Evacuated

5 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

How EXACTLY does the Society define "Brazen Conduct"?

More importantly, what actually does the word "brazen" mean?

It is a translation of the Greek word  "ἀσέλγεια  - aslegia" which literally appears to mean:  in-continent. (ἀ-σέλγεια)

Various English definitions are submitted "unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, lasciviousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence"

The word "brazen" has been dictionary defined as:

"bold, shameless, as bold as brass, brazen-faced, forward, presumptuous, brash, immodest,  unashamed, unabashed, unembarrassed,   unblushing;  defiant, impudent, insolent, impertinent, cheeky, pert; barefaced,  blatant, flagrant, undisguised”

The Cambridge Dictionary describes the American usage of the word “brazen” as an adjective, used: “(of something bad) done without trying to hide it:”

So it is a word referring mainly to the attitude of someone engaging in serious wrong conduct , frequently, but not exclusively,  in the context of improper sexual behaviour.

In Watchtower publications “brazen” has been defined as being:

“From the Greek a·selʹgei·a, a phrase pertaining to acts that are serious violations of God’s laws and that reflect a brazen or boldly contemptuous attitude; a spirit that betrays disrespect or even contempt for authority, laws, and standards. The expression does not refer to wrong conduct of a minor nature.—Ga 5:19; 2Pe 2:7.”

Is there really a problem in understanding how the word "brazen" should be understood in the context of human behaviour?

12 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

If Satan told you the Truth, it would still be the Truth.

An example is this Satan's statement recorded here:

"So he brought him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth in an instant of time.  Then the Devil said to him: “I will give you all this authority and their glory, because it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish."

Luke 4:4-6
 

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It was a temporary critique of a problem initiated either by James, if he gave them instructions, or by these certain men from James on their own.

I do not think it necessary to understand this on the basis of James being complicit as a Judaizer. I would say that the fact that these men came from James has no more significance than the fact that Acts 15:1 describes men coming from Judea.

The general attitude of of the apostles and elders to such "Judaizing" efforts is expressed at Acts 15:24. So these men mentioned at Galatians 2:12 were expressing their own preferences, not at the direction of James.

Peter, with an ill thought out and cowardly response, rightly incurred the wrath of Paul on this occasion. It all illustrates how easy it is to "talk the walk" as opposed to "walk the talk". The clear and assertive proclamations and decisions made at the circumcision conference in 49CE may well have been easy in view of the fact that the vast majority of Christians in Jerusalem were formerly Jewish, and indeed the entire governing body of the time were the same. However, when Christians of that background found themselves in an environment where far more Gentile Christians were present, it was a different matter.

Cultural and traditional practice has a strong hold on humans and their behaviour when out of their comfort zone in that regard is charcteristically to cluster around what they are familiar with. Judaizers appealed to both religious and racial pride and fear of man. The insidious effect of their teachings however was to separate men from Christ and to work against the interests of Jehovah's ongoing purpose. This was hardly at the forefront of their intentions. However, Paul was fully cognizant, hence his very strong and demonstrative reactions to their influence, both expressed in his reproof of Peter and his subsequent letters.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Paul is surely saying that there should be no central authority other than Christ who belongs to God.

There is no dispute regarding Paul's recognition and admonition to others to recognise Christ as the head of the congregation. However I cannot agree with the notion of Paul suggesting that theocratic arrangements were unimportant. This is simply because it does not agree with Paul's own behaviour.

• His acceptance of the spirit-directed action of the Antioch congregation prophets and teachers to approve his ministry into international territory (Acts13:1-3).
• His subsequent report back to the same congregation on the success of his mission (Acts 14:26-28).
• His delegation by the same congregation  to go to the Jerusalem apostles and elders on the circumcision issue (Acts 15:2).
• His participation in the ensuing conference (Acts 15:12).
• His obvious acceptance of the authorative consideration and scripturally based decisions of those apostles and older men as reflected in his acceptance of being sent as part of a delegation from that same group, and his actually being being dismissed as a part of that delegation to travel back to Antich to relay the decisions of that Jerusalem body (Acts15:22);.
• His subsequent returning to the Gentile territories to deliver the decrees of the Jerusalem apostles and older men for their observance.

His acceptance of such direction, admittedly a recognition of Christ's headship as expressed through the officers of both the Antioch and Jerusalem congregations, demonstrated his acceptance of central authority thus expressed.

His remarks regarding a "human tribunal" relate to those in Corinth who sought to undermine his authority as an apostle.Their assessments of his qualifications were of no consequence. His other references to his authority and his seeming discounting of apostolic approval as a determining factor in the validity of his role as an agent of the Christ, are  to show the Corinthians that his authority at Christ's direction was as valid as and on a par with that of the apostles. There is no doubt however that all the individual apostles, including Paul, were quite happy to subject themselves as individuals to the decisions (decrees) and directions agreed by that body of older men in Jerusalem as a whole. 

9 hours ago, Anna said:

even those who are "highly regarded"

The "highly regarded" bit is the "double honor" bit of 1Tim.5:7, and with that goes the "heavier judgement" bit of James 3:1. Unfortunately, despite Jehovah and Jesus being the ones with whom those with responsibilty have an accounting, humans with their fleshly tendencies also tend to hold ones they view as prominent to account. From selfies to scandal to assassination (both literal and figurative), humans bathe in the imagined reflected glory of others.Today's obsession with "celebrity" is nothing new.

Paul's self-imposed absence from prominence for 14 years is just a reflection of his modesty. His unique experience in his encounter with Jesus, almost on a par with the Transfiguration witnessed by  Peter, James, and John, was no basis for him seeking prominence in the eyes of others. His seeming disdain for those taking the lead is only spun that way by fleshly minds.  Paul's recounting of his early years experiences is his way of dealing with the unwarranted attention so typical of humans. He is always at pains to explain the undeserved nature of his privilege of service. (Eph.3:8). I cannot imagine he would ever engender a shred of disrespect for Christ's arrangement of matters in the congregation. Any extrapolation on the Ist Century account of Paul's dealings with the GB of the time must fall within that parameter.

Could be clearing out the trash? Comp. Matt.13:41

1 hour ago, Anna said:

Paul had to chastise one of the highly regarded men/pillars - Peter (who had obviously not remained in an unfavorable position as he was given the keys to the Kingdom later).

Just for clarity. This parenthesised description of Peter's restoration to favour is referring to his denial of Christ and events of 33-36CE several years PRIOR to his reproof by Paul isn't it? 

53 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Why JW's mostly, generally think that "inspiration" is action reserved only to JHVH and Jesus or devil and demons?

Actually they don't. They are quite happy with the secular definition of the English word Inspiration  (Click to view)

However they do believe that the Greek word θεόπνευστος (theopneustos), translated as "inspired of God" is a word used uniquely of the Holy Scriptures. The English rendering used in the NWT2013 is quite  acceptable. It is self explanatory really, as the word literally translates as god-breathed, being a compound of the word Theos, God and pneo, to breathe. 

The word used to describe demonic teachings or utterances is a little different, but the concept of wicked spirits using complicit humans for the transmission of lies and propoganda is an acceptable Biblical teaching.

The use of the English word "inspired" with appropriate qualifiers is quite clear in it's specific application to Biblical concepts as it is also in a variety of secular contexts. The dictionary definition makes these clear.

All such definitions are acceptable and in regular use by Jehovah's Witnesses.  

5 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Did i lost you?

Long ago...

6 hours ago, Anna said:

Not me 😞

??

12 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

you started talking about God's Nature (Happiness)

Nature = the basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something. Yep. That was me.

12 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Somehow You start to involve wording, Nature of JHVH happiness, in question i put. I don't now why. Because you started talking about God's Nature (Happiness).

Don't understand this. I think @Anna raised the topic?

12 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Perhaps His happiness about this two things is VISIBLE only TO You.

God's happiness is visible to me. Yes, and anyone else who wants to see it. 1Tim.1:11.

12 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

God is Happy with current progress ( here you talking  about progress inside WTJWORG).

God is happy with the overall progress of His purpose (here you talking, i guess, from Adam and Eve to nowadays)   

You quote my statements in bold which is very useful. Thanks for that.

Just to emphasize, the happy God Jehovah is always happy with the the current and overall progress of his purpose. His name implies that he cannot fail in anything that he intends to accomplish, in fact that is why he is stated as being a god of "eternal purpose" in connection specifically with Christ. Your bracketed comments miss the mark rather, but Eph.3:11 should clarify.

The other comments you make seem to be using my comments as some sort of springboard for your views? as below:

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

i would like to say my opinion and some short thoughts about this interesting and perhaps important issue, if not for all people but maybe for some. 

I have to say that sadly, I just do not follow your reasoning at all. You seem to have what appears to be something driving a rant against what you term as "WTJWORG", and then a mini dissertation on what you understand regarding the words expressed in the books of Deuteronomy and Matthew regarding the definition of the "nature" (sorry if that is a negative buzzword for you) of the human expression of love for God. You have lost me Srecko.

Anyway. As you say, surely some here will get your drift. 

PS. There. Someone has already posted. So. You are not alone.........

5 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Nooooo, that is implication resulted, arise from your sentence

The implication that God's happiness depends on men? No, sorry, not my view anywhere as far as I can see. Not intentionally anyway.  

Shame. It seems I don't understand you....and..... you don't understand me.

I will state my view on this matter clearly so there is no mistaken implication.  Jehovah's happiness DOES NOT depend upon men. There. Is that clear enough? So what was the point you were making on this?

28 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

In regard to JW religion, and with your opinion, this would mean how JHVH is happy when JW members feeling, thinking, speaking and doing things that are factually wrong. Strange god you have :)) 

The strangeness for me seems to be in your implication that God's happiness depends on what humans are "feeling, thinking, speaking and doing", whether right or wrong.

"Strange god you have" Yes, I can accept that you find my God strange.

38 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

What i think i know maybe is wrong or insufficient.

7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Ahh, i see clearly now, i figured out .... difference between "be inspired" and "spirit guided"

Now you seem to be talking more sensibly.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

On 2/1/2017 at 8:30 PM, Outta Here said:

He is always happy with what He allows.

I think this is strange feeling.

........In your heart....or in god's.

Keep working at it. Meditation always takes a bit of time and effort, but it is worth it long term. It will become less "strange" as your understanding grows.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

In my amateur opinion: two expressions with the same meaning :))))

Well it's about time you started reaching out to become a professional. It might refine your opinion.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Are you serious?

I have a sense of humour, but yes, I am pretty serious.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Do you want to apply this idea about JHVH only on JW religion in some special situations and periods of religious progress/changes aka new light dogma?

You are referring to the nature of Jehovah's happines here I think? If that is the case then I don't apply it in such a narrrow context.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Or do you offer this Idea as General View (Happiness) that JHVH have on Humankind and World Condition (in specific religious issue: old Jew, 1 Church, 2 Church, Reformed Churches, etc.) in past thousand years? By reading of Bible report we see that god was Unhappy only ones, when released Flood on Earth. In all other stages, periods by not intervened He showed Happiness? :))

This is another one of those question/statements you make that I find almost impenetrable. I see how your self-assessment as    "amateur "applies here. But I will have a go. 

• Do I think Jehovah is generally happy? ..............Yes.
• Do I think that Jehovah is disturbed on occasion by various incidents of unacceptable behaviour on the part of intelligent creatures? ...............Yes.
• Do I think this in any way disturbs his state of happiness? ..............No

On 1/16/2017 at 12:19 AM, Anna said:

It seems that the key to making sense of these 2 seemingly opposing quotes is in the above paragraph if we continue reading: " Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food".

Really, looking at all these comments, I am surprised that there could be a problem with understanding how Jehovah might use a particular channel to communicate with his people on earth. Surely you don't think that he is on the case all the time do you? Whatever for? It is clear that there is an organised way of keeping everyone on the same page.Most of the direction is left for the brothers to figure out what is best in accord with Bible principles. And to learn from their mistakes, which is something we all do. Jehovah through Jesus will keep things on track where necessary, and this the way they do it. The scripture says food is provided at the proper time, not ALL the time. Our respect is demonstrated in sticking with the arrangement. Where is  the big deal??

On 6/5/2019 at 2:00 PM, Matthew9969 said:

why are there not 144k governing body members

???????????????????? Not that many around???????????????

On 6/5/2019 at 2:00 PM, Matthew9969 said:

why aren't any women on this governing body?

Man's job???????????????

GDPR  has put a stop to this in Europe unless acquainted

8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Many people would agree how those things Jesus was told to his disciples and described in chapter 24 was happened in 1 century.

So?

8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Problem arise if we want to see another fulfillment, again, ..... second .... or third or fourth? I haven't "light" that would be able to explain yours or other people expectations about some second fulfillment. I am not inspired, guided or motivated. I can err in explanations :))  

So you don't understand something you think I believe and you are not inspired? OK. Not sure what you are saying but it sounds sincere OK.

8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Thing that i can do is to ask questions, to examine ideas and doctrines about issue, and to reevaluate results

More sense here although nothing special really. Everyone does this surely?

8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

The changes that are about this topic arose and disappeared in WTJWORG indicates that JW scholars wander in the fog. In fact, they adapt the interpretations of the "generation" to other insecure, questionable theses.

Now we are getting into gobbledegook land. I basically do not understand what you are driving at. Are you using google translate or something because sense is not apparent,

Is this what you mean? 

"Promjene koje se tiču ove teme pojavile su se i nestale u WTJWORG-u i ukazuju da JW-ovi znanstvenici lutaju u magli. Zapravo, interpretacije "generacije" prilagođavaju drugim nesigurnim, upitnim tezama."

On 5/29/2019 at 3:35 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

  On 5/28/2019 at 4:20 PM, JOHN BUTLER said:

But be serious on this one. Surely the Stock Exchange is still gambling ?

Some may feel this to be the case. Of course there is no mandate to invest in Stocks as there is also no prohibition. It is just one of those matters for a personal decision, such a problem for those who prefer rules. Investopedia has a summary on this "myth".

Investing in Stocks Equates to Gambling

This reasoning causes many people to shy away from the stock market. To understand why investing in stocks is inherently different from gambling, we need to review what it means to buy stocks. A share of common stock represents ownership in a company. It entitles the holder to a claim on assets as well as a fraction of the profits that the company generates. Too often, investors think of shares as simply a trading vehicle, and they forget that stock represents ownership.

In the stock market, investors are constantly trying to assess the profit that will be left over for shareholders. This is why stock prices fluctuate. The outlook for business conditions is always changing, and so are the future earnings of a company.

Assessing the value of a company is complex. There are so many variables involved that short-term price movements appear to be random (academics call this the random walk theory); however, over the long term, a company is supposed to be worth the present value of the profits it will make. In the short term, a company can survive without profits because of the expectations of future earnings, but no company can fool investors forever—eventually, a company's stock price will show the true value of the firm.

Gambling, in contrast, is a zero-sum game. Gambling merely takes money from a loser and gives it to a winner. No value is ever created whereas the overall wealth of an economy increases through investing. As companies compete, they increase productivity and often develop products that improve lives. Investing and creating wealth should not be confused with gambling's zero-sum game.

Of course, some approach investment with a gambler's mentality and often end up with a gambler's reward.....nothing.

As far as gambling is concerned, elders have better things to do than be concerned about those who wish to throw their money into the air. However, there are other connected issues that have more serious repercussions, These may invite attention.

I couldn't resist exploding the Stock Exchange myth as it has surfaced here and may mislead others, but I'm bowing out of this thread now as it is off topic and discused thoroughly elsewhere 

54 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

we continue with our safe interpretation of meaning :)))

Your interpretations seem to mainly centre on the use of unscriptural acronyms and second guesses about what others believe or used to believe. Why not shed some light on the subject under discussion?

7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

words said by Jesus

We can safely say what Jesus said

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

we can safely say that this generation will finally pass away just over 100 years from now, if not before. Right?

The only two things we can safely say about  "this generation" (the contentious one) is that:

1.  It will pass.

2.  At a day and hour which no man knows.

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I suppose that you agree with posibility..........people are without excuse etc....

Not a possibility, a fact.  All who ignore "God's invisible qualities"... "are  inexcusable". Or so the Scripture says? I don't know what your "Mandatory" gobbledegook is about.

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

IF Bible or Part of Bible is addressed Only to Specific Class of People, than we can conclude how Only Such Class have Special Obligation to Text and Message in Text. 

This is your conclusion. It, and it's complicated sub-clauses (unquoted), bear little resemblance to your original assertion that declaring the Bible as a message for all is (almost) contradicted by recognising that parts of it have specific application. This assertion is wrong despite it's ambiguity, so any further application of these ideas to specifics is irrelevant. 

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If it is Prime than it is Not Only Method

Of course not. The condemnation of those referred to at Romans 1:20 is not because of their ignorance or rejection of the Bible.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

in WTJWORG exists explanation that Bible (or some parts as you explained) is written for, primarily for, or only for special Class

This is just a non-argument. Lots of the Bible was written specifically for groups, even individuals. That is not a basis for concluding that no one else is allowed to read from or will not benefit from it. This is ABC stuff. 2Tim.3:16.

The lines would get jammed by GiBbering idiots!