AllenSmith

Due diligence with interpretation would therefore constitute discernment with wisdom. Aside from that, it has always been the criteria for the WTS to teach those to follow God’s Law with the proper context and intended view. Exact knowledge of bible truth has not changed.

 

If not we run the risk of overstepping our personal view to satisfy our own needs, Not God’s commands.

 

Insight Volume 2

 

Thus, although God had not given a detailed law code, as he later did with the Israelites, men were not without some means for determining right and wrong conduct. Idolatry, for example, had not yet been specifically condemned by a stated law. Nonetheless, as the apostle Paul shows, such practice was inexcusable inasmuch as God’s “invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship.” The venerating and rendering of “sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created” was against all reason. Those following such an empty-headed course would thereafter deviate into other unrighteous practices, such as homosexuality, changing “the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature.” Again, even though no specific law had been given, such practice was obviously contrary to the way of God the Creator, as the very structure of the male and female manifested. Man, having been originally made in God’s image, had intelligence sufficient to see these things. Hence, he was responsible before God if he went contrary to God’s way; he was sinning, ‘missing the mark,’ even without a specifically stated law to charge him with guilt.—Ro 1:18-27; compare Ro 5:13. [p.223]

 

(1 Corinthians 14:1)

 

14 Pursue love, yet keep striving for the spiritual gifts, but preferably that you may prophesy. 2 For the one who speaks in a tongue speaks, not to men, but to God, for no one listens, but he speaks sacred secrets by the spirit. 3 However, the one who prophesies builds up and encourages and consoles men by his speech. 4 The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up a congregation.

 

Any other discussion we have had on this topic, involves mistaken identity. Why would there be a need for a discussion on that. Are we to understand, if an insinuation is rendered? Then we must accept that JWinsider, HollyW, Ann O’maly are one and the same person?

 

Psalms 75: 5-7

 5 Do not exalt your strength up high

Or speak with arrogance.

 6 For exaltation does not come

From the east or the west or the south.

 7 For God is Judge.

He puts one man down and exalts another.

 

Yes, this is true of JWs and true of so many other organizations too. One might argue that the reputation of the organization is even more critical among JWs because we are dependent on reputation for disciple-making for growth, and growth is still tied to proof of Jehovah's blessing. The unjust procedures were kept for too long, and this might have been based on the fact that they served to protect the reputation of the organization. If so, that's a travesty.
I don't know if anyone has posted the latest procedural updates anywhere but they have improved the procedures about as far as I had ever expected the organization to go. (I'm referring to the August 2016 update to the previous 2012 procedures. They are still just incrementally better than the previous version, but better nonetheless.) It's true that they do not ask the elders to automatically report sexual abuse of minors to the authorities, but it is assumed that the legal department will always make sure that local jurisdictional laws are always followed correctly by the elders. It's also true that neither elders nor the legal department will always providing counsel for victims to report the crime. .
This gives the impression that they will only do the minimum required under the law in any particular jurisdiction, but I believe the organization now has almost as much incentive to handle things correctly with the secular authorities. The reason is that the organization has been "burnt" so many times by not doing the right thing that the previous bad habits (process-wise) have also brought reproach on the organization. And, as stated, this organization is dependent on reputation.
I think the best thing that any of us can do as Witnesses is to just expose the problem so that the organization faces it more honestly. Hopefully, I have done that above. The idea that it's better to hide such things, including any and all accusations, continues to produce an environment that is passively hostile to exposure. Exposure is the best medicine. The criminals should know that no one will side with them to help them hide their crimes. Also, exposure of all accusations (within reason) will also help a congregation learn that not all accusations are immediately credible and this is a good reason to ask for all the help we can get investigating such accusations as early and openly as possible. We should be glad that the secular authorities, who are generally trained, will thus take some of the burden off the elders and the organization where almost no professional training in such matters exists.

One of the other important factors surrounding this problem might just explain why Witnesses have had so much trouble dealing with it.
The most surprising aspect of child abuse (to me) is the fact that this crime is apparently commonly related to "authority." The higher the "authority," the more common the crime. It's not limited to religious authority; it occurs via the levels of authority with family, teachers, bosses, boy scout leaders, military authority, etc.
"Authority" is used as the means to create the circumstances.
"Authority" is used as the means to convince the victim that it's OK. 
"Authority" is used as the means to convince the victim when the victim knows it is not OK.
"Authority" is used as the means to convince the victim not to talk.
Of course, most of this idea about the misuse of "authority" is common sense, but the part that might be most surprising is the prevalence. Abuse by persons in authority is so prevalent that you can almost predict that the higher the level of authority reached in a group, the more likely that you will find the crime of child abuse at that level. The higher the level of priests, the higher the percentage accused of child abuse. And this is known is in spite of the opportunities for authority to cover up the crime.
I believe, and this is only a little bit more than opinion, but I believe this explains the problem that no religion, including Jehovah's Witnesses wants exposed. It's the fact that the higher level of authority one reaches even within the JW Organization, the more likley one will find evidence of child abuse.
I am only going on the evidence of accusations here, and no first hand knowledge of whether these accusations mean anything real. But this would explain why the documentation of how child abusers were handled among JWs can never be open to the public. It explains why, even though the JWs have greatly improved their procedures, we can still never expose the individual cases to a court. It's because it would provide evidence that the crimes are greater and more frequent the higher up one goes in the organization. It would show that those at higher levels of authority in the organizational structure have been the most protected from public and congregational exposure. It would show that, in the not-to-distant past, there have been cases at some levels that were "forgiven" based merely on the promises of the perpetrator, with no apparent punishments.  
Some evidence of this is the fact that rumors and accusations of terrible child abuse crimes reached to the very highest levels of authority in the Australian Branch. At least two past Australian Branch overseers have been implicated, although I know nothing about the current branch overseers except that I know they were aware. Brother Jaracz of the Governing Body was even accused more than once. I have been told that persons treating victims who are not allowed to speak out for professional reasons have provided ambiguous evidence that Brother Jaracz was involved in more than one such incident.
More evidence of such rumors and accusations of terrible child abuse cases reached the highest levels of the UK Branch Office, and I'm told the UK Charity Commission was aware of this. When three or four persons were dismissed from very high levels within the UK branch recently, I was told that the problem was two-fold, but the most serious was not only the process of covering up child abuse, but also the accusations of involvement in child abuse crimes by more than one member of the leadership of the UK branch office.
I've heard of such issues at other branch offices, but never heard enough details.
And of course, most Witnesses are already aware of the fact that not only  Brother Jaracz, but also Brother Greenlees (both of the Governing Body) had been accused of the crime of child abuse. Also, hundreds of Bethelites, including me, witnessed the strange behavior of Brother Fred Franz who held a weekly Wednesday-night sauna session where about a dozen naked and nearly naked young Bethelites would act like sycophant disciples to listen to a naked Franz pontificate. This evidently went on for years, although I only witnessed it once.
Again, except for the evidence of actual dismissals that have sometimes included an admission of the sin (crime), and except for my first-hand knowledge of the behavior of Fred Franz - which might have been innocent, even if weird -- most of what I mentioned above refers to "rumors and accusations." It's easy to make a rumor or an accusation, and they might not be true. You can't just say where there is smoke there is fire. We must be careful of judging and misjudging. But in general, there is still evidence of the trend toward a bigger problem among those in higher levels of authority. These are also the ones who are the least likely to be caught, so we often have a misperception of this particular part of the problem.

You do not know all the websites I post on and the handles I use. This section of the forum is for 'JW news' - not 'Catholic news' or 'Scientology news' or even 'Nuwaubianism news.' The article I posted falls into the category of 'JW news.' Can you at least try to make comments pertinent to the article and not make the thread about personalities (yet again)? Thanks. 
As you well know, the problem of inadequate safeguarding procedures can only be addressed by the Org's leadership or those secular bodies involved with legislation.
 

And that's based on only your word, when the media hasn't mentioned it. That doesn't make you credible just a sensantionalist

Whoops!
Maybe what I meant to remember was that he was never "disfellowshipped" which means that technically he is not "officially" an "apo-state." I see that his experience says nothing of being DF'd, but then again, I've seen people DF'd for less.
Everything he says about his discussions with Albert Schroeder and John Albu "rings true," perfectly. (John Albu was a brother in NYC, but not a Bethelite) I was put in contact with Albu for access to some of his books and his expertise for research projects.
Alan says:
I have believed the same thing, but never knew for sure. I think the general outline of that 1981 book was to be prepared from a couple of older Watchtowers with updates meant to specifically answer new questions raised about Ptolemy's canon and several other sources that Carl Olof Jonsson had written about. I remember that Bert Schroeder, Gene Smalley and others were angry about COJ's manuscript but wouldn't attempt to answer it. It got passed around like a hot potato around the Writing Department for years. Finally, Fred Rusk (the brother who gave my wedding talk) got it as an assignment to produce a Watchtower article in 1980. Rusk knew that the best researchers in-house at the time were Napolitano&Lengtat but he didn't like them because they had been friends with Ray Franz and had helped work on the Aid Book. He let it sit in his office for several months. I had a very strong feeling that it would end up being turned into an assignment for John Albu. John had been open-minded about discussing anything doctrinal, even things controversial up through 1981. But he seemed to close himself off completely in 1981 and for the rest of his life (until 2004), as far as I could tell.

One of the first talks I was assigned to give while still a "ministerial servant" was the "Gentile Times" talk. The old outline was pretty much along the lines of the article that Russell had written for George Storrs' Bible Examiner back in October 1876. I prepared the talk in 1977 and had all kinds of questions. I never asked those questions specifically because I didn't think there was anyone I could ask. But I worked with the Art Dept at Bethel, and that turned into a series of research assignments even while I continued full-time work for 4 years in Art. Several of the research assignments required a full reading of the old Watch Tower books. The research also put me in touch with a lot of people who also had their own questions about the chronology. I even found out that several members of the Governing Body believed that many parts of the chronology had to be wrong. Turns out I got the questions answered without ever asking them. I only gave that "Gentile Times" talk once, and since 1977, I have been able to give dozens of different hour talks that don't have anything controversial in them (as far as I know).

I see three typos, in my last post. One of them was where I even spelled "typo" wrong ("type"). None of it changes the overall point, but if there are any questions on any specifics, feel free to ask. Unfortunately, I keep clicking enter when done, and then when I come back to see what I wrote, it's too late to edit it.

@Cheeto  I don't understand why you say Passover will never change. It's as if you believe there is only one correct way to determine when to add the leap month called "Adar II." Here is some evidence that the method is sometimes arbitrary.
[BTW, I just noticed a typo in the Passover date for 2010: It was 3/30 not 4/30.]
In my lifetime +/- a couple of years, according the Jewish calendar method, Passover has fallen on April 7 about 4 times.
Whenever Passover fell on April 7th, it means that the month Nisan had started on March 24th, which was very close to the vernal equinox on about March 21st.. For every one of these 4 different years, the calendar NEVER added the leap month of Adar 2 at the end of that Jewish year (as an adjustment for the following year) even though, if they didn't, it would mean that the start of the month of Nisan was definitely going to slip back behind the vernal equinox in that next year. As you might expect, if Passover fell on April 9th, they also never did add it. As you might expect, if Passover fell on April 5th, they always did add the Adar II as the last month of that year. So you might get the impression that April 7th was the cut-off point for the earliest that Passover could fall before it became necessary to add the Adar II. In fact, if you check April 6th 1985, they did add it, and after Passover on 4/8/1982 they did not add it.
So with just this info you would have:
April 5th, ADD IT April 6th, ADD IT April 7th, DO NOT ADD IT April 8th, DO NOT ADD IT April 9th, DO NOT ADD IT So it might look like there is a uniform process that makes April 7th the cutoff, and any Passover that falls before 4/7 is an indicator that Adar II must be added to the end of that year, so that Spring and Passover doesn't come too early the next year.
But here is the problem with that:
April 6th, 1993 (and 1917, 1936) was a Passover date, and they did NOT add Adar II to the end of that year. April 6th, 1985 (and 2004) was a Passover date, and they DID add Adar II to the end of that year. So, although they never added after a 4/7 date, they sometimes DO and sometimes DON'T add one for a 4/6 day. Those exceptions made "Spring" start more than a month later in 2012, than it did in 1994. In other words, Passover does change. It can be more than a month later (or earlier) in some years.
I think that the Watchtower acknowledged this very well all the way back in the yearly Memorial issue for 1908 where Russell said (pps. 35-36; Reprints pps 4127-8:
From the foregoing it will be seen that, with every endeavor to reach exactly the date specified in their Law for the Passover, the Jews have difficulty, and often there is of necessity a choice between two days equally appropriate. However, they follow the guidance of their leaders in this matter and have a uniformity of celebration, instead of each one trying to fix the date and celebrating according to his personal knowledge, convenience or preference. And this measure of subserviency to leaders was endorsed by our Lord, who said, "The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat; whatsoever therefore they bid you observe, that observe and do." (Matt. 23:3.) The Apostle indicated the same course to the Gospel Church. (Heb. 13:17.) Two essential features of the celebration of the Passover were: (1) uniformity, and (2) that it begin as exactly as possible at the full of the moon--which symbolized the fullness of favor to Israel.
 
So, one way of looking at it is: that by one person's reckoning the 14th of Adar (or Adar II) on one calendar is actually the 14th of Nisan  on the calendar of another person. Both are equally appropriate. One uses a certain method, to keep the start of Nisan as close as possible to the vernal equinox and another uses a different method. Most years, both methods will fall on the same date, , but some years, they won't. In those years when they don't fall on the same date, they are back in sync again the following year. Neither method is due to a Biblical command or injunction; both methods were developed and turned into a pattern over time, through some trial and error.
 

As I'm sure you already know, the whole purpose of adding a second Adar is so that Nisan continues to start as closely as possible  to the vernal equinox. (Spring in the Northern Hemisphere.) When the lunar year starts slipping back behind the solar year, the Jewish method tends to correct the year with a leap month, one year before it's really necessary to meet the goal of keeping Nisan as close to the beginning of Spring as possible. So this results in a wider range of possible dates that's closer to a 5 week range of dates that includes the equinox, when it's actually possible to keep it slightly more accurately to within nearly a 4 week range of dates that includes the equinox. By correcting the year to align the equinox with Nisan a year before it was really necessary, they (the Jewish method) added the second Adar one year prior to when "Christendom's" method would have added it. But "Christendom's" method is slightly more accurate, astronomically. And it's a bit simpler to calculate, and a little more consistent. You'll notice in the last chart of my last post that Passover usually aligns with Memorial, and the 6 times that it didn't, it was always because Jewish "leap-year" Adar was a year earlier than the method we follow.

@Cheeto
Hi. I'll try to answer your question fairly simply.
SIMPLE ANSWER
The basic reason is a difference in methods for when an extra lunar month needs to be added. In general every lunar calendar must add about 1 extra month every 3 years to match back up to the seasonal, solar calendar. In fact it's actually not 1 out of every 3 (which is the same as 6 out of 18), but it's 7 out of 19. If it were exactly 1 out of 3, you probably wouldn't see much of a problem because it would be easy to always match up to the Jewish calendar. We'd always know exactly when the leap month was going to be added. But a 7 out of 19 pattern could be done several different ways. The first table below, shows only three of a dozen different methods that could be used, and every one of them would be exactly right again after 19 years.
Since 1929, inclusive, we (JWs) have always followed the exact method in the "Christendom" column. (Always produces the same week as Easter.)  Prior to 1929 we (JWs) always used the exact method represented in the "Jewish" column.
The column in "Method 1" is just for comparison, although it's a well-documented method that has been used by many persons who find it simpler to remember a "1 out of 3" pattern for 18 years, and then correct it with an extra in the 19th year. The problem is that the method is too erratic and unnecessarily makes Spring about 5 weeks late in the 19th year. If these "leap months" are spread out more evenly, as in the "Jewish" method, then Spring will start no more than about 17 days early or 17 days late. In fact, the "Christendom" method effectively starts "Nisan 14/15" at the first full moon after the vernal spring equinox, so that the range is no more than 15 days before, or 15 days after.) 
Every range of 19 years in the following table should contain 7 years with 13 lunar months rather than 12.
Year# Method 1 Jewish Christndm Actual Yr 1 12 lun 13 lun 12 lun 1997 2 12 lun 12 lun 13 lun 1998 3 13 lun 12 lun 12 lun 1999 4 12 lun 13 lun 13 lun 2000 5 12 lun 12 lun 12 lun 2001 6 13 lun 13 lun 12 lun 2002 7 12 lun 12 lun 13 lun 2003 8 12 lun 12 lun 12 lun 2004 9 13 lun 13 lun 12 lun 2005 10 12 lun 12 lun 13 lun 2006 11 12 lun 12 lun 12 lun 2007 12 13 lun 13 lun 12 lun 2008 13 12 lun 12 lun 13 lun 2009 14 12 lun 13 lun 12 lun 2010 15 13 lun 12 lun 13 lun 2011 16 12 lun 12 lun 12 lun 2012 17 12 lun 12 lun 12 lun 2013 18 13 lun 13 lun 13 lun 2014 19 13 lun 12 lun 12 lun 2015 20 12 lun 13 lun 12 lun 2016 21 12 lun 12 lun 13 lun 2017 21 13 lun 12 lun 12 lun 2018
 
MORE COMPLICATED ANSWER
As you know, our calendar year is usually 365 days and sometimes 366 days, so that the average is about 365.25 days. So we divide it into months of either 28, 29, 30 or 31 days. So, our average month is therefore about 30.4 days. 
But if you measure each month by the time it takes the moon to cycle through all it's phases, then the average "lunar month" is 29.5 days. That means that if you start each lunar month when you see that first sliver of a "new moon," then it could be about 30 days until the sighting of the next new month, then 29 days the next new month after that, then 30, then 29, etc.
But that means that by the time you go through 12 lunar months, you will have a "year" of only 354 days. (12x29.5=354)  That's about 11 days shorter than a standard solar year. So if you want to stay matched up to the solar seasons (Spring, Summer, Autumn, WInter) you will have to add an extra lunar cycle (i.e., an extra 29 or 30-day month) about every three years. Otherwise, if you keep losing 11 days every year, then in a few years you will find yourself trying to pick summer fruits in the middle of winter, which doesn't work very well in Israel's climate, or almost any climate in the northern hemisphere.
Also, if you work it out more exactly, you will see that you it isn't exactly 1 extra lunar month for every 3 years, but 7 every 19 years. But even if it was always as easy as just 1 out of 3, and the pattern repeated continually, there is still no absolute reason to count every three years from the same starting years. The one out of three method works out to mean that you follow a pattern of -11, -11, +19, (repeating), which will be explained below. But there is no reason that one the pattern could not be chosen as -11, +19, -11, (repeating), or +19, -11, -11 (repeating). It's as if in the following example, you arbitrarily picked 2018 or 2019 as the FIRST YEAR and started repeating the cycle in that year, instead of 2017. 
Assume the current year is correct for when it starts the month of Nisan. (2016)
FIRST YEAR: Subtract 11 days to start Nisan next year (2017) 11 days, because 12 lunar months are 354 days and this is 11 days short of 365. SECOND YEAR: Subtract 11 more days to start Nisan the year after that (2018) 11 days short again, same reason. THIRD YEAR: Add 19 days to start Nisan the year after that (2019) 19 days, because 12 lunar months is still -11 (354) but you add a 30-day month (a second Adar) so that this year will be 384 days long.384-365=19; 30 minus 11 equals 19. REPEAT CYCLE for another 3 year cycle: -11, -11, +19.  (Ths can work for up to 18 years before you will need an extra adjustment.) I made a table of all the Memorial dates since the Watchtower started in 1879 up to the present. The following table includes includes only the years 1997 to 2018. These can be used to check the years that were effectively given a 13th month (second Adar). These are the years when Memorial is about 19 days later in the year than the previous year, rather than about 11 days earlier in the year. I bolded them. Notice that Easter is always the Sunday after our Memorial. Passover is always within a day or two, or within a day or two, plus an entire month.
YEAR MEMORIAL EASTER PASSOVER 1997 3/23/1997 3/30/1997 4/22/1997 1998 4/11/1998 4/12/1998 4/11/1998 1999 4/1/1999 4/4/1999 4/1/1999 2000 4/19/2000 4/23/2000 4/20/2000 2001 4/8/2001 4/15/2001 4/8/2001 2002 3/28/2002 3/31/2002 4/28/2002 2003 4/16/2003 4/20/2003 4/17/2003 2004 4/4/2004 4/11/2004 4/6/2004 2005 3/24/2005 3/27/2005 4/24/2005 2006 4/12/2006 4/16/2006 4/13/2006 2007 4/2/2007 4/8/2007 4/3/2007 2008 3/22/2008 3/23/2008 4/20/2008 2009 4/9/2009 4/12/2009 4/9/2009 2010 3/30/2010 4/4/2010 4/30/2010 2011 4/17/2011 4/24/2011 4/19/2011 2012 4/5/2012 4/8/2012 4/7/2012 2013 3/26/2013 3/31/2013 3/26/2013 2014 4/14/2014 4/20/2014 4/15/2014 2015 4/3/2015 4/5/2015 4/4/2015 2016 3/23/2016 3/27/2016 4/23/2016 2017 4/11/2017 4/16/2017 4/11/2017 2018 4/1/2018 4/4/2018 4/1/2018  
 

Laughing to myself! Didn't see that ending coming.
(It would have made for a terrible story, but I was expecting that the horse would finally be convinced to make such an effort that he would fool the farmer into thinking he had been cured, and then all the horses and other animals would die when the virus spread after all. And this would only prove that we should never encourage one another.)

This is interesting. Was this posted with all the facts, or just to sensationalize once again the media report. All APOSTASY sites, don’t have a definitive answer, even though there seems to be one here. “Strange”. What seems odd is the confirmation this person was and Elder, yet the indicating posted websites DON’T mention his religion.

Further odd, is in the manner, the charge was made in July 15, 2016, and on July 18, 2016 a blogger or reporter claims that a 27-year-old man is facing charges of sexual battery, when his actual age is 37. I wonder if this disfellowshipped person committed the crime on or before he was disfellowshipped. 2016-2009= 7-year window of observation.

Does anyone actually have proof this crime was perpetrated while he was an active witness, instead of just word of mouth that constitutes hearsay evidence? not to being disfellowshipped which would indicate guilt of something. But the timing of the crime. That's why the words of scripture are so important to apply honestly. Matthew 18:15-17 / Matthew 7:1-29

It would seem the article in the Watchtower is correct with it's biblical description of SIN!!!!!
1 John 2:2 Context: Jesus Our Advocate

2He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours alone, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Matthew Henry Commentary

2:1,2 When have an Advocate with the Father; one who has undertaken, and is fully able, to plead in behalf of every one who applies for pardon and salvation in his name, depending on his pleading for them. He is Jesus, the Saviour, and Christ, the Messiah, the Anointed. He alone is the Righteous One, who received his nature pure from sin, and as our Surety perfectly obeyed the law of God, and so fulfilled all righteousness. All men, in every land, and through successive generations, are invited to come to God through this all-sufficient atonement, and by this new and living way. The gospel, when rightly understood and received, sets the heart against all sin, and stops the allowed practice of it; at the same time, it gives blessed relief to the wounded consciences of those who have sinned.

Revelation 21:3 Context: A New Heaven and a New Earth

3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying: “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man, and He will live with them. They will be His people, and God Himself will be with them as their God.


 
Matthew Henry Commentary

21:1-8 The new heaven and the new earth will not be separate from each other; the earth of the saints, their glorified, bodies, will be heavenly. The old world, with all its troubles and tumults, will have passed away. There will be no sea; this aptly represents freedom from conflicting passions, temptations, troubles, changes, and alarms; from whatever can divide or interrupt the communion of saints. This new Jerusalem is the church of God in its new and perfect state, the church triumphant. Its blessedness came wholly from God, and depends on him. The presence of God with his people in heaven, will not be interrupt as it is on earth, he will dwell with them continually. All effects of former trouble shall be done away. They have often been in tears, by reason of sin, of affliction, of the calamities of the church; but no signs, no remembrance of former sorrows shall remain. Christ makes all things new. If we are willing and desirous that the gracious Redeemer should make all things new in order hearts and nature, he will make all things new in respect of our situation, till he has brought us to enjoy complete happiness. See the certainty of the promise. God gives his titles, Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, as a pledge for the full performance. Sensual and sinful pleasures are muddy and poisoned waters; and the best earthly comforts are like the scanty supplies of a cistern; when idolized, they become broken cisterns, and yield only vexation. But the joys which Christ imparts are like waters springing from a fountain, pure, refreshing, abundant, and eternal. The sanctifying consolations of the Holy Spirit prepare for heavenly happiness; they are streams which flow for us in the wilderness. The fearful durst not meet the difficulties of religion, their slavish fear came from their unbelief; but those who were so dastardly as not to dare to take up the cross of Christ, were yet so desperate as to run into abominable wickedness. The agonies and terrors of the first death will lead to the far greater terrors and agonies of eternal death.

Revelation 20:5 Context: Satan Bound

5The rest of the dead did not come back to life until the thousand years were complete. This is the first resurrection.

Matthew Henry Commentary

20:4-6 Here is an account of the reign of the saints, for the same space of time as Satan is bound. Those who suffer with Christ, shall reign with him in his spiritual and heavenly kingdom, in conformity to him in his wisdom, righteousness, and holiness: this is called the first resurrection, with which none but those who serve Christ, and suffer for him, shall be favoured. The happiness of these servants of God is declared. None can be blessed but those that are holy; and all that are holy shall be blessed. We know something thing of what the first death is, and it is very awful; but we know not what this second death is. It must be much more dreadful; it is the death of the soul, eternal separation from God. May we never know what it is: those who have been made partakers of a spiritual resurrection, are saved from the power of the second death. We may expect that a thousand years will follow the destruction of the antichristian, idolatrous, persecuting powers, during which pure Christianity, in doctrine, worship, and holiness, will be made known over all the earth. By the all-powerful working of the Holy Spirit, fallen man will be new-created; and faith and holiness will as certainly prevail, as unbelief and unholiness now do. We may easily perceive what a variety of dreadful pains, diseases, and other calamities would cease, if all men were true and consistent Christians. All the evils of public and private contests would be ended, and happiness of every kind largely increased. Every man would try to lighten suffering, instead of adding to the sorrows around him. It is our duty to pray for the promised glorious days, and to do everything in our public and private stations which can prepare for them.

Ezekiel 28:15 Context: A Lament over the King of Tyre

15"You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created Until unrighteousness was found in you.

The definition of perfection means “lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind”. From a Christian perspective, the definition of perfection means being without sin.



Adam and Eve must have been created with the power of choice, or God would not have given them a command and punished them for disobeying it. No one, not even Eve who was deceived by Satan, Judas of whom it is said that “Satan entered into him” (Jn:13:27), or Ananias and Sapphira whose hearts “Satan filled...to lie to the Holy Ghost” (Acts:5:3) can blame his or her sin on the devil; nor does God ever tempt man to sin (Jas 1:13), much less cause anyone to sin. All are without excuse.
Physically Definition: Physical, bodily, corporeal, corporal agree in pertaining to the body. Physical indicates connected with, pertaining to, the animal or human body as a material organism: physical strength, exercise. Bodily means belonging to, concerned with, the human body as distinct from the mind or spirit: bodily pain or suffering.

Question: Can a person be perfect, if it’s body is aging and diseased?


 
Mentally Definition: 1. Of or relating to the mind; intellectual: mental powers.

2. Executed or performed by the mind; existing in the mind: mental images of happy times.

3. a. Slang Emotionally upset; crazed: got mental when he saw the dent in his new car.

    b. Offensive Slang Mentally ill or intellectually impaired.

    c. Often Offensive Intended for people with mental illness or intellectual impairment.

Question: Can a person be perfect, if it’s thoughts are impure by lust, sex, drugs…etc.


 
Morally Definition: 1. Of or concerned with the judgment of right or wrong of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.


 
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.

3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.

4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.

5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.

6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

n.

1. The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.

2. A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim: likes to follow the moral "To each, his own."

3. morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.

Question: Can a person be perfect, if it’s thoughts are to lie, cheat, deceit, etc.

Spiritual Definition: of or relating to a person's spirit

: of or relating to religion or religious beliefs

: having similar values and ideas: related or joined in spirit

Question: Can a person be perfect, if it’s NOT willing to obey Gods Commands, or accept the word of Christ that scripture is indeed the inspired word of GOD?

So by how’s moral standards is Christ referring to? Man’s with his own topical definition or God’s through the inspired word of God. True and Honest Christians should know the answer.

 
 

Allen, I understand the necessity to point out the flaws and misapplication of people that only focus on one small part of something, rather than the entire picture to hide their own fallacies. By those standards. The “entire” world is flawed. Pity, they don’t seem to see their own flaws, when they misinterpret someone else's thought.