xero

This is a video of a vhs tape I bought years ago. I thought it would be useful for some here who are interested in the social psychology of the times of Charles Darwin and the psychological levers he pulled to get acceptance for his ideas.

I think it should be embraced by those who are honest about themselves in relation to Jehovah and his son Jesus. What we want is a pattern of treatment for our own peculiar manifestation of symptoms, realizing that not everyone manifests the disease in the same manner. Those who balk at the term or fail to recognize a continual need for repeat treatments and external analysis of one's progress relative to the disease by others who likewise are keeping an eye on themselves for fear they too may be tempted are not what I'd call useful companions.

The Jewish astrophysicist I studied with would often make profound statements. He said "X, to the extent something or someone is evil, to that extent they are predictable and this for the rejection of free will." I see a bot-like response pattern to opposers, one with which they are unaware of (the physical man vs the spiritual man "who indeed examines all things"). I argue (if I do at all) that three syllables were likely in the divine name (by comparison to similar names) and that it is perfectly correct to use "Jehovah". If we can't use "Jehovah" then we can't use any of these other Hebrew scripture names. We do and opposers do, so we see the motives. They don't want you to use God's name. They rationalize their reasons, but underlying this is that they have become subject to the air that is operating in the sons of disobedience.

You know Tom, I'm sure you've known a lot of brothers & sisters who had issues. I remember one family who were quite musical, the boys did well in school and the congregation, but the mother apparently was passing on adult-onset schizophrenia and I remember when it happened to one of the young brothers. He'd worry about whether Jehovah wanted him to wash with hot water and then cold water or the other way around. We'd go over the scripture that it wasn't what went into you that made you unclean but what came out of you. Then he'd calm down. I'd work w/him in service during the week. He was real sweet and sincere (Rob). Fortunately his younger brother Em. was spared the bulk of the hallucinations, though he'd tell me he couldn't look at certain paintings because things would start to move around in them. The father kept the family together while he was alive. I remember sitting in the living room when the oldest brother (St) started to get a schizoid episode and F. just decked him. I was surprised to say the least, but having just finished an empanada made out of pumpkin road-kill (I asked where they got the pumpkin and F said they found it on the side of the road) I just took it in stride. F was a simple guy, but he loved Jehovah and did the best he could w/his family. The sad part was when he died of a heart attack, the family had issues (St was incapable, Em. took care of his mom, but Rob was a diff story). I'd moved away and I googled the members of the family and found that Rob was committed after he apparently bashed his roommate in the back of his head after his roommate said something derogatory about his mother. Another young sister used to call me up at work (another case of schizophrenia) and told me she felt she was seeing important things and wanted to share them w/the cong. I told her I couldn't speak or deny whatever it was she was experiencing, but suggested that if she was somewhere and she wondered whether she was the only one who was hearing or seeing certain things, that she should look around to see if anyone else looked like they were seeing or hearing these things and if it was just her then she should probably not share. She's OK today as she grew out of it. So you don't ever know what's going on w/people. I know I can't judge.

I'm always suspicious when people avoid using "Jehovah". The argument about not knowing the exact pronunciation would then apply to Jehoshaphat, Jehoram or pretty much any name in the Hebrew scriptures, but for some reason the punctiliousness is applied only to "Jehovah".

The crusty old atheist reminds me of a long-standing call I had w/a chip engineer at intel. I suspect she was either high functioning autistic or aspergers, in any case on the first call I made a presentation and she was emotionally flat during the magazine presentation, so I stopped and asked her "Am I boring you? Would you prefer I stop?" and she said w/the same deadpan "No. Please continue, this is interesting." Then she set me a schedule to visit her. It was not surprisingly mathematical in precision. I was expected to be at her door at 10 AM every other Saturday (no excuses). We never got much past the magazines, as after a year she moved out of state, but it goes to show that you can't tell what's happening inside someone when the exterior is less than inviting.

I wonder why people bother answering some of these opposers when A. They are often atheists who have no business even referencing morality as there is no such thing as morality w/o God B. They support abortion as well C. They hate the nuclear family D. They actually promote abuse of children w/transgender ideology - Quite frankly they are full of it.

Opposers want to argue that the WTBS has full responsibility over individual conscience and its application. That's garbage as are the motives of those who suggest the same. These would Satanically deny humans free will and the consequent responsibility.

I'm sure he's a fine fellow, but it's still dull material under discussion. There are times when you knock on a door and then out pops a minister who wants to talk to you about how awesome the trinity is and you look down at your watch and say "Yeah....Not today." (I just re-read that...reminds me of the diffs between the puerto ricans and the mexicans in their use of spanish... My accent is mexican because of where I grew up on the border, but border spanish has a lot of nonstandard spanish that puerto ricans would always whine about when I used it. I'd say "Vamos a fencear la casa!" and they'd say "That's not real spanish" and I'd say "It is if you want your fence put up pronto", otherwise we'd of hired puerto ricans!

You're on your own as far as I'm concerned. Two reasons,first your responses have a chat-bot quality to them and second none of this is interesting.

27 So the slaves of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow fine seed in your field? How, then, does it have weeds?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy, a man, did this.’y The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go out and collect them?’ 29 He said, ‘No, for fear that while collecting the weeds, you uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and in the harvest season, I will tell the reapers: First collect the weeds and bind them in bundles to burn them up; then gather the wheat into my storehouse.’”z - Mt. 13:27-30 We're not angels, and we could imagine we're wheat when we could be a bit on the weedy side. So it strikes me that the garden one has a right and responsibility to "weed" is that of one's own heart. Where groups and people go wrong is when these decide they need to engage in a bunch of weed whacking of someone or some group other than themselves. As long as two or more are gathered in Jesus name he said "I'm in their midst". So we have to find a place where we can associate w/people whom we feel are supporting our own efforts at self-weeding. The problem may come (and it often does) when we decide we need to readjust other people on matters unclear at present, or engage in endless harping on past behaviors or expectations. Jesus said "sufficient for each day is its own badness". 18 “Now listen to the illustration of the man who sowed.q 19 Where anyone hears the word of the Kingdom but does not get the sense of it, the wicked one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart; this is the one sown alongside the road.

Like I said. You can talk about whatever you want to talk about and some of it's interesting, but quite frankly a lot of what you're into is for me "been there, done that". Don't imagine you're the only one who's ever done a deep dive on the times the WTBTS has gotten it wrong. I've discovered, though that the whole "apostate" thing is only interesting IF it points to areas of false expectations w/in ONES' OWN SELF. So if chronology is your thing you need to be disabused of, then you can spend a lot of time squirreling away various "nuts" on who got chronology wrong/right how/why. In the end, you won't have advanced any useful cause for yourself, unless it's some kind of emotional catharsis you're after. But that's ok if that's what you're into and these are your needs of the moment.

What I get from this is not that you're concerned about Christianity, the process of inspiration or an examination of these things from a historical or biblical sense, but rather you're focused on the WTBTS. If that's your focus, then have at it. If you're interested in improving your faith and your understanding, then I'll say you're doing it wrong. I might say that you've missed entirely the point here: 24 He presented another illustration to them, saying: “The Kingdom of the heavens may be likened to a man who sowed fine seed in his field.x 25 While men were sleeping, his enemy came and oversowed weeds in among the wheat and left. 26 When the stalk sprouted and produced fruit, then the weeds also appeared. 27 So the slaves of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow fine seed in your field? How, then, does it have weeds?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy, a man, did this.’y The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go out and collect them?’ 29 He said, ‘No, for fear that while collecting the weeds, you uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and in the harvest season, I will tell the reapers: First collect the weeds and bind them in bundles to burn them up; then gather the wheat into my storehouse.’”z 3 Note the effort at "collecting weeds" (real or imagined) is turned down when professed followers express the desire for purity via a removal of those these feel to be "weeds". If there are "weeds" this harvesting and collecting and winnowing won't be done by any self-appointed humans on planet earth.

It can be applied to anyone, however we cannot leap to being wrong as being inspired by a deceiving spirit. The 1st century Christians were documented as being wrong on many issues and at many times. One can also be used even if one has no favor w/Jehovah.... "49 But one of them, Caʹia·phas,z who was high priest that year, said to them: “You do not know anything at all, 50 and you have not reasoned that it is to your benefit for one man to die in behalf of the people rather than for the whole nation to be destroyed.”a 51 He did not say this, however, of his own originality, but because he was high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was to die for the nation, 52 and not only for the nation but also to gather together into one the children of God who were scattered about." John 11:49-52 But again, you appear to be striving towards the need for extra-biblical inspiration, and this is a "need" unacknowledged by scripture.

Archer's analytical method is the preferred method, one w/which the org has attempted to follow. One can argue how well these have done, but this discussion shows the methods one ought use if one actually cares about what the truth is on any given matter.

Pay more attention to scripture w/serious biblical exegesis and biblical archaeology and textual criticism/historical analysis and less to cherry-picking statements made by other people. Now if you think that somehow your own heart isn't treacherous and desperate, and if you feel that it is a small matter from which one is immune to isolate ones' self and at no time will this cause such one's as yourself to seek your own selfish longing, then I'd say your spirit has become like those of the false spirits which inspired the king to act foolishly so that he might die at Ramoth-Gilead. 1 Kings 22:1-53

I'd say this is a redefinition of what most biblical scholars refer to when they use the term "inspiration". It also is clear that more homework ought to be done before flippantly deciding one knows all one needs to know about the processes of and the reasons for inspiration proceeding from God vs inspiration proceeding from w/in.

If you're serious about understanding OT issues relative to inspiration/issues which today we consider to be wrong, you should read Paul Copan's "Is God a Moral Monster". There are multiple issues to be considered. Hyperbole, numbers of individuals involved (modern textual analysis of texts), allowance of activities vs promotion of the same. I've had a few email exchanges w/professor Copan and he's been quite helpful in all this. But we're back again to cases of historical inspiration as recorded in text, vs possible inspiration today and how to scripturally determine whether it's warranted today (scriptures actually argue against this "need") and when it was warranted (and why, and how validated) in the past. It's been my experience, however that there's a lazy man's approach to all this which John MacArthur touches on in the 1st five minutes of his discussion of his recent book "Strange Fire". It's worth your time to at least listen to the 1st five minutes.

Not just the GB. If you've read any of John Macarthur, or Gleason Archer (Old Testament Introduction), the issues behind inspiration are discussed and match up 100% w/that of the WT's handling of what is considered "inspired". Both of these would have called JW's a "cult", and yet when it comes to how one considers what is and what isn't scripture and how to tell if some novel statement made outside of scripture these are in agreement. I don't think you've done your homework on this. You need to go back and do your homework.

You know I read widely from other religions as well and John MacAuthur's take on the charismatic groups and the way they handle scripture (1st 5 minutes) explains well what's happening in these churches.

A lot of these nut jobs remind me of the character Adam Sandler played in "Water Boy". His character was always hallucinating things that other people weren't saying.

I'd like it if you did. I'll research some audio options. You reach a larger audience because there are a lot of people who listen during their commute, and at other times as well. I think I've listened to about 55 apologetics of various sorts (filtering out the obligatory Jesus is God, Trinity nonsense which like a flag salute is often thrown in for good measure) and I've learned a lot about the documentary evidence for the events in the 1st century as well as how amazing the evidence for the historicity of NT documents compares against every secular history which historians have no doubts in their minds as to authenticity. My years as a JW hadn't exposed me to the incredible level of historical and forensic documentation available attesting to the authenticity of the Christian Greek Scriptures as well as the most well attested-to miracle ever - the resurrection of Jesus. This evidence is the "Amen" to all that Jehovah has promised. The only reason people argue against these accounts when it comes down to it is that they 1. Don't believe God Exists 2. Therefore miracles don't happen. A few days reading material from the Discovery Institute's list of books and videos (and James Tour's exposes on all the bogus OOL (origins of life) pushed should suffice to kill any notion that we A. Live in a non-theistic world and B. That God doesn't intervene (He must necessarily have done so as there is no natural way to generate the various forms of life we have on this planet). (Of course I remember the Jewish astrophysicist I studied with (he got baptized) explaining to me that we couldn't even have a dead universe of the sort we have w/o a creator)

Any thought to doing an audio version on audible?

I'd say also to counteract the demon-posessed who keep running after Jesus.