Many Miles

Here's the testimony you allude to:
Q. And do you see yourselves as Jehovah God's spokespeople on earth?
A. That I think would seem to be quite presumptuous to say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using. The scriptures clearly show that someone can act in harmony with God's spirit in giving comfort and help in the congregations, but if I could just clarify a little, going back to Matthew 24, clearly, Jesus said that in the last days ‐ and Jehovah's Witnesses believe these are the last days ‐ there would be a slave, a group of persons who would have responsibility to care for the spiritual food. So in that respect, we view ourselves as trying to fulfill that role.
Jackson said "we" (read: GB) "view ourselves as trying to fulfill" the role of a slave caring for the spiritual food.
Yoda 101: Do or do not. There is no try.
What is arrogant is the GB enforcing what comes from it under pain of potentially lethal shunning when, according to Jackson, the GB is not actually DOING the work of caring for spiritual food but, rather, are only TRYING to fulfill that role. If the role played by the GB is as you say then it's MEN should be CHRISTLY ENOUGH to say that in full open view, even if it means they are exposed to great personal sacrifice. Isn't that what Jesus did?
To those under its foot, the GB acts like a dictator. To those not under its foot, the GB acts like there's nothing to see here; please just move along and leave us alone (so we can keep doing to our subjects what we want to do to them because this is religion and religion is a protected activity).
 

Based on the latter clause of your sentence, by "Congregation" presumably you mean JWs.
I can't attend public meetings. To do so would represent tacit support for a teaching I know causes many, many deaths, and it is untenable. I long for the day when it is repealed, or at least relegated to a status similar to what it held prior to 1961.
In the meantime I consider myself like Elijah, or David who had to keep himself from the anointed of Jehovah in order to help those he still loved and cared about.
For now, that's all you need to know about me, if that.
I do not hide my identity from those who earn my trust. But that trust has to be earned. One day perhaps you'll learn of me from me. In the meantime, whether we have dialogue is up to you.

In that case there's a single doctrinal position you need to apply yourself to. The society's blood doctrine.
That doctrine has led to a lot of premature death.
From day one there has been disagreement within the community of JWs about the merit of this doctrine. From day one. And people are dying over it.
If that teaching is demonstrably wrong then the society has bloodguilt. If a person stands in even tacit support of that, natural law condemns them. Also, what God said to Noah condemns them too. Look close. Look very close. And, look hard. You don't want to be on the wrong side of that teaching.
"No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his life in behalf of his friends." (Jesus)
In reverse chronological order:
- If we have permission to donate our life to save a friend then we have permission to donate our blood to save a friend
- Christians have never been under Mosaic law provisions related to blood
- Noah was told nothing whatsoever about donor blood
- God said nothing to Adam or Eve prohibiting them from anything they might want to do with blood
 

I hear you. I probably mentioned already on the forum that I grew up as a Witness and baptized at 15, but then got caught in Greg Stafford’s theology (Mere Christianity) at 18 which then evolved in me becoming a Neo-Anabaptist for 5/6 years when I was 21, back in (2011- 2016) while still being a Witness. I explored other options after as well, but found that I could not take them seriously as intellectual propositions and remained a Witness.
I try to be careful when constructing arguments and often wonder if I have understood and learned the other person’s position. So I try to live by these three options:
Try to refute the argument.
Say that I need time to think about it.
Or accept the conclusion of the argument.
Anything else would be intellectual sloppiness at best.
I’m still trying to grasp and understand your position and of other Witnesses here, especially JW Insider’s since I used to believe the same thing you guys do (a more rudimentary form though 😂) in ecclesiology.
I'm not saying that the thesis you have described is unreasonable. But I do believe that it is neither fitting nor true.
Looking forward to our discussions. I've some catching up to do. I’ll get to reading all your points and JW insiders eventually.
 

That happens sometimes. When it does the problem is not how strong a person's grasp of concepts is but, rather, whether the person's willingness to learn is greater than their desire to persuade (or protect).
More often than not, the problem I see between persons engaged in a contentious subject is a goal to persuade (or protect) rather than a goal of sharing and learning.

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.

That happens sometimes. When it does the problem is not how strong a person's grasp of concepts is but, rather, whether the person's willingness to learn is greater than their desire to persuade (or protect).
More often than not, the problem I see between persons engaged in a contentious subject is a goal to persuade (or protect) rather than a goal of sharing and learning.

Yes.
We all have natural law written in our hearts. Those who choose to follow it don't need a hierarchy telling them what to do. Also, when encountering someone else holding the same common cause there is an equally natural unity, and that unity will maintain despite non-essential differences that may exist.
Folks who want a different system, say a political human government (nation), probably need some form of hierarchy. It's not going to be pretty. Man dominating men leads to ruin. After creating Adam and Eve God gave humans dominion over animals, plants and the earth. He did not given man dominion over men.
Do not put your trust in nobles or in earthling men. Read that again. Are you sure you read that?

No. There was no consequence. Jesus gave Thomas what he needed.

Here's the testimony you allude to:
Q. And do you see yourselves as Jehovah God's spokespeople on earth?
A. That I think would seem to be quite presumptuous to say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using. The scriptures clearly show that someone can act in harmony with God's spirit in giving comfort and help in the congregations, but if I could just clarify a little, going back to Matthew 24, clearly, Jesus said that in the last days ‐ and Jehovah's Witnesses believe these are the last days ‐ there would be a slave, a group of persons who would have responsibility to care for the spiritual food. So in that respect, we view ourselves as trying to fulfill that role.
Jackson said "we" (read: GB) "view ourselves as trying to fulfill" the role of a slave caring for the spiritual food.
Yoda 101: Do or do not. There is no try.
What is arrogant is the GB enforcing what comes from it under pain of potentially lethal shunning when, according to Jackson, the GB is not actually DOING the work of caring for spiritual food but, rather, are only TRYING to fulfill that role. If the role played by the GB is as you say then it's MEN should be CHRISTLY ENOUGH to say that in full open view, even if it means they are exposed to great personal sacrifice. Isn't that what Jesus did?
To those under its foot, the GB acts like a dictator. To those not under its foot, the GB acts like there's nothing to see here; please just move along and leave us alone (so we can keep doing to our subjects what we want to do to them because this is religion and religion is a protected activity).
 

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'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.

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.

We all have reasons for choices we make. You've experienced some troubled waters in your journey. I only applaud that you are still around and willing to speak your mind to help others with your experience. Hopefully that's what we're all doing.

Yes. True. An unavoidable observation. We should all learn from one another.

I can assure you, that's not the majority reason.
 
This is closer to the majority reason. Just how many brothers has the GB fail to 'back up' over the years for trying to do right, even going to far as to beg for their help to understand why the GB is teaching certain things it teaches and imposes under pain of being ostracized by close family and friends? You tell me. 

Yes. I’m familiar with those merry-go-rounds. I don’t ride those rides.
Here I have no goal of settling or resolving any disagreement(s). Were that to happen? Fine. But I’m here to share and learn. 

Yes. I’m familiar with those merry-go-rounds. I don’t ride those rides.
Here I have no goal of settling or resolving any disagreement(s). Were that to happen? Fine. But I’m here to share and learn. 

Yes. I’m familiar with those merry-go-rounds. I don’t ride those rides.
Here I have no goal of settling or resolving any disagreement(s). Were that to happen? Fine. But I’m here to share and learn. 

Yes. I’m familiar with those merry-go-rounds. I don’t ride those rides.
Here I have no goal of settling or resolving any disagreement(s). Were that to happen? Fine. But I’m here to share and learn. 

I think it would seem to be quite presumptuous to say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using. Not my words. But I agree with the sentiment.
The early Christian church found it difficult to think there were people whose worship God accepted outside Judaism and outside Christianity. But God showed them different. There's no reason to think these worshipers were particularly organized. They were just living life in a way God accepted. How we live our life is our worship, not what organization we do or do not belong to. Just think about all the good that came from how Job lived his life, and this despite him having no advertised affiliation with any organization.
Asserting we must be organized to get things done is a slippery slop, and oftentimes the sentiment has ended up hurting people because too late folks discovered an organization had an underlying operating arrangement different than they were either allowed to or led to believe. God is not dependent on humans organizing to get His will done.
Because people organize to get things done does not mean to get things done you have to be organized. Because someone does not organize does not mean they don't care about getting things done; it just means they don't organize. That said, unity within an organization is not because of uniformity. To the contrary, unity is continuing within a common cause despite holding differences.
I'm not anti-organization. I am for rationality and transparency. Any organization whose primary purpose is to help people follow Jesus should be completely transparent and rational in all things. We find these attributes in the early Christian church.
 

Let’s just call him Soco and move on. You Goo-wi-dat? Lol 

Yes. For me, if you pronounce Socrates with two syllables, thus making in shorter, I will appreciate the consideration. So-crates works just fine for me.

I want to say something more in response to that notion.
Rationality does not have a main tool. Rationality is a tool.
Things learned or advocated by science are no more or less useful to rationality than premises from any other source, including purely theoretical premises, even invented premises for sake of devil's advocacy to explore creative ideas.
It's pure fancy to think of science as a main tool for rationality.

Here I am. Send me.
I'll do what I can.
I'll use longer words for those who need longer words. I'll use shorter words for those who need shorter words.
So long as the communication is clear all is good.