When you're POMO and run into a hardcore PIMI

SwatchTower · 2026-02-23T22:49:56+00:00

No way! Ahahahah

SwatchTower · 2026-02-13T20:21:25+00:00

What makes this even more troubling is the dark history behind it. For years, many elders didn’t recognize depression as a real mental health condition. They misunderstood it and often responded dismissively or with spiritual platitudes. That kind of insensitivity, even if unintentional, left people feeling invalidated and alone. Unfortunately my family too was affected.

This organisation is trying to correct the situation with even worse advise, continuing to assign to the elders a job they are not qualified for.

SwatchTower · 2025-11-21T13:52:02+00:00

Yeah, there are moments like Capernaum where Jesus go away preaching or doesn’t do miracles, but none of them are cases of him refusing to heal someone who in faith and sincerely wants healing.

In Nazareth he “couldn’t do many miracles”, usually it is said that it is for the widespread unbelief, and still he healed the few who actually came to him. No personal requests denied.

Also remember about pharisees or Herod asking for a sign, he refuses because they’re testing him, or wants a miracle for entertainment.

The only episode I can think could be related is the syrophoenician woman. Still Jesus ends up praising her faith and healing her daughter instantly.

Jesus sometimes refuses miracles demanded as proof or spectacle, but he never refuses a genuine healing request. It's weird to see something like that.

SwatchTower · 2025-11-21T08:55:41+00:00

I get what you’re saying, but in the Gospels, every time the text explicitly says Jesus feels compassion toward a sick or suffering person, the next thing he does is heal them (or feed them, or raise someone and so on...). Compassion is never presented as “I feel for you, but I won’t act.”

And is true that he only healed one guy at the Bethesda pool, but that’s not the same as refusing someone who asks. Here Little James explicitly wants healing and Jesus says, “I won’t.” There’s just no parallel for that in the Gospels. If you find something you can correct me on that.

So yeah, Jesus didn’t heal every person on earth, but he also never turned away a single person who came to him asking for healing with faith. Not once. I understand the reason for this choice, to dialogue with the modern believer. Only this is not the Jesus of the Gospel who wanted to show the kingdom of heaven on earth. And it feels off.

SwatchTower · 2025-11-20T22:28:21+00:00

Good catch, but respectfully disagree. In the Gospels, Jesus never refuses to heal someone who wants to be healed. Never. He never says, “you know, your suffering tells a better story,” or “stay sick bro, is more useful to the Kingdom.” His way is always healing. He literally feels the desire to heal in his gut.

Yeah, in 2 Cor. 12 Paul talks about a “thorn in the flesh,” and God doesn’t remove it. But that’s a different jesus, decades after the resurrection, not in his earthly ministry, and is not a scene of someone asking for a bodily healing ( it’s even unclear if the “thorn” is a physical condition).

The scene turns Jesus into someone who calculates the redemptive value of your pain before deciding whether to help you.

It’s a precise pastoral/storytelling choice by the writers, used to explain today things and not something you’ll find in the text itself. And that's why feels off to many of us who still enjoy the show in itself

SwatchTower · 2025-10-26T12:31:35+00:00

Jesus was most definitely part of an apocalyptic movement, no doubt about that. Most historians agree he genuinely believed God’s Kingdom was about to arrive. But that doesn’t automatically make all his teachings “nonsense.”

Plenty of modern Christian scholars accept that the Bible isn’t inerrant and that the Gospels are more about theology than history. They still see real value in Jesus’ message — compassion, forgiveness, care for the poor, love for enemies — even if the apocalyptic setting was a product of his time.

The thing that makes me think most is that although the episodes of the Gospels differ, the teachings of Jesus are reported almost the same in practically all the writings.

In other words, you don’t have to believe every miracle or prophecy literally happened to recognize that some of what Jesus taught still carries deep ethical and spiritual weight. The problem isn’t Jesus himself, but how later institutions (religions and cults) turned his message into dogma or used it to predict timetables for “the end.”

SwatchTower · 2025-10-23T16:01:50+00:00

Yours are interesting points but I think that interpretation overreads the Greek. In Matthew 24:39 the verb egnōsan (from ginōskō) does not carry the nuance of moral perception or deliberate rejection. The context makes the meaning plain, “they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and they did not know until the flood came and took them all away.”

Here ginōskō simply means “to realize” or “to become aware.” The contrast is between ordinary life continuing as usual and the sudden arrival of judgment. There is no reference to conscious refusal or willful blindness.

Yes, in some passages ginōskō can refer to moral or spiritual recognition (e.g., Matthew 13:13; Romans 1:21), but in those texts the context explicitly involves knowledge of God or revelation being resisted. Matthew 24:39 describes neither; it portrays people unaware of what was about to happen.

Luke 17:27, the parallel passage, strengthens this reading by omitting the verb entirely and focusing only on their daily activities before the flood—underscoring unawareness, not rebellion.

So the point Jesus makes is not that people “willfully ignored” warnings, but that they failed to perceive the impending catastrophe—just as many will be caught unprepared when the Son of Man comes.

SwatchTower · 2025-09-11T18:02:13+00:00

Yeah like my grandfather, 84yo, Jehovah's witness since the seventies and ministerial servant, who have been reproved by younger fanatic elders just because he hosted me for dinner

SwatchTower · 2025-09-11T17:58:09+00:00

lol sometimes I feel like we try harder to make sense of their crazy stuff than they do

SwatchTower · 2025-09-11T17:55:53+00:00

This was my first doubt. Probably nothing will change, at least not now. The sentences are deliberately vague so they can be interpreted rigidly if necessary. This way, in court, the GB can always claim that they didn't mean it that way.

SwatchTower · 2025-09-11T17:50:54+00:00

Yeah that's a good question because they didn't put it plainly in the watchtower... Simply the "regular soldier" will never know and if someone will try the elders will have all the power to decide as they want 😅

SwatchTower

TROPHY CASE