Shawnster

Anything a politician decides is a political decision.

Which is dumb. Who does the world owe this debt to? Each other! So why don't they just cancel the outstanding debt, at least cancel the equal amounts owed to each other.

I had a Bible unit in 9th grade English Literature. The problem with that particular unit was, when discussing a parable of Jesus, the textbook tried to make application as to what the parable was about. Of course, they were wrong. That was a dangerous situation for someone studying because now I had to study a wrong teaching. I was able to get out of the assignment.

Which, by definition, is not neutral. As Christians, why would we have views on which political entity is competent/incompetent to govern? The reality is they are all incompetent. (Jeremiah 10:23) 23 I well know, O Jehovah, that man’s way does not belong to him. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.bring salvation.+ https://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&pub=nwtsty&srctype=wol&bible=24010023&srcid=share (Psalm 146:3, 4) 3 Do not put your trust in princes Nor in a son of man, who cannot bring salvation. His spirit* goes out, he returns to the ground;+ On that very day his thoughts perish.+ https://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&pub=nwtsty&srctype=wol&bible=19146003&srcid=share Do not trust politicians. It is not their place to rule anyone. By choosing to be an elected official these people are stealing what does not belong to them. They are not competent to direct their own lives, let alone anyone else.

Actually, some sins are viewed as worse than others. For example, we use the term "gross sin" to distinguish conduct that is more abhorrent than some other type of sin. In the time of ancient Israel the Law said some sins resulted in being unclean for a time while other sins resulted in death. At 1 Corinthians 5:1 Paul described a situation that was so immoral it was unheard of even among the nations. Even today some sins have a longer consequence than others. A brother who committed immortality and was removed from the congregation may, in time, return to Jehovah and even serve as an elder. On the other hand, a brother that committed rape or child molestation may never have any appointmented position again no matter how repentant he is. Yes, all sin results in death but some sins are worse than others. We no doubt would use tact in witnessing to such individuals. Who among us has not been blunt with friends or family when discussing a householder or even someone in the congregation, only to use tact and season our words with salt when actually speaking to said individual? But your counsel is sound. We all need reminded how easy it is to lose our neutrality. If we think or express an opinion that this country would have been better off with that president instead of this president, are we really neutral in our heart?

The irony is that Trump has support from the evangelical religions right and those people make heat airs about morality yet wholeheartedly support obvious amoral leaders.

So he won each time he ran. Wow!

No. Why would it? They both receive the same judgement in Jehovah's eyes.

What does any of this have to do with Bible research or personal study?

I pity the fool that censors the news

An entire Governing Body Update dedicated to the history of beards and ending with the direction that beards are acceptable might be your first clue.

This paints a whole lot of people with the same brush. It is possible for people raised in such rotten environments to change their ways. How many Witnesses come from backgrounds totally opposite of Jehovah's people? Cain's lineage of male descendants ended at the Flood. That's all we can say. Honestly we do not know the family history of Noah's wife nor the wives of his sons, nor Noah's mom's side. It's possible none of these women had a straight line of ancestry back to Adam. They all could be a mix of any number of Adam's children. Maybe Cain, maybe not. The Bible is silent on the matter.

Dress and grooming can also affect who one works with in the ministry. In some cases elders have told ones that have dressed inappropriately to go home or work by themselves. Typically this has been someone dressing immodestly. Anyone can come to the KH wearing what they want. We have visitors all the time from all walks of life. Yes, you are correct in that our dress and grooming affects our standing in the congregation and our qualifications for assignments and privileges. Even ones in good standing and who are exemplary publishers have occasionally come to meetings dressed inappropriately. Typically these are ones who left work late and came straight to the meeting, choosing to attend as much of the meeting as possible instead of wasting time going home to change and possibly miss the entire meeting. Of course this was in the time before Zoom. As always, such experiences were the exception and not the rule. Bottom line is where is our heart? Do we insist on our own thinking or do we make concession for the conscience of others? Do we value sacred things and choose to give Jehovah our best, even in regards our dress and grooming?

Yes. Well, forbidden may not be the correct word, but sisters wearing pants was viewed the same as brothers having a beard. Such a choice of dress and grooming would not be considered exemplary, nor in good standing. This was such a way of thinking that anyone who chose to go against it really revealed their heart was not complete toward Jehovah. I know/knew a sister that was counseled for her attempt to regularly wear pants to the meeting. She ended up getting disfellowshipped, nut because of the pants, but because what was really in her heart. It's like today. Wearing a T Shirt and shorts to the meeting would be inappropriate. It's not dress attire. That's how sisters wearing slacks was viewed.

I think some of this is no longer our current understanding. I think. It's hard to tell since you are referencing kings in the BCE era. I could be mistaken and you correct. *** w20 May p. 3 “The King of the North” in the Time of the End *** b For the reason stated here, it no longer seems appropriate to list Roman Emperor Aurelian (270-275 C.E.) as a “king of the north” or Queen Zenobia (267-272 C.E.) as a “king of the south.” This updates what was published in chapters 13 and 14 of the book Pay Attention to Daniel’s Prophecy! https://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&docid=2020400&srctype=wol&srcid=share&par=40