Thinking

On 12/8/2023 at 2:38 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

Was it? 

How is the following any more than a reasonable conclusion upon reflection of the article itself?

“The problem is that transfused blood needs nitric oxide to keep the blood vessels open, otherwise, the carried oxygen never reaches the tissues. But nitric oxide begins to break down within three hours of storage, and donated blood is presently stored up to 42 days. To be sure, researchers think they can remedy the problem. But that does nothing to improve the effectiveness of blood transfusions already given, each one of which was hailed as "life-saving," yet few of them actually qualifying as such, at least not any more so than saline solution, which offers no danger of rejection. We all know that the body spots foreign tissue in an instant, and tries hard to get rid of it.”

I mean, I get where you’re coming from. I make clear in the article that I am a Witness. That negates the commentary itself, which even acknowledges researchers aim to rectify the problem and perhaps partially have by now? This is the mindset with which, for example one reads something about an uncontrolled southern border and says, ‘Well—what do you expect? He’s a Republican who wrote it.’ Or one reads something about the abuses of big business and says, ‘He’s a Democrat. Of course he’s going to say that.’ 

This is example of the inane prejudging of information the greater world typifies today. The Great Courses philosophy professor does this in spades. Discussing climate change, he touches on the fact that many weatherman don’t believe it. ‘A meteorologist is not a climatogist,’ he tells us, thus equating anything the former might write to so much toilet paper. How did it get to be a world where people are brilliant in their chosen field, but if you nudge them just a tiny bit out of it, they are clueless? What Great Educator fallen from the heavens packages information this way? And why—unless he is also the Great College Administrator. Hehehe )))). 

If I refer frequently to this philosophy professor, it is because I can see he and his featuring prominently in any future book about Job and other theodicies that I may write, and I am getting a few licks in early. How should I present such a future book? If I include reference to Jehovah’s Witnesses in it, people will say, ‘Oh, that’s an apologetic work.’ But if I don’t, it will leave a gaping hole because the theodicy most coherent is that of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (with a possible nod to the Seventh Day Adventist writer) If I cover all the Witness theology, but don’t say where it came from, it’s as though to say it can be found anywhere—even though it can’t. It becomes like pointing the person seeking water in any random direction, unconcerned with whether I am pointing to the Sahara Desert. Moreover, if I cover the ‘theodicy’ without saying where it came from, I give the impression it came from myself! 

No. I will say it came from JWs. And guys like MM may say, ‘Oh, well, this book is an apologetic work. Why waste my time?’ But I cannot conscientiously do it any other way.

I have not read your book but the parts I have read are pretty good….helpful I think for one’s who have been hurt in the past.

12 hours ago, Many Miles said:

I don't understand that comment.

Nothing on "the list of alternatives" is a "cure all".

What do you mean?

You said this treatment wasn’t known To most witness…in other words not discussed or talked about or widely known …..

On 12/5/2023 at 4:13 AM, Anna said:

It seems that Cryosupernatant Plasma is not a "cure all".

In the document bellow it mentions it is not to be used as volume replacement, one of the biggest reasons for blood transfusions, especially during traumatic blood loss. 

wf-lab-apl-form-cryosupernatant-plasma.pdf 249.52 kB · 4 downloads

And this bit is also quite scary:

https://www.rdm.ox.ac.uk/publications/190785

 

 

Probably why it’s kept of the list of alternatives.

17 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Super written. What is more difficult to read and understand must be important. That's why WTJWorg has a "simple edition" to present the theological tangles as simple.

It’s not actually …they have to accommodate the many many who have had very little and often no education…..if we need and want more depth well that’s up to us..they can not spoon feed us everything.

we got corrected as apparently a number were complaining about the lack of meat or depth to the studies…and they said..get used to it….but they needed to preach and teach to all sorts of men…..that’s fair enough I reckon.

On 12/1/2023 at 8:09 AM, JW Insider said:

As I recall, you had already listened to that particular Great Courses professor and it raised your curiosity about the history of this particular teaching. I thought that our version was similar to Ellen G White's (Seventh Day Adventist) 1858 doctrine that comes under the heading of "The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan." It is summarized here as:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Controversy_theme

One of the 28 fundamental beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists states:

8. Great Controversy:

All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the universe. This conflict originated in heaven when a created being, endowed with freedom of choice, in self-exaltation became Satan, God’s adversary, and led into rebellion a portion of the angels. He introduced the spirit of rebellion into this world when he led Adam and Eve into sin. This human sin resulted in the distortion of the image of God in humanity, the disordering of the created world, and its eventual devastation at the time of the global flood, as presented in the historical account of Genesis 1-11. Observed by the whole creation, this world became the arena of the universal conflict, out of which the God of love will ultimately be vindicated. To assist His people in this controversy, Christ sends the Holy Spirit and the loyal angels to guide, protect, and sustain them in the way of salvation. (Gen. 3; 6-8; Job 1:6-12; Isa. 14:12-14; Ezek. 28:12-18; Rom. 1:19-32; 3:4; 5:12-21; 8:19-22; 1 Cor. 4:9; Heb. 1:14; 1 Peter 5:8; 2 Peter 3:6; Rev. 12:4-9.)^[4]

Yes that was a good read many years ago..I remember reading it and thinking it was from us…I looked into Ellen White after that and still have one of her books….the conclusion I came to over her was ..Just as Babylon /satan mimicked Jehovahs Temple priest and sacrificial system…so here was A satanic mimicry going on….I mean Satan tho locked out spiritually and in dense darkness…..he’s astute and highly intelligent and he can work out basically how this is going to wind up by reading those scriptures …

I mean he was blind sided by Jesus and his successful ransom…..but after that ..and the Hebrew Scriptures …of course he could speak thru Ellen…with his current understanding……sure was/is interesting reading….but I always wondered if indeed…I am guilty of having looked into the deep things of satan ?

8 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Step over into Macedonia, Mr Many Miles, and help us.

”No thank you, 

Having made that irresistible (to me) little quip, 

 

yeah. Me too.

 

Ta da! Now we don’t either, just like you!

Oh, I guess we still put converts on a slip, they won’t mind, I am sure, but not the time it takes to make them. 

Any time you change a practice dating back 100 years, it’s a gutsy move.

I think counting time for so many years is a reflection of the lowly roots that Christianity came from and so far still is. It is the mark of the plebs who were accustomed to the factory model in which when there was nothing to do you’d better nonetheless look busy if you didn’t want the boss to fire you.

Now that the model has been discarded (and good riddance!) probably all the educated people will come in.who were offended by the old way. Trouble is, when they do, they may say to the uneducated and ordinary, ‘Okay—you’ve done well. Amazingly well, really, considering your lack of education. But the smart people are here now. Step aside.’

We’ll have to see how it plays out. One thing for sure, dropping time requirements removes all sense of being ‘on duty’ or ‘off duty.’ It will vastly aid efforts to informal witness, as people will do what makes sense, not press on come heck or high water so that whoever is being spoken to ‘receives a thorough witness!’

 

I think it will be the other way around ….the humble scared and hurt will listen before the educated….we will have to wait and see…

On 12/1/2023 at 7:11 AM, Many Miles said:

You may or may not have noticed a recent topic I started about what we need for belief. (It's probably part of that river you alluded to)

As a purely logical matter, it presents as presumption what others would say is etched in stone. I wrote, "1) Presumption that the written record we call the Bible is testimony of God's will."

As a logical function all this does is establish a premise for sake of making a logical construction. It's my way of saying, "For argument's sake let's just agree that the Bible is testimony of God's will."

I put it that way because, as you say above and I agree, "our faith in what the Bible teaches always depends on the truth that the Bible is the word of God written." There is no disagreement there.

But there's that other thing you mention. You write, "submission to a divinely authorized Governing Body depends on the truth that this GB is in fact divinely authorized".

There is a whopping difference between those two items, so big you could sail a super jumbo freight carrier through it.

- One is left for people to make of what they will, with potential future effect.

- The other can, will and does enforce what it says onto your life here and now.

That said, if you would have others accept that a particular "GB is in fact divinely authorized" then you have very heavy burden of proof to bear.

Individuals will likely be more willing to accept that a work they are left to make of what they will, with potential future effect is the word of God and less willing to accept that a particular GB is in fact divinely inspired that can, will and does enforce what it says onto your life here and now. Which means the veracity of evidence in support of the latter will have to be much greater.

This reminds me of Thomas who, though surrounded by men he knew and trusted, was unwilling to accept on trust alone a particular thing unless he had a way to better measure the veracity of the claim. Jesus made sure Thomas got what he needed. Thomas needed something measurable. Jesus gave it to him.

If, as you suggest, there is a particular GB that is divinely authorized (whose will we should submit to as the word of God) [the latter are my words], what's your evidence? And, should we accede to it no matter what?

Remember, you didn't check the box saying:

- We should believe teaching "x" because the society says so.

 

If I remember correctly Doubting Thomas still paid a price for his doubt…I cannot remember what it was…..I would be  Doubting Thomas Of today…..but I hope I’m more like the beroeans…Miles I liked how you pointed out that Eve actually looked into the deeper things of Satan be even engaging in conversation ….i hadn’t thought of it that way

12 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The devil is always in the  ‘as I recall’ details.

I recall it somewhat differently and probably the truth lies in a compromise between the two recollections. I have on my shelf James Hall’s GC lecture series ‘The Philosophy of Religion.’ I’ve probably listened to close to 100 of the Great Courses lecture series. ‘Imagine how much you will learn if you spend just a half hour each day in the company of some of the greatest minds in the world,’ the introduction to each course says, ignoring only the great minds at JWorg. I vouch for the intro. I have indeed learned a lot. I am far, far less dumb than I used to be.

Usually, I get these GCs from the library. But the library didn’t have the one of James Hall, so I had to order it from eBay. No way would I ever ever have done that had you not put me on the trail. But now I think what you put me on the trail of was a conversational online snippet in which a Seventh Day Adventist pointed to that course, and said, ‘Yes! The professor covered our explanation of suffering and said it was the only one that made sense!’

So I plowed through the 36-lecture course, and sigh—will have to do it again, I suppose, if I am serious about this next writing project, and it is a dog and a half. Yes, it does cover his ‘theodicy.’ Yes, it does say it is the only one logically consistent. But it is not really ‘his’ theodicy. It is the only one Hall considers that posits ‘dualism,’ that is, that God has an opponent, a Satan, and that you can pin the blame on him. ‘That makes sense, the professor said. But he does not give any account as to how that situation came to pass, only that there is such a villain, so that it is somethng of a nothingburger.

Quite frankly, it floored me that out of the many theodicies this fellow considered, only one of them took into account that God just might have an adversary who does, causes, or triggers the evil deeds. Every other theodicy assumes God holding all the cards in every way.

I’m pretty sure I’ve reconstructed what happened. That said, memory is a slippery thing. I am chastened by @Pudgy correcting me long ago. I had not left 3 or 4 comments on ‘apostate’ sites, he said. It was more like 20. No, it was 3 or 4, I said. He repeated it was 20. I repeated it was 3 or 4.  He insisted, not only that it was 20, but that during his career, he had been a highly trained engineer and was therefore accustomed to being precise. ‘If you were a highly trained engineer, and no longer are, possibly the reason is that you cannot count!’ I shot back. ‘Why on earth would I lie about it?!’

Sigh—he was right. I apologized when I realized it much later. I had only left 3 or 4 recently. But long ago, I had experimented on another sit, which brought the total to around 20. Of course, a search on social media makes little distinction between recent and some time ago. Memory is treacherous. 

 

Ha! I remember that exchange between you and pudgy…I found it amazing that pudgy could do that…IT and those who know how to really work it are fascinating…all these young kids and anyone around forty is young to me but the younger ones just whip out their phones and like Jack Flash organize my whole world in a few minutes…..amazing !,

6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Allow me a few more thoughts on the aforementioned "controversial issue".

WTJWorg has a doctrine that says; it takes a very long time to answer Satan's challenge about who has the right to rule over people. Well, they say, how JHVH could have destroyed Satan immediately, but that would still leave doubt in God's justice.

This could mean that the angels in heaven were ignorant of the nature of God and his virtues. This could mean that the angels grew up in a climate of doubt and mistrust of God from the very beginning, so it was easy to persuade them to believe Satan. This could mean that all that time (say, millions of light years) was not enough for the angels to develop "complete trust" in God. Everything said also applies to people, of course adapted to the spatial and temporal frameworks on Earth.

So, the famously silly claim that God allows evil on earth because his credibility must be proven and that it takes time, a very long time, in which, among other things, millions of innocent children and adults will be subjected to the greatest suffering and torture, does not hold up to the argument .

Angels don't need any further evidence that Satan is wrong and God is right. As for humans, they have never seen God anyway, nor do they have any insight into the relationship between God and Satan. The only thing they can do is read the Bible and "invent" explanations and assumptions.

The idea of a "Universal Court Case" is a construction of people who came up with new ideas by reading the Bible. Jesus, who is the unique "witness for the living God" did not provide such material in his teachings that this WTJWorg doctrine could be developed.

At the end of the day, if there is such a great and inevitable need to prove some kind of "Universality" that belongs to God, and how that "Case" includes countless millions of years in the past and countless millions of years into the future, then I would say that it is already long ago answered.

Since the book of Job is taken as the "biblical argument" of this WTJWorg doctrine, then I can say that in this sense Job gave the "Universal Answer". To further insist that every child, man and woman (born after Job) should be subjected to horrors in the name of the same cause is silly.

The second turning point is the life and death of Jesus. He answered the same question once more. Job, as an imperfect man, passed the test. Jesus, as a perfect man, passed the same test.
So what else needs to be answered?

Perhaps his hands are tied by his own righteousness …he said they would die….so he has to wait until all flesh may be wiped out…mankind will have died if he had not intervened….he cannot go back on such a command. Yes we feel enough is enough and all the points we make as a people have been reached..but perhaps we don’t understand HIS DEMAND for Justice….its not like any of us deserves any mercy from him..but it’s a heavy weary thing to see such pain by men.

16 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

There are irregularities in nature that are studied as chaos theory. Even in this chaos there is a certain order, but that order is different from our usual understanding of order and organization. I am reading a written work and there it says.

There are three basic characteristics of chaos:
1. disproportion between input and output;
2. inconspicuousness of the entrance;
3. unpredictable output

In the last few years, the application of chaos theory in social phenomena has been seriously considered. It is interesting that in the last 10 years or so, a number of physicists have moved into the field of sociology and political science.

They realized that some nonlinear equations that describe certain processes, even those that describe quantum physical events on at the level of the atom, can be applied to social and political phenomena, with the proviso that instead of the flow of liquid, for example, the transfer of information is considered: that instead of a phase transition, where a parameter suddenly changes, in society, for example, a law can change, and that instead of an essential phase transition can have a political revolution, so systems of differential equations that describe physical processes are applied for describing changes in society. By solving this system of equations, treating society as a chaotic system, one tries to predict the likely outcome. Politicians in the West are now closely following these pioneering studies.

Organizational chaos represents disorder, confusion, commotion in the organization. Organizational chaos means that the organization is in a state of entropy. Entropy is a measure of disorganization of the system, it is a state in which the system falls apart. The tendency towards disorganization, that is, organizational chaos, is a natural tendency of the system. organization as a measure of order in the system, the entropy of the system and its tendency towards organizational chaos is reduced.

My comment:

The schisms within the initial, Russell's WTS, and later other doctrinal turmoil under other presidents, indicate a certain chaotic state and consequently dramatic changes that the Society goes through, constantly. They could say that the leadership's pursuit of order and control is possible, but it is also not impossible to have disorder and chaos.
What kind of chaos could or should YHVH have anticipated, foreseen before the creation of angels and men?

 

I don’t know how to answer that but I do think of the chaos and deaths caused by the many kings of Israel….that sure is frustrating ..

12 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It is good and truthful, but not all of the book is satisfactory. I’ll put it in my next one, perhaps—which may be an exploration of ‘theodicy’ (why bad things happen). Does @Many Milesor anyone else know the origin of our ‘universal court case’ theodicy? I’d love to track that one down. @JW Insider once put me on the track of a Great Courses university professor exploring the subject and it was well-nigh insufferable. Not that I won’t have to plow through it again if I proceed, but I am reminded of a newly discovered and instantly favorite G K Chesterton quote: “The first effect of not believing in God is that you lose your common sense."

I have no idea what you are talking about. Why be so hard on yourself? 

It’s like when a car group of friends drove near a certain industrial complex. Surrounding blocks had been snatched up for parking, but here and there were some stalwarts who hadn’t sold their properties. Thus, there were a few rickety houses completely surrounded by blacktop. “These people are so stubborn!” Sam (who had worked there) grumbled. “The company needs that property. They pay good money for it.” He reflected a few seconds, then said, “I’m stubborn—but these people are more stubborn!”

Now, you know how brothers like to razz each other. Instantly, it started. “No! You, Sam—stubborn?! Don’t be so hard on yourself! How could you say that??!! Not you!”

Sam was probably the most stubborn person to have ever walked the planet.

I think that was pudgy that said that..that quirk in the system is at work again…but I’m sure in fact I know a few elders would speak or think of me as such….but thank you for your kind words…

47 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

Yeah … first class mail was 4 CENTS !

Nowadays kids don’t know what stamps are…I made my grandkids write a thank you letter  to their great pop.

They didn’t know about stamps or writing a real letter and buying a stamp and walking to a post box and posting it….they thought it all tedious and a waste of time…and as we trudged back home they said……‘I dont see why we couldn’t have just rang him it doesn’t make sense…aaaah those bygone days…when getting a telegram was so exciting….we’ll sort of as it usually meant someone had died….

2 hours ago, Pudgy said:

When  I was about 13 years old I started collecting stamps, and having ADD I focused on this like the proverbial laser, and could even recognize stamps that had different numbers of perforations around the edges that were valuable, and those which were common because they had different numbers of perforations.  

This was about 1960, and it was the same time that I started getting an interest in Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The United States government came out with a series of stamps called “The American Credo Series“, about 1962 which has influenced my entire life, hopefully for the good, sometimes demonstrably for the good.

One stamp particularly resonated with me quoting Thomas Jefferson, and in 1964 when I was baptized it had become a part of my occasionally obnoxious and overbearing personality. 

I took the long version of this oath before my baptism oath, (… quite different from today’s baptism oath …), and in a massively imperfect way I consider both to still be in force.

Thomas Jefferson was also a massively imperfect man, as is the JW Governing Body.

Thomas Jefferson's second inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1805 expressed his commitment to protecting individual liberties and declared, "I shall often go wrong through defect of judgment. When right, I shall often be thought wrong by those whose positions will not command a view of the whole ground. I ask your indulgence for my own errors, which will never be intentional, and your support against the errors of others, who may condemn what they would not if seen in all its parts. The approbation implied by your suffrage is a great consolation to me for the past, and my future solicitude will be to retain the good opinion of those who have bestowed it in advance, to conciliate that of others by doing them all the good in my power, and to be instrumental to the happiness and freedom of all."

Wow fancy having stamps like that…how interesting…

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

There could never have been a Mission Impossible without him.

 

No, but organizing does seem consistent with giving God a lot rather than giving him a little

It may be that as long as you don’t work to sabarolf organization, as though a freedom fighter, you’re okay—even as you stand apart from it yourself. Or it may not be okay. I’ll err on the side of sticking with what my experience tells me has worked to a reasonably fine degree, given that ‘we have this treasure in earthen vessels.’ I remember giving that talk on ‘Unified or Uniform,’ contrasting the unity of the earthly organization with the uniformity often demanding by nations, which goes so far as to stuff people into actual uniforms.

Yeah—I always figured it was something like that. You said it well:

It makes a difference, doesn’t it? It’s a little bit like coming back from the dead when you finally get back on your feet.

I put the following in ‘No Fake News but Plenty of Hogwash,’ a book I took down pending rewrite that I haven’t gotten around to, so now it is nowhere:

“After studying one book seemingly written for no other purpose other than to harp on dress and grooming and harangue about field service, the conductor said to me: “Tom, why don’t you comment? You know all these answers.” It was a turning point. He was right. I did know them all. It was time to stop sulking. From the circuit overseer on down, they had stirred up major chaos in the family. They had been heavy-handed and clumsy - but never malicious. And it had never been Jehovah. I had read of ill-goings-on in the first-century record. Congregations described in Revelation chapters 2 and 3 were veritable basket cases, some of them, but that did not mean that they were not congregations. Eventually things smooth out. Eventually 1 Timothy 5:24 comes to pass: “The sins of some men are publicly known, leading directly to judgment, but those of other men will become evident later.” “Later” may take its sweet time in rolling around but it always does roll around. Should I stumble when it becomes my turn? I’d read whiner after whiner carrying on about some personal affront or other on the Internet. Was I going to be one of them? 

 . . . Recovery didn’t happen overnight, for I have a PhD in grumbling. Indeed, I was so good at it that few noticed I grumbled, for I had never left the library – I had only strayed from the same page. Now it was time to get on the same paragraph. Was that book truly a dog? They’re not all dazzling flashes of light, you know, for the treasure is contained in earthen vessels. Or was it the conductor? Or was it me? No matter. If life throws you for a loop, you thank God for the discipline and move on. “For those whom Jehovah loves he disciplines, in fact, he scourges everyone whom he receives as a son,” the Bible says Tell me about it. “Half of those at Bethel are here to test the other half,” the old-timers said. Yeah – tell me about that, too.”

Everyone has a mid-life crisis or two, during which they have to reassess. It doesn’t even matter if it is a servant of God we’re speaking of. Everyone has a mid-life crisis.

Why do a re write….its good and truthful….it would help others who have been hurt…..

Just now, Many Miles said:

I can assure you, that's not the majority reason.

 

This is closer to the majority reason. Just how many brothers has the GB fail to 'back up' over the years for trying to do right, even going to far as to beg for their help to understand why the GB is teaching certain things it teaches and imposes under pain of being ostracized by close family and friends? You tell me. 

I’ve been there and experienced such pain that lead to a death….you are speaking with a sister that was engulfed with a huge amount of anger and resentment and righteous indignation which led to my two ears of inactivity…….its a long story but eventually I had to reason out that I came into the truth knowing all these things existed within the org….why do you think we have the Judas types….the haughty…the cruel even amongst us.

Unfortunately they tend to have a lot of power within congregations.

Jehovahs people are no different to his people of old times….once I got a grip on that..and working on my feelings .( which I might add they caused ) …I guess I was and still am being refined by fire….and I am NOT going to let those sorts of men push me out where I know Jehovah led me.

2 hours ago, Many Miles said:

think it would seem to be quite presumptuous to say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using. Not my words. But I agree with the sentiment

He was playing with words when he said this…because the question was addressed to the GB specifically….he could say such a statement because he knew within the org there were many others who claimed to be anointed and the great crowed who were speaking on behalf of jehovah/ bible ….at this time the witness followed the GBs understanding that you had to be baptised witness to survive.

That has now changed,,,,as it should be.

nearly everything he said was nullified later by the rest of the GB.

he was caught on the hop….he didn’t expect to be part of the commission.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say he was lying..more like acting like Abraham when he claimed Sarah’s as his sister….technically he wasn’t lying as they were actually closely related ( cannot remember how close ) .

I think when he got back to HQs he got into hot water over some of his statements.

But  I also think the GB acted cowardly and it was an embarrassment to us that one of them didn’t willingly take part in that to back their brothers up.

We have a great shortage of brothers to take the lead over here ..they literally begged them to step up to the mark…..I cannot but think….it was fear as to what the courts could do to them.

13 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

To the extent that is true it would appear that I am the blockhead.

You have a great quality of humbleness Tom….i try to learn from it .

13 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Well, there’s plenty in Australia worth fighting for, like this guy:

Be honest. Doesn’t this remind you of Pudgy awakening from a nap?

I dunno. I think of that verse where Jesus said God hides things from the wise and intellectual, while revealing them to babes. Can a babe understand the above? I’m not sure I can myself.

 

Yes koalas are very cute but they have a big problem with STDs which I think they are trying to eradicate …..I wouldn’t hold one ..but one day ..it’s a sure thing….i don’t think pudgy looks as cute as that when he awakes…

On 11/26/2023 at 12:34 AM, JW Insider said:

Don't know if this will help, but I think he is just saying that when a foreigner comes to another country, that foreigner must still obey the laws of that country. But there is a limit to that obedience, because a foreigner isn't required to take an oath of allegiance or obedience in everything. For example, would a Chinese citizen visiting Australia be required to fight for Australia against China if war between the countries broke out during their visit? (Or vice versa.) In the same way, Russell says that Bible Students are all for obedience to the laws, but don't take an oath of obedience and allegiance in all things, because Bible Students are essentially "foreigners" in their own country when it comes to their higher allegiance to God. 

Thanks for trying but it still seems murky waters..if I had to say that to leave Australia I would think I was giving allegiance to our constitution thus our country…..so happy we never had this problem. Americans are very very political and religious compared to us…makes things so much easier on us.

On 11/26/2023 at 8:20 AM, Many Miles said:

In arguments before the US Supreme Court in Barnette v West Virginia State Board of Education, the society offered an alternate pledge of allegiance for JWs.

When Justice Jackson rendered the Courts opinion he recited the alternate pledge of allegiance offered. It reads:

“I have pledged my unqualified allegiance and devotion to Jehovah, the Almighty God, and to His Kingdom, for which Jesus commands all Christians to pray. I respect the flag of the United States and acknowledge it as a symbol of freedom and justice to all. I pledge allegiance and obedience to all the laws of the United States that are consistent with God's law, as set forth in the Bible.”

One can only wonder why the society felt the need for that alternative pledge of allegiance when they could have just told JWs they could pledge the same oath of allegiance sworn by all the society's top men, which reads like this:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation, or purpose of evasion; So help me God."

Anyone have any notion why the society didn't simply argue for the pledge all their top leadership was already swearing to? I mean, it's the highest oath of allegiance recognized in the USA.

Never could figure it out

16 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

I have not a clue as to what Juan Rivera was trying to say, and individually, I understood every word. 

It was hard work trying to stay focused, perhaps because I was well aware that that style of writing, and length of writing, is often deliberately used to induce hypnosis. 

I did try.

HEY! This calls for a CARTOON! 

 

I tend to break Juan’s and even JWI and their writing up in paragraphs at a time..just cannot do it in one hit …but it’s usually worth it even if I don’t understand everything…

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Well, GB does not prohibit the carrying of weapons for private or official use. But those JWs who have it are not ideologically eligible/acceptable for any ministry in the congregation. With Jesus, the apostles were eligible/acceptable for service. So GB does not follow Jesus. Clear as a sunny day. lol

We have a police officer who carry’s a gun etc in his line of duty and he witnesses……times are a changing…

7 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

I hear you, there is a fundamental difference between that for which a person is culpable before Jehovah, and that by which we (humans) may judge another human. I don’t think anyone here would claim that apart from the guidance of the Congregation, people cannot read and understand Scripture to some degree, a degree that allows them to have a conscious saving faith in Jehovah and Christ. Thankfully, they can. Knowing Jehovah and Christ is a matter of degree (not all or nothing). Jehovah and Christ can be known in various ways through different means, Scripture, worship, prayer, tradition, community, service. Jehovah can even be known (in some degree) through incorrect interpretations of Scripture. Hearing His voice does not necessarily mean perfectly hearing his voice correctly about every truth within the content of our faith. So a person can truly come to know and love Jehovah, without yet knowing that the Congregation is what Jehovah established and into which all Christians should be incorporated.

Even the notion that they must be either good guys or bad guys already makes it a loaded answer, because the truth may be more complicated. There is also the matter of motives, and of actions. Actions can be good in one respect, but deficient in another, all while motives may be very good. And so forth, so it is not so black and white. It is good, all other things being equal, for persons to be told about Jehovah and Christ and His love for us, and that He died for our salvation. It is not good for persons to be in schism, to be deprived of true worship, to be taught false doctrine (to be taught that they can never lose their salvation), to be deprived of the fulness of the truth, and all the other aids to our salvation available within the Congregation.

So far as I know, people like that prostitute you encountered, or James White, TD Jakes, Billy Graham, Greg Stafford, Raymond Franz, or Rolf Furuli were doing the best they could with what they knew, and bringing a message of Jehovah and Christ to many people. And in that way, they are good guys. But it is not for me (or any other JW) to judge the hearts of our fellow man and determine that this one or that one has placed himself in a state of sin by such a choice. We cannot read hearts, only Jehovah can. The principle of love calls us to believe the best about someone, all other things being equal, and to pray for those we see in error, rather than judge them. Not presuming that there is some intellectual dishonesty in their heart at the level of the will regarding this question, and not presuming that they are violating their conscience, but instead with the assumption that they are following their conscience as best as they can, and desire to know the truth, and will in fact sacrifice all to find and follow the truth no matter what it is. 

But such persons are in a gravely deficient condition, especially and to the degree that their understanding of Jehovah is incorrect. It is much more difficult to be saved without the fullness of the Good News and the means of help available in the Congregation which are the ordinary means by which we are to grow up into the fullness of conformity to Christ.

I know that because the holy spirit is at work in the hearts of all men, and because Jehovah is omnipotent, the Congregation does not rule out the possibility that persons in a condition of ignorance concerning the fullness of the Good News and the Congregation, can be saved. And the testimony of Scripture supports that teaching, which is not universalism but rather a recognition of the power and mercy of Jehovah who desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4). Paul wasn’t being redundant there. Knowledge of the truth about Jehovah is very important, but it is not the essence of salvation, we’re not saved fundamentally by gnosis, but by love and faith.

Correct doctrine allows us more perfectly to know Jehovah, and thus more perfectly to love Him. The more one knows the truth about Him, the more one is able to love Him, because we cannot love what we do not know. Similarly, the more one knows the truth about Jehovah, the more reason one has to love him. Moreover, not all theological error is equal, and not all theological error completely eliminates the possibility of loving Jehovah. It is possible for our beliefs to be imperfect and believe some falsehoods about Him, and still love Him. Yet the more distorted one’s understanding, the more difficult it is to love Him. 

What I have argued is that if Jehovah and Christ want us to be united in faith and love, then He would have provided the necessary means by which to preserve that unity. And in the Governing Body of the Congregation He has provided just that, a means by which our unity of faith, unity of worship, and unity of government are maintained. Even though Scripture is clear enough for a person to come to saving faith by reading it, it is not clear enough to preserve the unity of the Congregation without an authorized governing body. So for me a Governing Body it’s not just extremely valuable and convenient, which would amount to a pragmatic ad hoc way of thinking, but rather organic and intrinsic to the Christian faith.

@Many Miles @JW Insider @TrueTomHarley @Anna

Perhaps I should write this under the Galatians thread. Here’s anyways😅 

I’m beginning to think that the idea that we can approach the bible without an inherent bias or rose tinted glasses is an illusory ideal. This abstract view from nowhere seems to be more effective when we think we have obtained pure objectivity, all while unknowingly presupposing contemporary ideas and assumptions. Everyone uses glasses of some sort when they come to Scripture. No one can interpret Scripture from a completely clean slate. The question is not whether one will have glasses through which to interpret Scripture, but rather which glasses are the correct ones?

@Many Miles I understand that that our Congregation (Jehovah's Witnesses) takes pride in not articulating/ categorizing or claiming of having any explicit background philosophy (like Thomism, Scotism or Platonism) or theology per se. And that we Witnesses say that no background philosophy is needed, but prefer to base our beliefs on the Bible without philosophizing. But even though our Congregation says that no explicit philosophy drives our understanding of Scripture. I think we all agree that no belief developed in a vacuum and the Watchtower movement grew from different roots (In my opinion, from rationalist ideas from the enlightenment, humanism, democratic individualism and was influenced by different traditions according to at least one study -Rachel de Vienne and B. W. Schulz: Volumen I & II Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion's Watch Tower: 1870-1887.)

When we read (and interpret) scripture we are not starting from a clean slate. There is no traditionless theological vacuum, abstract view from nowhere from which to read or interpret Scripture, we come to it with some sort of glasses (tradition). There is no initial space where the reader brings nothing to the text, and where his interpretation is not contingent on what he brings to the text. Even biblical studies cannot be carried out in a philosophical vacuum (that is, their tools, techniques, principles and methods, all presuppose a framework). Theology and religion always start from certain hermeneutical principles whether explicitly or implicitly. And if we do not realize that we are even bringing philosophical presuppositions to the interpretive process, I don't think we will not be getting to the fundamental causes of our interpretive disagreements. Only then I think we'll realize that we need some way of evaluating these assumptions. Claiming to evaluate them by way of Scripture simply ignores the fact that we would be using these assumptions to interpret Scripture, so the evaluation would be question begging, and thus worthless.

When each person is deciding for himself what is the correct interpretation of Scripture, Scripture is no longer functioning as the final authority. Rather, each individual's own reason and judgment becomes, as it were, the highest authority, supplanting in effect Scripture' unique and rightful place. I believe the discussion hinges on whether there is an authoritative interpretive authority and how that authority is determined. This is why I'm starting to believe that our attempts to resolve our disagreements by way of proof texting or exegesis is futile. The root of the disagreement is not fundamentally in an exegetical error, but instead within philosophical and theological assumptions we bring to the text. So this idea of approaching scriptures only thru hermeneutics presupposes that kind of rationalism and that hermeneutics and exegesis would solve interpretative problems. But there is more than exegesis that is at work in interpretation and it's not just exegetical tools but underlying philosophical and theological assumptions we bring to the text even if unaware.

Here's what a friend and philosophy professor (who won an award for excellence in the field of Biblical exegesis) challenged me on.

Let's test this claim Juan (that exegesis alone, without any reliance on philosophy or theology can first determine the meaning of Scripture, to which we can then subject our philosophical and theological assumptions). Lay out any exegetical argument you think resolves a substantive doctrinal disagreement that presently divides us, and I'll show you the hidden (or not so hidden) theological/philosophical assumption in that argument, an assumption either immediately brought to the text or built on an interpretation that is itself based on a prior theological/philosophical assumption brought to the text.

Thank you Juan and I definitely got the gist of your words, I’m sort of getting used to the way you write…and I sure hope when I speak in short bursts you get my awkward gists 

2 hours ago, George88 said:

Yet, none of the posts have explained why Malwian JWs didn't accept the Party card. It was not just the allegiance to a totalitarianism dictator, but its military service which would have been included in the political process of that party. 

By the way, trying to brush up on what an "oath of allegiance" means in the United States as compared to other nations.

This quote from Russell's thought about "allegiance" is clear.

“On the other hand, the Scriptural proposition is that while our citizenship is in heaven and we are aliens, strangers and foreigners in the world, with allegiance to the heavenly King, nevertheless, like all other foreigners, we are to be subject to the powers that be — subject to the laws of the country in which we may be living. But if obedience to the laws does not imply military service on the part of the foreigner, so obedience to the laws on the part of Bible Students does not imply military duty. Similarly with the oath of allegiance required by those who enter the Army — they are required to swear allegiance to the king and obedience to the officers of the king in all things. This oath is not required of aliens, foreigners, and is objected to by Bible Students, not because they are opposed to law and order or unwilling to be regulated by the government under which they live, but because they have already given allegiance to the higher power — the heavenly Lord. To them his words, his commands, etc., are paramount.” R5928:2,3

 

I love Russell but I don’t understand what he is saying here,.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I believe there must have existed a real document with similarities to this one on his actual passport application, and the signature matches that of JFR in other places. But I find it hard to believe that a document like this one would have contained such a blatant typo: So held me God.

I have seen some other 1922 U.S. passport applications and had not seen one with this typo. Also the OATH OF ALLEGIENCE is in a different font on some of the others I have seen.

I seen many years ago on another site which I think is redundant now….i was never sure what to make of it…..this oath must have had many brothers and sisters who travelled overseas compromise themselves.