For Neologist, and anyone else affiliated with watchtower.

Neo wrote:

Quote:

Still waiting for simple answer to my question about Hebrews

You mean with other words, that to "provoke unto love and to good works" in question of the Watchtower blood doctrine teachings and afterwards you and others will distribute the doctrines and it will lead to a premature death, lets say for only one person, where you have been involved Neo, will be inherit in, the understanding and spiritual meaning of what comes forth in Hebrew 10:24?

Neo pls. take a look at revelation 21:8, now when you have your Bible at hands and open to 18:4.

21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

How do you read this versus and the spiritual meaning of it, when you at the same time, have in mind that the Watchtowers ban on vaccinations, organ and blood has been responsible for thousands of Brothers, Sisters and Children have died a prematurely death?

How do you look at the verse when you at the same time think of the Watchtowers membership of United Nations as a full Non Governmental Organisation, associated with the Scarlet red beast in revelation and their lying against Human Rights Watch, not to execute sanctions against members that have chosen to sustain life with a blood transfusion as a last change to be to survive?

I now exactly what can be inherit in Hebrew 10:24, and the Kingdom Hall is absolutely not the worst place to go, that's why Tele and I haven't recommend you to leave your religion, but to stop an evil and non Biblical blood doctrine and that you and others Neo, not will be partakers!

Even your possible Jesus Christ " denying frind Setanta, has "provoke unto love and to good works" by stating, as long as ones don't hurt others, as good advice. Neo do you hurt others with your Watchtower blood doctrine believing and do you think there can be a comming chance or risk for it?

Everything beyond the blood doctrine, from my side, is only an attempt to make you think Neo and maybe will it be possible for you to open your eyes and be reading your Bible, like the Be-rea'ns and se if their doctrines is i accordance whit the scriptures, and hopefully will the result be that you will not blindly follow and swallow doctrines from a mans son, in who there is no salvation, rather than obey Jehova, based at the Creation and the Bible, more than men!

So once again Neo, will you pls. answer with a YES or NO, whether eating all the blood in a carcass, in an emergency situation, to sustain life, is a no-no? Leviticus 17:15!

What about and then, is a blood transfusion of whole blood, wrong to sustain life, when it is not even a feeding at blood. YES or NO?

Is it wrong to store tons of killed animal's blood, where lives are taken, when the Bible in clear terms state that it shall be poured out as water on the ground in Leviticus 17:13? YES or NO?

0 Replies

Neologist wrote:

Quote:

And if doctors and lawyers are unable to define the essence of blood, why do you insist I provide the answer?

Well, if you don't understand the essence of blood then you have no business teaching people that platelets are definitely blood but hemoglobin is maybe not blood. If you are going to teach this, then you should know what you are talking about. But clearly you don't. I've asked you several times to provide evidence that God views transfusions of platelets differently than transfusions of hemoglobin. You can't do it because such evidence doesn't exist.

Neologist wrote:

Quote:

What is it about the word abstain that implies a prohibition only against eating?

What is there about the statement "abstain from...blood" (Acts 15:20) that implies a prohibition beyond eating? If your doctor told you to abstain from meat, what would you think he meant? You would think he meant to refrain from eating meat, right?

Also, notice that Acts 15:29 says to "keep abstaining from...blood." Christians were already abstaining from blood and were now being told to keep doing it. In what manner were Christians abstaining from blood?. They were abstaining from eating the blood of animals killed for food by draining the blood from the carcass before eating the meat. Acts 15:29 isn't a new law on blood as explained in the JW book Aid to Bible Understanding on page 244:

"The holy spirit here acted in harmony with what had been stated by Almighty God centuries before the Law covenant came into existence, namely, the law to Noah (Gen. 9:4), which is universal, applying to mankind at all times and places since it was given. The Mosaic law was canceled (Col. 2:14), but that did not cancel the law that preceded it, for the Mosaic law had merely incorporated and outlined in detail the universal law that came centuries beforehand."

It is a JW teaching that Acts 15:29 is not based on the Mosaic law but is a restatement of God's law to Noah. How did righteous Noah abstain from blood? His abstention required that he drain the blood from animals he killed for food before he ate the meat. Acts 15:29 is telling us that God's law to Noah is still in effect and binding on Christians. That's it. A new, more restrictive law on blood was not being instituted.

0 Replies

Neo I'm looking forward to your answers, at my questions!

Have you even and really read what comes forth before Acts 15:20,29 and after, why the Apostolic Counsel was asked for an advice and the real background for, that the blood was mentioned and included here?

Fare ye well. Is that a wich from the Apostolic Caunsil or based at a command of no-no, if not and opposite absolutely obedience, the result will be, that ones will end up in Gehenna?

What does a "decree" means to you is it the same as I found in my dictionary: "announcement, [public] notice, notification; promulgation; advertisement." Is your understanding of above vocabolary, always equal to an announcement of a no-no or a totally ban?

15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

If the sentence here, " to abstain from meat" also mean a no-no Neo or Jehovah's absolute law, without any doubts, abstain under and in every circumstances, how does it then come that Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:7,8 informed that it was Ok to eat meat, that has been to offered unto an idol?

8:7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

8:8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

Will this also mean for you Neo that a person in coma, unable to eat through his mount has to abstain from an intravenous feeding of meat to sustain life, that sustain from blood still means a no-no?

Neo think of this. If I had the permission to write what Paul he wrote, and it is without any doubts that both meat and blood is mentioned, to abstain from, will it not be resonable and fair also to read this versus regarding the blood in this manner?

My mentally version of the verse:

"8:8 But the blood commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we take a blood transfusion, are we the better; neither, if we take a blood transfusion not, are we the worse."

0 Replies

Neo I'm still waiting for you response and answer to my previously question!

Ps. Have you noticed that there in Acts 15:29 also is stated, abstain from fornication?

15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

So when we read and shall understand the word "abstain" as a no-no. How does it then come, that the Watchtower Society allow their members to use 97 % of the read blood cells without the donut, where the red blood cells, in a normal individual, is to be about 14-15 % of the blood, where water is to be 79-80 of the blood volume. The rest of the blood without water is approximate 5 %. Is the red blood cells a minor part of the blood?, Compared with normal blood and if we suppose that water can be taken away, how many percent do you think the red blood cells constitute then?

Now above wasn't the point, but since "Abstain from Fornication" is a no-no, (it comes forth several places in the Bible, opposite the blood) and we compare it with the Watchtowers admittance of taking 10 to 12 percent (97% of the red blood cells) of the red blood cells, even that the scientist use the red blood cells to determine what's blood or not, can we also and then, as a consequence of the new light from the Watchtower, as comes forth in the August edition of Awake, BLOOD! commit a little fornication, e.g. petting or the like, on a person of the other sex, without sanctions and let it be up to our own conscience, to decide it or not, like the red blood cells without the donut?

Since the Watchtower Society, claims that they teach people Bible standards and are spokesmen for God, Gods chosen channel on earth and they look at themselves a vicar to Jesus Christ and put sanctions behind their doctrines, against their fellow men, if and then member isn't totally obedient, quite similar to what the Pope and other religious leaders have alleged thru the whole world history, how does it then comes that they now allow blood components, without sanctions, if blood is a no-no, but you are allowed to use 97 % of the red blood cells, but not the red blood cells without the donut, but fornication still is a no'no in spite of that others and I also have a conscience.

Is the donut forbidden Neo? Where in my or our Bible's can we see that, when I like to act like the Be-rea'ns? To make sure of everything, that it really is in harmony with the scriptures and a commandment from Jehovah, forwarded to us from Gods chosen channel and claims teach us Bible standards (They claim that we are to "stupid" to understand our Bibel without the Governing Body through their distrubution maschine the Watchtower Society) and convince people to prefer a premature death and what they shall believe in or not as a God fearing person as a Christian, who really likes to go in the footsteps of the head for our faith Jesus Christ?

Neo, do you like to hear my oppinion again, even that it will be of no importence, in your or many others ears? They are dangerous for themselves and are like those Jesus was warning us against, when a blind leads another blind they fall in the same pit and maybe mostly, those they convince that they have been granated with authorisation from Jehovah, similar to and alike Jim Jones fellow men in Guyanas Jungle, where adults and children died a premature death, based at doctrines from a man rather than commandments from God!!!! Psalm 146:3-5!

0 Replies

I didn't feel it was my place to reply to this...

I felt it was a personal issue between "Talkactive" & "Neo"...

Tho' I felt I would post this since I have been called "Neo" at some point...

I really hope you find the man that you looking for [wink]... and when you do he treats you in the way that you deserve to be treated. You sound like a very genuine woman, and I wish you well. :wink:

*my radio is talking about terrorism issues

tho' no major probs... I am in religion and philosophy 2day.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

What is there about the statement "abstain from...blood" (Acts 15:20) that implies a prohibition beyond eating? If your doctor told you to abstain from meat, what would you think he meant? You would think he meant to refrain from eating meat, right?

That's a pretty witless attempt at an analogy. If your doctor told you to abstain from cigarettes, would you automatically assume that he or she were telling you not to eat cigarettes? If your doctor told you to abstain from sex, would you think he or she were telling you not to eat your spouse? (Heeheeheehee . . . couldn't resist.)

Your tripe is feeble--you constantly attempt to assert that Neo is obliged to hew to a line of reasoning and belief which you are prepared to dispute. There's a name for that rhetorical exercise . . .

http://shoutluton.com/attractions/images/strawman.jpg

0 Replies

In case it's not clear what Talkactive is saying about red blood cells and the "donut", here is some clarification. While JW's are forbidden to take a transfusion of red blood cells, they are allowed to take transfusions of hemoglobin. Talkactive is pointing out that a red blood cell is 97% hemoglobin. The other 3% is the cell membrane that holds everything together. Talkactive refers to the cell membrane as the "donut".

Red blood cells are like little balloons filled with hemoglobin. To get the hemoglobin out of the red blood cells they are put in a machine that "pops" them and extracts what's inside. Once the red blood cells are fractionated into their two parts (hemoglobin & membrane) JW's can transfuse them into their body and claim they have abstained from red blood cells!

0 Replies

Thanks, Set. The complexity of T&T's rhetoric seems to have increased in reverse proportion to its rationality.

Sort of an argumentum ad avalanchium, if such a term exists. Even if there were time to respond to all, who would be willing to read it? To the ancients, the topic was simple:

Blood is sacred, even to the point of its being used in sacrifice.
They were instructed that the soul of the animal is in the blood.
When slaughtering animals, it should be poured out.
It should not be purposely eaten.
No doubt the early Christians would have avoided using blood as fertilizer.

Modern medicine has challenged us to define/refine our attitude toward blood. Is it simply the DNA that represents 'the soul' in the blood? Does saving one's blood for later use violate the command to 'pour out' blood that has been removed from the body? To me, the transfusion of whole blood from one person to another is clearly prohibited. The rest can be the subject of insufferable argument, as has been shown for over 400 posts.

I've already explained my reasons for affiliation with the Watchtower Society. The cord is held firmly in my hand, but has not tied my hands together.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Quote:

That's a pretty witless attempt at an analogy. If your doctor told you to abstain from cigarettes, would you automatically assume that he or she were telling you not to eat cigarettes? If your doctor told you to abstain from sex, would you think he or she were telling you not to eat your spouse? (Heeheeheehee . . . couldn't resist.)

Tele wrote:

Quote:

What is there about the statement "abstain from...blood" (Acts 15:20) that implies a prohibition beyond eating? If your doctor told you to abstain from meat, what would you think he meant? You would think he meant to refrain from eating meat, right?

Exactly Setanta, there's something that I like with your statements, even that is seems that you haven't understand the topic! Neo is going beyond, the recommendation, to sustain from blood; by announcing in this forum that taking a blood transfusion is equal to eat the blood! (Read Cigarettes)

I would hereby kindly ask you to answer a question: Do you know what's the difference between a Lamppost and a Loaf?

Setanta wrote:

Quote:

Your tripe is feeble--you constantly attempt to assert that Neo is obliged to hew to a line of reasoning and belief which you are prepared to dispute. There's a name for that rhetorical exercise . . .

Yes and your friend Neo is prepared to leave you and his family based at non scriptural doctrines, which in mine eyes is equal to heart himself and his family and furthermore without understanding for, what he is talking about, willing to spread the Watchtower doctrines, in spite of it's in error with the Bible and well known scientific and biological profs abaout the human body, stating that a blood transfusion is equal to eat blood, with a potential risk for being responsible for a premature death for somebody.

So if the picture is a self portrait of you Setanta, or the God of your tripe, you have attached, then it explains everything....... But anyway do you mind if I enlarge it, and use it as a warning against idolery?

0 Replies

Talkactive wrote:

. . . Neo is going beyond, the recommendation, to sustain from blood; by announcing in this forum that taking a blood transfusion is equal to eat the blood . . .

Really? I believe I said more than once that if you were told to abstain from blood, it would make no difference whether the blood was transfused or eaten. You continue to insist I must prove that transfused blood is used in the body as food when neither I nor the Watchtower Society have made that claim.

In my considered opinion, you and Tele are so thoroughly unzipped by your relatives' decision to become Jehovah's Witnesses, that you will grasp at any straw in order to discredit the Society. And, of course, since the Watchtower Society is run by imperfect men, that is not hard to do.

You apparently think that God's organization should be immune from error. I can understand why you might think that at first; but consider two examples of men who were both appointed and anointed by Jehovah: King Saul and King David. Both were sinners; and no one may claim that David's sins of adultery and murder were inconsequential. Why was David approved by God and Saul not? And why would David not kill Saul when he had the opportunity? Answer that, and you may understand my position.

0 Replies

Talkactive wrote:

. . . So if the picture is a self portrait of you Setanta, or the God of your tripe, you have attached, then it explains everything....... But anyway do you mind if I enlarge it, and use it as a warning against idolery?

http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/laughing1.gif

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

I've already explained my reasons for affiliation with the Watchtower Society. The cord is held firmly in my hand, but has not tied my hands together.

That's a simple and an elegent way of explaining your affiliation. It won't, of course, matter to the T & T team, because their object has ever been to excoriate JWs and the Watchtower, and they will brook on objections based on relative doctrinal adherence, or the force doctrinal injunction.

They've got you in their sights, Neo, and goddamnit, stop jumpin' around like that!

0 Replies

I don't customarily eat tripe, although i have from time to time enjoyed menudo . . . whether or not that tripe, or the animal from which it came, had a god, is a subject beyond my competence.

0 Replies

You think I should give the topic a rest? I think you are right. Since T&T both have one track minds, maybe 412 posts is enough.

Er, 413

0 Replies

Neologist:

Quote:

The complexity of T&T's rhetoric seems to have increased in reverse proportion to its rationality.

Sort of an argumentum ad avalanchium, if such a term exists. Even if there were time to respond to all, who would be willing to read it?

Don't lump me in with Talkactive. He has indeed hit you with a variety of subjects. I, on the other hand, am focused exclusively on the Watchtower's blood policy. And by the way, it's you that keeps prodding me to broaden our debate. If you are limited by time why are you doing this?

Most of my posts are short and to the point and ask questions that you refuse to respond to such as this one: why are JW's allowed to take a transfusion of hemoglobin that makes up 75% of the non-water part of blood but are forbidden to take a transfusion of platelets which only make up 5% of the non-water part of blood? Is this question irrational?

Neologist wrote:

Quote:

To the ancients, the topic was simple:

Blood is sacred, even to the point of its being used in sacrifice.
They were instructed that the soul of the animal is in the blood.
When slaughtering animals, it should be poured out.
It should not be purposely eaten.

No one here is disputing that blood shouldn't be eaten.

Neologist wrote:

Quote:

Modern medicine has challenged us to define/refine our attitude toward blood. Is it simply the DNA that represents 'the soul' in the blood? Does saving one's blood for later use violate the command to 'pour out' blood that has been removed from the body? To me, the transfusion of whole blood from one person to another is clearly prohibited.

Whole blood is seldom transfused. It is broken down into red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma. These parts can be further fractionated into smaller parts.

In case you missed it, the "pouring out" rule and the "no storing" rule went out the window sometime in the year 2000. Many JW's are now having their own blood put back in them during an operation or as part of an on-going therapy. This clearly shows that many JW's don't believe they are eating blood when they have it injected into their veins.

0 Replies

Still hanging around here tonight - struggling with the fact I cannot do the splits, both sides.

Wat da hell - I will stay for a while... Laughing

Blood groups - Arn't there many types.

My personal perspective...

Don't know what to say...

By da way read my "addy" sign-in, and I am furious with myself - so I might take a few moments to just gather my thoughts. Cool

0 Replies

Neo wrote:

Quote:

Blood is sacred, even to the point of its being used in sacrifice.

Neo, do you mean that Jehovah is violating his own law by being responsible for creating, the Mosquito, the Bat and the Leech, where all sustain life on sacred blood?

Quote:

They were instructed that the soul of the animal is in the blood.

Exactly Neo, that was the reason for that a killed animal blood, with is life, should be poured out as water, as a symbolic act respecting the life, as a metaphor, so to speak, give the life back to Jehovah!

Quote:

When slaughtering animals, it should be poured out.

Leviticus 17:13 and the Watchtower Society are violating Gods law by cooperating with Companies, that kills and store thousands and other thousands tons of killed cows blood and now allows loyal JW's to get it injected in their veins without sanctions!

Quote:

It should not be purposely eaten.

Neo I really hope that you have learned that taking a blood transfusion is not equal to eating the blood!

Quote:

No doubt the early Christians would have avoided using blood as fertilizer.

Then they must have stored it in big containers, otherwise it would have had the effect of being as fertilizer! But the Watchtower Society cooperate and allow JW's to use it today as described in Awake from August 2006!

Quote:

Modern medicine has challenged us to define/refine our attitude toward blood. Is it simply the DNA that represents 'the soul' in the blood? Does saving one's blood for later use violate the command to 'pour out' blood that has been removed from the body? To me, the transfusion of whole blood from one person to another is clearly prohibited. The rest can be the subject of insufferable argument, as has been shown for over 400 posts.

I've already explained my reasons for affiliation with the Watchtower Society. The cord is held firmly in my hand, but has not tied my hands together.

Yes Neo and you confirm only what I earlier tried to show, that it is impossible to discuss feelings and I'm sure, that it is a coult like behaviour and also would have been fruitless to argue with the fellow men of Jim Jones, in hope to get them to abstain from poison and to not blindly follow his doctrines, like you and others are following the Watchtowers blood doctrine actually are and will be doing, offen with a premature death, like all those small children that have been denied having a vaccination against smallpox or tetanus/lockjaw, when the Society ban vaccinations as the act of Satan!

NB. Neo do you think that the DNA of a persons blood will change if the persons own blood will be stored for a later use in connection to a planned operation, whether 1 day or more has passed by, before it will be transferred back into the same person 1:1, called autologous blood transfusion? Which the Society also forbide, but store tons of cows blod is Ok!

By your statement Neo, do you really think that your fellow men in the Kingdom Hall, which conscience allow the use of 97% of the haemaglobine cow blood, to be injected in their veins, will go around a low like the cows, simple because they got the animals soul or personality?

This guide my attention to the Watchtowers explanations, why organ transplantations was banned in former time, they stated it as canibalism, learned out, that taking an organ from another person, mostly if it was the heart, then the receiver would get the persons personality, be a maniak, drinker or evil, simply because the feeling was inside the physical heart of a person and not as it is in the real world, the sentence of hearts in the Bible, as a metaphor for a persons personality, emotions and thoughts!

It must have been you Neo they saw at Homer's place and your friend Setanta that they furthermore saw together with homer at the shooting field, with his M14.

Have you ever thought of and can imagine, back to the good old "Communist hunter" times, from the John McNamara period, that they comes back, now in a new dress, hunting God's chosen people, as described in Revelation and your friend Setanta was called in duty, to the Military infirmary, and you was wounded because of torture or other reasons, for your bleeding wounds, then suppose Setanta is commanded to sustain your life, because you have information they need and it therefore will be absolutely necessary, for him to parry orders, otherwise he will be placed in front of a firing squad. He will then give you a real shoot of blood, whether it has it's origin from humans or animals, even that you will not be responsible, simply because you have no power to stop it.

It is only a conceivable situation, but not unrealistic in principle and the same is valid for your parry of "orders" doctrines and you are willing to sacrifice your own, your wife and your children's life and others, by distribuating Watchtower's non scriptural doctrines, with no anchorage in the Bible, modern or up to date biology and scientific profs!

0 Replies

I just scanned Shocked

some of the information that is available 'n' live and interactive at your fingertips... Laughing

I am still waiting for the correct [is that based on Latin?] - response.

My mind occasionally runs off the attention I should perhaps be paying to it...

I've just re-entered this room...

And it looks like a love affair Cool

...

I know whether to stay or go [LOL]...

0 Replies

GOODbye...

Until we meet again Laughing

BTW - I hate having computer (comp) probs, don't know why I came online tonight.

I was interested in what we were talking about tho' Very Happy

0 Replies

Neo wrote:

Quote:

Really? I believe I said more than once that if you were told to abstain from blood, it would make no difference whether the blood was transfused or eaten. You continue to insist I must prove that transfused blood is used in the body as food when neither I nor the Watchtower Society have made that claim.

Neo I remember that you state that you have been a member of the Watchtower Society since 1975, and you even attended all the meetings, during the time you was disfellowshipped. Is it correct?

I'm sure that Tele will be able to improve against you that the Society has teached their members that a blood transfusion was equal to eat the blood.

By the way who have otherwise and then granted you with the idea, you announced here and started the whole discussion, in this forum, that a blood transfusion was equal to eat blood. Yourself???Is there something that I have misunderstood? Or have you been sleeping during the meetings in the Kingdom Hall? Sorry for asking but it will be interesting to know.

Quote:

In my considered opinion, you and Tele are so thoroughly unzipped by your relatives' decision to become Jehovah's Witnesses, that you will grasp at any straw in order to discredit the Society. And, of course, since the Watchtower Society is run by imperfect men, that is not hard to do.

Sorry Neo I will try my little example again an hope you can imagine this situation: "I have been preconscious responsible for your children's death, will you forgive me Neo, if I tell you as an excuse, you must have been aware of, that I'm an imperfect person, even that I claims to speak for God"

Quote:

You apparently think that God's organization should be immune from error. I can understand why you might think that at first; but consider two examples of men who were both appointed and anointed by Jehovah: King Saul and King David. Both were sinners; and no one may claim that David's sins of adultery and murder were inconsequential. Why was David approved by God and Saul not? And why would David not kill Saul when he had the opportunity? Answer that, and you may understand my position.

Neo, again prove, with any example to the world and me, that they are appointed by Jehovah, opposite Saul where Samuel have guided their attention to 3 prophetically events and further more the tribes pointed at Saul.

Prove to me whom has pointed at Russell and what prophetical sign has there been in connection to the creation of the Watchtower Society??

I have already answered your question ,why David didn't kill Saul, by above description. ("Maybe David, as you Neo, believed that saul was appinted!")

There is something that I have to point out I have nothing against members of the Governing Body, I don't know them personally at all, only the results of their doctrines and behaviour thrugh the Watchtower Society, alike that I have nothing personal against my child, but if one do something folish, which I have warned against, then I feel pain in my heart and are mad at the situation, not at my child. I will always love my Child!

Maybe I better can illustrate it, why Jehovah he saw his Creation was perfect and beutifull, but anyway he repent that he had created the humans, why?

(Not to compare at all, I am only a grain of dust and my ligfe time is only as lightening of thunder, on the heaven. Don't shoot me t in my shoes, that I make any comparrison, pls.

6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Neo I can warmly recommend youto get to learn the personality of Jehovah and I don't really hope you make the same mistake as the Amalekite, in question of the Watchtowers, non scriptual and evil blood doctrine, who didn't knew David's, personality, but wrongly thougt that he would have pleased David, by telling David that he has killed King Saul, even that he in fact didn't, The result was fatale and David said to the Amalekite: "You say youself, that you have put your hands at and killed King Saul, Jehovah's annointed, for that you shall die!!!!

I'm not going to physically kill members of the Gowerning Body or blow up the Watchtowers properties to reach my goal or treatening members, but I feel pain in my heart and I am crying and praying, day and night to Jehovah, that he will stop this insanity and let his Son Jesus Christ exeamples and guidence, come to the men of the Governing Body, whom hide themselves, in the Tower with body guards at the conventions, why?then the good news can be spread with joy and love among the nations!!!!!

0 Replies

For Neologist, and anyone else affiliated with watchtower.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know