Shawnster

All of them? Almost all of them? Any war in which one nation invades another and sets up control over that newly acquired territory is a war fought over resources or land grab, no?

I suspect that is secondary. Or political double talk. After all, how can they claim it as their territory and also claim it is a buffer between NATO and their territory? By definition it can't be both. I could understand threatening/convincing Ukraine to stay out of NATO. As long as Ukraine is independent, then it could be a buffer between the two.

If I was a leader of a nation like Ukraine I would not be in favor of giving any of my territory up to another country, either. What I'm surprised hasn't happened (and maybe this is how a Trump deal will work) is that Russia pays Ukraine for the right to use Crimea or access to the Mediterranean. Make it a business transaction. Why does Russia want the territory they seized? Would they be willing to pay for the right to use it?

That's really up for debate. I have thoughts. While I have heard more than once that, no, the Founding Fathers did not want or envision the US to be a Christian nation, I have doubts just how non-denominational they truly envisioned their new country. How could they truly imagine a secular, non religious US or a US that embraced all religions, including non judeo-Christian religions? Their entire world view was shaped by Christendom. It's clear they did not want what Europe, especially England, had. The monarch was the head of the church (still is) and the Anglican Church was the official state religion. The United States was initially colonized by people fleeing religious persecution, including persecution from Anglican followers. However, it's not like those colonists were atheists or Muslims or Hindu. The stereotypical colonists was a Puritan. The founders did not want an official state religion. They did not want the government ran by their religion, not their religion ran by their government.

Yes, super old. The ones remaining from that generation would be in their 80s or 90s. Of course, many people live into their 80s or 90s.

Yeah, I had that impression after I hit "Submit Reply" and noticed who I was responding to. On the other hand, you know many think this way in truth if not in jest.

But why start counting 120 years from 1914? What scriptural reason is there? For that matter, what scriptural reason is there to connect 120 years in Genesis to Armageddon? There isn't. No reason whatsoever. If anyone has learned anything from 1975, 1925, even wrong expectations regarding 1914 it's that it is not a healthy, spiritual mature idea to speculate in such a fashion. Would it be nice if Armageddon happens in 2034? Sure. But it would be even nicer if Armageddon was tomorrow.

Yeah, well, what do I know

@Tortuga. I didn't want to derail your other topic, so I'll resurrect this one. Some who are considered in full time service, such as both regular and remote Bethelites, do not have an hour goal or requirement for their ministry. However, these people are involved in an assignment or form of sacred service that most other publishers are not involved in. So they are still doing something that sets them apart from or distinguishes them from a typical publisher. *** w24 February p. 14 par. 2 Lessons We Can Learn From the Nazirites *** 2 The word “Nazirite” comes from the Hebrew term that means “One Singled Out,” “Separated One,” or “Dedicated One.” This term aptly describes the zealous Israelites who made certain personal sacrifices to serve Jehovah in a special way. The Mosaic Law allowed for a man or a woman to make a special vow to Jehovah by choosing to live as a Nazirite for a period of time.a (Read Numbers 6:1, 2.) That vow, or solemn promise, involved following guidelines that the rest of the Israelites did not have to observe. Why, then, would an Israelite choose to take the Nazirite vow? Such an Israelite was likely motivated by deep love for Jehovah and sincere gratitude for His rich blessing.—Deut. 6:5; 16:17. https://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&docid=2024282&srctype=wol&srcid=share&par=8 The entire nation of Israel was dedicated to Jehovah, but the Nazirites made a specific vow to serve Jehovah in a special way, and live with extra restrictions and requirements, that the rest of the nation did not follow. They were a people set apart for special assignments. I'm sure anyone could choose to live like a Nazirite, maybe even make a private vow between themselves and Jehovah, yet these people were not viewed as Nazirite by the organization they lived under at that time. The Nazirite vow obviously meant something to the entire nation. A Nazirite could not have a bad month of being a Nazirite. One cup of wine, trim their hair just once, accidentally touch a dead body and they broke their vow. Regular pioneers are modern day Nazirites. The only way to keep the role as regular pioneer while completely dropping the hour requirement would be to still set these ones aside for sacred service or special assignments. A distinction without a difference is not a difference. If there was nothing different between a regular pioneer and a publisher, then there either is no such thing as a regular pioneer or everyone is a regular pioneer. From the OD book: *** od chap. 10 pp. 109-110 par. 13 Ways to Expand Your Ministry *** 13 To qualify as a regular pioneer, you must currently be in a position to reach the yearly hour requirement. As a regular pioneer, you will want to work closely with your congregation. Zealous pioneers are a blessing to a congregation, generating enthusiasm for the field ministry and even encouraging others to take up the pioneer service. Before you can apply to be a regular pioneer, however, you must be an exemplary publisher who has been baptized for at least six months. https://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&docid=1102014940&srctype=wol&srcid=share&par=19 Regular pioneers work closely with the congregation. They take the lead in the ministry by setting the example. They generate zeal for the ministry. They inspire the congregation and encourage others to join the pioneer ranks. And this gets back to your idea, Richard. Pioneering is more than counting hours. However, right now, counting hours is a focus. Pioneers are being counseled the majority of their hours needs to be in the actual ministry and not coming from these extra assignments like SMPW or LDC or whatever. They are being told to not rely on these extras as the primary source of ministry. They need to be in the field taking the lead and encouraging the friends. Maybe this will change. Maybe we will stop having regular pioneers. Maybe we will simply consider all these individuals as full-time servants or that they offer full-time service. Of course, that implies the typical publisher is not a full-time servant and that is a far from the truth. Typical servants simply do not have an assignment. The problem with removing focus on hours is we run the risk of becoming like Christendom. Christendom used to preach before they became Christendom in the 2nd to 4th centuries. Then they focused on their good works, their building projects, their helping the poor, setting up hospitals, and doing all kinds of activities they consider sacred service. So, how do we focus on the ministry without focusing on hours? We've not recorded publisher hours for almost 2 years. How are we doing? Has our time in the ministry increased, decreased, or stayed the same? It's easy to say if it's in our heart then we will continue to maintain or increase our productivity, but is that the case or is that a little bit judgemental? The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. Are we still as troubled if we only made it out in service once this month as we were if that happened a few years earlier? I see where you are going, Richard. I poo pooed your idea when you suggested it the first time and then we just stopped counting hours entirely (except pioneers). I never imagined that would happen. Who knows, maybe we will see an adjustment on pioneers counting hours. Never say never. If it's Jehovah's will...

The same way the Slave explains it

Interesting. Not bad until the very end when he starts sharing Christendom's view about Jesus being God.

So, the problem is not the candles. The problem is the candles are not used properly. This really is the same with any object used in false worship. The object itself is not wrong, it's the use or misuse of the object that is objectionable. Candles are not wrong. Lighting them to appease the dead, to carry a prayer to God, or ward off evil and attract good luck is wrong. Water is not wrong. Using it to baptize infants, sprinkle baptism, or use it as holy water is wrong. A picture of Jesus is not wrong. Praying to the picture is wrong. Does the Bible tells us to imitate first century Christians? We imitate Christ. We imitate the faith of those taking the lead. We imitate the first century Christians as far as their zeal and devotion to Christ. We imitate their endurance under trial. We imitate their faith. However, when it comes to whatever we should or should not do, we follow the direction in the scriptures. First century Christians weren't perfect. They had their problems like we do today. They had difficulty accepting changes in the organization in regards circumcision and association with gentiles. Jesus said some were lukewarm, some allowed evil influences in the congregation, some were dead spiritually. Others set examples in endurance, in love, and in holding fast to Jesus. When we imitate first century Christians we do so, not because they were from the first century, but because we can point to how they upheld following scripture.

Whereas I've heard a circuit overseer share his negative opinion about being entertained by Disney in a talk to the congregation. Opinions vary with conscience

Thanks. I see that article is from 2022 back when Joe Biden was President. You seem to be scrambling now and googling to find articles. Were you able to read that entire article? It was behind a paywall for me. Don't knock yourself out on my a. My question wasn't that important. I did my own research and what I found was that the concerns about Trump undermining the separation of church and state are nothing new. Like you inadvertently shared, previous administrations have come under similar scrutiny. Trump is just the current flavor of the moment and he's easy to paint as the boogy man. That's partially because he does a good job doing that to himself.

Sorry, you misunderstood my question. Trump and his religious affiliation is not in all the history books. Likewise, current concerns regarding the Trump administration narrowing, blurring, or removing the separation of church and state won't be found in those history books. Allow me to rephrase. What has led you to conclude that there is growing concern about a the current US President is Catholic and that he or his administration are working to remove the separation of church and state? What important articles can you share that go into detail about this particular trend?