Malawi and MCP Cards?

[Many Miles]

25 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

Through a kind of free market process. They are reflections of what people believe they are looking for in a church.

And that might be a blind spot for some of us, including me. Perhaps there are more people than we realize who're just looking for a base to call home, while they're left alone to live their life, which is their real worship. I don't know. But I know I was once in Chicago and witnessed a street prostitute fervently praying for a homeless man. I'm telling you, that woman's prayer was real! As real as it gets! Was I supposed to feel judgemental toward her, or for her having the audacity to think her prayer might be heard by the Almighty? There is a witness somewhere that once said God is a there for those who have no helper.

So, maybe there's something we miss if we're looking through rose colored glasses. That's why we need vision that is not dependent on our own biases, whatever those biases might be.

25 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

How do we think we got the particular assortment of food on our plate? Did ours fall from heaven, but every other patron picked out their own according to their own taste/interest/interpretation? Why is it a consumeristic trap when they do it, but not when we do it?

Don't let what's on your plate be the result of personal taste (preference). Let it be the result of sound reason. Regardless of the subject, apply sound reason, and listen to the result.

[George88]

Wow, you seriously nailed it. Who would think, people enter here to be disgruntled.

I have to question the theology behind the concept of the "soul" and the "spirit" since their combination is said to change after death. Although there are many believers in Christendom who hold the view that the soul is indestructible.

Praying for the well-being of our fellow human beings is always a noble act. Nevertheless, when Jesus offered his prayers for the afflicted and marginalized, he recognized that it would ultimately be the choice of mankind to accept his grace.

Consider this scenario: if a prostitute were to offer her heartfelt prayers for a homeless man who struggled with alcoholism, one might wonder if she was indeed praying for his affliction. Could the power of prayer bring about a transformation in the homeless man?

There is nothing more powerful than adhering faithfully to Scripture, even in the face of opposition from others. Scripture serves as our guide, enabling us to make personal decisions and align our lives with the teachings of Christ and the commands of God. There's no avoiding this truth. We are faced with a clear choice: either we follow or we don't. No one can assure us that someone else's sacrifice will meet God's standards for salvation. Jesus has already fulfilled that role perfectly.

The phrase "Am I my brother's keeper" is meant to guide our spiritual growth, not as a measure of our worthiness in God's eyes. It serves as a reminder that ultimately, we must face ourselves alone, examining our past actions and behavior to ensure they were not influenced by our own flawed understanding and judgment.
All true Christians follow the same theology, regardless of the responsibilities they bear. We are all held to the same standard that God has commanded for judgment.

When it comes to different plates of food, the most important aspect to consider is not the food itself, but the unity that comes from the company we keep during the feast.

[Many Miles]

10 minutes ago, George88 said:

It serves as a reminder that ultimately, we must face ourselves alone, examining our past actions and behavior to ensure they were not influenced by our own flawed understanding and judgment.

In the end God will look at our life and answer the question of whether we fear (respect) Him and work righteousness to the best of our knowledge and honestly. I think we must both agree on that.

 

[Many Miles]

15 minutes ago, George88 said:

When it comes to different plates of food, the most important aspect to consider is not the food itself, but the unity that comes from the company we keep during the feast.

Good company is definitely a bonus. But if we put poison on our plate that's going to be a real bummer.

[JW Insider]

31 minutes ago, George88 said:

The phrase "Am I my brother's keeper" is meant to guide our spiritual growth, not as a measure of our worthiness in God's eyes. It serves as a reminder that ultimately, we must face ourselves alone, examining our past actions and behavior to ensure they were not influenced by our own flawed understanding and judgment.

I don't doubt the overall point you are making that ultimately we must stand "ourselves alone" before the judgment seat of God. And you are right, too, about "examining our past actions and behavior to ensure they were not influenced by our own flawed understanding and judgment." I like that. It's very clear, and its scriptural:

(Galatians 6:3-5) For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself. ⁴ But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. ⁵ For each one will carry his own load.
 

The only thing I see a bit differently is not so important, but I hope you'll excuse me for pointing it out. The phrase "Am I my brother's keeper?" is not really meant to be a guide for our spiritual growth. More likely, in my opinion, it's a reminder that we SHOULD be our brother's keeper during the time of our spiritual growth.  Ultimately, we stand alone and carry our own load, but penultimately, during our spiritual growth, we SHOULD be our brother's keeper. We have a brotherhood, because Christianity is a social religion that works best when we mutually support one another. (Hebrews 10:24,25) The very point Paul made in Galatians, above, was preceded by a verse that sounded, at first, like just the opposite:

(Galatians 6:2) .Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and in this way you will fulfill the law of the Christ. 

I wouldn't have pointed it out, but it just sounded a bit jarring to think that Cain's words were some kind of spiritual guidance, when these were the words Cain used as he was trying to deflect and deceive Jehovah. He had just killed his own brother after harboring animosity and jealousy, and wanted to hide his crime. 

[Juan Rivera]

4 hours ago, Many Miles said:

And that might be a blind spot for some of us, including me. Perhaps there are more people than we realize who're just looking for a base to call home, while they're left alone to live their life, which is their real worship. I don't know. But I know I was once in Chicago and witnessed a street prostitute fervently praying for a homeless man. I'm telling you, that woman's prayer was real! As real as it gets! Was I supposed to feel judgemental toward her, or for her having the audacity to think her prayer might be heard by the Almighty? There is a witness somewhere that once said God is a there for those who have no helper.

I hear you, there is a fundamental difference between that for which a person is culpable before Jehovah, and that by which we (humans) may judge another human. I don’t think anyone here would claim that apart from the guidance of the Congregation, people cannot read and understand Scripture to some degree, a degree that allows them to have a conscious saving faith in Jehovah and Christ. Thankfully, they can. Knowing Jehovah and Christ is a matter of degree (not all or nothing). Jehovah and Christ can be known in various ways through different means, Scripture, worship, prayer, tradition, community, service. Jehovah can even be known (in some degree) through incorrect interpretations of Scripture. Hearing His voice does not necessarily mean perfectly hearing his voice correctly about every truth within the content of our faith. So a person can truly come to know and love Jehovah, without yet knowing that the Congregation is what Jehovah established and into which all Christians should be incorporated.

Even the notion that they must be either good guys or bad guys already makes it a loaded answer, because the truth may be more complicated. There is also the matter of motives, and of actions. Actions can be good in one respect, but deficient in another, all while motives may be very good. And so forth, so it is not so black and white. It is good, all other things being equal, for persons to be told about Jehovah and Christ and His love for us, and that He died for our salvation. It is not good for persons to be in schism, to be deprived of true worship, to be taught false doctrine (to be taught that they can never lose their salvation), to be deprived of the fulness of the truth, and all the other aids to our salvation available within the Congregation.

So far as I know, people like that prostitute you encountered, or James White, TD Jakes, Billy Graham, Greg Stafford, Raymond Franz, or Rolf Furuli were doing the best they could with what they knew, and bringing a message of Jehovah and Christ to many people. And in that way, they are good guys. But it is not for me (or any other JW) to judge the hearts of our fellow man and determine that this one or that one has placed himself in a state of sin by such a choice. We cannot read hearts, only Jehovah can. The principle of love calls us to believe the best about someone, all other things being equal, and to pray for those we see in error, rather than judge them. Not presuming that there is some intellectual dishonesty in their heart at the level of the will regarding this question, and not presuming that they are violating their conscience, but instead with the assumption that they are following their conscience as best as they can, and desire to know the truth, and will in fact sacrifice all to find and follow the truth no matter what it is. 

But such persons are in a gravely deficient condition, especially and to the degree that their understanding of Jehovah is incorrect. It is much more difficult to be saved without the fullness of the Good News and the means of help available in the Congregation which are the ordinary means by which we are to grow up into the fullness of conformity to Christ.

I know that because the holy spirit is at work in the hearts of all men, and because Jehovah is omnipotent, the Congregation does not rule out the possibility that persons in a condition of ignorance concerning the fullness of the Good News and the Congregation, can be saved. And the testimony of Scripture supports that teaching, which is not universalism but rather a recognition of the power and mercy of Jehovah who desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4). Paul wasn’t being redundant there. Knowledge of the truth about Jehovah is very important, but it is not the essence of salvation, we’re not saved fundamentally by gnosis, but by love and faith.

Correct doctrine allows us more perfectly to know Jehovah, and thus more perfectly to love Him. The more one knows the truth about Him, the more one is able to love Him, because we cannot love what we do not know. Similarly, the more one knows the truth about Jehovah, the more reason one has to love him. Moreover, not all theological error is equal, and not all theological error completely eliminates the possibility of loving Jehovah. It is possible for our beliefs to be imperfect and believe some falsehoods about Him, and still love Him. Yet the more distorted one’s understanding, the more difficult it is to love Him. 

What I have argued is that if Jehovah and Christ want us to be united in faith and love, then He would have provided the necessary means by which to preserve that unity. And in the Governing Body of the Congregation He has provided just that, a means by which our unity of faith, unity of worship, and unity of government are maintained. Even though Scripture is clear enough for a person to come to saving faith by reading it, it is not clear enough to preserve the unity of the Congregation without an authorized governing body. So for me a Governing Body it’s not just extremely valuable and convenient, which would amount to a pragmatic ad hoc way of thinking, but rather organic and intrinsic to the Christian faith.

4 hours ago, Many Miles said:

So, maybe there's something we miss if we're looking through rose colored glasses. That's why we need vision that is not dependent on our own biases, whatever those biases might be.

4 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Don't let what's on your plate be the result of personal taste (preference). Let it be the result of sound reason. Regardless of the subject, apply sound reason, and listen to the result.

@Many Miles @JW Insider @TrueTomHarley @Anna

Perhaps I should write this under the Galatians thread. Here’s anyways😅 

I’m beginning to think that the idea that we can approach the bible without an inherent bias or rose tinted glasses is an illusory ideal. This abstract view from nowhere seems to be more effective when we think we have obtained pure objectivity, all while unknowingly presupposing contemporary ideas and assumptions. Everyone uses glasses of some sort when they come to Scripture. No one can interpret Scripture from a completely clean slate. The question is not whether one will have glasses through which to interpret Scripture, but rather which glasses are the correct ones?

@Many Miles I understand that that our Congregation (Jehovah's Witnesses) takes pride in not articulating/ categorizing or claiming of having any explicit background philosophy (like Thomism, Scotism or Platonism) or theology per se. And that we Witnesses say that no background philosophy is needed, but prefer to base our beliefs on the Bible without philosophizing. But even though our Congregation says that no explicit philosophy drives our understanding of Scripture. I think we all agree that no belief developed in a vacuum and the Watchtower movement grew from different roots (In my opinion, from rationalist ideas from the enlightenment, humanism, democratic individualism and was influenced by different traditions according to at least one study -Rachel de Vienne and B. W. Schulz: Volumen I & II Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion's Watch Tower: 1870-1887.)

When we read (and interpret) scripture we are not starting from a clean slate. There is no traditionless theological vacuum, abstract view from nowhere from which to read or interpret Scripture, we come to it with some sort of glasses (tradition). There is no initial space where the reader brings nothing to the text, and where his interpretation is not contingent on what he brings to the text. Even biblical studies cannot be carried out in a philosophical vacuum (that is, their tools, techniques, principles and methods, all presuppose a framework). Theology and religion always start from certain hermeneutical principles whether explicitly or implicitly. And if we do not realize that we are even bringing philosophical presuppositions to the interpretive process, I don't think we will not be getting to the fundamental causes of our interpretive disagreements. Only then I think we'll realize that we need some way of evaluating these assumptions. Claiming to evaluate them by way of Scripture simply ignores the fact that we would be using these assumptions to interpret Scripture, so the evaluation would be question begging, and thus worthless.

When each person is deciding for himself what is the correct interpretation of Scripture, Scripture is no longer functioning as the final authority. Rather, each individual's own reason and judgment becomes, as it were, the highest authority, supplanting in effect Scripture' unique and rightful place. I believe the discussion hinges on whether there is an authoritative interpretive authority and how that authority is determined. This is why I'm starting to believe that our attempts to resolve our disagreements by way of proof texting or exegesis is futile. The root of the disagreement is not fundamentally in an exegetical error, but instead within philosophical and theological assumptions we bring to the text. So this idea of approaching scriptures only thru hermeneutics presupposes that kind of rationalism and that hermeneutics and exegesis would solve interpretative problems. But there is more than exegesis that is at work in interpretation and it's not just exegetical tools but underlying philosophical and theological assumptions we bring to the text even if unaware.

Here's what a friend and philosophy professor (who won an award for excellence in the field of Biblical exegesis) challenged me on.

Let's test this claim Juan (that exegesis alone, without any reliance on philosophy or theology can first determine the meaning of Scripture, to which we can then subject our philosophical and theological assumptions). Lay out any exegetical argument you think resolves a substantive doctrinal disagreement that presently divides us, and I'll show you the hidden (or not so hidden) theological/philosophical assumption in that argument, an assumption either immediately brought to the text or built on an interpretation that is itself based on a prior theological/philosophical assumption brought to the text.

[George88]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The only thing I see a bit differently is not so important, but I hope you'll excuse me for pointing it out. The phrase "Am I my brother's keeper?" is not really meant to be a guide for our spiritual growth. More likely, in my opinion, it's a reminder that we SHOULD be our brother's keeper during the time of our spiritual growth.  Ultimately, we stand alone and carry our own load, but penultimately, during our spiritual growth, we SHOULD be our brother's keeper. We have a brotherhood, because Christianity is a social religion that works best when we mutually support one another. (Hebrews 10:24,25) The very point Paul made in Galatians, above, was preceded by a verse that sounded, at first, like just the opposite:

(Galatians 6:2) .Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and in this way you will fulfill the law of the Christ. 

I wouldn't have pointed it out, but it just sounded a bit jarring to think that Cain's words were some kind of spiritual guidance, when these were the words Cain used as he was trying to deflect and deceive Jehovah. He had just killed his own brother after harboring animosity and jealousy, and wanted to hide his crime. 

I find your inference quite acceptable. However, what I had in mind was the pervasive incivility that existed between the Pharisees and the high priest towards both Jesus and the apostles. The words I can imagine them uttering, oh, how vivid they are!

Nevertheless, there are boundaries to how the concept of burden can be interpreted. It is not applicable in situations where a witness is arrested for pedophilia and expects us to assist them in proving their innocence, despite their guilt. It also does not extend to individuals who lose their jobs and then demand that the community support them in every way.

In such cases, Galatians 6:2 takes on a different significance.

In order for verses 2 and 3 to hold any significance, it is essential to closely and accurately interpret Galatians 6:1. Here, spirituality once again proves its pivotal role.

NAS  Matthew 20:12 saying, 'These last men have worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the scorching heat of the day.' (Matt. 20:12 NAS)

NAS  Revelation 2:24 'But I say to you, the rest who are in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not known the deep things of Satan, as they call them-- I place no other burden on you. (Rev. 2:24 NAS)

NAS  2 Corinthians 4:17 For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, (2 Cor. 4:17 NAS)

NAS  1 Thessalonians 2:7 But we proved to be gentle among you, as a nursing mother tenderly cares for her own children. (1 Thess. 2:7 NAS)

NAS  Acts 15:28 "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: (Acts 15:28 NAS)

By expanding our perspective, we can gain insight into Apostle Paul's motive for writing to the Thessalonians.

NAS  1 Thessalonians 4:11 and to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your hands, just as we commanded you; (1 Thess. 4:11 NAS)

NAS  1 Thessalonians 4:12 so that you may behave properly toward outsiders and not be in any need. (1 Thess. 4:12 NAS)

As I mentioned earlier, I do agree in principle.

[Pudgy]

…

[Srecko Sostar]

12 hours ago, George88 said:

Did Jesus prevent the apostles from carrying swords?

Well, GB does not prohibit the carrying of weapons for private or official use. But those JWs who have it are not ideologically eligible/acceptable for any ministry in the congregation. With Jesus, the apostles were eligible/acceptable for service. So GB does not follow Jesus. Clear as a sunny day. lol

[Srecko Sostar]

10 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

So, they are not just lies. They are harmful lies. They are lies that are near-universal in the church world. The GB has mounted a successful sustained, and worldwide assault on them. To ignore this and instead flail away about mistakes they may or may not have made is astoundingly small-minded to me.

The phenomenon can also be explained in this way. Okay, if that's acceptable to you. 

[Many Miles]

6 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

I hear you, there is a fundamental difference between that for which a person is culpable before Jehovah, and that by which we (humans) may judge another human. I don’t think anyone here would claim that apart from the guidance of the Congregation, people cannot read and understand Scripture to some degree, a degree that allows them to have a conscious saving faith in Jehovah and Christ. Thankfully, they can. Knowing Jehovah and Christ is a matter of degree (not all or nothing). Jehovah and Christ can be known in various ways through different means, Scripture, worship, prayer, tradition, community, service. Jehovah can even be known (in some degree) through incorrect interpretations of Scripture. Hearing His voice does not necessarily mean perfectly hearing his voice correctly about every truth within the content of our faith. So a person can truly come to know and love Jehovah, without yet knowing that the Congregation is what Jehovah established and into which all Christians should be incorporated.

Even the notion that they must be either good guys or bad guys already makes it a loaded answer, because the truth may be more complicated. There is also the matter of motives, and of actions. Actions can be good in one respect, but deficient in another, all while motives may be very good. And so forth, so it is not so black and white. It is good, all other things being equal, for persons to be told about Jehovah and Christ and His love for us, and that He died for our salvation. It is not good for persons to be in schism, to be deprived of true worship, to be taught false doctrine (to be taught that they can never lose their salvation), to be deprived of the fulness of the truth, and all the other aids to our salvation available within the Congregation.

So far as I know, people like that prostitute you encountered, or James White, TD Jakes, Billy Graham, Greg Stafford, Raymond Franz, or Rolf Furuli were doing the best they could with what they knew, and bringing a message of Jehovah and Christ to many people. And in that way, they are good guys. But it is not for me (or any other JW) to judge the hearts of our fellow man and determine that this one or that one has placed himself in a state of sin by such a choice. We cannot read hearts, only Jehovah can. The principle of love calls us to believe the best about someone, all other things being equal, and to pray for those we see in error, rather than judge them. Not presuming that there is some intellectual dishonesty in their heart at the level of the will regarding this question, and not presuming that they are violating their conscience, but instead with the assumption that they are following their conscience as best as they can, and desire to know the truth, and will in fact sacrifice all to find and follow the truth no matter what it is. 

But such persons are in a gravely deficient condition, especially and to the degree that their understanding of Jehovah is incorrect. It is much more difficult to be saved without the fullness of the Good News and the means of help available in the Congregation which are the ordinary means by which we are to grow up into the fullness of conformity to Christ.

I know that because the holy spirit is at work in the hearts of all men, and because Jehovah is omnipotent, the Congregation does not rule out the possibility that persons in a condition of ignorance concerning the fullness of the Good News and the Congregation, can be saved. And the testimony of Scripture supports that teaching, which is not universalism but rather a recognition of the power and mercy of Jehovah who desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4). Paul wasn’t being redundant there. Knowledge of the truth about Jehovah is very important, but it is not the essence of salvation, we’re not saved fundamentally by gnosis, but by love and faith.

Correct doctrine allows us more perfectly to know Jehovah, and thus more perfectly to love Him. The more one knows the truth about Him, the more one is able to love Him, because we cannot love what we do not know. Similarly, the more one knows the truth about Jehovah, the more reason one has to love him. Moreover, not all theological error is equal, and not all theological error completely eliminates the possibility of loving Jehovah. It is possible for our beliefs to be imperfect and believe some falsehoods about Him, and still love Him. Yet the more distorted one’s understanding, the more difficult it is to love Him. 

What I have argued is that if Jehovah and Christ want us to be united in faith and love, then He would have provided the necessary means by which to preserve that unity. And in the Governing Body of the Congregation He has provided just that, a means by which our unity of faith, unity of worship, and unity of government are maintained. Even though Scripture is clear enough for a person to come to saving faith by reading it, it is not clear enough to preserve the unity of the Congregation without an authorized governing body. So for me a Governing Body it’s not just extremely valuable and convenient, which would amount to a pragmatic ad hoc way of thinking, but rather organic and intrinsic to the Christian faith.

@Many Miles @JW Insider @TrueTomHarley @Anna

Perhaps I should write this under the Galatians thread. Here’s anyways😅 

I’m beginning to think that the idea that we can approach the bible without an inherent bias or rose tinted glasses is an illusory ideal. This abstract view from nowhere seems to be more effective when we think we have obtained pure objectivity, all while unknowingly presupposing contemporary ideas and assumptions. Everyone uses glasses of some sort when they come to Scripture. No one can interpret Scripture from a completely clean slate. The question is not whether one will have glasses through which to interpret Scripture, but rather which glasses are the correct ones?

@Many Miles I understand that that our Congregation (Jehovah's Witnesses) takes pride in not articulating/ categorizing or claiming of having any explicit background philosophy (like Thomism, Scotism or Platonism) or theology per se. And that we Witnesses say that no background philosophy is needed, but prefer to base our beliefs on the Bible without philosophizing. But even though our Congregation says that no explicit philosophy drives our understanding of Scripture. I think we all agree that no belief developed in a vacuum and the Watchtower movement grew from different roots (In my opinion, from rationalist ideas from the enlightenment, humanism, democratic individualism and was influenced by different traditions according to at least one study -Rachel de Vienne and B. W. Schulz: Volumen I & II Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion's Watch Tower: 1870-1887.)

When we read (and interpret) scripture we are not starting from a clean slate. There is no traditionless theological vacuum, abstract view from nowhere from which to read or interpret Scripture, we come to it with some sort of glasses (tradition). There is no initial space where the reader brings nothing to the text, and where his interpretation is not contingent on what he brings to the text. Even biblical studies cannot be carried out in a philosophical vacuum (that is, their tools, techniques, principles and methods, all presuppose a framework). Theology and religion always start from certain hermeneutical principles whether explicitly or implicitly. And if we do not realize that we are even bringing philosophical presuppositions to the interpretive process, I don't think we will not be getting to the fundamental causes of our interpretive disagreements. Only then I think we'll realize that we need some way of evaluating these assumptions. Claiming to evaluate them by way of Scripture simply ignores the fact that we would be using these assumptions to interpret Scripture, so the evaluation would be question begging, and thus worthless.

When each person is deciding for himself what is the correct interpretation of Scripture, Scripture is no longer functioning as the final authority. Rather, each individual's own reason and judgment becomes, as it were, the highest authority, supplanting in effect Scripture' unique and rightful place. I believe the discussion hinges on whether there is an authoritative interpretive authority and how that authority is determined. This is why I'm starting to believe that our attempts to resolve our disagreements by way of proof texting or exegesis is futile. The root of the disagreement is not fundamentally in an exegetical error, but instead within philosophical and theological assumptions we bring to the text. So this idea of approaching scriptures only thru hermeneutics presupposes that kind of rationalism and that hermeneutics and exegesis would solve interpretative problems. But there is more than exegesis that is at work in interpretation and it's not just exegetical tools but underlying philosophical and theological assumptions we bring to the text even if unaware.

Here's what a friend and philosophy professor (who won an award for excellence in the field of Biblical exegesis) challenged me on.

Let's test this claim Juan (that exegesis alone, without any reliance on philosophy or theology can first determine the meaning of Scripture, to which we can then subject our philosophical and theological assumptions). Lay out any exegetical argument you think resolves a substantive doctrinal disagreement that presently divides us, and I'll show you the hidden (or not so hidden) theological/philosophical assumption in that argument, an assumption either immediately brought to the text or built on an interpretation that is itself based on a prior theological/philosophical assumption brought to the text.

Juan, that's a lot of words, and to be honest, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say.

Because above you write:

"The question is not whether one will have glasses through which to interpret Scripture, but rather which glasses are the correct ones?" [Underlining added]

Let's start with something simple. Check the box that applies:

We should believe teaching "x" because:

[______] it's rational.

[______] the society says so.

[______] some other reason other than because it's "rational" or "the society says so".

[Pudgy]

I have not a clue as to what Juan Rivera was trying to say, and individually, I understood every word. 

It was hard work trying to stay focused, perhaps because I was well aware that that style of writing, and length of writing, is often deliberately used to induce hypnosis. 

I did try.

HEY! This calls for a CARTOON!