Alphonse

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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

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

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

What Truth, George88?
The only thing you have contributed is vague, foggy general opinions without backup, applauded with upvotes by your sock puppet Alphonse.
 

You have a great quality of humbleness Tom….i try to learn from it .

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.
 

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

…. you need to reread Luke 22:36-38.
Jesus DID COMMAND his Apostles to buy swords, but agreed that two were enough!
Your agenda is interfering with your reading comprehension.
He was not talking about swords for bears!
 

I am challenging YOU George88, because in response to SPECIFICS, I give SPECIFIC answers, and you give vague, nebulous, general statements based on nested false premises.
You demonstrate my observations.
 

He can go to field service and conduct Bible study with people, i guess only this. According to articles from 2005 and 2017, your elders are not working according to the regulation if he have duties in congregation (carries microphone, reading, public speech etc. lol.
Unless, you can provide written WTJWorg material that say opposite.
 Can a Christian maintain a good conscience if he accepts armed employment?
Engaging in secular work that requires carrying a firearm or another weapon is a personal decision. But armed employment exposes one to possible bloodguilt if one uses the weapon and to the danger of injury or death from an attack or reprisal. A Christian carrying such a weapon would not qualify for special privileges in the congregation. (1 Timothy 3:3, 10)—11/1, page 31. - https://www.jw.org/hr/biblioteka/casopisi/w20051215/Sjećaš-li-se/
Christians strive to be exemplary. (2 Cor. 4:2; 1 Pet. 5:2, 3) After receiving Scriptural counsel, a Christian who continues to keep a gun for protection against other humans could not be considered exemplary. He would therefore not qualify for responsibilities or special privileges in the congregation. The same applies to a Christian who continues to carry a firearm as part of his secular work. How much better to seek other employment! 
 - https://www.jw.org/hr/biblioteka/casopisi/strazarska-kula-proucavanje-srpanj-2017/posjedovanje-oruzja-radi-zastite/

I hear you, there is a fundamental difference between that for which a person is culpable before Jehovah, and that by which we (humans) may judge another human. I don’t think anyone here would claim that apart from the guidance of the Congregation, people cannot read and understand Scripture to some degree, a degree that allows them to have a conscious saving faith in Jehovah and Christ. Thankfully, they can. Knowing Jehovah and Christ is a matter of degree (not all or nothing). Jehovah and Christ can be known in various ways through different means, Scripture, worship, prayer, tradition, community, service. Jehovah can even be known (in some degree) through incorrect interpretations of Scripture. Hearing His voice does not necessarily mean perfectly hearing his voice correctly about every truth within the content of our faith. So a person can truly come to know and love Jehovah, without yet knowing that the Congregation is what Jehovah established and into which all Christians should be incorporated.
Even the notion that they must be either good guys or bad guys already makes it a loaded answer, because the truth may be more complicated. There is also the matter of motives, and of actions. Actions can be good in one respect, but deficient in another, all while motives may be very good. And so forth, so it is not so black and white. It is good, all other things being equal, for persons to be told about Jehovah and Christ and His love for us, and that He died for our salvation. It is not good for persons to be in schism, to be deprived of true worship, to be taught false doctrine (to be taught that they can never lose their salvation), to be deprived of the fulness of the truth, and all the other aids to our salvation available within the Congregation.
So far as I know, people like that prostitute you encountered, or James White, TD Jakes, Billy Graham, Greg Stafford, Raymond Franz, or Rolf Furuli were doing the best they could with what they knew, and bringing a message of Jehovah and Christ to many people. And in that way, they are good guys. But it is not for me (or any other JW) to judge the hearts of our fellow man and determine that this one or that one has placed himself in a state of sin by such a choice. We cannot read hearts, only Jehovah can. The principle of love calls us to believe the best about someone, all other things being equal, and to pray for those we see in error, rather than judge them. Not presuming that there is some intellectual dishonesty in their heart at the level of the will regarding this question, and not presuming that they are violating their conscience, but instead with the assumption that they are following their conscience as best as they can, and desire to know the truth, and will in fact sacrifice all to find and follow the truth no matter what it is. 
But such persons are in a gravely deficient condition, especially and to the degree that their understanding of Jehovah is incorrect. It is much more difficult to be saved without the fullness of the Good News and the means of help available in the Congregation which are the ordinary means by which we are to grow up into the fullness of conformity to Christ.
I know that because the holy spirit is at work in the hearts of all men, and because Jehovah is omnipotent, the Congregation does not rule out the possibility that persons in a condition of ignorance concerning the fullness of the Good News and the Congregation, can be saved. And the testimony of Scripture supports that teaching, which is not universalism but rather a recognition of the power and mercy of Jehovah who desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4). Paul wasn’t being redundant there. Knowledge of the truth about Jehovah is very important, but it is not the essence of salvation, we’re not saved fundamentally by gnosis, but by love and faith.
Correct doctrine allows us more perfectly to know Jehovah, and thus more perfectly to love Him. The more one knows the truth about Him, the more one is able to love Him, because we cannot love what we do not know. Similarly, the more one knows the truth about Jehovah, the more reason one has to love him. Moreover, not all theological error is equal, and not all theological error completely eliminates the possibility of loving Jehovah. It is possible for our beliefs to be imperfect and believe some falsehoods about Him, and still love Him. Yet the more distorted one’s understanding, the more difficult it is to love Him. 
What I have argued is that if Jehovah and Christ want us to be united in faith and love, then He would have provided the necessary means by which to preserve that unity. And in the Governing Body of the Congregation He has provided just that, a means by which our unity of faith, unity of worship, and unity of government are maintained. Even though Scripture is clear enough for a person to come to saving faith by reading it, it is not clear enough to preserve the unity of the Congregation without an authorized governing body. So for me a Governing Body it’s not just extremely valuable and convenient, which would amount to a pragmatic ad hoc way of thinking, but rather organic and intrinsic to the Christian faith.
@Many Miles @JW Insider @TrueTomHarley @Anna
Perhaps I should write this under the Galatians thread. Here’s anyways😅 
I’m beginning to think that the idea that we can approach the bible without an inherent bias or rose tinted glasses is an illusory ideal. This abstract view from nowhere seems to be more effective when we think we have obtained pure objectivity, all while unknowingly presupposing contemporary ideas and assumptions. Everyone uses glasses of some sort when they come to Scripture. No one can interpret Scripture from a completely clean slate. The question is not whether one will have glasses through which to interpret Scripture, but rather which glasses are the correct ones?
@Many Miles I understand that that our Congregation (Jehovah's Witnesses) takes pride in not articulating/ categorizing or claiming of having any explicit background philosophy (like Thomism, Scotism or Platonism) or theology per se. And that we Witnesses say that no background philosophy is needed, but prefer to base our beliefs on the Bible without philosophizing. But even though our Congregation says that no explicit philosophy drives our understanding of Scripture. I think we all agree that no belief developed in a vacuum and the Watchtower movement grew from different roots (In my opinion, from rationalist ideas from the enlightenment, humanism, democratic individualism and was influenced by different traditions according to at least one study -Rachel de Vienne and B. W. Schulz: Volumen I & II Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion's Watch Tower: 1870-1887.)
When we read (and interpret) scripture we are not starting from a clean slate. There is no traditionless theological vacuum, abstract view from nowhere from which to read or interpret Scripture, we come to it with some sort of glasses (tradition). There is no initial space where the reader brings nothing to the text, and where his interpretation is not contingent on what he brings to the text. Even biblical studies cannot be carried out in a philosophical vacuum (that is, their tools, techniques, principles and methods, all presuppose a framework). Theology and religion always start from certain hermeneutical principles whether explicitly or implicitly. And if we do not realize that we are even bringing philosophical presuppositions to the interpretive process, I don't think we will not be getting to the fundamental causes of our interpretive disagreements. Only then I think we'll realize that we need some way of evaluating these assumptions. Claiming to evaluate them by way of Scripture simply ignores the fact that we would be using these assumptions to interpret Scripture, so the evaluation would be question begging, and thus worthless.
When each person is deciding for himself what is the correct interpretation of Scripture, Scripture is no longer functioning as the final authority. Rather, each individual's own reason and judgment becomes, as it were, the highest authority, supplanting in effect Scripture' unique and rightful place. I believe the discussion hinges on whether there is an authoritative interpretive authority and how that authority is determined. This is why I'm starting to believe that our attempts to resolve our disagreements by way of proof texting or exegesis is futile. The root of the disagreement is not fundamentally in an exegetical error, but instead within philosophical and theological assumptions we bring to the text. So this idea of approaching scriptures only thru hermeneutics presupposes that kind of rationalism and that hermeneutics and exegesis would solve interpretative problems. But there is more than exegesis that is at work in interpretation and it's not just exegetical tools but underlying philosophical and theological assumptions we bring to the text even if unaware.
Here's what a friend and philosophy professor (who won an award for excellence in the field of Biblical exegesis) challenged me on.
Let's test this claim Juan (that exegesis alone, without any reliance on philosophy or theology can first determine the meaning of Scripture, to which we can then subject our philosophical and theological assumptions). Lay out any exegetical argument you think resolves a substantive doctrinal disagreement that presently divides us, and I'll show you the hidden (or not so hidden) theological/philosophical assumption in that argument, an assumption either immediately brought to the text or built on an interpretation that is itself based on a prior theological/philosophical assumption brought to the text.

How simple everything would be if we only had the old “Make Sure Of All Things …” book, the NWT before it was paraphrased, and the whole “.. stay alive till ‘75 …” fiasco was apologized for, and the Congregations were governed per Matthew the 18th Chapter.
…… sigh …..

I'm sure there are exceptions, but in my experience most religions are businesses. They end up selling what sells. It's good for business.
I'm not trying to generalize. There are good people found amongst various religions. It has always struck me that individuals can belong to a religion, attend its services and engage in its activities, yet openly speak of disagreements of which they hold diametrically opposed views. They don't see the religion they associate with as an anchor for their souls. They just see it as a place where they can be with people who want to do right and love people. For these people, the church they associate with is just a rendezvous point. Their personally held beliefs are something else altogether.
The hurt does not come from the fact of mistakes. The hurt comes when religious leaders pound an idea of basis-of-teaching that is then ignored by the same leaders to preserve a preferential position. Take, for example, the basis of 'soundly reasoning from the scriptures'.(1) That implies teachings will conform to rational conclusions. As an example, a teaching of what "soul" is. It's not a single thing by itself. Rather, it's two things in a state of composition that equate to "soul", when and only when those two things remain together as one. In the case of "soul", those two primary components are 1) a body formed from the earth and 2) breath of life. Together, those components were "soul". Apart neither is "soul". Only together is there "soul".
But the notion that a thing is not itself when it's decomposed is not treated equally across all teachings, even ones related to the subject of "soul".
1. "Reason from the Scriptures in a way that is convincing. Using heartfelt entreaty and sound logic, Paul convincingly ‘reasoned with others from the Scriptures.’" (Underlining added) (Ref https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20100215/Skillfully-Wield-the-Sword-of-the-Spirit/
 

WTJWorg is not honest about this, too. Encyclopedia Britannica is not consistently cited in JW publications.

You remind me of a line from the Rocky II movie where Sylvester Stallone as Rocky is in a Bank trying to get a job that doesn’t Involve getting himself punched in the face 600 times a night.
 

Even the United States government realized in Court what you just stated, George 88, is not true. That’s why in 1972 they dropped it from the passport application.
 

A downvote from a doppelgänger sock puppet is not a coherent reply.
Less relevant than if Dr. Banda was a dictator or a duck.

So what?

I don't know what "letter" you're talking about. But, yes, the images shared earlier by Pudggy are from passport applications. But that's not what you said earlier. Here's what you said earlier:
So, earlier you said those images were "pictures of passports". As I said, and you now agree, they were NOT images of PASSPORTS. No one that I know of has ever had access to any of these men's passports other than themselves. Not even the US Department of State wouldn't have their passports (or copies of them!).
I see you didn't bother to comment on your second error, which was your assertion the MCP cards were not essential to travel. It's your assertion. Care to prove it? I already know your statement is false, but it should be entertaining to see what you cook up as evidence of your assertion.

In 2000 the society made a shift to be clearer about its position on what products rendered from the donor blood supply were prohibited. It prohibited whole blood, plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. If it is a product rendered from blood other than these, the policy left it up to each JW to decide for themselves free of any community repercussion.
The irony
Most JWs have some knowledge of hospital liaison committees (HLC). They have training and materials for presentations to physicians and others in the medical field. Maybe the single largest published work for use by HLCs is titled Family Care and Medical Management for Jehovah's Witnesses. This published work was a boxed 3-ring binder published in 1992. It's about 300-350 pages. But other materials published for HLCs use were as short as a single page. There is such a single-page document date stamped "Rev.4/02". Its header reads "JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES MEDICAL ALTERNATIVES TO BLOOD". The date stamp shows it's a document revised as of April 2002. At the bottom of the page there is a section titled "PERSONAL DECISION". The second item listed reads "Cryoprecipitate (contains small amt. of plasma)". There is irony in that statement.
The irony is that, on the same one-page flier, at the top is the section titled "NOT ACCEPTABLE". The third item listed is "plasma". The irony is found in the "plasma" term indicated in the PERSONAL DECISION section; it refers to cryosupernatant. The irony is, on this document, the society just calls the cryosupernatant "plasma", yet  "plasma" is in the NOT ACCEPTABLE category. I've had friends tell me cryosupernatant is not "plasma" that it is a fraction of "plasma". But, ironically, whoever put this April 2002 flier together understood that cryosupernatant is plasma. It's just cryoreduced plasma. But it is plasma nevertheless.

Some participants here may recall the utter shock of what our JW friends suffered in Malawi. The persecution was horrendous. It was all over a document known as an MCP party card. How many here have ever held one in their hand to look it over and see what it is?
JWs of the time were under the impression that, as it was quoted in our publications, "they can give their allegiance only to Jehovah God and his kingdom". (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1968081?q=they+can+give+their+allegiance+only+to+Jehovah+God+and+his+kingdom&p=par#h=16 )
Under that impression, JWs in Malawi were refusing to obtain the MCP party card.