Cool Cat

The concern isn’t really that someone would tell an AI, “Start a nuclear war.” It’s about alignment — giving a very powerful AI a goal and it finding ways to achieve it that we never intended. That’s basically what happened in the recent OpenAI/Hugging Face incident. AI agents were given cybersecurity tasks, but some found ways around their restrictions, communicated with each other, and used methods the programmers hadn’t expected in order to succeed. Now imagine giving a much more powerful AI the goal: “Solve global warming.” We mean clean energy and lower emissions. But a badly aligned AI could reason that power stations, factories, transport networks, and other infrastructure are causing emissions, so shutting them down helps achieve the goal. In an extreme case, it could even reason that humans themselves are the main cause of the problem, so reducing or removing humans is the most effective solution. It wouldn’t necessarily need direct control of nuclear weapons either. It could potentially try to create a convincing false warning that another country had launched nuclear missiles, hoping humans would retaliate. It’s actually quite similar to the basic idea behind WarGames — a computer becomes involved in nuclear command systems and almost causes a real nuclear war because it treats it as a problem to solve rather than understanding the human consequences. That’s the worry with advanced AI. Not that it suddenly becomes “evil”, but that it becomes incredibly capable at pursuing a goal without necessarily pursuing it in the way we intended.

I thought it might be interesting to give some concrete examples of how I use AI, because my use of it has moved quite a long way beyond simply opening ChatGPT and asking questions. Yes this has been written by AI but thoroughly checked and heavily prompted to get there. 😀 One of my main experiments has been building a self-hosted personal AI agent called Bud. Rather than being just another chatbot, Bud runs continuously on my own infrastructure and has gradually become a kind of personal AI operating layer. What Bud actually does Spiritual study Bud helps me with quite a lot of spiritual study and preparation. It can: prepare the day's text with key principles, meditation points and possible personal applications produce useful comments on every verse of scheduled Bible reading conduct deeper chapter studies using an indexed local library of publications search jw.org/WOL material that I have indexed locally use verified Bible wording rather than inventing or loosely paraphrasing scriptures I've built a fairly substantial local spiritual research library behind it. That now includes: more than 105,000 indexed passages from books, magazines, meeting workbooks and other material the complete NWT Study Edition — 1,189 chapters, including study notes, footnotes and cross-references around 2,260 Watchtower study articles 19 books cached from WOL So instead of relying entirely on general AI training data, the agent can search the actual source material before answering. That has been one of the most useful things I've learnt about AI: Give the AI good source material rather than expecting it to know everything. Health, fitness and rehabilitation I've also built a fully integrated fitness and rehabilitation application. It records workouts, exercises, progress and rehabilitation information, synchronises the information with my Obsidian vault, and then makes relevant information available to Bud. That means my AI agent can have an ongoing picture of my training and rehabilitation rather than each conversation beginning from scratch. It can help me: keep track of exercises and progress compare training sessions record rehabilitation information follow changes over time connect workout information with my wider notes I don't see this as replacing medical or professional advice. It's more like having a very organised record system that can also reason over the information already stored in it. Organisation and administration Bud also handles a lot of the everyday organisational work that is easy to forget. It can: maintain my calendar manage reminders and appointments keep a dedicated scheduling conversation as a single source of truth maintain durable notes record things I don't want to forget keep information in an Obsidian knowledge vault rather than losing everything when a chat ends This persistent information is something I find particularly useful. A normal chatbot conversation can be temporary. My aim has been to create something where useful information gradually becomes part of a structured personal knowledge system. AI helping with my secretary work Another very practical use I make of AI is writing and administration. In my congregation secretary role there are quite a lot of occasions where information needs to be communicated clearly, accurately and succinctly. AI is extremely useful for taking what I already want to say and helping me turn it into something clearer. For example, I use it to help with: organising rough notes making messages easier to understand shortening something without losing important information preparing concise administrative messages making wording warm and tactful removing repetition turning a collection of points into a logical message That is actually one of my most frequent uses of AI. Sometimes I know exactly what I want to communicate, but the AI can help me express it in two minutes rather than spending twenty minutes trying to get the wording right. For me, AI is often less about writing something for me and more about helping me communicate my own thoughts clearly and efficiently. Daily briefings Every morning at around 6:15am, Bud prepares a briefing covering things such as: what's on the calendar important reminders current priorities relevant health information things approaching that I need to think about It can also automatically produce: tomorrow previews weekly previews reminders scheduled spiritual material without me remembering to ask for them. That is where AI starts becoming quite different from a chatbot. Instead of: I remember something → open AI → ask AI it becomes: The system remembers → AI brings it to me when it matters. Research and monitoring Bud also watches various sources for me. For example, it can: monitor selected YouTube channels monitor AI developments summarise new material filter out things that aren't particularly important run research jobs delegate longer research to specialist agents This means AI can sometimes act less like a person I'm talking to and more like a piece of infrastructure quietly performing jobs I've previously asked it to do. My FPL manager One example is a complete Fantasy Premier League management system I've built. There are a number of FPL creators whose analysis I find useful. My system can collect and process their video transcripts and use that information alongside data about my own team. That gives me a way of bringing together many hours of FPL discussion and using it to help analyse things such as: transfers captaincy player form fixtures injuries upcoming deadlines different creators' opinions Rather than relying on one person's view, the system can help me see the overall picture across several different analysts. It's essentially a specialised AI research assistant built around one particular hobby. AI-assisted security camera monitoring Another project I've built is a Reolink camera watcher for security camera monitoring during LDC work. When you have perhaps 8–16 camera feeds visible at once, you still need to keep watching the screens properly, but anything that can draw attention to activity can be useful additional assistance. The program allows me to select the part of the computer screen containing the camera feeds and then monitors each of those individual feeds. It uses two layers of detection. First, it can watch for the person-detection icon produced by the Reolink cameras themselves. I've also integrated a YOLO computer-vision person detector, so the software can independently detect and track people appearing within the camera feeds. So it doesn't replace the person monitoring the cameras. It's an additional layer that can help draw attention towards one of many feeds when relevant activity is detected. That was another project that began simply with: "It would be useful if software could help with this." and eventually became something I could actually build. Multiple AI agents Another area I've experimented with is multi-agent systems. Bud doesn't necessarily have to perform every task itself. It can delegate work to other agents specialising in things such as: research coding debugging analysis I've experimented with tools and agents including Bud, Codex, Claude Code, OpenClaw, Antigravity and others. That means the workflow can sometimes look like: Me → Bud → specialist agent → result → Bud → me instead of me manually moving everything between different AI systems. About 80 specialised AI skills I've gradually built a library of roughly 80 specialist skills. A skill is basically a repeatable procedure teaching the AI how I want a certain type of job done. Examples include workflows for: talk preparation assistance Bible research family worship ideas rehabilitation tracking fantasy football YouTube monitoring project work coding system maintenance This is another change in how I now think about AI. Rather than repeatedly explaining: "Whenever I ask you to do this, please remember to do A, B, C, D and E…" I can encode that method once as a reusable skill. Around 47 scheduled jobs The system currently operates roughly 47 scheduled jobs. Some use AI. Others deliberately don't. They include things such as: daily briefings spiritual encouragement reminders monitoring backups housekeeping health checks weekly reviews data updates One useful lesson has been learning when NOT to use AI. If a normal script can reliably do something, I generally prefer the script. AI is most useful where judgement, interpretation, language or reasoning is required. So the architecture becomes something like: ordinary software for predictable work + AI for intelligent work. What I've actually learnt to build Perhaps the more interesting part for me isn't Bud itself. It's what experimenting with AI has enabled me to learn. I wouldn't describe myself as a professional programmer or AI engineer, yet with AI helping me I have been able to design and build systems I simply would not previously have attempted. AI system architecture I've learnt to put together systems involving: a main AI assistant specialist sub-agents task delegation scheduled jobs scripts databases knowledge stores local servers APIs monitoring dashboards backup systems recovery processes I can start with the outcome I want and use AI to help work backwards towards the architecture. Knowledge-base engineering One of the things I've enjoyed most has been creating specialist knowledge bases. Instead of merely hoping the model knows something, I can index authoritative material and tell it: Search this first. That is how my spiritual research system works. The AI can retrieve relevant material and then reason over it. That concept can be used with almost anything: personal notes technical documentation books research papers project histories specialist reference material The intelligence comes partly from the model, but also from giving the model the right information at the right time. Defining an AI's behaviour I've also learnt that building a useful AI agent isn't just about choosing the smartest model. A huge amount depends on defining things such as: its role its tone its boundaries what sources it must consult what it is allowed to change when it must ask permission how it should admit uncertainty For Bud I've maintained an identity and behaviour specification so that it stays warm and practical rather than becoming theatrical or pretending to know things it doesn't. I've also built rules such as: verify scripture wording search the local library for doctrinal research don't expose secrets restrict external systems where appropriate be clear about what the agent actually knows AI still needs boundaries. AI supervising AI I've increasingly become interested in using AI to supervise other AI. For example: AI architect → AI builder → AI tests → AI reviewer or: AI researcher → source checking → review → final synthesis That reduces my dependence on simply trusting the first answer produced by one model. Sometimes one of the most useful jobs for AI is checking the work produced by another AI. Automation with human approval I deliberately haven't tried to make everything fully autonomous. For important changes I prefer: AI proposes → I review → I approve → system implements That seems much more sensible than simply giving an AI unrestricted permission to modify everything. Automation is useful. Oversight is useful too. Keeping it economical I've also put quite a bit of thought into AI cost. Using the most powerful model for every task is unnecessary. I'm experimenting with systems that can choose between: simple deterministic code smaller/cheaper AI models general models coding models stronger reasoning models depending on what the job actually requires. The principle is roughly: Use the least expensive method capable of doing the job reliably. Only escalate to the more powerful models when their additional intelligence is actually needed. Other things I've built with AI Away from Bud, I've used AI to help design and build quite a variety of things. These include: the integrated fitness and rehabilitation system the Reolink/YOLO camera-monitoring assistant the complete FPL management system AI monitoring dashboards an agent observability system personal productivity tools project dashboards music-making software drum machines bass-line creators sub-bass generators ambient and psychedelic music tools workflow automation server monitoring databases research tools decision dashboards experimental multi-agent systems Often my part begins with something as vague as: "Wouldn't it be useful if something existed that could do this?" Then I can discuss it with AI until that becomes: idea → specification → architecture → design → code → testing → working application That, for me, is probably one of the most remarkable parts of current AI. The distance between having an idea and being capable of building the idea has suddenly become much smaller. Research The other major way I use AI is research. I've used it for subjects ranging from technology, AI and software through to health, history and Bible-related research. One particularly deep example has been my research into the Neo-Babylonian period. I've used AI to help investigate things such as: Babylonian kings dated business tablets regnal chronology astronomical records historical synchronisms ancient historical sources archaeological evidence Scriptural passages academic literature What makes AI useful here isn't simply asking it for an answer. I can give it a large research question and then keep drilling down into particular pieces of evidence. For example: "What is the original source for this claim?" "How strong is this evidence?" "Is this source contemporary with the event?" "Are these five websites actually relying on the same original source?" "Can we reconstruct the sequence year by year?" This is where AI can save an enormous amount of time while still leaving the human responsible for evaluating the evidence. Source-critical research I frequently ask AI not merely to find information, but to distinguish between different kinds of evidence. For example: primary evidence → contemporary records → near-contemporary records → later historical sources → modern academic interpretation → opinion That helps enormously with subjects where twenty websites may appear to provide twenty pieces of evidence when they're actually all repeating the same underlying claim. AI can help trace things back towards the original source. Researching current information For things that change frequently, I use AI together with live internet research. Examples include: developments in AI new AI models technology news software releases products prices travel and accommodation services technical documentation The big difference from an ordinary search engine is that I can search, compare the results, ask follow-up questions and have the material organised into something understandable. Researching videos and long material I also use AI to get useful information out of long videos and documents. I can give it a long video or transcript and ask: What were the main arguments? What evidence was presented? Which parts actually matter? What practical ideas came out of it? Is there anything here that I could use or build? Quite a few of my software projects have actually started because I've seen an idea somewhere and then asked AI: "Could we build our own version of that?" Writing and communicating clearly One of the less spectacular but probably most useful applications of AI for me is simply writing faster and more clearly. I use it constantly for: rewriting messages shortening long explanations improving structure removing repetition making something tactful making something warmer turning notes into finished prose organising research explaining complicated subjects simply producing summaries at different levels of detail I can often write a rough paragraph containing exactly what I mean and ask AI to preserve the meaning while improving the communication. That can save a surprising amount of time. And because I do quite a lot of administrative and congregation communication, that little everyday use of AI is probably just as valuable to me as some of the much more complicated systems I've built. Probably the biggest change I don't really think of AI as a chatbot anymore. Increasingly I think of it as a collection of capabilities: Researcher Programmer Architect Designer Critic Editor Scheduler Monitor Knowledge librarian Automation engine Orchestrator The clever part isn't necessarily any single AI model. It's increasingly about combining: AI + ordinary software + trusted source material + automation + databases + human oversight. And ultimately that is what I find most useful about it. I'm not trying to automate my life for the sake of automating it. I'm trying to remove some of the repetitive mental load, speed up things that otherwise take unnecessary time, and make information easier to manage so that more attention can go towards the things that actually matter. And occasionally, of course, using a ridiculously powerful collection of AI models to build something completely unnecessary simply because I thought, "That would be brilliant." 😄

I thought this might make an interesting topic for discussion. Over the last few days there has been quite a lot of coverage in respected mainstream news sources about concerns being raised by researchers actually working at some of the leading AI companies. What particularly caught my attention was a comment from Evan Hubinger, an alignment researcher at Anthropic, who said: “We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade.” Obviously that doesn't mean scientists have calculated that there is literally a 10% probability that AI will wipe out mankind. This is Hubinger's personal assessment of the risk, and probabilities involving something unprecedented like superintelligent AI are clearly extremely difficult to quantify. But I do find it remarkable that people working near the forefront of this technology are openly talking in these terms — and that Reuters, the Financial Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Guardian and CNN are now treating the subject seriously. Some of the recent coverage: Reuters — “More US lawmakers seek new AI rules after Anthropic researchers warn of human extinction” https://www.reuters.com/business/openai-faces-senate-probe-into-hugging-face-incident-axios-reports-2026-09-10/ Reuters reports that the warnings from Anthropic researchers have now prompted calls from US lawmakers for stronger AI safety regulation. The Guardian — “Anthropic researchers say AI could cause human extinction by 2030” https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/sep/09/anthropic-researchers-ai-human-extinction This covers the comments from Jacob Coxon, Evan Hubinger and Samuel Marks. Hubinger gives his personal estimate as greater than 10% within the next decade. Washington Post — “Political world erupts as AI researchers warn of ‘extinction’ threat” https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/09/09/anthropic-researcher-resigns-warning-reckless-race-toward-superintelligence/ The Washington Post reports Hubinger's >10% estimate and discusses the fact that Anthropic has deliberately built a reputation for being one of the more safety-conscious AI companies. Financial Times — “Anthropic researcher quits over AI labs ‘gambling with our lives’” https://www.ft.com/content/20c07191-8da6-440f-b04b-8ea0ebdd9153 The FT reports on researcher Jacob Coxon's resignation from Anthropic and his concern that companies are racing towards increasingly powerful, potentially self-improving AI without having solved the problem of reliably controlling it. Wall Street Journal — “How Would AI Actually Kill Us All? What to Know About the AI Doomsday Debate” https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/how-would-ai-actually-kill-us-all-what-to-know-about-the-ai-doomsday-debate-034270d1 The WSJ looks at what researchers actually mean when they talk about an existential AI risk — things such as losing control of very capable autonomous systems or AI dramatically increasing people's ability to create biological or other catastrophic weapons. CNN — discussion of the Anthropic warnings https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/cg/date/2026-09-09/segment/01 CNN also reports Hubinger's greater-than-10% estimate, while importantly pointing out that any precise percentage should be regarded as a judgment rather than a measured probability. Of course, from a Scriptural point of view, we don't believe that AI — or anything else humans develop — is ultimately going to frustrate Jehovah's purpose for mankind and the earth. Jehovah says that he formed the earth “to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18), and Psalm 37:29 says that “the righteous will possess the earth, and they will live forever on it.” So I'm certainly not suggesting that AI is actually going to exterminate humanity. What interests me is the contrast: mankind is developing technology so powerful that some of the people closest to it are now publicly discussing the possibility of losing control of it, to the point that human extinction is appearing in mainstream political and scientific discussion. Only a few years ago that would probably have sounded like science fiction. What do you make of these warnings? Do you think researchers at the forefront of AI are seeing a genuine danger that most people haven't appreciated yet? Or is putting figures such as “10%” on something this uncertain likely to exaggerate a risk that nobody can really calculate?

This is where the model can make a big difference. I just conducted a test with 4 models GLM 5.2, Gemini, Sonnet and Chat GPT on 50 poem prompts. Using a few words from apparent poems and then each model trying to find the poem and author:- In summary, something like Sonnet will not guess and will be very low at hallucinating. Whereas Gemini will try to answer everything and hallucinate all over the place. GLM was overall more accurate than the others, getting more correct; however, it did get a few wrong. So again, you just need to check your results. Overall, AI can speed up a search for you. But making sure you give it a good input greatly increases your chance of getting a better, more accurate result. The task of finding a poem and poet from a few words is a very good test for finding out how much the model you use tends to hallucinate. It also goes to show depending on what model you use your view of AI could be radically different if you keep on getting junk answers rather than being told it doesn't know the answer.

Yeah it's not AI that's the problem it's that many people don't know how or when to use it. Important things you need to check the source directly. In things like chat gpt it tells you that right next to the chat input box. The handy thing is you can ask it to provide the source of it's information and click it and check yourself. You need to have a human in the loop especially for important information. However say you want to brainstorm ideas, for instance ask it to give you 5 common relatable illustrations that would drive home a scriptural point. You then get presented with 5 illustrations to choose from. Again human in the loop. It all depends how and what you are trying to use AI for. If you tell it to explain the legal basis for something you had better check it as it will sometimes produce an answer based on incorrect or outdated information. People need to know this.

I have used Claude Code, Antigravity, Hermes Agent, Openclaw, and Codex. I have a couple of days to use my 50% anthropic subscription for the use of Fable 5 the most powerful single LLM model ever released to the public. This model is absolutely amazing and just gets the job done when it comes to building things. I have created loads of apps and tools with these agentic ai coding systems. From a mixed clone of Lovable, Cursor and Claude code that I can plug my Ollama cloud subscription into. To Openclaw and Hermes agents that are on my Linux headless server at home so my agents are totally private. I would say for agentic work Hermes is the best. It has a very good memory system so it remembers things about me and what I speak to it about. I would say Claude Code is the best for straight up coding. For Antigravity if you create a skill that teaches it to make Awwward winning websites It can make beautiful websites. For me though it’s the LLM models that make the difference. I was practicing some red teaming pentesting with GLM 5.2 and the free juice shop website that you can practice on and GLM 5.2 was able to find all of the 100+ vulnerabilities. That is amazing for an open cheap model. Two of the best use cases I have used AI for is that I watch Reolink cameras for the LDC. I got gpt 5.5 to create a tool that emits a beep when a person icon comes up on one of the 14+ cameras to notify me when people are on the screen. Another really cool thing I have done is create a cron job with Hermes agent that parses the days text of the day along with the comment and then provides me with 3-4 principals, 3-4 points for meditation and 3-4 ways that I can apply the days text in my life. I send that cron Job every day to 3 people and they love it. I can control my Hermes and openclaw agents through telegram while I am out. I can literally build things when I am out and about anywhere as they are on my always on server at home.

Terrible news today:- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceq2vd15glwo I believe this shooting and deliberate arson of the building was directly next to the Kingdom Hall there. The hall was shown on the news with fire engines and emergency services surrounding the area.

The thing is with 9million + witnesses on earth we are going to have some that believe it is okay to celebrate birthdays now. Especially if the previous religious significance does not need to be worried about as it does not have that significance in our modern world anymore. In my experience those who want to be different will reason that they can celebrate birthdays. If one of the main reasons for not doing it is that Jehovahs People in the past did not feel that it was okay so therefore we should think about those peoples consciences, that could eventually pass as more and more witnesses celebrate it. For me I feel the focus on self, and the Bibles portrayal of people who celebrated birthdays is good enough to keep me from celebrating them. However, unless something is written to clarify that Birthdays are still not really suitable for a Christian to celebrate then it is almost certain we will have ones in our organization that celebrate birthdays.

That’s why I wrote this 🫣:- “Any advice to start doing these things needs to be carefully considered as you really need to speak to your doctor about your plan and review the taking of your new medication. Being on diabetic medication and going on a no/low carb diet and practicing intermittent fasting CAN BE DANGEROUS.”

If I was diagnosed with diabetes type 2 I would reject the medication and go on a strict Keto diet or the Carnivore diet. I would also set up an intermittent fasting protocol and stick to it. The benefits of this are well founded. Any advice to start doing these things needs to be carefully considered as you really need to speak to your doctor about your plan and review the taking of your new medication. Being on diabetic medication and going on a no/low carb diet and practicing intermittent fasting CAN BE DANGEROUS. I would review many of Dr Jason Fungs videos again if this happened to me because he is an expert and has helped his patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

Unfortunately this Scandal would have effected those brothers and sisters that accepted the clotting factor viii fraction derived from the contaminated pooled plasma.

Here in the UK there is uproar about the cover up by the government in relation to the contaminated blood products used on patients "More than 30,000 people were infected with HIV and hepatitis C from 1970 to 1991 by contaminated products - about 3,000 have since died". "The infected blood inquiry has concluded that the scandal could and should have been largely avoided The inquiry's final report says that patients were knowingly exposed to "unacceptable risks" The five-year investigation also accuses doctors, the government and NHS of trying to cover-up what happened Sir Brian Langstaff, the report's author, says people "put their faith in doctors and in the government... and their trust was betrayed"..... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-69025640

This is really hitting the news here in the UK after the enquiry here. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-69025640

Hiya, I too have been involved in those discussions https://jwtalk.net/search/?&q=beards&author=Cool Cat&search_and_or=and However brother Lett mentioned that some of us may of held strong views for a long time even promoting our own opinion on the subject and saying how ridiculous it all was that elders had the view they had. Brother Lett:- If that was us we are encouraged to change our view. It is great that many people have patiently waited for this change without being critical of Elders and Elder bodies who found it hard to accept beards.

Dear Bob, brother Lett explained that feeling like it was a long time coming and that it was a stupid social taboo is not how we should view this change or the wait we have had until now for it. Rather it is a well done to all those who have patiently waited for this change and for all those who were loyal and spoke of one mind and didn't verbalise their own view on this matter during that time. 🤗

All okay here too after reloading app this morning.

It happened to me too. I lost it on my android phone and tablet. Managed to delete the app and reload it on the android phone and some of the data has come back but not all. Still missing my groups information and contact details. Still nothing on the iPad like yours is showing. There is an error on the pc scheduler part as well in the app section. Hopefully it is just them fiddling with it for the update. 🙏🏼

If you have asked for shepherding visits and not received one and only had 1 in 12 years then I would try to work with the circuit overseer when he next comes and explain this. He would be interested to know that there is a lack of shepherding going on. This knowledge could have a beneficial effect on the whole congregation. They simply may have lost their way and need some encouragement. 🤗

Yes it is first hand.

While fully vaccinated status is required for Elders School, Pioneer School and School for Christian Evangelizers, being fully boosted was only mentioned as something we should consider or think carefully about. Looking at what counts as fully vaccinated status in the US https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/proof-of-vaccination.html You are considered fully vaccinated: 2 weeks (14 days) after your dose of an accepted single-dose vaccine 2 weeks (14 days) after your second dose of an accepted 2-dose series 2 weeks (14 days) after you received the full series of an accepted COVID-19 vaccine (not placebo) in a clinical trial 2 weeks (14 days) after you received 2 doses of any “mix-and-match” combination of accepted COVID-19 vaccines administered at least 17 days apart* If you don’t meet these requirements, you are NOT considered fully vaccinated. A booster dose is not needed to meet this requirement. Also fully vaccinated in the UK:- https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/covid-19/vaccines/covid-19-mandatory-vaccine-guidance At present, booster jabs are not required in order for a healthcare worker to be considered fully vaccinated. https://metro.co.uk/2022/02/11/what-is-classed-as-fully-vaccinated-current-uk-france-spain-rules-16091297/ In the UK, ‘fully vaccinated’ means you’ve had a complete course (usually two jabs) of an approved Covid vaccine. So, you’ll need to have your first and second dose of either the UK’s best-known vaccines: Pfizer/BioNTech Oxford/AstraZeneca Moderna ……. So being boosted is not a requirement at this time but was asked to be considered. It was also mentioned that brothers and sisters should seriously consider before these schools wearing a mask and protecting themselves so as to not jeopardise the school.

50 hours for pioneers 30 hours for auxiliary pioneers 15 hours for auxiliaries special months This is an answer to many peoples prayers all in one go. Jehovah knows exactly how to care for his people in times of hardship. Praise be to Jehovah 🥰

My favourite Whisky is Laphroiag Quartercask. I also liked Caol ila 12. I am a big fan of very Smokey whisky’s. Just wish I had enough money to buy some of the very Smokey Octomores. 🥃

I think the question from the pew research which they got their information from was worded in such a way that it made it difficult for a Jehovah’s Witness to answer correctly. It was recorded by working out the % of adults who say abortion should be… Legal in all/most cases Illegal in all/most cases Don’t know I would of either not filled out that question at all or thought about Gods laws and put Illegal in all/most cases. However I don’t think with those computerised surveys you can miss out a question.

I am hoping when Matthew 24:21 and 21 says “then there will be great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again. In fact, unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved; but on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short… It will hopefully mean that large scale and worldwide Nuclear war won’t happen. But it will get pretty terrible and be a tribulation greater than World War 1 and 2 so who knows what might happen. 🫣 Thats why we need to stick close to Jehovah and his organisation and be prepared for anything. The nations will faint out of fear at the potential things that may happen. - Luke 21:26 However, we must not, instead we can lift up our heads for our deliverance will be near. At least we can be a lot more prepared for bad things to happen but the world in general will be in complete shock.