Evacuated

Some of the posts here are thoroughly offensive and bigoted and seem to be bringing the forum down to the level of a mere exchange of personal "flaming" messages.
Moderator, @The Librarian , someone ! The forum has a minimum level of standards to prevent a complete loss of credibility. Please moderate!

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
 

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.  

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
 

Quoted in my post?
 
The incontinence is more about uncontrolled immoral behaviour than an actual bodily function, hence the translation earlier as "loose conduct". There is enough information on the use of the word in ancient times to arrive at a pretty good understanding of what it means.
Incidentally, the literal act of urinating in public could well be accompanied by the attitude the word describes, and would then be construed as "aselgeia".

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?

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.
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. 

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.
 

Africa Inland Mission tie, eh?
Perhaps that is what the scripture meant when the Greek word for "brazen" which literally means "in-continent" (per Outta Here) was used.
Either peeing without self control, or being inside a continent, such as Inland Africa.
.... Depends!

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
 

Along with vast quantities of jw.org merchandise. This just a cheap attempt to cash in on the human fascination with labels and logos. To compare a website logo with a cross or crucifix is apples and pears logic. A more appropriate comparison would be: 

 

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.
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. 

Along with vast quantities of jw.org merchandise. This just a cheap attempt to cash in on the human fascination with labels and logos. To compare a website logo with a cross or crucifix is apples and pears logic. A more appropriate comparison would be: 

 

Along with vast quantities of jw.org merchandise. This just a cheap attempt to cash in on the human fascination with labels and logos. To compare a website logo with a cross or crucifix is apples and pears logic. A more appropriate comparison would be: 

 

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?

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
 

I agree 100 percent with everything you said up to this point, and then, of course, I paused a bit at this statement. I expect that it should apply to me as well as others. This was a powerful bit of counsel, and I'm re-evaluating my own position on what Paul is saying in Galatians and the letters to the Corinthians. The details of that re-evaluation will be based on the specifics in Anna's posts, which I'll get to as time permits.
I'd like to respond to this, but it's probably too soon, as I might end up taking back my current understanding. In that event, I apologize in advance, to any who were (or would be) unduly influenced by my own opinions and understandings. 
Of course, I would still like to say a little about what I think you are saying here. 
I don't think Paul had disdain for those taking the lead. He had a disdain, or worse (condemnation and "curses") for anyone who interfered with persons who had accepted the "good news." (Matthew 18:5-6, Jesus expressed a "millstone curse" for the same reason.) But this was not a general or continued "disdain" that held a grudge or couldn't forgive when he looked at the overall picture. I assume that Paul did not continue to consider Peter or James as stumbling blocks to the ministry after things began cleared up during the transitional time between Acts 15 and Acts 21. (Jesus didn't permanently call Peter, Satan, when he was a stumbling block.)
I assume Paul is speaking to the Galatians this way, because the Acts 15 meeting had already happened and yet the Galatians evidently still BELIEVE (for some reason) that there was authority (from somewhere) for demanding adherence to Jewish law that somehow overrode the message that Paul had already taught them.
Paul gives the Galatians an earlier example of this same problem on the same issue (where circumcision was the central issue, but by extension it must have also meant adherence to Jewish law and practice. See Galatians 5:2,3). In this earlier example the problem was focused, he says, on certain men from James, who caused Peter be afraid of the circumcised class, and who influenced Peter and Barnabas, so that Paul called them out on their hypocrisy. Paul told Peter face to face that he "stood condemned." (see NWT footnote or Greek Interlinear.) This appears to follow up on Paul's earlier words that anyone who declares as good news something beyond which they had accepted should stand "accursed."
(Galatians 2:11, 12) 11 However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class. (NWT, with footnotes inserted in red.) (1 Corinthians 16:22) 22 If anyone has no affection for the Lord, let him be accursed.. . .
(Galatians 1:8, 9) . . .However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, I now say again, Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed.
But this, as I said, was not a general disdain for those taking the lead. 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. Still, it was not a simple matter that Peter was  just more comfortable around his own people, and his old habits. Paul says Peter was afraid of these men from James (who were of the circumcised class).
Even of those whom Paul considered to have been made into stumbling blocks to his ministry, he did not blame the persons themselves for that. He counseled the persons who gave too much attention to personalities, personalities such as himself, Apollos or Peter. But he still accepted these "leading men" were ministers through whom the Corinthians had become believers.
(1 Corinthians 1:11, 12) 11 For some from the house of Chloʹe have informed me regarding you, my brothers, that there are dissensions among you. 12 What I mean is this, that each one of you says: “I belong to Paul,” “But I to A·polʹlos,” “But I to Ceʹphas,” “But I to Christ.”
(1 Corinthians 3:3-6) 3 for you are still fleshly. Since there are jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly and are you not walking as men do? 4 For when one says, “I belong to Paul,” but another says, “I to A·polʹlos,” are you not acting like mere men? 5 What, then, is A·polʹlos? Yes, what is Paul? Ministers through whom you became believers, just as the Lord granted each one. 6 I planted, A·polʹlos watered, but God kept making it grow,
(1 Corinthians 3:20-4:3) 20 And again: “Jehovah knows that the reasonings of the wise men are futile.” 21 So let no one boast in men; for all things belong to you, 22 whether Paul or A·polʹlos or Ceʹphas or the world or life or death or things now here or things to come, all things belong to you; 23 in turn you belong to Christ; Christ, in turn, belongs to God. 4 A man should regard us as attendants of Christ and stewards of God’s sacred secrets. 2 In this regard, what is expected of stewards is that they be found faithful. 3 Now to me it is of very little importance to be examined by you or by a human tribunal. . . .
I included all three passages for another reason. It could very well be that it's a product of a "fleshly" mind that might tend to undervalue or even disdain the leadership of those in responsible positions. Some disdain authority for their own iconoclastic reasons or for unknown or illogical reasons. But Paul showed above that it was the "fleshly" mind that gave too much regard to leadership positions. In fact, Paul shows that these leadership positions are unimportant. Those who think that such men are capable of making a human tribunal of some kind of important authority are mistaken. After all, all things already belong to the members of the Christian congregation. It's not a matter of these members reporting to Apollos or Peter or Paul. It's just as appropriate to say that Peter should report to the members of the congregation. Paul is surely saying that there should be no central authority other than Christ who belongs to God.
It seems that Paul's point here is that it is the danger of the fleshly mind to look to specific people in the congregations as some kind of authority. But all of us should be servants to one another instead, he says.

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? 

Ok. My understanding from reading this portion of Galatians ( 2:6-9) is that it is not referring to the same people as the portion in Galatians 2:1-5:
"Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me. I went up as a result of a revelation, and I presented to them the good news that I am preaching among the nations. This was done privately, however, before the men who were highly regarded, to make sure that I was not running or had not run in vain.  Nevertheless, not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek. But that matter came up because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we enjoy in union with Christ Jesus, so that they might completely enslave us;we did not yield in submission to them, no, not for a moment, so that the truth of the good news might continue with you".
What I am understanding here is that Paul went up to Jerusalem to speak with the "the highly regarded men/pillars" to talk to them about a matter involving false brothers (Superfine apostles/Judaizers).
Then the following verses (6-9) I understand Paul to be talking about the  important/highly regarded men/pillars saying that it does not matter that they were circumcised because: "God does not go by outward appearance"  and so they did not impart anything new to him in that regard, on the contrary they saw Paul had been entrusted with seeing to the uncircumcised in the same way Peter had been entrusted with the circumcised. And when they (those who seemed to be pillars) recognized that, they gave him (Paul) and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. I don't see any animosity between them and Paul, even though 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).
However, those who Paul called false brothers seem to be the same ones he is talking about in Acts 15: 1-2 and the same ones he goes to Jerusalem to talk to the "highly regarded men/pillars" about. "Now some men came down from Ju·deʹa and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”  But after quite a bit of dissension and disputing by Paul and Barʹna·bas with them, it was arranged for Paul, Barʹna·bas, and some of the others to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem regarding this issue".
So it seems that these men from Judea were the Judaizers who insisted that without circumcision there is no salvation, not those who were in Jerusalem (the highly regarded men/pillars) even though some, like Peter had succumbed to a pretense for a short time because of fear of man (and even Barnabas succumbed) but then must have responded to Paul's correction (Galatians 2:11) However,  aren't the "false brothers/Judaizers" (those of whom the apostles in Jerusalem , he highly regarded men/ pillars wrote in Acts 15:23-14) the ones who caused trouble?: “The apostles and the elders, your brothers, to those brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Ci·liʹcia who are from the nations: Greetings! Since we have heard that some went out from among us and caused you trouble with what they have said,  trying to subvert you, although we did not give them any instructions "........

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.  

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.  

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?

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?

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.
Now you seem to be talking more sensibly.

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.