The Truth about the Jehovah Witness

a reply to: LocutusofBorg001

First , thanks for your input, second, my apologies for butchering your username in a reply (it’s kinda hard to type), thirdly, I am not, or have ever been JW. I’m Roman Catholic and always have been, and will be.

Had to get that stuff straight. I have an interest in JW, and am no expert. You are the expert here, don’t stop.
I’m not here to save them, I’m here to warn anyone who would listen to them.

originally posted by: LocutusofBorg001
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Typical Deflection, never answer the question. You just proved the point I was making.

LOL! No need to respond, in fact please don't.

Thank you for the somewhat veiled honesty about the nature of your questions in the comment above, it is much appreciated (even when the things below may not be obvious to everyone just from your comment above since it can be interpreted or explained otherwise, but they do demonstrate the 2 things below for me, which I already realized before and are 2 of the reasons I did not answer or respond to your comment to me).

2 things can be understood from your comment above:

1. your questions are rhetorical, i.e. to make a point (rather than to get an answer; mind you, Jesus used a lot of rhetorical questions too, sometimes followed by the answer or an explanation, as he did towards the Jewish religious leaders at John 8:42-47 for example, so they can be quite useful and a good habit. Of course, when doing so, he never gave the impression that he wanted an answer to said questions if people didn't answer them in a further attempt to paint something negative, "bad" or wrong on someone's behaviour or commentary as described at Isa 5:20. I've used some rhetorical questions as well in response to Topcraft about Rev. 22:18,19 and the habit of removing God's personal name from Bible translations and replacing it with "the LORD", "the Lord", or "God". James also asked rhetorical questions at James 2:14: "Of what benefit is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but he does not have works? That faith cannot save him, can it?" In the rest of the chapter he explains why. In particular in the verses I quoted to Blue_Jay33.)

2. You do not really want/desire a response to your questions, as you put it above: "No need to respond, in fact please don't." Perhaps that was only meant for that comment specifically, but it appears to count for your earlier questions as well. From the looks of it, you feel the same way as Topcraft expressed as well: "I refuse to believe anything that comes out of JW period." If that is the case, there doesn't seem to be much point in responding does there? (rhetorical question) If that is the case, you "will not put up with" any response as it says at 2 Tim 4:3,4, you don't really wanna hear it.

The 3rd reason I did not respond to your comment to me is that I did not get the impression your question was sincere and that you wanted an answer (relates to nr.1 and 2 above). Instead they were intended to paint something on me, my commentary and "the sayings of God" (from the quotations of His Word) and cast them in a negative light. Encouraging others to ignore them, or at least not take or consider them seriously in any sort of fashion. What I described earlier as the TLDR type of response, interpreted as "Too Long Don't Read".

By the way, in spite of all the above, I can say that I am not a pioneer and I do not know the exact amount of hours I have spent commenting in this thread (the latter answer is to be expected as well, I doubt Topcraft knows how much time exactly he has spent commenting in this thread either, or anyone else for that matter who has made quite a few comments; but the question wasn't really about the exact number of hours was it? It was rhetorical after all, to make a point, the point that your comment started with just before the questions, that painted the "spewing your version of God” behaviour on my commentary, even though, they're just quotations from God's Word, the Bible, “the one who you say is your God", John 8:54; sometimes quoting Jesus Christ as at John 8:42-47 and Matthew 13:13-15; “The one who is from God listens to the sayings of God. This is why you do not listen, because you are not from God.” John 8:47 You also do not want to listen, because 'your heart has grown unreceptive' to the "beneficial teaching" from God, or his Son, Jesus Christ, as described at Matthew 13:13-15 by Jesus and by Paul at 2 Tim 4:3,4, it is not 'according to your desires').

John 8:54,55 (after the Jewish religious leaders asked Jesus: “Who do you claim to be?”)

Jesus answered: “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, the one who you say is your God. 55 Yet you have not known him, but I know him. And if I said I do not know him, I would be like you, a liar. But I do know him and am observing his word.

Jesus gave the example of how to deal with insincere rhetorical questions for which someone doesn't really want an answer cause they already asked it to make a point, or paint an inaccurate or negative picture.

“What is truth?” That was the question that Pontius Pilate, Roman governor of Judea in the first century, asked of Jesus, who was on trial before the governor. (John 18:38) Pilate, of course, was not really seeking the truth. If anything, his question revealed his skeptical or cynical attitude. Apparently, to Pilate truth was whatever a person might choose or was taught to believe; there was really no way to determine what is truth. Many today feel the same way.

Did Pilate really want an answer to his question about truth? Probably not. Jesus was the kind of man who could answer any question asked of him in sincerity, but he did not answer Pilate. And the Bible says that after asking his question, Pilate walked straight out of the audience chamber. The Roman governor likely asked the question in cynical disbelief, as if to say, “Truth? What is that? There is no such thing!” (According to Bible scholar R. C. H. Lenski, Pilate’s “tone is that of an indifferent worldling who by his question intends to say that anything in the nature of religious truth is a useless speculation.”)

Pilate’s skeptical view of truth is not uncommon today.

It's not just jw's ,
ANY 'religion' that backs white colonial expansionism,
under the facade of world zionism, is sick.
In other words, worship of zion by hymns, lectures,
false-flags, false wars . . . in the name of 'g_ds'
is NOT by any means
following Jesus Christ's teachings.

ANY establishment, group that indoctornates
governments, flags, property . . . is NOT
of God.
Even singing hymns to zion as jw's do, is against
the teachings of Jesus Christ.

_________________________________

a reply to: ToneD

Earlier in this thread I posted a link to the FAQ from the jw.org website, including a couple examples (+ links) of some of the questions there. Since I didn't include the following question, I'll do that now:

Are Jehovah’s Witnesses Zionists? (FAQ; jw.org)

No, they are not. Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christians who base their beliefs on the Scriptures. While some religions teach that the gathering of Jews in Palestine is related to Scriptural prophecy, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not hold this view. They do not believe that this political development was specifically foretold in the Scriptures. In fact, the Scriptures do not promote any one human government or exalt one ethnic group or people over another. The Watchtower, the official magazine of Jehovah’s Witnesses, has unequivocally stated: “There [is] no Scriptural support for political Zionism.”

The Encyclopædia Britannica describes Zionism as a “Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine.” Its roots are both religious and political. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not advocate Zionism as a religious doctrine, and they are completely neutral toward political Zionism.

The organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses is entirely religious and does not advocate any political arrangement, which would include Zionism. The political neutrality of Jehovah’s Witnesses has been well documented, and in some lands the Witnesses have suffered severe persecution rather than compromise that neutrality. We are convinced that only God’s heavenly Kingdom will bring lasting peace to this earth; no human government or movement can accomplish this.

A core tenet of the religious beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, regardless of where they live, is obedience to the laws of secular governments. They do not rebel against governmental authorities or participate in armed conflict.

Some more articles about Zionism:

Why Zionism Must Fail (1958)

Many Jews and non-Jews see in Zionism the fulfillment of Bible prophecies. Read on to learn why all such err and to whom such restoration prophecies do apply.

WHAT is Zionism? “Zionism is the Jewish nation on the march.” So said one Theodor Herzl, father of the Zionist movement. According to the 1953-1954 Yearbook of the State of Israel, “Zionism is a true attempt to achieve and attain the survival of the Jewish people.” And according to certain American Zionists, Zionism is, not only “Judaism at its fullest and its strongest,” but also the Messianic hope of all mankind.

Among fundamentalist clergymen of Christendom are to be found many who likewise expect great things of Zionism. The periodical Land Reborn is devoted to these views. And a comprehensive statement of this position is found in the book The Fall and Rise of Israel, by William L. Hull, a Protestant missionary who has spent many years in Palestine. He has the greatest admiration for Zionism and likens its leaders Herzl and Weizmann to Moses and Abraham. He interprets the ‘hunters and fishers’ of Jeremiah 16:16 to be the Nazis, whose persecutions caused the Jews to return to Palestine, and the ‘pure language’ of Zephaniah 3:9 to the Hebrew language, which is again being spoken in Palestine today. According to him, God permitted World War I so that Palestine might be set free from the Turks, and such men as Lloyd George, Churchill and Balfour “let God use them” in behalf of the Zionist cause “because they had faith in his Word.” Hull applies scores of prophecies recorded in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc., as well as the warning words of Gamaliel at Acts 5:38, 39, to Zionism.

In a similar vein The American Weekly, October 13, 1957, reported on the fruits of Zionism under the heading “In Modern Palestine—Bible Prophecies Are Coming True.” According to it, “they that wait for Jehovah . . . shall mount up with wings as eagles” had fulfillment when some 40,000 Jews were flown from Yemen in southwest Arabia to Palestine; and the prophecy “instead of the thorn shall come up the fir-tree” foretold the great reforestation that has taken place in the State of Israel, an increase from 17,000 trees in 1917 to 21,000,000 in 1957, most of which are conifers or cone-bearing trees. Israel’s irrigation system, the waters of which come from Mount Zion, is said to fulfill the prophecy that “in that day . . . all the brooks of Judah shall flow with waters; and a fountain shall come forth from the house of Jehovah, and shall water the valley of #tim.” Likewise to the coming of Jews from five continents and seventy-four different lands to Palestine is applied the prophecy: “Fear not; for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west; I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back; bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the end of the earth.”—Isa. 40:31; 55:13; Joel 3:18; Isa. 43:5, 6, AS.

FROM MOUNT ZION TO ZIONISM

What is the origin and history of Zionism?

The term “Zionist” was coined by one Nathan Birnbaum even before Herzl organized modern Zionism. Birnbaum borrowed the term from the Scriptures, for Zion was the name of the citadel hill in Jerusalem and the site of the palaces of Israel’s kings, beginning with King David. In fact, it was David who first freed it from the grip of the Jebusites. It was a steep hill and difficult of ascent. The name itself has been variously defined as meaning “sunny,” “fortress,” “conspicuousness” and “a monumental or guiding pillar.”

Zion became a symbol of the city of Jerusalem as well as of the two-tribe kingdom of Judah and Benjamin. It was laid waste in 607 B.C. by Nebuchadnezzar and remained a barren waste for seventy years. It was again laid waste A.D. 70 by the Roman legions. Each time this desolation was foretold to come as a punishment for the sins of the Jews.

Throughout the centuries since A.D. 70 Jews made repeated attempts to resettle Palestine, but nothing permanent ever came of it until the 1880’s, when the Choveve Zion, the “Lovers of Zion,” began to colonize Palestine. The first Aliyah, or resettlement, took place in 1882. The celebrated Dreyfuss case in France in the early 1890’s revealed intense anti-Semitism and made one Jewish correspondent, Theodor Herzl, keenly aware of the sufferings of his people and their need for a homeland. To this end, in 1897 he called together the first Zionist Congress, which had as its objective the creation of a homeland for all Jews.

For Herzl, the president of the Zionist movement, and certain other leaders, the location did not matter. They were nationalists and philanthropists, not devout religionists. But the rank and file, and especially the Russian Jews, would hear of nothing except Palestine. So Herzl capitulated, and until his death in 1904 he vainly tried to interest the leading men of the various European nations in his project of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Success, however, came to Chaim Weizmann, who succeeded Herzl as president of the Zionists. Because of his valuable help to the British government during World War I in the manufacture of munitions, he was instrumental in getting her to issue the Balfour Declaration, in which she declared herself in favor of establishing a national homeland for the Jews in Palestine.

On July 24, 1922, the Council of the League of Nations gave Britain mandatory power over Palestine. But finding that her friendship with the Jews was estranging the Arab world, Britain began to renege on her promises to the Jews. This caused violent Jewish terrorists to make Britain’s position in Palestine so difficult that at last she withdrew, on May 14, 1948, at which time the Jews established the State of Israel. Britain’s withdrawal was the signal for the Arab League to attack Israel. Although they vastly outnumbered the Israelis, they were defeated because of Israel’s superior weapons. A truce was declared at the instance of the United Nations, which has continued to this day, the Arabs refusing to concede defeat and sign a peace treaty.

The course of Zionism has been far from peaceful ever since. Not only have there been continuous strife and border incidents between Israel and her Arab neighbors, but her internal affairs have been turbulent because of radical and fanatical disagreement between its many political parties. Then, too, the Zionists who have gone to Israel are very critical of those who prefer “the flesh pots of Egypt” in the Diaspora or dispersion, such as the United States. There, incidentally, many Jews strongly oppose Zionism, insisting that Judaism is not a matter of race, nationality or politics, but purely one of ethics and religion.

WHY IT MUST FAIL

[continued in next comment]

a reply to: ToneD

WHY IT MUST FAIL

Zionism must fail because Jehovah is having nothing to do with it and “unless Jehovah himself builds the house, it is to no avail that its builders have labored on it.” For more than nineteen centuries Jehovah had shown the Hebrews special favor, but when they rejected God’s Son as their Messiah and had him put to death God ended his covenant with them and replaced it with a new one made with those who did accept Jesus Christ as their Messiah. What has counted since is not blood relationship with Abraham but having the faith of Abraham, which Zionism does not have. In fact, Ben-Gurion considers Jehovah, the God of the Bible, as a myth and quotes from the Bible because, as tradition, it “certainly carries a grain of truth.”—Ps. 127:1; Matt. 23:37, 38; 26:28; Gal. 3:7.

Nor is this the position of only Ben Gurion. Thus Waldo Frank, in his book on Israel, Bridgehead, shows that the youth of Israel think of themselves not at all as Jews but wholly as Israelis. There are therefore no facts to support the belief held by many that God will perform some miracle causing the Israeli Jews to accept Jesus as their Messiah. Nor do the Scriptures support such a position. As Jesus showed in his illustration of the rich man and Lazarus, if men do not heed the word of God’s prophets neither will they heed if a miracle is performed, such as the raising of one from the dead. Proof of which, it might be observed, was given when the resurrection of Jesus failed to result in a general conversion of the Israelites to their Christ.—Luke 16:31; Matt. 28:12-15.

In spite of its name Zionism is essentially a political movement, as Judge Sobeloff showed in his address at the banquet of the sixtieth anniversary of Zionism, held in New York city, reported on by The American Zionist, October, 1957. Speaking on the subject “Zionism as a Continuing Political Movement,” he stated that “Zionism is the reaffirmation of international justice. . . . Zionism has demonstrated . . . that politics can be the tool of morality, and Jewish politics is an extension of Judaism. . . . Zionism must remain a political movement, solidly and powerfully organized to wield its influence everywhere and especially on the American scene.”

Zionism is a part of this old world or system of things and therefore is doomed along with it. As Peter foretold in likening it to the world before the Flood: “The world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water. But by the same word the heavens and the earth that are now are stored up for fire and are being reserved to the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly men.” This will not mean the destruction of this globe, no more than that this globe was destroyed at the time of the Flood. Rather, it will mean a wiping out of the wicked system of things upon this earth by what is known as ‘the battle of Armageddon.’—2 Pet. 3:6, 7; Rev. 16:14, 16.

THE RESTORATION PROPHECIES

What, then, someone may ask, about all the prophecies that speak of Zion’s and Israel’s restoration and prosperity? Will these go unfulfilled, or have they already been fulfilled, or will they be fulfilled in the future, and, if so, by whom?

Jesus stated that it was impossible for any of God’s Word to go unfulfilled. (Matt. 5:17, 18) The facts show that these prophecies have had and are having fulfillment. How so? ... [read the rest if interested, which I somewhat doubt, there are only 4 more paragraphs in this article, including this one.]

Zionism—Does It Fulfill Bible Prophecy? (Awake!—1976)

...

... Instead, they claim that Zionism is a political ideology rather than a religious one. It is Zionist politics, they say, that displaced from their native lands thousands of Palestinian Arabs. “Most galling to the Arabs,” noted Time magazine of November 24, 1975, “is Israel’s Law of Return, which grants instant citizenship to any Jew who immigrates to Israel from anywhere in the world, while Palestinian Arabs who fled their homeland during the 1948 war are still, in most cases, prevented from returning.”

Opposition by Religious Jews

Is Zionism a religious movement? Does it perhaps relate to Bible prophecies about a return of the Jews to their homeland?

The earlier Jewish rabbinical writings do mention a future return of Jews to the Promised Land under the leadership of the Messiah. Early in the nineteenth century, however, certain Jews came to believe that this should come about, not by miraculous intervention from on high, but through human effort.

One who felt that way was Rabbi Judah Alkalai (1798-1878). According to the Encyclopaedia Judaica, in the mid-nineteenth century Alkalai “became convinced that the era of the Messiah had arrived and that the redemption would have to be achieved by human action . . . He tried to induce people to join an organized resettlement of Jewry, or some part thereof, in their homeland and to equip themselves with the attributes of a modern nation.”

Right from the start, however, many Jews opposed Zionism for religious reasons. Why? Says The Jewish Encyclopedia: “Orthodox Judaism in Europe at first held severely aloof . . . [Zionism] was supposed to be forcing the hand of Providence and to be contrary to the positive teachings of Orthodox Judaism in regard to the coming of the Messiah and the providential work of God in bringing about the restoration.” To this day the same reasoning prompts ultra-orthodox Jews to reject the state of Israel and the aims of present-day Zionism.

Religion did not prove to be the motivating force behind Zionism. Concerning “the early pioneers” who settled in Palestine at the turn of the twentieth century, Israeli author Amos Elon writes in The Israelis: Founders and Sons: “Some inevitably rationalized their action by reference to religious ties; but most were decidedly irreligious. One avowed atheist wrote shortly after his arrival in 1907: ‘What I do is not God’s will​—for I do not believe in God but what simply is right morally and in practice absolutely necessary.’”

But if not religion, what was the main motivating force? What prompted thousands of Jews to leave their native lands to take up residence in Palestine?

Zionism’s “Dominant Element”

It was “in reaction to tsarist pogroms,” declares the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1974 edition), that eastern European Jews “formed the Hoveve Zion (‘Lovers of Zion’) to promote the settlement of Jewish farmers and artisans in Palestine.”

This reference work continues: “A political turn was given to Zionism by Theodore Herzl, an Austrian journalist who regarded assimilation [of Jews into Gentile society] as most desirable, but in view of anti-Semitism, impossible to realize. Thus, he argued, if Jews were forced by external pressure to form a nation, they could lead a normal existence only through concentration in one territory.” With this agree the following remarks in the Encyclopaedia Judaica:

“The dominant element in creating many more candidates for immigration to Palestine than were ever permitted to arrive was not Zionist ideology, at least not in its cultural, ‘synthetic’ form, but the growing horror of anti-Semitism, at a time when other doors to safety were closing or were entirely closed to Jews. The sense of disaster was already deeply embedded in the consciousness of European Jews by the events which followed right after the end of World War I.”

The Role of Christendom

Though most persons link Zionism with Jewish people, much of the responsibility for the return of thousands of Jews to Palestine in recent years rests with Christendom. A Bible educator who has lived in the State of Israel for more than two decades made the following remarks in an interview:

“Moslem Arabs and Hebrews alike agree that Christendom touched off the migration of Jews back to their ancient homeland. Christendom’s Roman Catholic West and Orthodox East got the movement under way by their inhuman religious persecutions.

“For example, when Jews poured in from Russia in the late nineteenth century, they were not coming for particularly religious reasons. These refugees were fleeing pogroms fomented by the Russian Czar under influence of the Orthodox Church. Later, Christendom’s Protestant system set the stage for further gathering of Jews to Palestine. By means of the Balfour Declaration after World War I, Britain provided for setting up a Jewish home in Palestine.”

What About Bible Prophecy?

...

Zionism Has No Inalienable Right (1956)
Does Bible Prophecy Point to the Modern State of Israel? (2010)

edit on 5-6-2024 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

a reply to: ToneD

The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000) (this article is about propaganda, it precedes the page linked in my signature)

...

[Box/Pictures on page 7]

IS THE WORK OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES PROPAGANDISTIC?

Some opponents of Jehovah’s Witnesses have accused them of spreading Zionist propaganda. Others have charged that the ministry of the Witnesses promotes Communism. Still others have claimed that the work of Jehovah’s Witnesses promotes the ideals and interests of “American imperialism.” And there are those who assert that the Witnesses are anarchists, fomenting disorder with the aim of changing the social, economic, political, or legal order. Obviously, these conflicting accusations cannot all be true.

The simple fact is that Jehovah’s Witnesses are none of the above. The work of the Witnesses is carried out in faithful obedience to Jesus Christ’s mandate to his disciples: “You will be witnesses of me . . . to the most distant part of the earth.” (Acts 1:8) Their work focuses solely and exclusively on the good news of the heavenly Kingdom—God’s instrument for bringing peace to the whole earth.—Matthew 6:10; 24:14.

...

Lots of slanderous accusations (Isa 5:20), not that much truth or "beneficial teaching" (2 Tim 4:3,4) though, or "sayings of God" (John 8:47) by quoting from His Word, the Bible, for that matter.

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

Thank you for your contribution. This thread is a wonderful example, demonstration and evidence for the accuracy of 2 Tim 4:3,4; Eph 4:14; 1 Tim 4:1,2; John 8:42-47; Matt 13:13-15; Heb 5:11; 1 Pet 4:4; 2 Pet 2:1-3 and more such "sayings of God" (the Author of the Bible and thus these texts included).

On the one hand I'd like to say: 'So keep it coming.' But I don't actually want to encourage it either. But it is great evidence for what I referred to above. And with each additional bogus accusation or negative paintjob in the style of Isa 5:20, the pile of evidence keeps growing for those who can see, who can understand and "get the sense of it" (Mt 13:13-15), whose hearts are receptive and are willing to "listen", as Jesus used the verb at John 8:43 (see footnote in the quotation on the previous page), to "the sayings of God", as found in His Word, a.k.a. God's Word, the Bible. The texts I mentioned in this comment have no notable differences in rendering in the NWT (which I've been quoting from) compared to other translations, the teachings remain in essence the same (that's what I mean with "no notable differences", of course there are differences in the exact wording and rendering, using different styles of English, such as old or modern). For example, Isa 5:20,21 (KJV):

20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!

NIV:

20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.

Heb 5:11 (NIV):

We have much to say about this, but it is hard to make it clear to you because you no longer try to understand.

KJV:

Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

1 Tim 4:1,2 (NIV)

1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.
2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

ESV

1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,

Verse 2 in some other translations (as copied from Biblehub.com):

Amplified Bible
[misled] by the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared as with a branding iron [leaving them incapable of ethical functioning],

New Living Translation
These people are hypocrites and liars, and their consciences are dead.

Contemporary English Version
They will also be fooled by the false claims of liars whose consciences have lost all feeling. These liars

GOD'S WORD® Translation
These people will speak lies disguised as truth. Their consciences have been scarred as if branded by a red-hot iron. [whereislogic: "lies disguised as truth", remember Isaiah 5:20 quoted further above? 'Painting darkness as light', 'putting darkness for light and bitter for sweet', 'calling evil good and good evil'. The latter is usually, and especially in this thread, done in the lie/false story or false claim or accusation itself. Painting true Christians, who in obedience to Jesus' commandment at John 13:34,35 and in accordance with Paul's description of true Christians at 2 Cor 10:3-5, “are not doing military service”, as evil, and not doing military service as something "bad", wrong or immoral; not right in the moral sense, as the New Catholic Encyclopedia asserts: “Conscientious objection is morally indefensible.” Conscientious objection being the legal term for refusing military service.]

Good News Translation
Such teachings are spread by deceitful liars, whose consciences are dead, as if burnt with a hot iron.

American Standard Version
through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron;

originally posted by: ToneD
It's not just jw's ,
ANY 'religion' that backs white colonial expansionism,
under the facade of world zionism, is sick.
In other words, worship of zion by hymns, lectures,
false-flags, false wars . . . in the name of 'g_ds'
is NOT by any means
following Jesus Christ's teachings.

ANY establishment, group that indoctornates
governments, flags, property . . . is NOT
of God.
Even singing hymns to zion as jw's do, is against
the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Or the shorter version:

The use of the name Zion (a name used in the Bible for a variety of purposes, but mostly to identify the place known as "Mount Zion" or as part of some prophecy) in hymns, lectures or even just comments like yours which also mentions "zion", does not automatically mean it has anything or something to do with "Zionism" (as if the context in which the term "Zion" is used doesn't matter, that's what I mean with "automatically", as if the mere use of the term "Zion" automatically means it has something to do with Zionism, or that it is promoting Zionism, etc. Just because you don't, or don't want to, or pretend not to understand the song or lecture and what it is really about, which, depending on the context, could be as spoken about in the Bible and Bible prophecy, which has nothing to do with Zionism nor worshipping Zion; which is the case for Jehovah's Witnesses when they use the term "Zion" in connection to these biblical subjects, whether it is in a lecture, song or article). Zionism is clearly described and elaborated on in the articles I quoted from. Also the mere use of the term "Zion" in songs, does not automatically mean or is not automatically the equivalent of "singing hymns to zion" or "worship of zion", as if the actual content of the song (and why it mentions "Zion"), the context, doesn't even matter. That is what is called "spin" and is of no use in an honest rational conversation or comment. Treating it as such shows a rather unhealthy fascination and fixation on the topic of Zionism, possibly caused by those promoting or encouraging such a fascination and fixation, most of whom can be found in the Muslim world (but also among right wing extremists, neo-nazis and others heavily affected by anti-semitism*, where their main subject for pushing that button, is talking about Zionism, usually without accurate information about what's really wrong with Zionist ideologies and political agendas, and how Bible prophecy is misapplied by Zionists, why it's doomed to fail as the first longer article explained, who and what these Bible prophecies concerning Zion actually refer to, etc.).

*: to be clear, speaking against the tenets of Zionism, is also not the equivalent of being anti-semitic, it is not anti-semitism (that's not why I mentioned that those heavily affected by anti-semitism like to speak against Zionism, one of their favorite subjects, just pointing it out before that remark is spinned that way). As one can see from the articles shared previously, they too speak against Zionism, yet their motive is not anti-semitism, they are not anti-semites for doing so. And that is also not the meaning of my remark where this footnote is placed, as if doing so makes one anti-semitic. I was talking about the motive why some types like to bring up the subject of Zionism to support their anti-semitism or push that button in their potential audience (play on those anti-semitic emotions, tickle people's ears to get their attention and support for what else they have to sell their target market/audience, catering to their market as per 2 Timothy 4:3,4).

originally posted by: ToneD
It's not just jw's ,
ANY 'religion' that backs white colonial expansionism,
under the facade of world zionism, is sick.
In other words, worship of zion by hymns, lectures,
false-flags, false wars . . . in the name of 'g_ds'
is NOT by any means
following Jesus Christ's teachings.

ANY establishment, group that indoctornates
governments, flags, property . . . is NOT
of God.
Even singing hymns to zion as jw's do, is against
the teachings of Jesus Christ.

_________________________________

I find this post very interesting, it's a very big net you just cast,
Also the first time I have ever heard singing is unchristian.

In fact it's a point I have never had to counter from the bible, but for all those reading this I will.

1 Chronicles 15:16 Amplified Bible

Then David told the chiefs of the Levites to appoint their relatives as the singers, with instruments of music—harps, lyres, and cymbals—to play loudly and to raise sounds of joy [with their voices].

Psalms 150

1Praise the Lord.

Praise God in his sanctuary;

praise him in his mighty heavens.

2Praise him for his acts of power;

praise him for his surpassing greatness.

3Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet,

praise him with the harp and lyre,

4praise him with timbrel and dancing,

praise him with the strings and pipe,

5praise him with the clash of cymbals,

praise him with resounding cymbals.

6Let everything that has breath praise the Lord.

Praise the Lord.

Some might not know the history of how Christian singing actually sparked the very start of it's truth revival in the 19th century; only a few years after the American civil war ended; if you know, you know.

originally posted by: ToneD
It's not just jw's ,
ANY 'religion' that backs white colonial expansionism,
under the facade of world zionism, is sick.
In other words, worship of zion by hymns, lectures,
false-flags, false wars . . . in the name of 'g_ds'
is NOT by any means
following Jesus Christ's teachings.

ANY establishment, group that indoctornates
governments, flags, property . . . is NOT
of God.
Even singing hymns to zion as jw's do, is against
the teachings of Jesus Christ.

_________________________________

Mount Zion is in heavenly Jerusalem. In the Bible mountains represent governments. The mount Zion that Jesus is standing on with the 144,000 in Revelation 14 is not on earth, but represents Jesus' kingdom government established in heaven that will soon come to crush and put an end to all human rule and establish a heavenly government over all the earth of justice and peace. Here is a thread I authored awhile ago explaining this:

Heavenly Jerusalem Vs New Jerusalem

Jehovah's Witnesses understand that prophecy with relation to the Israel of God in our day has nothing to do with the secular state of Israel, and is actually the anointed Christian congregation. The remnant of the 144,000 that are alive on earth, the remaining ones of the offspring of the woman foretold in Genesis 3:15 which Satan is at war with.

ETA:
To the poster addressed in this post and to all who run across this post. I highly recommend you take the time to read those links I posted to the threads I authored about these subjects, along with the related links in those threads to other threads explaining related themes. Over the years I have authored these threads to give a more in-depth yet easy to understand explanation of Bible prophecy and how it is unfolding today, especially with regards to the Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. I have actually had a number of users on this website over that time period to reach out and personally tell me that my explanation of these things has opened their minds to see that Jehovah's Witnesses have the truth. I purposefully made these threads without linking back to the JW.ORG website so that no one could accuse me of copying and pasting or trying to evangelize. These are merely truths from the Bible that need to be made known. And I find a conspiracy site most appropriate for such a thing.

In fact upon signing up there is a statement, there used to be a statement that out of all of the pages on this website it must contain the truth within it. I believe that statement to be factual. I found the statement it is actually in the link About AboveTopSecret.com:

With 309,685 members generating 19,258,665 posts of substance (minimal contributions are not allowed) that cover 1,054,473 topics in 170 different discussion forums, you could say "the truth is in here."

And I believe that my threads bare witness to the truth about the universal war being waged, even right here on this website between the forces of good and evil, Jehovah and Satan, and Satan's offspring, especially the religious leaders around the world and the clergy of Christendom, and the offspring of the woman, who right now is the remainder of the 144,000 on earth, of which over 20,000 spirit-anointed and adopted children of Jehovah God are found among the many millions of Jehovah's Witnesses.

a reply to: randomuser2034

This is to all out here who read the words of the above posts mine and others. Go out and get a KJV Bible, or a modern translation that tries to clean up the wording of the original Latin WITHOUT trying to change the meaning.

Changing thee and thou into modern English, so we can better understand is perfectly fine. Changing what God intended to say is nothing less than Satanic. JW are not Gods chosen. No way in hell! Their originator used strange esoteric references to form his beliefs pyramidology for one. There was a big push from others at the same time trying to snuff out the Actual word of God, and replace it with their own. Order of the Golden dawn was one, Aleister Crowley was another. If you want a real hoot, look into his Thelema religion. He called himself “The Beast”, and was known at the time as “The most wicked man alive” he was into pyramids also.

Are the JW satanists? I’m not saying that. But I believe that’s the influence there. It’s not from the God that Christian’s know. I refuse to leave the trash they peddle alone, and will call it what it is. Wherever I see it

Don’t listen to me if you think I’m wrong, don’t listen to them because they copy and paste you to death with half truths, and lies to impress you with how holy they are.

LOOK FOR YOURSELF!!!!! The truth will jump out at you. Try it, compare the real original Bible to what they quote. It doesn’t have the same message. It was changed to deceive both them and you. Please don’t fall for it. They already have. Once you belong to them, you don’t belong to the Christian God Jesus Christ. Look carefully.

posted by:Blue_Jay33[/post]
. . the first time I have ever heard singing is unchristian.

I never stated that singing is 'unchristian', you misunderstood.
What I said was that Jw's,
DO indeed sing to, and for zion.
I should know,
because that was the primary reason I left the group.
Why ? praise a perceived zionistic 'utopia' when,
JC taught = ethical-values and principles,
NOT stuff of this world, temples, churches material desires.

Have you ever given any consideration to non-jews ?
Apparently non-jews, first people, aboriginals, . . are damned
if they do not take part of a jewish zionists 'utopia' ?
No thanks,
Ethical values, and principles that
Jesus Christ taught is all that is needed.
'refuge' is for criminals.

_____________________________

originally posted by: ToneD

posted by:Blue_Jay33[/post]
. . the first time I have ever heard singing is unchristian.

I never stated that singing is 'unchristian', you misunderstood.
What I said was that Jw's,
DO indeed sing to, and for zion.
I should know,
because that was the primary reason I left the group.
Why ? praise a perceived zionistic 'utopia' when,
JC taught = ethical-values and principles,
NOT stuff of this world, temples, churches material desires.

Have you ever given any consideration to non-jews ?
Apparently non-jews, first people, aboriginals, . . are damned
if they do not take part of a jewish zionists 'utopia' ?
No thanks,
Ethical values, and principles that
Jesus Christ taught is all that is needed.
'refuge' is for criminals.

_____________________________

I understood what you were insinuating and kindly corrected your misunderstanding. See this post.

originally posted by: Topcraft
a reply to: randomuser2034

This is to all out here who read the words of the above posts mine and others. Go out and get a KJV Bible, or a modern translation that tries to clean up the wording of the original Latin WITHOUT trying to change the meaning.

Almost everyone that came into the truth before the 1960's studied the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses with translations such as the King James Version. And in fact if you want to do that, or use your own version whatever it is and ask a Jehovah's Witness to teach you the truth they would be happy to do so. And anyone else as well. As was posted above already but worth a repeat:

Have Jehovah’s Witnesses Changed the Bible to Fit Their Beliefs?

No, we haven’t. On the contrary, when we have discovered that our beliefs were not completely in line with the Bible, we have changed our beliefs.

Long before we started producing the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures in 1950, we examined the Bible. We used whatever translation was available and formed our beliefs accordingly. Consider a few examples of long-standing beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and decide for yourself whether they match what the Bible really teaches.


Do Jehovah’s Witnesses depend on the New World Translation to support their beliefs?

No, for we continue to use many translations of the Bible in our witnessing work. In fact, while we provide a copy of the New World Translation at no charge as part of our free Bible study program, we are also happy to study with those who prefer to use other translations.

In actuality many many people started out studying and going to meetings just to disprove what the Witnesses were teaching who have ended up converting and becoming Jehovah's Witnesses. It happens all the time. Of course these people are honest at heart and when shown the truth are willing to adjust.

I really believe at heart you are. And I will tell you why. You are zealous for what you understand to be the truth. I told you this before and I'll tell you it again. That shows you care about what you think is good and true. You have a zeal for God. Many do not. And we have that in common. And I am sure if you actually took the time to sit down, if you are sincere, and I believe you are, you would eventually be persuaded to let go of a lot of your long-standing prejudices and misunderstandings.

That is exactly what happened with this Catholic Lawyer. I recommend you take the time to watch his testimony. Notice when he was staunchly against his wife studying the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses, even threatening to divorce her and leave her, how she was told that was good, because it showed that her husband was zealous for what he believed was right, just like Saul of Tarsus who later became known as the apostle Paul.

I Put The Truth On Trial

posted by: Topcraft[/post]
compare the real original Bible to . .

kjb is NOT anywhere near the original 'bible', sorry to
disappoint those that thought so, but No.
Did you know that There are fourteen books of the dead sea scrolls,
that were conveniently censored because they didn't
fit the zionists narrative ?
Did you know that the oldest monotheistic religion is
called Zoroastrianism because evidence of its practice dates back to 10,000 – 7,000 BC.
Pre-dating all abrahamic monotheistic religions.

__________________________

a reply to: Topcraft

This is to all out here who read the words of the above posts mine and others. Go out and get a KJV Bible, or a modern translation that tries to clean up the wording of the original Latin WITHOUT trying to change the meaning.

Changing thee and thou into modern English, so we can better understand is perfectly fine.

I don't think you realize that the "Bible Students" received all their core belief from the King James Bible, JW's used it until the 50's in fact.
In other words the truth of all the major doctrines believed by them today were learned and understood by reading and studying the KJB. So really your persistent argument about the bible issue is null and void, I am sorry you didn't know the history accurately, but now you do.

I personally own a KJB which I purchased a few years ago, I also use it in cross reference translations on BibleHub, but I usually find other bibles that say it better. On ATS I specifically avoid quoting the NWT because of the unwarranted prejudice against it by people like yourself.
Being on ATS has made me read more bible translations for quoting purposes, I have come to the conclusion that you can get the "truth" from almost every bible translation there is.

I am still very appreciative the original basic KJB stills uses God's personal name in Psalms 83:18, and for that it gets a thumbs up from me, and agreement from your comment that people should use the KJB.

Ta reply to: ToneD

Thank you for having an actual conversation with me. I know that you are actually considering what I’m saying whether you Agee or not. Here’s my take on your post.

I agree, KJV is not anything near original Bible. The Latin Bible is the original Bible. Before that, there were only texts and remains of texts. Rome put them together. The Old Testament was well established for thousands of years by then. The New Testament did not exist when they started. The effort was centered on the life of Christ, and the prophecy related to his coming, to define Christianity.

The problem with the Bible, is I can’t read and understand Latin. Not many can. The Bible was meant to be interpreted by priests who were taught Latin, so they could explain it to their flock, most people at the time couldn’t read their own language, let alone Latin. Of course I can see problems with that, a corrupt priest could tell them anything and they had no choice but to believe them.

Still, it’s not hard to detect the falsehood's. In fact it’s simple. Compare what the Latin Bible says, to what you have been told. How do you do that even with your ignorance of Latin? Simple. Ask as many people as you can find who DO speak Latin, and compare the results.

There is nothing in those Dead Sea scrolls that wasn’t looked thru at the time. They weren’t conveniently left out at the time, they were rejected as false doctrine, when that happened or even before, they were squirreled away in caves because either someone didn’t want them destroyed, or get caught with them in their possession. The crime of heresy was punished harshly.

Most of those scrolls are singles if I recall. Two that come to mind are the gospel of Mary Magdalene, and the gospel of Judas.
I have read both. They don’t follow what was accepted fact at the time, they say something that’s totally off the wall, in relation to other documents that were acceptable at the time.

Yes, I have looked at Zoroastrian beliefs, some of the similarities are staggering, but prove nothing either for or against Christianity.

You may have a really interesting point, when first looked into it, it knocked me back a bit. Then the thought came to me that maybe god was doing a trial run for the main event in the year1. I don’t know. I don’t try to find things to disprove my beliefs, plenty of people in this thread are trying to that, and more power to them. Just like the Dead Sea scrolls that don’t agree with the bulk of what we know about Christ, I reject them and won’t waste anymore time on them.

Your words here are those of a searcher. You’re still trying to put everything together. I believe that you are sincere, and I applaud you for it. Me? I found my truth. I hope you find yours.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

You find other bibles that say it better????

There is only 1 Bible. The Latin bible. Anything after is a translation from Latin to whatever language you want. I have no doubt that the Vatican has all the texts in the archives both the ones they used, the ones they rejected everything. They are the authority on the Bible period.

JW could be an authority also, but they are definitely not. Why? You had no access to the documents that were used. You attempted to get around the Bible by getting in front of the Latin. You say it wasn’t translated correctly from the Greek. The Latin was the divinely inspired Bible. You quote fragments of it here and agree with the fact it’s divinely inspired, and correct. With a few additions of your own of course.

Who did your translations from the Greek and when? From what I understand, Scholars of Ancient Greek laugh at what you have done. When the scraps were brought together to be translated, people could speak Ancient Greek as a language.

JW never had access to the original documents, what you have is a fictional story loosely based on the original, nothing more. And as far as the name Jehovah that was taken out 7000 times, I know you don’t like it, but it was to separate us from the Jewish traditions. We are not Jews, we are not JW, we are Christians. Plus it’s really easy to spot you guys, especially the JW. It does what it was intended to do. And it’s not disrespectful, and was never meant to be.

Edit. Jehovah is in the Bible 7 times actually

a reply to: Topcraft

Man.....I feel like talking to a wall with you, and in a hamster wheel at the same time....I have tried in two threads to point you in the right direction of truth.....

But even if our gospel is [in some sense] hidden [behind a veil], it is hidden [only] to those who are perishing; 4among them the god of this world [Satan] has blinded the minds of the unbelieving to prevent them from seeing the illuminating light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves [merely] as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake. 6For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give us the Light of the knowledge of the glory and majesty of God [clearly revealed] in the face of Christ.

- 2 Corinthians Chapter 4: 3-6 Amplified Bible

You will find out the truth of reality in either two ways, at your death and future resurrection back to this earth,(that's right; your aren't going to hell, heaven or purgatory) or if you live long enough into the coming Great Tribulation during Judgment.

Either way this will apply...

Ezekiel 28:26
They will dwell on it in security and build houses and plant vineyards, and they will dwell in security when I execute judgment on all those around them who treat them with scorn; and they will have to know that I am Jehovah their God.”’”

So my friend I conclude by saying you will learn the "truth" one way or another it's not if, but when.
I wish you well on your spiritual journey.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

we agree to disagree then. I build no walls around me, not of scripture or of bricks. I am open to all, only my identity is hidden here. I wrap myself in the cloak of Christ’s love. His name is engraved on my soul.

You are wrong on another point though, and I have to point it out. I already know the truth of reality, I don’t have to wait for anything. The truth found me actually. If you don’t find out until you die, that means you’re still on the path to truth at that moment. I think that’s the cutoff point.

Like I said, I am pretty much done here, I really don’t know what else I can say. I would really like to invite you to my next post. You will be able to freely engage the subject as you wish. It’s going to also be my 2nd and last post on this site, after that, I’m going to be leaving ATS and on to another project. It will be a bit yet, so keep an eye out for it, as it’s going to be a good one.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Topcraft

Man.....I feel like talking to a wall with you, and in a hamster wheel at the same time....I have tried in two threads to point you in the right direction of truth.....

...

This is from my first comment in this thread, note the bolded parts, they contain clues concerning the answer to the question at the end of the quoted part (as to motive; the comment itself is a bit longer):

originally posted by: whereislogic
...

The story was investigated and disproved several times, yet it persisted for almost a thousand years. If someone had told it to you, would you have shared in spreading it? Hopefully, all of us would have had enough common sense or compassion not to do so.

Many years ago, Jehovah God told the Israelites: “You shall not spread a baseless rumour.” (Exodus 23:1, The New English Bible) There was good reason for that command. Such rumors have bad results. They make the one spreading them a liar, something Jehovah hates. (Proverbs 6:16-19) They affect the reputation of the subject of the rumor. And they deceive the person who listens to the rumor, perhaps inciting him to act unwisely. (Numbers 13:32–14:4) It is most unloving thus to deceive our friends. It goes against God’s command: “You must not deceive, and you must not deal falsely with one another. ”​—Leviticus 19:11; Proverbs 14:25.

...

Who is there that has not heard a rumor? The more fantastic and excitement-arousing or scandalous the rumor, often the more readily it is believed and spread. Rumors excite, disturb, cause anxiety, raise false hopes and may slander people. Obviously, then, rumors are something to be reckoned with. How can one avoid being misled, disturbed unnecessarily or falsely encouraged?

First of all, it will help you to keep in mind the definition of a rumor, given earlier but here's another—”a story or statement talked of as news without any proof that it is true.” Whether it has basis in actuality or not, the rumor lacks acceptable authority. So you can detect a rumor not only by the obvious words “there is a rumor that . . .” (or to quote Topcraft from the OP: “it is also rumored . . . that . . .”) but also by the fact that its distinguishing feature is lack of sound evidence. The rumor has no secure standard of evidence. Well, then, should you believe rumors?

...
If a rumor does not involve you personally and it is something that cannot be easily confirmed then why risk spreading something that may not be true?

Even though the question above is more rhetorical, one can answer it in some cases where someone is doing that and leaving sufficient clues as to motive. Quite a few comments later I quoted Proverbs 26:20-28:

20 Where there is no wood, the fire goes out,

And where there is no slanderer, quarreling ceases.

21 As charcoal for the embers and wood for the fire,

So a contentious man kindles a quarrel.

22 The words of a slanderer are like tasty morsels;* [Or “like things to be swallowed greedily.”]

They are gulped right down into the stomach.

23 Like a silver glazing over a piece of earthenware

Are affectionate words from* an evil heart. [*: Lit., “fervent lips with.”]

24 The one who hates others disguises it with his lips,

But inside he harbors deceit.

25 Although he speaks graciously, do not trust him,

For there are seven detestable things in his heart.* [Or “For his heart is completely detestable.”]

26 Though his hatred is concealed by deceit,

His evil will be exposed in the congregation.

27 The one who digs a pit will fall into it,

And whoever rolls away a stone—it will come back on him.

28 A lying tongue hates those crushed by it,

And a flattering mouth causes ruin.

Above that, was the Insight article about flattery, it mentioned:

While the use of flattery may appear to be the gainful course, the Bible points out that “he that is reproving a man will afterward find more favor than he will that is flattering with his tongue.” (Pr 28:23) When a person employs flattery to gain advantage over another person, it is the opposite of love. A hater may resort to flattery but will eventually have his deceptiveness roll back on him like a stone.​—Pr 26:24-28.

Note the reference there at the end, those are the verses I quoted from Proverbs, plus some extra. People are quick to choose flattery over loving reproof, some emotions and their accompanying modus operandi just come easier (in particular in this system of things as a result of what is being promoted, encouraged and conditioned by its god and ruler). Love is hard, as is reproof.

Reproof (Insight on the Scriptures)

That which is designed to convince others of their having erred, in order to move them to acknowledge their mistakes and correct these. ...

When Needed. In God’s law to Israel, persons transgressed against were urged: “You must not hate your brother in your heart. You should by all means reprove your associate, that you may not bear sin along with him.” (Le 19:17) Feelings of resentment against the erring brother were not to be allowed to fester. He was to be reproved with a view to recovering him from sin. Failure to discharge this moral responsibility could contribute toward further sin, and the person who held back from reproving his associate would share responsibility for such sin.​—Compare Mt 18:15.

...

Although reproof can benefit those who receive it, the efforts of the reprover are not always appreciated. Thus Proverbs 9:7, 8 warns: “He that is correcting the ridiculer is taking to himself dishonor, and he that is giving a reproof to someone wicked​—a defect in him. Do not reprove a ridiculer, that he may not hate you. Give a reproof to a wise person and he will love you.” [whereislogic: I referred to this truth in the comment about flattery and ridicule where I quoted from Proverbs 26; it's at the end in the external box about ridicule.]

Proper Attitude. Since the Scriptures are inspired of God, all reproof solidly based on them is really reproof from him. (2Ti 3:16) Jehovah’s reproof is an expression of love, not to be abhorred or rejected. (Pr 3:11, 12) As head of the Christian congregation, Jesus Christ, in affection for its members, sees to it that needed reproof is given through spiritually qualified men. (Re 3:14, 19) Wise ones appreciate that “the reproofs of discipline are the way of life.”​—Pr 6:23.

The sinful human tendency is to resent reproof and the human servant through whom it may be given. But yielding to this tendency degrades one to the level of an unreasoning beast lacking moral discrimination; as the inspired proverb expresses it: “A hater of reproof is unreasoning.” (Pr 12:1) In contrast, the psalmist David, who was himself repeatedly reproved, wrote: “Should the righteous one strike me, it would be a loving-kindness; and should he reprove me, it would be oil upon the head, which my head would not want to refuse.”​—Ps 141:5.

I think I covered that as well in one of my comments afterwards. But I wanted to quote Rev 3:19 and I think I was out of space for that there:

“All those for whom I have affection, I reprove and discipline. So be zealous and repent.”

Don't choose flattery, choose reproof. Don't give in to hate, but choose to truly "love your neighbour as yourself." (Mark 12:31)

Keep in mind that there are those 'who have an appearance of godliness, but are proving false to its power.' (2 Tim 3:5) The evidence is sometimes there by what choices they make in their modus operandi.

edit on 9-6-2024 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)