https://youtu.be/i4uttjj7eus?si=0b-fzpqm8axb_d3p.
in its latest april 2025 watchtower study article 17 and paragraph 12 the watchtower promotes 2 dangerous lies that will cost your life if you are a believing christian during the time of the end, so i'm considering today the first lie in the first part of the paragraph, but first let's read the paragraph itself: "today, jehovah promises to provide us with spiritual protection.
he will never allow satan to corrupt true worship.
There have always been times when "those in charge" forget they are in their positions as long as they agree privately and publicly with everything the WTS says and prints. Throughout WTS history, those who spoken up in positions of authority, found out who was really in charge and it was not Jehovah and Jesus.
Ty Blondie, while this is interesting it's also unlikely that these 'apostates' now also deemed Antichrist by JW would be accepted back into teaching positions altho not impossible.
https://youtu.be/i4uttjj7eus?si=0b-fzpqm8axb_d3p.
in its latest april 2025 watchtower study article 17 and paragraph 12 the watchtower promotes 2 dangerous lies that will cost your life if you are a believing christian during the time of the end, so i'm considering today the first lie in the first part of the paragraph, but first let's read the paragraph itself: "today, jehovah promises to provide us with spiritual protection.
he will never allow satan to corrupt true worship.
The current WTS dances around but says that apostates leaving the organization become part of the Antichrist (although the WTS also teaches that it is possible for apostates to leave their beliefs and return).
If this is the definition for JWs then the watchtower article in question would be correct. It's unlikely that an 'apostate' as defined by JW holds any significant teaching position.
https://youtu.be/i4uttjj7eus?si=0b-fzpqm8axb_d3p.
in its latest april 2025 watchtower study article 17 and paragraph 12 the watchtower promotes 2 dangerous lies that will cost your life if you are a believing christian during the time of the end, so i'm considering today the first lie in the first part of the paragraph, but first let's read the paragraph itself: "today, jehovah promises to provide us with spiritual protection.
he will never allow satan to corrupt true worship.
The reality is that the “great apostasy” will be a global crisis within Christianity, culminating in the enforcement of the Antichrist as a false messiah. As Paul explains in 2 Thessalonians 2, the Antichrist will exalt himself above all that is worshiped and will even position himself as God within the “temple of God.” While interpretations of the “temple” vary, many scholars agree that it represents the Christian Church. This means that the Antichrist’s influence will infiltrate Christianity itself, leading many believers astray. The Watchtower’s claim that Satan will never corrupt “true worship” directly contradicts this prophecy. In fact, the arrogance of such claims could make them a prime candidate for falling prey to the very deception they deny.
All this would depend on what exactly is this Antichrist.
What do nonJW Christians believe it is?
that's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
Slim -The gospel of John is especially clear in presenting Jesus as an angelic messenger from God, as senior scholars such as John Ashton and Adela Yarbro Collins have noted. JWs are far closer to John in their understanding of who Jesus is and his position than the later Trinitarian formulations, or the intermediate Neoplatonic formulations either, for that matter. Second century apologist, and later Trinitarians were steeped in philosophy, and obsessed concepts of essence, abscission, substance and so on. There’s none of that in the gospel of John itself. Jesus is simply the obedient Son of God, his firstborn.
Making the most important verse, at least to believers, in John all more significant.
John 3:16- for God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten son...
Any parent understands that sacrificing himself for others is only outdone by offering up their son. It is in fact nearly impossible if not impossible to fathom giving up a son for he would be too valuable to give up.
But the point is that the significance John attempted to communicate in 3:16 is lessened when the simple non academic concept of the separation between father and son is disregarded.
that's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
Rivergang - the way you describe things, it sounds like God is a state of mind?
Yes, if the mind is infinite and I believe it is, then yes.
that's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
The person who feels god in his heart may be referring to Yahweh, Vishnu, or any number of beings. How would you determine that this feeling is Jesus, and not Brahma?
There is a saying that love and hate are two sides of the same coin.
But to answer your question, that person would very likely tell you which God they feel in their heart and why. Or maybe they couldn't. Like the complex emotions we've touched on, they just know they feel God.
that's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
You continue to suggest that by allowing for feelings and fantasies to be understood as real conditions/creations of the mind.
You've categorized feelings and fantasies as the same again.
With modern equipment we actually can quantify and isolate feelings and project them on a screen.
Suppose someone significant to you tells you 'I despise you so much '.
Well, but how much is that? How absurd to think that you can pour this hate into a cup and measure the amount as you would water.
No, you would shift into the reality of the heart and mind, countering their emotion with kindness and contrition, else they determine you to be cold and indifferent which would be dangerous to the relationship. None of this is fantasy.
My aim was simply to point out that not all things that some here consider metaphysical are fantasy as was absolutely claimed.
that's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
Feelings exist in the mind, and so in that sense are 'real', feelings are not however, trustworthy assessments of reality.
But real nonetheless. Which is to say, not all real things can be measured and quantified. Desire suppressed, for example, is still very much real desire.
that's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
Do they, really? I strongly suspect that, if I asked people even in one geographic region, I would get many different descriptions of what that means. And this assumes they belong to the same religion and acknowledge the same god.
To this you can add how they feel about themselves on any given day. A person who considers himself a sinner one day may feel despondent in regards to God. A person who considers himself obedient will feel better about God.
But none of it changes the fact that they will tell you that they feel God in their hearts.
Or how about the person who is inexplicably happy over the loss of someone or something? Or the person who is sad over gaining something and can't tell you why, they just are?
Would we tell them that they are feeling the wrong kind of happy or the wrong kind of sad, and base our argument on testable claims and reliable data?
i overheard my wife listening to '2023 governing body update #2, presented by kenneth cook jnr.
a few points i got from it.. new hour requirements.
quote "with the new hour requirements for pioneers, many us us can share in the pioneer work.
Interesting, what are the new pioneer hourly requirements now?
