Many Miles

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.

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..

@Many Here's just one example of a question determined by the arbitrary choice of regulating texts, when an authoritative interpretative framework is not recognized. See link
 Experimental Theology: Universalism: A Summary Defense
The biggest objection to universalism involves the passages regarding hell in the bible. However, there is no doctrinal teaching that doesn't have contradictory tensions within the biblical witness. Witness the hermeneutical and exegetical diversity within the Christian tradition. In short, universalists are not in any unique position. This is the way it is with just about any doctrine.
The issue, then, ultimately boils down to which biblical texts will regulate doctrinal choices. For example, which of the two passages regulates your doctrine regarding female leadership in the church?

"I do not permit a woman to teach, nor have authority over a man." (1 Timothy 2.12)
"There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3.28)
If you are a Complementarian Passage #1 regulates your understanding of Passage #2. If you are an Egalitarian Passage #2 regulates how you understand Passage #1. And there is no way to resolve any debate between the two camps as these are meta-biblical choices.
A similar thing holds for the soteriological debates. Universalists have regulating passages that frame how they understand the texts about hell. Here are four regulating texts for universalists:

"God is love." (1 John 4.8)
"For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross." (Colossians 1.19-20)
"When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." (1 Corinthians 15.28)
"For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." (Romans 11.32)

As with the gender texts one has to choose regulating texts about hell. And these are meta-biblical choices. People who believe in a classical vision of hell will read the four passages above through that lens. Universalists, by contrast, will read the texts on hell through the lens of these four passages. That is, they will teach that hell must:

Be a manifestation that "God is love."
Be a means to "reconcile all things" to God
Allow God to be "all in all"
Provide a way for God to "have mercy upon all"

@Many Miles Sorry for the delayed response. I was out of pocket most of these past few days. I’ve been following up during work, but I hadn't really thought about your responses. When I open the forum, I feel as though an entire river is washing over me. I hardly know where to find my feet and focus; everything seems to be coming at me at once😂. All I can hope to do here is focus as narrowly as possible on the issue I previously raised, so that we can have some chance of picking out and fairly evaluating what's most relevant. Please note I'm not so sure I will succeed doing that. 
I do agree that Scriptural statements should not be a wax nose that can be turned any which way by those interpreting or that Scripture become in effect whatever one wants to it say.
 
I believe the Scriptural text does possess meaning that we can access. But accessing that meaning requires bringing the proper interpretive framework to the text. It seems the first two options you have listed here do not exhaust the possibilities. From my view, we do not have to choose between a self-appointed authority and someone who can make a reasonable case for his interpretation. A third option is that we could choose to submit ourselves to those with teaching and juridical authority. According to Scripture faith is a different stance, believing not because we can see for ourselves that it is true or because we ourselves witnessed it being delivered directly from God or because we independently verified that these claims were directly delivered by God, but because of the divine authority of the ones speaking. This is how the people in the Hebrew Scriptures believed Moses. And so likewise when Jesus said to Thomas in, John 20:29 and then in John 17:20.
So my submission to a divinely authorized Governing Body depends on the truth that this GB is in fact divinely authorized, just as a our faith in what the Bible teaches always depends on the truth that the Bible is the word of God written. Cults (in that manipulative sense of the term) often take the faith-based path, by forbidding their members from investigating the authority of the cult. That’s not the epistemic state of a JW I believe . Our submission to the GB does not shut us off from the possibility of inquiring into the basis for the authority of the GB. It can’t. Our entire submission to the GB is based on it being actually divinely authorized. This is why there can be (and are) so many rationalist in our midst( I am concerned about this type of rationalism, that if one cannot verify for oneself something that Jehovah or Jehovah's spokesman reveal (Jesus), one does not have grounds to believe it, let alone an obligation to believe it. There's many things we cannot verify to be truth or that are falsifiable when dealing with divine revelation).
Yes, for the Congregation's claims to authority to make sense they have to be reasonable and consistent and faithful, but their authority does not come from their claims being reasonable and consistent and faithful. Epistemology (how we come to comprehend the authority of the Congregation) is not ontology (how the Congregation receives and possesses her authority). The Congregation does not lose her authority when her claims do not make sense to us, otherwise it would have authority only when we agree with what she teaches. Rather, when the Congregation, exercising her teaching authority, teaches something that does not make sense to us, it is we who must trust and seek to grow in our understanding, not the Congregation that in such cases must instead conform to our understanding.
So our continuing openness to the pursuit of truth through reason doesn’t make us rationalists, nor does it mean that we are not really submitting to the GB . Our submission is first to Jehovah , who is Truth, and who has revealed Himself in His Son, through the Congregation . And therefore, our submission is based on the Congregation truly being what and who she claims to be, the Congregation Jesus established.
 

@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.

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"?

Juan,
I just saw your response. I haven't read it yet. But at first glance I saw this, and I want to say how much I respect a person who's willing to give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question.
Now, based upon the above response, I'll read your thoughts on how:
We should believe teaching "x" because of some other reason other than because it's "rational" or "the society says so".
Should be an interesting read. But, I already respect the straightforward answer and wanted to put that out front!

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.

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 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?

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.

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.

You have good memory.
Yes. Still practical, but leaning into the wind rather than merely getting swept away in a gust. Optimistic!
 

15 smackers is a good deal for that read.
I spent way, way more than that in time and resources to finally find and get a copy a few decades ago. But that was before folks were turning everything into digital stuff.

Really? On Amazon? Kindle? I'm going to have to look that one up. My hardcopy is a first edition and, though I've read it, the binding is getting a bit cranky with age, and I want to take care of it.

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.

Oh yeah? Well, I can out-compliment you, any day.
I like the handle, ‘Many Miles’ for its suggestion of ‘seen it all, not wound up too tight, and will help if I can.’ The profile photo is the coup de grace, homespun, simple, unassuming, nothing to be intimidated by. You might be a deposed Enron executive, for all I know, but the persona you have selected is very appealing.

I’m on that one, too, if I can find it, and if its not too much an arm and a leg as i suspect it might be.

Have you read Under Two Dictators (1949) by Margarete Buber? It's an contemporary firsthand account of how female Bible Students coped with Nazi concentration camp oppression. In this case Ravensbrueck. Some of what went on, notably regarding the eating of blood and a couple other things, is pretty telling. A now deceased GB member's wife, Gertrude Poetzinger, was in the same camp at the same time, and she confirmed Buber's account.  It's worth the read.
 

It’s just an exercise in writing, not to be taken too seriously. Sort of like what Schroeder said about that Watchtower. You might like this one better, also an exercise in writing:
She was an impish little thing, trying to make me change for my burger and fries. But a nickel in the tray kept evading her gloved finger. “Look how I can’t pull out this nickel,” she mused, “it just keeps slipping away.” Suddenly she looked up brightly, and with wisdom far beyond her years - or was it that of a child? – she said “Oh, well. I forgive myself!”
Yes. That permeates everything you do. It’s a very desirable quality. 

That's a pretty fatalistic perspective. Though the most we can do is try our best, I hold a positive view that we do not waste our time when we share our experience and training to help others, or some circumstance that needs improvement. I also find it helpful to pursue improvement for myself too.

More often than not, all we can do is share our experience and training for the benefit of others, and we can work to improve ourselves too. But in the end the most we can do is honestly try our best. Whether that helps improve someone's life or some circumstance is usually beyond our control.