin with, a mistake many people make.

People are not accused of having intercourse when not even married yet, but there are those with concern with the possibility of something to take place.

As for the last bit, people do not take issue with brothers living with brothers, just as a college dorm with only men, the issue is of those of the opposite sex being together in the same space, mainly when the two are attractive to each other and are not even married yet.

The very reason this type of segregation of sexes exist other institutions such as boy/girl scouts, you cannot put them in the same room, the same goes for college dorms, you cannot do that either, yet some try to break the rules and next thing you know, breaking news and expelling from campus and so forth. It is no different with a church trying to maintain and be very concern regarding this matter.

I myself, if I was a father, I would not want my daughter to be living with someone who is highly attracted with her, for if anything happens, it would be dishonoring of the family name, when news hits one family member, everyone finds out an it is utter chaos, but if the two were married, no chaos will ensue, and or if such ones are mature enough to keep themselves in check, save themselves for marriage and so forth.

On 9/25/2018 at 12:28 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

The question should arise as to WHY do the GB and the Elders not believe a child or adult when that one reports Child abuse ? 

You mention this time and time again and you will get the same answers over and over and over.

It isn't a matter of believing someone of abuse or not, it is a matter of what action the church is suppose to take for such a thing took place in their community, their circle, their church.

To be brief, the church will end up doing an internal investigation of their own, no different from other institutions and or cooperate institutions, etc. They will hold that information and will give said information if it is enough to be proven as evidence, the next thing they'll do is to instruct the abused and family to inform the police, for Religious and educational institutions normally, and it is common, do not want to succumb to the bystander effect regarding child abuse, but often times, they are through into the mix. Then comes trying to minimize those who seek blood regarding child abuse, hence the stories I posted before when families who are instructed to go to the police becomes the law themselves and will often become not helping the victim, but making things worse.

That being said, no one is stopping anyone from going to the police, as Child Abuse and Neglect Services TEACHES if one adults is of little to no help, seek another adult, I do not see how the PSA's and what is taught to children regarding child abuse isn't any clearer.

But not even these institutions are safe from Child Abuse, as of recent news even Playgrounds and Play-Areas in places like Restaurants abuse is done there now, Jungle Justice would have been the end of it but no one wants to be a bystander, and no one wants human blood on their hands for taking the law in their hands.

It is also good to mention C&N prevention teaches the signs of what an abuser tends to do, and the signs of someone who is abused, I, as do many, adhere to this and this is often brought up by the young ones I speak to at the B&G clubs.

On 9/25/2018 at 12:28 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

As for me, I'm not important. The scriptures tell us that none of us are important. So what is important of course is the sanctification of God's name and trying to serve God to the best of our ability.  This brings me back to square one. 

But doing everything for God and trying to follow the Bible 100% makes you an enemy, today's Christendom only follows 50% and or less. This goes with what you have mentioned about Peter not realizing the context, assuming he was literally naked and or the other thread when you didn't realize how incorrect you and Srecko were when even Biblehub shows you the Strong's for that word in question.

If little things are amissed, you are lacking spiritually. We may have hiccups in some cases, but this is unacceptable, do not be like the Trinitarian who revealed to himself that he himself defeated his own words, and those are still here.

If you read the Bible, such things should be obvious, we may not agree with someone else, but it is our duty as Christians to maintain that neutrality, we speak up to the accursed, and when dealing with anyone who profess to he Apostolic Age it is very tricky because anything can easily land you in front of the white throne of Judgement,examples like knowing of whom God approves when you cannot speak for God, God speaks for himself.

The very reason why I educate myself on faiths of others and what is actually accursed, so I do not make the mistake mainstream Christendom makes, for there is an example already of how feelings, and opinions vs. Biblical Fact in one case, when both Witness and Srecko had been refuted regarding church authority.

On 9/25/2018 at 12:28 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

The GB are doing neither of the above. They are trying to clean the outside of the dish or cup but not cleaning the inside. Jesus called such people hypocrites. 

I do not see how they are hypocrites for following this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Age

Mind you, we must not forget what you stated early on regarding those leading a church just as Paul and others have done, which can be read in the Bible, in Paul's case, he was giving instruct, trying to reason with those of the church, mainly to those in the Church of Corinth, and we see the outcome in Second Epistle to the Corinthians.

On 9/25/2018 at 12:28 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

It really stuns me that some people cannot see that the GB are bringing shame on Jehovah's name. They are also stumbling so many people. 

As far as I know, Restorationist will do what is necessary to follow the church and the teachings as time progresses, for if they were truly blind, people would see it, but the more they look at Restorationist Christians, the more then begin to question what is mainstream Christendom is doing. To add more fuel to the fire, you have Muslims pretty much exposing the lies of mainstream Christianity, thus nearly making the words of actual Christians in the correct. I've already posted a very nonsensical view of the holy spirit professed by the mainstream only for all 3 men to be defeated by a Muslim who reads the Bible.

And since we are talking about JWs here, the only JW I challenged a while back was a former Muslim turned JW, Pakistani known as Kathgar (a regular on the Dawah channels), for at the time, I was still learning, I challenged him on the actions of Israel and the only reason I id because of misinformation from an Agnostic guy who has a disdain for religion as a whole, at the same time in those debates taking place, I had to deal with tricky Trinitarians, those of whom who ignore the teachings of the church and rely on Bibles that contains errors and forgery, hence by dislike of the KJV, ONLY due to the Spurious text and erroneous changes.

@Jack Ryan You do realize the cultural and dress of those in Spain right? But hey, not everyone knows the cultural of such persons, for it is no surprise people in the West do not know.

What they are wearing is Traditional Clothing in Spain. The woman, in the picture, are wearing a Spanish Feria Dress (also similar and or related to the Andalusian dress), it is not a tight dress, for it is fitted and is of an agreeable size with the wearer, furthermore, it should occur to you is those conventions held by Jehovah's Witnesses, mind you international, consist of them and guests, i.e. anyone who studies with them and or tags along, friend, relative and so forth.

The dresses used by Spaniard women and or anyone affiliated with their culture tends to use such dresses for festivals and or other gatherings, at times, more associated with anything in relation with flamenco, Music Genre/Style, mind you, most it is a lot of guitar playing with a hint of Spanish sounds and instruments that differ from music found in the US, therefore, you can not only feel, but hear the culture.

The man is wearing something in relation to the traditional clothing referred to as Traje De Chulapo (Traje De Chulapa for women). It isn't tight, it is pretty loose when wearing it.

The culture of origin and or worn: Madrid/Andalusia/Spain

That being said, you cannot be totally blind to people of different backgrounds and or culture, Ryan, it isn't too surprising as men wearing kilts (not called man-skirts) to similar events, as already mentioned to Srecko Sostar a while back.

7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Yes, yes, in technical terms, in mathematics way of explanation we can say that.

If one potato living basket he is not part of that basket. But he is still potato grew up in the same pot/peace of soil and got the attributes of his family. So practicality, spiritually and by genetic he is part of that very family. If they don't want talk to each other that is their problem. Such "detail" (about their dis-functionality) is not reason to reject the indisputable fact how they belong to each other by blood. And have all legal and human obligations to each other by the both laws, God's and Terrestrial. :))) 

One of fundamental law is to have conversation. And NOT to ignoring other by silence. Ok, when you are angry you will not speak for awhile, but angry must stop before sun goes down, :)))))) Bible said, haha  

You do not need mathematics and or complex and sound equations to know what a Family Unit is.

I'd also like to say, someone can be part of your family even though they are not of blood, example, adopting a child, taking in a pet, etc.

You can be a billionaire, and have everything in the world, money can replace anything in the house, however, money cannot replace family members, for if one ceases, such one cannot be replaced, be it man or beast.

The verse you are looking for is Ephesians 4:26, which reads: Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger,

On 9/22/2018 at 4:51 PM, JW Insider said:

That thought crossed my mind as I saw the picture, but then I held back from saying anything so that no one would get the idea that SuziQ's pretzel stick favorites were actually just "bite-size torture stakes." (Somehow "hot cross buns" seems like a much easier name for a marketing team to promote.)

By the way, some people might think that when Space Merchant mentioned that he was a unitarian, that this was the same as claiming to be a non-Witness Unitarian. Witnesses are Unitarian believers.

U·ni·tar·i·an

?yo?on??ter??n/

noun

THEOLOGY

 

1. 1.

   a person, especially a Christian, who asserts the unity of God and rejects the doctrine of the Trinity.

Yes, but sadly, a lot of Unitarians, well some, do not believe in pre-existence, people like Sir Anthony Buzzard, 3rd Baronet. We know the Jehovah's Witnesses are technically Unitarians, but most Unitarians do not want to say that, thus being put in an agreeing/disagreeing state with those who believe in pre-existence vs. not believing in pre-existence. Muslims are also aware of this also, but are oblivious to the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses are not too far off from Unitarians.

I myself believe in pre-existence of God's Son.... And the very clear detest of the Trinity.

 

That being said, you'd be amazed how cleaver some people tend to get with snacks. Stuff like this:

 

Or someone people can "literal" eat the bread of the Christ:

I usually see the forums as part of and or categorized as social media. A place for discussion, debate, conversation, agreeing/disagreeing with someone, and or that one guy in the forums/media who is a clown, and then we have the trolls, the worse of the worse who feed off your anger and sadness, using that collected power against you, then you have the hateful bunch, the white knights who defend any woman/girl they looks good to them, you have the "bros" and so forth.

In short, welcome to the internet.

On 9/27/2018 at 12:40 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

If we want to answer the question in the title, we may also need to answer to this (as first/primary question or as dual question, together with this in title): What is the difference in whether a person takes life to another man or takes life to himself?

There is no difference. When a person dies, by his or her hand and or causes someone else to die, it results in a death for an unnecessary cause, not of God, not of the Word, etc by means of the willfulness and negativity of man in some cases, for instance, someone would kill themselves because they didn't win over the heart of some girl/woman, other times, they will kill someone and either flee or attempt murder-suicide, example, Virginia Tech 2007, nuff said. However there is the whole maintaining faith til death whereas some people will actually die in some process to prevent loss of salvation and or the like, but not a suicide I wouldn't say, for instance, if someone came to your home and tells you to stop reading the Bible, denounce God, curse His name, you, having free will have 2 options, you either cease your faith and or maintain it, although the outcome will not be so pleasant, something of which is indeed a reality in Christian persecution.

On 9/26/2018 at 5:44 PM, Shiwiii said:

So let me ask you this then. As your position holds close to that of the jw, at death is that sin not paid for? I mean the wages of sin is death right?

The position has been held by a majority of Christians early on, even predating the Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance, the same position can be read in The City of God, by Christian philosophy Augustine of Hippo, 5th century regarding thou shall not kill [be it of oneself and or others]? Once again take the time to look into this information instead of always assuming such a belief is based on a sole faith, the information I paraphrased from was from the United Church source, for this belief predates Jehovah's Witnesses itself and such a belief is still in relevance today and onward.

As for Romans 6:23, the wage(s), or penalty, for sin is death, for in the beginning, no one was a sinner, hence why that verse points to a verse in Genesis, to be more specific, Genesis 2:17. Adam and Eve were created as perfect beings, and all their offspring would have been born as perfect themselves, resulting in no reason for anyone to perish in death. Adam and Eve and all their offspring had the prospect of eternal life in happiness, but due to disobedience, it resulted in Ancestral Original Sin, committed by our first human father and mother and everything that took on afterwards.

Our Father, our God, not only is of total justice and power, a God of love. So he takes the initiative to take, and fix what has been broken. Therefore when we read this verse, Romans 6:23, we can draw the context, especially when we understand it and what it says in part B into C of the verse, but the gift God gives is eternal life by means of Christ Jesus our Lord, for this part of the verse points to 1 Timothy 1:16, 1 John 2:1, 2 and Jude 21.

On 9/26/2018 at 5:44 PM, Shiwiii said:

See, I do not subscribe to the idea that once I die all of my sins are paid by my death, it merely means I no longer have the ability to perform more sin. I am only washed clean by the blood of Jesus and my faith in Him.

A person who has died his or her sins do not stand against him/her. For if it was not for the sacrifice of our Lord, Jesus, and God’s purpose and will that pertains to the resurrection, an individual, he/she would never live again if that were the case.

Regardless, one would remain acquitted from sin, as God would not review the case of the sinner and then sentence him to other kinds of punishment for his sin, for God is Just and according to his purpose, will and order such ones will be held accountable and it will be between said individual and God when that day comes.

That is the great thing about Jesus sacrifice, it provides this amnesty and paves a path for us regarding Salvation.

The thing is about suicide, is that it isn't an option, it is something that is done so willfully and or other by people depending on various situations, be it positive and or negative, some who try to commit and then change afterwards had no idea as to why they were going to do the act in the first place, of which is not always common with those in such a position, others attempt to do so out of depression, fear, and other things, the things I have seen in my case, was due to things of the occult, such as Vodou, that can bring even the strongest of the Christian faith down.

But God is a God of mercy, it will be up to Him dealing with various persons who commit such an act, and the reasons as to why they did so.

On 9/26/2018 at 5:44 PM, Shiwiii said:

I can't see how suicide is an option if your faith is in Jesus.

It isn't an option, but by means of the individual itself, such a path is often chosen, not by anyone else but that individual, as said before this path is chosen by means of various situations, sometimes willfully, mainly to those who are depressed and the like, such ones we should be trying to help out.

Even those who have faith in Jesus and his God are also subjected to this, and some have taken their life, others were helped out before anything bad took place.

On 9/26/2018 at 5:44 PM, Shiwiii said:

So in essence, I agree that suicide is wrong and possibly a sin, but I just want to know what is being used as support for such a claim.......especially by the jw, because of the wages of sin = death thing. 

I've already mention what comes from the Law regarding the Ten Commandments, Thou shalt not kill [Thou shalt not murder], but often times in other cases, some ignore this so they can willfully kill someone else who they think is a threat, at times, or in another discussion had had elsewhere Christians killing Christians and so forth.

Now, for this is where the support and belief stems from in the Christian faith itself regarding the commandments. It isn't far-fetched for Jehovah's Witnesses to have that view, for as stated before, they are Restorationist, and other Christians who are putting forth the practices and teachings of early Christians and the Church, also share this view.

As for mainstream Christendom, they tend to go over such in order to take part in something that is not of God.

12 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Melinda Mills is correct .... technically Jehovah is from everlasting to everlasting ... only possible in a spacetime continuum without entropy and is not created.  He may possibly BE the non-entropic spacetime continuum, before the "Big Bang" created ours (?).

I agree with multiverse theory, so it's easy to reach that conclusion.

Multi-verse? Last I checked we do not live in the DC and Marvel Superhero universe. Perhaps JTR of Earth-2133 is a billionaire who has bought both Microsoft and Apple on the same day and made his own financial empire, perhaps Bulter is Spiderman on that earth. I would probably be called Galaxy Merchant there, and maybe our president on that earth is Kermit the Frog, with a Mighty Morphin' Power Ranger named Tommy (Jason David Frank) as Vice President.

I wonder what is going on in Earth-2134?

All jokes aside, all men will be resurrected, the good and the bad. The bad will be placed in judgement, while the good will keep alive and live eternally.

12 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Will people who have committed suicide get a resurrection?

 

Assuming they would OTHERWISE be resurrected, think about THIS:

Jesus deliberately went on a known "suicide mission" and died because of that decision.

It usually depends. As I mentioned in the other thread, someone I know committed suicide due to the pornographic and adult industry as well as her being exposed to public, resulting in her ending her own life, the media who make the news of my late friend tends to spin the information, knowingly.

Other instances being those who have been victim of and or affiliated with anything of the occult, examples such as any man, rich, poor, strong, weak can be subjected to a thing called Black Magic, to my people, it is refereed to as Vodou. If caught off guard, one would either be victim of taking his or her own life and or those affiliated with that influence are hunted down. My cousin was victim due to the fact she was intelligent. Her death was ruled out as suicide in the country, but it was murder, and the only reason it is that way because the corruption of government officials know who's side they are on. Her death was a very, very violent one, another motivation for me to believe what the Bible says about resurrection because her, and my friend, as with others do not have to succumb to that.

Then you have those who kill willfully others and or themselves.

As for Jesus, he knew what was coming and he also know that his own God and Father would raise him again, of which took place. But I have to admit, what they did to Jesus before killing him was brutal, can't imagine how bloody things are, but saying that now, I can picture something, granted it isn't nothing surprising of which I have ever seen in the present day of things.

On 9/20/2016 at 10:35 AM, Shiwiii said:

Which scripture do you have in mind to support this? I'm just curious. 

Bible records show some examples of people committing suicide. Although we find no commentary with these incidences, such is covered in principle in the 6th Commandment, therefore, suicide is an act of murder [killing of oneself and or other]. 

That is, if one is to take in what the Laws found in the Torah are all about, with the inclusion of the Ten Commandments.