JW Insider

The Bible is the perfect book it should be. But we should discern the spirit of the Christian message and not be distracted with so many lower-priority details that we miss the forest for the trees. As brought up in the post to @Outta Here we need to be alert to what we are being taught. If we understand the "spirit" of the message and the "priorities" we will not be quickly shaken from our reason in believing a message has apostolic authority when it really was just some speculation over less important details:
(2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2) . . .we request of YOU 2 not to be quickly shaken from YOUR reason nor to be excited either through an inspired expression or through a verbal message or through a letter as though from us. . . I think most of us would agree that the idea of priority of the objective has been perfectly met in the Bible, and is perfectly encapsulated in 1 Timothy:
(1 Timothy 1:5-7) . . .Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on so strongly.

Yes. Excellent point. I believe it has everything to do with it, and I believe that Paul was well aware of the responsibility and understood very uniquely from his own situation why such a spiritual gift was so important. After all, he was not one who had heard Jesus speak personally during Jesus' earthly life, and Paul at times, had to rebuke the very apostles who had such influence on others. The idea, I think, is even carried in the verse in the context of the idea of making sure of the more important things:
(Philippians 1:9-10) 9 And this is what I continue praying, that your love may abound still more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment; 10 that you may make sure of the more important things, so that you may be flawless and not stumbling others up to the day of Christ; Of course, Paul also made good and purposeful use of extra-Scriptural references which also were "useful for setting things straight and disciplining in righteousness," but in order for future congregations to be built especially upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Paul knew that, not just the Hebrew Scriptures, but also the authority of the apostles would become both the doctrinal and practical foundation of the congregations. He had to set things straight even among the other apostles, and the apostles were able to give Paul counsel, too. (Gal 2:10)
Fortunately, we don't need now to question anything that comes through the authority of the apostles. But we still need to follow the same principle of discernment that Paul used when questioning and accepting doctrine.
(Hebrews 5:12-14) 12 For although by now you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong.
Today, of course, we also need to be reliant upon good scholarship to avoid acceptance of certain statements that do not have "foundational" apostolic authority and yet have crept into our Bible texts. It's a modern form of the same spiritual gift of accurate knowledge (and full discernment.) 1 John 5:7.8 is the best example, The New World Translation committee has accurately removed the non-authoritative parts of 1 John 5:7,8, but there are dozens of full verses removed in lesser-known examples found in some of the older texts (not usually the oldest texts) and found not to be as reliable, based on "textual criticism." Some of these omissions seem innocuous, but they are still without sufficient apostolic authority to keep in the context with the authoritative verses.
By calling our Christian Greek Scriptures "apostolic", we acknowledge that some were not written directly by apostles, because most of the apostles were evidently unlettered (illiterate) and required second-hand "secretaries" to record their first-hand experiences and memories. Writings by non-apostles were accepted on the basis that they were understood to have come from those with a direct relationship to the apostles, and who lived at the time of the apostles. The significance given to this idea comes through the statement from Paul that the number of eyewitnesses to Jesus resurrection was known.
(Luke 1:1, 2) 1 Whereas many have undertaken to compile a statement of the facts that are given full credence among us, 2 just as those who from [the] beginning became eyewitnesses and attendants of the message delivered these to us, (2 Peter 1:16) 16 No, it was not by following artfully contrived false stories that we acquainted YOU with the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, but it was by having become eyewitnesses of his magnificence.
(Acts 1:21-23) . . .It is therefore necessary that of the men who accompanied us during all the time in which the Lord Jesus carried on his activities among us, 22 starting with his baptism by John until the day he was taken up from us, one of these men should become a witness with us of his resurrection.” 23 So they proposed two, Joseph called Barʹsab·bas, who was also called Justus, and Mat·thiʹas.
(1 Corinthians 15:5-7) . . .and that he appeared to Ceʹphas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that he appeared to more than 500 brothers at one time, most of whom are still with us, though some have fallen asleep in death. 7 After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
 
 

The Bible is the perfect book it should be. But we should discern the spirit of the Christian message and not be distracted with so many lower-priority details that we miss the forest for the trees. As brought up in the post to @Outta Here we need to be alert to what we are being taught. If we understand the "spirit" of the message and the "priorities" we will not be quickly shaken from our reason in believing a message has apostolic authority when it really was just some speculation over less important details:
(2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2) . . .we request of YOU 2 not to be quickly shaken from YOUR reason nor to be excited either through an inspired expression or through a verbal message or through a letter as though from us. . . I think most of us would agree that the idea of priority of the objective has been perfectly met in the Bible, and is perfectly encapsulated in 1 Timothy:
(1 Timothy 1:5-7) . . .Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on so strongly.

The Bible is the perfect book it should be. But we should discern the spirit of the Christian message and not be distracted with so many lower-priority details that we miss the forest for the trees. As brought up in the post to @Outta Here we need to be alert to what we are being taught. If we understand the "spirit" of the message and the "priorities" we will not be quickly shaken from our reason in believing a message has apostolic authority when it really was just some speculation over less important details:
(2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2) . . .we request of YOU 2 not to be quickly shaken from YOUR reason nor to be excited either through an inspired expression or through a verbal message or through a letter as though from us. . . I think most of us would agree that the idea of priority of the objective has been perfectly met in the Bible, and is perfectly encapsulated in 1 Timothy:
(1 Timothy 1:5-7) . . .Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on so strongly.

Which means, when translated, something like: Hello, the Bible should be read in context and one should not try to understand it by taking a verse out of context.

Hardly! Britain very nearly could not even save itself. And the USA made use of a 'get in there as late as possible' tactic which allowed all the other nations of imperialist leanings to lose power by the end of war.
The true credit goes to the Russians for holding out so long against the Nazis. To scale, it was more like this:

 

Very True ..... the Russians lost 20 MILLION and more people fighting the Nazis.
Infinite variety.

I think that hits the point exactly. The elders, especially during previous years, were directly taught at KM school (Elder Training) that the first time that there is suspicion of two persons of the opposite sex spending hours of time alone together, that there should be some kind of very strong counsel and even sanction due to the appearance alone, even if the elders were convinced that they were innocent of loose conduct. It was the same at Bethel, because there was a rule against being alone with a sister in your room unless the door was open, this meant that as soon as the door was closed, there should be strong counsel and even sanction. I knew that the rule was often broken, and I think that very few would turn someone else in, yet multiple infractions of the rule could mean dismissal.
If a couple of the opposite sex ever were seen to have contrived to be alone together, it was simply assumed that they went too far in their conduct with one another. The elder training gave examples of appropriate questions to ask, even if it was not overnight, and these questions assumed the worst, and would try to draw out a confession of "loose conduct." There would be a probation or loss of privileges of some kind, even if both vehemently denied any misconduct.
If the time spent together appeared contrived, and was overnight, especially if reported by a third party who saw a car parked overnight in front of the other person's house,  then the assumption was always that fornication had occurred and that any denial means the two are lying. The types of questions to be asked gave away the assumption of immorality and dishonesty. If they had previously been counseled, this could immediately escalate to disfellowshipping. 
Having been raised in the truth, and having gone to school in Missouri, I didn't realize until I went to college that many of our assumptions were similar to many of the fundamentalists around us. It wasn't just JWs but most old-time religionists, assuming that leaving two persons of the opposite sex alone together was always an instant recipe for fornication and/or adultery. If you listened to radio preachers you'd hear the same assumptions. Witnesses were also assuming that there was nothing else that young people could possibly be interested in.
It wasn't until after Bethel when I went to college that I realized that many persons were immoral, but also that many had morals likely superior to ours. And most surprisingly that many persons of the opposite sex actually lived together as roommates and still didn't ever worry about the topic of sex/fornication ever coming up. Now, I have seen statistics that show that teenage pregnancies were always much higher in the "Bible Belt." Perhaps part of the problem was in the assumption that young people have nothing better to do.

I think that hits the point exactly. The elders, especially during previous years, were directly taught at KM school (Elder Training) that the first time that there is suspicion of two persons of the opposite sex spending hours of time alone together, that there should be some kind of very strong counsel and even sanction due to the appearance alone, even if the elders were convinced that they were innocent of loose conduct. It was the same at Bethel, because there was a rule against being alone with a sister in your room unless the door was open, this meant that as soon as the door was closed, there should be strong counsel and even sanction. I knew that the rule was often broken, and I think that very few would turn someone else in, yet multiple infractions of the rule could mean dismissal.
If a couple of the opposite sex ever were seen to have contrived to be alone together, it was simply assumed that they went too far in their conduct with one another. The elder training gave examples of appropriate questions to ask, even if it was not overnight, and these questions assumed the worst, and would try to draw out a confession of "loose conduct." There would be a probation or loss of privileges of some kind, even if both vehemently denied any misconduct.
If the time spent together appeared contrived, and was overnight, especially if reported by a third party who saw a car parked overnight in front of the other person's house,  then the assumption was always that fornication had occurred and that any denial means the two are lying. The types of questions to be asked gave away the assumption of immorality and dishonesty. If they had previously been counseled, this could immediately escalate to disfellowshipping. 
Having been raised in the truth, and having gone to school in Missouri, I didn't realize until I went to college that many of our assumptions were similar to many of the fundamentalists around us. It wasn't just JWs but most old-time religionists, assuming that leaving two persons of the opposite sex alone together was always an instant recipe for fornication and/or adultery. If you listened to radio preachers you'd hear the same assumptions. Witnesses were also assuming that there was nothing else that young people could possibly be interested in.
It wasn't until after Bethel when I went to college that I realized that many persons were immoral, but also that many had morals likely superior to ours. And most surprisingly that many persons of the opposite sex actually lived together as roommates and still didn't ever worry about the topic of sex/fornication ever coming up. Now, I have seen statistics that show that teenage pregnancies were always much higher in the "Bible Belt." Perhaps part of the problem was in the assumption that young people have nothing better to do.

Many, many people ... totally innocent people ... have been shot to death, or spent years in prison, because they APPEARED to be guilty of some societal or cultural infraction.
I used to tell my children when they were small, and would go through a store, picking up things to look at them ... it is not only important to BE innocent ... it is important to APPEAR to be innocent.
STUFF HAPPENS.
 

I think that hits the point exactly. The elders, especially during previous years, were directly taught at KM school (Elder Training) that the first time that there is suspicion of two persons of the opposite sex spending hours of time alone together, that there should be some kind of very strong counsel and even sanction due to the appearance alone, even if the elders were convinced that they were innocent of loose conduct. It was the same at Bethel, because there was a rule against being alone with a sister in your room unless the door was open, this meant that as soon as the door was closed, there should be strong counsel and even sanction. I knew that the rule was often broken, and I think that very few would turn someone else in, yet multiple infractions of the rule could mean dismissal.
If a couple of the opposite sex ever were seen to have contrived to be alone together, it was simply assumed that they went too far in their conduct with one another. The elder training gave examples of appropriate questions to ask, even if it was not overnight, and these questions assumed the worst, and would try to draw out a confession of "loose conduct." There would be a probation or loss of privileges of some kind, even if both vehemently denied any misconduct.
If the time spent together appeared contrived, and was overnight, especially if reported by a third party who saw a car parked overnight in front of the other person's house,  then the assumption was always that fornication had occurred and that any denial means the two are lying. The types of questions to be asked gave away the assumption of immorality and dishonesty. If they had previously been counseled, this could immediately escalate to disfellowshipping. 
Having been raised in the truth, and having gone to school in Missouri, I didn't realize until I went to college that many of our assumptions were similar to many of the fundamentalists around us. It wasn't just JWs but most old-time religionists, assuming that leaving two persons of the opposite sex alone together was always an instant recipe for fornication and/or adultery. If you listened to radio preachers you'd hear the same assumptions. Witnesses were also assuming that there was nothing else that young people could possibly be interested in.
It wasn't until after Bethel when I went to college that I realized that many persons were immoral, but also that many had morals likely superior to ours. And most surprisingly that many persons of the opposite sex actually lived together as roommates and still didn't ever worry about the topic of sex/fornication ever coming up. Now, I have seen statistics that show that teenage pregnancies were always much higher in the "Bible Belt." Perhaps part of the problem was in the assumption that young people have nothing better to do.

I think that hits the point exactly. The elders, especially during previous years, were directly taught at KM school (Elder Training) that the first time that there is suspicion of two persons of the opposite sex spending hours of time alone together, that there should be some kind of very strong counsel and even sanction due to the appearance alone, even if the elders were convinced that they were innocent of loose conduct. It was the same at Bethel, because there was a rule against being alone with a sister in your room unless the door was open, this meant that as soon as the door was closed, there should be strong counsel and even sanction. I knew that the rule was often broken, and I think that very few would turn someone else in, yet multiple infractions of the rule could mean dismissal.
If a couple of the opposite sex ever were seen to have contrived to be alone together, it was simply assumed that they went too far in their conduct with one another. The elder training gave examples of appropriate questions to ask, even if it was not overnight, and these questions assumed the worst, and would try to draw out a confession of "loose conduct." There would be a probation or loss of privileges of some kind, even if both vehemently denied any misconduct.
If the time spent together appeared contrived, and was overnight, especially if reported by a third party who saw a car parked overnight in front of the other person's house,  then the assumption was always that fornication had occurred and that any denial means the two are lying. The types of questions to be asked gave away the assumption of immorality and dishonesty. If they had previously been counseled, this could immediately escalate to disfellowshipping. 
Having been raised in the truth, and having gone to school in Missouri, I didn't realize until I went to college that many of our assumptions were similar to many of the fundamentalists around us. It wasn't just JWs but most old-time religionists, assuming that leaving two persons of the opposite sex alone together was always an instant recipe for fornication and/or adultery. If you listened to radio preachers you'd hear the same assumptions. Witnesses were also assuming that there was nothing else that young people could possibly be interested in.
It wasn't until after Bethel when I went to college that I realized that many persons were immoral, but also that many had morals likely superior to ours. And most surprisingly that many persons of the opposite sex actually lived together as roommates and still didn't ever worry about the topic of sex/fornication ever coming up. Now, I have seen statistics that show that teenage pregnancies were always much higher in the "Bible Belt." Perhaps part of the problem was in the assumption that young people have nothing better to do.

True, some people have integrity and good parental training and example but the Bible still warns us about trusting in our own heart. Good parents teach their children etiquette.  This helps them to avoid what the scripture below is speaking about:
 I did not find the wording that I used to hear as a youth.  “Shun the very appearance of evil”. But this scripture appears to be saying the same thing.
 
1 Thessalonians 5:22-24 King James Version (KJV)
22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.
 
(Proverbs 4:14, 15) Do not enter the path of the wicked, And do not walk in the way of evil men. 15 Shun it, do not take it; Turn away from it, and pass it by.
 
 Every law has principles to help you to apply the law.  That is where etiquette comes in.  From what I see being done today I wonder whether people still instill these principles in their children, so they can avoid poor decisions that will lead into sinful conduct.
 
 
 
 
 

that protest too much under the same circumstance for children?    Can a person really protest too much about Child Abuse ?
Sorry Kid, but child Abuse is something worth protesting about. Unless a person is on the other side of course. 

The sad reality is that the whole robots and doll used as sexual pleasure is going to cause problems, and those who mass produce such things know the demographic they are targeting, pretty much exploiting that community, for example, you have the Otaku community, of which I made mention of before. These people, majority being males are targets because those who make the robots and dolls cater to their liking when it comes to characters seen in Japanese culture, be it from video games or Manga (the equivalent to comic books), on the other side of the spectrum, outside of this community, you have those who seek a similar thing however beyond that of the culture of the Otaku community itself, therefore the including of body suits, pillows and a list of other things also being produce if one cannot get his or her hands on a robot or doll. The most appalling thing that comes from whole robot/doll points to something that you show yourself to be adamantly against strongly.
But that being said, sexual gratification to oneself,which also includes robots and or dolls is still, to the majority,  categorized in masturbation and pornography.
Another thing is that it is crazy how nowadays instead of seeking a real partner, people tend to seek robots, pillows, dolls, virtual partners (for example, someone marrying a video game character), inanimate objects such as a car or a toaster, etc. And speaking about Otakus, there are less and less people seeking mates in Japan, and or those who think little of getting into relationships while on the other side of the spectrum, you have some people trying to make Momoko-san their waifu and senpai.
A crazy world it is.
This is one of the things I refer to: https://kotaku.com/5409877/the-one-about-the-guy-who-married-a-video-game
The unnamed man is married to the character, Nene Anegasaki, which in this case, is his "[Mai]  Waifu". Even even got everything ready at a literal church, with people, for he was that serious.

It isn't hard to imagine the case with robots, if we have situations like this.

I began to look into this because of one of my sources a while back who goes by the name S.o.G, Solider of God. He focuses such things, but since he is American who lives here, majority of his focus is in the United States itself.
It can and has gotten a bit serious. Something that I and SoG and many others had high concerned about is the youth and what things of this world they are being taught, on the other side of the spectrum since we are talking about robots and dolls, there are those who make such things make them to resemble children, which in turn carters to a certain demographic as well as targeting pedophiles, for the claim is it will prevent cases of sexual abuse by means of these robots and dolls, but that is still a problem has escalated, for they think they can solve the problem this way but they make it even worse.
Then we have the whole gender identity and sexual orientation, which is a mixed bag on its own. There are somethings talked about and discussed that cannot be spoken of here.
Yes, but there are those who really want to find someone, however in today's society there is pickiness and pushing something on to those who are seeking a mate of something unrealized, example would be a girl named Sidney does not want to date/marry a young man named Jordan, the reason, because she already judges him and assumes, that Jordan does not look like a Leonardo DiCaprio, does not play basketball like Lebron James, and or isn't the type to be a comedian like Jim Carey, etc. It is as if they build walls and believe life is like burger king, having it their way, when in reality it is not.
Now there is indeed people who do want to live alone, and for several good reasons, especially men, for there is a The mgtow Movement, which stands for Men Going Their Own Way other times it is regarding those who do not seek companionship or the fact that the type of person they are, they do not wish to cause harm in a relationship or to be a burden to someone else, but yes, what you mention is also true, for some people do not want to share their belongings with someone else, especially if the significant other seeks to separate and or divorce, 50% of what you have will be his/hers.
On the other side of the spectrum you have the immoral ones who embrace brazen conduct, they see sexual pleasure solely with one or multiple partners, they go to crazy parties, night clubs, even overseas to seek such things, and such is committed by both men and women. On other occasions why some tend to be skeptical about young one staying in a university or college, they are open to these things and next thing you know anything regarding rape or some recording found online can spark outrage, I should know because someone I know had taken her own life over it.
Agreed. But we have to be very careful of sexual immorality and all brazen conduct that stems from it - this includes sexual gratification by means of these inanimate objects, which includes robots and dolls, toasters, cars, what have you. This goes for both the single and the married, I mention the married because in both the US and the UK mostly, they tend to get into these things too.

Crazy stuff S. M.  You seem to do a lot of research and are full of unusual information. but  this one I find funny.
Of course it's not funny in a true sense, it is very serious. 
As for people not finding a real human partner, in some ways it is understandable. There are many reasons why one may wish to live life alone. If a person has lived alone for many years they may not wish to share all of their material possessions, or share their money, or their house. They may wish to be able to just come and go as they please without consulting a partner. They may not want any type of confrontation. They may wish to follow a special way of life, a religion maybe, that needs their full dedication. 
Being married has its own complications, and not everyone wants that. Even God's written word advises to stay single if we can cope with it.   

I think it strange that people seem to view Self-gratification? as only being of a sexual nature. It isn't of course, it's just desire to obtain pleasure for oneself.  
As for all this talk about sex on here it makes me wonder if some people on here have serious problems with it.  The GB seem to talk about it a lot too. I suppose it's like Water. Whilst the water will run from the tap when you need it, all is well. But when you turn on the tap and there is no water, that's when people talk about it.  I wonder if this is the same with sex  .
 

Amazing that China, for example, generally builds robots to focus on building things, and the United States builds robots to keep the status quo. These particular robots make a good metaphor for the silicon valley economy. They are kept so that rich people can't be bothered or disturbed after exploiting properties through gentrification processes. SF is notorious for extremely low new building projects to keep real estate prices high, where most adjacent counties in California have much more unimproved and untouched acreage than acreage that has been built upon. In fact, even where SF will begin to expand is not into newly zoned areas for new building, except by encroaching upon Oakland so that additional gentrification processes can be used to remove the majority black and latino populations to rebuild Oakland as a playground for the rich. Silicon Valley has even been finding ways to aid this specific type of gentrification, even through social media, military and law enforcement support -- and Oakland was one of the first targets.
 

Anna we do have 'Public Foot Paths' here in England and also 'Bridle paths' all of which have sign posts. In fact we noticed a few weeks ago, a lady with a clipboard, looking rather 'official', walking past 'our big house'. When we left and locked up the gates we noticed new 'arrow' stickers on gate posts.  Unfortunately there is a public right of way right by  the side of the house. Nice for genuine people but makes it easier for urban explorers to get a good look at the property before breaking in. We can't stop anyone being on the outside just looking of course, but some folks are more welcome than others. We do show some folks around and let them take a few photos too. 
Here is Devon we have those gates (in your photo) and also styles to climb over. And people are expected to keep to the edges on farmers fields. The good farmer would clear a footpath around the edge, some do, some don't.  But yes it is almost 'free to roam' which has it's good and bad points, depending if you are the land owner. 
As far as the House is concerned, the new owner wants to go far beyond restoration, and the locals are totally opposed to it all. The owner wants to turn it into a massive wedding venue, for rich folks. (He's a Londoner, big business man, property and such) He wants to extend what is now the cellar, outward under the side of the house to form some sort of paved garden or similar. And he wants to add other buildings in the large grounds for other uses. Will cost millions of pounds and take at least three years i would think...
But for my wife and i it was a great challenge, getting it cleaned out and tidied up a bit. So it now looks like a house not a scrap yard..... I also had to arrange for the car parts to go into one auction and lots of furniture to go into a different auction.  The car parts / Automobilia Auction i was also involved deeply in because I help that auctioneer lay it all out and put the Lot numbers on everything.  So being part of both the auctions this month has been a challenge too.   The furniture auction was today (Monday) so I haven't heard any results from it yet. But in November i may just spend more time on here, sitting, relaxing, eating mince pies and drinking tea. 
 

At least most of those cars finally got cleared off the lot. "Urban Explorers" must still be a problem, though. I read somewhere that they keep breaking locks and cutting fences just to take a selfie at a place like this. Right?
Looks like quite a project. Perhaps someday it could become a "Wyndham" hotel.
Seriously, however, especially if permission to add the two 70 foot towers and botanical gardens works out, it would be a great place for corporate events, weddings, etc. In the US, we often made use of these out of the way locations for corporate events. Attendance was always low when events were held in Las Vegas, Atlanta, etc., and much higher at captive locations. With those planned hiking trails it would remind me of the last three I went to:
Mohonk House in New Paltz, New York and another one in Amish/Mennonite country in rural Ohio, and another one in Asheville, North Carolina, The [Vander]Biltmore). I don't know how popular this idea is in the UK, but a French company I worked for would send us to a Bordeaux winery (that they owned) and then a "Club Med" in Normandy that was not a typical water-sports oriented Club Med. It was designed with a lot of garden-like pools and little bridges based on Monet/Manet paintings.

I think you might be confusing "evidence" and "proof." Rutherford, in more than one article, showed he knew the difference. He knew that evidence was not proof. But he was anxious to use this idea of the ability to draw stronger and stronger conclusions if a "second witness" and "third witness" to his idea were available. The Biblical idea of requiring a second witness, and the idea that a three-fold cord cannot be broken were utilized to make evidence seem like the equivalent of proof. Of course, most of these multiple evidences had actually been bent a bit to support each other. Today, it's easy to go back and see "confirmation bias" in his sloppy reasoning.
But he had another means of covering over the weaknesses of his evidence which had probably helped him to convince himself that he was right. And it would definitely draw over many of the persons who had remained hold-outs on the basis of unconvincing evidence. This was the fact that his "cause" (conclusion) was considered righteous and he had therefore associated his conclusion with faith. He was able to use "faith" in God's promises as the final glue to hold his weak "cord(s)" together, and hide its flaws, even from himself. This worked for Bible Students who followed him after Russell because they were anxious to believe that these men and their "Society" represented "the Lord."
Rutherford had already been accepting of the idea that he had been made the equivalent of the "Lord." This is the easiest explanation to me as to why so many people would merely accept the flimsy evidence without questioning. You don't question the Lord!
Some later examples might show you what I mean.
*** w74 11/1 p. 651 How Would You Treat an Ambassador? ***
The question is, How does the individual treat a visible representative of Christ who has clearly shown that he truly represents Christ? *** w55 6/1 p. 333 Part 11—Restoration of Theocratic Organization *** [quoting from 1938]
. . . the following was the resolution suggested to and adopted by all congregations who desired to be welded together under the Society’s theocratic leadership: “We, the company of God’s people taken out for his name, and now at ___________, recognize that God’s government is a pure theocracy and that Christ Jesus is at the temple and in full charge and control of the visible organization of Jehovah, as well as the invisible, and that ‘THE SOCIETY’ is the visible representative of the Lord on earth, and we therefore request ‘The Society’ to organize this company for service and to appoint the various servants thereof, so that all of us may work together in peace, righteousness, harmony and complete unity. We attach hereto a list of names of persons in this company that to us appear more fully mature and who therefore appear to be best suited to fill the respective positions designated for service.” Hints of the impact of this idea are found in the kind of reasoning we still use today, even when something turns out to be wrong. For example. The idea was that the Lord [Jehovah] came to his temple in 33 CE, through Jesus and his message. Then the Lord came to his temple again in 1918.
*** w55 11/15 pp. 692-693 par. 15 “Jehovah Is in His Holy Temple” ***
Since the preparatory messenger had come, it was therefore in Jesus’ day that the Lord Jehovah was to come suddenly to the temple . . .  He [Jesus] came as the visible representative of the Lord Jehovah, and by putting his spirit on Jesus Jehovah was with him in coming to that temple at Jerusalem in 33 (A.D.). . . . Has the Lord Jehovah now come to his spiritual temple with his Angel of the covenant? Christendom says No! . . . Down here Jesus came and began the cleansing in the spring of 1918 three and a half years after the birth of God’s kingdom in 1914 and the heavenly enthronement of Jesus Christ as reigning King then. Let Christendom deny that 1918 is the date of the Lord Jehovah’s sudden coming to his spiritual temple as the God of judgment, accompanied by his Angel of the covenant Jesus Christ. . . . Jehovah caused to be preached from 1918 onward the startling public message “Millions Now Living Will Never Die,” and in 1923 he provided the interpretation of “the parable of the sheep and the goats.” The foundation of this idea is good: that Jesus would inspect his congregation and act according to good judgment, and that his true followers would be tested and disciplined in order to meet the challenges of the last days. But notice how the idea that the Society is the representative of the Lord becomes a reason not to question even the specific dates assigned to such a doctrine, which would otherwise be a healthful teaching. Wicked, unfaithful Christendom denies the 1918 date and therefore they come under the judgment of Jehovah. It was Jehovah who caused the preaching of what we now know to be a false prophecy. So how could anyone have questioned a false prophecy or false doctrine under this kind of bullying pressure and name-calling?
As it turns out, of course, just a couple of years ago the Society finally dropped the idea that Jesus had come to his temple for a specific judgment in 1918. For that matter, the interpretation that Jehovah provided for the "the sheep and the goats" has also changed. There seems to have been an abuse of authority here that could be tied to the idea of "beating one's fellow slaves" as @Anna mentioned recently.
I think we have become much more sophisticated in our wording and presentation of this same idea, but the same idea has not changed much. Here are just a few small examples of how much "less sophisticated" it was in Rutherford's time.
Those Bible Students who publicly disagreed with Rutherford were branded "the evil slave" class. Yet, we today also find ourselves disagreeing with Rutherford on the pages of the same Watchtower. In Rutherford's day they published a book in 1917 that claimed that Russell was "Christ's representative in the world, the sole steward of the 'meat in due season.'" They kept selling that book until the early 1930's until "remaining stocks" were depleted. When Bible Students and even the newly named, "Jehovah's witnesses" asked if they should really be spreading false information among the unsuspecting public, Rutherford got angry, and the Bulletin (later, Our Kingdom Ministry) threatened the publishers by saying that if they went against Rutherford they were going against the Lord. But even less controversial issues were common. When the goals and quotas of special pioneers, regular pioneers and publishers were set, it was stated that these quotas were 'what the Lord wants.' Basically, if the Lord says pioneers need to get 100 hours a month, then, Who are we to go against the Lord? Even if we have become more sophisticated in our methods of producing this kind of theocratic world view, I see a danger in this. I think you can see it too.

One thing that upset me when I moved to the USA was the realisation that one cannot just walk anywhere. In Europe, for the most part, everyone has "the right to roam" which means you can pretty much go anywhere, even on privately owned land. In America, most land is owned by someone, and that someone does not tolerate anyone walking through their property. I'm sure @James Thomas Rook Jr. wouldn't hesitate to put a bullet through your head. There are "parks" but those parks are rarely within walking distance. You might have perfect hiking acreage right behind your house, but if it doesn't belong to you,  you can't go there. In England, most privately owned fields and meadows can be accessed by pedestrians and hikers (including their free running dogs, in America you can only let your dog run in a dog park) through a style or "kissing gate". Trails are made naturally by people frequently walking there, not by someone preparing them specially for that purpose. Farmers who drive tractors through a field leave a path, and people walk on those too. As long as you do not infringe on someones garden (yard) around the house (which is usually fenced anyway) you are not trespassing. Of course there is the odd grumpy farmer who puts up "do not trespass" signs in a field, but there are not many....
So in view of that, hiking trails are not really a planned thing in England in the same sense as in America. Of course there are nature reserves, where there are sign posted trails, but generally, in the rural countryside, (where John Buttler's house is) there is no need for them. The same goes for Scotland. In fact I think now you can also put a tent up anywhere, and you can fish and canoe on all the rivers, even if it cuts through someones land.
In Switzerland, you can hike anywhere as well, and you don't have to stick to trails. The whole alpine region is completely and freely accessible to everyone. As for other European states, it's pretty much the same. Oh, and all the nature reserves are "free". They are paid for by the state.
So apparently America is the land of the free. Not in my mind   The book "trespassing across America" sounds interesting.....

 

This almost looks identical to the field behind my mum's house. One year it was growing rapeseed and it was amazing walking through a field of pure yellow...
 
 
 

Which means, when translated, something like: Hello, the Bible should be read in context and one should not try to understand it by taking a verse out of context.

Which means, when translated, something like: Hello, the Bible should be read in context and one should not try to understand it by taking a verse out of context.