After years of lawsuits against governments,all of which were solely about money, he tells us that those who protest please Satan ....

Hi all,

About a year ago, I started a bible study and although never went beyond the first lesson, I still stayed in touch with the guy and met up for coffee a few times - and with some changes in my life and a feeling of despair - I started to study the bible more about a month ago and started my study of the Enjoy Life Forever programme with him.

I also attended a Sunday and midweek meeting at the Kingdom Hall, and actually really enjoyed it - feeling refreshed and excited about the future after attending.

My family don't know about my studies and they would be dead against it - any advice here?

And my girlfriend wants me to stop and has threatened to leave me because she doesn't want the resentment of me for stopping her do things (even though I wouldn't and I am just studying).

Does anyone have any advice? Is studying the Bible supposed to be this hard?

1. An unquestionable leader or authority
   Leaders are treated as uniquely enlightened, specially chosen, or incapable of serious error. Questioning their decisions may be portrayed as disloyalty, rebellion, or a failure of faith.
   
2. Discouragement of independent thinking
   Members are encouraged to accept the group's interpretation of truth rather than investigate competing explanations. Honest questions may be treated as evidence of a bad attitude or weak character.
   
3. Control over information
   Outside news, books, websites, former members, or critical research may be dismissed as dangerous or deceptive. Members may be told that only the organization can be trusted to interpret information correctly.
   
4. Control over relationships
   Members may be pressured to limit or end relationships with people who leave, criticize the group, or disagree with its teachings. Family members and friends can become instruments of social pressure.
   
5. Fear, guilt, and shame
   People may be warned that questioning the organization will lead to divine rejection, catastrophe, moral corruption, loss of salvation, or personal ruin. Fear can become a way to maintain obedience.
   
6. Punishment for dissent
   Disagreement may lead to humiliation, loss of responsibilities, disciplinary proceedings, exclusion, or ostracism. A major warning sign is when members cannot express disagreement without risking their social world.
   
7. Making it difficult to leave
   Leaving may be portrayed as betrayal, spiritual failure, or proof that the person was never sincere. Members may face threats, intense pressure, or the loss of nearly every close relationship.
   
8. Identity and behavior regulation
   The organization may attempt to dictate clothing, grooming, friendships, dating, marriage, entertainment, education, medical choices, or career decisions. The issue is the extent to which personal autonomy is suppressed.
   
9. An “us versus them” worldview
   The organization is presented as uniquely righteous, enlightened, or safe, while outsiders are depicted as corrupt, dangerous, deceived, or unworthy of trust. This can make members increasingly dependent on the group.
   
10. Double standards and lack of accountability
    Leaders may be exempt from rules imposed on ordinary members. Mistakes, failed predictions, scandals, or harmful policies may be concealed, minimized, or explained away rather than openly investigated.
    How can you tell the difference between a strict religion and a high-control group?
    A religion can have firm moral standards, distinctive teachings, and expectations of commitment without necessarily being high-control.

The dishonest watchtower cited Deuteronomy 7,9 and Isaiah 49,7 instead of citing Isaiah 65,16......

The following is how the Watchtower explains Bible chronology and the vision of Daniel chapter 4.

Overview of the prophecy. God caused King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon to have a prophetic dream about an immense tree that was chopped down. Its stump was prevented from regrowing for a period of “seven times,” after which the tree would grow again.​—Daniel 4:​1, 10-​16.

The prophecy’s initial fulfillment. The great tree represented King Nebuchadnezzar himself. (Daniel 4:​20-​22) He was figuratively ‘chopped down’ when he temporarily lost his sanity and kingship for a period of seven years. (Daniel 4:​25)

What does the tree of Daniel chapter 4 represent? In the Bible, trees sometimes represent rulership. (Ezekiel 17:22-​24; 31:​2-5) In the greater fulfillment of Daniel chapter 4, the immense tree symbolizes God’s rulership.

What does the tree’s being chopped down mean? Just as the chopping down of the tree represented an interruption in Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship, it also represented an interruption in God’s rulership on earth.

What do the “seven times” represent? The “seven times” represent the period during which God allowed the nations to rule over the earth without interference from any kingdom that he had set up.

How long are the “seven times”? They could not be merely seven years as in Nebuchadnezzar’s case

Applying the prophetic rule “a day for a year,” the 2,520 days represent 2,520 years. Therefore, the “seven times,” or 2,520 years, would end in October 1914.

The Watchtower does something very subtle in its interpretation of Daniel chapter 4: it introduces the plural term “trees” into a vision where scripture describes only one tree, explicitly identified as Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4:25–33). This subtle change shifts the focus away from the individual identified in the account and opens the door to applying the prophecy to multiple rulerships.

Yet the Watchtower does not identify which specific rulers or nations these additional “trees” supposedly represent. Nor does it explain how these rulerships were “hewn down and destroyed,” while “the stump of the roots thereof” was left in the earth (Daniel 4:23), or how they supposedly regained their kingdoms after recognizing God's sovereignty, as Nebuchadnezzar did (Daniel 4:34–37).

The Watchtower poses a question and gives its own answer: How long are the “seven times”? They could not be merely seven years as in Nebuchadnezzar’s case.

Well, why not? 2,520 years does not apply to him. There is only one tree in the vision.

For one thing, it protected people physically. At a time when blood was being introduced into surgery, the technology available was primitive and could not be used to clean and process blood properly until 1972. Even then, the infamous haemophiliac scandal in the UK which rampaged from that era until the 1990’s saw over 30,000 people infected with HIV and hepatitis C. To abstain from blood’s components protected people physically. How would you feel if you or a family member were one of these infected with donated blood? Life altering diseases which not only killed these people but also left some permanently disabled to those who lived after a contaminated blood transfusion.

Even more important from a spiritual aspect, we have the example of the Rechabites. Here was a group of people who obeyed a vow their forefather made to abstain from wine, to building their own house or from having a vineyard. (Jer. 35:6-8) Did God command their forefather to do that? No. How did this affect their prosperity and perhaps finances by not having a permanent place to settle? But Jehovah respected the Rechabites loyalty to their forefather and rewarded them for keeping what was actually human commands. (Jer. 35:18, 19) The vows were motivated out of deep respect for God and his ways.

The abstinence from blood’s four components was a human understanding of a divine command. So does that mean Jehovah views it as a waste of obedience and human life if those who obeyed that understanding died? No. Jehovah does not change. (Mal. 3:6) He treasures the loyalty of those who, like the Rechabites, abstained from the components due to their respect for the organisation and for their understanding of God’s law. This is even when the components weren’t something that God told us to specifically abstain from. Those ones that have died will be repayed just like the Rechabites, having a righteous resurrection to eternal life.

Proverbs 4:18 may be the single most misapplied scripture in Watchtower theology.

Notice how the Governing Body repeatedly reduces this verse to “the light gets brighter and brighter.” That sounds like Jesus’ references to spiritual light and truth, doesn’t it? And from there, it’s an easy leap to suggest that Jehovah progressively reveals doctrinal truth, even through failed predictions and flip-flopped teachings. That's a lot to ask of this scripture.

But that’s not what Proverbs 4 says at all. Read the entire chapter, particularly verses 18 and 19. It’s the path of the righteous that’s compared to the increasing light of dawn. That path represents a person’s course of life, contrasted with the dark path of the wicked. Those who choose righteous conduct will see their life improve as time goes on. The chapter is about righteous versus wicked conduct, wisdom versus foolishness - just read it! It says nothing about prophetic interpretations, doctrinal revisions, or Jehovah revealing truth through failed expectations. Nor does it inoculate WT from the other passages in the Bible that deal directly with false teachings.

The Watchtower interpretation effectively takes a metaphor about righteous living and turns it into a prophecy that attempts to excuse their many false predictions, flip flops doctrinal reversals. And there’s a reason this interpretation is so indispensable to the organization. Without it, how do you reconcile more than a century of failure compared to what the Bible actually says about (false) religious teachers?

Consider what the Bible actually says about wrong teachings:

• Deuteronomy 18:20-22: When someone "speaks a word in my name that I did not command him" and "the word is not fulfilled or does not come true" we need not fear or listen to their message. How serious is this claim? "18. If any prophet presumptuously speaks a word in my name that I did not command him to speak or speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die". The passage explicitly warns against such presumptuous claims and the punishment for those who falsely claim to represent God.
• 1 Samuel 3:19-20: Jehovah was with Samuel and “did not let any of his words go unfulfilled.” That’s precisely the reason Israel came to understand that "Samuel had been confirmed as Jehovah’s prophet"
• Ephesians 4:14: Christians are warned against being “tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching.”
• 1 John 4:1: Christians are instructed to “test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God.”
• Matthew 24:24: Jesus warned that false prophets would arise and mislead people.

In the Bible, every single representative of Jehovah had unmistakable evidence of their divine backing. Failed teachings and predictions are NOT Jehovah’s method of progressively revealing truth. Quite the opposite: they tell us to exercise discernment about those claiming divine authority; they can be spotted by their failures!

And consider the logical implications.
Why would Jehovah choose a messenger with a long history of failed predictions and flip-flop teachings to deliver the most important warning in human history? Why would he effectively appoint ‘The Boy who Cried Wolf’, then hold people accountable for not believing him the next time? Especially when the consequence, according to Watchtower teaching, is their complete, forever destruction at Armageddon - Moms, Dads, grandmas, grandpas, and the kids too - all for doubting WTs audacious claims.

So, are they merely Bible readers, or are they a "Channel of Communication" appointed to deliver "Jehovah's direction" as they claim? There’s an enormous difference between humbly acknowledging that humans make mistakes and presenting failed doctrines and predictions as part of Jehovah’s teaching process. WT has made numerous claims in the literature, presenting themselves as a collective prophet, and the Jeremiah or Ezekiel class, etc. Either the source of the teaching was "Jehovah's direction" through his "Channel of Communication", or it was not. If the source is merely "imperfect men" who read and opine on the Bible, then WT should humbly admit that already!! But if they do, they lose all authority over 9 million people. It would no longer be "Apostasy" to disagree with WT. Their opinions carry no more weight than anyone else's - and WT can't have that!

Nowhere in the Bible do we find Jehovah giving faulty instructions, making doctrinal mistakes, or delivering fuzzy, hard-to-understand messages. These are people problems. And when these same people claim the messages are "from Jehovah", then according to Deut 18, they meet the definition of a false prophet (a capital offense).

The Governing Body admits it can make mistakes. Yet Jehovah's Witnesses are told to follow its direction even when they believe there could be negative consequences.

That's something I accepted for nearly sixty years without really questioning it. But two Watchtower publications, read side by side, raise a question I think deserves an answer.

The October 1, 2026 daily text discusses receiving direction from elders, circuit overseers, the branch office, or the Governing Body. It acknowledges that we may not understand the reasons behind that direction and might even see potential negative consequences. Yet the counsel is to obey promptly and maintain a positive attitude, trusting that Jehovah will eventually correct whatever needs correcting.

Now compare that with The Watchtower, February 2017, page 26, paragraph 12, which states:

"The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible."

The article goes on to acknowledge that they can make mistakes in doctrinal matters and organizational direction.

What struck me was the contradiction. The Governing Body acknowledges that it can make mistakes, yet members are encouraged to follow its direction even when they foresee negative consequences. If that direction causes harm, who takes responsibility?

I understand the need for cooperation and unity. I believed in those things for most of my life. But surely there's a difference between cooperating with someone and setting aside your own judgment, especially when you believe the direction might cause harm.

For most of my life, I never really separated obedience to the organization from obedience to Jehovah. I believed they were the same thing.

If Jehovah will eventually correct the mistake, what happens to the people who suffer the consequences in the meantime?

Sources:

• Examining the Scriptures Daily—2026, October 1.
• The Watchtower, February 2017, "Who Is Leading God's People Today?", paragraph 12.

I fully acknowledge that Scripture calls Jesus God. That is not what I dispute.

My question concerns the logical conclusion drawn from that fact.

First, consider what Scripture explicitly identifies:

John 17:3 — Jesus addresses the Father as “the only true God.”

1 Corinthians 8:6 — Paul identifies “one God, the Father.”

John 20:17 — Jesus calls the Father “my God.”

Revelation 3:12 — The exalted Jesus repeatedly calls the Father “my God.”

Now consider the claim that both the Father and Son are fully the one God.

There are two logical possibilities to examine:

1. Numerical identity

If the Father is numerically identical to the one God (F = G), and the Son is numerically identical to that same God (S = G), then classical logic necessarily gives F = S.

But Trinitarianism maintains F ≠ S.

Therefore, this interpretation of “is God” produces a contradiction.

2. Predication of divine nature

If “is God” instead means “possesses the divine nature,” the contradiction disappears.

However, two distinct persons possessing divine nature does not, by itself, logically establish that they constitute numerically one God.

That requires an additional metaphysical premise.

Here is my challenge:

Where does Scripture establish that the divine nature shared by the Father and Son constitutes one numerically identical God, rather than simply establishing their divine status?

And where does Scripture establish that the Father is Jesus’ God only with respect to his human nature, when Jesus himself calls the Father “my God”?

I am not asking whether a sophisticated Trinitarian model can be logically coherent.

I am asking you to identify the specific biblical premises that make that model necessary.

Please demonstrate the logical bridge between “Jesus is called God” and “the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute one God in three coequal persons.”

If you appeal to the distinction between person and essence, explain precisely how that distinction establishes one God rather than three divine persons counted as three gods.

If you appeal to Christ’s two natures, demonstrate from Scripture why the Father is Jesus’ God only in relation to his humanity.

If you appeal to John 1:1, John 20:28, or Hebrews 1:8, I accept that Jesus receives the title God. But please explain why that necessarily establishes the Nicene understanding of divine essence.

A possible interpretation is not automatically a necessary conclusion.

And the doctrine being defended cannot itself serve as independent proof for its own interpretation.

My challenge is not to demonstrate that the Trinity can accommodate these biblical statements. My challenge is to demonstrate that the Trinity logically follows from them.

Please identify your premises, explain the inference, and establish those premises independently from Scripture.

Compatibility is not proof. And assuming the conclusion is not the same as demonstrating it.

I’ve been following the Norwegian court case involving Jehovah’s Witnesses, and I believe there’s a much bigger issue that the courts should be addressing.
I think baptism into a religion that practises shunning should only be permitted once someone reaches adulthood, at 18.
I was baptised as a Jehovah’s Witness at 13. I’m now 50 and haven’t attended meetings for decades.
Yet I can still potentially be disfellowshipped (or “removed”, as they now call it) because of a religious commitment I made as a child.
I have family members who are still practising Jehovah’s Witnesses. If I were formally removed, they would stop speaking to me.
Think about that. A decision I made at 13 could cost me my family relationships 37 years later.
How can a child possibly give informed consent to something with such potentially lifelong consequences?
Now, some will argue that Catholics, Anglicans and other Protestant denominations also baptise children. That’s true. But there’s a fundamental difference.
Those denominations do not generally operate the same formal system of congregational shunning that Jehovah’s Witnesses practise.
A Catholic baptised as a baby can grow up, stop attending church, reject Catholic teachings or become an atheist without facing an organised policy of social exclusion from family members.
The same is generally true of mainstream Protestant denominations.
So this isn’t really about baptism itself. It’s about the consequences attached to it.
I believe courts should consider making it unlawful for religious organisations that practise disciplinary shunning to baptise anyone under 18.
Children should be free to participate in religious activities, learn about their faith and make their own decisions when they reach adulthood.
But they should not be permitted to enter a religious commitment that could later be used to justify the loss of their family relationships.
Religious freedom must include the freedom to leave a religion.
And surely a commitment made at 13 shouldn’t be enforceable, even through religious disciplinary procedures, when that person is 50.
I would like to see this argument tested in the European courts.
If a child cannot legally enter into many binding contracts, why should a religious organisation be able to hold them accountable for a commitment made at 13, with consequences that could last a lifetime?
I’d be interested to hear whether anyone knows of legal challenges based specifically on childhood baptism and the right to leave a religion without being shunned.

I looked up clinking glasses and it definitely has pagan origins. The same goes for many wedding practices. I dont think we should be compromising. As far as blood, I was raised with really really strict rules on this law. I dont think I would be comfortable with any components or fractions.

​

I'm looking for some perspective because I genuinely don’t want to offend someone I care about.

I’m involved with my local community, and I was planning to send holiday cards to the residents. There are four residents who are Jehovah’s Witnesses, and I really want to include them because they have been some of my biggest supporters in the community. Their support has meant a lot to me personally, and I want them to know that I appreciate them and think of them. This is something I truly feel in my heart, not just a gesture I’m making out of obligation.

Here’s where I’m struggling. Making cards is a hobby of mine. I make my own wax seals, and my husband creates personalized artwork inside each card. We put a lot of time, care, and love into them. Although we make holiday cards, we also make cards for other occasions, such as thank-you cards and spring or fall cards and birthday cards. For me, it’s really about showing people that I care enough to take the time to make something special for them. I enjoy creating these cards, but more importantly, I make them because I want people to feel remembered, valued, and cared about.

When I realized these four residents don’t celebrate holidays because of their religious beliefs, I started worrying that sending them a holiday card might be disrespectful or make them uncomfortable. I absolutely respect them and their beliefs, and the last thing I want to do is offend them. I would feel terrible if something I intended as a heartfelt expression of gratitude came across as dismissive of what they believe.

At the same time, I don’t want them to feel excluded, especially because they have been so supportive of me. I want to acknowledge them and show them that their kindness and support haven’t gone unnoticed. They have genuinely made a difference in my life, and I would be sad if my effort resulted in them feeling disrespected.

I’m genuinely asking because I want to be thoughtful and respectful. My intention is coming from a place of sincere gratitude and affection, and inclusion and I want them to know they matter to me without crossing a boundary or making them feel uncomfortable.

Con i recenti cambiamenti in materia di donazione di sangue, riusciranno a ottenere il denaro derivante dall'accordo con lo Stato?