We must have the faith that the Bible does revive
We must build such faith if God’s war we would survive
Do we have a faith accompanied by works
This kind of faith preserves our souls alive
breaking news....there is hope for good hearted non-jws!!!.
according to sergio:.
are jehovah's witnesses the only ones to be saved during the end time?.
We must have the faith that the Bible does revive
We must build such faith if God’s war we would survive
Do we have a faith accompanied by works
This kind of faith preserves our souls alive
link to his announcement on www.jwchildabuse.org:.
https://www.jwchildabuse.org/news/jehovahs-witnesses-sue-editor-of-jw-child-abuse-website-for-millions/.
if anyone needed any further proof of how low and despicable this cult has become, here's more evidence.
Does anyone know what law he is accused of breaking? Are there precedents one way or another about Zoom meetings? If attending Zoom meetings you’re not “supposed” to be at is criminal then there should surely be lots of cases involving it. But in this case it seems like they regret allowing him into the meeting, which sounds weaker still. They should have thought about that when they were admitting people to the meeting.
If somebody held a physical meeting that they considered sensitive and carelessly left a door open, is a journalist breaking the law by listening at the door? This is what it seems like to me but I have only read a bit.
link to his announcement on www.jwchildabuse.org:.
https://www.jwchildabuse.org/news/jehovahs-witnesses-sue-editor-of-jw-child-abuse-website-for-millions/.
if anyone needed any further proof of how low and despicable this cult has become, here's more evidence.
You can be sued for attending a Zoom call? Isn’t it the responsibility of the people organising the Zoom call and the participants in the Zoom call to regulate who attends and what they say? To me, and I’m only using common sense not the law, the only problem would arise if Mark concealed who he was or pretended to be someone else in order to get into the meeting. Did he do that? If not, I’d say it’s on them if he was at a meeting they would prefer he wasn’t at in retrospect. They should have noticed at the time and kicked him out, if that was in their power, and they were minded to do so. How can they complain after the event? Even if his attendance was a violation of some rule, is it reasonable to sue for millions of dollars and end his entire reporting over this? Again I wouldn’t have thought so given he is reporting on an important story of concern to the public.
on a trip to rome a few years ago i asked my friend (who is roman and jw) what the catholic faith thinks of jw.
he simply stated that jw is tolerated by the church but that really not much thought is given to them.
is there an official stance on jw by the catholics?
Pope Leo, an America. 🇺🇸
i knew a lady who was disfellowshipped for 20 years for smoking.
she finally went back to the kh and since they couldn't find her paperwork, (all the former elders were dead) she was allowed back in without reinstatement.
no one even remembered her.
Smoking and practising Feng Shui are the strangest cases I know about.
Also for not refusing alternative service, a few months before it was officially announced that alternative service is a conscience matter, because he heard that the announcement was coming and wasn’t prepared to reject alternative service and possibly be sentenced as a criminal just because of unlucky timing.
on a trip to rome a few years ago i asked my friend (who is roman and jw) what the catholic faith thinks of jw.
he simply stated that jw is tolerated by the church but that really not much thought is given to them.
is there an official stance on jw by the catholics?
Pope Mark the second?
on a trip to rome a few years ago i asked my friend (who is roman and jw) what the catholic faith thinks of jw.
he simply stated that jw is tolerated by the church but that really not much thought is given to them.
is there an official stance on jw by the catholics?
There have been 30 odd antipopes apparently, so it does happen.
My favourite pope during my lifetime was Benedict. I thought he was both intelligent and considerate, plus I liked the fact he was German and spoke German. I kind of like the idea that Benedict might have fooled everyone by resigning but not really resigning by not using the correct Latin for resignation, though it seems unlikely.
on a trip to rome a few years ago i asked my friend (who is roman and jw) what the catholic faith thinks of jw.
he simply stated that jw is tolerated by the church but that really not much thought is given to them.
is there an official stance on jw by the catholics?
Yes, that’s true. I noticed that when Christadelphians get baptised, they “accept the hand of fellowship” by joining an ecclesia, usually the following day. (Baptised on Saturday, join fellowship on Sunday) So for them baptism is linked but distinct from membership. Whereas JWs tend to see baptism and joining JWs as one and the same.
on a trip to rome a few years ago i asked my friend (who is roman and jw) what the catholic faith thinks of jw.
he simply stated that jw is tolerated by the church but that really not much thought is given to them.
is there an official stance on jw by the catholics?
JWs did kind of have the threefold baptismal Father, Son, and “spirit directed organisation”, although I think they’ve dropped that now?
Watchtower would never be so radical as to say so, but personally I doubt that the baptismal formula at the end of Matthew is original. Why? Because it’s not found elsewhere in connection with baptism in the NT. Throughout Acts baptism is simply into the name of Jesus, no mention of three. It’s the kind of addition that would be made as the church moved in a Trinitarian direction. The medieval Hebrew version of Matthew omits it. I don’t know how early the church fathers begin citing it. That would be interesting to know. And aqwabot123, I know this isn’t proof and you can provide a 2000 word refutation of the idea in 30 seconds. I’m saying it’s possibly an addition to the text, not definitely. There are no major variants that omit the phrase, as far as I know.
on a trip to rome a few years ago i asked my friend (who is roman and jw) what the catholic faith thinks of jw.
he simply stated that jw is tolerated by the church but that really not much thought is given to them.
is there an official stance on jw by the catholics?
I have enough common sense to work out the story is likely true because there is a photo of the woman in the newspaper and she is wearing a JW convention badge. Any scenario that involves either her or someone else making it up seems far more convoluted than the simple claim she is a relative of the pope who happens to be a JW and that he contacted her. So on a balance of probabilities it seems more likely true than not. Obviously I accept this is not proof, but I think I can live with the level of certainty on this since it is not earth-shattering news either way. The details of the conversation between them may be more open to interpretation but I think it’s reasonable that the pope may have made such generous comments as claimed to an old acquaintance early in his pontificate. It would be in character for him as he also invited his former friend Hans Küng for lunch around the same time when he had just become pope, so he was clearly in the mood for reaching out to old friends.