Thinking

3 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

So, just so I'm perfectly clear, you believe Christians are bound to provisions of the Mosaic law when it comes to blood abstention?

No..by Christ's Law.

What you are doing here is clouding the blood issue in tangled webs and murky water with the fog of words so as to mislead.

Your arguments don’t make sense Miles….its and emotional issue in modern days times but it’s not all that hard to work out.

3 minutes ago, George88 said:

An Elder had a similar experience with his daughter. The doctors persuaded my dear friend to give his daughter an operation to correct a spinal defect. They assured him and his wife of decades of dedication to Jehovah that the operation was routine. They agreed to the process. When they started the operation a complication unfolded, they immediately came out encouraging the parents to accept a blood transfusion to level the blood loss. The heart of parents losing their 15-year-old daughter came to a realization, and they agreed to that life-saving procedure, a parent's will or faith. 

They gave the daughter over 30 units of blood and despite all that, she died at the table. 

Oh my goodness…..it is a fear of all parents and surgeons and all medical people put such fear into such parents…what a calamity….i hope the recovery spiritually as I know they won’t ever recover from her death,

But Jehovah shows great love and mercy such one's just as he did to Peter..I sincerely hope the elders dealt with them in as Jesus would have…what a sad sad story.

8 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

To be in harmony means no more than to be consistent with and not contrary to.

Here's something else the society teaches specifically about blood in relation to what predated Mosaic law vs. Mosaic law:

"At Deuteronomy 14:21 allowance was made for selling to an alien resident or a foreigner an animal that had died of itself or that had been torn by a beast. Thus a distinction was made between the blood of such animals and that of animals that a person slaughtered for food. (Compare Le 17:14-16.) The Israelites, as well as alien residents who took up true worship and came under the Law covenant, were obligated to live up to the lofty requirements of that Law. People of all nations were bound by the requirement at Genesis 9:3, 4, but those under the Law were held by God to a higher standard in adhering to that requirement than were foreigners and alien residents who had not become worshipers of Jehovah." (Ref Insight, blood, emphasis added)

Hence, were one to abide by Mosaic law they were also abiding by Gen 9, but everyone abiding by Gen 9 were not necessarily abiding by Mosaic law.

That what the society teaches.

 

 

Yes we are held to a higher standard…you are very confusing ….we are under Christ’s law now wether gentile or Jew.

6 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

Here is what the society teaches about the "three things" you alluded to:

"When the issue involving application of the Mosaic Law to Gentile Christians was presented to the governing body in Jerusalem in the first century, their decision was in harmony with these facts. They recognized that Jehovah was not requiring Gentile believers to perform works in obedience to the Mosaic Law before holy spirit was poured out on them. The decision of that governing body did list as “necessary things” certain prohibitions that were in harmony with that Law, but these were based on the Bible record concerning events that predated the Law. So there was not an imposing on Gentile Christians of a responsibility to conform to the Mosaic Law or some portion of it but, rather, there was a confirming of standards recognized prior to Moses." (Ref United in Worship book, underlining added)

Thanks for this but let’s pull it apart ….what about the sentence where it says 

in harmony with that Law.

also the events that predated the Law …….

well that is what a number of us have been saying….( jehovahs view on blood and his attitude to blood all thru all the scriptures demands respect for blood ) even those predating the law…
I'm sorry for your personal pain in the past but I agree with the above and it’s basically what we have all been saying .

For myself I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.

6 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

The society teaches the "three things" you refer to come from requirements predating Mosaic law. I guess that's the part you're missing.

Well fill me in…honestly I am genuinely asking.

23 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I have known three people in my lifetime who were told, point blank, and without much empathy, that they would die without a blood transfusion. None agreed to one. None died. One of them was a teen backed by her parents. 

I realize that some persons have died, as you’ve indicated. I have just never personally known of one.

I also recall being asked to visit a teen from some rural congregation who had been in an accident and was being advised a transfusion was necessary. His mom was a Witness, his dad was not. I went with the idea that if this lad, who I did not know, wished for no transfusion, I would back him in his wish.  He did not indicate any such desire and he was transfused. I do not know what became of him afterwards. The experience was awkward and uncomfortable for me, not knowing any of the people involved. 

The closest experience with blood that I know, not exactly what you have asked,  is of a nearby couple whose son had a defective heart from birth. The local hospitals would not agree to operate without blood. His parents took him to a hospital out of state that specialized in bloodless medicine, where the heart was repaired without incident. Several years later the problem (or a new one) returned. This time, neither the local hospital nor the bloodless one held out much hope. Parents took him to the hospital that had operated the first time, and he died. Sorry, I don’t have the specifics of exactly what his defect was.

The husband was not a believer when these trials began. He acquiesced to his wife’s stance. The support he received from the friends at the faraway hospital made such an impression upon him that he later became a Witness, and was one at the time of the child’s second operation. He has remained steadfast in the faith and serves as an elder today.

Another elder who I don’t know well—his youngest suffered some malady and hospitals wanted transfusions. They held firm and the boy is well today, with what treatment I forget, but the man recalled to me his anguish at the time that his son might die “to no purpose.”

My goodness that would have been so hard to do with that young lad with an unbelieving dad…so happy you didn’t try to persuade him in any way….its sur not easy being a elder in these occasions .

I think miles regrets taking or encouraging one’s to stand firm with the blood issue and it weighs heavily…as it seems to have ended sadly.

23 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I have known three people in my lifetime who were told, point blank, and without much empathy, that they would die without a blood transfusion. None agreed to one. None died. One of them was a teen backed by her parents. 

I realize that some persons have died, as you’ve indicated. I have just never personally known of one.

I also recall being asked to visit a teen from some rural congregation who had been in an accident and was being advised a transfusion was necessary. His mom was a Witness, his dad was not. I went with the idea that if this lad, who I did not know, wished for no transfusion, I would back him in his wish.  He did not indicate any such desire and he was transfused. I do not know what became of him afterwards. The experience was awkward and uncomfortable for me, not knowing any of the people involved. 

The closest experience with blood that I know, not exactly what you have asked,  is of a nearby couple whose son had a defective heart from birth. The local hospitals would not agree to operate without blood. His parents took him to a hospital out of state that specialized in bloodless medicine, where the heart was repaired without incident. Several years later the problem (or a new one) returned. This time, neither the local hospital nor the bloodless one held out much hope. Parents took him to the hospital that had operated the first time, and he died. Sorry, I don’t have the specifics of exactly what his defect was.

The husband was not a believer when these trials began. He acquiesced to his wife’s stance. The support he received from the friends at the faraway hospital made such an impression upon him that he later became a Witness, and was one at the time of the child’s second operation. He has remained steadfast in the faith and serves as an elder today.

Another elder who I don’t know well—his youngest suffered some malady and hospitals wanted transfusions. They held firm and the boy is well today, with what treatment I forget, but the man recalled to me his anguish at the time that his son might die “to no purpose.”

My goodness that would have been so hard to do with that young lad with an unbelieving dad…so happy you didn’t try to persuade him in any way….its sur not easy being a elder in these occasions .

I think miles regrets taking or encouraging one’s to stand firm with the blood issue and it weighs heavily…as it seems to have ended sadly.

Just now, Many Miles said:

Of course the who blood policy of the society stands squarely on Mosaic law. Only, the society says that's not the case.

There were only three things the elders put on the shoulders of the new Christian’s . And you know them well, idols fornication and abstaining from blood.

I don’t  understand what you mean by the who policy?

8 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

That's a nice opinion. But it fails the test.

Of the substance of blood, nothing whatsoever records God having humans treat blood as a sacred substance until Mosaic Law. Pre-flood humans were not required to treat blood as a sacred substance. Post-flood, humans were still not required to treat the substance of blood as sacred.

I think you conflate the value God attributes to life with the substance of blood. Everything you say I find agreement in biblical text in relation to life. But regarding the substance of blood, I see none of it until the time of Mosaic Law.

The stand on blood comes from the mosaic law.

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

TTH, based on what you write above, you have an opinion of something you describe as "the occasional price that has been paid". Presumably you're referring to deaths caused by the society's position on blood.

What, in your experience, does "occasional" mean?

For example, how many of this sort of deaths would a single congregation experience over what period of time. 1 per 5 years? 1 per 10 years? 1 per 15 years? 1 per 20 years? 1 per 25 years? 1 per 30 years? 1 per 35 years? 1 per 40 years?

I'm curious what your experience is and how you'd quantify "the occasional price". I understand you'd only be speaking of one man's opinion and experience. But you do have an opinion, because you shared a characterization of it.

It was a bad line and wording, but I don’t think he meant it as it sounded.

I don’t know..I’ve been in the truth for nearly fifty years and I’ve never known anyone who has died from refusing a transfusion. A few times such a thing was reported on by the news papers and one time a mother bled out after birth but I don’t know why.?

I would say it’s very uncommon to die from a lack of blood nowadays and even in the old days I think fear mongering went on and the numbers of death were not as large as reported by the news outlets.

We had a young lad who was surfing and a shark bit his leg clean off…as he was loaded up into the ambulance he made his thoughts on blood be known and they respected his wishes…he’s alive…

I think they are heroes…because they were ready to lay their life down for their God and his principles..and that would have been so excruciatingly hard for that mum and her new born child….

1 hour ago, Pudgy said:

Sometimes, when you read something, or somebody tells you something, it makes perfect sense. Other times you get the uneasy feeling it’s somewhere somehow you were being observed through binoculars by a duck.

…. there is an actual Latin word for this, but it escapes me at the moment.

You probably remember the scripture that says, paraphrased, “… you must not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk .…”.  The instant I read this scripture, many years ago, I understood why God would command such a thing, and I wholeheartedly agreed with it at the same level of seriousness that I instantly understood that it was intended.

Occasionally over the past 50 years, in discussing other subjects, I would mention that commandment, and was genuinely stunned that others did not also instantly “get it”. It made no sense to them. If you are going to KILL an animal for food … what’s the big deal how you cook it?

The younger animal is food. The mother’s milk is food. What’s the big deal? Neither one knows or is capable of comprehending WHAT is done with their being a resource.

Just as soldiers become soldiers for dozens of different reasons, even among soldiers, sometimes what is a moral necessity for one is incomprehensible for another.

The SYMBOLIC (  … if you will, the SPIRITUAL …) value of blood is unique, because by example and by edict from God, it is a common theme that runs throughout the whole Bible. It’s clear that we have permission to use as food anything that walks, crawls, swims or flies, including (if you can overcome the strong CULTURAL taboos, like when Jerusalem was under siege) people … presumably bled out from war wounds. Some people would rather starve to death …. and have.

The prohibition against blood is consistent in principle throughout the entire Bible, but what convinced me was the example of King David, a soldier who slaughtered men and animals by the thousands … himself … personally … in hand to hand and eyeball to eyeball combat. When he in laying siege to a city remarked he was thirsty, and the only close by water was in a well near the city walls, two of his men risked their lives in a hail of arrows, spears, and rocks to bring him back a bucket of water. 

David did NOT drink the water. He poured it out on the ground, not because it was blood, or even blood fractions, but because it REPRESENTED the lives of his two soldiers, the EXACT same way that blood represents all air-breathing (pneuma=air) souls. 

In 1960, when I first read that, I instantly “got it”, the same way I instantly understood about the “boiling a kid in it’s mothers milk”.

That’s why, for me, it is just as much respect for the IDEA, or SYMBOLISM of respecting that which Jehovah God has clearly stated is his jealously guarded personal property, as well as actual blood.

Some people “get it”.

Some people don’t.

Excellent post..well said .

On 12/8/2023 at 5:53 AM, Many Miles said:

When reading for pleasure my interests tend to be history and biographical. I like fiction on the big screen, especially science fiction. But fiction books were just never a thing for me.

If I'm not reading for pleasure the analytical part of me comes out. I work to keep it at bay. But sometimes I open my mouth, or keyboard the submit reply button without realizing I might be ruining someone's day for no reason.

I don't know much about your written works, but it sounds like you have fun with it. By itself that's reason enough to keep at it. Ignore people like me.

That was a nice post…

On 12/3/2023 at 8:04 AM, Many Miles said:

Early Christians were a body of individuals united in a common cause of following the Christ as best they could. They understood that no matter their family history God accepted their worship so long as they feared (respected) Him and worked righteousness. Jesus life, death and resurrection served as assurance, it gave them hope to add to love and faith they already had. That was it. Those same Christians also realized there were persons who had yet to learn of Jesus, and likely among them were persons' whose worship God accepted, just like He accepted the worship of Cornelius. Christianity was not a unity intended create a hierarchy to lord over worshipers of God and potential worshipers of God. Christianity was a common cause of helping all of these learn of the hope in Christ, and that God had not forsaken them. 

Today we can theorize about concepts like denomination, but it's an exercise in futility. Nothing has changed about what God expects, and focusing on things like the nit of denominations has potential to detract us from things that really matter, like natural law.

Yes.

See my first paragraph above. Insofar as I know, nothing has changed except humans have transposed a bunch of ideas that distract from Christian unity. It's God place to determine whose worship He accepts, and no one else's.

I would say a lot has changed since then, you are talking about one select group of people ( Christ’s followers )who came out of the Jews who were up until Christ Gods chosen people. That’s it..two groups..

We now have a world of a huge amount of faiths that never existed back then…and what of the Indian faiths who seem to worship all gods..and what of the faiths who see no problem in kissing the cross as they go to war killing their own spiritual brothers…all of them love Jesus…you simplify or try to simplify something that is not at all simple….

Amongst ex Jews on line many of them had been very hurt…and there was this starting of what I now call the Jesus movement …amongst us…off course I understand the pain..I was there…but it’s simply not as easy as you paint it.

And yes we know it is only Jesus who will judge who is acceptable to his worship.

Seeee we JWs think the same as you…and I understand your scars..some have had to stop attending meetings for the sake of their mental health…and I’ve seen that with my own eyes…..personally I don’t think these things can be fixed until that New World Order can be hushered in….i don’t see any great relief in this old system…it shouldn’t be that way…but that just shows we need Jesus to rule totally..so we have to wait….and limp along the best we can.

As to the blood issue personally I can see how Jehovah views blood, so I understand why we abstain from it…let’s put aside the medical view of it but the satanic practices seem to all require the sacrifice and offering up of blood, ether that just be a killing or a killing a drinking of blood…take the era of vampire movies….satan has done all he can to encourage mankind to disrespect blood.

On 12/5/2023 at 1:25 AM, Many Miles said:

Dying is still the leading cause of death. From the day a person's born, the most any medical doctor can do is help prolong the individual's life and quality of life.

When life is lost over something concocted, called "a religious position," maintained despite solid refutation, and then it's double-downed on by threat of being cut off from family and life-long friends should you honestly opt to do the right thing, then morphs through multiple iterations, then conceals critical options (e.g., cryosupernatant plasma for plasma exchange therapy!), it goes through underpinnings like changing socks, then something's wrong.

Yes, I'm completely aware probably the majority of HLC members (if not every single one of them!) are relieved when treatment of young children is left for competent doctors to decide the best treatment options without interference by family during emergencies.

In the post Bethany Hughes medical system we find institutions like SickKids In Toronto, Canada who, with full support of the society, have developed a special letter of understanding available to parents with minor children in the medical system.

This is a document that is signed by treating doctors and the child's parents and is "TO BE PLACED IN THE FRONT OF THE CHART". (Upper case in original document) The primary language reads:

"In an emergency, where your child is apparently experiencing severe suffering or is at risk, if the treatment is not administered promptly, of sustaining serious bodily harm, medical staff will provide treatment that is allowed by the law, which may include blood transfusion."

This document was put together just for JWs, and it was drafted with full support from the society's hospital information services department. When JW parents have minor children in other hospitals HLC members have initiated inquiries as to whether the institution has such a letter of understanding, and if they do not would they consider using one.

Now why would such an initiative be made if not for 1) wanting the child to live and 2) keeping the matter out of the courts and hence under the radar of publicity? What does the initiative to create and then execute such a document say about how devoted the society is to its religious position?

This is a good and just point…I do remember big question marks on this document and nobody really talked about it. I also remember asking the brother as to how I could have a study with someone and teach what I didn’t believe or was not sure of. He explained you could make the statement …this is what the society believes …which I did and obviously some would inquire as to what I believed ….then we hear instructions from the GB we are not allowed to say that or make that statement…

I can remember thinking…..yeah that’s just because they don’t want to be caught out if it was proved wrong….I still say it today…..

Unfortunately legalities often come into play.

On 12/8/2023 at 2:38 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

Was it? 

How is the following any more than a reasonable conclusion upon reflection of the article itself?

“The problem is that transfused blood needs nitric oxide to keep the blood vessels open, otherwise, the carried oxygen never reaches the tissues. But nitric oxide begins to break down within three hours of storage, and donated blood is presently stored up to 42 days. To be sure, researchers think they can remedy the problem. But that does nothing to improve the effectiveness of blood transfusions already given, each one of which was hailed as "life-saving," yet few of them actually qualifying as such, at least not any more so than saline solution, which offers no danger of rejection. We all know that the body spots foreign tissue in an instant, and tries hard to get rid of it.”

I mean, I get where you’re coming from. I make clear in the article that I am a Witness. That negates the commentary itself, which even acknowledges researchers aim to rectify the problem and perhaps partially have by now? This is the mindset with which, for example one reads something about an uncontrolled southern border and says, ‘Well—what do you expect? He’s a Republican who wrote it.’ Or one reads something about the abuses of big business and says, ‘He’s a Democrat. Of course he’s going to say that.’ 

This is example of the inane prejudging of information the greater world typifies today. The Great Courses philosophy professor does this in spades. Discussing climate change, he touches on the fact that many weatherman don’t believe it. ‘A meteorologist is not a climatogist,’ he tells us, thus equating anything the former might write to so much toilet paper. How did it get to be a world where people are brilliant in their chosen field, but if you nudge them just a tiny bit out of it, they are clueless? What Great Educator fallen from the heavens packages information this way? And why—unless he is also the Great College Administrator. Hehehe )))). 

If I refer frequently to this philosophy professor, it is because I can see he and his featuring prominently in any future book about Job and other theodicies that I may write, and I am getting a few licks in early. How should I present such a future book? If I include reference to Jehovah’s Witnesses in it, people will say, ‘Oh, that’s an apologetic work.’ But if I don’t, it will leave a gaping hole because the theodicy most coherent is that of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (with a possible nod to the Seventh Day Adventist writer) If I cover all the Witness theology, but don’t say where it came from, it’s as though to say it can be found anywhere—even though it can’t. It becomes like pointing the person seeking water in any random direction, unconcerned with whether I am pointing to the Sahara Desert. Moreover, if I cover the ‘theodicy’ without saying where it came from, I give the impression it came from myself! 

No. I will say it came from JWs. And guys like MM may say, ‘Oh, well, this book is an apologetic work. Why waste my time?’ But I cannot conscientiously do it any other way.

I have not read your book but the parts I have read are pretty good….helpful I think for one’s who have been hurt in the past.

12 hours ago, Many Miles said:

I don't understand that comment.

Nothing on "the list of alternatives" is a "cure all".

What do you mean?

You said this treatment wasn’t known To most witness…in other words not discussed or talked about or widely known …..

On 12/5/2023 at 4:13 AM, Anna said:

It seems that Cryosupernatant Plasma is not a "cure all".

In the document bellow it mentions it is not to be used as volume replacement, one of the biggest reasons for blood transfusions, especially during traumatic blood loss. 

wf-lab-apl-form-cryosupernatant-plasma.pdf 249.52 kB · 4 downloads

And this bit is also quite scary:

https://www.rdm.ox.ac.uk/publications/190785

 

 

Probably why it’s kept of the list of alternatives.

17 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Super written. What is more difficult to read and understand must be important. That's why WTJWorg has a "simple edition" to present the theological tangles as simple.

It’s not actually …they have to accommodate the many many who have had very little and often no education…..if we need and want more depth well that’s up to us..they can not spoon feed us everything.

we got corrected as apparently a number were complaining about the lack of meat or depth to the studies…and they said..get used to it….but they needed to preach and teach to all sorts of men…..that’s fair enough I reckon.

On 12/1/2023 at 8:09 AM, JW Insider said:

As I recall, you had already listened to that particular Great Courses professor and it raised your curiosity about the history of this particular teaching. I thought that our version was similar to Ellen G White's (Seventh Day Adventist) 1858 doctrine that comes under the heading of "The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan." It is summarized here as:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Controversy_theme

One of the 28 fundamental beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists states:

8. Great Controversy:

All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the universe. This conflict originated in heaven when a created being, endowed with freedom of choice, in self-exaltation became Satan, God’s adversary, and led into rebellion a portion of the angels. He introduced the spirit of rebellion into this world when he led Adam and Eve into sin. This human sin resulted in the distortion of the image of God in humanity, the disordering of the created world, and its eventual devastation at the time of the global flood, as presented in the historical account of Genesis 1-11. Observed by the whole creation, this world became the arena of the universal conflict, out of which the God of love will ultimately be vindicated. To assist His people in this controversy, Christ sends the Holy Spirit and the loyal angels to guide, protect, and sustain them in the way of salvation. (Gen. 3; 6-8; Job 1:6-12; Isa. 14:12-14; Ezek. 28:12-18; Rom. 1:19-32; 3:4; 5:12-21; 8:19-22; 1 Cor. 4:9; Heb. 1:14; 1 Peter 5:8; 2 Peter 3:6; Rev. 12:4-9.)^[4]

Yes that was a good read many years ago..I remember reading it and thinking it was from us…I looked into Ellen White after that and still have one of her books….the conclusion I came to over her was ..Just as Babylon /satan mimicked Jehovahs Temple priest and sacrificial system…so here was A satanic mimicry going on….I mean Satan tho locked out spiritually and in dense darkness…..he’s astute and highly intelligent and he can work out basically how this is going to wind up by reading those scriptures …

I mean he was blind sided by Jesus and his successful ransom…..but after that ..and the Hebrew Scriptures …of course he could speak thru Ellen…with his current understanding……sure was/is interesting reading….but I always wondered if indeed…I am guilty of having looked into the deep things of satan ?

8 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Step over into Macedonia, Mr Many Miles, and help us.

”No thank you, 

Having made that irresistible (to me) little quip, 

 

yeah. Me too.

 

Ta da! Now we don’t either, just like you!

Oh, I guess we still put converts on a slip, they won’t mind, I am sure, but not the time it takes to make them. 

Any time you change a practice dating back 100 years, it’s a gutsy move.

I think counting time for so many years is a reflection of the lowly roots that Christianity came from and so far still is. It is the mark of the plebs who were accustomed to the factory model in which when there was nothing to do you’d better nonetheless look busy if you didn’t want the boss to fire you.

Now that the model has been discarded (and good riddance!) probably all the educated people will come in.who were offended by the old way. Trouble is, when they do, they may say to the uneducated and ordinary, ‘Okay—you’ve done well. Amazingly well, really, considering your lack of education. But the smart people are here now. Step aside.’

We’ll have to see how it plays out. One thing for sure, dropping time requirements removes all sense of being ‘on duty’ or ‘off duty.’ It will vastly aid efforts to informal witness, as people will do what makes sense, not press on come heck or high water so that whoever is being spoken to ‘receives a thorough witness!’

 

I think it will be the other way around ….the humble scared and hurt will listen before the educated….we will have to wait and see…

On 12/1/2023 at 7:11 AM, Many Miles said:

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.

 

If I remember correctly Doubting Thomas still paid a price for his doubt…I cannot remember what it was…..I would be  Doubting Thomas Of today…..but I hope I’m more like the beroeans…Miles I liked how you pointed out that Eve actually looked into the deeper things of Satan be even engaging in conversation ….i hadn’t thought of it that way

12 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The devil is always in the  ‘as I recall’ details.

I recall it somewhat differently and probably the truth lies in a compromise between the two recollections. I have on my shelf James Hall’s GC lecture series ‘The Philosophy of Religion.’ I’ve probably listened to close to 100 of the Great Courses lecture series. ‘Imagine how much you will learn if you spend just a half hour each day in the company of some of the greatest minds in the world,’ the introduction to each course says, ignoring only the great minds at JWorg. I vouch for the intro. I have indeed learned a lot. I am far, far less dumb than I used to be.

Usually, I get these GCs from the library. But the library didn’t have the one of James Hall, so I had to order it from eBay. No way would I ever ever have done that had you not put me on the trail. But now I think what you put me on the trail of was a conversational online snippet in which a Seventh Day Adventist pointed to that course, and said, ‘Yes! The professor covered our explanation of suffering and said it was the only one that made sense!’

So I plowed through the 36-lecture course, and sigh—will have to do it again, I suppose, if I am serious about this next writing project, and it is a dog and a half. Yes, it does cover his ‘theodicy.’ Yes, it does say it is the only one logically consistent. But it is not really ‘his’ theodicy. It is the only one Hall considers that posits ‘dualism,’ that is, that God has an opponent, a Satan, and that you can pin the blame on him. ‘That makes sense, the professor said. But he does not give any account as to how that situation came to pass, only that there is such a villain, so that it is somethng of a nothingburger.

Quite frankly, it floored me that out of the many theodicies this fellow considered, only one of them took into account that God just might have an adversary who does, causes, or triggers the evil deeds. Every other theodicy assumes God holding all the cards in every way.

I’m pretty sure I’ve reconstructed what happened. That said, memory is a slippery thing. I am chastened by @Pudgy correcting me long ago. I had not left 3 or 4 comments on ‘apostate’ sites, he said. It was more like 20. No, it was 3 or 4, I said. He repeated it was 20. I repeated it was 3 or 4.  He insisted, not only that it was 20, but that during his career, he had been a highly trained engineer and was therefore accustomed to being precise. ‘If you were a highly trained engineer, and no longer are, possibly the reason is that you cannot count!’ I shot back. ‘Why on earth would I lie about it?!’

Sigh—he was right. I apologized when I realized it much later. I had only left 3 or 4 recently. But long ago, I had experimented on another sit, which brought the total to around 20. Of course, a search on social media makes little distinction between recent and some time ago. Memory is treacherous. 

 

Ha! I remember that exchange between you and pudgy…I found it amazing that pudgy could do that…IT and those who know how to really work it are fascinating…all these young kids and anyone around forty is young to me but the younger ones just whip out their phones and like Jack Flash organize my whole world in a few minutes…..amazing !,

6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

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?

Perhaps his hands are tied by his own righteousness …he said they would die….so he has to wait until all flesh may be wiped out…mankind will have died if he had not intervened….he cannot go back on such a command. Yes we feel enough is enough and all the points we make as a people have been reached..but perhaps we don’t understand HIS DEMAND for Justice….its not like any of us deserves any mercy from him..but it’s a heavy weary thing to see such pain by men.

16 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

There are irregularities in nature that are studied as chaos theory. Even in this chaos there is a certain order, but that order is different from our usual understanding of order and organization. I am reading a written work and there it says.

There are three basic characteristics of chaos:
1. disproportion between input and output;
2. inconspicuousness of the entrance;
3. unpredictable output

In the last few years, the application of chaos theory in social phenomena has been seriously considered. It is interesting that in the last 10 years or so, a number of physicists have moved into the field of sociology and political science.

They realized that some nonlinear equations that describe certain processes, even those that describe quantum physical events on at the level of the atom, can be applied to social and political phenomena, with the proviso that instead of the flow of liquid, for example, the transfer of information is considered: that instead of a phase transition, where a parameter suddenly changes, in society, for example, a law can change, and that instead of an essential phase transition can have a political revolution, so systems of differential equations that describe physical processes are applied for describing changes in society. By solving this system of equations, treating society as a chaotic system, one tries to predict the likely outcome. Politicians in the West are now closely following these pioneering studies.

Organizational chaos represents disorder, confusion, commotion in the organization. Organizational chaos means that the organization is in a state of entropy. Entropy is a measure of disorganization of the system, it is a state in which the system falls apart. The tendency towards disorganization, that is, organizational chaos, is a natural tendency of the system. organization as a measure of order in the system, the entropy of the system and its tendency towards organizational chaos is reduced.

My comment:

The schisms within the initial, Russell's WTS, and later other doctrinal turmoil under other presidents, indicate a certain chaotic state and consequently dramatic changes that the Society goes through, constantly. They could say that the leadership's pursuit of order and control is possible, but it is also not impossible to have disorder and chaos.
What kind of chaos could or should YHVH have anticipated, foreseen before the creation of angels and men?

 

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 ..

12 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It is good and truthful, but not all of the book is satisfactory. I’ll put it in my next one, perhaps—which may be an exploration of ‘theodicy’ (why bad things happen). Does @Many Milesor anyone else know the origin of our ‘universal court case’ theodicy? I’d love to track that one down. @JW Insider once put me on the track of a Great Courses university professor exploring the subject and it was well-nigh insufferable. Not that I won’t have to plow through it again if I proceed, but I am reminded of a newly discovered and instantly favorite G K Chesterton quote: “The first effect of not believing in God is that you lose your common sense."

I have no idea what you are talking about. Why be so hard on yourself? 

It’s like when a car group of friends drove near a certain industrial complex. Surrounding blocks had been snatched up for parking, but here and there were some stalwarts who hadn’t sold their properties. Thus, there were a few rickety houses completely surrounded by blacktop. “These people are so stubborn!” Sam (who had worked there) grumbled. “The company needs that property. They pay good money for it.” He reflected a few seconds, then said, “I’m stubborn—but these people are more stubborn!”

Now, you know how brothers like to razz each other. Instantly, it started. “No! You, Sam—stubborn?! Don’t be so hard on yourself! How could you say that??!! Not you!”

Sam was probably the most stubborn person to have ever walked the planet.

I think that was pudgy that said that..that quirk in the system is at work again…but I’m sure in fact I know a few elders would speak or think of me as such….but thank you for your kind words…