Dmitar

It's okay. You weren't in a court of man, but God's court of credibility. 

Can you explain how the churches Paul visited don't amount to a structured organization of churches? No different from your bloggers 4 Women. 
How does building churches and supporting those churches, like in ancient times; does that amount to a poor structure with donations? Are you suggesting the apostles defrauded the church?
Is it really the way you framed your answer?
Then, you disagree with God, since that spiritual temple needs an earthly installment as it was in ancient time.
But God said unto me, Thou shalt not build a house for my name, because thou art a man of war, and hast shed blood. Aramaic Bible in Plain English And LORD JEHOVAH said to me: “You shall not build a house for my name, because you are a Warrior and because you are a man who has shed much blood.
Who built that Spiritual Temple that stood even after Christ, and a small part remains today?
Then, you are saying that Google, Facebook, and Twitter are giving those services for free just like their affiliation of the 4 women? And their support of each other is not considered a contribution for each other, and all those others affiliated with Pearl Doxsey blogs are interlopers. Do I that correct? 

Okay rest. Perhaps tomorrow or when you decide to think, you won't be just a commoner in search of vengeance through irrational thoughts by being rude and obnoxious. It appears you're no better than Jehovah Witnesses here that can't control their anger because they just can't answer simple questions. 

Here is another strange thought. They say that satan is a spiritual creature and therefore cannot act on the physical world !?
quote continue: , but he will use human agencies to do his deeds.
Such a statement nullifies any possibility that Jesus and the angels will execute a "final judgment" on "evil men" aka "goats." According to Bible interpretations of WTJWorg Jesus and angels are "spiritual creatures" too, and they as such also belongs to ..... as a spirit creature/s, he/they cannot carry out his/their attack directly .....
The WT text suggests that spiritual forces (evil and good) actually influence people to perform some action for the benefit of the spirit world. So let's put it this way; satan and demons will inspire one evil group of people against another evil group of people to destroy each other. For what purpose? How would only JW members remain? Who then will attack the JW, because that is how the JW preaches? Gog from Magog, say JW. But Gog of Magog are united evil people / nations (human agencies, as they named them) ..... who have already destroyed each other.  Even before the "last attack" on JW.
Moreover, if according to such an interpretation, angels cannot physically act on the literal world, then they never could, so the biblical accounts of such events in the past are fiction.
Therefore, this "outdated" interpretation of Gog and Magog also promotes another idea/interpretation that has not been so pronounced so far, at least not visible to me, in which they claims; "Angels are not able to physically act on people."
Picture and quote, for example this one, is contradiction then.

Jesus and his heavenly army will soon ride into the war of Armageddon to destroy God’s enemies! (See paragraph 17)
- https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-october-2019/stay-faithful-through-great-tribulation/

"Therefore Gog still represents, not a visible human ruler or nation, such as Russia, but a spirit ruler. Whom, then, does Gog symbolize?   It is evident now that Gog is a figure prophetic of the ruler of all seven demon princes, namely, Satan the Devil." w53 10/1 p. 583
"However, recent Bible investigation has proved that Gog of Magog is a prophetic symbol of the false god of this world, Satan the Devil, when making his final attack upon the Christian witnesses of God’s kingdom of heaven."  w60 4/15 p. 243
"Gog is “the ruler of this world,” Satan the Devil. He received the name Gog after his ouster from heaven, following the Kingdom’s birth in 1914. (John 12:31) “The land of Magog” is the location to which Gog and his demons are confined in the vicinity of the earth. w88 9/15 p. 24-25"
"Gog of Magog is identified as Satan the Devil in his debased position since 1914. As a spirit creature, he cannot carry out his attack directly, but he will use human agencies to do his deeds. Who will these human agencies be? The Bible does not give us details, yet it does give us certain indications that can help us to identify who they will be."  w03 6/1 p. 20-21
"When we compare all these Bible references about the final attack on God’s people, it is clear that the name Gog of Magog does not refer to Satan. Instead, Gog of Magog refers to a group of nations. ws15 5/15 p. 27-28
Although it was proven by "Bible investigation" that Gog is Satan and Magog IS the location where Gog and his demons are confined on the earth (!), the leadership of the organization was preaching a falsehood, for over 70 years.  NOW, it is evidently  CLEAR  that Gog of Magog DOES NOT REFER TO SATAN.
Will any teaching by the Watchtower be proven as clear and truthful?  Think about it, JWs.  If this organization was blessed by God's Holy Spirit, would that Spirit mislead its leaders into telling a falsehood for over seventy years?  It was once proven that Gog was Satan; will it be proven in ten year's time that what was once CLEAR TRUTH about "Gog" now being a coalition of nation, will be found to be a falsehood?  
"However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come."  John 16:13
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

You know, I am a great admirer of William Jefferson Clinton, former President of the United States to the extent of his skill at lying better than anybody else I’ve ever seen, with a smile, and with an intelligence that is far beyond my own.
I have listened to him at great length during lengthy speeches and dissertations and known from facts that he was lying …… but with a sense of awe and wonder of how well he was doing it.
If you didn’t know better, the hypnotic affect was captivating and pervasive.
…. not since ex-president Bill Clinton have I seen such a skilled “lawyer” as the screen persona DMITAR, who drags you into his slanderous fantasies and misrepresentation of everything you can imagine with such skill that you are inclined to defend yourself, where no defense is necessary…… Just to exercise common courtesy in a debate.
He can take a narrative that is totally false and spin it so it seems to have some legitimate value … a truly amazing thing to watch, like a trout’s admiration of a fishing lure with bright colors.
…… but besides being slanderous and libelous, and borderline dangerous the most chilling thing about having a conversation with Dimitar is the fact that he is almost always, if not actually always wrong about the positions he takes.
….. as a cartoon dog I am completely immune to his slander, and his libel, but even so I don’t have to like it, and I don’t.
On various discussion forums I understand you can block certain people, but I do not believe in doing that, as dangerous people are able to hide in darkness if that’s done. 

Therefore I have decided to completely ignore Dimitar, and his various quasi-evil manifestations with other screen names, even as I mentioned earlier that’s probably a safe bet that he can be completely ignored …… And should be.
…… And should be.
It should be interesting to observe the sound of one hand clapping.
 
 
 
 
 

Sorry, I'm done playing court with you.  You can call the next witness to take the stand.

Amazing that the head of Pfizer knew about all these adverse effects and even deaths, and still claimed publicly that there were no deaths. Also, while it's true that there were several reporting defects and this concerns millions of vaccines administered over about a 3.5 month period covered in the report(s), you can still tell from the average "delay" that most of these adverse effects happened within 24 hours of the jab.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-12-02-smoking-gun-pfizer-document-exposes-fda-criminal-cover-up-of-vaccine-deaths.html
 
Thanks to the efforts of a group called Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, we now have smoking gun confidential documents that show Pfizer and the FDA knew in early 2021 that pfizer’s mRNA vaccines were killing thousands of people and causing spontaneous abortions while damaging three times more women than men.
One confidential document in particular was part of a court-ordered release of FDA files that the FDA fought by claiming the agency should have 55 years to release this information. A court judge disagreed and ordered the release of 500 documents per month, and the very first batch of documents contained this bombshell entitled, “Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports.”
https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf
Or here, mirrored on NN servers:
https://www.naturalnews.com/files/536-postmarketing-experience.pdf
The document reveals that within just 90 days after the EUA release of Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine, the company was already aware of voluntary adverse reaction reports that revealed 1,223 deaths and over 42,000 adverse reports describing a total of 158,893 adverse reactions. The reports originated from numerous countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, France, Portugal, Spain and other nations.
Aside from “general disorders,” the No. 1 most frequently reported category of mRNA vaccine adverse reactions was Nervous system disorders, clocking in at 25,957 reports.
 

There are at least a dozen good YouTube downloading programs, and most are free. I have a couple of them, one free, and one I paid $7.99 for a couple of years ago. I'm not trying to promote any specific one for a couple of reasons.
1. YouTube puts in its terms of service that you aren't supposed to download their videos except those you own. This is mostly to keep competitors from starting their own service by stealing a lot of videos or breaking copyright rules against video owners. (Funny, because Google bought YouTube BECAUSE it was still gaining most of its popularity from copyright infringement, and they used internal algorithms to promote all the infringement they could get away with -- except where corporations forced exceptions, or monetization for Google was possible.)
2. A product I use might not be as good (or safe) as ones that are available now, and anyway I don't really trust software that tests perfectly clean from viruses and adware when it first comes out, but then might easily slip in some adware, virus, or undisclosed data collection, after it gains a good reputation. For that matter even anti-virus and anti-adware software has been known to slip over to the "dark side," which was likely part of their plan all along. 
If you search Google for "YouTube Downloader" or "Free YouTube Downloaders" or things like that, you will usually get sites that give a nice list. Like this one that gives 5 of them: https://www.techradar.com/best/free-youtube-downloader
Be aware, of course, that even these apparently useful lists are usually created by (or funded by) one or two of the items in the list, therefore you won't find those items on any other list. It's also ploy to make new or obscure programs look like they belong in a list with more reputable software. So always check multiple lists to get an idea of the most reputable suggestions.
I also use a program on my iPhone that strips the audio from a video into an MP3 so that I can listen to the video while driving. (I make a two-hour drive between New York City and upstate every weekend, which is 4 hours in total. That's nearly 8 hours of listening at 1.75 speed.)

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 you explain your position here, since you don't abide by scripture? What faith in God through Jesus can a none conformist have? 
Can you give me an example how this thought would make sense to a thinking Christian?
NAS  2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; (2 Tim. 3:16 NAS)
Apparently, that was something you insinuated with your poor application of Greek Scripture.
Can you explain how you have no faith in yourself, yet find a need to answer questions for your personal faith in someone you have no faith on? Can you clarify? 
Also, all ancient scrolls were written by men, under God's inspiration that you don't believe in. How does any bible version sway your argument?

Ha Ha. Thank you for confirming what i have said about you. You have to lump people together. It's your only arguament.
You are frightened of INDIVIDUALS. Just like your GB and the Elders, you are all frightened of INDIVIDUALS. 
Even other JWs here are frightened of INDIVIDUALS. 
And it would be impossible to use any Bible that wasn't linked to something. After all, someone has to do the translating, some one has to do the printing. Someone has to do the selling. 
I don't need to research any bible translaters, printers, sellers. I just buy a Bible and read it. It does not make me part of any 'sect' or religion. 
Or perhaps i should only use my large Bibles from the 1800's.  

I asked you for proof that the person to whom you accuse, is actually a pedophile. I don't see proof yet just more waffle.
I have said I am not worthy of life in the 'new world', which is true. That seems to bother you.
The GB of the JW Org have been presumptuous enough to say that they WILL go to heaven.  
I only stated fact, that the writings from Matthew onward were written in Greek. Though I have heard that Matthew may have actually written in Hebrew, but I have no proof of it.  But if you wish to call it the New Testament, so be it. 
And what, in your opinion, am I willing to accept ?  My hatred of Pedophilia is well known here. 
But if you are part of the JW Org then you support Pedophilia because the GB of the W/t - JW Org make it possible for Pedophiles to hide within the JW Org. And I still don't read any news about  that GB handing over the 25 year + Database containing names and addresses of accusations about American Pedophiles within the JW Org.  So if you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem. 

@Dmitar  I'm still waiting for your proof of this. 
I like you words here. it shows your stupidity. People here know who I am, and I know it was you that got me removed Billy + all the other AKAs you use. 
I think you must have around ten AKAs here and for what ?  
I am on a sort of mission, as all Christians should be. To make known the Good News of God's Kingdom. 
You mistake warnings and interpret them as vengeance ??? Your choice. 

Here is an article, which isn’t bad overall, and includes some useful references, but unfortunately uses some loaded language which in my mind unnecessarily detracts from the facts it’s trying to present. Without the ad hominem attacks on Dr. Malone it would have been much better. The impression it created of Dr. Malone is that he is this disgruntled underappreciated scientist kicking and screaming in desperation to draw attention to himself instead of really answering the question it (the article) poses : “Robert Malone claims to have invented mRNA technology. Why is he trying so hard to undermine its use?”
It is a very pertinent question and surely there must be a deeper answer than merely being an attention seeking ploy...
There is only a short mention that "His objections to the Pfizer and Moderna shots have to do mostly with their expedited approval process and with the government’s system for tracking adverse reactions" .
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/robert-malone-vaccine-inventor-vaccine-skeptic/619734/

Thank YOU, Dmitar, for confirmation ... to the extent that you don't even have any explanation for your own nonsensical comments, that somehow being here generates revenue.

From the 1978 Superman Movie:
122 INT. LUTHOR' S LAIR - NIGHT (DAY) CAMERA CLOSE on a TV monitor screen. OFFICER #2 is seen on it, crossing the track. A disapproving, clucking sound is heard. A hand comes into frame holding a remote control device. A button on it is pushed. The TV image changes: We now see OTIS walking nonchalantly down a narrow underground passageway lined with enormous steam pipes, still holding on to his newspaper. LUTHOR'S VOICE (Offscreen) It's a miracle that brain can generate enough power to keep his legs moving....  

I just hit the $7000 marker. Are you not yet plugged in?

Shocking!

Yes, at times your post do seem confusing. I will clarify. You suggest an organization willing to follow in the same structured path as the first century church is wrong. Can you explain why that church is wrong for following in Jesus footsteps with Christ own commands?

What does that even mean?

BY being irrelevant, and WRONG, you have proved that your posts CAN be safely ignored.
100% of the time.

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.