All of the WTS teachings are biblical.
The problem is that their organizational policies go way way way too far to the extreme on the right.
i guess you could say jesus was the first christian, since he was the christ.
and as the first christian, jesus spoke more about hell that any other biblical figure.
but, he is also the figure that said that he didn't come to condemn the world, but to save it.
All of the WTS teachings are biblical.
The problem is that their organizational policies go way way way too far to the extreme on the right.
i guess you could say jesus was the first christian, since he was the christ.
and as the first christian, jesus spoke more about hell that any other biblical figure.
but, he is also the figure that said that he didn't come to condemn the world, but to save it.
I have a problem with the whole "Jesus said something so that is the way it is" mentality.
"into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels"
Why do they assume that people will be burned forever in it?
It says the fire is everlasting. But, yeah, so what?
Why was there nothing said about this prior?
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. "
The understandings of these things have been in the Society's books for decades. There is no reason to question it
That is not hell. That is a horrible translation. It is gehenna which is a garbage pit in Jerusalem that was burning. Jesus used that as an illustration of eternal destruction. The dead bodies of criminals were put there as they were not in memorial tombs and they were not expected to have a resurrection.
page 4-5:.
"video games: 'the uncomfortable fact is, videogames have an unhealthy obsession with bloodshed,' stated a british magazine for video-game enthusiasts.
it added: 'to some degree, a love of videogames demands a love of violence.
The thing that gets me down about the religion and meetings more than anything you all can say is this: when they talk about things in such generality such as Jehovah is offended because we watch violent videos.
Jehovah is offended because I watched Superman and Zod battle it out?
Really?
Isn't that the point of Superman to be strong that he can fight and not get hurt?
Then there is the reality. War is real and violent.
Is he offended because we observe history?
The blanket categorizations are what I can't take.
page 4-5:.
"video games: 'the uncomfortable fact is, videogames have an unhealthy obsession with bloodshed,' stated a british magazine for video-game enthusiasts.
it added: 'to some degree, a love of videogames demands a love of violence.
In the midweek meeting there was a segment on violence including violent video games.
"Of course they drag out the "Jehovah hates those who love violence" quotes as well."
The women who were celebrating would sing: “Saul has struck down his thousands, And David his tens of thousands.”
David was a man after Jehovah's heart, but yet Jehovah hates him.
jehovah' witnesses are taught to believe that romans 6:7 refers to a person's own literal death:.
watchtower may 15th 1982, pp.
8,9 - "the bible explains that at death a person is set free or released from any sins he committed.
Romans 6:7 is in a letter that Paul wrote to the Romans.
Why should we care or pay any heed to it?
i've been going through past threads on here during the period i was not very interested in what was going on in jw world.
the australian royal commission era caused a great deal of excitement and inspired some hope, but did any good come of it?.
the 2 witness rule in child sexual assault cases still exists, and elders still don't call the police and try to handle things in house.
It got people believing in the boogieman.
"The 2 witness rule in child sexual assault cases still exists,"
Good. and let's hope it says. God created it for a reason and the reason has not been eliminated just because the Law of Moses was eliminated.
annual meeting 2019—talks and 2020 year textthe governing body members are nothing but a bunch of weasels.
here is a talk by jeffrey jackson on how the governing body ''the slave class'' has remained spiritually awake over 100 years and alerted its members.. he looks back on the ''faithful and discreet slaves'' false dates over the 100 years: '' but at times, we look back over 100 years, and there were times they got excited about a certain year or time, and the end didn't come at that time.''.
he makes the comparison between the ''slave class ( who disappointed others when the end didn't come ) to a barking watchdog ( who in his enthusiasm barks at nothing in the middle of the night and wakes up the owner).
There are no false dates. False expectations, but not false dates.
i was wondering about the jw attitude towards getting tattoos.. redditors suggest that the only jws who have them would have got them before they were baptised.. jw.org gives a meally-mouthed "true christians wouldn't" response.. but no-one (that i've seen so far) answers the question i'm actually asking: is getting a tattoo after being baptised a disfellowshipping offence?.
if not disfellowshipable, how would a typical jw congregation treat someone who got a tattoo after baptism?
would they really treat it like it is a conscience issue?.
When donating plasma the person is asked if they had gotten a tattoo or had one touched up. So there is something not good about tattoos.
i was wondering about the jw attitude towards getting tattoos.. redditors suggest that the only jws who have them would have got them before they were baptised.. jw.org gives a meally-mouthed "true christians wouldn't" response.. but no-one (that i've seen so far) answers the question i'm actually asking: is getting a tattoo after being baptised a disfellowshipping offence?.
if not disfellowshipable, how would a typical jw congregation treat someone who got a tattoo after baptism?
would they really treat it like it is a conscience issue?.
When you’re starting out in your career, it’s possible your visible tattoos may present obstacles. Casting directors may not want to hire you for certain roles because of production concerns. They may worry that your tattoos will distract the audience. Your tattoos might not fit the character breakdown, and a project may not have the time or budget required to hide your tattoos with makeup. In short, without the prestige of a successful acting career, having visible tattoos is not a deal breaker, but it could limit the roles for which you will be considered.
While more and more people seem to be getting tattoos, their presence and placement on the body can send certain messages. Casting directors may assume that audiences will associate facial tattoos or lower back tattoos with stereotypes. Visual media like film, television, and theater are meant to appeal to as broad an audience as possible, so producers and directors will always consider how a mainstream audience will react
It’s rare—but it has happened. In 2011, tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill sued Warner Bros. to stop the release of “The Hangover Part II,” claiming that a scene in which a character has a copy of one of Mike Tyson’s tattoos violated Whitmill’s copyright for the original. Warner Bros. ultimately settled with Whitmill, but the case raised real questions about the rights tattoo artists have to their work when it appears in film.
study article 22 is headed.
"keep traveling on the "way of holiness".
this article states that since 1919, having left babylon the great in that year, jws today are traveling on 'the way of holiness" (a figurative highway) as it takes them through the spiritual paradise and leads them through to future kingdom blessings.. they say that 'preparatory work' of that highway began centuries earlier.
"You would think that those who proclaim to be his witnesses would get the pronunciation of his name correct wouldn`t you ?"
Define correctness?
And how would that correctness be reached or known?