xero

I went to a Catholic school growing up. I have the book "My Catholic Faith". I have running friends who are members of Opus Dei. I was an altar boy. I read the book "The Bad Popes". I'm not unfamiliar w/the history of the Catholic Church.

JWI - I'm trying to find a way to formulate, by way of illustration or otherwise (the shorter the explanation the better), the dividing line between conscience and scriptural responsibility and actively being told by authority that some non-obvious thing is true and that one must believe the non-obvious thing is true and teach someone else in the same manner that this non-obvious thing is true. You can and do have people in every organization JW/and non JW orgs who cross over the line either deifying conscience or deifying organization. Both of these are wrong and both of these may be done by individuals who are individually or collectively being "faithful" as they see what it means to be faithful. Granted that imperfection exists in all humans, one would assume this imperfection would find some manifestation in organizations used by Jehovah (some latitude is demanded by this fact scripturally and practically). So just as we see that there is a difference between allowing something to pass (Jehovah allowing) and causing (Jehovah causing) something to pass there is a difference between Jehovah actively approving of a given idea/interpretation and his allowance of a given idea/interpretation being present among those organizations he is using. I remember reading the account in the book of Acts about Paul being told by holy spirit how he was to give a witness to Caesar and showed him many things he would suffer, and the delta between the elders in Jerusalem and their particular local agenda and Jehovah's agenda when it came about that Paul was accused of teaching an apostasy from Moses. The elders in Jerusalem in all their wisdom decided to get Paul to take care of two men and their closure of their vows of naziriteship at the temple publicly to dispel this idea. (Never mind that Paul's understanding would still likely have been considered an apostasy "no, you don't get it", Paul might say "I'm not saying it's WRONG to do these things, it's just not required for salvation!"). So the brothers in Jerusalem had one agenda (were they being cowardly, or discreet?), but Jehovah had a different one, because Jehovah could see that this would lead to a riot, Roman soldiers getting involved and then Paul appealing on the basis of his Roman citizenship to Caesar, thus fulfilling the dictates of Jehovah's will. So this scriptural account, and there are others which are less proximate in my mind which might be used could be used as an example of Jehovah's earthly organization imagining one thing to be the thing which is important, but Jehovah had something else in mind. (It could also be an inducement to be less dogmatic) ***Again I'm just thinking aloud and using this thread to keep track****

I agree w/all of this. I'm reading the pdf attached...Even though it's writing about evangelicals in general, the outline does discuss the problem that not only Ex-JW's are examples of in many cases (I don't know all), but the spirit that operates in the world right now - the deification of the individual conscience (low church (deification of conscience) vs high church(deification of organizations) are the terms he uses and discusses the "ditches" each represents)

Wow, talk about a massively broad brush you paint with. "they did use this tactic to commit horrible crimes against humanity." I don't know if even one implication of this is even partially true. Not every priest or prelate was a monster who wanted to rape the consciences of the faithful. The Catholic Church has a long history, some examples which were quite good and some no so much. Never mind getting things scripturally wrong at various points and for various issues.

I wouldn't have done it because I wouldn't have had the motivation. Some people are stupid enough and mentally dull enough to sit through lectures IF they either get stupidly in debt or their parents pay for it. I wasn't stupid enough in any of these ways to do that. I remember listening to one lecture and afterwards realized the professor could have said all that he said in less than five minutes. Instead it was an hour of painfully slow stupid meandering.

We all think about moral issues all the time. What we think is good and what we think is bad. We have a conscience. We have a knowledge feedback loop with ourselves. Is this an open system or a closed system and if it's open, what is it open to? If it's closed, what is it closed to? Now I can't speak to anyone else or their conscience except as a presumption - the presumption that they have one as much as they have a mind. We could go on at length in the manner of Descartes and on down the line to the existential and materialist philosophers as to whether anyone has a mind/or free will. I simply presume it on the basis of my own knowledge feedback loop. When I say "I know" I'm not saying "I know" in any Gettier "True, Justified, Belief" "know" because that would take reams of unnecessary paper. Not only that Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem (as I apply this to knowledge in general) is true in all realms (you'll always be able to "know" things you can't prove from any set of axions(or scriptures)). So you get born into a culture with a baked-in morality. You get born into a family with a baked-in morality. You are born (infant studies prove) with a sense of right and wrong. There's history which you have nothing to do with which created the climate into which you and your conscience has been birthed. Now you exist, and you have a feedback loop with the world and your conscience. You come to understand things like the permanence of objects which don't cease to exist when you stop seeing them. (Later we somehow can't ratchet that up to the conscience's constant awareness when it comes to God). You interact with the world and your various groups with intersecting circles of implicit or explicit moral ideas and you assent with these or deny these and deal with the consequences to yourself as a result (this could be you simply misjudged reality and got it wrong, or you got censured by the group(s) you're associated with). I prefer "rewards" over "consequences", but "rewards" indicates I've been informed by some external authority (which I presume exists as in God, or which I see) who will give me "as a reward" the thing I've decided I want in return for a given action or actions. "Consequences" sound more threat-ish, and yet these are similar. Consequences come as a result of me as an individual doing or saying something and the thing happening like one domino fell intro another. There can, of course be unintended consequences, but that's something else. So the external world allows me all manner of illusions which I may choose to hold as "true" in my head which may be "false". It's only when the connections between some false idea and a painful consequence (physical or psychological) occurs and I see the one event (me holding a false idea or acting falsely) as directly connected with the pain event that I stop believing the false thing or acting falsely. (I still might, if I feel the cost/benefit ratio is such that I'll deal w/the pain/consequence). Ideally our sense of morality is tied in with certain egalitarian ideas (we're no better than anyone else, as we're all creations, as a sentient creation something has a certain right to maintain itself and try to exist and thrive, but w/in limits...yada, yada) and most importantly that a Creator exists who is the penultimate judge of all things. You know where this is going.... Then you have to have the Creator telling us good/bad right/wrong. We need examples and life stories. So we have the Bible. Bringing it up to the 1st century, and the Christian Congregation we have many accounts which we can read to tell us that nothing was perfect then. (would we expect that today? why?) Of course we do have arguments as to what organization IS the most Christian on the planet. This would have to be argued scripturally. Why talk about organization? Because organizations necessarily involve themselves w/the individual conscience at some level. We can argue(and do and should) as to what degree. Guess what? They did in the 1st century. We can "get in trouble" and not actually "be in trouble" w/Jehovah by this arguing, but there has to be balance and there should be (and was in the 1st century...unless Demas and others who split were "faithful" and just went on to live their lives...maybe so, maybe not). We have to expect that there's going to be a "middle ground" which makes everyone less than comfortable in the Christian Congregation. But, if we refuse to be a part of organization, how can we expect to prosper? We never see Jehovah NOT use organization or recommend scripturally that someone should go it alone. So where ever you might be you're going to have to choose. Don't want other people influencing you by telling you things you'd rather not hear, telling you maybe you have it all wrong or that there's a place to argue and a time, but in the middle of the hall during a meeting just might not be met w/the best response? Could be like one brother said "He doesn't take counsel." Will your conscience work right if it doesn't get recalibrated by scripture AND by others who admit to the same scriptures? ***BTW This is me thinking out loud for ME, not anyone else*** https://www.openbible.info/topics/conscience (Link for me to look at or anyone else) https://rts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Libery-of-Conscience.pdf Interesting paper.

Man! If only Jehovah was the only one who ever had free will....

I did, but occasionally I get curious. It's like when you smell something bad and for some reason you have to go back and smell it again just to be sure. Why do we do that? It's not going to smell good the second time is it?

Mo, Larry, Curly and Shemp!

Good point. Of course I can just pick the definition from the Insight Book, which says pretty much the same thing. It speaks to the individual's viewpoint and capabilities. Posting this link, because the variants are amusing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws

I hadn't thought about that. Scriptures don't say specifically - we connect the dots according to what we see and imagine what could be the next logical thing.

Yeah that sounds weird. Like that movie where people stopped having children. (Children of Men - saw the trailer anyway) Only different. Anyway, no death, but it's like I said earlier (did I say this?). We have to anchor the big miracle - creation of the universe from nothing and understand that if we accept that (I do), the subsidiary miracles are not an issue. The questions would be "Why this one?". But instead of saying "If I can't understand why or how a miracle (isn't that what a miracle is?) occurs, I'm not even going to entertain it as a possibility." We'd leave it open.

You really recycle your thoughts. I hate for it to sound like this, but you remind me of my favorite blog poster (who's bipolar) and the following account about her simple dog. "She actually seemed to like throwing up. To the simple dog, throwing up was like some magical power that she never knew she possessed - the ability to create infinite food. I was less excited about the discovery because it turned my dog into a horrible, vomit-making perpetual motion machine. Whenever I heard her retch in the backseat, I had to pull over as quickly as possible to prevent her from reloading her stomach and starting the whole cycle over again. But as far as the simple dog was concerned, it was the best, most exciting day of her life. " I'd say this is also true for all these opposers who perpetually recycle their complaints. http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/11/dogs-dont-understand-basic-concepts.html (Maybe that's why Revelation says "outside are the dogs"?)

Makes me think of this song:

See the deal is 1. Jehovah is using at least 1 org 2. Instructions are coming from this org 3. The instructions are scriptural Whether someone is wearing a magic beanie is immaterial. Now if they come up w/some new junk and it's not in the Bible, I had better see some Moses-like Miracles performed and the new junk better harmonize w/the previous junk. Man do people geek-out on this. Do you imagine Jesus would do this? Or ANY of the apostles?

I understand that we don't understand. On the other hand "is the hand of Jehovah too short?" Do we say "No problem Jehovah creating time and matter and the universe and all that is in it, but yeaaaaah....controlling it afterwards in a way that we don't understand? Yeaaaahhh I think if I can't explain it to my own satisfaction then it can't happen." Wait! You don't understand how Jehovah created the space-time-matter continuum, but you accept that he did, but controlling the manner the creation can/will behave in the future must be amenable to your understanding at this moment? I think we can agree that scriptures aren't forcing us into either position at the moment (animals dying vs not dying), but if I were VOTING (which it's not up to me) I'd RATHER puppies and kittens to not grow old and die. I also don't want to hammer a cow in the head or even euthanize it to eat it (although I do eat meat now, if I had to kill them myself, I think I'd figure out how to do it like mixing beans and rice and corn and other plants to get complete proteins. We could also culture meat.

Could it be that only mentally unbalanced or competitive people find themselves obsessed with who is or isn't anointed? The recent video made it clear that this is an internal decision by an individual and that there's no objective way for anyone to know if someone is or isn't anointed. The minimal behavioral conduct required to be considered "Christian" is clear from scripture and we can all look at someone and see if the behavior we can observe is in line w/scripture. On the other hand we don't have body cams and recordings from a persons mind or anything like this so we can know 24x7 whether they're OK. It seems all the worrying of this bone is about organization. Does Jehovah use this organization known as JW's? You decide as an individual. If Jehovah chooses to NOT use it, you'll know. No one needs a bunch of whiners to look for unscriptural lint left in the washing machine to know whether the clothes cleaner still has cleaned the clothes to a usable degree. Ok. You can go back to nit picking.

It might sound odd, but the constraints of time, pay, and motivation were what got me to get my degree. Before I started to study, I was working full time at TI as a computer operator (got lucky, I was working construction, cleaning carpets, delivering beauty supplies and working at Taco Bell and delivering newpapers and an opportunity came up at TI and I got in learned it all there). I was taking classes on/off at the University, but not really going anywhere w/it. I didn't get diagnosed as having ADD until later as an adult. I just thought everyone was so slow, spoke so slow that I couldn't concentrate on what they were saying because they took so much time to say so little, so I'd space out in school or read and got good grades just because I was apparently "smart". But, unmotivated. After I became a JW, I wanted to pioneer, but I was married and even though my wife worked, there was no way I was going to have her support me, so I began looking for work anywhere where I could get a flexible schedule. I was slated to go work the swing shift, which would mean I could go to class in the morning (I was taking 1 class at a time), then meet for field service at noon. Then work. But then I'd miss meetings. No. Can't do that. Then there were layoffs. I think I mailed about 600 copies of my resume to every place in the area that had the word "computer" or anything computer-sounding in the business name. I got a job as a production control clerk (get it w/a schedule from 6 AM to 2 PM!) Yay!...So I signed up to regular pioneer, got accepted. I went out right after work and long weekends and evenings. But I wanted my wife to be able to pioneer too, so I began thinking about what I could do to get paid more. The barrier wasn't my coding ability, computer admin skills or the like - simply that I didn't have a degree. Then I remember years ago reading this book by John Bear on nontraditional college degrees. There was a program through "The University of the State of New York" (now called Excelsior) which then would give you 30 hours of college credit if you could score high enough on a subject GRE. So...I thought, nothing ventured, nothing gained, lets see ...I got the course catalog, the degree requirements and the lot and studied the whole thing. It turns out that IF I got all my tests done BEFORE I registered, I wouldn't have to pay an exorbitant cost-per-credit-hour for the hours gotten via testing. So I decided on three subject GRE's and some CLEPS. I got the ARCO book on the GRE for psychology, studied it, took the prep tests in the book and it looked like I was ready. I registered for the test, went down to the University where it was proctored and a month later I got the response - YAY I scored in the top 8% of those who took the test that year! (cha-ching 30 hours). So I did the same w/Education and Sociology, took the CLEPs and essentially got 100 hours of college credit in three months. That w/other CLEPS taken before I'd enrolled (Spanish), I'd really only taken a handful of courses on campus. That's when I had the University and ETS send my transcripts along w/my enrollment and prospective degree attempt to The University of the State of New York, for $175. They responded in about two months and said CONGRATS! Send in $375 for your completion and graduation!. Then my current employer instead of saying constantly Xero, you're so smart, you should finish your degree, or If you WERE so smart you'd finish your degree was saying "Wow. All that coding you did really was good! This degree proves it!" (paraphrased for sarcasm). All this done while I was pioneering and because I wanted my wife to join me. So I eventually got a different job, w/ a more difficult schedule, but I was still able to pioneer and my wife was able to quit her job and pioneer as well. None of this would have happened if it weren't for JWs.

Isaac Newton may have had Aspergers. He seemed really misanthropic and vindictive in his dealings with people. He had people drawn and quartered who were counterfeiters, and if true, he also didn't invent the calculus, but Leibniz did. Some suggest we know more about Newton because he outlived people he later trashed after they were dead. Was he anointed? If so, not for his advertised christian character or qualities. My thoughts on anointed in the past is that we'll eventually find out they were unremarkable from a modern human's historical viewpoint. Probably humble people. Maybe not even particularly bright.

I just google conversions. In my work, it's all about memory allocation. Java applications are always sucking up memory like pigs, so as a DBA you have to set the server up allocating enough space for SGA and all the other memory components including the JAVA_POOL and the SHARED_POOL. When I run into issues, I usually just double the allocation. (not efficient in resource terms of the computer, but in terms of the resource which is my time and energy it is)

https://answersingenesis.org/death-before-sin/animal-death-before-the-fall/ https://answersingenesis.org/death-before-sin/did-death-of-any-kind-exist-before-the-fall/ I don't know one way or another, but if I were to ask, like I've asked HH's "Would you LIKE to believe there's a creator who cares for YOU?" ...and I ask myself "Would you LIKE to believe the creator didn't allow death of any kind prior to the fall and that when he says in Revelation "...as the last ENEMY Death is to be done away with" and "he WILL wipe away EVERY tear and mourning and outcry AND PAIN" will be no more he meant the whole of creation including the animals?" To the latter I'd have to say "YES!". But I don't know. I'm defective, imperfect and my compass is likewise bent. Having said that, my compass and the Bible is all I have to go on (plus the Bible isn't a scientific work, nor does it include all things answered in detail). Wasn't in the pub. "World Wide Security Under The Prince of Peace" where the WTBTS said "if we were invited to a party by someone we trusted we wouldn't demand that this person PROVE to us we'd enjoy ourselves before accepting the invitation"? (the idea being that asking for proof w/a skeptical critical spirit wouldn't be a good way to get along - certainly not w/our creator.) If not there, the sentiments have been expressed.

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.

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.)

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)

Sometimes I'm thinking I have no business talking about anything. I imagine myself smirking and laughing at someone elses' pecadillos and sins (are they?) and meanwhile a cement pie is headed for my own face.