xero

I am lazy. I suppose I also don't want people to get the idea that I have any original ideas. I want to positively affirm that.

Yes. As Jesus Christ is my leader. (Of course I remember some elders questioning my methods once and when I showed the example Jesus set and how I was "following it closely" one said... yeah, but now you're tail-gaiting Jesus)

Nothing to be confused about. People have scare time and resources. They allocate these by a process of reasoning. These should be able to explain the rational process whereby the decided to expend their energies in one place over another. This is especially so if they are evangelical in their zeal. Connecting the dots. The phone rings. You pick it up. On the end of the phone there's a solicitor who (we'll give the benefit of the doubt) is representing a cause of some kind. Let's say we even think it's not a bad cause. Our response might be. "I'd like to thank you, 1st of all for choosing to be part of the solution, rather than a part of the problem. So many are unwilling to give of themselves these days." *Pause as they blush* Then follow this up w/the question. They should be able to answer this question. As JW's it's an easy thing. The kingdom is the solution. Man's govts as well intended as some have been have always failed to deliver in one way or another. Death is still there. Justice is not punishment, but the complete repair of the wrong done. Choosing to learn about the kingdom and subjecting ones' self in advance of it's takeover is a benefit now and into the future. It doesn't mean being unconcerned w/the proximate evil, but it does place things in their proper perspective. Men w/o God, w/o the knowledge that justice will be done take it on themselves to try to bring about a utopia, and each and every time they try to put their hand out and eat from the tree of life and eat and live 'till time indefinite - they bring death, misery and destruction on their neighbors. It always happens. A proper estimation of one's station as a created, limited being will allow one to do what one can as palliative measures until the kingdom arrives - w/or w/o the assent of the planet. On the other hand you have a myriad of causes, none of whom I've found can give a rational account for why their cause needs to have supremacy over all other concerns - these simply have gone where the winds of the moment have taken them. Take "apostates" of any group - be these EX-JWs, EX-Mormons, EX-Muslims, EX-whatevers - these have causes, and usually it's not to say "This is the way, walk in it my people." it's "This is NOT the way, don't walk in it." Very hard to live a life studying "disease" and "disorder" and studying "mental illness" to know what good functioning and a good life (insofar as one can have one now) is focusing on what's wrong. People generally keep their balance when they are moving forward, using whatever positive momentum they have. As soon as they stop and try to statically stay in one spot, for fear of falling over, the more they fail. BUT having diverged a bit, you can see that one simply has to be able to answer the question especially if one wants others to spend their own scarce time and resources in support of their peculiar cause.

"By what process of reasoning did you determine that this was the one problem facing humanity that deserved your scare time and resources?"

You know what's funny, is that most of the people I've seen who were partakers were weird in some way or another. We're told that their spirit tells them. We're not supposed to question it. We do of course. We try to correlate their external behavior and appearance w/being 'anointed' I have to say I don't know who is or isn't, but it doesn't matter. It's not as if someone's personal profession makes them any more knowledgeable or holy than anyone else in any given congregation. I remember the 1st memorial I went to. There was all this fanfare and yet the talk was dull and we all had to be careful not to spill the wine and everyone's ears were listening quietly to see if they heard any crunching sounds. ("Psst! Did you see that! So and so partook!") Then we had to rush out so the next congregation could get in. I thought it all pretty silly at the time and over the years if I saw anyone not one foot into the grave w/decades of service I thought "Huh". But I reconciled myself to the decisions others made as their problem (if any) and not mine. Suppose someone professes to be of the anointed, should I change my behavior towards them? No. Defer to them when they present a scriptural argument that doesn't wash? No. I have seen though that a lot of people have been looking at all this either waiting for them to die off, like they are the sands in the hourglass counting down to the end of this system. Not that I blame them. Any more than I blame anyone. I do see, however in some the desire to be in charge, and I'm always suspicious of anyone who revels in telling others what to do and how to do it. If I've gotten in any trouble w/fellow elders it's because I don't dunk on publishers when I could. So sister X is weird and partakes. So sister X has a lot of opinions. Hey, maybe she has something to say, maybe she's just feeling lonely and unremarkable and wants to feel remarkable. Fine. One CO said when some bros complained about another bro that he didn't do things unless he got a lot of praise - "So praise him. No skin off your nose."

I'm not sure how following this scripture is controversial. BTW - I think the obsession some have w/the term 'anointed' and all the associated baggage is a distraction. Yes, there are some who appear to be engaging in GB-Anointed worship, but that's their problem, not mine. The scriptures tell me what to do, how to live and what to hope for and I try to live by these. I could obsess about obesity in the congregation too if I wanted to. Let's say have people step on scales and if their BMI wasn't w/in a healthy weight, then they'd be disqualified from serving in any capacity. But I don't. I haven't been above teasing people at times, like when one brother asked me if I watched the game. I replied "No. I was probably praying or in the ministry." There are always some who people imagine (or they themselves imagine of themselves) that they are "superfine apostles" - 2 Cor. 11:5 There were in the 1st century and will be today the same issues. I remember one bro who was "stumbled" when he moved to another state and on his return he said "the brothers there don't let me do anything!" (he was prominent locally before he moved - his illustrations are still in the pubs) - I said to him "What! You mean they won't let you go in FS??" He got my point, but he wasn't amused. In the congregation there are always going to be people who aren't happy and have to wrestle to see who's plumage is shinier than the next. That's not me. I suppose if I were a Calvinist, I'd be more likely to embrace the "Doctrine of Total Depravity" ... Sounds cool doesn't it! ‘I Am A Depraved Wretch,’ Says Calvinist Smugly BURLINGTON, VT—According to preordained sources, a 37-point Calvinist bravely and openly admitted his own depravity this week during a brutal intellectual beat-down of an ignorant atheist. Witnesses were shocked by the young man’s great honesty about his fallen condition, in addition to his luminous intellect and well-oiled beard. “Listen, it’s written plainly in the Doctrine of Total Depravity,” he said. “I’m totally depraved. I’m a worthless sinner with no merit deserving of God’s grace...duh. If you deny that, it’s because God in his mercy has not yet chosen to awaken your spirit with the divine light of his unmerited favor. You are an enemy of God and you are completely repulsive to Him. I say this with gentleness and respect because I love you.” As the Calvinist spoke through a thick cloud of the finest pipe tobacco smoke, sources say they detected a hint of smugness in his smile. The atheist detected the smug attitude and pointed it out. "Point proved!" said the Calvinist. "I am a depraved sinner and my smugness proves that point!" The hapless atheist replied, "I don't know... I don't feel like I'm really that bad of a person." This was the moment the young Calvinist had been waiting for. He set down his pipe, looked at the poor deceived sinner through narrowed eyes, and with a wry smile, demolished the atheist’s puny argument once and for all. “...by what standard?” he said. The atheist stood there dumbfounded with a dumb atheist look on his face. He knew he had been beaten and was left with no choice but to repent. Sources in heaven say that thanks to this bold, brilliant Calvinist’s bold and brilliant witness, God decided to go ahead and choose the atheist for salvation before the foundation of the world.

That last post was as much a bit of self-analysis as it was of anyone else. I'm sure anyone who's been associated has gone through some dark moments. Reminds me of David, "a man after God's own heart", the beloved and how he actually left to work as a mercenary for the philistine king of Gath when he was being hunted by the anointed of Jehovah - Saul (his dark moments), and how he vowed not to lift up his hand against the anointed of Jehovah, and how Jehovah helped him to fulfill that oath when it seemed he might fail in that regard when he was on his way to fight w/the Philistines when at Aphek the men w/Achish complained and he was sent along w/his men back to where they'd been. This prevented David from being in the battle. But it also may have sent a signal that there might have been a rearward attack which interestingly may have led to Saul's forces not covering the entrance to the Jezreel Valley leading to his ultimate death on Mt Gilboa - Jehovah's judgment. Some people may feel the need to flee from whatever persecution they may be feeling (whether real or imagined) but leaving the judgment to Jehovah strikes me as the course of wisdom. Even non-JWs like Stephen Covey (I remember an illustration of his) said "chasing the serpent is what drives the poison to the heart". So maybe you got bit, and maybe you got yourself bit unknowingly by poking your hand into some "hole" the advice not to return evil for evil (or even perceived evil) is good advice for anyone.

Fortunately I never acquiesced to any organization. I used my own God-given conscience from the moment I walked into a kingdom hall. Some have left because they felt they needed to, and some have stayed. There is no universal response. It isn't even necessary for me to spend time defending an organization. Instead I'd rather spend it learning more about the Bible, bible history, archaeology, textual analysis and trying to better frame answers which help people who are looking for good answers to the emotional problem of evil. (the logical one already dealt with). Can a person be a Christian w/o attachment to an organization? I'm certain they can, but it's quite hard, and then one wonders what the point of it all is if there is not at least one other person? "When two or more are gathered in my name..." If one does decide to associate in some way with a group, even a nondenominational one, the chances are quite likely these believe, and quite strongly so, that anything you've "learned" in association w/Jehovah's Witnesses is tainted, and needs to be expunged from your mind. (Is literally "everything you learned" wrong?) There simply aren't any groups of people who won't in one way or another apply pressure to you to believe the things they believe, or remain silent where you don't. The tyrannical elements w/in people are too strong to keep in check. They always surface. As an exercise, type up your list of core beliefs and compare these to the myriad groups around. Can you find one which accords w/your core beliefs in every way? If you can, then consider yourself fortunate, because I haven't yet found a person associating w/a religious group yet who embraces fully every thing the "leadership" ("call no one leader, rabbi, father" - Mt 23:8-10) teaches. Just thinking out loud here, but I think some of the reasons some who have left don't really leave (besides having the annoyance of family members still in) are 1. The time spent is viewed as an investment which didn't pan out as expected and loss aversion is forcing a return (you might think, to one's 'vomit' - Pr. 26:11) ...but it's the economics fallacy of the sunk cost (but consider, was there no gain?) 2. There are no other places where these can go where anyone can even begin to understand what it means to actually BE one of Jehovah's Witnesses - It's a love-hate relationship, and no one in the world can begin to understand if they haven't been there 3. Very close to the previously mentioned...The loss of so much variety and association over years (along with memories that one cannot expunge from one's own head which are so damningly pleasant) which is missed one needs the contact to work out the "poison", to reframe the experiences which are there inside. In this these often find people who will engage them in such a way so as to reinforce the reasons these left. It's unfortunate that this is what it is. The human condition. Longing for a full realization of a utopia which looks as if it will never come, and damning the mirage for "tricking us" into believing to was real, and not only real, but about to become real for everyone on the planet. It's difficult for people to leave, no doubt. I've known a few. Some have embraced ideas which they would have strongly objected to on scriptural grounds years ago, some have lost all faith in God and become atheists or agnostics. This is a shame to me. It's like getting so close and because of blemishes real or imagined these abandon all faith, and the beautiful vision of the future under the kingdom. I applaud those who don't lose their faith and perhaps there are quite a number of these - I don't know, but I hope so. I can't help but believe that the lesson of understanding that mistaking an organization for the actualization of God's kingdom is one that these are going to have to learn at some point. When they do, I'm hoping they can let the anger go. If there is discipline to be meted out to organizations or individuals in organizations I'd say to remember Jesus, when he had a dispute w/Satan about the disposition of Moses body - "May Jehovah rebuke you" and if there's rebuking to be done, he'll certainly do it.

“I quote others only in order the better to express myself.” ― Michel de Montaigne, The Complete Essays

A lot of this are what I'd call "Red Herrings". They're the "noble reasons" that the guy in prison gives for why they stabbed the guy. (the truth was the look on the other guys' face) Let's suppose you're right. That all this was a power issue. Whom did they have power over? What did it get them? Money? Fame? It wasn't until much later that I even knew any of their names. I could have cared less. I never once believed something because the organization said something was so. I never burned a pinch of incense to them. I read their arguments and some of them I agreed with completely and others I could see multiple ways. I didn't see the point with arguing about "tabs vs spaces" as it all compiled the same. I wasn't baptized into the WTS. Now to current issues. I do think that the issues w/pedophiles and the like is extremely important. I don't think any JW doesn't think it's important. How each case was handled? I don't know. How the organization has handled it - probably could have done it differently and they certainly know it now. Was the issue the "two witness"rule? Perhaps, and this is where you have to ask whether this was taken in the wrong context and it created this situation. To me it always seemed a matter of principal, that you didn't convict someone w/o good evidence, not a literal reading of the mosaic law that you had to have two witnesses. Does the fault lie with a corporation, or with individuals and individual congregations? It's being treated as a corporate crime and I know people have been hurt. Clearly this isn't just an issue w/JW's but also w/any group as the problem is a problem w/in society as a whole. Did we expect to remain untouched by the problems in the world? I'd say that would be unrealistic. I know that the training we had as well as the reporting was in our case always above board and legal and ethical. There was a case once where a young man about 15 was over at another families house and something happened with another young girl who was also underage, maybe 13 at a pool party. How was it handled? The police were called, and they investigated. That body investigated the circumstances as well. Nothing legal ever took place and the young man never had any further issues, though he changed congregations. About 15 years after this he was being considered as an MS. Well this family heard of it and raised a stink. We had a meeting and some of the brothers seemed to not understand the issues here. 1. This was looked at by the police. 2. This was over a decade ago. 3. He had no contact w/the family or girl since that time. Yet some imagined we needed to examine this over again. I had to underscore that the "issue" was the issue of slander, not this thing which was investigated years ago. He did get an appointment and he's married and doing well as far as I know. The other family hasn't fared so well. Was this all the fault of the 15 year old boy invited to a poorly supervised pool party? That doesn't seem reasonable. On the other hand continued abuse and neglect of serious situations clearly have taken place and been grossly mishandled. I can't imagine the suffering that these have had to deal with and no JW I know would want any of this to take place - yet it isn't outside the realm of possibility that corrupt elders and other corrupt people will find a home somewhere. You can see them looking sometimes to check out a congregation to see its spirit to see if this is a place where they can get away with things. No doubt some find a "home". It's terrible. You can have CO's who travel and they're supposed to check up on things and elders and elder bodies can disguise what's happening. That can happen. What does this mean? To me it means people are imperfect, some are evil and some are imperfect and evil and you may even run into them in the congregation. You get the sense of who a bro or sister is by a lot of things, and people gravitate towards the ones they resonate with. That's why you have to keep an eye on yourself and your brother. I remember one older elder grabbed me and took me into a room (I wondered why) and it was because he was accosted by this DF'ed sister who wanted to talk to him (he said he made a rule never to be alone w/a woman not his wife) and I thought that wise. Everyone has to decide. Do they want to go it alone and try to be a Christian by themselves for fear that the contact with others or an imperfect organization will taint them? Turn them from the way? Or, do they want to be part of a group with whom they are in the most agreement that they can be recognizing that all these things which are wrong in human society can also be wrong and will be wrong in that group?

Or also...the tabs vs spaces nazis...

You remind me of people who say "I don't use GUI tools. If you can't do it at the command line you don't know what you're doing."

I've read a lot of writings from the preachers from the 19th century and they all fail when it comes to the Trinity. They argue for it, but when they get beat, the do like Spurgeon and say: Yes, willingness to change has to be there. The question is whether the change is coming from a more accurate understanding of scripture in context (biblical archaeology, textual analysis) or the change is coming from external forces in human society. FYI https://archive.org/details/publicdiscussion00plum The above is the text of a debate that took place in 1842 in Ridley, PA between Frederick Plummer and William McAlla - In it you can read the use of every argument for and against the trinity which I've ever read. (Of course I feel Plummer won hands down)

Are we not to be "imitators of God as beloved children"? I'm not a muslim who believes morality doesn't apply to God and that anything God does is by definition "good". As to "playing the game" I'm saying that you're making accusations as if you have knowledge of the contents of another person's head. You don't, so you can't call it a "lie" unless you can prove the intent was to deceive. The "game" is one you're playing. I just lobbed the ball back in your court and then you appear to be saying "See! You're playing the game!". It could also be (like Jesus) that I'm answering you not for your benefit, but for anyone else who might be reading this.

The message that Jonah gave the people, "in the strictest sense", was not a lie. They heard the message that originated with God, and they repented. Where is the lie? If you were a prosecutor, the fact that this didn't happen was a "lie". You see how people can play this game? Reminds me of a scene from the Pink Panther.

Along the same lines I made the CO laugh when I gave him a bottle of "Fat B." wine as a gift. He was the same CO who when I approached him after a novel and still scriptural argument on an issue and said "Bro X...I enjoyed your talk. Especially your point relative to X." "BTW" I said w/a Ryan Gosling smirk on my face, "What WT did you get that from?". And he looked at me with full knowledge of the game and said dryly "I got it from the bible." "Oh", I said. "I see." .... "Great talk though!"

True that there are people who go along w/things. I see this more in the "raised-in-the-truthers" where the "make the truth your own" is something they have yet to do. And true also that tyrannical elements exist in the organization as there were too in the 1st century. People said things, and "leaders" said and believed thing which weren't true. "2 However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ+ and our being gathered together to him,+ we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement*+ or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah*+ is here." 2 Thes. 2:1-2 Peter had to get straightened out by Paul. Priscilla and Aqulla had to strighten out Apollos. There were people pushing circumcision. There was a fascination with angelology. There was the "sect of Nicolaus". People came and went. I'm sure there were people who thought certain the end was in sight then and preached to that effect. People get things wrong a lot. Especially where God is concerned. Some have problems admitting being wrong, and maybe today you have some overly concerned w/lawsuits (guess what, there were lawsuits in the 1st century too). At any given moment you have people w/a certain spirit about them. Is it their desire to tell the truth, or to trick you? People fool themselves 1st before they fool others. It happens all the time. That's why you have to keep testing the inspired utterances, because there will be utterances and you have to keep checking to see if you are really in the faith. Me? I think I'm doing good sometimes and then ten minutes go by and I'm like pig-pen from the Charlie Brown cartoons. I spiritually floss one tooth and the others get loose. It never ends. I think of this written by Paul and feel the same way.... "21 I find, then, this law in my case: When I wish to do what is right, what is bad is present with me.+ 22 I really delight in the law of God according to the man I am within,+ 23 but I see in my body* another law warring against the law of my mind+ and leading me captive to sin’s law+ that is in my body.* 24 Miserable man that I am! Who will rescue me from the body undergoing this death? 25 Thanks to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So, then, with my mind I myself am a slave to God’s law, but with my flesh to sin’s law.+" - Ro. 7:21-25 So to me w/organizations no matter what, you have yourself either alone and on your knees praying alone or you associate w/organizations who mostly appear to be doing their best. Maybe some are being idolatrous w/organizations and maybe some are uncomfortable w/the ambiguity which comes from a living, breathing and imperfect faith and so they tighten up - well guess what? It's never stopped being that way and won't until Jesus intervenes in this system in a way that's undeniable to the entire planet.

BTW - This is why it's totally OK for me to eat wings at the local Hooters restaurant.

I'm reminded of one criminal justice class I took. We got to interview a number of ex-felons. One thing that I learned from this is that people always give the most noble reason they can for their argument, though this is rarely the real argument. Often if you keep probing for their reasons you come down to something like... (In answer to 'So why did you stab him?") "I didn't like the look on his face."

" All things are clean to clean people;+ but to those who are defiled and faithless, nothing is clean, for both their minds and their consciences are defiled"- Titus 1:15

A - I would say expecially w/regard to the trinity, that you have to have (to get all epistemological about it in the Gettier sense), to have knowledge of something, to have true, justified belief (to have knowldege, it has to be true, you have to believe it and you have to have good justification for said belief). To believe something is to be able to provide a rational belief, an account of your belief. If you say "I believe in the trinity", that's not proof of your belief. That's a statement. You have to provide justification. If you say "I believe in the trinity because the Pope says it's true, or because my preacher says it's true, or because I don't want to be called names." We all know those are not valid reasons, any more than if a person were to say "The governing body says it's true, therefore it's true and those are my reasons". These may be reasonable in the sense of these "reasons" being correlated with the proposed belief, but to believe something you have to internalize the thing in which you ostensibly believe. I see a cat. I believe I saw a cat. I touched the cat. I form a "catness" analogy in my head as to when something has passed into the zone of catness and when it's no longer a cat. My belief has boundary conditions, and is potentially falsifiable. But at the moment I say "I'm holding a soft, purring kitten" and you see it, and acknowledge it, then we have some grounds for saying we believe me when I say "I'm holding a soft, purring kitten". The justifications are my sense data and your agreement w/my sense data. What is it that this person is even talking about, when he says "I believe the trinity to be true."? The word and it's use is so ambiguous as to require a lot of qualification. Most people are satisfied, like the reasoning book says when you say "I've accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, and I believe Jesus is the Son of God and the Holy Spirit is God's power." (paraphrased) People will say "Mighty fine!, Mighty fine!". You could even preach a sermon in their church - take an outline like "God's View of Sex and Marriage" and give it in any nondenominational church and you'd get no argument. So do they believe the trinity? I don't think they even have a clear idea as to what they're talking about. You can't teach what you can't clearly define any more than you can believe it. It reminds me of an 8 hour discussion I had w/a pentecostal minister one long Saturday - like playing whackamole w/scriptures. I ended up eating dinner w/his family - nice people and all, but at the end he just had a Mona Lisa smile on his face like some carnival worker who took all my money so I could finally get a stuffed pony.