Thinking

What a joke…listen…I’ve butted heads with JWI a few times but ..I have never seen him express anger…in Fact i would say as much as I’ve disagreed with him at times..his fruitages  are finer than mine or yours …
 
 
 
 

What a joke…listen…I’ve butted heads with JWI a few times but ..I have never seen him express anger…in Fact i would say as much as I’ve disagreed with him at times..his fruitages  are finer than mine or yours …
 
 
 
 

Yes, that's why I thought it wasn't a bad article overall, but as you pointed out "but the article also stretches the truth. Just enough to make you question and doubt". That's if the reader isn't really paying attention to the author's agenda. This is one those types of articles that I think are useful if you can separate the bias from the facts it presents. I liked that it admits that Malone did have a hand in inventing the mRNA and supports this with the reference to Rein Verbeke's seminal work in the field of gene transfer in his article a 2019 history of mRNA-vaccine development. It is then up to the reader to decide whether it was fair for other articles to say in broad statements that hundreds of scientists had a hand in this. Which is true of course, but someone had to pioneer this and it was evidently Dr. Malone and his team back in 1989. This was the one area I was trying to find some facts about and this article helped in that. It drives me nuts when I see obvious bias of someone trying to discredit someone else with these kind of broad statements and it's great when you can go back in time and read facts that were written years before the issue was raised. Which makes me think that there is so much more out there and hopefully eventually the truth will be evident. He (Dr. Malone) did mention towards the end (around the 2hr 50 mark) that these are unprecedented crazy times in many respects. This does give further support to the Bible's end times. And by the way the video has been taken down on YouTube. Grrrr...I had wanted to download it before this happened.
Edit: I found it on spotify, yay!

You are right. The Atlantic readers are already primed to think of anyone who questions anything about the safety of the vaccines as an anti-vaxxer. This term is so often misused that it's a perfect pejorative. Because then they can also be classed with right wing conspiracy nuts, and then the media can seek out the small minority of persons with crazy beliefs that the vaccine magnetizes their arm, or that each vaccine includes a tiny microchip. (Of course, in Sweden there really is a micro-chip that thousands of Swedes wear under their skin. https://www.npr.org/2018/10/22/658808705/thousands-of-swedes-are-inserting-microchips-under-their-skin)
Therefore the question in the title of their article only needs to be rhetorical; it doesn't need to be answered. It makes Malone "crazy" just for the juxtaposition. It's curious that a fellow scientist says that he's hurting his chances to win a Nobel prize for his close and unique involvement with the invention of mRNA vaccines, and his related patents. Nobel himself (a Swede) is credited for inventing dynamite 150 years ago, but that doesn't mean he was happy with all the ways it was being used. Would The Atlantic have run an article "Alfred Nobel claims to have invented dynamite. Why is he trying so hard to undermine its use?"
Whether Nobel himself personally had such specific reservations I don't really know. Albert Einstein thought he knew when he said:
The problem of the inventor’s and scientist’s social responsibility was taken up by Albert Einstein in a speech in 1945, after the atom bombs were dropped over Japan in August of that year. Einstein pointed out that the physicists in 1945 were in a situation which much resembled that in which Alfred Nobel once found himself. Einstein drew his conclusion from this: “Alfred Nobel invented an explosive more powerful than any then known — an exceedingly effective means of destruction. To atone for this ‘accomplishment’ and to relieve his conscience, he instituted his award for the promotion of peace.” https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred-nobel/alfred-nobels-thoughts-about-war-and-peace/
I wouldn't expect a scientist to have always said the right thing in speeches or on social media. Obviously there is ego and pride at play here, too. But most of his credentials are admitted by the article.
But the article also stretches the truth. Just enough to make you question and doubt. It claims he is known for lucid explanations but faults him for those comments about his positions that are made by others (YouTubers or Twitter followers). It faults him for having money. It faults his wife for using all caps in a response that defends him. It faults him for giving interviews to the only people who will grant such interviews. There seems to be a need to bend over backward to find fault. And a couple of false statements thrown in there, too. Such as when he was temporarily deplatformed from LinkedIn. The article says it was for false statements, when it was directly the result of verifiably true statements and questions. (Like questioning whether someone being on the board of both Pfizer and Reuters could result in a conflict of interest.) LinkedIn apologized to him and restored his account.
And of course, Dr. Malone is still not an anti-vaxxer. He got the vaccine himself. He still works on vaccines. He believes the vaccine has its place for the vulnerable, but is potentially dangerous and not studied fully enough for risking it on children and persons less at risk from Covid itself. And of course he is very well aware that the vaccine will NOT always keep one from getting the infection, and it will not keep one from spreading the infection. And he actually agrees with the point made in the Atlantic article, that the good appears to outweigh the risks for those who have the vulnerability factors already mentioned. 
At least the article doesn't do what so many have done in other media outlets (and social media, of course) which is to just simply lie about what a person has said or done in order to make them look less credible.

Can I count on you to also include your posts? They should be, without hesitation, be ignored. However, if this is your only source of income, then abide by the probation department guidelines, or is it, parole department.

Here’s the thing, you are voicing your concerns without answering my concerns. You fail to supply an answer on why visitors here should not deem other religions culpable by your standard of understanding scripture that would include your "anointed" spiritual leader? You just posted her blog as reference. Her words of the 144,000 thousand are earthbound is a "false" projection by Bible standard. How is it that she is any different if we apply your words "In reality, scriptural principles are basically ignored"?
Neither Pearl Doxsey and it appears you have a conflict of interest not to apply scripture in its proper context.
How do you personally avoid such pitfalls for visitors here?
How do you see this as a false representation? Are you saying, Jesus mislead the apostles? In the O.T. how did God communicate to receive his decrees? In the N.T. how did Jesus instruct the apostles to make decisions?
Are you going to misuse the words of scripture like @Srecko Sostar does by misusing words?
SPIRITUAL GIFTS
 Paul described as follows the grandest of all grace-gifts, which stands in opposition to earned wages: "the free gift [chárisma] of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom 6:23). In Acts 2:38 the Holy Spirit, the energizing giver of gifts, is Itself (the Greek noun is neuter, but personhood is clearly assumed) called "the gift" (dœréa) received by those who repent and are baptized. Paul stated in 1 Cor 12:11 that the (given and received) Holy Spirit bestows differing gifts within the body of Christ: "all these [various
charísmata] are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills." And yet Eph 4:11 says that Christ's gifts were "that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers."
Shouldn't an anointed decide after prayerful care and consideration through God's Holy Spirit? Can you explain why this is wrong for you, and why it shouldn't apply to your anointed one pearl doxsey and other Christian Churches?
Once again, more of the same projection. Perhaps by understanding why Christians should not hold animosity is for this just reason.
AMP Eph 4:31
 31 Let all bitterness and indignation and wrath (passion, rage, bad temper) and resentment (anger, animosity) and quarreling (brawling, clamor, contention) and slander (evil-speaking, abusive or blasphemous language) be banished from you, with all malice (spite, ill will, or baseness of any kind).
Can you explain how you are obeying scripture and your anointed Pearl Doxsey, by being loyal to God with this kind of attitude?
You have not answered my concern about Pearl Doxsey's understanding of the earthbound 144,000 thousand. Wouldn't that make her a false prophet by your standards?
Her husband appears to idolize this person. Is this the same as venerating someone?
How does this concern not apply to you, Pearl Doxsey and other Christian Churches? It is clear, to the visitors, Christ teachings are being compromised here.

Can you explain your contradictory statement? It is a strange thought, since a Thinking Christian understands there were Nephilim's on earth after having relations with the daughters of man. Genesis 6:1-4
What point in time are you referring to, and in what sense can Satan not influence man or his earthly agencies?
16:17-20
To conclude this warning Paul added the promise, The God of peace (cf. 15:33; Heb 13:20) will soon crush Satan under your feet (cf. Gen 3:15). The false teachers (Rom 16:17-18) were under Satan's influence, but he will be destroyed and God will establish peace (Rev 20:1-6). Then Paul gave another benediction (cf. Rom 15:13,33) about God's grace. (See the chart, "Paul's Concluding Benedictions in His Epistles.") 

 

The political equivalent of this is known as QAnon.

No, no—you misquoted me. I did not say “spiritual betters” in an absolute sense. I said they are your spiritual betters, because they actually do things in furtherance of the good news and are not merely non-stop bile towards the doings of others. They are your spiritual betters—not necessarily those of faithful ones in general.
One could almost endure you if you acknowledged their faith and work. Similarly, one could almost endure you if you pointed to something better, or even equal. But no! All it is is non-stop vitriol on those actually doing something in the work of the Lord, while doing nothing yourself—or at least nothing that you reveal.

I didn't say anything about the ARC being a good role model. It merely helped us to see areas where we could improve. 
Yes, the WT did react to the suggestions of the ARC. I know because I listened to the whole thing, I heard the suggestions, and I could see those exact suggestions were being implemented in the 2016 WT study, and the "Child protection" packet on the website. This had never been done before the ARC inquiry. There was never one place accessible to everyone outlining our policies regarding child protection. It was always in articles here and there, and in letters to the elders. Never in one place like this. Now everyone can be on the same page. The changes that were made were changes suggested by the ARC.
Of course not. The old advice was good advice. But it lacked in certain areas, and those areas were identified in the ARC hearing. After the 2016 WT study article, many brothers and sisters were extremely grateful for it.

I don't know anything about that. All I know is that after ARC, we published the child protection packet on our website, and had WT study articles discussing child sexual abuse in the congregation,  something that had not been done before....

Possible. Jehovah has used "worldly" authorities before to put his people on the right track. Regarding the protection, and handling of child sexual abuse, the ARC has definitely helped us to make clearer and transparent information available to all in the congregation, not just the elders. 

What they are saying is that the final attack (that prompts Armageddon) is not made up of separate attacks.
 
I don't know. But regardless who the attacks come from, they are usually because JWs do not compromise Bible principles. 
As for the inquiry into CSA, it is usually the intention of the inquiring institution to help establish better policies, to protect children, not to ban or persecute Jehovah's Witnesses. As you know, this involves many other establishments, not just JWs. So I would say this would not be considered an attack. Some of the advice was considered very good advice and JWs have taken that advice on board, as long as it did not go against Bible principles. 

It appears you are trying to answer a critical question for yourself. Can you explain how titles make that assumption of being an apostle, since Christ and God's Holy Spirit gave the apostles a great power to prove Christ mission, way beyond what, Pastors, Elders, Fathers, Reverends, Cardinals, Bishops, Popes etc. have today, yet the Catholic Church endorses such vision for its Bishops and Pope?

I believe scripture mentions what will happen to those that lead God's sheep astray. I don't think anyone would want to be in that position, not even here. Yet, you find it even with Jehovah Witnesses here. Are you suggesting "all" Jehovah Witnesses behave the same way as they do here? Some people even accused Jesus of doing the same in 1 John 4:6.
How did Jesus respond to that accusation? Matthew 22:29
A Good Minister, Preaching the Word (1 Tim. 4:1-6)
They lead people astray (v. 1 b). Their goal is to seduce people and get them to depart from the faith. This is the word apostasy, and it is defined as "a willful turning away from the truth of the Christian faith." These false teachers do not try to build up the church or relate people to the Lord Jesus Christ in a deeper way.
 

I am not an anti-vaxxer. I believe that almost all the current vaccine types intended for Covid-19 have been proven, at least in the short term, to do more good than harm for a select group of individuals who have not previously had the virus itself, and/or who have the typically identified comorbidities such as obesity, diabetes, advanced age, cancer, prior respiratory issues, etc.
However, because these vaccines really can produce better outcomes for some, many people apparently do not understand why there should be any limitations on its use. The NYT has finally included some dissenting opinions about the efficacy of the vaccines (without ridiculing them) in a recent discussion among Israeli doctors and an ex-health minister. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/23/world/middleeast/israel-vaccine-4th-dose.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
It admits that several scientists have claimed that boosters may make it more difficult to fight the virus.
But that's not the news I refer to here. It's the 3-hour interview (below) that Joe Rogan had with Dr. Malone, who was the man who invented (got several patents for) the mrna technology on which many of the vaccines are based. If anyone has spent any time at all discussing the virus or the vaccines, or spent any time listening to news reports about them, then this could easily be the most important information ever presented about these topics.
It's here:
Dr. Robert Malone interviewed by Joe Rogan
  I think everyone ought to at least give it an hour, especially considering the many hours that other news sources that we will be exposed to.

Of course not!
It would be the ramblings of a Heretic against the Church of the Three Holy Vaccines.

No. The point is that Gupta represents the mainstream. Thus, Rogan has spoken to doctors on both sides of the issue.
”Beware the sound of one hand clapping,” said Stephen Meyer, the intelligent design proponent.

Not a prayer you’ll find it on Twitter. Try rumble.com or Spotify, then search the names.

Agreed!…
Christ’s  followers were confused a lot of the times…first when they went out on their first preaching missionary they taught and thought that Gods Kingdom had already come and Jesus was there to rule now….( wow that was misleading …and the thing was Jesus knew that but let them go on with it anyway)…..seems they got confused many times over Jesus and his actions…how on earth could he ever talk to the Samaritan woman..that was a big one…confusion over circumcising..confused over drinking Jesus blood and eating his flesh…and what of Peter renouncing Jesus three times..out of fear…all of them were confused and frightened on the night of Jesus and his betrayal….they scattered frightened and left him alone ..they never had a clue as to what was going on..yet he told them…they should have…
And they fought amongst themselves and yelled at each other…brothers and sister of the anointed at that(…even after Jesus death and their anointing…)
Yet they had the scriptures…they should have known …should have discerned what would happen to the coming Messiah….they lived with him..knew him In The flesh….he TOLD THEM….yet they abandoned  him in his hour of need…confused …they didn’t understand  anything!!!
Yet who of us does not want to be like them…..Dmitar….why do you think Gods people will be any different in the time of the end …or at any time in the past….
Those men were constantly learning…failing ..enduring…growing in years and age as well as understandings…and probably the wisest they ever were was just before they died.
But HE chose the foolish of the world, remembering they are but from dust and he keeps putting up with the weak earthly vessels…that are all cracked and flawed….so why do you expect such a high standard when HE knows it’s not possible .
1Cor 1:27
but God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise
God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

Agreed!…
Christ’s  followers were confused a lot of the times…first when they went out on their first preaching missionary they taught and thought that Gods Kingdom had already come and Jesus was there to rule now….( wow that was misleading …and the thing was Jesus knew that but let them go on with it anyway)…..seems they got confused many times over Jesus and his actions…how on earth could he ever talk to the Samaritan woman..that was a big one…confusion over circumcising..confused over drinking Jesus blood and eating his flesh…and what of Peter renouncing Jesus three times..out of fear…all of them were confused and frightened on the night of Jesus and his betrayal….they scattered frightened and left him alone ..they never had a clue as to what was going on..yet he told them…they should have…
And they fought amongst themselves and yelled at each other…brothers and sister of the anointed at that(…even after Jesus death and their anointing…)
Yet they had the scriptures…they should have known …should have discerned what would happen to the coming Messiah….they lived with him..knew him In The flesh….he TOLD THEM….yet they abandoned  him in his hour of need…confused …they didn’t understand  anything!!!
Yet who of us does not want to be like them…..Dmitar….why do you think Gods people will be any different in the time of the end …or at any time in the past….
Those men were constantly learning…failing ..enduring…growing in years and age as well as understandings…and probably the wisest they ever were was just before they died.
But HE chose the foolish of the world, remembering they are but from dust and he keeps putting up with the weak earthly vessels…that are all cracked and flawed….so why do you expect such a high standard when HE knows it’s not possible .
1Cor 1:27
but God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise
God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

I do not know what a "rouge jw" is.
How do you define a "rouge jw" ?
Kinda a reddish orange. like someone with a cosmetic bottled suntan?
If that would NOT be surprising to you, you seem to speak with some degree of authority and experience in the matter.
Do you have much experience going to back doors,  stalking 14 year old girls?
Did you know Jeffery Epstein?

It always seemed appropriate to me to handle it the same way that Able handled it in the time he was making sacrifices to Jehovah .....

Over the centuries, words and expressions have changed dramatically.
Consider that just a few years ago "Gay" used to mean frivolously happy ....
...... And of course, my favorite "Let's Go Brandon!"
It used to be that anyone who had great authority was referred to as a god .... and even today England has a "House of Lords", and Winston Churchill was titled "Lord of the Admiralty".
Lord Vader anyone?
It's a relative term ... NOTHING MORE.
The clueless and the agenda driven will never really understand this  ..... because they do no WANT to..

What should that message be? To behave as the world does? What kind of message are we giving here? The message of Christ or the message of the AntiChrist?
It is simple to recite scripture. Does, that really serve a purpose when the heart is not set in righteousness?