What I really think! Robert King

[BARNABY THE DOG.]

Silly question Barney, have you seen that dating program "Love on the Spectrum"? Nor have I, but some of my kids think it's great

I don’t have to see the programme.

 

[BARNABY THE DOG.]

Absolutely mad innit? What's scary is that WE (and many others who don't even believe in God) aren't allowed to NOT recognise them we can debate till the cows come the reasons WHY they're preaching so many different genders, that's not the REAL issue, the REAL issue is forcing everyone to accept the narrative.. oh well, best bury a few more spuds

There are better things to do than invent genders. It’s a point worth considering that the angels are complete in themselves, thus there is not need to have a gender. They experience every emotive nuance to the full. Do they hug themselves? I don’t think so. But do they understand the full extent of love for and in each other? Yes. That is the meaning to “become as one”. Therein is the beauty of it.

 

[Proverbs 14 v 15]

I know what you mean. Someone was telling me recently that years ago when she worked at a salon in the mall there were two lesbians, one waiting to get her hair done while and they were making out right there. The woman working in the salon told them that this was a family salon and they didn’t allow that kind of thing there. Well, she/ he got in her face and said they would have her job and she told her/ him he could have it and use her phone to call. The hair stylist called the manager in who told the couple the same thing, that this was a family business and none of that was allowed. Needless to say, the girl part of the couple liked the hair stylist and still wanted her to do her hair.
The one playing the guy was real butch looking so thought she was really impressing the people but both the hair stylist and the manager put her in her place even though she was pretending to be a man. How sad…

Not allowed to disapprove these days, the times of good sense and a little freedom are looooong gone!!

 

[a believer]

Well as I understand it, the Bible proclamation on sex was to reproduce. So same sex relationships are somewhat sterile

This is the very point where I'm at on the matter: same sex relationships are dead-ends, biologically. They cannot reproduce without some contribution from the opposite gender. Or, adopt a child. The issue resolves itself biologically.

To go along with some of the experiences others have shared, I have had limited interactions with homosexuals during my lifetime. One became my molester in my teen years. Some years later, AIDS came into public awareness, and I not only grieved over whether I'd been infected with "gayness", as it was called back then, but now I had to worry if the guy had given me AIDS, because I discovered in my early 20s that the guy had been quite active in the same-sex community back during those years, even after he'd plied his ... craft with me. I learned still later that he did, in fact, die because of AIDS, which set the anxiety cycle all over again.

The other homosexual was a neighbor named Bill Kruger. I had no clue that he was homosexual until I was in my late teens. I was 8 or 9, mind you, but to me, with me, he was the quiet older man who lived a few doors down and he and I had become friends because of the simple yard sales Bill would set up every weekend. Eventually, I'd earn some quarters for helping him set up his yard sales on Saturday mornings. And I even stayed on te sofa at his little duplex on Friday nights over the course of that year. I remember how neat and tidy Bill's place was, how quiet and peaceful. And that he always had a cup of coffee with him. Worked at a plant near Grand Rapids. Never tried anything, and for as often as I was over there (because it sure beat being at home with my abusive mother!), he never had other men over. With the exception of a troubled son of a fellow co-worker, but that's a story for another day, and not as a sexual partner or anything like that. Just a really messed up youth back home from Vietnam and whatever happened over there. And this son had some stories, for sure. Evil incarnate stuff.

—Timothy,
a believer.

 

[Proverbs 14 v 15]

This is the very point where I'm at on the matter: same sex relationships are dead-ends, biologically. They cannot reproduce without some contribution from the opposite gender. Or, adopt a child. The issue resolves itself biologically.

To go along with some of the experiences others have shared, I have had limited interactions with homosexuals during my lifetime. One became my molester in my teen years. Some years later, AIDS came into public awareness, and I not only grieved over whether I'd been infected with "gayness", as it was called back then, but now I had to worry if the guy had given me AIDS, because I discovered in my early 20s that the guy had been quite active in the same-sex community back during those years, even after he'd plied his ... craft with me. I learned still later that he did, in fact, die because of AIDS, which set the anxiety cycle all over again.

The other homosexual was a neighbor named Bill Kruger. I had no clue that he was homosexual until I was in my late teens. I was 8 or 9, mind you, but to me, with me, he was the quiet older man who lived a few doors down and he and I had become friends because of the simple yard sales Bill would set up every weekend. Eventually, I'd earn some quarters for helping him set up his yard sales on Saturday mornings. And I even stayed on te sofa at his little duplex on Friday nights over the course of that year. I remember how neat and tidy Bill's place was, how quiet and peaceful. And that he always had a cup of coffee with him. Worked at a plant near Grand Rapids. Never tried anything, and for as often as I was over there (because it sure beat being at home with my abusive mother!), he never had other men over. With the exception of a troubled son of a fellow co-worker, but that's a story for another day, and not as a sexual partner or anything like that. Just a really messed up youth back home from Vietnam and whatever happened over there. And this son had some stories, for sure. Evil incarnate stuff.

—Timothy,
a believer.

Literally everybody's lives are so full of trauma aren't they? I'm always amazed when I meet "normal" people who've grown up in "normal" families..

 

[dgibson969]

What I hate is that the many of them like to shove it in our faces, and in kids faces, they should have the moral decency to keep their sex life private like, I can't get my head around that mental attitude, I just don't comprehend it, it makes me think that they know exactly what they're doing and get a kick out of it..

You sound like my Aunt! We show a interracial couple on Sam's Club back in the 80's. She me elbowed me, and said look at how proud he is walking with his little white woman! Maybe you need a system upgrade?

 

[dgibson969]

I hear the point about not agreeing with the lifestyle, but I’m struggling with how we apply that. If we say we 'love the person' but then refuse to sit at a table with them, help them when they're down, or have any association with them, does that love actually mean anything in the real world?


To me, mercy and empathy aren't 'endorsements'—they are actions. If we distance ourselves completely, we aren't 'loving' them; we’re just ignoring them. History and faith are full of examples where the most impactful thing a person could do was associate with those they disagreed with.


If we hold to the tradition of 'loving the sinner' but cut off the relationship, we’re creating a double standard. True mercy requires being present in people's lives, not just watching from the sidelines.

 

[dgibson969]

I think we sometimes get so hung up on what we see on TV or what we imagine goes on in people’s private lives that we lose sight of the person standing right in front of us.


If we’re honest, there could be all sorts of things happening behind closed doors within our own congregation—in heterosexual relationships or otherwise—that people just keep quiet about. We don't demand to know every detail of their lives before we decide to eat with them or help them.


Why do we make an exception here? If we only show mercy to people whose private lives we 100% approve of, we wouldn't be helping anyone at all. We shouldn't let what we see on a TV screen keep us from being a neighbor to a real human being.

 

[Nomex]

I do believe that homosexuals KNOW it's wrong though, that's why they pushed and pushed to get the church to allow them to "marry".

I have been saying this for a long time, and real reason they push all the "normalization" is for that very fact. They think if they can convince everyone else what they are doing is not a perversion, then maybe, just maybe, they can convince themselves. But the worst part of this is exactly what it has lead too and that is the natural progression toward pedophilia.

 

[dgibson969]

I was thinking about a story today. Imagine two neighbors on the same street.


The first neighbor is someone the community knows is in a same-sex relationship. Because of that, people keep their distance. They don't invite them to dinner, they don't stop to talk, and they don't offer help when that neighbor’s car breaks down. They say they 'love them,' but they stay far away.


The second neighbor is a man who shows up to every meeting and says all the right things. But behind closed doors, he’s cold to his wife, he has a hidden problem with drink, and his family is falling apart in silence. Yet, because no one 'sees' his struggle on the news or on TV, the community embraces him, eats with him, and supports him without a second thought.


In this scenario, we are showing mercy to the one who hides their life well, while withholding it from the one whose life we’ve already judged from a distance.


If we say we follow a path of mercy, which neighbor should we be sitting at the table with? I think the answer is both. If we only help the 'perfect' neighbor, we’ll never find anyone to help—because that person doesn't exist?

 

[dgibson969]

I’ve realized that for many, the congregation feels like a fortress. It’s a place where you feel protected because you’re surrounded by people who think and act just like you do. There’s a certain comfort in those walls.


But the thing about a fortress is that its primary job is to keep people out. If we spend all our time guarding the gates and making sure 'those people' don't get in, we eventually lose the ability to be 'the light of the world.' A light isn't meant to be hidden behind a stone wall; it’s meant to be out in the darkness where it’s actually needed.


If our faith only works when we are surrounded by people who agree with us, is it really that strong? Or are we just hiding? True strength isn't found in how high we build our walls, but in how far we are willing to reach outside of them to help someone who is struggling.

 

[dgibson969]

I think another hurdle we face is the idea that this is just a 'choice' that’s easy to change. From my own experience, I remember being 6 or 8 years old, playing with friends. My buddies were starting to notice girls, but I just didn't have that interest. It wasn't a decision I made; it was just how I was.


When we tell people to 'just change,' we’re often asking them to do something that goes against how they’ve been wired since they were children. It’s far more difficult and deeply ingrained than most people in this congregation realize.


If we keep waiting for people to 'fix' themselves before we offer them association or a seat at the table, we aren't really following the example of mercy. We’re asking for the impossible. Shouldn't we be supporting people as they are, rather than demanding they become someone else just to be worthy of our kindness?

 

[dgibson969]

I have been saying this for a long time, and real reason they push all the "normalization" is for that very fact. They think if they can convince everyone else what they are doing is not a perversion, then maybe, just maybe, they can convince themselves. But the worst part of this is exactly what it has lead too and that is the natural progression toward pedophilia.

That’s a common perspective, but it doesn't match what I've seen or lived. When people look for 'normalization,' they aren't usually looking for an excuse for 'wrongdoing'—they are looking for the right to exist without being shamed for how they were born.


Like I said, I felt these things at 6 and 8 years old. A child that age isn't looking for 'normalization' or trying to push an agenda; they are just trying to understand why they don't fit the mold everyone else is forcing them into.


If we label every cry for basic dignity as 'pushing an agenda,' we give ourselves an excuse to keep our hearts closed. It’s much easier to call someone 'rebellious' than it is to admit that they might just be different from us. If we are so confident in our 'pure worship,' why are we so afraid of people being honest about who they are?

 

[dgibson969]

I’m trying to understand the logic here. If a person is willing to live by the same moral standards as anyone else—staying faithful, being a good partner, and living a clean life—why is the door still slammed in their face?


It seems like we care more about the category a person falls into than the actual conduct of their life. If we have heterosexual couples in the congregation who might be struggling with all sorts of private issues, we still welcome them and help them. But if someone is honest about who they are, we treat them as 'impure' even if they are living a life of high moral character.


If our worship is truly about the heart and our actions, why do we make a special rule to exclude this one group? If they are willing to adhere to the standards of the congregation, shouldn't they be allowed the same mercy and association as everyone else? Or is our 'fortress' only for people who fit a specific look?

 

[dgibson969]

If we believe that Jehovah has provided a way to clean us all through Jesus’ sacrifice, then why do we act like this one struggle is permanent and unforgivable?


We believe that in the coming Paradise, 'all things will be made new.' For someone who has felt misaligned in their body or their attractions since they were a child, shouldn't we have faith that Jehovah can and will resolve that? If a person is faithful now, despite the struggle, shouldn't we trust that Jehovah could simply 'fix the wiring' or provide a change in the new world that brings them peace?


If we truly believe in the power of the resurrection and the perfection to come, then we should view these people as our brothers and sisters who are simply carrying a heavy load right now. We shouldn't be shutting them out of the fortress; we should be helping them get across the finish line so they can finally be who they were meant to be in a perfect world.

 

[dgibson969]

I’ve been reflecting on the traditional idea that we have to "fix" ourselves—or others—to be worthy of Paradise. But what if that’s missing the point entirely?


Instead of a gatekeeping mindset, I believe the real work is about unconditional acceptance. When we look at the 7,000 who are strengthened, perhaps they aren’t being "perfected" for their own sake, but are being empowered to become a welcoming committee for the world. If we truly believe in a Creator who is the source of love for the entire Earth and every living thing within it, then the goal isn't exclusion based on merit. It’s about a heart-level recognition of that Love.


The question is: Are we preparing to judge, or are we preparing to welcome everyone home?

 

[dgibson969]

I’ve been thinking more about the specific role of the 7,000 that Jehovah/Jesus strengthens. What if we’ve been looking at them all wrong?


We often think of "chosen" people as "perfect fixers"—those who have everything figured out. But the biblical account of the 7,000 (1 Kings 19:18) tells a different story. They weren't chosen because they were flawless; they were chosen because they refused to bow. Their Real Role:

• Unshakable Belief: They held onto the truth of the Creator’s love and sovereignty despite massive pressure to do otherwise. Their "job" was simply to remain unchanged by a world that had lost its way.
• The Bridge to Restoration: Because they stood firm, they are uniquely qualified to be the "welcoming committee" for everyone else. They aren't there to judge or "fix" the new arrivals; they are there to share the strength they were given.
• Stewards of Love: They act as the foundation for a Paradise where the original mandate—caring for the Earth and all its created things—is finally realized through unconditional acceptance.

It turns out, the "strengthening" they receive isn't a reward for being perfect; it’s the equipment they need to welcome a world back home.

 

[dgibson969]

I know we often talk about James 2:26—that "faith without works is dead." For many, that means a life of "fixing" ourselves or striving to meet a standard. But I want to offer a different perspective on what those "works" actually look like for the 7,000 who are strengthened.


If the Creator is the source of love for the entire Earth and everything in it, then the greatest "work" we can perform isn't perfection—it’s unconditional acceptance.

• The Misconception: That works are a checklist to "earn" a spot in Paradise.
• The Reality: That the 7,000 are strengthened specifically so they have the capacity to welcome everyone else. Holding onto a belief in the Creator’s love and sovereignty while the world is full of pressure to judge and exclude—that is a massive work of faith. Their "work" is being the welcoming committee for a world coming home. It’s not about being "perfect fixers"; it’s about being perfect conduits of the Creator's love.

The Challenge: If our "works" don't result in more love and a wider welcome, are we really doing the work the Creator intended?

 

[dgibson969]

We know the last of the brothers face a dark moment—lying in the street while the world watches in fear. But why is the system so afraid of their 'authority'? Maybe it’s because the power they hold isn't a sword of destruction, but the power of Unconditional Acceptance. The system thrives on fear and 'fixing' people; it can't survive a group of people who tell the world that the Creator's love is already here for everyone. Their death and ascension isn't just a miracle—it’s the final proof that the system’s walls are down and the Welcome is open to all.

 

[dgibson969]

The Sealing of the 144,000: Distinguishing Truth from "Deception"​

As we look toward the final sealing of the remnant—the 7,000 or so still awaiting that final mark of approval before their death—there is a lot of talk about the "deceptions of Satan." Many in our community are taught that things like homosexuality are merely snares designed to disqualify the anointed from their heavenly calling.


But I think we need to step back and look at this through the lens of Jehovah’s own standards.

​

We are reminded in 1 Samuel 16:7 that "mere man sees what appears to the eyes, but Jehovah sees into the heart." If a person is walking in integrity, showing deep faith, and displaying the fruitage of the spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), can we truly say they are "deceived" just because of their orientation? If the fruit is good—love, kindness, and peace—then the tree cannot be rotten.

​

1 John 4:8 tells us plainly: "God is love." If someone’s life is built on a foundation of sincere, committed love, is it logical to label that love a "satanic deception"? Satan’s deceptions usually lead to pride, hatred, and division. When an individual finds peace and authenticity in who they are, that looks more like the "soundness of mind" mentioned in 2 Timothy 1:7 than a snare of the adversary.

​

The anointed are under immense pressure to be "blameless." But "blameless" doesn't have to mean "conforming to human traditions." It means being true to the spirit. To call a fundamental part of a person's identity a "trick" may actually be a distraction from the real work of the spirit—which is to unite us in love.


Final Thought: Could the real deception be the fear that keeps us from accepting the variety of Jehovah’s creation? Let’s remember that the "sealing" is about a person's loyalty to the truth of love, not a checklist of human-defined social norms.

 

[dgibson969]

​

When we talk about the "sealed ones" among the 7,000 remnant, we’re essentially talking about a spiritual escrow account. The invitation is there, the "funds" are set aside, but the final payout doesn't happen until death.


The common view is that things like homosexuality are "deceptions" meant to make a person forfeit their account. But let’s look at the math differently:

• The Incentive: If the goal is to produce kings and priests who can judge the world with mercy, wouldn't those individuals need to understand the full reality of the human experience?
• The Real Deception: In any high-stakes deal, the biggest "scam" is usually the one that uses fear to keep you from claiming what is yours. If someone is told their own heart is a "trick" by Satan, they are being forced to live in a state of constant internal conflict.
• The Penalty: Just like the blockade fees we discussed, the "cost" of living in fear is high—it drains your peace and your "soundness of mind" (2 Timothy 1:7).

The Scriptural "Audit":


If 1 John 4:18 says that "perfect love casts fear out," then any doctrine that uses fear to label a person’s identity as a "satanic snare" is actually working against the spirit.


The Bottom Line: The sealing isn't about passing a "purity test" based on human traditions. It’s about authenticity. You can't be "sealed" as a person of truth if you are forced to live a lie. If Jehovah sees the heart (1 Samuel 16:7), He sees the sincerity of your love as an asset, not a liability.

 

[Proverbs 14 v 15]

You sound like my Aunt! We show a interracial couple on Sam's Club back in the 80's. She me elbowed me, and said look at how proud he is walking with his little white woman! Maybe you need a system upgrade?

No comparison.. clutching at straws!

 

[Proverbs 14 v 15]

I hear the point about not agreeing with the lifestyle, but I’m struggling with how we apply that. If we say we 'love the person' but then refuse to sit at a table with them, help them when they're down, or have any association with them, does that love actually mean anything in the real world?

Who said anything about not helping them?
There's plenty of people I don't like associating with and they're mostly "straight" people

 

[Proverbs 14 v 15]

I have been saying this for a long time, and real reason they push all the "normalization" is for that very fact. They think if they can convince everyone else what they are doing is not a perversion, then maybe, just maybe, they can convince themselves. But the worst part of this is exactly what it has lead too and that is the natural progression toward pedophilia.

And sadly it quite often begins with pedophilia too, they repeat what adults did to them when they were kids, and on it goes..

 

[Proverbs 14 v 15]

If our faith only works when we are surrounded by people who agree with us, is it really that strong? Or are we just hiding? True strength isn't found in how high we build our walls, but in how far we are willing to reach outside of them to help someone who is struggling

I've spent my whole life and energy helping other people, mostly people who ended up not appreciating it, or throwing it back in my face. But it doesn't matter, because I did/do these things for Jehovah. But when it comes to very close association I'll admit that I've got pickier and pickier as I've got older, for protection of my own sanity and I don't get the feeling that Jehovah doesn't agree with me