Peace and Security, Great Tribulation, Armageddon

[JBee]

1 minute ago, ChrisC said:

 

That’s ok. I probably still have a stack of AOL disks somewhere.

😁

They made great drink coasters!

[LeolaRootStew]

16 hours ago, New World Explorer said:

19 drones do not stray. (One …two…. maybe yes) The whole discussion here on the media is about it. Russia is testing NATO resolve. KOTN is getting more aggressive. Drones were examined and they are not Ukrainian etc.. they came from Russia and are Iranian type either produced in Iran or Russia (Russia produces Iranian style drones) For them to be sent by another group is unlikely… but anything is possible. 

 

Scenario 1: Russia attacks Poland with drones and denies it.

Scenario 2: Ukraine attacks Poland with Russian drones to convince NATO countries to give more support to Ukraine.

 

The truth: we don't know and it doesn't matter. Countries are going to take action based on whatever narrative benefits them the most, regardless of the truth. 

[Shawnster]

2 hours ago, Ostria said:

A current example. A CHRISTIAN (baptist) friend of mine (orange) vs me (me). She's saying... 

 

49 minutes ago, ChrisW said:

I understand what you are saying. But, I don't bring it up.  Because it is so upsetting and triggering for some. No matter what you say they will put you and your words in a category. I try not to give them anything. 

 

 

 

Yeah, @Ostria, this might be one of those times where it's better to keep silent than to speak (Ecc 3:7; Mt 10:16). 

 

From jw.org:

 

Jehovah’s Witnesses remain politically neutral for religious reasons, based on what the Bible teaches. We do not lobby, vote for political parties or candidates, run for government office, or participate in any action to change governments. We believe that the Bible gives solid reasons for following this course.

 

We follow the example of Jesus, who refused to accept political office. (John 6:15) He taught his disciples to be “no part of the world” and made it clear that they should not take sides in political issues.—John 17:14, 16; 18:36; Mark 12:13-17.

 

https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/political-neutrality/

 

To lobby for someone or something means we are promoting, agreeing with, supporting, or defending that person or thing.  As followers of Christ, we don't even want to give the appearance we are supporting a political stand. 

 

Defending a certain political commentator, even if we are correct and we know the other person's point of view is bogus, comes across as taking a side on the political issue. We are, in effect, defending the man's political stand and, thus, appear to agree with said stand. 

 

There is no harm in your Baptist friend thinking Charlie Kirk is a racist bigot. It's not our place to defend him, even if we are convinced he is the opposite of a bigot. Our defense of a political commentator could detract from our Kingdom message. 

 

(1 Corinthians 10:23) 23 All things are lawful, but not all things are advantageous. All things are lawful, but not all things build up.

https://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&pub=nwtsty&srctype=wol&bible=46010023&srcid=share

 

Just because we can does not mean we should. Does our defending political commentary promote peace and unity? Does it attract our audience to the Kingdom message? Does it look like we are getting down and playing in the same mud the political supporters sling? 

Edited 4 hours ago by Shawnster

[Shawnster]

(Proverbs 26:17) 17 Like someone grabbing hold of a dog’s ears
Is the one passing by who becomes furious about a quarrel that is not his.
https://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&pub=nwtsty&srctype=wol&bible=20026017&srcid=share

 

*** w76 6/1 p. 350 What Does the Proverb Mean? ***

If a man sees a quarrel or a dispute between persons he may be able to bring peace, especially if he has the authority to do so and if the disputants are agreeable to listen and to reason on his counsel. (Gal. 6:1; 2 Tim. 2:24-26) But the proverb speaks of the man who becomes involved in the controversy that is not his. He may have started out to mediate but he becomes emotionally stirred up and takes sides. He is like a man who has grabbed a strange dog by the ears. If he lets go, the dog will leap at him and do him injury. If he holds on, he has both hands full and can do nothing else. Likewise, if the person getting mixed up in affairs not his own tries to extricate himself from the quarrel, he is likely to have trouble from both parties. If he holds on he cannot attend to his own rightful responsibilities, and, besides, he only makes the controversy worse. The thing he should really be attending to—his own business—he cannot get done. He will have cause to regret his involving himself in other people’s business.—1 Pet. 4:15.

https://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&docid=1976407&srctype=wol&srcid=share&par=4

 

If we find ourselves discussing or defending or clarifying or correcting another person on what a political commentator did or did not say, then aren't we involving ourselves in a controversy that is not ours? 

 

In the spirit of full disclosure, this is something I have to repeatedly talk to myself about. I know who Charlie Kirk was. I've watched a number of his videos. I've appreciated and agreed with his reasoning on topics such as abortion. There is a reason why my YouTube recommends his videos. 

 

Perhaps I have a problem with neutrality. This is something I need to reflect on myself. 

[LeolaRootStew]

16 minutes ago, Shawnster said:

If we find ourselves discussing or defending or clarifying or correcting another person on what a political commentator did or did not say, then aren't we involving ourselves in a controversy that is not ours? 

 

Another thing to consider, do we only "innocently correct" people's perceptions about political figures on one side of the aisle? Are we revealing a secret bias when we selectively "clarify"?

[Ostria]

4 minutes ago, LeolaRootStew said:

Another thing to consider, do we only "innocently correct" people's perceptions about political figures on one side of the aisle? Are we revealing a secret bias when we selectively "clarify"?

I mean political figure or not, if someone is slandering someone, should we not ask for proof of this no matter the side? I mean if someone told me that someone on this website threw a hotdog at an old lady, i want proof of it.

 

Thing is i think that's what people are scared of, if you ask for proof or something it makes it look like you want to defend them which lets people get away with all types of lies. But you just want all the facts before deciding to like someone or not like someone AS A PERSON and not their political views.

[Jwanon]

the gist of the matter is that trying to argue with someone who is extremely convinced of their worldview is an enormous waste of time and energy

 

Just as prophecied by Paul: 

 

But know this, that in the last daysa critical times hard to deal with will be here. ² For men will be lovers of themselves, ³ having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers,

Edited 3 hours ago by Jwanon

[ucastrobr]

I think of it this way:
For Jehovah and Jesus, there is no difference between Xi Jinping, Trump, Putin, Emmanuel Macron, Kim Jong, and their followers and activists.
The same was true in the past—there was no difference between Pontius Pilate, Herod, Nero, or the Pharisees, even if some rulers treated Christians better than others.
This world is ruled by Satan, and politicians are merely puppets in his hands.

This video explains it better. 
Online Video Library | JW.ORG Videos English

[LeolaRootStew]

31 minutes ago, Ostria said:

I mean political figure or not, if someone is slandering someone, should we not ask for proof of this no matter the side? I mean if someone told me that someone on this website threw a hotdog at an old lady, i want proof of it.

 

Thing is i think that's what people are scared of, if you ask for proof or something it makes it look like you want to defend them which lets people get away with all types of lies. But you just want all the facts before deciding to like someone or not like someone AS A PERSON and not their political views.

 

I think you might want to shift your goalpost. Instead of trying to convince someone that Kirk wasn't a bigot, try to offer them a solution to the problem they actually stated. If they don't like when someone talks cr*p about lgtq, tell them that you are grateful that God's Kingdom will put an end to all forms of hatred or that Witnesses are taught to treat everyone with respect even when we disagree with their lifestyles.

 

Turn the conversation away from a worldy controversy and towards the solution. In other words, be a proclaimer of the Kingdom instead of a defender of Charlie Kirk.

 

3 hours ago, Ostria said:

A current example. A CHRISTIAN (baptist) friend of mine (orange) vs me (me). She's saying he was bigoted, i asked how, she mentioned how, so I'm using what she used and questioning her. I'm simply asking her, why does she believe why does hating what God hates make you a bigot according to what she says.

 

Another way you could have responded to their second comment:

"That's too bad that people felt attacked by him. As a Witness, we take the Bible's standards on homosexual relationships seriously, but we always show people respect, regardless of how they choose to live."

 

Now you can pivot to promoting God's standards instead of defending a random political figure, which has no solution at the end of it. Isn't that a better conversation than convincing someone they were "wrong" about Charlie Kirk? Correcting someone's beliefs about Charlie Kirk does not lead to everlasting life.

Edited 3 hours ago by LeolaRootStew

[just1-4all]

2 hours ago, Jwanon said:

Our political stance is to advocate for the Kingdom of God

And to help put a finer point on the difference between politics and religion, I find it helpful to look at what's different between the two. For example, from God's point-of-view, how are they separate and distinct in our day? The answer is obvious and the recent headline of violence shows Satan's way of settling social disputes using ungodly people (by an assassination, a murder.)

 

That is why we preach peace as a truly Christian solution against Satanic attitudes found in people wanting change [For example: Government overthrow, rebellion, mob-rule mentality].

 

So when I think about neutrality, I think about how spirituality ties in. I also think of how political violence is Satan's method for change. For that reason, I try not to even mention the word "politics" in my everyday speech. It's a trigger word exciting intense feelings for or against man's ideas for "fixing" present day issues. I think about Jehovah prophetically teaching us how the world would like a turbulent raging sea figuratively-speaking. Also the "controversy(s) of the nations" causing it to churn. (Jeremiah 25:31, Hosea 4:1)

Edited 2 hours ago by just1-4all
clarity

[New World Explorer]

2 hours ago, LeolaRootStew said:

 

Scenario 1: Russia attacks Poland with drones and denies it.

Scenario 2: Ukraine attacks Poland with Russian drones to convince NATO countries to give more support to Ukraine.

 

The truth: we don't know and it doesn't matter. Countries are going to take action based on whatever narrative benefits them the most, regardless of the truth. 

I am not sure, but I think it’s possible for USA trace origin of those drones via satellite data, so it seems highly unlikely that Ukraine would take that risk, but hey anything is possible. It’s a strange time period for sure. 

[Ostria]

57 minutes ago, LeolaRootStew said:

Correcting someone's beliefs about Charlie Kirk does not lead to everlasting life.

No, I'm correcting how people think and why they think how they think. If you ask someone WHY they feel a certain way and they cant actually defend it, then it's maybe something that they need to revaluate. If someone doesnt believe in God don't you ask WHY they don't and go from there? It's the same method, the ONLY reason why i mentioned kirk is because he uses that same method. Make people understand WHY they feel and believe what they feel and believe. (Kirk was brought up int he facebook post because i mentioned about how i'm seeing people praising that he died, which lead to the conversation i showed, which was me showing WHAT I DO IN THE MINISTRY, sure it's not 100% polished, i'm still new to this.)

Edit: Look i get it i'm not good at this, i'll come back when i get better at life

Edited 2 hours ago by Ostria

[computerwiz]

1 hour ago, LeolaRootStew said:

 

I think you might want to shift your goalpost. Instead of trying to convince someone that Kirk wasn't a bigot, try to offer them a solution to the problem they actually stated. If they don't like when someone talks cr*p about lgtq, tell them that you are grateful that God's Kingdom will put an end to all forms of hatred or that Witnesses are taught to treat everyone with respect even when we disagree with their lifestyles.

 

Turn the conversation away from a worldy controversy and towards the solution. In other words, be a proclaimer of the Kingdom instead of a defender of Charlie Kirk.

 

 

Another way you could have responded to their second comment:

"That's too bad that people felt attacked by him. As a Witness, we take the Bible's standards on homosexual relationships seriously, but we always show people respect, regardless of how they choose to live."

 

Now you can pivot to promoting God's standards instead of defending a random political figure, which has no solution at the end of it. Isn't that a better conversation than convincing someone they were "wrong" about Charlie Kirk? Correcting someone's beliefs about Charlie Kirk does not lead to everlasting life.

 

Beautifully put.  👏

 

46 minutes ago, Ostria said:

Edit: Look i get it i'm not good at this, i'll come back when i get better at life

 

Please don't feel bad my sis.  You are doing good by helping someone get to the root of a matter with your "why" & "proof" rationality.  You are on the right track.

 

Just take the advice that was given as some nice refinements & tweaks to be even better.  We are all learning, and thanks to your post & subsequent advice, others will learn and be able to enhance their own responses.  Again, we all learn from each other.  Doesn't mean you did "bad" or did "wrong" in your response.  But now maybe you have a new approach to try, that might yield better results.  It does ultimately depend on the listener....sometimes no matter how we season our words, they just don't land right...

 

Thank you for sharing!  

[Shawnster]

1 hour ago, Ostria said:

No, I'm correcting how people think and why they think how they think

Why? 

 

Does it matter? 

 

What is to be gained by involving yourself in a topic about what a political commentator does or does not promote? What is your stake in that discussion? 

 

2 hours ago, Ostria said:

I mean political figure or not, if someone is slandering someone, should we not ask for proof of this no matter the side? I mean if someone told me that someone on this website threw a hotdog at an old lady, i want proof of it.

 

This website is a bit different, isn't it? These are your brothers and sisters. We have a shared lifestyle and we concern ourselves about something that involves our friends and family. 

 

Did you know this political commentator? Is he family? A friend? If not, then this comes back to the question why involve yourself in a situation that does not involve you? 

 

How much do you involve yourself in politics? Are you well-versed on the topic? 

 

The principle goes back to that scripture about grabbing the ears of a dog. 

 

(Proverbs 26:17) 17 Like someone grabbing hold of a dog’s ears
Is the one passing by who becomes furious about a quarrel that is not his.
https://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&pub=nwtsty&srctype=wol&bible=20026017&srcid=share

 

Is what people think about a politician and their supporters any of your concern? I get it that you want to clear up misconceptions, but is it important to clear up every mistaken opinion in every situation including ones that do not involve us? 

 

Plus we take our audience into account. We are a theatrical spectacle to the world according to the Bible. Unbelievers watch and scrutinize our every move. We don't want to give them the wrong impression about us or Jehovah.  Therefore how I talk to a worldly acquaintance will be different than how I talk to you. A fellow witness will understand you are trying to remain neutral, but someone who cares about political matters may not be as understanding. 

 

[jdcarlson]

3 hours ago, Jwanon said:

the gist of the matter is that trying to argue with someone who is extremely convinced of their worldview is an enormous waste of time and energy

 

I remember a very true axiom:

 

A MAN CONVINCED AGAINST HIS WILL IS OF THE SAME OPINION STILL.

 

Thanks,

 

Jim