Malawi and MCP Cards?

[TrueTomHarley]

22 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Exposing your predictions can keep them from coming true. The opposite of self-fulfilled prophecy. I often place my predictions in 'white on white' text so that most browsers will make the text disappear completely. All you have to do is highlight the hidden text by selecting and you can read it clearly. In the olden days, when I cared enough, I had a lot of fun adding a sentence or two to the end of a post. They of

Whoa! It’s sort of like discovering, not only that the hand really wrote, “Mene mene tekel parsin, You fink!” but that Belshazzer clandestinely downvoted the remark.

[TrueTomHarley]

8 minutes ago, George88 said:

Why should you embrace deception? Have you ever wondered why someone who has distanced themselves from you still has the power to affect you? So why complain about an action that you yourself have orchestrated?

Whoa! once again! Georgie, I fear you will not believe this, but I really did not know @JW Insiderhad employed the trick in the very message he was speaking of it! I even wondered why the quote box appeared too big for the words contained. Ah, well, it’s just some sort of pesky technical snafu, I told myself, and manually shortened the box.

I mean, this is like finding a decoder ring in your Cocoa Puffs. I’m taking the next month to comb through all too-long text boxes in search of them.

[JW Insider]

44 minutes ago, George88 said:

Why should you embrace deception?

Exactly right. No one should ever embrace deception. Fortunately, for me, but unfortunately for the reviler, the predictions invariably came true. Truth is not the same as deception, although there are deceptive truths. At any rate, it doesn't matter to me any more, it was just a fun experiment in psychology, but it becomes boring when simple predictions become too easy so I moved on to other things. 

[Juan Rivera]

10 hours ago, Many Miles said:

I just want to draw a circle about something you say here Juan.

When discussing subjects with a view of learning from one another, it's productive to have a starting point based on things that are mutually recognized. Said another way, find what things are held in agreement and then construct deductive reasoning off of these as premises. For anyone who wants to learn, this is very helpful, because if they have any regard at all for sound reasoning, the person will yield to (or at least consider) the conclusion.

There is always some common ground upon which to hold a conversation. But it's not always the case that each person in the conversation has regard for sound reasoning. That's the difficult part.

@Many Miles I hear you, but my response which you quoted, was following Tom's response to my response about the state of Christendom’s church shopping phenomenon and the observation that we are living in the aftermath of theological liberalism and modernism. If your comment is about how to have fruitful dialogues, then I agree with your point, as I already said:

On 11/6/2023 at 11:19 AM, Juan Rivera said:

Hey Miles, I understand that when we are dealing with a person who has such a different position from our own, it is easy to despair, and resort to confrontation. It takes a great deal of commitment and patience and determination to work backward, together, to discover our common ground, so that we can then work forward from that common ground to adjudicate rationally our fundamental points of disagreement. Otherwise, we’re many miles apart, and don’t have the necessary common ground (and common point of view) to address directly the question in a way that allows us to reach the same conclusion through a process of rational dialogue.

Let me offer some additional thoughts in line with your comment. 

If you observe how some of the discussions are carried out by JWs, Catholics, Evangelicals, Orthodox, Presbyterians, Anabaptist, Baptist, etc. about the doctrines about which they disagree, you’ll notice that some of the approaches don’t work or are inadequate for resolving their disagreements. And if you observe these kinds of dialogues with an eye not so much to determining which side is right, but to determine precisely why the dialogue regularly reaches a stalemate, and why they fail to overcome their disagreements through this type of dialogue, you’ll find that they are not realizing or focusing on the role that second order disagreements are playing in their reasoning, which underlie their first order disagreements. So, for example, while they are trying to resolve their disagreements concerning a particular doctrine, they are unaware of and overlook their framework level differences and their respective theological methodologies that arise from these framework level differences. Understandably, then, they grow frustrated at the failure to reach agreement at the first order level, and eventually give up, not realizing that dialogue about first order disagreements is futile so long as there are framework and methodological disagreements at the second order level.This means that they must not merely learn each other’s doctrines, more crucially, they must also learn each other’s framework. Then the conversation can take place at the second order level, comparing frameworks, comparing the coherence of the frameworks, comparing the fit of the framework to the data, etc.

[Many Miles]

54 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

If you observe how some of the discussions are carried out by JWs, Catholics, Evangelicals, Orthodox, Presbyterians, Anabaptist, Baptist, etc. about the doctrines about which they disagree, you’ll notice that some of the approaches don’t work or are inadequate for resolving their disagreements.

Yes. I’m familiar with those merry-go-rounds. I don’t ride those rides.

Here I have no goal of settling or resolving any disagreement(s). Were that to happen? Fine. But I’m here to share and learn. 

[Pudgy]

…. there is no substitute for victory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Thinking]

12 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The devil is always in the  ‘as I recall’ details.

I recall it somewhat differently and probably the truth lies in a compromise between the two recollections. I have on my shelf James Hall’s GC lecture series ‘The Philosophy of Religion.’ I’ve probably listened to close to 100 of the Great Courses lecture series. ‘Imagine how much you will learn if you spend just a half hour each day in the company of some of the greatest minds in the world,’ the introduction to each course says, ignoring only the great minds at JWorg. I vouch for the intro. I have indeed learned a lot. I am far, far less dumb than I used to be.

Usually, I get these GCs from the library. But the library didn’t have the one of James Hall, so I had to order it from eBay. No way would I ever ever have done that had you not put me on the trail. But now I think what you put me on the trail of was a conversational online snippet in which a Seventh Day Adventist pointed to that course, and said, ‘Yes! The professor covered our explanation of suffering and said it was the only one that made sense!’

So I plowed through the 36-lecture course, and sigh—will have to do it again, I suppose, if I am serious about this next writing project, and it is a dog and a half. Yes, it does cover his ‘theodicy.’ Yes, it does say it is the only one logically consistent. But it is not really ‘his’ theodicy. It is the only one Hall considers that posits ‘dualism,’ that is, that God has an opponent, a Satan, and that you can pin the blame on him. ‘That makes sense, the professor said. But he does not give any account as to how that situation came to pass, only that there is such a villain, so that it is somethng of a nothingburger.

Quite frankly, it floored me that out of the many theodicies this fellow considered, only one of them took into account that God just might have an adversary who does, causes, or triggers the evil deeds. Every other theodicy assumes God holding all the cards in every way.

I’m pretty sure I’ve reconstructed what happened. That said, memory is a slippery thing. I am chastened by @Pudgy correcting me long ago. I had not left 3 or 4 comments on ‘apostate’ sites, he said. It was more like 20. No, it was 3 or 4, I said. He repeated it was 20. I repeated it was 3 or 4.  He insisted, not only that it was 20, but that during his career, he had been a highly trained engineer and was therefore accustomed to being precise. ‘If you were a highly trained engineer, and no longer are, possibly the reason is that you cannot count!’ I shot back. ‘Why on earth would I lie about it?!’

Sigh—he was right. I apologized when I realized it much later. I had only left 3 or 4 recently. But long ago, I had experimented on another sit, which brought the total to around 20. Of course, a search on social media makes little distinction between recent and some time ago. Memory is treacherous. 

 

Ha! I remember that exchange between you and pudgy…I found it amazing that pudgy could do that…IT and those who know how to really work it are fascinating…all these young kids and anyone around forty is young to me but the younger ones just whip out their phones and like Jack Flash organize my whole world in a few minutes…..amazing !,

[Thinking]

On 12/1/2023 at 7:11 AM, Many Miles said:

You may or may not have noticed a recent topic I started about what we need for belief. (It's probably part of that river you alluded to)

As a purely logical matter, it presents as presumption what others would say is etched in stone. I wrote, "1) Presumption that the written record we call the Bible is testimony of God's will."

As a logical function all this does is establish a premise for sake of making a logical construction. It's my way of saying, "For argument's sake let's just agree that the Bible is testimony of God's will."

I put it that way because, as you say above and I agree, "our faith in what the Bible teaches always depends on the truth that the Bible is the word of God written." There is no disagreement there.

But there's that other thing you mention. You write, "submission to a divinely authorized Governing Body depends on the truth that this GB is in fact divinely authorized".

There is a whopping difference between those two items, so big you could sail a super jumbo freight carrier through it.

- One is left for people to make of what they will, with potential future effect.

- The other can, will and does enforce what it says onto your life here and now.

That said, if you would have others accept that a particular "GB is in fact divinely authorized" then you have very heavy burden of proof to bear.

Individuals will likely be more willing to accept that a work they are left to make of what they will, with potential future effect is the word of God and less willing to accept that a particular GB is in fact divinely inspired that can, will and does enforce what it says onto your life here and now. Which means the veracity of evidence in support of the latter will have to be much greater.

This reminds me of Thomas who, though surrounded by men he knew and trusted, was unwilling to accept on trust alone a particular thing unless he had a way to better measure the veracity of the claim. Jesus made sure Thomas got what he needed. Thomas needed something measurable. Jesus gave it to him.

If, as you suggest, there is a particular GB that is divinely authorized (whose will we should submit to as the word of God) [the latter are my words], what's your evidence? And, should we accede to it no matter what?

Remember, you didn't check the box saying:

- We should believe teaching "x" because the society says so.

 

If I remember correctly Doubting Thomas still paid a price for his doubt…I cannot remember what it was…..I would be  Doubting Thomas Of today…..but I hope I’m more like the beroeans…Miles I liked how you pointed out that Eve actually looked into the deeper things of Satan be even engaging in conversation ….i hadn’t thought of it that way

[Thinking]

8 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Step over into Macedonia, Mr Many Miles, and help us.

”No thank you, 

Having made that irresistible (to me) little quip, 

 

yeah. Me too.

 

Ta da! Now we don’t either, just like you!

Oh, I guess we still put converts on a slip, they won’t mind, I am sure, but not the time it takes to make them. 

Any time you change a practice dating back 100 years, it’s a gutsy move.

I think counting time for so many years is a reflection of the lowly roots that Christianity came from and so far still is. It is the mark of the plebs who were accustomed to the factory model in which when there was nothing to do you’d better nonetheless look busy if you didn’t want the boss to fire you.

Now that the model has been discarded (and good riddance!) probably all the educated people will come in.who were offended by the old way. Trouble is, when they do, they may say to the uneducated and ordinary, ‘Okay—you’ve done well. Amazingly well, really, considering your lack of education. But the smart people are here now. Step aside.’

We’ll have to see how it plays out. One thing for sure, dropping time requirements removes all sense of being ‘on duty’ or ‘off duty.’ It will vastly aid efforts to informal witness, as people will do what makes sense, not press on come heck or high water so that whoever is being spoken to ‘receives a thorough witness!’

 

I think it will be the other way around ….the humble scared and hurt will listen before the educated….we will have to wait and see…

[Thinking]

On 12/1/2023 at 8:09 AM, JW Insider said:

As I recall, you had already listened to that particular Great Courses professor and it raised your curiosity about the history of this particular teaching. I thought that our version was similar to Ellen G White's (Seventh Day Adventist) 1858 doctrine that comes under the heading of "The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan." It is summarized here as:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Controversy_theme

One of the 28 fundamental beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists states:

8. Great Controversy:

All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the universe. This conflict originated in heaven when a created being, endowed with freedom of choice, in self-exaltation became Satan, God’s adversary, and led into rebellion a portion of the angels. He introduced the spirit of rebellion into this world when he led Adam and Eve into sin. This human sin resulted in the distortion of the image of God in humanity, the disordering of the created world, and its eventual devastation at the time of the global flood, as presented in the historical account of Genesis 1-11. Observed by the whole creation, this world became the arena of the universal conflict, out of which the God of love will ultimately be vindicated. To assist His people in this controversy, Christ sends the Holy Spirit and the loyal angels to guide, protect, and sustain them in the way of salvation. (Gen. 3; 6-8; Job 1:6-12; Isa. 14:12-14; Ezek. 28:12-18; Rom. 1:19-32; 3:4; 5:12-21; 8:19-22; 1 Cor. 4:9; Heb. 1:14; 1 Peter 5:8; 2 Peter 3:6; Rev. 12:4-9.)^[4]

Yes that was a good read many years ago..I remember reading it and thinking it was from us…I looked into Ellen White after that and still have one of her books….the conclusion I came to over her was ..Just as Babylon /satan mimicked Jehovahs Temple priest and sacrificial system…so here was A satanic mimicry going on….I mean Satan tho locked out spiritually and in dense darkness…..he’s astute and highly intelligent and he can work out basically how this is going to wind up by reading those scriptures …

I mean he was blind sided by Jesus and his successful ransom…..but after that ..and the Hebrew Scriptures …of course he could speak thru Ellen…with his current understanding……sure was/is interesting reading….but I always wondered if indeed…I am guilty of having looked into the deep things of satan ?

 

[Juan Rivera]

On 11/28/2023 at 6:28 PM, Many Miles said:

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.

@Many Miles As others have mentioned, it seems the first part of Bro. Jackson’ response even if it’s skirting the issue, addresses an aspect of the Congregation in relation to the Governing Body. The mind of Christ is something revealed to the world not primarily in individuals as individuals, but in the Congregation as a community, as a people.  And Jehovah is most glorified when He gives greater goods to His creatures, including the great good of participating in His own work of redemption. So when other JW/Christians participate in bringing a person to Christ, or, as Paul put it, “undergoing the tribulations of the Christ that are yet lacking in my flesh in behalf of his body, which is the congregation” (Colossians 1:24) His glory is diversely manifested through the various distribution of gifts among His people, just as the order of creation with its hierarchy of perfections more perfectly reveals the glory of the Creator.

In regards to the second part of Bro. Jackson’s answer, what do you think is presumptuous, arrogant, about claiming to be the Governing Body? Was Jesus arrogant when He claimed to be the Son of God? (No, because he is the Son of God.) It is not arrogant to claim something if you have it. Nor is it arrogant to claim to be what one actually is. Also, claiming that one’s own Congregation is the Congregation Jesus established is not triumphalism or sectarianism even when the person making the claim is mistaken.

If I misunderstood or mischaracterized your statement about this point, then I apologize and please follow up.

On 11/28/2023 at 2:34 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

You organize to get things done. If you don’t care about getting things done, you don’t organize. To spread the news of God’s Kingdom worldwide in a way that does not quickly devolve into a quagmire of individual opinion seems to Jehovah’s Witnesses a project worth organizing for. So they do. And they put up with how in any organization, ‘you can’t always get what you want’ even as they at the same time reap the benefits of organization.

@TrueTomHarley I agree with your comment. And I’ll elaborate on my next post. My only concern with your point, is what Miles briefly mentioned already 😂 and to what I alluded to here:

On 11/22/2023 at 4:05 PM, Juan Rivera said:

Either way, the result is a unity/uniformity, but it is only a uniformity of like minded individuals, which is not a criterion that establishes that what is believed by the like minded individuals is, in fact, the truth. Uniformity of belief could mean nothing more than a bunch of like minded individuals confess what is false teachings.

Human opinion remains human opinion, whether it is private or public, held by one person or held by a group of persons. Take a group of persons each having the same theological opinion. They discover that they share this opinion, form a congregation, and then make adherence to this theological opinion a condition for continued membership in their congregation. Their opinion has not thereby acquired any divine authority just because this group of persons made adherence to this opinion a condition for congregational membership. Rather, those taking the lead having merely human authority to exclude others from this group (as do leaders of other groups), are exercising their own authority in making adherence to this opinion a necessary condition for membership. That would be ok if the group/congregation’s leaders were divinely authorized to determine which theological opinions are true and which are not. But, if those taking the lead don't have such authority (and don't claim to have such authority, then that congregation or group and its theological opinion are no more authoritative than any other person's opinion. Their theological opinion is a condition for membership in that group, but it is still only an opinion of men. 

I agree, of course, that authority in the natural order is divinely established and has it’s authority ultimately from Jehovah as the New Testament teaches. Jesus says this to Pilate, and Paul teaches it as well. It is divine only in the providential sense, not in the supernatural sense. For this reason, government officials, public authorities, kings, princes, presidents and mayors are to be obeyed, unless they command us to violate our conscience, or to violate the divine law. This is true also of voluntary civic groups, sporting leagues, philanthropic organizations, educational organizations, etc. These societies have internal laws, and hence dutifully appointed leaders. Anyone who wishes to participate in such societies must be subject to these leaders and laws. But the authority had by the leaders and laws of voluntary civic societies is still natural authority. What Jesus said to Pilate applies here too. That means that leaders of the Rotary, Elks, and the Masons, and the leaders of the Hell’s Angels and Peter Gilmore who is the current High Priest of the Church of Satan would have no authority over it’s church if it had not been given to him by God.

But mere group/club authority is not the kind of authority in question in this discussion, because as far as I can tell, no one in this discussion believes that the only authority our religious institution (Jehovah’s Witnesses) claims to have is the sort that any group has. The Congregation has a genuine, though subordinate to Scripture authority that is not just the sort of authority that any man made group has. So we need to distinguish here between the natural authority (that still has God as its ultimate source) of any congregation, community, society, club, or institution founded by mere men, and the supernatural authority of the one society established by Jehovah and Christ. Otherwise, we reduce the Congregation to just a man made group or set of groups.

[Juan Rivera]

On 11/28/2023 at 6:28 PM, Many Miles said:

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.

@Many Miles  I’ve heard similar sort of objections before. For example as an argument from silence in the story of the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4. I’m not saying you have made it, but others have. Specifically, that because when the Samaritan woman asked Jesus where one should worship God, Jesus didn’t address the question, therefore, what matters is the dominance of Jehovah over all said differences. But, this is a basic logical blunder. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Jesus’s answer to the Samaritan woman is fully compatible with His desiring all His followers to be united in faith, in worship, and in hierarchy. One cannot rightly use an argument from silence from John 4 to trump what Jesus explicitly says in John 17 about the importance of visible unity among His followers. 

Or another example I’ve heard is Jehovah speaking directly to Adam in the Genesis narrative, as if therefore that unmediated mode of divine communication to Adam must be exclusive and normative for all time. But that conclusion does not follow, as can be shown by the very fact of the existence of the prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures and can be shown by the fact that Korah could have made the same argument to Moses:

We have had enough of you! The whole assembly is holy, all of them, and Jehovah is in their midst. Why, then, should you exalt yourselves above the congregation of Jehovah?”(Numbers 16:3) 

This is applied to an argument, claiming that since we are all united to Christ, therefore we don’t need any secondary authority having a mediatorial role regarding the right understanding of divine revelation. And we all know that Korah was wrong, dreadfully wrong. The fact that all the people were holy did not entail that Moses did not have a unique authority as God’s chosen prophet to the Hebrews. And I think the same is true today with respect to a Governing Body in the Congregation.

You are right. It is possible by the working of the holy spirit, to have faith in Jehovah, and love for Him, without having heard about Jehovah or Christ. There are a number of examples in the Hebrew Scriptures of righteous Gentiles who are treated in Scripture as God fearers, even friends of God, but who were likely unaware that God intended to send His Son to die as a sacrifice for our sins. Think of Moses’ father-in-law Jethro, Hiram of Tyre, Rahab, the people of Ninevah, Namaan, Job, even those during the time of Noah who repented at the last moment, after the door of the ark had already been closed. The New Covenant doesn’t damn such persons, or make their condition impossible. 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 available in the Congregation. The Good News and the undeserved kindness offered through the Congregation are the ordinary means by which we are to grow up into the fullness of conformity to Christ. But 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, the means of Jehovah’s kindness 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 Timothy 2:4). Paul isn’t being redundant there. And that’s why even children can be saved, not by denying that they sin, but by the undeserved kindness that does not absolutely require for salvation a complete understanding of the doctrines of Jehovah’s nature, identity, and the resurrection of Jesus, etc.