JW Insider

I don't think it suggests that. It's a review of his reign of 55 years. He could have done evil in only a few of those years and the verse would make just as much sense. Or perhaps a king could remain good for most of his reign but it's the reputation he made before the end of his life that counts here. Solomon, ironically, is credited with these verses:
(Ecclesiastes 7:1, 2) . . .A good name is better than good oil, and the day of death is better than the day of birth. 2 Better to go to the house of mourning than to the house of feasting, for that is the end of every man, and the living should take it to heart.
It's an interesting topic however, because "a boy" was not considered to necessarily know the difference between good and bad:
(Isaiah 7:15, 16) 15 He will eat butter and honey by the time that he knows how to reject the bad and choose the good. 16 For before the boy knows how to reject the bad and choose the good, the land of the two kings whom you dread will be completely abandoned.
 

I really appreciated your insights here and in several previous posts. A lot to think about. I started following CESNURs doings about 15-20 years ago. Especially when the WTS took a strong interest in them too, and when the WTS attended some CESNUR-sponsored seminars.  CESNUR definitely has offered a more balanced view to those who think every NRM will produce another Jonestown, and a view which many persons need if they are on either extreme, defending or opposing NRMs. But I have also noticed some opportunism in CESNUR, perhaps even in the hope of funding, support for favored authors and publications, etc. I have listened to some speeches and interviews with Massimo Introvigne and have respect for what he is trying to do and promote, but less and less respect for the shallowness of his knowledge and research. Although CESNUR has finally acknowledged that there are additional dangers with cults, which they barely admitted in the past, they still push a very biased agenda to defend most of them, and tend to ignore when politics and NRMs can create a lethal mix.

The group Introvigne heads, CESNUR, (Center for the Study of New Religions) is roughly the opposite of FECRIS, the latter which, if they had their way, would ban them all as “cults.” “New religion” is the scholarly term for any group originating in relatively recent times. Scholars deliberately choose “new religion” over “cult” to avoid the incendiary overtones of the latter word. Non-scholars favor “cult” because they are intolerant and wish to make it as hot as possible for the “new religions.”
One might think of Introvigne (who I know nothing of personally) as a modern-day Voltaire. Voltaire (probably you know) is from the 17th century, and is considered founder of the Enlightenment. He was a fierce critic of organized religion, particularly the Judeo-Christian variety. He was also firmly deist, that is, he never doubted the existence of God, and he came to be much distressed that his body of work was used as a stepping stone into atheism—breaking free of God altogether. His dream was that there be religious tolerance, that all religions should get along peaceably. It never occurred to him to change them internally or to mush them into one incoherent whole. He just wanted them not to wreak violence upon one another. 
Early in his life a dispute with a French aristocrat caused Voltaire to flee to England. While there he noted how there were dozens of religions, many (maybe all) claiming to be the one true path (people took religion more seriously then), yet they all co-existed without rancor. (In his native France, the Roman Catholic Church was torturing those professing other faiths on the rack.) It never would have occurred to Voltaire that a faith calling itself the one true faith was doing violence to any other one. Virtually all of them were doing it. It is a uniquely modern concept to think a religion regarding itself as the true path does violence to the others.
Voltaire’s “Letters from England” conveys his amazement and delight that here was a country, so different from back home, where people could worship as they pleased without anyone trying to ban them or beat up on them. He sets himself up as a chump interviewing a Quaker, just about as weird a religion as one could envision backed then—they ‘quaked’ when they became filled with spirit. He paints himself as though a devout Catholic thoroughly scandalized by Quaker beliefs, gives dialogue with one in which the Quaker ties him in knots, before summing up with how you just can’t talk sense with a fanatic.
It never occurred to Voltaire that the Quakers should change—he was just delighted that, given their “weirdness,” they could coexist so easily with the rest of society. In short, “intolerance” had nothing to do with doctrines or beliefs within a religion. He took for granted that internally each religion would be sufficiently different from other religions. If they were not, there would not BE separate religions—they would all blend into the same. It didn’t matter to him if Quakers were weird; if you conclude they are, don’t be one, would have been his obvious conclusion, just like it should be today with anyone concluding JWs are weird. 
Being a strict religion, serious about their beliefs, there would be severe internal strictures for any Quaker doing a 180 and leaving his faith. This was of no concern to Voltaire, who personally had no use for any of the established religions. Whatever strictures a departing Quaker would encounter would be more-or-less human nature: turn your back on previously cherished beliefs and you will of course find yourself on the outside looking in as regards those still holding true to those beliefs. It only adds “fuel to the fire” that the Christian scriptures can so easily be read that way. It’s the same with JWs today. It’s the same with most of the “new religions” that FECRIS labels as “cults,” as it seeks to homogenize religions, extracting whatever teeth they have to make them stand out from others, and mush them all into one that doesn’t stand for much or anything other than putting a God-face on humanist endeavors.
Voltaire’s firm deism, his belief in God, stems from what the Jehovah’s Witness organization has called the “Book of Creation.” It stems from the observed design of creation, and from what he called first cause, the utility that created things are put to. He rejected any “book of revelation,” that is, any sacred scriptures from any source that would attempt to explain the creator. But he also famously, after years of soul-searching, declared insoluble the “problem of evil.” There is undeniably a God, and there is undeniably evil. He could not reconcile the two, though he was the foremost thinker and deist of his time.
To say that rejecting any revelatory information on God is foolish might be going too far, but it certainly is self-defeating. He yearns with all his heart to discern the problem of evil, yet he confines his gaze to where the answer certainly will not be—in the book of creation. There is only so far that book will take you. His aversion is quite understandable, given the horrendous abuse practices by the religions of his day, but it was still self-defeating as for discerning the problem of evil or any other aspects of God’s personality.
If there is an answer to the “problem of evil,” it will be found in the new religions. Of course, my view is that it will be found specifically within the the tenets of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Indeed, the wording may differ, but “Why is there evil?” is a staple of each of their basic study guides almost since their founding. Mainstream religions have so homogenized their views, so eager not to be out of step with intellectual or scientific trends, that they have modified their own foundation to the extent that the problem of evil cannot be solved. FECRIS gets around the issue by ignoring it. There is no answer to such questions, they maintain, forget about them. Focus on making the world a better place now. Nevermind arcane spiritual concerns that will distract from how we must, in the words of the Beatles, “come together.”

Finally got this image right.
 

The perfect time to look for another inhabitable planet, jump off and take a ride to, you know, expand our horizons.

Yes, makes sense. But I think some people  think that sitting at the right hand of God means waiting to become king. The question is, where would he be sitting then, when he became king? He cannot be sitting in place of Jehovah, so as you say: "When Jesus received all authority in the first century, when did he receive more authority"? Or when he was sitting at the right hand of God where was the place that was more of a throne? (this is not a question for you, it's for the sake of the discussion)

How?
When Jesus became king and sat on the throne he was already king. It's true he had to wait until the proper time to conquer all enemies, as the last enemy death would not be conquered until the thousand years would be ended. But that doesn't mean that he wasn't ruling in the midst of those enemies before they would be conquered. 
We don't say that when a king sits on his throne that he is not really a king yet, and that sitting on a throne just means waiting until you get the title a second time. Therefore Paul could replace the term "sit at my right hand" with "rule as king."
Watch how Paul did this:
(Psalm 110:1) Jehovah declared to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”
(1 Corinthians 15:25) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet.
So, if the apostle Paul was correct, then "sit at my right hand" meant exactly the same thing as "rule as king."
 

On the other hand, upon resurrection, if it should turn out that God has really done this, perhaps she could thank him for having given her a heads-up in advance so she wouldn’t be one of those who went down. 
And if it should turn out that he hasn’t done this, that there are more survivors than she envisioned, where’s the beef?
”Destruction of the wicked” has been a Bible theme from the moment pen was put to parchment. All but the most liberal of churches have it to some degree. Many put it far worse that JWs do, by preaching that God would torment the wicked FOREVER in hell, as payback for just A FEW DECADES of wrongdoing. Doesn’t your church believe something like that?

Some people can't do the math. It's really quite simple - if you've been vaccinated, go about your life as normal. No need for a mask. I think it's a rather simple IQ test.   If you're still wearing one after you're vaccinated because "How do I know if the other people are really vaccinated?", the answer is simple "It's none of your business". If you aren't vaccinated for various reasons, that's your problem - take whatever precautions you feel necessary. But if you are vaccinated, stop being weird and sticking your nose into other people's business.   You might as well go full-on-neurotic-germaphobe then and never go out in public again because "Who knows whether these people washed their hands" or "I don't really know what's going on in that kitchen" or "Me ride a bus? Has this bus been subjected to gamma radiation to kill all the bugs?"

Maybe you are right:
(2 Timothy 3:13) . . .But wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled.
 

Maybe you are right:
(2 Timothy 3:13) . . .But wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled.
 

It truly is a ridiculous notion, but unfortunately it also happens to be a true notion.
I have never banned anyone, nor do I wish to, nor do I have the power to do that.
No, of course not. But you are most definitely the same person who uses the account @César Chávez, @WyattEarp @Allen_Smith, @TheNonstoptheo etc., etc.
I am not the the Librarian. I only have one account here.
BTW, In addition to the way your log-ins and log-outs show up in the "Recently Browsing" portion of the page, you also give "yourselves" away in several other ways, too.
For example, look how you spelled the word "too" as "to" just on this very same page:
Also, note your unique style of adding a few extra, unnecessary commas, which has given many people pause in almost every one of the accounts I mentioned along with about 20 additional accounts over the past few years, too.

I was tempted to say something that might clarify that @Real-JWinsider is actually just one more "troll" persona for @Allen_Smith, @Ray Devereaux, @BillyTheKid-55, @César Chávez, @Dotlizhihii Tlenaai, @divergenceKO, @Sean Migos, etc., etc., etc., & et cetera.
Several of his additional accounts have been used as nothing more than shills to up-vote his own accounts (and down-vote anything that exposes him). This doesn't mean everything he has said under those other accounts is wrong. Some of it has been useful and even insightful in my opinion.

Maybe you are right:
(2 Timothy 3:13) . . .But wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled.
 

It truly is a ridiculous notion, but unfortunately it also happens to be a true notion.
I have never banned anyone, nor do I wish to, nor do I have the power to do that.
No, of course not. But you are most definitely the same person who uses the account @César Chávez, @WyattEarp @Allen_Smith, @TheNonstoptheo etc., etc.
I am not the the Librarian. I only have one account here.
BTW, In addition to the way your log-ins and log-outs show up in the "Recently Browsing" portion of the page, you also give "yourselves" away in several other ways, too.
For example, look how you spelled the word "too" as "to" just on this very same page:
Also, note your unique style of adding a few extra, unnecessary commas, which has given many people pause in almost every one of the accounts I mentioned along with about 20 additional accounts over the past few years, too.

Maybe you are right:
(2 Timothy 3:13) . . .But wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled.
 

It truly is a ridiculous notion, but unfortunately it also happens to be a true notion.
I have never banned anyone, nor do I wish to, nor do I have the power to do that.
No, of course not. But you are most definitely the same person who uses the account @César Chávez, @WyattEarp @Allen_Smith, @TheNonstoptheo etc., etc.
I am not the the Librarian. I only have one account here.
BTW, In addition to the way your log-ins and log-outs show up in the "Recently Browsing" portion of the page, you also give "yourselves" away in several other ways, too.
For example, look how you spelled the word "too" as "to" just on this very same page:
Also, note your unique style of adding a few extra, unnecessary commas, which has given many people pause in almost every one of the accounts I mentioned along with about 20 additional accounts over the past few years, too.

It truly is a ridiculous notion, but unfortunately it also happens to be a true notion.
I have never banned anyone, nor do I wish to, nor do I have the power to do that.
No, of course not. But you are most definitely the same person who uses the account @César Chávez, @WyattEarp @Allen_Smith, @TheNonstoptheo etc., etc.
I am not the the Librarian. I only have one account here.
BTW, In addition to the way your log-ins and log-outs show up in the "Recently Browsing" portion of the page, you also give "yourselves" away in several other ways, too.
For example, look how you spelled the word "too" as "to" just on this very same page:
Also, note your unique style of adding a few extra, unnecessary commas, which has given many people pause in almost every one of the accounts I mentioned along with about 20 additional accounts over the past few years, too.

It truly is a ridiculous notion, but unfortunately it also happens to be a true notion.
I have never banned anyone, nor do I wish to, nor do I have the power to do that.
No, of course not. But you are most definitely the same person who uses the account @César Chávez, @WyattEarp @Allen_Smith, @TheNonstoptheo etc., etc.
I am not the the Librarian. I only have one account here.
BTW, In addition to the way your log-ins and log-outs show up in the "Recently Browsing" portion of the page, you also give "yourselves" away in several other ways, too.
For example, look how you spelled the word "too" as "to" just on this very same page:
Also, note your unique style of adding a few extra, unnecessary commas, which has given many people pause in almost every one of the accounts I mentioned along with about 20 additional accounts over the past few years, too.

It truly is a ridiculous notion, but unfortunately it also happens to be a true notion.
I have never banned anyone, nor do I wish to, nor do I have the power to do that.
No, of course not. But you are most definitely the same person who uses the account @César Chávez, @WyattEarp @Allen_Smith, @TheNonstoptheo etc., etc.
I am not the the Librarian. I only have one account here.
BTW, In addition to the way your log-ins and log-outs show up in the "Recently Browsing" portion of the page, you also give "yourselves" away in several other ways, too.
For example, look how you spelled the word "too" as "to" just on this very same page:
Also, note your unique style of adding a few extra, unnecessary commas, which has given many people pause in almost every one of the accounts I mentioned along with about 20 additional accounts over the past few years, too.

I was tempted to say something that might clarify that @Real-JWinsider is actually just one more "troll" persona for @Allen_Smith, @Ray Devereaux, @BillyTheKid-55, @César Chávez, @Dotlizhihii Tlenaai, @divergenceKO, @Sean Migos, etc., etc., etc., & et cetera.
Several of his additional accounts have been used as nothing more than shills to up-vote his own accounts (and down-vote anything that exposes him). This doesn't mean everything he has said under those other accounts is wrong. Some of it has been useful and even insightful in my opinion.

It truly is a ridiculous notion, but unfortunately it also happens to be a true notion.
I have never banned anyone, nor do I wish to, nor do I have the power to do that.
No, of course not. But you are most definitely the same person who uses the account @César Chávez, @WyattEarp @Allen_Smith, @TheNonstoptheo etc., etc.
I am not the the Librarian. I only have one account here.
BTW, In addition to the way your log-ins and log-outs show up in the "Recently Browsing" portion of the page, you also give "yourselves" away in several other ways, too.
For example, look how you spelled the word "too" as "to" just on this very same page:
Also, note your unique style of adding a few extra, unnecessary commas, which has given many people pause in almost every one of the accounts I mentioned along with about 20 additional accounts over the past few years, too.

I was tempted to say something that might clarify that @Real-JWinsider is actually just one more "troll" persona for @Allen_Smith, @Ray Devereaux, @BillyTheKid-55, @César Chávez, @Dotlizhihii Tlenaai, @divergenceKO, @Sean Migos, etc., etc., etc., & et cetera.
Several of his additional accounts have been used as nothing more than shills to up-vote his own accounts (and down-vote anything that exposes him). This doesn't mean everything he has said under those other accounts is wrong. Some of it has been useful and even insightful in my opinion.

It truly is a ridiculous notion, but unfortunately it also happens to be a true notion.
I have never banned anyone, nor do I wish to, nor do I have the power to do that.
No, of course not. But you are most definitely the same person who uses the account @César Chávez, @WyattEarp @Allen_Smith, @TheNonstoptheo etc., etc.
I am not the the Librarian. I only have one account here.
BTW, In addition to the way your log-ins and log-outs show up in the "Recently Browsing" portion of the page, you also give "yourselves" away in several other ways, too.
For example, look how you spelled the word "too" as "to" just on this very same page:
Also, note your unique style of adding a few extra, unnecessary commas, which has given many people pause in almost every one of the accounts I mentioned along with about 20 additional accounts over the past few years, too.