Musing on prayer

[xero]

38 minutes ago, Anna said:

I must admit I never thought of thinking of God as grandfather 🤔🥴

I had, but like when Jesus said "When you've seen me, you've seen the father", I think he's saying that you can't really get much closer as a human to understanding Jehovah as limited as you are ("you don't get the earthly things, how could you get the heavenly things"?). So there's an awe and wonder that can never cease when it comes to Jehovah, but when it comes to a created being, you can sort of wrap your mind around that. Being noncontingent is something I'll never (nor can I by dint of my contingency) get. A timeless being who created time and space....I read a book a couple of years ago by Douglas Hofstadter - "Surfaces and Essences" where he argues that it's analogies all the way up and all the way down. You can't understand anything except by way of analogy. But for an analogy to begin, it has to be perceived, which means you have to have the sense organs and the brain (more analogical devices) designed by Jehovah to process the "external world" (whether this is physical or spiritual) and interactively build on the grammar of repetitive experience to be able to understand the external vs the internal. But no matter what as individuals we have limits (unless or until Jehovah opens more doors to our perceptions).

So grandfather may be an analogy, but as analogies go, it's one of them.

Reminds me of a brother who used the phrase "in connection with" when he wasn't making the connections. I joked "Bob could say "Jehovah God in connection with the Garden of Eden", stop there and look at the audience as if there was some point he'd just made, when he'd made none - he simply created a set, Let X be the set of (Jehovah, Garden of Eden}. That tells me nothing.

So analogies are impossible to avoid, but having an analogy isn't the same thing as having the truth and as the scriptures say "the reality belongs to the Christ". (if I'm remembering that right)

[Pudgy]

1 hour ago, xero said:

But no matter what as individuals we have limits (unless or until Jehovah opens more doors to our perceptions).

1.)   About 350 years ago, Sir Isaac Newton knew that there were two classes ... those of the "heavenly hope", and those of the "great crowd".

2.) Jehovah's Witnesses figured it out about 86 years ago.

 

 

[Srecko Sostar]

2 hours ago, Anna said:

Yes and no. You have to be approved to join the JW Only club first in order to read the contents and comment. 

Approved? No "transparency" than? As people today would say. You know, today is modern to be "transparent"   

But, let us go to old wording and same meaning: "Be honest in all things" Heb 13:18 ... and let people know what are you speaking and thinking and doing.  Let it be known for all to see, without limit.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Who is "too much", TTH ?

The one who I said. She is too much. She defines the expression “waterless cloud,” drowning everyone in gallons of verse, but then not being guided by them.

Someone says, “but I want to talk to Jesus.” Rather than be guided by scripture which, strangely or not, seems to make no allowance for it, she spins a gooey human analogy. You can speak to anyone you want, she says (and you join her) Sometimes a child has to speak with daddy, sometimes mommy, sometimes grandpa. It’s enough to make a guy heave. 

Go with the scriptures. If they seem counterintuitive, as they might in this case, see if you can get your heart and head around how they still are the arrangement and still for the best. Don’t say, Well I want to talk to Jesus, and to say I shouldn’t is unloving, and we know that God is not unloving so that must mean I can talk to Jesus whenever I want.

 

[xero]

56 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The one who I said. She is too much. She defines the expression “waterless cloud,” drowning everyone in gallons of verse, but then not being guided by them.

Someone says, “but I want to talk to Jesus.” Rather than be guided by scripture which, strangely or not, seems to make no allowance for it, she spins a gooey human analogy. You can speak to anyone you want, she says (and you join her) Sometimes a child has to speak with daddy, sometimes mommy, sometimes grandpa. It’s enough to make a guy heave. 

Go with the scriptures. If they seem counterintuitive, as they might in this case, see if you can get your heart and head around how they still are the arrangement and still for the best. Don’t say, Well I want to talk to Jesus, and to say I shouldn’t is unloving, and we know that God is not unloving so that must mean I can talk to Jesus whenever I want.

 

You have to admit, though that if you think of Jesus as a High Priest and you going to him with a sacrifice to offer on your behalf to Jehovah, you'd make eye contact and speak to him. I mean it's not like he's a guard at Buckingham Palace. It also says he's a high priest who isn't unaware of our own failings, so maybe the need for some chattiness is understandable too. I'm not really worried about what any other human has to say about all this. Like somehow I'm asking any human for permission on any of this - quite frankly I'm not. I also know that people are going to do what they're going to do no matter what I say or don't say. I just know that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence when it comes to prayer.  (Plus any reading of Hebrews would lead one to imagine that there would be some communication w/Jesus for him to "sympathize with us" as a "high priest" on our behalf w/Jehovah. Still in public I'll pick one or two things I feel the congregation can say amen to and get off the platform and not ramble on like some pharisee...BUT when I'm in my private chamber....different matter I may ramble.)

[TrueTomHarley]

20 minutes ago, xero said:

BUT when I'm in my private chamber....different matter I may ramble.)

Yeah—I don’t really have a problem with it, though it’s not occurred to me to do it myself. We train our conscience by Bible principles and then in accord with our best judgment use it as our guide. 

It reminds me a little of a friend whose teenage son wanted to join the high-school golf team. He knew his boy, he knew the specifics, but he also knew that others would stampede him with their “concern” over whether this was a good course. “Look just do it,” he told the kid, “and don’t blow a trumpet over it.” 

It is one of those foibles that happens in any collection of humans. You never quite know the line between genuine godly counsel and minding your own business. You could rail against it as “control” or “hypocrisy” or whatever the malcontents might do here, but it is just human relations that must be navigated anywhere, a bit more intense here because we are, as one circuit overseer put it, one large, united, productive, happy, somewhat dysfunctional family. Aren’t we all?

[Anna]

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Approved? No "transparency" than? As people today would say. You know, today is modern to be "transparent"   

But, let us go to old wording and same meaning: "Be honest in all things" Heb 13:18 ... and let people know what are you speaking and thinking and doing.  Let it be known for all to see, without limit.

 

Nothing to do with not being transparent. It's quite normal if someone wants to be part of a club,  they have to meet club rules. The JW only club is just that: for JWs only. Nothing dishonest or secretive about that. The scripure you quote applies to relationships and interactions with people, even then, the scripture doesn't mean you have to indiscriminately tell everyone everything. You have examples in the Bible where faithful servants of God did not say everything they knew. There is a time to speak, and a time to be quiet.

[TrueTomHarley]

29 minutes ago, Anna said:

You have examples in the Bible where faithful servants of God did not say everything they knew

There was a time when speaking only to ones specifically involved in something was not interpreted as an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of everyone else.

[xero]

40 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Yeah—I don’t really have a problem with it, though it’s not occurred to me to do it myself. We train our conscience by Bible principles and then in accord with our best judgment use it as our guide. 

It reminds me a little of a friend whose teenage son wanted to join the high-school golf team. He knew his boy, he knew the specifics, but he also knew that others would stampede him with their “concern” over whether this was a good course. “Look just do it,” he told the kid, “and don’t blow a trumpet over it.” 

It is one of those foibles that happens in any collection of humans. You never quite know the line between genuine godly counsel and minding your own business. You could rail against it as “control” or “hypocrisy” or whatever the malcontents might do here, but it is just human relations that must be navigated anywhere, a bit more intense here because we are, as one circuit overseer put it, one large, united, productive, happy, somewhat dysfunctional family. Aren’t we all?

But unfortunately (I've been told I have a strong personality) I've discovered that it's easy to conclude that one's right on a given matter because he or she has argued a point w/apparent success. Could be I've just gotten better at arguing (which is not unsurprising if you've spent thousands and thousands of hours in the ministry and streetwork).

There's a book entitled "Why Smart People Believe Stupid Things" (I think that's the title) and the bottom line is that they're better at verbal defense.

Reminds me of this brother who was practically mute, but who could fix anything three dimensional. People would make fun of Charlie, but Charlie was smart in a useful way.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

21 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Why I would choose to block one villain on this forum, and not another, I don’t know. They all equally want the downfall of Jehovah’s organization.

I can't be a villain then as I don't particularly want the downfall of the JW Org, even though it's not Almighty God's organisation at this moment in time.  

[Witness]

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Someone says, “but I want to talk to Jesus.” Rather than be guided by scripture which, strangely or not, seems to make no allowance for it,

Where is the scripture that makes no allowance for it?

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Yeah—I don’t really have a problem with it, though it’s not occurred to me to do it myself.

NOW you don't have a problem with it?  Even though apparently there is no scripture that makes allowance for it?

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It’s enough to make a guy heave. 

 

[Witness]

4 hours ago, Pudgy said:

1.)   About 350 years ago, Sir Isaac Newton knew that there were two classes ... those of the "heavenly hope", and those of the "great crowd".

2.) Jehovah's Witnesses figured it out about 86 years ago.

 

 

Maybe Sir Isaac Newton was anointed.