Evacuated

Fine. You believe interpretation of a dead man's writings does not require verification for certainty. Thank you for your opinion. However you chose to interpret the scriptures I cited, it doesn't change the fact that I see and credit the fruitage of the spirit as an evidence of the spirit's operation in my life.

I did already to save time, but feel free to embelish as my German is.......Ahem!. Â

Matt 12:43-45: “When an unclean spirit comes out of a man, it passes through waterless places in search of a resting-place and finds none. Then it says, ‘I will go back to my house from which I moved,’ and on arriving, it finds the house unoccupied but swept clean and adorned. Then it goes and takes along with it seven different spirits more wicked than itself, and after getting inside, they dwell there; and the final circumstances of that man become worse than the first. That is how it will be also with this wicked generation.”

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/leben/zeugen-jehovas-schon-wenn-ihr-mich-mustert-ist-das-ein-erfolg-1.3689191

I love to see these photos around the world showing the borthers and sisters on the literature carts. Did you see this report? http://www.sueddeutsche.de/leben/zeugen-jehovas-schon-wenn-ihr-mich-mustert-ist-das-ein-erfolg-1.3689191

You're just jealous aren't you?

This is an interesting example of incomplete reporting to sensationalise an issue in favour of the reporter's bias. Further to an article in The Humanist of 26 Feb 2014 which said, in part, "When the government erects an exclusively Christian monument on government property, it violates this central command of the Establishment Clause by sending a clear message that Christianity is the preferred religion over all others. When the religious monument is dedicated to fallen soldiers, it sends an even more egregious message that only Christian soldiers are worth memorializing. Non-Christian soldiers such as atheists and humanists are inherently excluded." a case was brought b y the American Humanist Association. Fuller and broader reporting on this issue can be found here: https://www.snopes.com/liberals-demand-offensive-wwi-memorial-torn/

This will only ever be opinion. We may be sure of our opinions, we may share the same opinion, we might even change our opinions. But we cannot change the fact that the writings of dead men will only ever be open to interpretation, as those men are not alive to verify our understanding of their words. In connection with the operation of God's spirit in my life, I would cite the words of the apostle Paul who stated in his letter to the Phillipians: 2:13: "For the one at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure, is God. 4:13: "I am able to do all things by the one who strengthens me." and in his letter to the Galatians: 5:22-23: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self control. Against such things there is no law."

... and you need to DO SOMETHING, about that "bully" cough! Ask Burl Ives

Not really. I can't be sure of Ellicott's meaning as he is long dead. Also, he may have made many other attempts to express his views on the same subject. However, his choice of words on this occasion almost perfectly captures the thought for me: God's Holy Spirit is: "Divine operative energy". (NB. only the phrase within inverted commas is from Ellicott). What else?

This was May 2014 wasn't it? And what have they decided? Doesn't seem to be an issue of national security? By two Witnesses presumably?? Maybe it's just another case of Ei pidä tehdä kärpäsestä härkää.

Cos. I am only concerned that I speak the truth as far as I can know it. I am not concerned about how others chose to misinterpret what I say. Ambiguity is a fact of life, and the genuine enquirer can always seek clarification. In that case, the quote would not have any value as an endorsement. In any case, my use of Ellicott's expression serves as MY endorsement of HIS excellent choice of words. It's operation in my life.

Very interesting set of figures for the USA. Does the "no update" comment mean no increase or that the figures for the previous year were not given?

Look geezer.......................................... you think that that's all I got? One of them alone is enough to dosh the rest. Where do you come from anyway????????

Judge for your self: 2 Cor 12:9: But he said to me: “My undeserved kindness is sufficient for you, for my power is being made perfect in weakness.” Most gladly, then, I will boast about my weaknesses, in order that the power of the Christ may remain over me like a tent." Jer 9:24 "“But let the one boasting boast about this:That he has insight and knowledge of me,That I am Jehovah, the One showing loyal love, justice, and righteousness in the earth,For in these things I take delight,” declares Jehovah." Is 61:6 "As for you, you will be called the priests of Jehovah;They will call you the ministers of our God. You will eat the resources of the nations,And about their glory you will boast." Heb 3:6 "but Christ was faithful as a son over God’s house. We are His house if, indeed, we hold on firmly to our freeness of speech and the hope of which we boast down to the end." 1 Cor 1:31 "so that it may be just as it is written: “The one who boasts, let him boast in Jehovah" 2 Cor 1:12 "For the thing we boast of is this, our conscience bears witness that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially toward you, with holiness and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but with God’s undeserved kindness" Gal 6:14 "But may I never boast, except in the torture stake of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the world has been put to death with regard to me and I with regard to the world" Ps 34:2 "I will boast in Jehovah;The meek will hear and rejoice."

1. This example (presumably true) has no connection whatsoever to your challenge. If you said that a Jehovah's Witness who stole a truck to ferry wounded and dying people to hospital, then sold the truck and refused to give the proceeds to the rightful owner and used the money for XYZ so was disfellowshipped because he refused to repent of the theft, there might be some grounds to evaluate what went on. But this didn't happen. Even if it did, it would still have no relationship to your challenge. 2. To then ask for examples of unrepentant, brazen, wrongdoers that have been shown mercy is ridiculous. I think you are trying to make a legitimate point here, but, (insult my intelligence all you like), I am afraid it is lost in your extreme, bombastic, and unrealistic examples. As I said, I have a feeling that you are trying to make a legitimate point here, but you will have to do better than this James, otherwise, quite frankly, it is LOST.Â

Says "was", not "is". Even so, is as relevant as his collar size or number of toes to the report without contextual reasoning. He seems to have got off lightly by the way

You will cross paths with some of my cong then as they are on Bible related exhibit tours there this week also. Small world indeed! Any pre-1st Century ancient references to the Tetragrammaton would be interesting, Hebrew or otherwise, secular or sacred. Look forward to hearing about any other interesting findings.

So let's hope you have corrected that misunderstanding now.  Forget this "what the Watchtower wants" litany please. I think we have established that we both have an understanding of what the holy spirit is and that this understanding differs. If you want to present aspects of your understanding and the reasons for why it is so, that's fine with me. I am quite happy to credit you with control of your own mind on matters, if you are prepared to reciprocate. I cannot see a basis for discussion otherwise.

lIke me.......... Hee Hee!

Not sure I heard it quite like this?? Have to wait for the AGM to go on line I suppose to get the clear message.

Fair enough. But I am not talking about your personal dress code preferences. I am talking about this: The illustration here is about quick action to discard a soiled garment regardless of being engaged in other activity. How much more should we be quick to discard those traits that contribute to "spiritual soiling" whenever we become aware of them? There was also a particular focus on what Christians do when they are not in public view or in a formal setting. The later pictures in the article show someone similarly dressed down (and with 3 different outfits it appears) although it is illustrating how to successfully strip off the old personaility. There is nothing unusual, innapropriate, or innovative about Christians in casual clothes when not in the ministry or at meetings. But there is no place for a casual attitude to Christian qualites or aspects of the new personality when out of the "public eye". This has nothing to do with Russian transcripts, so why not get a new thread started as the topic of appropriate ministry dress is an interesting one.

What do these have in common: Abhijit Naskar Frank Bender Jimi Hendrix Oliver Evans Abraham Lincoln Frank Lloyd Wright Joachim Raff, Oliver Heaviside Alan Moore Frank Zappa Johann Wolfgang von Goethe Orson Welles Alfred Russel Wallace Frederick Douglass John Clare Orville Wright Amadeo Giannini Frida Kahlo John Harrison Paul Gray Ameer Hamza Shinwari Garfield Wood John Huston Paul Keating Amos Tversky Georg Philipp Telemann John Smeaton Paul Thomas Anderson. Andy DiGelsomina George Bernard Shaw Jorge Luis Borges Penn Jillette Antonie van Leeuwenhoek George Green José Saramago Peter Behrens Arnold Schoenberg Gerda Alexander Joseph Needham Publilius Syrus Artemas Martin Gert Verhulst Julian Assange Quentin Tarantino August Wilson Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji R. G. LeTourneau Benjamin Franklin Granville T. Woods Karl Marx Rabindranath Tagore Benjamin Kidd Gustave Eiffel Kató Lomb Ray Bradbury Benjamin West Hans Zimmer Keith Moon Richard Linklater Bohuslav Martinů Harlan Ellison Kevin Smith Robert Franklin Stroud Booker T. Washington Havergal Brian Kishore Kumar Robert Lewis Shayon Buckminster Fuller Heinrich Jacoby Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky Rodney Mullen Caroline Herschel Heinrich Schliemann Kurt Cobain Roman Polanski Charles Darwin Heitor Villa-Lobos L. Ron Hubbard Rudolph Dirks Charles G. Dawes Henri Rousseau Le Corbusier Sean Parker Christopher Columbus Henry Ford Léon Krier Sir Terry Pratchett Christopher Hughes Henry Knox Leonardo da Vinci Srinivasa Ramanujan Christopher Langan Henry Walter Bates Lewis Mumford Stanford R. Ovshinsky Christopher Nolan Herbert Spencer Louis L'Amour Stanley Kubrick Claudio Arrau Herman Melville Ludwig Mies van der Rohe Steve Irwin Craig Ferguson Hermann Hesse Luis Barragán Steve Jobs Danny Elfman, Heston Blumenthal Luis Buñuel Steven Soderbergh Dario Argento Horace Trumbauer Machado de Assis Steven Spielberg Dave Grohl Howard Phillips Lovecraft Malcolm X Sunay Erdem David Bowie Iannis Xenakis Marshall Mathers Tadao Ando David Fincher J.A. Rogers Mary Anning Thomas Alva Edison Django Reinhardt J.B. Fuqua Maxim Gorky Thomas Henry Huxley Edward Elgar Jacque Fresco Michael Faraday Timothy L. Pflueger Eileen Gray Jakob Böhme Michael Scott Toru Takemitsu Eliezer Yudkowsky James Cameron Mikhail Krichman Vasily Vladimirovich Petrov Elon Musk James Marcus Bach Moshe Feldenkrais Vincent J. Schaefer Eric Hoffer James Watt Nasir Jones Viollet-le-Duc Ernest Hemingway Jane Jacobs Nathaniel Bowditch Walter Pitts Errol Flynn Jean Michel Basquiat Nazir Naji Wilbur Wright Feodor Chaliapin Jean Prouvé Nobuo Uematsu William Blake Ferdinand Waldo Demara Jeff Loomis Noël Coward William Kamkwamba Francis Barry Byrne Jim Jarmusch Noel Gallagher Woody Allen Olavo de Carvalho Yuri Kondratyuk

C'mon Tom!! This picture (and the study) is mainly about stripping off the old personality. Doing that isn't enough to make you "well-dressed" in Jehovah's eyes is it? Next week is about putting on the new personality and the picture then indicates this process. (Might even be the same model in the first shot).

Why a problem?