HollyW
-
Posts
467 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Posts posted by HollyW
-
-
1 minute ago, bruceq said:
Obviously I do not dismiss the Bible and its teaching. You are by trying to say the Bible writer believes something that we all know they do not for Jews do not and have never believed that God is a Trinity yet you continue to use the Bible to try and find it. It is futile of you to do so, but please keep trying if you must as any operation has some pain with it. Don't shy away give us a Scripture that teaches a Trinity PLEASE.
"1 Cor 12:3" Dosen't matter which Translation you use. That Scripture was still written by Paul and Paul was a Jew and Jews do not believe in a Trinity.
Don't you see what you're doing? Jews do not believe Jesus is the Messiah either so you've built your argument on sand and can't seem to dig yourself out. If you ever find yourself able to reason on the scriptures, maybe then we can resume our discussion. In the meantime, I hope your day goes well for you.
-
7 minutes ago, bruceq said:
I quote the Bible as a WHOLE. Rather than pick it apart.
" 1 Corinthians 12:3 "Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit."
Sorry but that Scripture was written by Paul and he was a JEW. And Jews do not believe in a Trinity. Please try again with another Scripture.
Hopefully you will try to reason on the Scriptures for a change instead of putting up the ineffective block of dismissing the entire Bible just because it was written by Jews.
Let's look at the scripture I posted, 1 Cor. 12:3, in the Aramaic Bible in Plain English: Because I inform you of this: there is no man who speaks by The Spirit of God and says, “Yeshua is damned”, neither can a man say, “Yeshua is THE LORD JEHOVAH”, except by The Spirit of Holiness.
-
17 minutes ago, bruceq said:
I suppose you could believe the moon is made of cottage cheese. But that does not make it true. Please show me a Scripture that proves your belief in your God. Can you at least do that much. Prove that God is a Trinity using your Bible. That is the topic???
Bruceq, could you do me a great favor and quote who you're replying to? Thanks.
There are many scriptures that prove the Trinity teaching of three persons who are the one God, but the one that has had the most impact on me personally is 1 Corinthians 12:3 "Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit."
-
6 minutes ago, bruceq said:
I read the Bible and all publications. I have over 200 different Bible Translations not just he ones by the Witnesses,. And I sell on ebay over 800 other books on the Bible very few are Watchtower publications. If you want to read the Bible by itself then go for it. But you will not find the Trinity because the writers were not Trinitarian.
Well, as I posted, the WTS says reading the Bible by itself, without WT pubs, will lead you to believe in the Trinity, Hell, immortal soul, and celebrate Christmas to boot.
-
2 minutes ago, bruceq said:
I believe in all the Bible. I do not think anything is wrong with using the Bible.
Is there anything wrong with reading the Bible exclusively, without WTS publications?
-
9 minutes ago, bruceq said:
So Moses was not worshiping the right God. lol
Wrong. Jesus was a Jew as were all the Apostles, why Paul even said what tribe he was from. Try again.
Moses? Isn't this about the early Christians?
All the Apostles, even Paul, were Jews who became Christians. I don't know what you think is wrong about that.
-
8 minutes ago, bruceq said:
Sorry but all the Bible writers were JEWS and Jews do not believe in a Trinity so no one can find it taught in the Bible. If you believe otherwise then show us a Scripture that teaches it in any way.
But the writers were Jews who became Christians. The Jews you speak of who reject the Trinity also don't accept Christ as Messiah, so how wise would it be to allow them to form opinions for us.
-
3 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:
They said nothing of the sort. The 'Bible reading' they speak of is in quotes. It denotes a Bible reading in which a person goes orgasmic over a few formula texts and ignores the greater context.
Sure they did. The sort of Bible reading they are referring to is described in their sentence just prior to that one: "to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home". And they sure didn't describe it the way you did, did they.
-
On 5/9/2017 at 9:52 AM, Ann O'Maly said:
Is that because they have guidance from Trinitarian Christians when reading the NT which influences their view?
You see, I've also heard it said by the non-trinitarian JWs that, if one were to read the NT on its own, without any preconceived ideas, one would not understand God to be a truine being.
Anyway, I'm interested in why you conclude that the early Christians did understand God to be triune. I always thought that understanding the ontological relationship between Father and Son was a work-in-progress, thrashed out among the early church fathers. Do you have any killer texts that support your conclusion?
Hi Ann, I'm coming into this discussion a bit late (to say the least) so someone may have pointed this out already, in reply to what I bolded in your post, did you know the WTS has expressed the view that if you read just the Bible, without any WTS publications, you will believe in the Trinity?
[w81 8/15 p.28, par.14] From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah’s people those who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude.
They do not want to serve “shoulder to shoulder” with the worldwide brotherhood. Rather, they present a “stubborn shoulder” to Jehovah’s words. Reviling the pattern of the “pure language” that Jehovah has so graciously taught his people over the past century, these haughty ones try to draw the “sheep” away from the one international “flock” that Jesus has gathered in the earth. They try to sow doubts and to separate unsuspecting ones from the bounteous “table” of spiritual food spread at the Kingdom Halls of Jehovah’s Witnesses, where truly there is ‘nothing lacking.’ They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such ‘Bible reading,’ they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom’s clergy were teaching 100 years ago, and some have even returned to celebrating Christendom’s festivals again, such as the Roman Saturnalia of December 25! Jesus and his apostles warned against such lawless ones. -
I'd say they are the ultimate Protestants. They protest all other churches and religions both Christian and non-Christian.
-
Has the Revelation Climax book been updated or replaced recently?
-
6 hours ago, Anna said:
It seems like you are still not understanding the idea really. Do you not think that after a while, one becomes desensitized and no longer believes the JWs even have the truth, or at least push that idea to the furthermost crevices of their brain? It says she was wracked with guilt. I very much doubt she lived all of the 40 years like that though.The short paragraph doesn't go into any real detail, so we do not know whether what she did after a while was still deliberate in her mind. From the way you are speaking, "gross wrong doing to JWs", indicates that you do not consider the things she did wrong. So put yourself in her shoes, I doubt she considered them wrong after a while either. So, from that perspective, when she decided to come back, it was as if she had never knew the "truth". What would be the point of punishing someone like that? Tell me.
Men who decide these things go by common sense and evidence presented to them. That's all they can go by really.
From what you've been saying in answer to why the brochure has left out any mention of discipline for inactive JWs who return to the WTS, I would conclude that it was because that's exactly the point the governing body wants to convey---an amnesty, or indulgence, even if you've been going against WTS teachings for 40 years.
Martha mentions only three things specifically: celebrating holidays, participating in political events, and attending church. As far as I know, JWs are the only ones who consider those things to be wrong, hence my statement "gross (to JWs) wrong-doing".
-
On 10/16/2016 at 10:18 PM, Anna said:
I didn't want to sound to be mean, it's just that I don't think he is following in Christ's footsteps. One thing is calling yourself a Christian and another is following Christ's example. Many people call themselves Christians.
You sounded judgmental. Is that mean?
-
On 10/16/2016 at 8:27 PM, Anna said:
You totally misunderstood. That's not what I was saying. Of course she was not waiting 40 years to come back, I doubt she was waiting to come back at all, she was out, and for all intents and purposes was going to stay out permanently. But this just goes to show that we should never judge anyone's situation, because something in the life of that woman changed, and against all odds she came back. If she wasn't truly repentant, wouldn't it have been easier for her to stay as she was?
Let's see.....returning to the WTS after 40 years of continued, deliberate, gross (to JWs) wrong-doing must mean true repentance to you, whereas one slip-up confessed a couple months later (without ever becoming inactive) makes that JWs' true repentance questionable. If you were the latter JW and were lovingly disfellowshipped and endearingly shunned by your fellow JWs while working toward being reinstated, while Martha returns after 40 years of debauchery and is welcomed back with open arms (and is required to shun YOU), you're okay with that because you believe the men who decide these things must have Jehovah's ear on the matter and that's why they left out any mention of discipline for inactive JWs who return to the WTS.
-
17 hours ago, Teresa Morales said:
I strongly disagree...
What Russell said doesn't, in my opinion, show his calculations for 1914 to be wrong. It only shows that his expectations of what that dates significance would mean for the immediate state of the world and its affairs were not taking several things into account.
To buy into your reasoning would be like saying that because Noah built the ark big enough to support several other people getting onboard, the fact that no one else did proves that the flood wasn't actually a result of Jehovah bringing judgement upon mankind due to his displeasure concerning the conditions that prevailed at that time in history! Preposterous!
The fact that the Gentile Times ended in 1914 did not ever hinge upon mankinds understanding of what exactly that would mean or not mean regarding the fulfillment of prophecy that may or may not have been fully understood at that time...
Notice, Teresa, that you are disagreeing with the founder of your religion, C.T. Russell, because HE is the one who set out the proof that his calculations for 1914 were Biblical. None of his proofs proved to be true. It is HIS REASONING you are arguing against, not mine.
Again, read what HE said the end of the Gentile Times would mean to his audience that October you have been invited by your governing body to picture yourself in:
QuoteIn this chapter we present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the Gentiles, i.e., the full end of their lease of dominion, will be reached in A.D. 1914; and that that date will see the disintegration of the rule of imperfect men. And be it observed, that if this is shown to be a fact firmly established by the Scriptures, it will prove:
Firstly, That at that date the Kingdom of God, for which our Lord taught us to pray, saying, "Thy Kingdom come," will begin to assume control, and that it will then shortly be "set up," or firmly established, in the earth, on the ruins of present institutions.
Secondly, It will prove that he whose right it is thus to take the dominion will then be present as earth's new Ruler; and not only so, but it will also prove that he will be present for a considerable period before that date; because the overthrow of these Gentile governments is directly caused by his dashing them to pieces as a potter's vessel (Psa. 2:9; Rev. 2:27), and establishing in their stead his own righteous government.
Thirdly, It will prove that some time before the end of the overthrow the last member of the divinely recognized Church of Christ, the "royal priesthood," "the body of Christ," will be glorified with the Head; because every member is to reign with Christ, being a joint-heir with him of the Kingdom, and it cannot be fully "set up" without every member.
Fourthly, It will prove that from that time forward Jerusalem shall no longer be trodden down of the Gentiles, but shall arise from the dust of divine disfavor, to honor; because the "Times of the Gentiles" will be fulfilled or completed.
Fifthly, It will prove that by that date, or sooner, Israel's blindness will begin to be turned away; because their "blindness in part" was to continue only "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" (Rom. 11:25), or, in other words, until the full number from among the Gentiles, who are to be members of the body or bride of Christ, would be fully selected.
Sixthly, It will prove that the great "time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation," will reach its culmination in a world-wide reign of anarchy; and then men will learn to be still, and to know that Jehovah is God and that he will be exalted in the earth. (Psa. 46:10) The condition of things spoken of in symbolic language as raging waves of the sea, melting earth, falling mountains and burning heavens will then pass away, and the "new heavens and new earth" with their peaceful blessings will begin to be recognized by trouble-tossed humanity. But the Lord's Anointed and his rightful and righteous authority will first be recognized by a company of God's children while passing through the great tribulation--the class represented by m and t on the Chart of the Ages (see also pages 235 to 239, Vol. I); afterward, just at its close, by fleshly Israel; and ultimately by mankind in general.
Seventhly, It will prove that before that date God's Kingdom, organized in power, will be in the earth and then smite and crush the Gentile image (Dan. 2:34)--and fully consume the power of these kings. Its own power and dominion will be established as fast as by its varied influences and agencies it crushes and scatters the "powers that be"-- civil and ecclesiastical--iron and clay.Wisely you did not attempt to say any of these proofs of his occurred.
-
On 10/14/2016 at 8:01 PM, Anna said:
Yes, you are correct, he claims he is a "Christian". I read so much stuff I am not sure who said what anymore. I am glad I said "I was under the impression" I knew I had no time to verify it when I was writing that post....
Is that a sneer, Anna, when you put "Christian" in quotes?
I ask because that's what you said the WTS was doing when it put quotes around the "Bible reading" some JWs had said was sufficient.
-
On 10/13/2016 at 8:16 PM, Anna said:
One could also argue that on the contrary, after 40 years one could be MORE sure that the person is most likely repentant. Why else would they bother coming back if they have already done without it for so long?
I see you do not really understand the reasons behind disciplinary actions or why they are implemented. The primary reason is to GAIN our brother or sister. I know, it sounds odd, but the Bible always speaks about discipline in a positive light..."those whom Jehovah disciplines he loves" Do not forsake the discipline of your father/mother so that it may go well with you" "Accept discipline in order to become wise in your future" "hold on to discipline....for it means your life" etc. etc.
Now looking at it from a logical perspective, what kind of discipline would this sister have benefited from? It was already too late for any discipline! The only thing she could have been is punished. And punishment is not what discipline is about. Remember discipline is positive. She had already been punished by the consequences of what she has done. Her conscience tortured her. That was punishment enough. Now the only way was up.
In contrast, someone who confesses a sin that happened only a few months ago, what kind of discipline would they benefit from? Remember discipline is a positive thing, helping someone to REGAIN their spiritual footing. The above mentioned sister had totally lost her footing, she had been on a totally different path (for 40 years). For her, she would have to start from scratch. Bible study etc. as if she was a newcomer.
Hi Anna,
You're saying then that the brochure doesn't mention anything about being disciplined after 40 years of wrong doing because waiting that long shows they must be truly repentant.
Interesting.
-
12 hours ago, Teresa Morales said:
I don't understand your reason for questioning the validity of 1914 being the end of the Gentile Times? What should have happened that didn't?
There are seven events that should have happened, but did not.
At the beginning of the book you're studying now, "God's Kingdom Rules", there's a letter from the Governing Body with an invitation to imagine yourself in the dining room at their headquarters in NYC when Russell comes in and announces, "The Gentile Times have ended; their kings have had their day."
The letter in the new book doesn't provide the background for such a statement, but if we are to imagine ourselves there then let's take a look at what Russell's announcement that morning actually meant to his audience. Had what he had been telling them was going to happen, happened? Had the Gentile Times really ended?
He had written a book in 1889 called The Time Is At Hand, and it had become one of the volumes of his Studies In The Scriptures set; in his Forward for the 1914 edition it was claimed that it had reached a distribution of one and a half million copies.
In it, on pgs. 76-79, Russell lists seven proofs that would show whether or not 1914 was really the end of the times of the Gentiles as he claimed it would be---and as JWs today are still claiming it was.
So let's look a the list. It's from his publications online at http://www.ctrussell.us/ and here's what it says:QuoteIn this chapter we present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the Gentiles, i.e., the full end of their lease of dominion, will be reached in A.D. 1914; and that that date will see the disintegration of the rule of imperfect men. And be it observed, that if this is shown to be a fact firmly established by the Scriptures, it will prove:
Firstly, That at that date the Kingdom of God, for which our Lord taught us to pray, saying, "Thy Kingdom come," will begin to assume control, and that it will then shortly be "set up," or firmly established, in the earth, on the ruins of present institutions.
Secondly, It will prove that he whose right it is thus to take the dominion will then be present as earth's new Ruler; and not only so, but it will also prove that he will be present for a considerable period before that date; because the overthrow of these Gentile governments is directly caused by his dashing them to pieces as a potter's vessel (Psa. 2:9; Rev. 2:27), and establishing in their stead his own righteous government.
Thirdly, It will prove that some time before the end of the overthrow the last member of the divinely recognized Church of Christ, the "royal priesthood," "the body of Christ," will be glorified with the Head; because every member is to reign with Christ, being a joint-heir with him of the Kingdom, and it cannot be fully "set up" without every member.
Fourthly, It will prove that from that time forward Jerusalem shall no longer be trodden down of the Gentiles, but shall arise from the dust of divine disfavor, to honor; because the "Times of the Gentiles" will be fulfilled or completed.
Fifthly, It will prove that by that date, or sooner, Israel's blindness will begin to be turned away; because their "blindness in part" was to continue only "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" (Rom. 11:25), or, in other words, until the full number from among the Gentiles, who are to be members of the body or bride of Christ, would be fully selected.
Sixthly, It will prove that the great "time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation," will reach its culmination in a world-wide reign of anarchy; and then men will learn to be still, and to know that Jehovah is God and that he will be exalted in the earth. (Psa. 46:10) The condition of things spoken of in symbolic language as raging waves of the sea, melting earth, falling mountains and burning heavens will then pass away, and the "new heavens and new earth" with their peaceful blessings will begin to be recognized by trouble-tossed humanity. But the Lord's Anointed and his rightful and righteous authority will first be recognized by a company of God's children while passing through the great tribulation--the class represented by m and t on the Chart of the Ages (see also pages 235 to 239, Vol. I); afterward, just at its close, by fleshly Israel; and ultimately by mankind in general.
Seventhly, It will prove that before that date God's Kingdom, organized in power, will be in the earth and then smite and crush the Gentile image (Dan. 2:34)--and fully consume the power of these kings. Its own power and dominion will be established as fast as by its varied influences and agencies it crushes and scatters the "powers that be"-- civil and ecclesiastical--iron and clay.Did, or have, any of those events happen? No. So by what Russell himself said, that shows his calculations for 1914 were not based on the Bible.
-
12 hours ago, Teresa Morales said:
I don't believe there is any reason to expect changes to our understanding regarding the "Gentile Times" ending in 1914. However, if there are changes, they will be based on clearer understanding of the scriptures and will be explained well. Therefore, it will be another example of the "light getting brighter."
Which confirms what I said in an earlier post, it really doesn't matter to you if the Gentile Times ended in 1914 or not.
-
11 hours ago, Teresa Morales said:
This is a BLATANT MISQUOTE!
I'm not sure if it was manufactured by you or sent to you this way, however, I have poured over the Nov 2016 Watchtower magazine and the above comment is partly a quote(out of context) and mostly conjured from thin air!
In light of this realization, I withdraw from this conversation as it is not necessary to banter with those who are willing to align themselves with Babylonish teachings and lack reasonableness and common sense.
See jw.org to view this magazine for its actual comments. I believe the relevant points are in the article "Called Out Of Darkness."
I didn't present it as a quote, I said it would be similar to how beliefs had already been changed:
QuoteEven though it would mark a turning away from what they had said was the truth, I don't think the men on the WTS GB would consider their actions to be apostasy, even though that IS their definition of it. More likely it will read something similar to the presentation of changed beliefs used in the 11/15/2016 WT:
For many years, this journal suggested that the times of the Gentiles ended in 1914 and "the one who has the legal right" to the Davidic crown, Jesus Christ, became King in that year. However, for reasons that we shall outline in this article and in the one following, a re-examination of the subject was necessary.
The scripture this puts me in mind of is not found in Hebrews.....it's in 2 Timothy 3:7 "always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."
-
10 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:
I'm not sure about @HollyW, but the comment made regarding the choice of option #3 seem to indicate a former association with Jehovah's Witnesses.
Why would you assume that when you recruit those of other faiths from their own Christian churches to become JWs? A majority of JWs already claim to have chosen option #3, thereby indicating a former association with Catholics and/or Protestants.
When persons are in great danger from a source that they do not suspect or are being misled by those they consider their friends, is it an unkindness to warn them? They may prefer not to believe the warning. They may even resent it. But does that free one from the moral responsibility to give that warning?
-
On 10/7/2016 at 7:32 PM, Anna said:
I realize you are talking about a scenario where it concerns another religion besides JWs, but the answer is essentially the same, if it bothers you that much, then do something about it. I should have included a fourth option, which would be research, but I was assuming that research was already done, as I believe someone would not disagree with something just for the sake of it, but would have a legitimate (at least to them) reason for their disagreeing.This goes for JWs also.....
After extensive research, I chose #3.
-
On 10/7/2016 at 10:31 PM, Anna said:
The Bible itself, sitting on peoples bookshelves gathering dust, isn’t going to do much good at all.
Notice that is not the type of Bible reading the WTS describes that they are objecting to:
They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home.
On 10/7/2016 at 10:31 PM, Anna said:As long as the WTS adheres to the Bible, then what they say is the word of God essentially, because it is FROM the word of God.
When has the WTS adhered to the Bible, though? Did it adhere to the Bible when it was teaching that all of the 144,000 were the faithful slave?
On 10/7/2016 at 10:31 PM, Anna said:The quotation marks are rather important because as I am sure you are aware, in speech they indicate a kind of irony, same goes for written language. They are called sneer quotes. In other words, the kind of ‘bible reading’ these people were doing was actually NOT independent or exclusive Bible reading at all, it was merely “so called” (such) Bible reading, whatever that entailed, regardless, or not including reading it apart from WTS publications. So that was the point the authors were implying.
The article itself describes exactly what was entailed in the type of Bible study some JWs were doing: reading the Bible without WT publications, either alone or in small groups at home. But you then see the quote marks as negating what was just said. I'm sure the WTS does sneer at Bible reading that is done apart from their publications that interpret it for you because that would mean their publications aren't needed any more.
On 10/7/2016 at 10:31 PM, Anna said:In other words they do not believe someone reading the Bible would come to the same conclusions as Christendom if they were totally ignorant of Christendom's ideas and teachings in the first place. Would someone reading the Christian Greek scriptures with no prior knowledge of the teachings, customs and traditions of Christendom think that God was three persons in one? Would they think that Jesus wanted us to celebrate his birth every year? Would they think God wants them to take up arms and fight? I don't think so.
The WT article expresses the same idea that Russell expressed when he said if his followers left off reading his Studies in the Scriptures they would go into darkness, which the article says is the teachings Christians have been teaching for 100 years (it's actually longer than that ;))
And, yes, reading just the Bible shows that there are three separate and distinct person who are the one true God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The angels set a good example of the joyful celebration of Jesus' birth. Christians are in good company celebrating the birth of our Savior and King.
There are plenty of examples of Godly warfare in the Bible and each Christian can exercise his or her own conscience when it comes to war. JWs have no leg to stand on with this because the WTS itself teaches that there will be a number of JWs so large as to be uncountable who will go to war against other JWs at the end of the 1,000 years when they are supposedly perfect in every way: spiritually, physically, mentally, and morally.
-
10 hours ago, AbigailSensefulOne said:
Questions: Where is Russell now?
Good question, Abigail, because if the Gentile Times didn't end in 1914 then Russell was not resurrected to heaven in 1918 and your belief would change to him being non-existent now.
10 hours ago, AbigailSensefulOne said:What year did the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem?
In 589 BC, Nebuchadnezzar II laid siege to Jerusalem, culminating in the destruction of the city and its temple in the summer of 587 BC.
10 hours ago, AbigailSensefulOne said:The 2,520 years mentioned in Revelation 12: 6 and 14 - Are they literal years? If so, what year would it be now?
Revelation 12:6 says 1,260 days. Revelation 12:14 calls the period a time, times, and half a time; in other words, three and a half times. In fact, both expressions stand for three and a half years, which the WTS says extend in the Northern Hemisphere from the spring of 1919 to the autumn of 1922.
Christians believe they are 1,260 literal days, just as the WTS does, but they have not occurred yet because they will be the last half of the great tribulation, which is yet future.
10 hours ago, AbigailSensefulOne said:If 1914 is not the year of Christ's presence, then what year is it?
Christ has not returned yet.
10 hours ago, AbigailSensefulOne said:Answer those questions, and I will present you with proof that it is indeed the year 1914.
The founder of the WTS religion has already presented seven proofs, the fulfillment of which he said would prove that his calculations about 1914 were based on the Bible. All seven proofs failed. What do you make of that?
Early Christians Believed in the Trinity
in Topics
Posted
Not atall, bruceq, I find that in the course of conversation, some folks may simply state their own beliefs and they may do so with some conviction. But are they reasonable persons who are willing to listen to another viewpoint? If so, I can share with them what the Bible says, doing so with the conviction that it will find welcome response in the hearts of lovers of truth. However, I find you are not a reasonable nor a reasoning person, nor a lover of truth. Therefore, my time is more profitably spent elsewhere.