Srecko Sostar

There is no form of hierarchy without abuse of power. Unless the leader is very gentle and soft and allows everyone everything. But even then, he will have more sympathy for some people, and some will not be to his liking.

…. there is no substitute for victory.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

No.
Rationality is a tool used by science, but it is not science.
Science is a systematic process intent on learning about our universe.
Rationality is a method of thinking intent on maintaining objectivity.
As a hammer is not carpentry even though carpenters use a hammer, rationality is not science even though scientists use rationality.
Rationality will not prove faith, but it can be used to test faith, and any faith worth holding is worth testing.
As the biblical text suggests, the biggest difference between the "physical man" and the "spiritual man" is that one is willing to examine everything and one does not care to.
Rational thought does not require lofty language, but it does require understanding how to avoid fallacy and how to be objective about evidence and inference.
We should attain to speak to whatever audience is willing to learn.
Also in the 1st to Corinth,
"For, though I am free from all persons, I have made myself the slave to all, that I may gain the most persons. And so to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law, that I might gain those under law. To those without law I became as without law, although I am not without law toward God but under law toward Christ, that I might gain those without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak. I have become all things to people of all sorts, that I might by all means save some."
Many Miles does not look for the best market. Many Miles shares what he can where he can wherever that happens to be, to help whoever is there as best he can.
In my experience, the hunger is there among all to learn a better way of life, which is what our worship is. I do not count converts on a report slip. God through his son Jesus are the ones who determine whose worship they accept, and I leave it to them.
 

At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not. - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20131115/seven-shepherds-eight-dukes/

At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not. - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20131115/seven-shepherds-eight-dukes/

At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not. - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20131115/seven-shepherds-eight-dukes/

That is a statement that should be read, digested and responded to with great caution.

I thought about this more. Answering the question asked is simpler than I expressed earlier, and it's presented as precursors within the text itself.
Within the text we see what boils down to one person, the "physical man", that does not care to examine all things whereas the other person, the "spiritual man" wants to examine all things, and the latter does so without concern of whether this is popular among men.
That would place a "spiritual man" squarely in the realm of a rational person because, as I said before, a rational thinker wants to explore possibilities. A rational thinker wants to examine all things, including identifying where he's wrong. A rational thinker is going to let rational thinking play out based on evidence and logical deduction whatever that process leads to without regard for what may or may not be popular among men.
In this case, a spiritual man clearly has an advantage. Because his conclusions are not confined to exploring what is popular among men, and he looks for and draws sound conclusions based on evidence.

Reason (logical construction) is an objective method of deducing whether some notion is true, or at least sound to the extent evidence supports the notion.
It is true we may choose to accept things beyond our understanding (e.g., that God has no beginning). But to assert something is true supposedly based on deductive reasoning is something that is subject to reason and therefore falsifiable.
We do not say we can demonstrate through reason that God has no beginning, because we can't. Instead, we tell the truth and say we accept that God has no beginning because the Bible says so and we accept that as evidence. This is an instance where we accept something as true though we have no means of logically deducing it. Either a person accepts this or they do not.
But, again, teachings (assertions) supposedly the result of deductive reasoning is something that is subject to reason and therefore falsifiable. The society has done a lot of this. A lot! And there is plenty that has been falsified. Plenty!
Of course, we all know that all of us are imperfect. So are Presbyterians, ad infinitum.

That's a misconstruction. 1) Reason is not an authority. 2) Reason is not something that belongs to anyone. 3) Reason is a method.
What you write above is as misconstrued as me saying,
- Mathematics does not recognize a higher authority than one's own math.

You may or may not have noticed a recent topic I started about what we need for belief. (It's probably part of that river you alluded to)
As a purely logical matter, it presents as presumption what others would say is etched in stone. I wrote, "1) Presumption that the written record we call the Bible is testimony of God's will."
As a logical function all this does is establish a premise for sake of making a logical construction. It's my way of saying, "For argument's sake let's just agree that the Bible is testimony of God's will."
I put it that way because, as you say above and I agree, "our faith in what the Bible teaches always depends on the truth that the Bible is the word of God written." There is no disagreement there.
But there's that other thing you mention. You write, "submission to a divinely authorized Governing Body depends on the truth that this GB is in fact divinely authorized".
There is a whopping difference between those two items, so big you could sail a super jumbo freight carrier through it.
- One is left for people to make of what they will, with potential future effect.
- The other can, will and does enforce what it says onto your life here and now.
That said, if you would have others accept that a particular "GB is in fact divinely authorized" then you have very heavy burden of proof to bear.
Individuals will likely be more willing to accept that a work they are left to make of what they will, with potential future effect is the word of God and less willing to accept that a particular GB is in fact divinely inspired that can, will and does enforce what it says onto your life here and now. Which means the veracity of evidence in support of the latter will have to be much greater.
This reminds me of Thomas who, though surrounded by men he knew and trusted, was unwilling to accept on trust alone a particular thing unless he had a way to better measure the veracity of the claim. Jesus made sure Thomas got what he needed. Thomas needed something measurable. Jesus gave it to him.
If, as you suggest, there is a particular GB that is divinely authorized (whose will we should submit to as the word of God) [the latter are my words], what's your evidence? And, should we accede to it no matter what?
Remember, you didn't check the box saying:
- We should believe teaching "x" because the society says so.
 

I completely agree with the comment by @Many Miles. 
Man's free will has nothing to do with God's decision to allow or not allow something, in this case evil. If God's will decided to allow evil, he did not do it because of my free will, because my free will has no influence on God's free will.
But God's free will to allow evil makes me unhappy. And it threatens my free will. It means that God is actually restraining my free will because his free will is more powerful than mine. It means that the idea of a person's free will loses its meaning, if mine is overpowered by someone else's free will.
Second thing. Quoting educated members of academia who support WTJWorg ideas is a ruse. How many educated scholars WTJWorg does not quote in its publications because their views are critical of the Society's doctrines or completely refute them. Do not use this method on experienced forum members. (We've covered 607 BCE in topics here. The scientific community says that's not the correct date, but JWs don't accept them.)
One who does harm to others should be prevented from continuing to do harm.
The one who allows someone else to harm his fellow man should be asked why he allows it. 
It remains to be seen whether the one who allows another to do harm can actually fix things. Usually, the damage is repaired by a third party, not by those who participated in the problem. The doctor is treating the wounds of those injured in the bar fight, but he did not take (active or passive) part in the conflict.
It is said that God did not prevent people from making war, because making war was a free decision of the warring parties, or at least one party, and the other had to defend itself even though they did not want war. Is God a doctor? Mediator? Or the Observer? Because God did not mediate in the reconciliation of the warring parties nor did He resurrect them after they died.
The Bible says; Whoever knows how to do good, but does not do it, it is his sin.
"Therefore, if someone knows how to do what is right and yet does not do it, it is a sin for him".- James 4:17 NWT
 

I completely agree with the comment by @Many Miles. 
Man's free will has nothing to do with God's decision to allow or not allow something, in this case evil. If God's will decided to allow evil, he did not do it because of my free will, because my free will has no influence on God's free will.
But God's free will to allow evil makes me unhappy. And it threatens my free will. It means that God is actually restraining my free will because his free will is more powerful than mine. It means that the idea of a person's free will loses its meaning, if mine is overpowered by someone else's free will.
Second thing. Quoting educated members of academia who support WTJWorg ideas is a ruse. How many educated scholars WTJWorg does not quote in its publications because their views are critical of the Society's doctrines or completely refute them. Do not use this method on experienced forum members. (We've covered 607 BCE in topics here. The scientific community says that's not the correct date, but JWs don't accept them.)
One who does harm to others should be prevented from continuing to do harm.
The one who allows someone else to harm his fellow man should be asked why he allows it. 
It remains to be seen whether the one who allows another to do harm can actually fix things. Usually, the damage is repaired by a third party, not by those who participated in the problem. The doctor is treating the wounds of those injured in the bar fight, but he did not take (active or passive) part in the conflict.
It is said that God did not prevent people from making war, because making war was a free decision of the warring parties, or at least one party, and the other had to defend itself even though they did not want war. Is God a doctor? Mediator? Or the Observer? Because God did not mediate in the reconciliation of the warring parties nor did He resurrect them after they died.
The Bible says; Whoever knows how to do good, but does not do it, it is his sin.
"Therefore, if someone knows how to do what is right and yet does not do it, it is a sin for him".- James 4:17 NWT
 

You'll have to explain what that means. Perhaps there's a typo or perhaps I've misread something.
Pursuing truth through reason does, by definition, make one a rationalist. So what does it mean when you say, "the pursuit of truth through reason doesn’t make us rationalists"?

I would be more generous. I'd say some individuals find themselves atheists not because they want to be an atheist but, rather, because they find themselves incapable of doing otherwise. If, for instance, someone has examined evidence to the best of their ability, and they honestly come to the conclusion "there is no god", when in reality there is a god, what difference does that make to a almighty and benevolent god? An almighty and benevolent god would look for no more than any given human is capable of. How could he do otherwise?
In the case that God exists, and He's almighty and He's benevolent, the most He could possibly look for in any human is their best effort. Each human is unique and has their own capabilities. If, as it turns out, an honest person finds they are incapable of believing there is an almighty and benevolent God, then they have done their best. In this case the almighty and benevolent God would look upon an individual as one having no helper, and God would be their helper when the time came. In the meantime the individual would be held accountable for no more than abiding by natural law.
All that said, we're still left with a variable we cannot account for: what is or is not benevolent is entirely at the option of an almighty god.

You do know what you just wrote, right?
You just wrote that God permits evil because He wants to permit evil. The sole reason would boil down to God is going to do what God is going to do, because He can and He wants to. After cooking the soup, that's what you just said.
How does that fit conceptually into any human perception of a court case?

Allow me a few more thoughts on the aforementioned "controversial issue".
WTJWorg has a doctrine that says; it takes a very long time to answer Satan's challenge about who has the right to rule over people. Well, they say, how JHVH could have destroyed Satan immediately, but that would still leave doubt in God's justice.
This could mean that the angels in heaven were ignorant of the nature of God and his virtues. This could mean that the angels grew up in a climate of doubt and mistrust of God from the very beginning, so it was easy to persuade them to believe Satan. This could mean that all that time (say, millions of light years) was not enough for the angels to develop "complete trust" in God. Everything said also applies to people, of course adapted to the spatial and temporal frameworks on Earth.
So, the famously silly claim that God allows evil on earth because his credibility must be proven and that it takes time, a very long time, in which, among other things, millions of innocent children and adults will be subjected to the greatest suffering and torture, does not hold up to the argument .
Angels don't need any further evidence that Satan is wrong and God is right. As for humans, they have never seen God anyway, nor do they have any insight into the relationship between God and Satan. The only thing they can do is read the Bible and "invent" explanations and assumptions.
The idea of a "Universal Court Case" is a construction of people who came up with new ideas by reading the Bible. Jesus, who is the unique "witness for the living God" did not provide such material in his teachings that this WTJWorg doctrine could be developed.
At the end of the day, if there is such a great and inevitable need to prove some kind of "Universality" that belongs to God, and how that "Case" includes countless millions of years in the past and countless millions of years into the future, then I would say that it is already long ago answered.
Since the book of Job is taken as the "biblical argument" of this WTJWorg doctrine, then I can say that in this sense Job gave the "Universal Answer". To further insist that every child, man and woman (born after Job) should be subjected to horrors in the name of the same cause is silly.
The second turning point is the life and death of Jesus. He answered the same question once more. Job, as an imperfect man, passed the test. Jesus, as a perfect man, passed the same test.
So what else needs to be answered?

But Thomas, one of the Twelve, who was called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples were telling him: “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them: “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will never believe it.” Well, eight days later his disciples were again indoors, and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and he stood in their midst and said: “May you have peace.” Next he said to Thomas: “Put your finger here, and see my hands, and take your hand and stick it into my side, and stop doubting but believe.” In answer Thomas said to him: “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him: “Because you have seen me, have you believed? Happy are those who have not seen and yet believe.” To be sure, Jesus also performed many other signs before the disciples, which are not written down in this scroll. But these have been written down so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and because of believing, you may have life by means of his name. (John 20)
We have an object lesson in that written account.
One of Jesus' original twelve apostles was unwilling to believe something just because other men he knew and trusted said it was true. Thomas was the one. Though Thomas was eyewitness to some of Jesus' supernatural miracles, in this particular instance Thomas needed something more than the word of men he knew and trusted. Jesus was not the one telling him what he was told. Men who knew Jesus were telling Thomas what he was told. Even though he knew and trusted these men, trusting what men said was not enough in this instance. He needed something objective, something measurable. The man from Nazareth gave Thomas what he needed.
There is a proverb saying "Do not hold back good from those to whom it is owing, when it happens to be in the power of your hand to do it." Jesus did that for Thomas.
So today, when accepting the word of men we know and trust is not enough for us to accept a certain piece of information, a certain teaching, what do we have to help them that is objective; that is measurable?
We don't have supernatural power to demonstrate Divine authorization. Moses was given this. Jesus was given this. Some among Jesus' earliest followers were given this. But with their deaths that manner of demonstration was gone, at least until some future point where it might again be given.
So what do we have for person's who fear God and want to do right by Him yet need more than trusting our beliefs to accept a particular teaching as God's will? We have three things.
1) Presumption that the written record we call the Bible is testimony of God's will.
2) Presumption that the object record of the natural world around us is testimony of God's will.
3) Our brains capable of forming sound conclusions (logical conclusions).
If we want someone to accept a belief we hold dear is solidly based on God's will, then we have that third item to make it measurable.
The man from Nazareth gave Thomas what he needed because it happened to be in his power to do so.
Today, if someone needs more than trusting us to accept a particular teaching as God's will, we have the power of sound reason to measure the veracity of that teaching. But, like it or not, sound reason is a double edged sword of sorts. It's objective, and no respecter of persons. Because sound reasoning measures the veracity of a belief does not mean it will always demonstrate a particular belief we cherish is true. This is because, by means of sound reason, we may discover a teaching we cherish is at best unsound, and maybe even false. But even in that case, we got what we needed for belief.

I find your logic and reasoning irrefutable.
Thank You!  
A whole two millenia thousand piece puzzle just clicked into place.
 

Allow me a few more thoughts on the aforementioned "controversial issue".
WTJWorg has a doctrine that says; it takes a very long time to answer Satan's challenge about who has the right to rule over people. Well, they say, how JHVH could have destroyed Satan immediately, but that would still leave doubt in God's justice.
This could mean that the angels in heaven were ignorant of the nature of God and his virtues. This could mean that the angels grew up in a climate of doubt and mistrust of God from the very beginning, so it was easy to persuade them to believe Satan. This could mean that all that time (say, millions of light years) was not enough for the angels to develop "complete trust" in God. Everything said also applies to people, of course adapted to the spatial and temporal frameworks on Earth.
So, the famously silly claim that God allows evil on earth because his credibility must be proven and that it takes time, a very long time, in which, among other things, millions of innocent children and adults will be subjected to the greatest suffering and torture, does not hold up to the argument .
Angels don't need any further evidence that Satan is wrong and God is right. As for humans, they have never seen God anyway, nor do they have any insight into the relationship between God and Satan. The only thing they can do is read the Bible and "invent" explanations and assumptions.
The idea of a "Universal Court Case" is a construction of people who came up with new ideas by reading the Bible. Jesus, who is the unique "witness for the living God" did not provide such material in his teachings that this WTJWorg doctrine could be developed.
At the end of the day, if there is such a great and inevitable need to prove some kind of "Universality" that belongs to God, and how that "Case" includes countless millions of years in the past and countless millions of years into the future, then I would say that it is already long ago answered.
Since the book of Job is taken as the "biblical argument" of this WTJWorg doctrine, then I can say that in this sense Job gave the "Universal Answer". To further insist that every child, man and woman (born after Job) should be subjected to horrors in the name of the same cause is silly.
The second turning point is the life and death of Jesus. He answered the same question once more. Job, as an imperfect man, passed the test. Jesus, as a perfect man, passed the same test.
So what else needs to be answered?

I don’t know how to answer that but I do think of the chaos and deaths caused by the many kings of Israel….that sure is frustrating ..

If every man named Paul is bitten by a snake, then all such people will not care about the bite. lol

TTH:  Using that same logic the Nazis had the right to rule mankind.
…, or a Comet had the right to rule the Dinosaurs.

From our level of knowledge, we are unable to conceive something that exists with no beginning. Hence, regarding the question of rights, when it comes to a creator with no beginning, answering the question is outside any objective rational argument we could form based on evidence. It would be unanswerable by us, based on objective knowledge we currently have as humans. But, if Armageddon comes and a bunch of people are destroyed, objectively we can say whatever was responsible for the event had the power to destroy a bunch of people and did so.

In my days (1970s) it was kind of summed up in the questions of who is the true God and will man choose the God whose name is YHVH or will he choose the false Gods of Babylon the Great. And the question, does YHVH have full right to rule.
It turns out that man, not God, answers both questions about the status of God. A bit strange, isn't it?
The man answered only one question; Who will he choose for. Only because it is about the freedom of choice that people have.
The question of who is the true God and whether he has the legal right to rule is not for man to answer. Because how can "created matter" answer that question? Not at all. If a man chooses his master, this does not speak of the status of the master, but of the status and condition of the man who is given the opportunity to choose. One can argue; "my lord is good, just, merciful, generous, etc." But then it is primarily an expression of the perception of a man, who has actually never seen his master or talked to him, in this case. It is the product of some other experience in a person, outside of the classic, well-known and experiential way of getting to know another person.
Today's believers, as well as many from the past, primarily "got to know" God through the upbringing and teachings of their parents, people and/or reading the Holy Scriptures.
Every other "experience" of God is up for debate. Biblical characters mostly literally heard "God" (or angels) with their ears, experienced through visions, through supernatural manifestations. Today, say JWs, this cannot happen, and if someone were to claim that this happened to them, then JWs will say that they are under the influence of demons, drugs or mentally ill.
Our personal choice, about own selection of one of the organized religions headed by YHVH, which spreads to other people through street or house preaching, gives testimony to our choice of religion. It cannot answer the question whether God has a legal right to be God. It is presumptuous to attribute such importance to oneself, to a human being. If God is really God then he does not need our confirmation, consent or testimony that he is really God who has the right to rule. It is utter nonsense that God is so dependent on human testimony. Angels in heaven are not stupid. Everyone should have seen and understood who their God is, if they were with him every day of their lives. They don't need an answer to such a human question posed by WTJWorg.
So, what kind of universally, controversial, disputed question (Universal Court Case) do JWs actually answer?