Anna

5 hours ago, Emma Rose said:

It is essential to distinguish the true God by the use of His personal name Jehovah.

It is indeed, especially when someone happens to be from a non Christian culture with all kinds of gods. Then like the apostle  Paul, you need to identify which god you are talking about, and familiarize them with the one and only true God, the creator, whose name is Jehovah.

When you talk to "Christians" they only believe in the true God, the God of the Bible. Although of course many times he is part of a "pretzel", the trinity. And many times, when you talk about Jesus, they think you are talking about God. It's always good to establish first, exactly what they understand under the term god. And then you can move forward with showing them that God and Jesus are separate beings, and that God also has a name. I had a Bible study once, who was previously an atheist, and for her, it was no problem to understand that Jehovah is the creator, and that Jesus is his son. She didn't have the baggage of the trinity belief.
And then I had a return visit, where the lady just couldn't get past it, and just kept insisting Jehovah is a triune God, and when pressed as to the scriptures which clearly show Jesus is God's son, she said it was a mystery. And that was that.

I have a very good book, written by a brother, Brian Holt, called "Jesus-God or the son of God?" It is chock full of scriptures, many that haven't been covered by the org. and it's great for anyone who wants to spend hours and hours studying to disprove the trinity. I never did, but it's there for reference if I need it.

In the field, I have found that it is sufficient to show a few fundamental scriptures, where Jesus is clearly talking about God being his father, because there is no point with reasoning  beyond those fundamental scriptures with a die hard trinitarian, because they are simply unwilling to reason.

It is good to mention also, that when someone is praying to God with a sincere heart, even when he doesn't know His name, and believes He is Jesus, the Universe, or some other god, Jehovah knows who he is praying to. And He lets Himself be found. How else would He be able to send someone to them if he didn't hear their prayer?

56 minutes ago, Thinking said:

..this may be one of them...hopefully

We will just have to wait and see 😃

One thing is sure, whatever Jehovah does, we can trust will be just and loving.

12 hours ago, Thinking said:

21 hours ago, Emma Rose said:

Indicating humility.

More like playing the politician...

I would be inclined to agree with Thinking..

Br. Jackson was in a rather precarious position. He had to be very careful and diplomatic in order not to make us appear presumptuous and haughty. As a result, there has been some confusion on the part of some Witnesses wondering what he meant, because they had always been led to believe that the GB is the only chanel God is using.
So what did Br. Jackson mean?

(that is a rhetorical question, as it's off topic here)

8 hours ago, Emma Rose said:

To know God's name Jehovah, is more than just an awareness of it's existence.  

 

Do you think it's possible for someone who is not yet aware of the importance of God's name, to feel they have relationship with him?

I know my grandpa loved God, and talked to him as if he was a friend. But he never had the opportunity to realise the importance of using God's name.

What about those through the centuries, who may have been anointed, but may have only vaguely been aware of God's name, and in some cases not even known it.

5 hours ago, Emma Rose said:

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1971048#h=1:0-10:456

Emma, this article does not really address the issue I raised. This is more for people who know what they are supposed to do, but are looking for loopholes to God's arrangement for salvation. This is not the issue here.

The article states that: "We are aware that many hypothetical or “What if . . .” cases can be raised, cases that seem to involve extenuating circumstances. What point, though, is there in speculating on these? Jesus’ illustration of the “sheep” and “goats” makes it plain that a time will come when the division between the “sheep” and the “goats” will be clear and final".

But that's not the issue here either. We are not asking about Jesus judging who is a sheep and who is a goat, but whether the criterion for being one or the other is baptism (washing their robes in the blood of the lamb). In other words, we know that not everyone who is baptised will be judged as a sheep, so is it possible that someone, or should I say millions, might be judged as sheep despite not being baptised and not knowing Jesus, for the simple reason because they never got the chance?

It's not even a case of speculating about many hypothetical "what ifs", or extenuating circumstances, but it is literally a case of billions simply not getting the opportunity.

If we are going to be realistic, then we know that there are going to be billions of people who won't get a choice before Armageddon comes.

1 hour ago, Emma Rose said:

Rev 7:14 Those that have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the lamb.  These are the ones that come out of the great tribulation.  

That is true of course. But it begs the question, will absolutely everyone on earth at the time of the great tribulation be at exactly the same stage in their life, all having been given the chance to wash their robes in the blood of the lamb? Think of the billions, (not millions), of people in places like India and China. Think of the slums of India for example. Not only are those people steeped in false religion, worshipping thousands of different gods, but most of them don't know what a Bible is, and maybe have not even heard of Jesus. They have no internet, no running water, and hardly any education. In order to reach those people with the good news, for them to be able to actually make that decision to wash their robes in the blood of the lamb, you can imagine is a near impossible task, and one that would require years and years. It took us over a 100 years to get to where we are now.

Then there are those whose intellectual capacity prevents them from being able to chose to wash their robes in the blood of the lamb.
Then there are those who are in the process of deciding to wash their robes in the blood of the lamb, but haven't reached that point in their Bible study to be able to make a dedication.

There will always be people at different stages in life, through no fault of their own, who were not able to wash their robes in time for the great tribulation. We always say, if Armageddon would have come (insert years) ago, we may not have been in the truth yet. But that will always be the case, logically, not everyone will be in the same state simultaneously.

8 hours ago, Emma Rose said:

Thought of the day:

Jehovah is God's name.  It was originally in the Bible in over 7,000 places but has been removed by various bodies due to superstition etc.  Micah 4:5 For all the people will walk, each in the name of it's god, But we will walk in the name of Jehovah our God forever and ever.

Excellent topic. But can I suggest, if you want to start another discussion, for example on the above subject, then go to the top of the page, and depending on what device you are using, click on "new topic" (on the computer) or the "plus sign" (on Android phones) and start a new topic that way. If people follow you (I do) they will see it. Or, you can search relevant words, and see if there is a topic already on this subject and then add your comment to it. This will resurrect the thread again and people will respond to what you post. And, if you want to direct those who have been commenting on this topic here, you can insert the link here to the topic there. 👍

8 hours ago, Emma Rose said:

Okay, this is an open forum.  Is there anyone out there who genuinely would like to know about Jehovah or has questions about the Bible...

Emma, there aren't many people on this forum that actually comment or even read anything. It's just a handful. There are two sides, the ex-JWs, and the JWs like Tom, JWI, me and a few others. This is not a forum where interested ones (people who want Bible studies) hang out. The JWs who are here have their various reasons for being here.

For me, it's good training ground. I get to learn about various controversial topics that are not really discussed anywhere else except maybe on apostate sites. This is not an apostate site, but some with controversial ideas are allowed to comment here, and this makes for interesting discussions....sometimes. In any case, it helps me to sharpen my faith. That's just how I feel about it. Tom and the others have their own reasons too, and may be different from mine.

So if you are looking to find someone who has genuine questions, well, as far as I know, there are non here at the moment. But, whoever ventures here can follow the conversations and comments, and see how we, the JWs respond to them. And they can make their mind up about what makes sense. So in a way you are giving a "witness" of some sort by commenting....

2 hours ago, Witness said:

would not beat his fellow slaves for providing food for the house!

What food did you provide that got rejected and you got beaten for?

18 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

It is not unacceptable to say how in his case, bad did come from God through devil. Because, for if God had not allowed evil, evil would not have touched Job, no matter how much efforts satan would put in his attempts. 

Allowing something still doesn't mean you cause it. Jehovah did not kill Job's children. Satan did.

In any case, what is good and what is bad is subjective. What you consider good, I might think is bad. But Jehovah is the ultimate arbiter who decides what is good and what is bad and that could answer this:

28 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Here we have "naked truth", out of any interpretations. Pure and simple understanding of one old faithful servant, and nobody corrected his statement, ever. Nor his "three friends", nor Moses or Solomon, neither "spirit" who was involved in producing this information to Moses or Solomon, or any other Bible writer after Moses and Solomon. Conclusion of Job statement was certified with claim: In all of this, Job did not sin with his lips

Also, I have noticed that sometimes the Bible writer is not corrected and is allowed to write what he actually feels. And sometimes the Bible does not explain, condone, or condemn something, but it is merely recorded as "a fact that happened".  For example the rape of Lot by his daughters. There is nothing in the account that either condones or condemns this action. It is merely a report on what happened. This is why it is important to really research and know the rest of the Bible in order to make sense of some ambiguous, and sometimes apparently contradictory things.

20 minutes ago, Witness said:

Their "role" is to be active while they are on earth, just as the apostles, and those who followed them throughout the centuries.  They were sent by Christ to preach Truth.

And they are! All the anointed I have ever known were very active in the ministry and still are. That was their focus. The sisters taking the lead with the younger ones, and the brothers helping the congregation to shepherd the flock as elders. When you were in the congregation, were you not active in the work that Christ commissioned you with, to preach and make disciples?

5 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

I don't mind being declined entry to the elite club,

This club is intended for active publishers associated with Jehovah’s Witnesses only. Anyone who does not fall into this category will be denied membership.

5 minutes ago, Emma Rose said:

See I wouldn't describe myself as "full of positive vibes", what I am is realistic.  Closed JW forum?, do you have a link please?

I am glad you are a realist 👍

I sent you an invite, but here is the link as well:

22 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

But know what you’re getting into.

Yes, @Emma Rose, Tom knows what he's talking about. When he came here a few years ago he was full of positive vibes (not that he isn't any more) but soon realized his patience would be severely tested.

So welcome to the "club". If I may suggest, consider also joining the closed JW forum 🙂

4 hours ago, Emma Rose said:

He's not aware of that.

"Witness" is a she by the way.

50 minutes ago, Emma Rose said:

The weather is what it is.

Not only that, but all good things come from Jehovah, so if the weather is destructive, Jehovah merely allows it, he doesn't cause it, @Srecko Sostar Jehovah only causes good things to happen.

3 hours ago, Witness said:

majority of JWs who would send letters.

The majority won't send letters, only a select few in each congregation, probably pioneers and Elders.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Conservatives said the “Pachamama” statutes were pagan idols; the Vatican said they were symbols of life and fertility.

I used to wonder about Catholic churches being filled with statues and people praying to them. Surely they were aware that idolatry was wrong. So I questioned this and found out that apparently the Catholics do not view their statues as idols, but merely as symbols or reminders of past saints etc. 

The Catholic reasoning is that:

"An image is not an idol unless two things are present… (1)The image, must represent a false god. (2) The image, must be worshiped.

Then what about bowing down and praying in front of a statues of Mary, for example. Is that worship?

According to Catholic reasoning no, it's not because: There are two Biblical requirements of worship (1) full submission, and (2) sacrifice. 

This occurs at Holy Mass when: "This is where we Catholics fully submit ourselves to Yahweh (The Holy Trinity), and offer up the sacrifice of the Eucharist".

Bowing down is an act of respect, and prayer is supplication, not worship.. 

This would all be OK, however, in the case of the Pachamama, the Pope, by calling the statue merely a symbol of something, is watering down his own Catholic principles, because the Pachamama already fulfills the first criteria for an idol in that the statue represents a fertility godess.....not only that, but the rituals that honor Pachamama also involve "sacrifice" where grain and other produce is offered and "The final step of the ceremony is the burning of the offerings so that they can return to their origins, rising into the sky while the remaining ashes are buried in the earth to complete the cycle".

Interesting observation from Wikipedia: After the Spanish colonization of the Americas, they forced conversion to Roman Catholicism. As it is a syncretic religion, the figure of the Virgin Mary was associated with that of the Pachamama for many of the indigenous people.

18 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

JW "religious freedom" speaking about how all people who do not accept JW "Truth" are part of "God's enemies" and belong to "satan' world", and deserved to be destroyed. And how all JW's who left "organization" are mentally diseased", "despicable apostates", "bad society" and similar expressions, must be  "shunned" and will be destroyed because they are even worse than "worldly people". Is this sort of "free speech" also inside "full religious freedom"?

WT and JW members read text of Bible and they took the right to produce "judgement" on people in the name of God. Just like many believers before them, in various religions. 

Please be realistic. What would the future of people in the "New World", who would not accept JW learning, look like?

There are many scriptures that clearly show that not all people will be saved, and what to do to be saved. It also talks clearly about shunning. I won't go into specific details, because you already know them. Of course no man can judge another person, that will ultimately be God. But that doesn't mean JWs can't decide who is approved to become a JW or who no longer qualifies to be JW. No one else but JWs can make that decision, I mean no government will make, or interfere with the decision or constitution of a religion.. And that's part of what religious freedom means. 

What God ultimately decides, is, ..well...up to God.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Can somebody please explain; what is and how looks like the "Full Religious Freedom" ? 

I think I know what you are insinuating. You might be thinking that the term is too loosely based. What if for example one religion's faith tells them to kill the infidel? In that case, obviously, that kind of religious freedom is dangerous. However, we know what kind of religious freedom Ms. Baran is talking about. She would be referring to religious freedom that does not violate human rights, or takes another persons life. This kind of religious freedom has existed in America since the First Amendment, and seems to be working just fine. Also, she is saying that although Russia supposedly has religious freedom, that can't be true if a peaceful religion such as JWs are banned.

On 10/3/2020 at 12:26 PM, JW Insider said:

I think you are mostly right. And I was only trying to show how unreasonable the results could be if this was taken seriously. However, I doubt that Arauna is alone in a similar line of thinking that there must be something diabolical even in quotes like the following that she found in the UN documents:

In+ these+ Goals+ and+ targets,+ we+ are+ setting+ out+ a+ supremely+ ambitious+ and+ transformational+ vision.+ We+ envisage+ a+ world+ free+ of+ poverty,+ hunger,+ disease+ and+ want,+ where+all+life+can+thrive.+"

On 10/3/2020 at 12:26 PM, JW Insider said:

To this exact quote, you may have notice that she responded to it by saying:

"SOUNDS LIKE THEY WANT TO BRING PEACE AND SECURITY !  SATANS VERSION OF JEHOVAH'S GOVERNMENT. See below where they talk of peace and security linked with sustainable development."

So, this type of thinking might not be as absent from among us as you indicated.

Our own magazine, the 1995 WT had some good things to say about the UN. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1995720

The magazine also states the JW position regarding the UN: “Jehovah’s Witnesses view the United Nations organization as they do other governmental bodies of the world. They acknowledge that the United Nations continues to exist by God’s permission. In harmony with the Bible, Jehovah’s Witnesses render due respect to all governments and obey them as long as such obedience does not require that they sin against God.”

Of course, and this is a given for JWs, like all other governments, the UN will not exist one day. The same magazine goes on to say: “Then Jesus Christ, the “King of kings and Lord of lords,” and his army of heavenly warriors will dissolve all human governments and put to death all who reject God’s sovereignty".

I think what @Arauna maybe had in mind is that without Jehovah, this is an impossible task and that those who try to achieve it lack humility and reliance on God, and it is Satan who is trying to promote that kind of thinking.....the independence from God. After all, this was his original reasoning with Eve.

However, and looking at it realistically, I doubt any of those people who try to implement these good things are even aware that they should look to God for guidance and look to his Kingdom to bring the solution. So I think we should be fair and admit that there are many people who are unwittingly supporting Satan's methods, rather than knowingly trying to devise some evil, diabolical plan. Satan is the master of deception, and he knows that this method works better than outright bidding someone to do evilness. After all, most people have some good in them, and have a conscience, because they were created that way. There must have been a reason why Jesus was fond of mankind, and why he was willing to give his life for them (Proverbs 8:31). Same for Jehovah, who doesn’t desire anyone to be destroyed.

The UN is only evil and disgusting in the sense that it is haughty enough to think that they may achieve all these good things by themselves, without God, thinking they can give themselves credit for something that is clearly not in their capacity to achieve.... imo....

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

In the future, if WItnesses are told to build buildings that meet certain "green standards" to meet certain SDG's (Sustainable Development Goals) do you think that some Witnesses might rightly lobby against it.......when we support anything that combines "UN" with "peace and security" we are supporting Satan's schemes?

Does anybody think that way?  We know not everything the UN does is evil. Not everything the Governments do is evil either, as Paul brings out; "Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it;  for it is God’s minister to you for your good". Wanting to do things "green" is a good thing, so there should be no reason for a Witness to lobby against that..

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

and it was my assessment that the spirit of Jesus' words here were not taken to heart:

(Matthew 5:40-46) . .

and if someone in authority compels you into service for a mile, go with him two miles

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

In spite of the recent article about neutrality, when such situation occurred, Witness lawyers (and others) actually lobbied the relevant government

 

I think we need to be reasonable though. I know there was all kinds of trouble surrounding the initial project, and I don't know a lot about it, but my impression was that since it wasn't our fault (we had not caused the pollution) it would be fair to expect that we should not have to be responsible for financing the clean up....

I think in these and similar instances if we take advantage of any secular means or provisions that help us achieve our goal, we are only doing what some of Jesus's disciples in the first century did also.

37 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I would like it if there was a little more organizational pushback on some of the charges leveled against us.

I understand why they don't if pushback is to be understood as a defense in order to sway the "enemy" to your side. They know they will never convince the "enemy" so what's the point in trying? BUT if it was done for the benefit of those who are not "enemies" but genuinely want explanations and answers to those charges, then I think it would be a good thing. But they're not looking at it like that.....

@TrueTomHarleyby the way why did you close the commenting to that entry?

4 minutes ago, Witness said:

distribute the food boxes, but were paid? 

Only those who actually assembled the boxes and distributed them to schools/churches etc. were paid. Not those who distributed the boxes from those establishment to households. So no, elders were not paid.