Pudgy

Wouldn’t this put the materialist atheists who are scientists in the realm of spiritual men? Not only do they want to examine all things, but they insist that their tools, the tools of science, are the only means with which to do it. 
You spoke highly of acupuncture a while back.
Practitioners of acupuncture will say it works by releasing/rebalancing the body’s chi, which they will describe as a life-force or energy. You will not be able to run this by the champions of science. They cannot detect any ‘chi’ with their science, so they insist it is pseudoscience. If you tell them of benefit of acupuncture, they will say that it is placebo. If you insist it is not, they will call you stupid.
Do you think the spiritual man should look into what is described as ‘the deep things of Satan’ in the spirit of examining all things?
Thus far, I’m a little partial to @George88’s two preceding comments. If I didn’t fear their mix / fortification with ChatAI functionality, I would upvote them. I don’t want to get stuck upvoting, only to find I have upvoted a  ‘Danger Will Robinson’ robot. But I should probably work to overcome my phobia, as @Alphonse has.

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/

Atheists are humans who do not believe in God because they don't see evidence for God, or at least not the God of the Bible. These could fall into different categories in terms of spirituality. One could be an atheist because he's unable to see evidence though he is looking for it. This would put him in the category of spiritual man because he's looking, but in this case he'd be a person who has no helper (he's unable), and sooner or later, according to the Bible, God would help this person. Another could be an atheist because he doesn't want to look into everything and he doesn't want to bother to believe in a God. This would put the person in the category of physical man.
Scientists are trained to use inductive reasoning to find probabilities and then narrow things down more definitively with deductive conclusions, if they are unable to find direct evidence. Mostly scientists are looking for direct evidence. When they do find direct evidence then they apply inductive and then deductive reasoning as either is warranted to further their exploration of all things. Based on what you posit above, I'd say of a scientist who's looking to the universe to examine all things without regard for what others may think of his search, that he's a spiritual man because, according to the Bible, the natural world is God's testimony too. Hence, though a scientist may not end up believing in the biblical God, he ends up obeying natural law like Cornelius did, and Cornelius was a spiritual man aside from Judaism and Christianity.
As for acupuncture, I said it was false to say the practice is pseudoscience.
In my response, which you quote above, I was careful not to say all claims by acupuncturists are scientific. I just said it's false to say the practice is pseudoscience. My reason for saying this is that, as I stated earlier, scientific methods of information examination shows some peripheral neuropathies are demonstrated to respond to acupuncture. Such a systematic review falls within the realm of scientific method. [Emphasis added this go-round]
A spiritual man would find themselves abiding by natural law. Hence, if "the deep things of Satan" are notions that defy natural law then there's nothing there to see, because they'd already know the information is contrary to nature hence rather than being information it would be disinformation. A person who looks into all things does not look where nothing is there to see. They go where the information is. Juan brought up Eve earlier, suggesting maybe she wanted to know why she was not supposed to eat of the forbidden tree. Satan coaxed her into eating of it. But she didn't have to look into "the deep things of Satan" to answer that why question. She already knew it was wrong to eat of the forbidden fruit. So all she needed to do then and there was abstain from eating the fruit. She could have inquired about the "why" by a method other than the proverbial "spark test" (clicking a lighter looking for a natural gas leak!).
God bless you for having the patience to read that stuff. I have neither the time nor inclination. In public and private each has made it known they have no interest whatsoever in constructive dialogue. When it comes to them, and others like them, I find myself helpless due to limited time. I only wish each well. But they need more than I am able to give.

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. 
 

FACT

Agreed. But it's real.

Huh! Nobody has ever come to that conclusion before.  
(It is truly discouraging that ones should come here on the Open Club to advance that viewpoint, thereby revealing their lack of education in the scriptures, as though refugees from the Closed Club where all sorts of odd characters hang out.)

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.

When I wake up from a nap, I get dressed, and take myself for a walk ….

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! 
 

Reasoning is something that is done soundly or unsoundly. Reasoning is how a person thinks. But, not all conclusions (beliefs, decisions) are based on reason. Some conclusions (beliefs, decisions) are based on choice and choice is not necessarily subject to reason. But in a religious system whatever things (conclusions, beliefs, decisions) we opt to accept based on choice have to remain consistent as premises for what we end up using those choices to underpin in the way of deduced teachings (conclusions, beliefs, decisions).
There is rational and there is irrational. If a thing (whatever that is) is not rational then it is irrational. If a thing (what that is) is not irrational then it is rational. As a logical construction it would look like this:
not x then y and if not y then x
More succinct it is expressed as 
either x or y
When you speak about things that are irrational your speaking about things that boil down to choice alone. Yes. It's okay to have and hold irrational choices. But we must understand that this is what we're doing, and be responsible with how we hold and use whatever those choices are. That latter part is where being rational enters the room.
If you speak about things that are rational then it boils down to method of thought.
The notion that 'faith elevates the intellect beyond its natural limits, and thus supernaturally perfects the intellect' is as unevidenced assertion. Faith is a choice. That choice might have some sort of underpinning, but that underpinning is not necessarily fact or sound deduction. But whatever is held and asserted based on faith must, in order to be soundly projected, be held consistently as premises in whatever we deduce from them as peripheral beliefs (teachings, conclusions). Choices could be made strictly based on that which is rational. But when we chose to believe something that is not based on rational thought then we have an added responsibility to be cautious how we use and project our choices.

Not at all. But if find that when my writing takes me into a tunnel, by continuing to write I eventually come out the other end..

Rationality is negated by an act of trust in a higher authority without very, very good reason to do so.
- Abraham had good reason. God literally spoke to him. Presumably, when God literally talks to a person they are supposed to act accordingly or else.
- Eve had good reason. She would die.
BTW, saying "rationalism would require Eve to figure out for herself the reasons why or why not eating the fruit would be good/bad for her" is a red herring insofar as this discussion has progressed. (Underling added) Also, your statement presupposes Eve would need to know the answer to the question why not eat the fruit, other than she would die if she did eat it. Nothing prohibited Eve from exploring "why" but exploring "why" would not require eating the fruit, and not eating the fruit did not require Eve to understand the "why" of not. In Eve's case, the why of not could be as simple as because her husband had told her God said so, and God literally spoke to Adam.

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.
 

@Many Miles Rationalism does not recognize a higher authority than one’s own reason. Faith based epistemology/fideism, by contrast, makes faith destroy nature by squelching or suppressing the pursuit of truth through reason. Genuine faith is neither destroyed by reason nor destroys reason. Faith is based on the truth, because faith builds on nature, not on a vacuum and because Jehovah the true God we love and pursue is also the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
If a JW is not convinced that the GB to which he is submitted is the teaching authority that Christ established, he cannot exercise faith in Christ through trusting that GB. Faith, to be faith, requires that it be built on the truth. That does not mean that we must understand everything we are believing,  that would be rationalism, and would rule out our faith seeking understanding. But we must have good reason to believe that the GB we are trusting to speak for Christ is, in fact, the GB that Christ authorized to speak for Himself.

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
 

That's false, and thinking that way is a trap.
It does not take reason (logical construction) to know the truth that fire hurts you when you touch it, and so on ad infinitum.
Some things are self-evident. What's not self-evident we need to experiment to discover, or deduce from what we have already learned.

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?

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

He did confront God and that might read shocking to some. In the end, though, all was forgiven and he was cut considerable slack due to the agonizing stress he was under. His three interrogators, on the other hand, were cut less slack, since they used their good health to pound their fellow into the ground with their ‘holiness’ and assumed ‘theology’ which held that if you suffer, it serves you right. You must have done something wrong.
The scripture from Job that makes our day as Jehovah’s Witnesses—you can almost hear the cymbals crash at Kingdom Hall when it is cited—is “until I die, I will not renounce my integrity.” Right it is that it should be highlighted, for it demonstrates that man can, under the worst of circumstances, maintain integrity to God.
But it is part of a package: The full verse reads: “It is unthinkable for me to declare you men righteous! Until I die, I will not renounce my integrity!”
Part of keeping his integrity lies in not letting these three bullies gaslight him, not ‘declaring them righteous.’ He knows who he is. He knows he is not what they say, a hypocrite who fully deserves his own downfall. Defending himself before these three louts is part of ‘not renouncing his integrity.’
Apparently, not renouncing his integrity even involves challenging God. Job begins his speech with a preamble just 3 verses earlier: “As surely as God lives, who has deprived me of justice, As the Almighty lives, who has made me bitter.”
Of course he ‘dares challenge his Creator!’ Unless there really is a hellfire, he couldn’t possibly suffer more than he is doing at present! What’s he got to lose? What’s God going to do—kill him? That’s exactly what he wants. Although we go on and on about Job’s faith in the resurrection, even writing a song about it (and it’s a good song, too), the context of his remark appears to show he doesn’t have any faith in a resurrection at all:
He says: “For there is hope even for a tree. If it is cut down, it will sprout again, And its twigs will continue to grow. . . . At the scent of water it will sprout; And it will produce branches like a new plant. But a man dies and lies powerless; When a human expires, where is he? Waters disappear from the sea, And a river drains away and dries up. Man also lies down and does not get up. Until heaven is no more, they will not wake up, Nor will they be aroused from their sleep.” (Job 14: 7-12)
so that the verses we like, the verses that follow, read as though something he would like to see, but fat chance that they will! Wishful thinking they appear to be, no more: 
“O that in the Grave you would conceal me, That you would hide me until your anger passes by, That you would set a time limit for me and remember me! If a man dies, can he live again? I will wait all the days of my compulsory service Until my relief comes. You will call, and I will answer you. You will long for the work of your hands.”
It’s a little hard to tell for sure, but those first verses hardly seem a preamble for a speech lauding God for the resurrection hope.
Nonetheless, God makes it all good at the end. Job makes no accusation to God beyond what can easily be explained by the suffering he undergoes. His companions, under no stress at all, go well beyond anything Job says. ‘What does God care if you do what’s right? It’s impossible to please him. Even the angels can’t do it!’ — they revisit the point several times. ‘The very heavens are not clean in his eyes,’ say they.
While one might come online and chew out an Eliphaz, Bildad, or Zophar, one does not do it with a Job, condemnatory though some of his reasonings were. That role must be reserved for God. Even Elihu, who has words of correction for Job, makes clear his motive: “If you have something to say, reply to me. Speak, for I want to prove you right,”  he says to Job. (33: 32) In the meantime, he’s not going to take advantage of his health to bully a sick man, as the other three fellows do: “Look! I am just like you before the true God; From the clay I too was shaped. So no fear of me should terrify you, And no pressure from me should overwhelm you.” (33: 6-7)
He’s not going to be a Zophar. No one wants to be a Zophar, who to put it in modern terms, visits a patient on a respirator with COVID-19, who has lost his entire family to that plague, has lost everything else as well, who says something rash in his agony, so Zophar responds: “I have heard a reproof that insults me—my understanding impels me to reply.” (!) You almost expect him to challenge Job to a duel! It’s his mission to defend God from any ill talk, regardless of circumstances, but there are times to give it a rest.
You can’t tell a person that their experience is not theirs. No one should try. Everyone will have their say until God debuts with 70 questions to make you say, as did Job, ‘maybe I was a little rash.’ They’re not going to say it to me, or you, only to God after he makes an appearance. Meanwhile, nobody wants to be a Zophar.
 
 

Of course you can. Everyone here sees it with every witty wisp of your well worn keyboard!

You'd be shocked if you only knew the reality of that photo in respect to me. But, yeah, you got things pretty close to how things are. That photo hits so close to home that it is actually ...
I'm just gonna stop there.