Micah Ong

I'm not ignoring you at all, nor am I ignoring the childish wordplay. It's just that you claimed Banda initially was praised as a kind and compassionate man, and you say "That's the position Ray took." You gave a source that might have explained why someone else might have said this during his first few years, but why would you say that this is the position that Ray Franz took?
If you are right, then that might be something interesting. But, it would depend on which years you are referring to. Since all your subsequent posts merely describe the history and  government from the perspective of other people, it appears that you have nothing to back up what you said. So I think we can now safely assume that you just made this up about Ray Franz, too.
The way that Brother Johansson told it was that the only really peaceful time under Banda was when he was the installed Prime Minister, before there ever was an election. And it was even before Banda was elected, that the problems started for the Witnesses. In fact it was during the preparation for the long-awaited, upcoming election and Banda was behind this idea that he personally was to be the face of complete independence from Britain. So a three-week election registration period started with the 1964 New Year. It became a time of nationalistic excitement about the "new era." It was during those first three weeks that Witnesses first saw great trouble for not registering to vote. That's when Kingdom Halls and homes were burned and the threats became constant. Brother Johansson himself met with Banda just a couple weeks after the trouble started during that three-week registration and Banda seemed nice about it to Johansson. But it was just a few days later, February 3, 1964, still months before he was elected, that Witnesses saw the first death and major injuries. Brother Johansson went back to Banda a few days later and this time Banda acted very angry with the Witnesses. They never trusted him again, and Brooklyn was made aware immediately, even though Banda acted magnanimous around the time of his own election in July. There were additional deaths and injuries up until the election.
Then not much happened until April 1967, and the work progressed nicely, but this did not mean anyone in Brooklyn really trusted Banda. It was peaceful for the brothers, but it was still a time of uneasiness at the Branch. Brother Johansson knew that Banda did not like the fact that the Witnesses were successful and growing, and rebuilding. There was still a lot of misinformation about the Watchtower from several Watchtower groups and "Watchtower prophets" that had grown as sects all over Central Africa from the time of Russell and Rutherford. It was still being spread that the Witnesses were just another one of these "Watchtower" groups, some of which were very political. And Banda still saw the JWs as political, and at the very least, their growth meant more people who did not support him directlly -- more people who would refuse to carry a membership card. And it was Banda himself who pushed the persecution that worsened again in 1967, resulting in a ban and further persecution and loss of life into the 1970's. Waves of further persecution lasted off and on from the mid-70's until 1992. The ban was officially lifted in 1993.
Yes. I did not show that the Watchtower endorsed or orchestrated the Mexican issues nor the Malawi issues. That's because I have never believed they did anything like that. And, as you have no doubt already seen yourself, this was never a part of the basis for the apostate Ray to suggest a "double standard."  I can only guess why you have chosen to make this up. I think you believe it helps the Watchtower when you demonize an apostate and claim he said and did things he didn't believe or do. But in the long run, what are you going to do when people find out you made it up, or perhaps "fell for it" when someone else made it up?
Real research is not about just making stuff up because it makes you feel good, or sounds good. It should require a measure of honesty.
 

To show Christlike love and rather loved the Pharisaic pride of Jesus day.  i.e name calling and brashly looking down upon others.

To show Christlike love and rather loved the Pharisaic pride of Jesus day.  i.e name calling and brashly looking down upon others.

@Allen Smith I implore you (again) to please try and make your claim / counterarguments WITHOUT name calling or attacking other posters.
Simply state your possibility or claim and call it good. 
 
 

Even worse! I wasted two pages of R.Franz' opinion on this matter. When I said that PART 2 was mostly commentary on the PART 1 photocopies, I was referring to the commentary R.Franz had included in his book. Only about one sentence [that I bracketed] was my own worthless opinion. The reason I was summarizing the words of R.Franz was to avoid too much direct quotation of R.Franz, lest someone would take offense at the idea of quoting an apostate. Then you subsequently quoted him at length, so I have decided that it's probably for the best that I quote him, too.
Besides, your only good points included the idea that Ray Franz had equated the two situations in the two different countries (which he hadn't according to the very words you quoted from him).
The only other good point you made was that R.Franz had called it a "political" card and that this was proof that he didn't realize that it was a "loyalty" card. But your point was pretty thoroughly discredited when it was pointed out that R.Franz himself had said that the card was really about "loyalty" to the corrupt President Banda.
Why would you wait for that? The point is only that the Watchtower left it up to individual consciences for persons in Mexico, and said that they didn't want' to dictate their conscience. Then for the situation of "alternative service" in other places, and the buying of a 25 cent political/loyalty card in Malawi they made it clear that things like this should never be left up an individual's conscience. In the Dominican Republic and Latin American countries where the same type of situation occurred ---and where the Watch Tower Society has already admitted that similar bribes can be paid to avoid military service--- there were brothers who were serving multiple prison sentences. So, I don't think it was "racism," but something specific about the situation in Mexico. (Trying to figure out if there is any evidence that could lead us to the real reason why this occurred in Mexico, and yet the same principles were not applied in Malawi or other some other Latin American countries, well, that is the point of wasting all this space on worthless opinion, in my opinion.)
 

I personally wrote letters to Banda using that exact same official title. It was similar back when I wrote to him in 1967 and then again in 1976 just a few days before starting at Bethel, and then again, directly from Brooklyn.

AllenSmith:
I have noticed that hard facts are worthless to you, but approved agendas seem to be very important, even if they are irrational.
Thank you for calling to my mind many things I had completely forgotten ... I suppose the many years I associated  with people much smarter than me in the Engineering Profession has dulled my senses, to normal human thinking.
The paragraph you quoted CLEARLY states that POLITICIANS ... whose ALLEGIANCE was to Malawi, did all those mean and nasty, reprehensible things ... or did you miss that point?
NOWHERE in your reference is a Party Card addressed.

PART 3 of 4: [edited: PART 3 of 6]
[Note that the last segment of photocopies included a Mexican Branch letter from 1960, and a Society HQ response from 1960, then included 2 pages from another Mexican Branch letter from 1969 and a 1 page response from the Society's Brooklyn HQ in 1969. The last photocopy shown was an additional portion of the more current 1978 Mexican Branch letter that put all these materials together due to additional questions from brothers whose conscience was disturbed, and due to additional threats and promises from Mexican officials that the illegal bribery practice will be dealt with shortly.]
p.153: The June 2, 1960 letter from the Society in response to the February 1960 letter from the Branch to Knorr indicates that these bribes (called "money transactions") are OK because it's:
no worse than what's done in other Latin American countries paying the bribe allows for freedom for theocratic activities it's the responsibility of the bribe-taking officials representing the nation, not the bribe-giving JW the bribe is not going to the military establishment but is pocketed by the person taking the bribe the brothers offering the bribes are using their own conscience to obtain continued freedom it's OK to let this smaller thing pass, as they can prove faithful in the larger test, when and if they were called upon real military situation  [Added comment: Note that this is the opposite of: (Luke 16:10) "The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much."] But the same letter from the Society warns them:
they are on their own if they get caught or get into trouble there will be no help from the Society if that happens if any brothers were to follow through on the commitment and support of the military that the card implies, then these brothers will be dealt with for lack of Christian neutrality. p.155: For this portion, it is so central to the point R.Franz wishes to make, three or four full paragraphs will be quoted verbatim:
One reason why this information was so personally shocking to me was that, at the very time the letter stating that the Society had “no objection” if Witnesses in Mexico, faced with a call to military training, chose to “extricate themselves by a money payment,” there were scores of young men in the Dominican Republic spending precious years of their life in prison—because they refused the identical kind of training. Some, such as Leon Glass and his brother Enrique, were sentenced two or three times for their refusal, passing as much as a total of nine years of their young manhood in prison. The Society’s president and vice president had travelled to the Dominican Republic during those years and had even been made visits to the prison where many of these men were detained. How the situation of these Dominican prisoners could be known by them and yet such a double standard be applied is incomprehensible to me. Four years after that counsel was given to Mexico the first eruption of violent attacks against Jehovah’s Witnesses in Malawi took place (1964) and the issue of paying for a party card arose. The position taken by the Malawi Branch Office was that to do so would be a violation of Christian neutrality, a compromise unworthy of a genuine Christian. The world headquarters knew that this was the position taken. The violence subsided after a while and then broke out again in 1967, so fiercely that thousands of Witnesses were driven into flight from their homeland. The reports of horrible atrocities in increasing number came flooding in to the world headquarters. What effect did it have on the men leading the organization and their consciences as regards the position taken in Mexico? In Malawi Witnesses were being beaten and tortured, women were being raped, homes and fields were being destroyed, and entire families were fleeing to other countries—determined to hold to the organization’s stand that to pay for a party card would be a morally traitorous act. At the same time, in Mexico, Witness men were bribing military officials to complete a certificate falsely stating that they had fulfilled their military service obligations. And when they went to the Branch Office, the staff there followed the Society’s counsel and said nothing to indicate in any way that this practice was inconsistent with organizational standards or the principles of God’s Word.

This will probably take three or four postings so let's consider this PART 2 of 4 [edited: PART 2 of 6]. This part is mostly commentary on what was already presented in the photocopies in PART 1.
p.149-153: RF presented the photocopy evidence from the Branch Committee in Mexico who were still questioning the position that the Organization had taken, and asking for clarification. [Most of the photocopy evidence was already presented in PART 1.]
p.149 summary excerpts from Mexico Branch: "...although the law prohibits the military or members of the Draft Office to make out "Cartillas" by illegal means, such as payment, the great majority of the officials violate these laws. . . . Almost any person, under any pretext, can . . . pay an official . . . so that the document is given to them correctly legalized [completed/"liberated"]. In Mexico this is very common."
p.150-1  [It appears that the reason the Branch Committee wants a clarification in 1978 is because the illegal bribery situation now appears to be on more dangerous ground in the previous few months, and they have been following instructions from Brooklyn that have not been updated for nearly 20 years.] The Branch references an updated 1977 Mexican law, and quotes a new recent threat from the military on May 5, 1978 where this law is now going to be enforced, announcing to 100,000 draftees in front of the Mexican President, that "the army will not tolerate illegal operations to obtain Military Service 'Cartilla' . . . . so that in brief period of time the . . . unlawfulness will be eradicated . . . to obtain their 'Cartillas.' " The Branch admits that this is illegal, but easy to do, and that the card is useful and sometimes required for employment and travel.
p.151 The Branch also admits that most of the publishers who have it, many who are now elders and circuit overseers, illegally obtained the card that claims they supported the military. Note: "Publishers who wish to obtain a 'cartilla' go to one of the Draft Boards . . . then . . . they go to someone they know with influence or directly to an official. For this they have to pay a certain amount of money (according to what may be asked). In this way the publishers obtain their 'cartilla' or the majority of them have it."
p. 152 RF was assigned to visit Mexico and Latin American countries in November 1978 [he often got these assignments because he spoke Spanish after his years as a missionary under Trujillo in Dominican Republic] and the Mexican Branch assures him they are still following the counsel and direction from Brooklyn, but that it is specifically the situation in Malawi that has caused many brothers in Mexico to "feel disturbed in their conscience." They still follow the instruction from 1960 when they had questioned the action, where they also admitted that back in 1960 that it has been the custom for publishers to pay the "bribe" and many of them are congregation servants and circuit servants. [See PART 1 for this letter to N. H. Knorr dated February 4, 1960.]
p. 153-9 The Society's responses begin in a letter dated June 2 1960 included here, attached below, along with additional communications on the matter from the Branch and the Society Headquarters through 1969:
 
 

Tommy Tom Tom Tom Tom ...
If you don't get it ... it cannot be explained to you, even with puppets and crayons, and an infinite amount of time ......
I have the puppets and crayons, but I don't  have an infinite amount of time ...
The only thing I can suggest is that you don't forget your medications.
 
OH, and if I ever ... If I ever truncate your name, I will be sure to use "True".
 
.
 
 

Thomas:
The reason no one saves someone that has fallen overboard, in certain circumstances, is because to stop the ship for a rescue makes that ship EXTREMELY vulnerable to submarine torpedo attack, and EVERYBODY on board knows this.  
Many a merchant marine sailor has learned this the hard way, by falling overboard while transporting cargo across oceans, and having to watch the convoy DELIBERATELY leave him in the middle of the ocean to die.  
WHAT IS AN ACCEPTABLE CASUALTY RATE FOR BROTHERS AND SISTERS BEING CHASED AWAY?
.
 

Tom, Tom, Tommy Tom Tom ...
Being one of Jehovah's Witnesses was the greatest thing that could have happened to me .. and I marvel that it actually did happen.  No one has ruined my life, at all .... I live a GREAT life, and would not change a thing ... (don't mess with the time stream, if you could, you may end up as a butterfly or Schrodinger's cat ...).
I cry for the Brothers and Sisters who did NOT have the fortitude,  independence, or gumption to resist stupidity, and PubSpeak.
I carry my bags of rocks without complaint ... but there are ones who are loaded down with bad philosophy disguised as the truth from God, and, and have no natural defenses against it .. . and they are broken, crushed,  and chased away  ... THAT infuriates me.    THAT I complain about.
With millions of words, which always BECOME hypnosis ... JW.ORG has become JW.BORG, and I refuse to be assimilated.
besides, ... all those hoses in ones' cheeks have to be cumbersome ...
I am not of the opinion that it is all just a butterfly's bad dream.
.
.
 

Oh, and by the way ... when EVERYBODY in a country buys a political party card... and by law ... there is ONLY ONE political party in the entire nation ... what REALITY is, is that the card is a National Identification Card. 
THAT IS WHY ... in Malawi, those who were NOT indigenous to Africa, were exempted.
Before you scroll down ... what would you think of a Brother, or a collection of Brothers,  who in order to get official government documents,  ACTUALLY SWORE ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ?   Pretty despicable, huh?  Especially... ESPECIALLY  in light of the Malawi rulings that got PEOPLE KILLED AND TORTURED !
Would you even want to associate with such people, claiming allegiance exclusively to God's Kingdom by Christ Jesus ... while committing TREASON against God, by giving their allegiance to a political nation?   And for what?
Now ..... after you have considered these despicable actions by Brothers for selfish, worldly reasons ..... scroll down
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 

.
.
It is the old classic "You are damned if you do... and damned if you don't."
If I take personal responsibility according to the dictates of my conscience and am wrong, Wrong WRONG ... I naturally have to pay the price, whatever that is.
I PERSONALLY HAVE TO PAY THE PRICE FOR RUINING MY LIFE.
If I follow the advice of ANYONE , oh...say... a Governing Body of some religious organization, and they are wrong Wrong WRONG ...  AGAIN, I naturally have to pay the price, whatever that is.
THEY PAY NO PRICE WHATSOEVER FOR RUINING MY LIFE !
.... and they NEVER, EVER .... even apologize.
 
.
 
 

I don't see where he says it was ONLY a political card. Also, I can't see why you are speaking as if it were not a political card. Isn't that the way all of us described it? We never called it a loyalty card, and if we had it surely would have still brought up the same question about "to him who calls for the honor, such honor."
*** w76 8/15 p. 491 Insight on the News ***
Jehovah’s Witnesses in Malawi have experienced brutal persecution because they maintain Christian neutrality and therefore refuse to buy a political card that indicates membership in the Malawi Congress Party. (John 17:16; 18:36; Jas. 1:27) Yet, they show proper respect for governmental “superior authorities.”—Rom. 13:1-7.
*** w70 4/1 pp. 218-219 pars. 15-16 When Building Disciples, Motivate the Heart ***
Because they refused to buy a political card, they were beaten severely, sexually assaulted and their property was destroyed. Yet President Banda of Malawi could not get them to break integrity and renounce their God Jehovah. These Witnesses were motivated from the heart. They had true Christian qualities built in them.
16 When a Christian witness of Jehovah of Ntifinyire Village was beaten for refusing to purchase a political card, Banda’s youths took a knife and made cuts encircling his arms and then his legs and inflicted many cuts on his head.
And of course, the real important question was whether an individual conscience might see it as a tribute, or honor, even if out of fear: [After all, yes, everyone knew he was a brutal, fearsome dictator who had killed many.]
(Romans 13:5-7) 5 There is therefore compelling reason for you to be in subjection, not only on account of that wrath but also on account of your conscience. 6 That is why you are also paying taxes; for they are God’s public servants constantly serving this very purpose. 7 Render to all their dues: to the one who calls for the tax, the tax; to the one who calls for the tribute, the tribute; to the one who calls for fear, such fear; to the one who calls for honor, such honor.
No one ever called it a loyalty card, in the Watch Tower publications, but I did see that Raymond Franz was one person who implied that it included this idea on page 145:
The brutality that was practiced upon defenseless people in Malawi can never be justified. There is no question in my mind about that. The government and party officials were determined to attain a state of total conformity to their policy that all persons should possess a party card; it was viewed as tangible evidence of loyalty to the governmental structure. The methods used to attain that goal were depraved, criminal.    

So here's what Raymond Franz said [summarized with excerpts]:
This will probably take three or four postings [edited: it took six] so let's consider this PART 1 of 4 [edited: PART 1 of 6].
p. 144-5: RF says the info from Mexico was startling, disquieting and in stark contrast to the organizational position adopted toward Malawi. RF then describes Malawi persecution related to the purchase of a "party card" and says the vast majority of JWs in Malawi held firm to the position that buying the "party card" was a violation of Christian neutrality, even at great personal cost, and in a few cases, even the loss of their life.
[edited to add p.146 does not appear in any way to imply that R.Franz equated the situation in Malawi with that of Mexico. This page sets up the idea that politics often becomes corrupt, but not everything related to politics is always bad. RF appears to be setting up the possibility that, to some individual consciences, for certain aspects of politics, Romans 13 can apply, speaking of the political state as "God's servant" or "minister." {Paul found value in his "citizenship" of the corrupt Roman state.} This sets up the idea that there may have been more room for individual conscience with respect to purchasing the one-state party card, and less room for individual conscience with respect to the idea of giving bribes to lie about having met the requirements of military service.]
p.145-9: RF says that, while his own thinking is still not dogmatic on this point, individual JWs might find reason to question their conscience about whether the purchase of the party card for a one-party state was not the same as accepting that they were obedient citizens of the state, rather than it being considered "an act of worship" comparable to early Christians offering a pinch of incense to the Emperor, for example. If that were the case they may have considered Scriptures including Romans 13:7, Matthew 17:24-27, Matthew 5:41, and Romans 14:1-3,23. RF mentions that the subject of "alternative service" came up regularly to the GB, and at this time in the light of the Malawi persecution, statements were mostly on the side of absolutely no hint of compromise. Quoting mostly memos submitted by GB members, RF included the following on p.148-9:
We want no grey areas, we want to know exactly where we stand as non-compromising Christians.8 [Lloyd Barry] . . . doing civilian work in lieu of military duty is . . . a tacit or implied acknowledgement of one’s obligation to Caesar’s war machine. . . . A Christian therefore cannot be required to support the military establishment either directly or indirectly.9 [Karl Klein]  For one of Jehovah’s Witnesses to tell a judge that he is willing to accept work in a hospital or similar work would be making a “deal” with the judge, and he would be breaking his integrity with God.10 [Fred Franz / William Jackson] . . .  We should have a united stand all over the world. We should be decisive in this matter. . . . If we were to allow the brothers this latitude we would have problems. . . . the brothers need to have their consciences educated.”12 [Ted Jaracz] . . .  Those who accept this substitute service are taking the easy way out.14 [Fred Franz]
RF says these strong positions were all taken by persons very aware of the situation in Mexico, especially because RF presented the documents himself as part of the discussion on military "alternative service." The following was included from material that had been sent by the Mexican Branch Committee [posted without comment which will be added in next post]:
 
 
 

Quote @AllenSmith  Now that people see your post for what they really, and how you are being “PRAISED” by Queen Esther by “calling” you “brother” ...
the “librarian” has seen fit to “PROTECT” these types of lies, and “DELETE” anyone that criticize such lies.
I think the Librarian is showing sensible and reasonable discretion in allowing people to be able to honestly question things and share things.  In a communist or dictatorial state no such freedom is allowed for the purpose of control and usually manipulation.  I praise the Librarian and @Queen Esther for not being overly sentimental to doctrine.
It's quite simple although not always easy - Jesus said to love your God with your whole heart, mind and soul and to love your neighbour as yourself.  If we focus on that we'll make our most high loving heavenly Father very happy.
Peace brother.
P.S the point that was trying to be made was the disparity over the brothers in Malawi vs. Mexico, the GB handled the matter in a manner such as where the Malawian brothers were discouraged from obtaining a Political card to stay loyal to Jehovah but the Mexican brothers were given discretion to pay officials according to how it was done in that country.
The question is then: Why the disparity?

Obviously missing the point of the scripture.  It's the person/identity of the aforementioned Jesus Son of God.

Don't forget they were all copies.  There is absolutely NO PROOF that the Tetragrammaton was ever in the text of Scriptures prior to the Babylonian captivity and up to the time of Malachi.
 
 

@JW Insider If you take a look at the four letters YHWH in the Dead Sea Scrolls , they are FOREIGN to the rest of the script both as to STYLE and also the SLANT of the letters. These are in PALEO Hebrew an ancient alphabet prior to the Babylonian captivity. They are not in conformity with the previous written script. They are not even inserted in the manuscript level with the surrounding text. This shows that this is a FORGERY and an INTERPOLATION. Thus, the four letters YHWH are a careful FRAUD. The scripting is Aramaic Babylonian rabbinical writing and did not come into practice until after the Babylonian captivity.
“YHWH”, can NEVER mean “I AM” or “I EXIST” or “I BE”.
“hayah or hayaw” meaning “to be or exist”, AH in Hebrew means a first or singular person, hence AH-Hayah means that I EXIST, or I BE, or I AM, so this is how you know the true name of the Most High, I AM = AHAYAH.
So in Exodus 3:13-15. I AM THAT I AM = AHAYAH ASHER AHAYAH in Hebrew. Ahayah is the God of the Israelites. He told Moses to let the children of Israelites know that, I AM = AHAYAH hath sent me. His name shall remain FOREVER.

Despite commenting on this thread, I only skimmed it. If heat built up, I don't know about it. It is hard for heat not to build up when discussing the Trinity too for long. I wasn't being critical of you for engaging in the discussion for as long as your like. I have done it myself. I just don't do it anymore. It wears me out. So that means the following excerpt is tongue-in-cheek:
"All computers enjoy getting Tom Pearlsnswine going. I understand the appeal. I do it myself. If I am returning to the car after a long and productive return visit, I will nonetheless say to Tom Pearlsnswine upon entering: “I can’t believe that person won’t admit that Jesus and Jehovah are different!” I pretend not to notice as he reddens – you should see him! You can almost see the steam coming from his ears: “You kept me waiting an hour to argue the Trinity?!”
I didn't really agree to disagree with O'Maly. Instead, I went after her (and her chums) with such ferocity that the same admin who assigned me to that thread pulled me off it, hurled me into the abyss, and the entire thread with it.
I have a Scarlet A (abuse) to show for it, and I wear it as did Hester Prynne (hers was for adultery) from The Scarlet Letter. Like Hester Prynne, it fades in its initial shamefulness, and eventually is taken by some as 'angel.'

Not many people do this. I like it. Micah goes up a few notches in my book. [No, not THAT book, you old hag of a Librarian...sheesh! And why don't you mind your own business about how long a thread is? Those trashy romance novels you read all day aren't exactly short, are they?]
It's how I try to operate, as well. Make the best case you can. But there comes a point where you throw it all in God's lap; he knows if he is a trinity or not.
Sometimes people disagree. I can live with that. 

With respect and hoping the best for you I likewise will post no counter argument. At this point it is clear we can respectfully agree to disagree. We also both recognize that having the last word doesn't make someone right anyway, so I won't include any parting disagreements (even though we both know I have them  Just hope the best for both of us and that we will see a bright and happy future for each other as Gods promises are realized. 

You can always start another thread if one gets enormous.
I doubt you caused any real angst for anyone. Anyone who shares an internet forum or even responds to a youtube video will be well prepared for just about anything. I had hoped you would share what caused you to make such a big decision about religion recently.
I've seen several who decide to leave the Witnesses and not to come back. They take various paths, often immersing themselves in a lot of study and research to be sure they made the right decision. Sometimes, depending on their motives, they are able to offer something valuable in a kind of "exit interview." I think people would be surprised at all the things that were changed for the better, specifically because an "infamous GB apostate" once decided to write a book about his experiences.
So if you have any constructive criticism, I think it would be welcomed. From what I could gather from these last several posts, it was a lot of different things that piled up at once and crowded out the ability to see light at the end of the tunnel, as it were.
The reason I put it this way to you is not because I think my way of looking at doctrines is so much better, but because I think you showed exactly the right motive when your frustration with doctrinal discussion led you to see Christianity more in terms of 'what sort of persons we ought to be.'
As you might have gathered from other posts, I believe we have the Trinity right, hell/soul/torment right, new heavens and new paradise earth right, neutrality/war right, preaching activity, etc., etc., etc. And I've seen many dozens of positive adjustments in my lifetime. But I also think we have several things wrong, and probably need more adjustments even on the things we have right.
I could list all the things I think we might have wrong in one single place, and this might seem overwhelming, but I prefer to deal with the evidence for one thing at a time. And this is easier on others, too.
I hope you feel welcome if you continue to contribute here, or wherever else you decide.

Yes thank you, I sincerely agree with you now.  Jesus is a separate being to to the Father.  That's how the scriptures read.  I'm enjoying the learning process though