Blue Petals Afloat

Blue Petals Afloat
Logic informs us the corollas are not afloat

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

"Crux-ifixion" -- For Execution and for Post-Mortem Torture of "Departed Souls"


Virgil is quoted by Frederick C. Grant, Ancient Roman Religion (New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1957) 209-10. Virgil wrote:

“Not even when their last day of life is done, and life and light depart, not even then do all the deep evils of body wholly leave them; for it is inevitable that many a long-continued evil should take an amazingly deep root.” What does Virgil say will help such hardened practicers of evil? They should be put on the crux for their own good! Says Virgil, “Hence they are disciplined with punishment, and pay in suffering for their lifelong sins; some are hung stretched out to the empty winds.”

We find that Virgil is inconsistent, for elsewhere he states his belief that those who do not receive burial are, for that lack, miserable souls in the nether world; therefore, he has forgot his crux-redeeming theory, which had it that it was for discipline and improvement in the nether world that an executed criminal’s crux-displayed corpse receives no burial. Here is how Virgil puts on the lips of one whom he makes to offer commentary on the departed souls of those who die but receive no burial. One such soul was that of the noble and virtuous Paulinurus, a helmsman lost overboard. Virgil says that Paulinurus’ soul was addressed by someone sympathetic to his plight, and he said to Paulinurus:

“Son of Anchises, true offspring of the gods, you see the deep pools of Cocytus and the Stygian marsh, by whose power the gods fear to swear falsely. This crowd which you see are all helpless and unburied; Charon is the ferryman; those whom the waves bear across have found a tomb. Nor is it permitted to cross these awful banks and hoarse-throated streams until their bones have found a resting place. Whence comes, O Paulinurus, this fierce longing of yours? Are you, without burial, to behold the Stygian waters and the awful river of the Furies, and draw near the bank unbidden? Cease to hope that heaven’s decrees may be turned aside by prayer! But keep my words in your memory, for comfort in your hard lot. Far and wide the neighboring cities will be driven by celestial portents to appease your dust; they shall build for you a tomb” (Grant, 210).

Virgil glibly excuses the cruelty of executions upon a crux (the crux simplex, a stake) and would try to hide the real motive behind executioners’ exposing or keeping exposed a corpse on a crux so that animals might have their way with it, for the real motive in bringing about ghastly spectacles of criminals executed upon a stake and their being left there upon the crux was because of a cruelty in the executioners who could not be done with the criminal through their merely having executed him. They must ensure his torment of mind, so they thought, even in the nether world, which should occur, they thought, if they made sure that the one dying upon the crux was kept there so that he might not have a burial.

Richard Broxton Onians, The Origins of European Thought (Cambridge University Press, 1951), 272 has this to say about the way ancient and classical Greeks looked upon the matter of buried bones being properly treated so that the soul might be aided after departing the body.

“The dead were above all ‘the dry ones.’ Alike the bones and the YUCH {soul} (still associated with them and the grave) were dry. Their great need, therefore, was liquid − preferably actual life-liquid of animal or plant or just the elemental liquid, water − what would help them to the state of the ‘living’ otherwise known as ‘wet’ (DIEROS). The characteristic offerings to the dead were in fact ‘pourings’ (COAI) . . . the habit still existing in Greece of breaking vessels filled with water on the tombs of departed friends . . . In classical times, also, water was poured for the dead. It was received, drunk, by the YUCH; to the bones it was a ‘bath’ (LOUTRON) . . . conferring life-liquid.”

Now, the philosophers prided themselves that they were not deceived by superstitions about what happens to the souls of those who have died. But of course they were still deceived, some by materialistic atheism and others by doctrine of the immortality of the human soul.

Next, I would like to address briefly here the question of the origin of Christendom's cross. Does the construction of a cross or tau-shaped device (i.e., an image constructed of -- or a depiction written as -- a certain combination of two elements; see what next follows) -- represent the shape of the instrument of execution upon which our Lord Jesus Christ was affixed, namely, (1) a vertical or upright member combined with (2) a transverse or crosswise member (where the transverse element is significantly lowered)? Neither the Bible, in an accurate translation from its original languages, nor secular history supports an affirmative answer to that question. The historiography appertaining this subject is voluminous and, as written and catalogued, is scattered across several languages (viz., Latin, Hebrew, Greek, French, German, English, Spanish, etc.). It is indeed a pleasant surprise when a student of the subject happens to find a site on the internet that accurately presents what things that reader's own years of research have revealed, and presents it in a highly readable fashion, concisely and succinctly, for a popular audience, but still giving an accurate distillation of the pertinent, historical data. For example, there is mention of a symbol that the New King James Version (NKJV) translation committee used as their Bible's logo:





 I have seen a discussion of this symbol; it is the Celtics' "Triquetra" emblem. Yes, it signifies Trinity to the Irish Catholic Church, but what meaning did the symbol have in a pre-Christian Celtic culture? So, the site has an interesting presentation, and it shows us how the Catholics consciously borrowed from pagan Celtic culture, reinterpreting it so that new converts from Celtic paganism might hold on to their sacred, comforting devices if they would but confess them as imbued with a reinterpreted, "Christian" meaning. Constantine had done this very thing for the bishops of the "Christianity" of his day in the 4th century. So, now for a few of such particulars. That site's URL and some excerpts from it are given below, too.

*******************************************

http://www.whats-your-sign.com/celtic-symbol-for-trinity.html

Celtic Trinity Symbol and Triquetra Meaning

The Celtic symbol for trinity has a myriad of symbolic meaning.

We see the trinity motif in Celtic knots, as well as in symbol-form like the triquetra and triskelion (a.k.a. triskele or fylfot)  

To the ancient Celtic mind, it may also signify the lunar or solar phases. This conclusion is made as we see the trinity/triquetra motif alongside other solar and lunar symbols in ancient remants [sic] and archeological digs.

Validating this theory, we know the Celts honored the Great Mother, a lunar goddess who was actually three personifications in one (three lunar phases and faces of the goddess)....

The Celtic symbol for trinity may also pertain to the three Bridgits [sic. Elsewhere the name of the goddess has her name translated into English as "Bridgid."]  Bridgit [sic] is one powerful goddess (aspect of Danu), who embodies three aspects which are:

Art
Healing
Metal smithing

*******************************************

http://www.celtarts.com/celtic.htm

The Cross did not become a common symbol of Christianity until the 4th century. Images of the cross were in fact quite rare before the Golden Legend became popular and the "discovery" of the "True Cross" promoted fragments of the "True Cross" as powerful relics....

There are in Britain stone monuments that may be the ancestor of the Celtic Cross. The Chi-Rho symbol, the monogram of Christ was a commonly used symbol of Christianity in the 4th century Roman Empire. The Emperor Constantine who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire used as his emblem the Chi-Rho in a laurel wreath. Thus combined were a pagan Imperial symbol of Rome with a symbol of the new faith. The diagonal cross members of the Chi were eventually conventionalized to a single horizontal cross member that made its cross with the vertical stem of the Rho and the wreath was conventionalized into a simple circle. There are examples of this where the loop of the Rho is also conventionalized into a shepherd’s crook. One can easily see how the curved crook of the staff could disappear to leave just a cross in a circle as is common in many Welsh crosses of the early Celtic Christian period which followed the Roman withdrawal from Britain....

Constantine used the Chi-Rho as a military insignia and victory symbol as well. The cross symbolizes Christ's victory. Military use of the cross as a favorite element of heraldry descends from the shields and standards of the Roman Empire.

(Now I end my making what I trust has been fair use of excerpts from the two sites referenced above.)

Thursday, December 10, 2009

On "What Is Holy Spirit?" and on "Where Is Reality?"

endenux
Reading Topic #1477, reply 4
4. "RE: Questions about Jehovah's 'invisible active force'"
Oct-31-05, 05:09 PM (EST)
In response to message #3

We know different forces exist in the physical realm. We speak of contact forces and action-at-a-distance forces. We speak also (1) of external forces (applied, normal, tensional, friction, air resistance), which do work on an object by changing its total mechanical energy ( = potential energy plus kinetic energy); and (2) of internal forces (gravitational, magnetic, electrical, spring), which do work on objects by changing an object's potential energy to kinetic energy, or vice-versa.

But, what do we mean by "an object's energy"? What is energy? We don't know, just as we do not know what gravity is. We slip easily between formal and informal concepts even in our "scientific" language. An interesting read on this subject may be found at

http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/wcee/keep/Mod1/Unitall/QuizAnswers_further_discussions.htm

We need not let ourselves become enmeshed in semantical games when describing the work of holy spirit as result of a special kind of action-at-a-distance force that belongs properly to God, from Whom it proceeds for accomplishment of work even across so great a distance as that which separates God's organism from objects in the physical realm.

endenux

Reading Topic #1477, reply 7
7. "RE: On not getting"
Oct-31-05, 08:20 PM (EST)
In response to message #6

Hello, Rob,

You quoted me as follows:

>We need not let ourselves become enmeshed in
>semantical games when describing the work of holy spirit
>as result of a special kind of action-at-a-distance force
>that belongs properly to God, from Whom it proceeds for
>accomplishment of work even across so great a distance as
>that which separates God's organism from objects in the
>physical realm.

And then you asked:

>I was hoping someone would say something along these
>lines. Do I understand you correctly, then, to be saying
>that one need not agree to engage in semantical games to
>defend one's beliefs about God, assuming we understand
>those beliefs to derive from God's word?

My answer: Yes. We need only to show the reasonableness of the language for the concept expressed. Your game is one you could have pulled against Jesus, who is quoted in one of the Gospels as saying he accomplishes expulsion of demons by means of something belonging to God (namely, God's finger); however, another Gospel account quotes him as saying that he accomplishes the expulsion by means of holy spirit. Well, holy spirit belongs properly to God, that is to say, it is a property of God's being, a special force that God makes proceed from Himself. Holy spirit, then, means that God can accomplish work in places where He is not personally present, but accomplish the work as though He were personally present at some place in order to exert a contact force -- as though the work were accomplished by means of Him exerting finger pressure. Do you have trouble understanding such a concept? Or would you obfuscate the concept by means of a word game?

Endenux

Reading Topic #1477, reply 13
13. "RE: Finger of God = Spirit of God?"
Nov-01-05, 03:17 PM (EST)
In response to message #12

Rob,

You wrote:

>You're assuming an "ontological identification in
>referents" for the expressions "finger of God" and "Spirit
>of God." What else is God besides 'spirit,' and is any of
>his being not 'holy'? Are you saying that 'holy spirit' is
>a small part of God's being?

All that you have done is to assert that I am (unwittingly?) operating from the assumption that there is an ontological identification for the referents intended by the phrases "finger of God" [taken in the sense that the phrase was supposedly given as reference to a supposedly literal finger attached to God's body, thus leading to the baseless charge "Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God literally has fingers"], and "Spirit of God." I make no such assumption, nor have you shown us that anything I have written must somehow logically devolve to my having unwittingly assumed such a position. I do assert in line with the Scriptures, however, that we do not know what differentiae [sic] there are for God's organism as compared to a soulical person's organism (compare 1 John 3:2). We do know that His organism is viewable by His angelic sons who can station themselves before His face for audience with God (see Job 1:6). We have fingers, and we know how we use them; however, we do not know what to say about how God makes use of His organism in Heaven. We can say that His organism is of a spiritual composition like the angels' bodies are (see Hebrews 1:7), and such is also true as respects the bodies of those attaining to heavenly life upon their resurrection from the dead. Will trinitarians really take that to mean that heavenly beings -- those who, like God, have spiritual bodies -- may be referred to as "Holy Spirit," too? Wait! I know they won't, and that despite the pertinent implication at 1 John 3:2 that God does have a body (see also John 5:37). But still you trinitarians don't say that the being of God has embodiment, is corporeal. Well, your ignoring the Scriptures is the basis for your confusion, namely, that God in His being does not have shape, figure, but is amorphously omnipresent, and thus identical to that which is referenced by the mass noun "spirit" when you trinitarians use it in the phrase "Holy Spirit." But you cannot saddle us with the dilemma you would like for us to have, because we can show from the Scriptures that God does have a body, a spiritual organism. So, your question "What else is God besides 'spirit,' and is any of his being not 'holy'?" can only have force for those who accept trinitarians' dogma that God is an amorphous, omnipresent, spiritual being. (Actually, I could have written at this juncture far more than I have time to write just now, but I will point out that the concept of an amorphous, omnipresent God logically does not really leave any literal room for God to make separation from Himself of "holy spirit," though the language of Scripture is that holy spirit "proceeds from the Father" -- John 15:26.)

Just because we should agree that God does not have a shape to His organism that resembles the shape/construction of a human organism does not mean that we should say that God does not have ability to cause to proceed from Himself an action-at-a-distance force, and that such may be metaphorically referenced, for our sake, under the figure of God's "finger." We are thereby helped to make a comparison between, on the one hand, how much work God is able to accomplish (with relatively so little effort on His part) and, on the other hand, how little work we accomplish by comparison to God's, though it requires us to exert every fiber in our being, and thus far more than just use of a finger.

Rob, you wrote:

>I'm not criticizing Jesus' metaphor, but your harmonizing
>interpretation of the metaphor as a reference specifically
>to the Holy Spirit, . .

You have failed to criticize in any convincing fashion my pointing out that Jesus used the metaphor of 'God's finger' as reference to God's holy spirit, and that such use of the metaphor does logically suggest that holy spirit is not God Himself, but is a property of God's being.

>complete with implications drawn that
>are nowhere articulated in Scripture (e.g., apparently,
>that the Holy Spirit must be only a small part of the
>being of God).

Hmmm . . . Quantification of holy spirit -- 'What part/measure of God's being is its property holy spirit?' -- is non sequitur to my position. Nowhere does my argument suggest that holy spirit is only a small part of God's being. BUT if we make comparison between how much force a human must exert for accomplishment of some work as opposed to how much force God must, as a bare minimum requirement, exert for accomplishment of the same work, then we could illustrate it by saying that it requires God to use merely His finger, as it were, when it required us to use every fiber of our being. Really, Rob, you must be playing games with words here in this thread! I am not one to play these games with you.

>I agree that the metaphor of "God's finger" implies not
>only that the specified event is done by God but that it
>was easy for him to do it.

Good. I didn't see as much from you in your earlier posts. But if you have that insight, then I wonder how you can raise questions that suggest to me either that you are playing games with words in this thread, or that you do not know how to apply the insight, for I certainly can see no logical way you came by your assertion that somehow my argument means that holy spirit is only a small part of God's being. At this point, I trust that our readers can understand why I am exasperated by the nature of your response.

endenux

Reading Topic #1477, reply 14
14. "RE: Finger of God = Spirit of God? Clarification"
Nov-01-05, 09:21 PM (EST)
In response to message #13

I wrote:

>All that you {Rob} have done is to assert that
>I am (unwittingly?) operating from the
>assumption that there is an ontological
>identification for the referents intended by
>the phrases "finger of God" and "Spirit of
>God." I make no such assumption, . . .

What I mean is that we do not take the phrase "finger of God" literally, non-metaphorically, and then assert that Jesus' means that God's holy spirit is a real finger on God's organism. If we understand the phrase "finger of God" as a metaphor, then it stands, of course, as reference to God's holy spirit, and logically suggests that holy spirit is one of the properties in God's being. We might come close to such an assertion if we were to assert that God has necessarily to make some part of His organism a point of contact with some other object before work on that object might become accomplished. But we do not say that, either.

endenux

Reading Topic #1477, reply 17
17. "RE: Now we're getting into something important: Does God have a body?"
Nov-03-05, 01:11 AM (EST)
In response to message #15
Rob, you wrote:

>I meant that you identified "finger of God" as
>having the same referent (referring to the same
>ontological reality) as "Spirit of God." You
>confirmed in your clarification that indeed you
>were making that identification or equation. So my
>observation was correct.

But you also stated in the following words:

>The action attributed to God in both passages
>is not akin to "exerting a contact force" by
>"exerting finger pressure."

And in line with what I stated in an earlier post, it is not necessary for God to exert contact pressure by bringing any part of his organism directly into contact with an object. That is not the point of the metaphor, as I have already made clear. We do not read it as though it were one for suggesting such a thing about God. You left yourself quite some wiggle room, though, by your words ". . . is not akin to . . ." But if your observation is that Jehovah's Witnesses take from the metaphor the thought that God exerts a contact force upon objects, then you have no discernment whatsoever as to what we believe about God and holy spirit.

Rob, you wrote:

>Your main proof text for the idea that God has a body is 1
>John 3:2. I assume you have in mind here John's statement
>"that whenever he is made manifest we shall be like him,
>because we shall see him just as he is" (1 John 3:2 NWT).
>Honestly, it is quite a leap from this statement to the
>conclusion that God has a body.

Honestly, Rob, I cannot fathom how you can say that God is not an object in Heaven that can be seen in a way that only other spirit persons can see Him.

Rob, you wrote:

>In what way shall we "be like him"? Like him in
>possessing a 'spirit body' such as you believe
>that God has? John does not say so.

God will become manifested to those gaining heavenly life, and then they will have an answer to the question "What will they be?" It is answered by their seeing God in Heaven. The text tells us that it is God Himself as He is that they will behold. John, in his words at 1 John 3:2, is not focusing on God's personality characteristics in the words of that verse, but rather on what hope their special God-given status as God's children has put in them, namely, a heavenly hope, to be at home in heaven where they expect to see their Father. It is in verse 3 that John shows what is required of those who would realize that hope: they must purify themselves just as that one is pure. Thus does John in verse 3 bring into focus their Father's personality that they must emulate for its qualities.

Rob, you wrote:

>I am not sure what to make of your appeal to Job 1:6. Are
>you saying that God has a literal face?

God has an organism, and evidently this organism is one immediately detectable by His spirit creatures in Heaven. Does this mean that God and spirit creatures have photon-sensitive organs (eyes) for seeing in the way that humans see? No, but that does not rule out that information is transmitted by a spiritual organism in such a way as uniquely identifies it vis-à-vis all other organisms, and reveals its placement among all other organisms. Other information from the organism will be transmitted and appropriately detected by another organism, and this will constitute communication between spiritual organisms. What language (method of encoding the transmitted data) does it have? We don't know. But in either case, there is nothing amiss when we use for God and spirit creatures the anthropomorphic language of 'seeing with eyes' and 'hearing with ears.' Just because we don't know the nature of what the "seeing" and "hearing" are in the spiritual realm does not mean that there are not spiritual organisms in Heaven, which are properly equipped for their having the analogues of that which we experience as seeing with our eyes and hearing with our ears. We don't know the very nature of the data transmitted from one spirit person to another, and we cannot say how a spirit person's organism is "wired" for making the spirit person aware of realities external to his organism.

Rob, you wrote:

>. . . do you also think God has a . . . literal face?

The angels know when they are in the bodily presence of God, and they know when He is directing His attention to one or more of them for communications. An angel is able to move his body into a place he did not previously occupy vis-à-vis God's own body in order to let it be known that he is having a one-on-one communication with God. (See 1 Kings 22:21.) It seems right to me to say that this suggests that an angel needs to detect that God, too, has something about His organism that makes it appropriate that the angel adjust orientation of his own organism in relation to God's in order that the angel might have respectful one-on-one communication between himself and Jehovah. I do not see at present why we cannot say that that "something about His organism" that facilitates such behavior is an analogue to what we experience when beholding a person's face, and in that way God has a face that angels, when they are "in heaven," always behold (Matthew 18:10).

Rob, you wrote:

>You cited Hebrews 1:7 to support the idea that angels'
>bodies are composed of spirit. However, while I agree that
>angels are spirits, this text does not say or imply that
>angels have bodies. In fact, if anything it is a good
>proof text for the position that they do NOT have bodies.
>In this verse angels are compared in their ontology to
>winds and flames of fire, neither of which are corporeal
>or embodied.

Angels are among the things invisible, and these spirits -- again, see 1 Kings 22:21 -- have definite location or place in Heaven. This verse does not suggest that we take the word "spirit" as description of an incorporeality for angels. See above for that discussion. As for how angels are made "spirits," I think it possible for us to see that Paul speaks in a poetic manner for a play on a certain two of the several meanings that PNEUMA has in the Scriptures, this so that angels, who are spiritual in their ontology, have ability also to act like a wind (PNEUMA). They are invisible like a wind is, and can act in a very forceful manner, and thus cause us to think of the forcefulness that certain winds can have. The angels can, in implementing God's adverse judgments, also act in a very fiery (destructive) way against those condemned. In that way they are also like a fiery flame.

endenux

P.S. I noticed that you did not comment on all of my arguments.

Reading Topic #1477, reply 21
21. "RE: Now we're getting into something important: Does God have a body?"
Nov-06-05, 02:07 AM (EST)
In response to message #17

As I had hoped to do, I have finished composing my reply, and it follows:

Dr. Dale Moody (Joseph Emerson Brown Professor of Systematic Theology and Chairman of Historical-Theological Division, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, 1970), The Letters of John (Waco, TX: Word, Inc., 1970) 61:

“Here [at 1 John 3:2] the Hebrew and the Hellenistic views on the Vision of God collide. Gnosticism taught that mystical contemplation could lead to a direct Vision of God here and now in human history . . . Jesus taught that the pure in heart would see God in the future, but not in the present (Matthew 5:8) . . . The claim that the direct Vision of God is granted for brief periods to some elite souls was disputed in the Middle Ages. Even Thomas Aquinas believed it was possible under exceptional circumstances, as in the case of Moses and Paul…. God’s children will be like God when they see him, but at present they are only in the process of purification and transformation.” (Emphasis is mine.)

Dr. Moody reads 1 John 3:2 in a way that is the most natural read of the words. He contradicts your read, Rob. Really, the verb translated “we-shall-see” at 1 John 3:2 does not have the meaning “we-shall-know” at that place. If it were so, then we should have to take 1 John 3:2 for the meaning that we shall get to know all God’s personality characteristics “just as” (KAQWS) they are, which would mean that we would get to know God’s holiness, for example, just as it is; however, that can’t be because God’s holiness is infinite, and we will never get to know God’s holiness − nor His wisdom, righteousness, love − to its infinite degree, just as it is (compare Romans 11:33). There is neither in the context for 1 John 3:2 nor anywhere else in the Scriptures anything that would recommend your interpretation of 1 John 3:2. The natural read for 1 John 3:2 shows us that God has a body that can be seen by all persons who are in Heaven. Just as there is no such thing as a man in existence without a (physical) body, so also is there no spirit being without a (spiritual) body; all persons have bodies (see 1 Corinthians 15:44, 45). In fact, I can’t see any coherence in a doctrine that has it that angels and God are incorporeal spirits. If there is not a means whereby an angel is given a place in relation to the placement of all other things − which is what embodiment suffices to accomplish for an angel − then angels would be omnipresent. Maybe trinitarians don’t have a problem with that, because they say that God, Who is a spirit, is omnipresent. I cannot see how one can hold that omnipresent beings may have interaction with each other without there being a locus to their being. It seems to me that because angels are not omnipresent, then they do in fact have size and shape, and that regardless of how large or small their size may be in relation to other things in the spirit realm.

Now, let us revisit John 5:37b. Jesus, at John 5:37b, is referring to God’s figure ( = “shape,” “form,” or “face” as variously rendered in several English versions). He is not referring merely to a manifestation of God’s glory of a sort that was seen, and that by even a stiff-necked people for the forty years that they wandered in the wilderness (see Nehemiah 9:19) until they perished in the wilderness as result of God’s adverse judgment against them. What those rebellious Israelites were seeing in the wilderness was not “the similitude of the LORD” (see Numbers 12:8 KJV) such as Moses saw. The Hebrew word temunah is used at Deuteronomy 4:15, and in that verse the fire of Jehovah’s glory on Mount Horeb is expressly denied to be Jehovah’s “similitude” (temunah). The interesting thing here, though, is that nothing is said that should mean that possession of a similitude is not a property belonging to Jehovah; it is simply that no man has seen or can see Jehovah’s actual figure and live. He may see a representation of Jehovah manifested in a very glorious (refulgent), upright form/figure. Moses saw as much, but even then Jehovah, as He had previously explained to Moses, did not show Moses even the representation of a face on the upright, representative figure that went passing by Moses. It isn’t that Jehovah’s actual figure in heaven is without an actual face, but as respects the representation that Moses saw, Jehovah used the occasion to teach Moses that no man is really able to withstand being in the very presence of Jehovah’s actual figure.

endenux

P.S. I see that you, Rob, have made additional response, too. My quick perusal of it leaves me with the impression that nothing you assert or question is something that has not already been logically met by a careful review of my now-completed response. I may post further, but then again, I may not. I am quite content to let readers make what they will of our responses to this subject.

Reading Topic #1477, reply 22
"RE: Does God have a body?"
Nov-06-05, 04:48 PM (EST)
In response to message #18

Rob, you quoted my words:

>>And in line with what I stated in an earlier
>>post, it is not necessary for God to exert contact
>>pressure by bringing any part of his organism directly
>>into contact with an object. That is not the point of the
>>metaphor, as I have already made clear. We do not read it
>>as though it were one for suggesting such a thing about
>>God. You left yourself quite some wiggle room, though, by
>>your words ". . . is not akin to . . ." But if your
>>observation is that Jehovah's Witnesses take from the
>>metaphor the thought that God exerts a contact force upon
>>objects, then you have no discernment whatsoever as to
>>what we believe about God and holy spirit.

That was your "observation," was it not? I don't see that I have made a misrepresentation of your so-called observation.

And so I see no merit in your remonstrance that followed:

>My words "is not akin to" should have clued you in that I
>was not misconstruing your position in the first place.
>For you to respond as though I were misrepresenting your
>position, and then treat my words "is not akin to" as
>somehow me leaving myself wiggle room in my alleged
>misrepresentation of your position, is a case of special
>pleading.

You next wrote:

>. . . I am asking you (and the other Jehovah's
>Witnesses here) to clarify your doctrine about 'holy
>spirit.' I find it confusing, incoherent, and vague, . . .

As do I as respects your theology. You have not logically acquitted yourself of the arguments that I raised against your theology for its incoherence.

You quoted me as follows:

>>Honestly, Rob, I cannot fathom how you can say
>>that God is not an object in Heaven that can be seen in a
>>way that only other spirit persons can see
>>Him.

And then you merely ask:

>Er...did I say that?

I infer from what you have written that your position devolves to statement, in effect, that God is not an object in Heaven that can be seen in a way that only other spirit persons can see Him.

Rob, you next asserted:

>Let's face it, your original use of 1 John 3:2 asserted
>more than you are now claiming.

Absolutely not true. You have not shown any such thing. What you have managed to show me by your remonstrance is that you have not understood what I have written, which does not surprise me.

Rob, you wrote:

>Your reasoning here is unclear. I fail to see how anything
>you say necessitates the conclusion that God has a body.

I added more in my last response. If you do not wish to address it, fine. If not, then I will not have been held in any suspense.

>I had asked: "I am not sure what to make of your appeal to
>Job 1:6. Are you saying that God has a literal face?"

Again, God's face is not one that we can get to know by any description of it in human language.

You wrote:

>So now the word of choice is apparently 'organism.' The
>Bible doesn't say that God is an organism, either.

All organisms are bodies, but not all bodies are organisms. I can, in context of God's personhood, use body and organism interchangeably. "Organism" suggests for the body so referenced (by "organism") the presence of differentiae in the body. Our sight of a perfectly spherical object does not show us any point on its surface that is different in shape from any other point on its surface. But God has distinguishing characteristics in His body.

>You apparently agree that God does not have a literal 'face,'

You have misread me. I did not say that God did not have a literal face. God has a face, but it is not a face that we can appreciate per any attempt that might have been made in the Scriptures for a literal description of it. He has a face, but only other spirits can know what it is.  It does not yet appear to anointed (heavenly destined) Christians still in the flesh what appearance God's face has (see 1 John 3:2).

You wrote:

> . . . {You apparently agree that God does not have} literal 'eyes,'

You got that much right.

You wrote:

>but you want to conclude somehow from these figurative
>expressions that God has a literal body (or
>"organism").

No, I conclude from Scriptural revelation that God has a body with the properties of sight and hearing. Just exactly how those properties are present in God's organism, then, is not known -- is not knowable by humans as humans. Still, the Scriptures plainly reveal that God has ability to hear (see Psalm 94:9). The Bible does not say that Jehovah hears or sees because He has ears or eyes like ours. However, that Jehovah has a body gives us reasonable basis to conclude that something in God's organism, then, enables Him to hear and see. What that something is per any literal description of it in the language used in Heaven escapes our ability as humans to know and to appreciate.

You wrote:

>But you cannot infer a literal body

No, I need not infer any such thing. The Scriptures make it plain enough that God has a body.

You continued:

> . . . from a figurative face.

I have never said that God's body is without a literal face. He does not have a figurative face; angels in Heaven know how to describe to each other God's face. We can only appreciate anthropomorphic description of His face (e.g., the Scriptural references to God's nostrils, mouth, hair, and ears are anthropomorphic terms for exactly what really exists in the summit of God's figure, but which we cannot literally describe); we do not have ability to describe literally what the appearance (size and shape) and number of God's facial features are.

You asked:

>Does God, then, have something analogous to a chair on
>which he sits in heaven? Does he have something analogous
>to a robe? How big is God's body--how tall is it, do you
>think?

We must not deny Scriptural revelation, which is that God has a body, and just because language used about God's body is necessarily anthropomorphic language does not rule against the coherence of that revelation. Nothing you have presented rules against Scriptural revelation that God has a body with distinguishing characteristics for identifying Him (Jehovah). God literally has a unique and superior place/position in the midst of other spirit persons in Heaven, which, for sake of the sensibilities of a certain culture (one not steeped in metaphysical discussion for fielding objections from trinitarians) the Scriptures describe in anthropomorphic terms (robe, throne, etc.). I see nothing paradoxical about the Scriptures' use of such terms for anthropomorphic description of God.

You wrote:

> . . . none of the texts you cited supports the idea
>that angels or God have bodies, which you seem to have
>realized because you largely backed off that original
>claim.

You suffer from some inability to understand what I have written.

>God, as the creator of the space-time continuum,

That is a metaphysical assumption on your part. If God is not a static being and is one Who has always owned in Heaven a body of size and shape, then your statement must be seen as false. I need not widen out the discussion into more comment on my part as to how such is the case.

I wish to add one more thought about personhood. We cannot divorce body and mind from each other if it is our purpose to discuss what it means for a person to exist. Personhood is an irreducible substance of being. We become incoherent if we say that a person can exist/live without a body. If a (human) body has in its skull a brain so severely damaged that the body (brain), short of a real miracle from God, will not again serve as a natural ground of existence for the mind that had once existed before the brain was damaged -- if a mind has become irretrievably lost because of irreversible brain death --, then there has occurred the death of a person, the death of the one who was a person because he was composed of mind and body, and that despite the presence of biological life still resident in the vast number of cells comprising the dead person's body (organism).

endenux

Reading Topic #1477, reply 27
27. "RE: Does God have a body?"
Nov-07-05, 01:03 AM (EST)
In response to message #24

Rob, you wrote as follows:

>After I challenged that argument, your follow-up
>post said nothing with regard to 1 John 3:2 proving that
>God has a body, but only that it proves that spiritual
>beings can in some undefined (vague) sense "see" God. Read
>your own post and hopefully you'll "see" what I say is
>true.

I did. I made argument that strips you of your interpretation, but I noticed that you did not attempt to undo the damage I made against your interpretation. Demolition of an interpretation like yours for 1 John 3:2 leaves us with the most natural read for the text, which is that those resurrected to heavenly life will be able to describe what is really so about their bodies because they will see that their bodies are like God's for organismal features that spirit persons have. In fact, we can combine testimony from Paul's letter to the Philippians to show that the spiritual bodies of resurrected ones will more closely conform to God's and Christ's bodies than is so for angels' bodies. Paul wrote: "As for us, our citizenship exists in the heavens, from which place [literally, "out of where", EX hOU] we are eagerly awaiting for a savior the Lord Jesus Christ, who will refashion our humiliated bodies to be conformed to his glorious body . . ." (Php. 3:20, 21). Now, I will not widen this discussion in order to field your objections to the meaning that we Witnesses see in this text. We see that Jesus has a spiritual body in heaven (cf. 1 Cor. 15:42-50), and that Jesus' body figures into his now being "the image of the invisible God," "the reflection of his glory and the exact representation of his very being" (Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3). "They will, therefore, receive bodies that are incorruptible, having immortality, as distinguishable from angels in general and from mankind, who are mortal" (Insight I, p. 348).

So, when John writes this about those resurrected into heavenly life "We shall be like him because we shall see him just as he is," then John means a reference to what is seen, namely, God's body. I am sorry for you that you have a problem in reasoning on the Scriptures so that, as a consequence, you don't see implicit reference to God's body in this text. Too bad for you, Rob.

Rob, you quoted me as follows:

>You wrote:
>
>>All organisms are bodies, but not all bodies
>are organisms. I can, in context of God's personhood,
>>use body and organism interchangeably. "Organism"
>>suggests for that body so referenced (by "organism")
>>the presence of differentiae in the body. Our sight
>>of a perfectly spherical object does not show us any
>>point on its surface that is different in shape from
>>any other point on its surface. But God has
>>distinguishing characteristics in His body.

And then you challenged me as follows:

>Book, chapter, and verse, please?

See my use of Php. 3:20, 21; Col. 1:15; and Heb. 1:3 above. It is not said that the Christ and those who will realize citizenship in the heavens (for heavenly life) will there resemble equally all other spirit persons. Their bodies will more closely resemble the bodies of Christ and Jehovah God. That, then, implies distinguishing characteristics in the bodies of spirit persons.

Rob, you quoted me as follows:

>You wrote:
>
>>You have misread me. I did not say that God
>>did not have a literal face. God has a face, but it is not
>>a face that we can appreciate per any attempt that might
>>have been made in the Scriptures for a literal description
>>of it. He has a face, but only other spirits can know what
>>it is.

And then you ask:

>I am glad for the clarification. You appear to be saying
>that God has a literal face but that no description of
>that face is given in Scripture that we can take
>literally. Is that right?

Right.

You next query me for clarification when you wrote as follows:

>I think further clarification is needed. So, can you
>please tell me whether according to your view God, the
>angels, and any other spirit beings in Heaven, reside in a
>three-dimensional space in which objects occupy space,
>with specific measurements of length, height, and width,
>and specific shapes or contours that define their
>"bodies," and whether these bodies move in such space and
>turn one direction and another, so that at one time a
>spirit being's "face" would "face" toward some of the
>spirit beings but not others? If you answer No, in what
>meaningful sense accessible to us can it be said that they
>have "bodies" and "faces"?

I have written some things in my posts that should answer to some -- admittedly, not all -- of your questions you raised in your last post, which I quoted above. Well, now, we would go much wider afield than what is necessary for my giving you answer to the challenge 'Where do the Scriptures teach us that God has a body?' If, though, you now agree that God has a body, then together we may pursue how certain metaphysically based theories can be overturned in those who are more interested in human reason than in God's Word. I don't mind trying to disabuse the minds of those who have a (wrong) metaphysical theory of what can be real; but, Rob, you don't have any such bias, do you? ;)

Rob, you asked the following:

>Also, if God has a literal body and a literal face, does
>he have literal:
>
>eyes?
>mouth?
>nose?
>hair?
>arms?
>fingers?

Rob, how many times do you need to see my denial of the statement 'The Scriptures show us that God literally possesses these organs,' but rather that the Scriptures make anthropomorphic reference to such things when speaking of them as though God has such things for His organism?

[N.B. I edited what I had originally written as response to Rob because the original response had the words " . . . my denial that the Scriptures do not show us that . . . "; so, my original response included incorrect use of "do not." I apologize for any confusion that I may have caused readers. The corrected, and (somewhat) enlarged, statement was made on May 29, 2010, at 11:10 AM Eastern.]

Rob, you wrote as follows:

>Again, I think I understand you to be saying that we don't
>have a description of these body parts in Scripture that
>can be taken literally.

Right.

Then you asked:

>But does God literally have these
>body parts?

No, we cannot say such.

>It seems that you have to say Yes, since you
>say that God has a literal body and a literal face. Yet
>above you say I got it right when I said that your
>position was that God does not have literal eyes. Why
>would the face be literal but not the eyes?

The face is where we look for resemblance between one person and another, and one's having a face makes possible how we orient ourselves in relation to other persons for respectful conversation with another person. Such behavior is in accordance with the way we are built. We are made in God's image. This includes certain psychological facts true in our being so that we may look for a counterpart for them in God's being. If, for sake of pursuing respectful one-on-one conversation with another person, we adjust orientation of our bodies, then that is to my mind convincing evidence that God has a counterpart in His organism, which also faces out from the summit of His figure, and thus facilitates a spirit person's seeking conversation with God. Such conclusion naturally follows, it seems to me, from Scriptural revelation that God has a body (organism). See 1 Kings 22:21. The details of the vision are so rich in their imagery that it strikes me that it pleases God for us to know that His loyal, angelic sons seek out His face for conversation with their Father when they are present in Heaven in God's presence. See Matthew 18:10, and ask yourself that if Jesus does not mean that the Father has a literal face, then why that little detail that it is in heaven that such behavior (seeing the Father's face) can be carried out? Why not say that angels on assignment to earth are still able to see God if, in fact, God is omnipresent as trinitarians assert? (By the way, are angels omnipresent, too, Rob?)

Rob, you quoted me as follows:

>You wrote:
>
>>The Scriptures make it plain enough that God
>>has a body.

You then ask:

>Where? You have not cited a single biblical text that
>attributes a "body" to God.

You are wrong. See above for proof that your assertion is not true.

You asserted:

>Your handling of biblical references to God as
>having body parts is inconsistent: he has a
>literal face but not literal eyes, and so forth.
>God has a literal body (although the word "body"
>is never used of God) but not a literal chair on
>which that body sits or a literal robe to wear on
>that body (although the Bible does speak of God's
>"throne" and of God "sitting" in it, and also
>speaks of God's "robe"). There is nothing "plain"
>about your argument that I can see except that it
>is plain wrong.

You are wrong in your view of what 1 John 3:2 and John 5:37 teach us. You have been wrong in what you say I infer from the Scriptures, as I made plain in my last post. And so it is no wonder to me that you assert that I have been inconsistent in the way I handle references to God as references that teach us that God has body parts. I stated, though, that God has a face and that other distinguishing characteristics exist in His body. My comments are entirely consistent with the fact that the Scriptures show us that God has a spiritual body, but also show us that Heaven is not a place where human organs like ours can be present either (1) in God, (2) in Christ, (3) in ordinary angels, or (4) in those persons who have been resurrected to heavenly life (see 1 Corinthians 15:50). But this does not rule out that God has a real face that can only be described in language that angels in heaven use. If God has an organism, then it naturally follows that some place in God's organism must serve a certain purpose that a face serves for us, but only insofar as it facilitates pertinent orientation between organisms wishing to enjoy face-to-face conversation. What other functions the facial region of God's organism may have we cannot say. We can say that it does not facilitate eating; it does not facilitate auditory expressions. It is not the place for nostrils, which are (1) for the sense of smell and (2) for respiration. It is not for accommodating placement of photon-sensitive eyes.

endenux

Reading Topic #1477, reply 28
28. "RE: 1 John 3:2 and John 5:37"
Nov-07-05, 01:12 AM (EST)
In response to message #26

Rob,

As usual, you miss the salient point and misconstrue it. So here. Moody is pointing out that God's children will be like God when they see him. He says nothing that would indicate that this seeing God is not the Direct Vision of God sought by the Gnostics, but only that it is not granted in human history. And contrary to your assertion, this seeing God is not a seeing that amounts to understanding God's spiritual qualities. You have not answered how I have defeated you on that misinterpretation of yours.

endenux

Reading Topic #1477, reply 29
29. "RE: Ok Rob... I'll ask you."
Nov-07-05, 01:18 AM (EST)
In response to message #25

Rob, you wrote:

>Scottie,
>
>I think you're right. Basically, endenux is using
>'organism' as a vaguer way of saying that God has a body
>with different parts.

You got it completely backwards. "Organism" is a more precise way of stating that God's body has "parts" (differentiae, actually), not a vaguer way for stating such.

Really, Rob, you do have a fundamental problem in following the argument of your opponent.

endenux

Reading Topic #1488, reply 9
9. "RE: Does God have a body?"
Nov-07-05, 06:45 PM (EST)
In response to message #2

Rob, you wrote:

>None of these texts says or implies that God has a body,

Of course they do. Jesus did not take to heaven the body he had for the thirty-three and a half years of his earthly life. He was given a body -- a spiritual body --, and it is this body that is the image/representation of the invisible (spiritual) God's very being (Col.1:15; Heb. 1:3). This means, then, that God Jehovah has a spiritual body, too. Just do the math, Rob, without trinitarianism's blinders for giving Jesus' personhood two natures (the human and divine).

>Your use of Matthew 18:10 is identical in reasoning to
>your use of Job 1:6, which I have already addressed.

No, I emphasized that Jesus said it was in heaven that God's angels are always able to behold the face of their Father. This is not sight of God that is insight into God's qualities, for insight into (appreciation of) God's personality does not occur just in Heaven. So, in what way does an angel's presence in Heaven facilitate his beholding his Father's face? You haven't answered yet.

>Yeah, that's why I included a link to our previous
>discussion--to hide from everyone else your brilliant
>defense of your position. Give me a break. I opened up a
>new thread to draw attention to the issue and invite
>others to weigh in on it.

I'm thinking it's a ploy to present selections of my material in order to hide the "brilliant" responses you made in the exchanges between us. After all, you began the thread with incomplete references to the Scriptures I used, and followed it up with doctrinal error on your part when you declare that those references don't mean that God has a body.

I will participate this thread only to correct your misrepresentations of what I have stated, which, judging from your opening posts, promise a lively participation on my part.

endenux

Jehovah has always existed in Heaven, the spiritual realm. That means that because he has always had bodily existence, then He has always had a place to live. That means space. Time has always existed, too, because it has always been a property of God's mind for Him to think, and that requires that He have orderly progression to His thoughts, and that means or requires that He be aware of when he was thinking something at some earlier time, and that He has since then thought other thoughts. In other words, Jehovah is not a static being, but ever since His creation of His Son, Jehovah has been a contemporary with His rational creatures, men included. So, Heaven is a space-time continuum that has always existed, it never having come into existence precisely because Jehovah has never come into existence, He always having been alive from the eternal past.

Now, what about the space-time continuum (the physical universe, the cosmos) that is the subject of astrophysicists' (e.g., Hoyle's, and Hawking's) studies and speculations? Well, there is where it gets thorny, doesn't it? It seems logical to say that God extended the space-time continuum of Heaven in order that it define the boundaries of the physical universe -- at least defines them at any given moment because we are told that the space-time continuum of the physical universe is still expanding, and if it is not a closed system, will expand forever if God were not to intervene. What this should mean is that if men could travel at or (probably considerably) faster than the speed of light, and if men were able to withstand drawing near to God's bodily presence, then they would arrive at some point in time in Heaven, yes, arrive at and enter the spiritual realm. But such is not possible both from a technological point of view, and from the fact that God would not allow men to do it (compare Gen. 11:6). It is just a thought experiment in order to verbalize my thoughts as to what such an extension of Heaven's space-time continuum accomplished, if there was such an expansion, and I think likely there was at the moment of God's creation of the physical universe. It should mean that if men had some means of traveling as fast as angels do, and if men had a means of protecting themselves against being consumed because of being in a too-close proximity to God's body, and if God were to allow it, then it would logically follow that men could travel from here to Heaven (the spiritual realm).

>Right, and if Christ's body no longer needs food or water,
>etc., then it no longer needs a nose or lungs, or taste
>buds or blood or a stomach, etc.

Right. It wouldn't need a tongue and lips for causing audible expressions that are air-borne words heard by another person, for there is no air in Heaven. If angels paid any attention to speech upon the lips of this glorified human body that Jesus' human nature supposedly incorporates, then it would be because they are reading lips, not hearing sounds. The whole thing is an extremely silly concept, so much so that a (slightly) more dignified approach to the matter could be better implemented were trinitarians to say that God practiced taxidermy upon Jesus' dead body, and then took it to Heaven. The sight of a "stuffed" body is far less pitiable than that of an animated body whose "design has been nullified." Oh what a tangled web of confusion trinitarians have spun!

Hi, Jim,

Well, what you present is certainly one model of Reality (physical realm + spiritual realm) that I can visualize, where Reality (R) is more dimensional than merely three: R > 3D. But I am not convinced that Reality need be more than 3D. I believe that the impossibility of physical objects finding location in the spiritual realm likely has to do with energy levels (Kinetic energy) that no physical object will ever be capable of owning, and that per physical laws that "work OK" without our invoking more than three dimensions for any part of Reality. Why am I skeptical that Heaven (the spirit realm) is a group of coordinates that is mappable to all the coordinates in the physical realm? Because then a spirit would have only to "unzip" the fabric of our physical realm at the right coordinates and step immediately into where he wants to go in the physical realm. But is that compatible with Daniel 9:20-23? Maybe it is, but it seems that once an angel has stepped immediately from the spirit realm into the physical realm, he should still have ability for super-luminal speed in his locomotion, and need not become tired out from hurrying so quickly from the heavenly court to any place on earth, which, per our example, was a place in the Middle East where Daniel was praying. But I am open to other explanation for Daniel 9:20-23.

>Hi Al,
>If the spirit realm is transcendent, “above” the physical
>realm, yet occupying the same space, then this would allow
>the spirit beings to be naturally invisible to our
>physical eyes yet allow them to be in our vicinity at the
>same time.
>
>This transcendency of the spirit realm would also prevent
>any humans from entering it. I remember e-talking to Edgar
>Foster about this, and I think we both were on the same
>page.
>
>Now, how does the spirit realm exist transcendent to ours
>yet occupy the same space? It is not a paradox, since
>Jesus said he is from the “realms above,” (John 8:23) and
>yet angels visited him and others on earth, manifesting
>themselves in a way physical eyes could safely behold
>them, without leaving their spirit realm. (Judges 6:21;
>13:19,20)
>
>The account of the ascending angel in Judges 13:20 is
>especially interesting, as it is similar to Jesus’
>ascension. Regarding the implications of this, the Insight
>book under “Ascension” wisely notes:

>Thus Jesus’ ascension, while beginning with an upward
>movement, from the viewpoint of his disciples, may have
>thereafter taken any direction required to bring him into
>his Father’s heavenly presence. It was an ascension not
>only as to direction but, more important, as to the sphere
>of activity and level of existence in the spirit
>realm and in the lofty presence of the Most High God,
>a realm not governed by human dimensions or directions.
>(underscore added)

>Thus, if astronauts went straight up from earth trying to
>imitate Jesus’ ascension to reach God, they would never
>succeed. They would never succeed since they would never
>exit the physical realm. It’s simply not for us to do
>that. Only by resurrection into the spirit realm can a
>human enter it.
>
>This model also makes the notion of Jesus’ dual nature
>completely absurd. For Jesus to retain his human body
>would mean that he is divided between two realms, one
>transcendent to the other!

>Hi Al,
>Good talking with you. Daniel 9:20-23 is an interesting
>passage, and one that may not be as clear as we would
>like. The NWT faithfully translates verse 21 as: "and
>{while} I was yet speaking in the prayer, why, the man
>Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the start,
>having been made weary with tiredness, was arriving
>by me at the time of the evening gift offering." The
>footnote on the underlined part informs us that this is
>according to the Hebrew, but adds: "LXX, 'being borne
>along speedily'; Vg, 'flying speedily.'"

Jim, Hebrew syntax is not my forte, but however one defines the adjectival clause, we see that it was taken by the LXX translators as modification for "the man Gabriel," and that suggests to me that Hebrew syntax won't be at issue here. (I would be interested to know if there are any translations that take the clause as modification of "I {Daniel}." I haven't researched that, yet.) But vocabulary and idiom are different matters. So, even if the salient words modify "Gabriel," as I suspect they do, we still need to know if there is some idiomatic use of the words in Hebrew that may have caused the LXX translators to translate as they did, or was there a variant Hebrew textual tradition that the LXX translators followed for Daniel 9:20-23 that caused them to translate as they did? If so, then the absence of the thought that Gabriel was tired could be a valid alternative to what we have in NWT.

So, maybe research will bear you out on one or more of your suggested meanings for Daniel 9:20-23. Outside that, I can't think of anything else at the moment that might possibly stand to definitely rule out your suggested model "R > 3D." But neither can I think of anything that might be better explained here than by the model that God extended Heaven's space-time continuum, which defines Heaven's "topography," so that the same space-time continuum now also defines the physical universe's, too.

Your brother,
Al

>The Daniel book
>is interesting on this. On page 185 it highlights that
>Gabriel arrived speedily, but does not mention him being
>tired. The Insight book under "Angel" sites this passage,
>and simply notes that angels can travel at "tremendous
>speeds, far exceeding the limits of the physical world."
>(p. 107)
>
>I wonder if it's possible that,
>1) If Gabriel was indeed tired, perhaps this was due to
>fighting demon forces as in Dan 10:13? (For reference, dp
>pp. 204, 205.)
>2) Or was it Daniel that was tired, since it was "at the
>time of the evening gift offering"? (Note the NASB: "the
>man Gabriel...came to me in {my} extreme weariness about
>the time of the evening offering.")
>3) Or is it that Gabriel just arrived swiftly?
>
>In any event, at the end of the day, we all believe that
>angels are helping us and we can be sensitive the leadings
>of the holy spirit. We can allow God and the angels to
>help us along.
>
>I just question whether or not they are detectable with a
>"tricorder" type device. ;-)
>
>(I edited this a few times and I think I'm done,
>sorry about that.)

Al Kidd

>About the “R > 3D,” I would like to add or clarify a
>little. Length, width, and height, our three dimensions,
>are also found in the spirit realm, in that its
>inhabitants have bodies and are able to move about freely.

Yes, I agree. I stated in one of my other posts that Reality was the physical universe plus the spirit realm. And I agree that each realm is a 3D realm. What I was trying to say with R > 3D was not a statement of what Reality is, but that if, as you think possible/probable, the spiritual realm (Heaven) is not seamlessly of the same space-time continuum as is so for the physical realm, then you have more than three dimensions to work with if you were a spirit seeking to travel from one realm to the other. Navigation between the realms means that there would have to be a way to map the spatial coordinates of a place's location in one realm onto the spatial coordinates for a place's location in the other realm; hence, you can't deal only with the three dimensions in just one of the realms since the three dimensions in one realm are disjunctive to the three dimensions in the other realm. So, as a statement or axiom of dimensionality for Reality goes, R > 3D. In either space-time continuum scenario for Reality, you still have two realms (physical + spiritual); however, in one scenario, there is but one space-time continuum -- the one I lean towards (bit of a pun there) --, but in the other scenario there are two space-time continuums.

>So, I would like to modify the expression R>3D to R>PS,
>that is, Reality is greater than Physical Space.
>Therefore, R=PS+SR (Spirit Realm).

Of course. As a statement that Reality is more than one realm, that is a succinct way of stating it.

>Thus I have often
>considered PS to be a container for matter, the “realms
>below;”

Certainly.

>while the SR is transcendent and the “realms
>above”—

Yes.

>“a realm not governed by human dimensions or
>directions.”—John 8:28; it-1 “Ascension (Correctness of
>the Term)”

What I take from that is that we humans need a unit of measure that has meaning with us -- something we can relate to -- so that we may make meaningful comparisons with objects' sizes in the physical realm, which range from the subatomic to the size of quasars. Directions are given in terms that specify (1) orientation with respect a point on the earth's surface in relation to the place where something else is, which will be an object either on earth or away from the earth's surface, and (2) distance between the objects. None of that will be in units of time, units of distance, and sets of coordinates that would necessarily mean anything to a spirit in Heaven.

>I will close with some interesting scriptures, ones that
>do not necessarily prove or support any position:
>
>“But will God truly dwell upon the earth? Look! The
>heavens, yes, the heaven of the heavens, themselves cannot
>contain you; how much less, then, this house that I have
>built!” (1 Kings 8:27; 2 Chr. 2:6, 6:18)

Ah, yes, 1 Kings chapter 8. It shows us that God is not omnipresent, nor could He ever come into the physical realm.

>“Behold, to Jehovah your God belong the heavens, even the
>heavens of the heavens, the earth and all that is in it.”
>(Deut. 10:14)

And to think that our magnificent, majestic Creator loved sinful, puny humans so much that to save us He was willing to send His own dear Son to suffer and die as result of impalement at the hands of ignorant blasphemers. I am so thankful to have for brothers and sisters those who appreciate how the Son vindicated his Father's sovereignty, and, in so doing, made the way open for us to have a return to Paradise on earth. Even if we should die before God's day and hour for judgment has come, still, we may have a resurrection into a paradisiacal earth.

Al

>The Bible states that Jehovah has always existed.

Yes, that's plain.
>
>It also states that angels and those resurrected to the
>"spirit realm" can "see" him.

Yes, they have sight that is strong enough to look directly upon Jehovah's face.

>Did Jehovah create this "spirit realm" before he created
>the angels who would inhabit it? Or did the spirit realm
>always exist?

Another word for the spirit realm is "Heaven." Jehovah has always lived in Heaven, the spirit realm. It was never created, because Jehovah was never created. The space-time continuum of Heaven expanded as a correlate of God's creation of spirit persons -- a necessary concomitant with their having been created by Him.

>My guess is that Jehovah exists in a "dimension" outside
>(higher than) both the physical and spiritual realms,
>which he created. He can be "seen" in the spirit realm,
>and can "reside" in it, but he is not confined to it.

Are not spiritual bodies properly at home in the spiritual realm? If there is a dimension that is neither the proper home for spiritual or physical persons, then it is not the home for persons, all of whom have bodies. In that case, Jehovah would be in some realm without His having a body, for what other kind of bodies are there but the physical -- which Jehovah can never assume --, and the spiritual, which is the kind of body Jehovah has always had? But if there is some realm where he does not have a body, then what would He be? An omnipresent, impersonal force. But we don't believe Jehovah is omnipresent; He is an embodied person. We have not the slightest inkling in the Scriptures that Jehovah is not properly and entirely at home in the spirit realm/Heaven, His "established place of dwelling." The most magnificent things are ascribed to Jehovah in Heaven, never to Jehovah outside Heaven -- except in poetry where He is spoken of in figurative terms as one who approaches earth for the deliverance of His servant(s), e.g., King David.

>Also, those in the spirit realm, including Jesus, are
>governed by time, whereas Jehovah alone is from time
>indefinate to time indefinate.

Well, only Jehovah is from the eternal past, but beginning in the new world, all God's loyal ones may remain alive for all eternity to come without their ever having to die, for then only those who rebel against Jehovah would have to die. True, 144,001 will have been resurrected to immortal life as spirits in Heaven (the spiritual realm). So, the spiritual realm will be the eternal home of Jehovah, Jesus Christ, the angels, and the 144,000.

Your brother,
Al

>*** pe chap. 4 p. 44 God—Who Is He? ***
>
>"25 Although it may be hard for our minds to understand,
>Jehovah never had a beginning and will never have an end.
>He is the “King of eternity.” (Psalm 90:2; 1 Timothy 1:17)
>Before he began to create, Jehovah was all alone in
>universal space.

We see affirmed that this space was not created because it is expressly stated that Jehovah was in this space before He began to create. That is reasonable, because a body has to have location, a place to be. "Universal space" may be reference to the brother's thought that there is but one space-time continuum. If he thought so, then it affirms what I have always thought, namely, there is but one space-time continuum.

>As to exactly what "universal space" means, the Society at
>times seems to apply this term to the physical universe
>(perhaps an empty physical universe?).

One and the same space-time continuum would define the boundaries for both realms, the physical and the spiritual.

>"How would you explain what time is? Some would say that
>time is a way of looking at things or that it is the
>distance between events. Therefore, if nothing ever
>happened there would be no time.

But God has always existed, and has always been thinking. So, Jehovah did not exist before time began ("before time began" is an oxymoron), just as He did not exist before there was space, because there was also no time when space did not exist.

>Yet to define what time
>actually is becomes as baffling as explaining what
>universal space is. But certain aspects of time are
>known."

Here is how it seems to me, another of us who also has more questions than answers: 'There has always been time because Jehovah has always been. This means that Jehovah is in the stream of time. There is no phenomenal past, as though things that are happening now are things that keep on being "replayed" in some dimension of Reality; once an event has taken place, it will always remain as an event that has taken place. So, nobody knowing the history of some event -- that some particular event took place -- can cause it to have never happened. Jehovah can undo the effects of some past event, but that is not the same as His causing it to have never happened. That would be a logical impossibility.' So, those are things I keep in mind, and I have yet to see a line of reasoning that causes me to doubt the plausibility of the account I just gave. But then there is always the next moment of consciousness, isn't there? If not for me (because I may die in the next moment), then certainly for most persons in existence. Assuming I will live on past the next moment, I may find in the next moment something that could cause me to change my mind about time and space.

>What is universal space? http://www.novan.com/space.htm

Al

Sunday, November 8, 2009

On the Relief Ministries of Jehovah's Witnesses

N.B. Some of the procedures used by Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses for handling special relief funds have changed since the year 1997, which was the year Joy and I ("Plesion") debated the issue of the nature of the relief ministries operated by Jehovah's Witnesses.
___________________________________________________

Subj: JWs Relief Ministry 1
Date: 97-04-27 03:00:14 EDT
From: Plesion

Joy asks:

> I was wondering ... what about the reg. WT policy on feeding
> the hungry and abused. Does the Watchtower Society have
> any programs to help the needy, and the hungry?
> (referring to non-JW's)

Plesion responds:

Our preaching and teaching the Kingdom of God is an outreach to the hungry and abused so that any who show appreciation for the truth of God's Word are indeed supported with gifts of necessities (food, clothing, medicine, shelter) when such are sent into disaster areas by relief teams organized entirely by JWs who do all the logistical work entirely without the support of a bureaucracy, this so that there is no body of men and women whose livelihood is made off a percentage of the funds that Witnesses volunteer to meet a particular crisis. And when the relief teams have begun ministering to the needs of their spiritual brothers and sisters and it is seen that a surplus of relief supplies and manpower is available, then the unbelieving public is aided. This has involved giving not only food in great quantities to unbelievers (non-JWs), but has also involved the labor of many volunteers in some regions for the rebuilding or erecting shelter (homes) of unbelievers. This has happened in foreign countries and in the US. Examples of this are common. We saw it Homestead, FL, in Charleston, SC (areas that received hurricane- disaster relief), in Albany, GA where many homes were rebuilt by the unpaid labor of JWs who did construction work for many days in Albany on homes of people who were not JWs then or now. But make no mistake. Our first concern is to accomplish a service (ministry) for bringing relief to our brothers and sisters. This is Scriptural, as you can see from how Paul organized a famine relief effort, a ministry for the holy ones in Judea. Paul did not organize it with an unbelieving public in mind. The world of unbelievers will continue to experience need for physical relief measures, and in such sheer numbers that it would exhaust the resources of a few millions of JWs should they think that it is their business to give relief even handedly "across the board," as it were, by not making distinctions among victims. So, we do make a distinction as to who should get first and sure attention, and we make the distinction by answering the question "Who among the victims are Jehovah's Witnesses?" And as stated before, when once they are cared for, then, as is quite often the case, much relief is given to non-JWs.

Joy asks:

> Would a Jehovah's Witness be at liberty to support
> an organization such as World Vision, or Compassion
> International?

Plesion responds:

What percentage of the funds given over into the hands of those agencies actually goes to the direct purchase of relief supplies? With Jehovah's Witnesses, it is 100 percent. Typical among many relief agencies is that only a small percentage of donated funds actually buys necessities that are distributed to victims. Have you read a disclosure of how the funds are used by those orgs. you named? Can you share that information with us?

We know our funds will do much more for those whom we intend to get benefit from the funds than would be the case if we had to pay salaries of those in a bureaucracy composed of professional relief-providers.

Subj: JWs' Relief Ministry 2
Date: 97-04-27 03:01:09 EDT
From: Plesion

Joy asks:

>Do the local Kingdom Halls have food kitchens for
> the needy in their neighborhoods? Or for those
> who may come to the JW's for help?

Plesion responds:

Paul tells us that the primary purpose of our providing a physical relief ministry is that those getting the relief are going to render thanksgiving to God's name--and that is because we are primarily engaged in helping believers and those who are giving convincing evidence that they are repenting and are turning around from their practice of moral and spiritual badness. Unless a disaster strikes in our neighborhood, soup kitchens are not going to be required for the assistance a congregation gives such ones as listed above. This means that until disaster strikes, there is not a high profile presence of Witnesses giving assistance to others. But should someone who is not one of JWs approach one of JWs because he knows the one he is approaching is a Witness, then we would have to weigh the reasons why an unbeliever has chosen to approach a Witness for relief. Is he convinced that we can help him physically and spiritually? Does he qualify for governmental assistance? Is he in habitual need because he is a habitual drunkard or drug addict? If he is such, does he now want to use his life to bring glory to God's name? But if we were to organize a soup kitchen and barracks for indiscriminately giving physical relief to whosoever applies, will we not be getting a high percentage of those who will not benefit themselves by the spiritual help offered him by us? Would we not simply be making it easier for such ones to use whatever money they have in order to buy alcohol or drugs to feed their morally and spiritually defiling habits? We will not aid him to have a feeling of security for which he does not thank God because he is still practicing moral badness, and he doing so with less cost to himself. He should be shown "tough love" by our making conditional any physical relief we give him, and we condition it upon whether or not he is making convincing demonstration that he is benefiting himself morally and spiritually by those who can teach him the truths of God's Word. Then he will give thanks to God--there will be an increase of thanksgiving to God.

Subj: JWs' Relief Ministry 1
Date: 97-04-30 01:58:02 EDT
From: Plesion

Hello, Joy,

I will yet comment on your errors as to what you feel a Christian relief ministry should do, but will do so in a few days. The pace of the family business (my brother and mine) has picked up so in the last week that I am not able to do as much reading in the last few days as I would like to. Be patient; I will post more later. But here is partial answer:

*** g93 1/8 17 Things Hurricane Andrew Could
Not Destroy ***

Many non-Witness spouses and neighbors benefited
from the help offered by teams of Witness repairmen.

*** g93 1/8 18 Things Hurricane Andrew Could
Not Destroy ***

Her Witness told of his non-Witness neighbors whom
he checked on each night. They said they were OK.
On the fifth day, the wife broke down and wept. "We
don't have any diapers for the baby. We're low on baby
food. We don't have enough food and water." The husband
needed five gallons [20 L] of gasoline but could not get it
anywhere. That same day, the Witness brought all they
needed from the Kingdom Hall relief depot. The wife
cried with gratitude. The husband gave a donation
toward the relief work.

*** g93 1/8 19 Things Hurricane Andrew Could
Not Destroy ***

Ferm¡n Pastrana, an elder from the Princeton Spanish
Congregation, reported that seven families in his congregation
of 80 Witnesses had lost their homes entirely. What remedy
had he suggested to his fellow Witnesses? "Grieve if you need
to grieve. But then don't sit around and mope. Get active
helping others, and, to the degree possible, go out in the ministry.
Don't miss our Christian meetings. Solve what can be solved, but
don't fret about what has no solution."

As a result, Witnesses were soon preaching and taking relief
boxes from house to house. Andrew had not blown away their
zeal.

*** g93 1/8 20 Things Hurricane Andrew Could
Not Destroy ***

Reactions of the Press. Even the media noted how well the
Witnesses were organized. The Savannah Evening Press
carried the headline "Jehovah's Witnesses Find They Are
Welcome in South Florida," and The Miami Herald declared:
"Witnesses Care for Their Own--and Others."
It stated: "No one in Homestead is slamming doors on the
Jehovah's Witnesses this week--even if they still have doors
to slam. About 3,000 Witness volunteers from across the
country have converged . . .
....

The same report continued: "There's no bureaucracy. There
are no battling egos. Instead, workers seem impossibly cheerful
and cooperative no matter how hot, grimy or exhausted." How
was that explained? One Witness answered: "This comes from a
relationship with God that motivates us to demonstrate our love
for others." That was something else that Andrew could not take
away, the Witnesses' Christian love.--John 13:34, 35. ("g" before
a date is reference to Awake! magazine.)

Subj: JWs' Relief Ministry 2
Date: 97-04-30 01:59:48 EDT
From: Plesion

*** g93 1/8 20-1 Things Hurricane Andrew Could
Not Destroy ***

A volunteer there reports: "So we received a whole truckload of
drinking water. We immediately included this among the other
foodstuffs that we were sending to the distribution centers at the
Kingdom Halls. It was shared with the brothers and with the
neighbors in that area who were in need." A paper company in
Washington State donated 250,000 paper plates.

*** g93 1/8 21 Things Hurricane Andrew Could
Not Destroy ***

Kitchens and feeding lines were also opened on the Kingdom
Hall grounds, and anybody was welcome to come for aid. Even
some of the soldiers enjoyed a meal and were later observed
dropping donations into the contribution boxes.

*** g93 1/8 21 Things Hurricane Andrew Could
Not Destroy ***

While the men were busy fixing houses, some of the women
were preparing meals. Others were out visiting any people they
could find in order to share with them the Bible's explanation of
natural disasters and also to give away boxes of relief supplies to
those in need. One of these was Teresa Pereda. Her home was
damaged, and her car windows were smashed--yet the car was
loaded with relief boxes ready for her neighbors. Her husband,
Lazaro, was busy working at one of the Kingdom Halls.--
Ecclesiastes 9:11; Luke 21:11, 25.

*** g90 2/22 20 Sudden Destruction!-How Have
They Coped? ***

The following weekend as many as 400 Witness relief
workers were on hand. Altogether, work was done on the
roofs or in the yards of about 800 families, including many
who are not Witnesses.

*** w94 2/15 6-7 Are Jehovah's Witnesses a Cult? ***
And they do not live in communes, isolating themselves
from relatives and others. Jehovah's Witnesses recognize
that it is their Scriptural responsibility to love and care for
their families. They live and work with people of all races
and religions. When disasters strike, they are quick to
respond with relief supplies and other humanitarian
assistance.

Joy, did you enjoy the material above? I know it did not address Albany, GA. My brother and his family were able to travel to Albany, GA and help repair some damaged homes. Some of the materials assigned his team was used on homes of non-Witnesses. He does not have a total of how many non-Witness homes were so repaired, because he did not co-ordinate the teams. But he does not believe his team was all that unusual. I have heard other reports from friends that non-Witness homes were repaired.

Joy, as to comment one elder you know made, it is an unhappy thing to see his error in print. Why don't you get back to him and correct him with the quotes you can show him, then report back to us if he is still of the same opinion or not.

Plesion

Subj: To Ilvu pt 1
Date: 97-05-03 01:10:21 EDT
From: Plesion

Hello, Joy.

Joy quotes me:

> Plesion:
>
>> We know our funds will do much more for those whom
>> we intend to get benefit from the funds than would be
>> the case if we had to pay salaries of those in a
>> bureaucracy composed of professional relief-providers.

Joy responded to my statement as follows:

> I will freely acknowledge that there have been
> so-called ministries who have been found to be
> fraudulent, and that it is very wise to be careful
> in considering giving to any ministering organization.
> But I don't consider money given to support truly
> Christian missionaries who provide relief for starving
> and abused people to be money that is spent
> unwisely, or in vain. That is like saying that the people
> who are right there, helping the people, and the people in
> the office who make this system work, are not working
> for God, and are not worthy of hire.

Plesion responds:

We have missionaries in foreign assignments who spiritually and morally educate those who are willing to be taught. They also educate them in matters of physical hygiene and health, e.g., how to use locally available vegetables--sometimes ignored through the populace's ignorance in some countries--so as to stave off preventable malnutrition-caused diseases. They help those families who respond to the preaching of God's Kingdom to get the necessities they need. If we are not referring to a disaster area (e.g., famine stricken areas in Ethiopia), but we are talking instead about certain other cultures where there is addiction to betel nut, opium, tobacco, cocaine, alcohol . . . or we are referring to cultures steeped in expensive involvement in spiritistic practices, then when any of those people hear the Word of God with joy and thanksgiving, they become ones freeing themselves from harmful, hardship-working ignorance and abusive habits. It would be a misdirection of limited resources to give provender to those who manifest hostility to God's people and who refuse to respond to the Good News so as to render thanksgiving in a way acceptable to God.

Of course, humanitarian gestures in the face of disaster are for the purpose of helping the recipient(s) return as quickly as possible to a measure of normalcy in their lives. Until then, it is understandable that an unbelieving population afflicted by disastrous circumstances will not be in a mood especially given over to meditating on a spiritual message designed to help them come to repentance towards God. True Christians who have rendered humanitarian assistance and who will be around after a measure of normalcy has returned will be in position to bear witness to God's Word, and honest-hearted ones may recall that Jehovah's Witnesses were present to do what they could to offer humanitarian assistance freely--unconditionally.

Subj: To Ilvu pt 2
Date: 97-05-03 01:11:05 EDT
From: Plesion

What, though, if the disaster is manmade (war, war-induced famine and diseases)? If it is a long-term disaster (e.g., famine and shattered economies), then Jehovah's Witnesses in those afflicted areas have a God-given right to expect their spiritual brothers to organize an on-going relief ministry. (Such a ministry has been operational for Bosnian Witnesses, Herzegovinian Witnesses, Rwandan Witnesses in Mozambique refugee camps, etc; this sort of ministry is not accomplished by organizing merely a one-shipment transport and disbursement of material necessities.) Much money is required to purchase the things needed, but no salaries are paid anyone involved in these efforts, because many different volunteers from among the Witnesses make all of it possible. So, 100 percent of all funds contributed for a specific physical relief ministry go to that relief effort.

But as stated, our afflicted Witness friends have a right to expect that their non-afflicted brothers should contribute sufficient funds or materiel so as to make possible that the afflicted ones get all that they need. Suppose that Witnesses not afflicted were to throw their funds in with a "Christian" relief ministry (e.g., World Vision)--even supposing for a moment that there were nothing spiritually wrong with such an alliance--, we still should ask, "Does a history of the World Vision's efforts show that they are funded well enough to give all that is needed to all that they intend to help?" I believe that the swollen bellies that continually play across our TV screens are ample proof that the entire population of the ones whom World Vision wants to help--intends to help--have yet to receive help sufficient to their needs, and that is why we continue to see the swollen bellies and emaciated limbs of famine victims. Well, we Witnesses cannot throw our funds into anything that cannot guarantee that our Christian brothers and sisters will get 100 percent of all contributions, and we have yet to come up short in afflicted areas where we can operate and where opposing armies have ceased to block our shipments. Yes, in some places opposing armies have admitted that they had our convoys in their artillery sights; still, in those cases we have managed to get shipments through with God Jehovah's intervention. We have a formula that works with God's blessings on it. We are not about to change it now! We will not share our resources with an organization we have every reason for mistrusting its motives. No, not for a moment is it at all conscientious and moral that someone should siphon off any part of funds given to some ministry in order to pay salaries of professional relief providers. It amounts to taxing--charging an interest, as it were,--against the victims who already are not getting all that they need. (Compare Exodus 22:25; Lev 25:37 for how God must view any of His people who would do such a thing.) If the relief providers need something to eat, it should be given out of the surplus of those who are receiving the contributed provender--but when has there been such a surplus?--or paid out of funds not at all connected with a fund specially created out of contributions solicited for a relief ministry. Such an abuse is to tax those who should get 100% of all that is contributed with them especially in mind.

Subj: To Ilvu pt 3
Date: 97-05-03 01:11:42 EDT
From: Plesion

So, on the principle that the five wise virgins enunciated in one of Jesus' parables, we cannot meld our contributions in with World Vision's funds as perhaps there would no longer be enough for us (our friends). Our friends in the afflicted areas have a right to expect better. Also, the World Vision has a religious agenda. Its missionaries teach what they believe the Bible says about Jesus Christ, his Father, and the Kingdom of God. We cannot let them use any percentage of our funds to teach a suffering people blasphemous lies against God's character. God does not overlook such lawlessness just because those who teach blasphemous things against God point to their "powerful works" and aver to Jesus' face, as it were, that such works are proof that they have obeyed Jesus' Lordship over them.

Joy writes:

> These people are serving God, and are worthy of our
> support – they being in God's service.
>
> Paul received money from God's people that supported
> his ministry. In Phil 4:16-19, Paul states:
>
> "for even when I was in Thessalonica, you sent me
> aid again and again when I was in need. Not that I am
> looking for a gift, but I am looking for what may be
> credited to your account. I have received full
> payment and even more: I am amply supplied, now
> that I have received from Epaphroditus the gifts
> you sent. They are a fragrant offering, an
> acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God."

Plesion responds:

Paul did not allocate to his personal use any part of the relief-ministry fund created according to his counsel at 1 Cor 16:2. Your equating what Paul received from a special gift got together just for his needs . . . your equating that with what ministers for World Vision do (when they take part of the contributions given to a relief-ministry fund and use that part for their salaries) is gross error! Your example is not--repeat not (for emphasis)--at all Scriptural.

Joy asks:

> When you give money in the box at your Kingdom
> Hall, where does this money go? What, exactly, is the
> money used to support? Is it only used for the cost
> of paper and printing?

Subj: To Ilvu pt 3
Date: 97-05-03 01:12:20 EDT
From: Plesion

Plesion responds:

The money from Kingdom Hall boxes labeled Society's Worldwide Work (SWW) goes to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. for the Society to use according to its discretion for meeting the costs in a number of areas that are all in one way or another connected with advancing the Good News. Sometimes congregations are informed that a special fund will be created--a fund for some kind of assistance for some our friends in some part of the world, and a congregation will send to the Society what amount(s) come by way of resolution and/or by placement of a special box labeled with the name of the fund on the box. The amount contributed is indicated on a special field on a certain form, and all (100 percent of) the money indicated on that line goes into that assistance program. It would be a violation of law regulating a corporation if the specially created fund should be diverted to other use than that special assistance program naming the fund. I think the IRS men know how to keep tabs on a corporation's books--even a nonprofit organization's, don't you? (Jim Bakker learned that, did he not? ) But the IRS has never uncovered any hint of scandal as respects how funds are used by the WB&TS. So much for the legal aspects. This is not to suggest that the World Vision people operate illegally. They may operate legally, yet not according to the high ethical and moral standards of God's Word. The WTB&TS and the WB&TS operate without any hint of any kind of scandal.

Joy next quotes my quote of her question to me, and then she quotes my answer to her question, the exchange being what follows between the plus signs (+) below:

+

>> Plesion:
>>
>> Joy asks:

> Do the local Kingdom Halls have food kitchens for
> the needy in their neighborhoods? Or for those who
> may come to the JW's for help?

>> Plesion responds:
>>
>> Paul tells us that the primary purpose of our
>> providing a physical relief ministry is that those
>> getting the relief are going to render thanksgiving
>> to God's name--and that is because we are
>> primarily engaged in helping believers and those
>> who are giving convincing evidence that they are
>> repenting and are turning around from their
>> practice of moral and spiritual badness.

+

Joy responded, but for the sake of time and space, I do not repeat her arguments below, but I respond to them as follows:

Joy, the balance of your material in answer to my observation made above never rose to sufficient demonstration of any model found in the apostolic Christian congregation as to when we may regularly offer material assistance to those whom we are bound to assist regularly for as long as their special need-creating circumstances, which are with them through no fault of their own, persist.

If you do not agree, and I suspect you do not, my efforts here and in previous posts are sufficient in my judgment to have given you basis for correcting your beliefs about the matter that informs this series of exchanges. I am content to let God judge between us in the dispute. I intend no further response on this issue.

Take care!
Plesion

Subj: To Ilvu pt 5
Date: 97-05-03 01:49:49 EDT
From: Plesion

Joy, when I stated in my previous post:

"Joy, the balance of your material in answer to my observation made above never rose to sufficient demonstration of any model found in the apostolic Christian congregation as to when we may regularly offer material assistance to those whom we are bound to regularly assist for as long as their special need-creating circumstances, which are with them through no fault of their own, persist . . .”

I do not mean that such an apostolic model did not exist. It existed, and continues to exist among Jehovah's Witnesses. It is just that the things you have written do not bear witness to that apostolic model.

Take care!
Plesion

Subj: To ILVU part 1
Date: 97-05-07 23:24:12 EDT
From: Plesion

Hello, Joy.

Joy asks:

> Are you saying that no special pioneer, no traveling
> overseer, no missionary, no Bethelite is involved in
> the effort to make it possible to provide for the
> Witnesses in these long-term shattered areas?

Plesion responds:

If they are involved in some manner in a relief effort, they are not using to their personal advantage any part of a relief fund that was especially created for the crisis at hand. The same cannot be said for the World Vision bureaucracy.

Thus can we SNIP your irrelevant comments about how Society monies are used from fund(s) for this or that purpose inasmuch as your comments have nothing to do with how a fund created especially for emergency relief is being used. I am amazed to see such errors in your posts, Joy, because you have a great deal of our literature and should know better. You do not really know what goes on in the WTB&TS though you would like readers to believe you are so on top of it all.

Joy asks:

> Another question for you: You state that 100% of
> the money donated for relief effort for the brothers
> in these countries is given towards the actual relief
> provided. Does the WTB&TS provide intake/output
> data on these projects? Are records kept and published?

Plesion responds:

Records are kept. They are required by law. The IRS men make a good watch dog as to whether or not any illegalities are afoot. There has never been any hint of scandal brought to light by any IRS audits. You may gnash your teeth over that one, and complain cynically how things ought to be done differently. But the WTB&TS of PA and the WB&TS of NY are fully in compliance with all laws that regulate a nonprofit corporation. And that has to do with any special funds set up, also.

Joy quotes Plesion:

> Plesion:
>
>> But as stated, our afflicted Witness friends have a right
>> to expect that their non-afflicted brothers should
>> contribute sufficient funds or materiel so as to make
>> possible that the afflicted ones get all that they need.
>

Joy responds to my statement:

> Okay, granted, it is commendable that the WTS is
> anxious to provide for the brother/sisters in these
> countries. And well they should provide for them.
> Christianity makes it a priority to provide for her
> own in these difficult situations as well. Does that
> mean, however, that it is wrong to consider the poor
> people around these brothers in these countries?

Subj: To ILVU part 2
Date: 97-05-07 23:24:54 EDT
From: Plesion

Plesion responds:

It is wrong to feel that you are just as beholding to each and every one of the non-Christian victims as you are for Christian victims, because if there can be no excuses offered--and there cannot be--for failure to bring to one's Christian brothers and sisters (who would otherwise suffer deprivation of material necessities through no fault of their own were it not for the efforts of fellow Christians) what things they need even should the efforts mean great sacrifice of our own material resources, then what excuses are there that might be offered for the failure to bring sufficient relief to all non-Christian victims? So, it is obvious that those saying that they are just as beholding to non-Christian victims as they are to fellow Christian victims are not acting in accordance with what they say, else they should have to live with just the bare necessities of life--and still would they see their non-Christian and Christian neighbors starve in some places. Is that how you and your family are living, Joy, with just the bare necessities because you are making so great a sacrifice in an attempt to show that you are just as beholding to non-Christian victims as you are to Christian victims?

Joy writes:

> Of course, our spiritual brothers and sisters are
> our neighbors. But Jesus said that it extends
> beyond that. He said that the Samaritan who
> helped the persecuted Jew (who was not in the
> same spiritual family, and in fact, at odds with the
> Samaritan) was neighbor to him who was suffering.

Plesion responds:

In light of what I have written above, an application of the principle to love one's neighbors (note the plural!) as one's self has practical limits placed:

First as to how many neighbors can be so loved--can be so made the recipients of a love as materially supportive in its display as that which the injured Jew in Jesus' parable experienced;

Second as to priorities. The Scriptures have charged us to do good to all, but especially to those related to us in the faith.

So, we see both priorities and practical limits. We cannot set about to provide an even handed distribution of material resources to all victims Christian and non-Christian alike, as though we were equally beholding to them all and thus without requirement to discriminate, for unless we are able to discriminate on the basis of a Biblical principle, then our failure to do so would be one sure way that we should fail our Christian brothers and sisters and reduce our standard of living to something merely sufficient to what it takes to continue as a bread winner while all the other fruits of our labor are going into a program that sees all victims--Christian and non-Christian alike--of a long-term disaster as ones who must be treated equally in their receiving insufficient provender from a Christian relief ministry.

Jesus' parable of the good Samaritan has nothing in it about a Samaritan's setting up a ministry for providing necessities and rehabilitation to an open-ended number of victims suffering long-term disability because of their having been mugged by highwaymen.

Subj: To ILVU part 3
Date: 97-05-07 23:25:28 EDT
From: Plesion

Joy quotes Plesion:

>Plesion:
>
>> we still should ask, "Does a history of the World
>> Vision's efforts show that they are funded well
>> enough to give all that is needed to all that they
>> intend to help?" I believe that the swollen bellies
>> that continually play across our TV screens are
>> ample proof that the entire population of
>> the ones whom World Vision wants to help--
>> intends to help— have yet to receive help sufficient
>> to their needs, and that is why we continue to see
>> the swollen bellies and emaciated limbs of famine
>> victims.
>

Joy comments on the quote:

> You seem to be attempting to make World
> Vision the culprit. Making it their fault that
> there are still hungry people.

Plesion responds:

I have nowhere ever intimated that famines are anywhere in the world the fault of World Vision. I have stated that World Vision is merely a manmade attempt at solving the problem--and not even a moral one at that!--and even were it a moral attempt, it still should not suffice to rid the earth of famine victims. Your charge is totally baffling. You are capable of following logical argumentation better than what is indicated by your false charge. What provoked you to make it? I suspect you are made very uncomfortable with the coherence and Biblical foundation of the position that Jehovah's Witnesses take in these matters, and are wondering just how it is that your references to the Scriptures never really make the point you would like them to make. Let us set forth immediately below an example by using one of your references to the Bible.

Joy wishes to shore up her position with the Bible:

> This is what God says: (Scripture from NIV, YHWH
> substituted for LORD).

Plesion responds:

So, let us take one of the verses and see if it makes sense to use it to justify a relief ministry that makes no distinctions ever between victims who know God, on the one hand, and victims, on the other hand, who do not yet show any evidence of knowing the God of the Bible as He wants to be known. Let's see . . . how about your reference to Psalm 72:12-14? Yes, that will do nicely. It reads:

"For He will deliver the needy who cry out, the afflicted who
have no one to help. He will take pity on the weak and the
needy and save the needy from death. He will rescue them from
oppression and violence, for precious is their blood in His
sight."

Let us state a given here: there were righteous Israelites of old who wanted to be used as instruments in God's program for saving the needy from death. Then was that righteousness in part because they were regularly financing and provisioning fleets of ships or camels for the conveyance of provender to famine-stricken lands so that the victims, who did not know the God of Jacob, should be cared for just as much as if they had been needy Israelite worshippers of the God of Jacob while on their own soil of Israel? Or were there no famines in the ancient world that Israelites ever got to know about?

Subj: To ILVU part 4
Date: 97-05-07 23:26:08 EDT
From: Plesion

Joy quotes Plesion:

>Plesion:
>
>> We will not share our resources with an
>> organization we have every reason for
>> mistrusting its motives. No, not for a moment
>> is it at all conscientious and moral that someone
>> should siphon off any part of funds given to
>> some ministry in order to pay salaries of
>> professional relief providers. It amounts to
>> taxing--charging an interest, as it were,--
>> against the victims who already are not getting
>> all that they need. (Compare Exodus 22:25;
>> Lev 25:37 for how God must view any of His
>> people who would do such a thing.)

Joy responds:

> So, what is better, Plesion -- to give the
> hungry 85% -- or to give them nothing . . .

Plesion answers:

It is better to give them 100% and have World Vision funded by means other than by its taxing the victims by 15%. And that would be better for World Vision bureaucrats. They would be acting morally at least insofar as they would have ceased to tax helpless victims. (Despite your empty remonstrance to the contrary, we have very good reason to state that World Vision immorally taxes the victims it seeks to help.)

Joy writes:

>I will have more comments and questions on this when I get to
> the part where you tell me that Paul didn't receive reg.
> support from the early Christians.

Plesion responds:

I never have told you any such thing.

Joy quotes Plesion:

>Plesion:
>
>> So, on the principle that the five wise virgins
>> enunciated in one of Jesus' parables, we cannot
>> meld our contributions in with World Vision's
>> funds as perhaps there would no longer be
>> enough for us (our friends). Our friends in the
>> afflicted areas have a right to expect better.
>

Joy responds to the quote:

> God said that to give to the poor, is to lend to
> Him. He said to feed our enemies. He said that
> Pagans love their own. He expects more
> from His children.

Well, I think the principle they (the five wise virgins) applied is just fine. Well, let's comment on your response to my quote:

Subj: To ILVU part 5
Date: 97-05-07 23:26:50 EDT
From: Plesion

What He expects is that we help persons to respond to the Good News of His Kingdom as the only permanent solution to famines, and when any do respond, they get "houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and fields, with persecutions, and in the coming system of things everlasting life" (Mark 10:30). That is truly helping the poor. Anything less than our offering the poor and downtrodden of the earth this assurance of relief now and of grander relief in the future is for us to have a misplaced and unchristian emphasis. It is to betray a lack of faith in the Kingdom of God, and betrays a lack of faith in Jesus' exercise of a dynamic leadership over his congregation so that there is sufficient material and spiritual help for as many as will respond to the Good News that is being preached by the Christian congregation, a congregation in which we see all the greatly diversified wisdom of God. And especially never need there be a diminution in the amount of spiritual help we may receive, though at the present season before Christ has come again as Judge, some Christians may experience persecutions and a consequent reduction--perhaps even a severe and debilitating reduction--in material necessities because God may allow persecutors to block shipments of material necessities to them.

Joy quotes Plesion:

>
>Plesion:
>
>> Also, the World Vision has a religious agenda.
>

Joy responds to the quote:

> Oh, I see. And the Watchtower Society does not
> have a religious agenda, right? I can see that this
> is the real issue.

Plesion responds:

In light of what I have written above, you can be certain we have a religious agenda, part of which is that we show men how they can have a share in all the fulfillment of Mark 10:30. Do you care to contribute to the next relief fund especially organized by Jehovah's Witnesses for (primarily) Jehovah's Witnesses, Joy? Or isn't it so that you won't because you don't agree with our religious agenda? To borrow your words, "I can see that this is the real issue."

Joy writes:

> Christianity is not God-dishonoring, as you say.

Plesion responds:

I never said that Christianity is God-dishonoring. True Christianity is glorifying God, is sanctifying His very name, is honoring His Son, and shows the world a self-sacrificing love in behalf of the brotherhood, which is comprised of Jesus' real friends--those who obey him. Only Jehovah's Witnesses comprise real Christianity. Now Christendom is not real Christianity. One doctrine held in common by all the churches of Christendom is the doctrine that God knows an invisible church comprised in part from out of the members of the churches. That is to make the Christ exist divided, and betrays as false the definition that Christendom is Christianity.

Joy quotes Plesion again:

>> Paul did not allocate to his personal use any
>> part of the relief-ministry fund created according
>> to his counsel at 1 Cor 16:2. Your equating what
>> Paul received from a special gift got together just
>> for his needs . . . your equating that with what
>> ministers for World Vision do (when they take
>> part of the contributions given to a relief-ministry
>> fund and use that part for their salaries) is gross
>> error! Your example is not--repeat not (for
>> emphasis)--at all Scriptural.

Subj: To ILVU part 6
Date: 97-05-07 23:27:35 EDT
From: Plesion

Joy responds to the quote:

> Okay, then Plesion, please tell me where is the
> Scriptural support for the 160+million dollars
> that went to support your traveling overseers
> and special pioneers in 1996?
>
> Is it Scriptural for the traveling overseers to
> have a car provided for them? Who pays these
> expenses?

Plesion responds:

Why, Joy, what a wondrous capitulation to argument ad hominem! You have no Scriptural rejoinder, so you will attempt to show that I am just a pot calling the kettle black. Even were it so, that should have to be small comfort for your position. But in truth, even your attention-diverting ploy is without substance.

Proof of it follows in answer to your question:

> Who pays these expenses?

Why, Joy, here is where we can apply the precedent made when, to quote you:

> Paul received money from God's people that
> supported his ministry. In Phil 4:16-19, Paul
> states:
>
> "for even when I was in Thessalonica, you sent
> me aid again and again when I was in need. Not
> that I am looking for a gift, but I am looking for
> what may be credited to your account. I have
> received full payment and even more: I am
> amply supplied, now that I have received from
> Epaphroditus the gifts you sent. They are a
> fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing
> to God."

Plesion responds:

But nowhere did Paul take funds from the gift collected for the holy ones in famine-stricken Judea. (By the way, Paul did not instruct that funds be collected for unbelieving Judeans. You never bothered to tell us why Paul did not ask for a gift offering for unbelieving Judeans. Care to show us how your understanding of the Scriptures can allow you to make remonstrance against JWs, but inconsistent to that understanding of yours you do not have the same misgiving as respects the narrow focus Paul's relief ministry took when he was informing the congregations about the purpose of the relief fund he was encouraging? Please answer.

Joy quotes Plesion again:

Plesion:

>> Sometimes congregations are informed
>> that a special fund will be created--a fund
>> for some kind of assistance for some our
>> friends in some part of the world, and a
>> congregation will send to the Society what
>> amount(s) come by way of resolution and/or
>> by placement of a special box labeled with
>> the name of the fund on the box. The
>> amount contributed is indicated on a special
>> field on a certain form, and all (100 percent
>> of) the money indicated on that line goes
>> into that assistance program. It would be a
>> violation of law regulating a corporation if the
>> specially created fund should be diverted to
>> other use than that special assistance
>> program naming the fund. I think the IRS men
>> know how to keep tabs on a corporation's
>> books--even a nonprofit organization's, don't
>> you?

Joy responds to the quote:

> Again, I ask you... are records kept?

Subj: To ILVU part 7
Date: 97-05-07 23:28:14 EDT
From: Plesion

Plesion responds:

Why not ask the IRS if records and corporation laws are kept by the WTB&TS and WB&TS? Why don't you get a job with the IRS and come after the Society? And if you find dirt in the Society half equal to the amount of cynicism you display, you will pull down the WTB&TS single handedly. But in truth what you would find is a scrupulous adherence to Romans chapter 13.

Joy quotes Plesion:

>Plesion:
>
>> (Jim Bakker learned that, did he not? )
>

Joy comments on the quote:

> Yes, Jim Bakker learned the hard way. And he
> understands now, that he was preaching a false
> gospel. I love to see how God humbles the proud
> and teaches them to give Him glory, as He has
> done with Jim Bakker.

Joy quotes Plesion:

> Plesion:
>
>> But the IRS has never uncovered any hint of
>> scandal as respects how funds are used by the
>> WB&TS. So much for the legal aspects. This is
>> not to suggest that the World Vision people
>> operate illegally. They may operate legally, yet
>> not according to the high ethical and moral
>> standards of God's Word. The WTB&TS and
>> the WB&TS operate without any hint of any
>> kind of scandal.
>

Joy responds to the quote:

> If you look you may find that there are even
> questions about the operations of the WTB&TS. I
> am not thinking of anything illegal.

Plesion responds:

I don't know what you are thinking, but from material you have already entered in your series that forms the backdrop to my responses here, you have a very poor conception of how the Society operates. All that shines through from you is a cynicism probably borne of a wishful desire to have what happened to Jim Bakker happen to some officers in the corporations belonging to JWs. My advice to you is Don't lose any sleep while fulminating on your pillow over what you may take to be the presence of slackers in the IRS. I know I never have and never will lose a moment's sleep over a gnawing suspicion that the IRS might find some legitimate reason to prosecute any officers of the WTB&TS/WB&TS/IBSA . . .

Plesion

Subj: To Ilvu Again Pt 1
Date: 97-05-10 03:33:52 EDT
From: Plesion

Hello, Joy.

Joy writes:

> That is well true, friend, and I was not trying to
> suggest that financially-supported Jehovah's
> Witnesses even took one penny of money that
> was designated towards a relief project. The point
> is, that when JW's give offerings towards the
> organization, the money goes in many directions,
> and part of the money will go to support full-
> time workers.

Plesion responds:

Those full-time workers who receive some financial assistance are the traveling overseers, special pioneers, Bethelites, and missionaries. To my knowledge, such full-time workers are not involved in organizing special funds, nor are they involved in the logistical work of transporting and disbursing relief provisions. I do know personally some regular pioneers who regularly assist in Assembly Hall constructions, and for them each month a limited number of hours may be excused their shortfall for the number of hours that might otherwise have been expected were they pioneers not engaged in a Society-sponsored construction project. But regular pioneers receive no financial assistance from the WTB&TS.

Let us suppose that there are some special pioneers who are instructed that they may devote 120 hours to their participating some relief effort. They will "cost" the Society no more than what would ordinarily be the case had there been no need of some physical relief ministry. So, even if a fund has been created from contributions made on a circuit, district, national, or international level in order to take care of some crisis in which, say, a special pioneer is assisting, yet no part of the money that that special pioneer receives from the Society has come from the special fund that was created for the emergency. (But as I stated earlier, I do not know of any full-time ministers--of a sort like those I listed above--who are allowed to report any of the time that they spend in administering a relief ministry.)

The fund for building Kingdom Halls is especially instructive here, too. We have a box in the Kingdom Hall labeled Society Kingdom Hall Fund (SKHF), and any money put into that box is sent to the WB&TS of NY. The pool of contributions is available for congregations in the USA and in foreign countries so that a congregation needing another Kingdom Hall may apply for a low-interest loan. That money is used to buy construction materials, and to pay for labor that is performed by any non-JWs who, of course, would not be volunteering their labor. But no full-time minister from among Jehovah's Witnesses receives a thin dime from a loan made to a congregation from out of the SKHF, this no matter how many hours he may spend in his laboring on the construction of a Kingdom Hall. The same principle applies to any emergency-relief funds and supplies sent into an afflicted area.

Joy writes:

> I am only bringing out the point that many of
> those who participate in relief projects are
> supported in some way by the Society. And I
> further brought up the fact that as hard as the
> Society may try to avoid overhead expenses
> for relief projects, it would be impossible to
> carry out a task such as this without spending
> some money on announcements, and
> coordinating the effort.

Subj: To Ilvu Again part 2
Date: 97-05-10 03:34:39 EDT
From: Plesion

Plesion responds:

The crucial point is that no special relief fund is being taxed. No body is saying that World Vision workers do not need a wage for their work, but then that should come from source(s) other than from the contributions that were requested for the relief effort. Let a flat stipend be made to World Vision workers from sources other than their taxing a special relief fund for it.

Joy writes to ask:

> I am only wondering if you have any way to see the
> records on this.

Plesion responds:

The Society publishes a breakdown of contributions comprising the Society's Worldwide Work (SWW) fund. I trust these figures--I have no reason to doubt their accuracy.

As for money generated in behalf of a special fund--let us call it here SF --that is carried on the Society's books (because it is sent into the Society and so indicated on the original of a two-part form that accompanies and describes the money sent to the Society, the carbon-copy of which remains in a congregation's records), then the IRS can audit to its satisfaction and confirm the legality of the Society's disbursement of this fund. The Society's charter does not allow that any part of a SF may be siphoned off in order to supplement some other fund. It would not be legal, nor would it be moral. (A SF of a sort that appears on the Society's books may be the Traveling Overseers' Insurance fund, or it may be a SF for meeting the costs of getting missionaries back home for visits with relatives. A SF that is a relief fund for Witnesses in some afflicted area is, I think, not presently carried on the Society's books, because I believe those funds are presently supervised in their creation and disbursement by Witnesses who have ready access to the Witnesses living in some afflicted region.)

I say this to point out that it is not necessary that I know the names of those brothers organizing an emergency relief fund; I do not need a copy of the paper trail detailing how they disbursed the money. If ever there were to be any misappropriation of that special fund, it should have to be because policy was not adhered to, and such misappropriation could not implicate the WTB&TS. But any misappropriation of an emergency-relief fund should have to involve a conspiracy among several individuals for keeping suppressed the misappropriation.

Joy writes:

> The Watchtower Society has a lot of money that
> could be used in effort to help the poor, but it is not
> something that the Society feels is important. Why?
> Just because they can't help them all? Is that why?
> So because they can't give to all, they give to none.
> Is that it? Please explain this to me in terms I can
> understand.

Subj: To Ilvu Again part 3
Date: 97-05-10 03:35:16 EDT
From: Plesion

Plesion responds:

Can there be any greater work that a man may perform than for him to be engaged in mediating God's Undeserved Kindness to anyone, including poor ones (who more often than rich persons respond to God's Undeserved Kindness)? Jehovah's Witnesses are the only ones who can help the poor who respond to the Good News and God's mercy to come into a real brotherhood. We have the only real brotherhood in all the earth. It takes eyes of faith to see it. If you do not see it, then naturally you are going to be quite critical of the work of Jehovah's Witnesses and the uses to which they put their legal corporations. God shall have to judge between us and those like you, Joy. As for what Alvanis has written, Alvanis suffers your same lack of faith in the value of what is being done by Jehovah's Witnesses, a people hard at work to help persons come to the point where they may make acceptable dedication of their lives to God so that whether rich or poor they may share in the blessings listed at Mark 10:29, 30. Your quote of Alvanis shows us that she is like you, for she too has no appreciation for how the fulfillment of Matthew 25:14-23 involves a great crowd (far more than 144,000), which is comprised perhaps mainly of earth's poor ones (cf. 1 Cor 1:26-29) who have been helped to make good on God's impartial offer of Undeserved Kindness extended them through Jesus Christ our Lord.


Joy, for the third time I have requested you to please explain how consistency in your criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses does not also snare the apostle Paul for his omitting to call for a fund that should help more than just the holy ones in Judea? What do you say about that, Joy?

Subj: Again, Ilvu . . . part 1
Date: 97-05-10 23:49:58 EDT
From: Plesion

Hello, Joy.

Joy quotes me (Plesion):

>> Joy, for the third time I have requested you to
>> please explain how consistency in your
>> criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses does not also
>> snare the apostle Paul for his omitting to call for
>> a fund that should help more than just the holy
>> ones in Judea? What do you say about that, Joy?

Joy responds to what she has quoted from me:

> Sorry, I didn't get that far in my response. I
> only had responded what I had time for. But I
> had previously mentioned a Biblical principle
> which I will bring up again on this.

Plesion responds:

2 Cor. 9:11-13 says: "In everything you are being enriched for every sort of generosity which produces through us an expression of thanks to God; because the ministry of this public service is not only to supply abundantly the wants of the holy ones, but also to be rich with many expressions of thanks to God. Through the proof that this ministry gives, they glorify God because you are submissive to the good news about the Christ, as you publicly declare you are, and because you are generous in your contribution to them and to all." 2 Cor. 9:11-13 NWT.

The clear understanding from this scriptural reference (together with others that bear on this relief ministry to the poor Jewish Christians of famine-stricken Judea) does indeed help us to see that Paul's concern was with "supply[ing] abundantly the wants of the holy ones"--note that no other poor ones but the holy ones are listed here--, and Paul was desirous that the holy ones of Judea should find fresh cause for increasing their thanksgiving to God. The Christians in Corinth are noted by Paul as not being novices to the matter of giving, for he says that they have been "generous in [their] . . . contribution to them [ = those Jewish Christians in Judea], and "to all." There is nothing here that needs to be read into the account other than that the Corinthians have been engaged in making contributions to certain needy ones on occasions (noun) other than what occasions (verb) their getting ready another fund (this time for the Judean brothers). But the one thing that lets us know that the poor ones to whom the Corinthians had been making gifts of material necessities were in fact Christians is that the ones to receive the gift "glorify God because you are submissive to the good news about the Christ." Thus we have clear testimony that the ones getting benefit of the relief fund were indeed none other than the holy ones. Paul is hardly saying that non-Christian Jews were already glorifying God in anticipation of their getting benefit from the obedience "to the good news about the Christ" being carried out by Corinthian Gentile Christians noted for their generosity "to all" other needy brothers.

So, we cannot even grant you the argument 'Paul must have had more than just the poor Jewish Christians in mind because he does not say that they were the only ones to benefit from this fund, and Paul could not have obeyed the Scriptures which enjoin us to care for the poor if he had had only Jewish Christians in mind.' No, we cannot grant you this argument because you need in part to pretend that you can proceed from a certain silence ('Paul does not expressly limit the fund's benefit to just Jewish Christians') when in fact there is no such silence at all, just as we have proved above that there was no such silence.

Subj: Again, Ilvu . . . part 2
Date: 97-05-10 23:50:38 EDT
From: Plesion

You will not succeed in making Paul mean more than what he has stated. But you have to try, don't you, because you agree, don't you, that so much of your criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses collapses if you cannot find that Paul must have had in mind a wider focus as to who all should become the recipients of the famine-relief fund--a focus wider than that narrow focus that a face-value reading of his statements gives us?

But let us proceed with more of the Scriptures. 1 Corinthians 16:1 says that "the collection . . . is for the holy ones." Now, if the fund were to be for poor non-Christian Jews in Judea in addition to poor Jewish Christians, then Paul's failure to use this additional reference (to the fund) as a reference for his widening out his scope or focus as to who gets benefit from the fund is now become even more an untenable conjecture on your part when you assert that, to paraphrase your argument, 'Paul nevertheless must have had a wider focus in mind for the fund from the start of its formation, but he just keeps on omitting to say it.' Worse than that, Joy! He also not only consistently keeps on omitting to give us the wider focus, but he states things that are incompatible with such a wider focus: he says things that cause us to infer just the opposite as to the scope or focus than that which your (Joy's) interpretation needs.

Your exegesis springs from a preferred religious view, Joy. It is not based on the Scriptures.

Joy writes:

> We know that the churches were following the
> teachings of Jesus, we can conclude that money
> was also given to the poor. That the poor here
> are not specifically mentioned does not prove
> that they did not give to them as well.

Plesion responds:

No, your argument has collapsed. See above for proof.

Joy continues:

> In fact, Paul does specifically mention the poor
> in his quotation of Ps. 112:9.
>
> In verses 8-9 he says: "God, moreover, is
> able to make all his undeserved kindness
> abound toward you, that, while you always
> have full self-> sufficiency in everything you
> may have plenty for every good work. (Just
> as it is written, ‘He has distributed widely, he
> has given to the poor ones, his righteousness
> continues forever....)’"

Plesion responds:

And in context of Paul's statements, there is no open-ended reference to all poor ones in famine-stricken Judea, but to Jewish Christian poor ones.

Joy writes:

> Do not Jehovah's Witnesses use OT passages
> over and over again to support their doctrine
> of the soul, and the earthly hope? Why do you
> not recognize the heart of God in His performance
> through His servant Joseph, where God
> specifically raised Joseph up to save many people
> alive? People from all over the world were saved
> through Joseph's wisdom and obedience.

There were many famines in the ancient world, Joy. (Cf. Gen 12:10.) Why did God not raise up saviors for victims of those famines? So, we focus on the Gen 41-48 famine and we see why Jehovah raised up a savior in Joseph for those living in lands round about Egypt, and yet could let another part of earth's population starve without His providing relief.

Subj: Again, Ilvu . . . part 3
Date: 97-05-10 23:51:18 EDT
From: Plesion

Indeed, if there had been no family of Jacob needing preservation of "a remnant" for it "in the earth," (Gen 45:7), then were it a famine like all the other famines that come about through chance and unforeseen circumstance so that there were in it no particular outcome that was especially bringing glory to the God of Jacob, then the Egyptians and her client peoples would have starved to death as have countless famine-stricken victims before and after Joseph's foreordained presence in Egypt. Joseph's presence in Egypt has nothing to do with the kind of God your logic would give us, for your logic would give us the picture of a God who, in sovereign manner, intervenes in the affairs of a nation on no apparent principle than merely His interest to show Himself as One Who can do whatever He wants to do just whenever He wants to even though nothing need be different for that nation's circumstances than what has always more or less prevailed in the nations of the world. In other words, your argument makes no essential connection to God's working out His Kingdom purposes. Your argument fails to reveal that careful study of all the context for a Biblical event can show us that God never acts out of an attitude such as could give rise to the following statement: "Ho hmm, let me see what I am of a mind to do today; let me see if today I feel like saving from famine some nation this week although I didn't do so last week for the Mayans, and that simply because I was not of a mind to do so."

Joy writes:

> Again, I have given you the principle that Jesus
> described when He taught us that God makes the
> sun to rise and the rain to fall on the just and
> unjust, Jesus plainly and clearly taught us to
> love our enemies (Mt. 5).

Plesion responds:

Our love is complete like our heavenly Father's, because when God brings blessings to the wicked and righteous alike, He is making appeal to the consciences of men that there is a good God who cares for us. God now uses the Christian congregation to amplify that appeal because the mission of the Christian congregation has emphasis placed on what spiritual gifts from God are available to those whose hearts are disposed to everlasting life. The emphasis of true Christianity's mission is indeed spiritual, just as we see at 1 Peter 2:9-- "". . . YOU should declare abroad the excellencies of the one that called you out of darkness into his wonderful light."" For those who hear with appreciation, they find that they can stop being the enemies of God and of His Christian people. True Christianity cannot break apart the new, amplified witness that God will have those who love Him give for Him to "all everywhere" (Acts 17:30--"True, God has overlooked the times of such [pre-Christian era's idolatrous] ignorance, yet now he is telling mankind that they should all everywhere repent"). Those who respond to the witness that Christians give them are able to benefit from all that list that Jesus gave in Mark 10:29, 30 so that they are the ones finding that they are getting "a hundredfold now in this period of time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and fields, with persecutions, and in the coming system of things everlasting life." Here, then, is what it means for us to be loving our enemies, and that is that we dedicate our lives to follow closely in the footsteps of Jesus Christ as we, like he did, put the emphasis on the preaching and teaching of spiritual values (Luke 11:41) and of the Good News so that any who respond to it can benefit themselves both physically and spiritually from the outreach of the Christian congregation. Anyone doing this work has nothing of which to be ashamed. Jehovah's Witnesses have nothing to be ashamed of in their bearing witness to the Kingdom of God.

Subj: Again, Ilvu . . .part 4
Date: 97-05-10 23:51:55 EDT
From: Plesion

Christendom has a false definition of "powerful works" because her churches know nothing of God's Kingdom, and can only put the emphasis on something that smacks of a "social Gospel." She says, "Let us save the world from starvation, and maybe we will so impress the unbelievers with our successes in feeding the starving millions of them that we shall end up converting the world to Christ, and thus will we realize the Kingdom of God among us."

Joy states:

> Paul quoted the OT that instructs us to feed our
> enemies. He said this in the midst of his instruction
> to love the brothers (Rom. 12).

Plesion responds:

And so we know even from Paul's own efforts in organizing a physical relief-ministry fund that he was not intending it to benefit indiscriminately all inhabitants of famine-stricken Judea, but just Jewish Christians in Judea. Indeed, in context, Paul's words at Romans 12:20 are no command for us to feed starving, chronically needy, emaciated, essentially harmless enemies, but is a command for us to show an absence of malice--that we purpose in ourselves no vengeance against our enemies who are hating us (cf. Prov 25:22). The enemy that Paul has in mind is one who has power enough to be wrathful and who has worked harm to us, and so Paul reminds us that we are not to retaliate against him. So far are we from it that if this wrath-displaying enemy should just happen to be hungry or thirsty on an occasion that we may witness--if he should just happen to be in a position where we can offer him some help--, then we are not to turn away from him in anger or in fear of him but we are to seek to show him how harmless we are by our offering him something of benefit to him. In this way we may effect a change in him from his being someone who was displaying wrath against us to his being someone who has been placated through appeal to what sense of decency may reside in him and was refined by our continuing to seek his highest good ("for by doing this you will heap [spiritually refining] fiery coals[, as it were,] upon [this wrath-displaying enemy's] head" so that you help effect a spiritual change (repentance) in him.

Now, the most that can be said about what Paul's words vis-à-vis the issue here (of whether or not we are to feed in a literal sense over a protracted period of time enemies of God's people), we can say only that Paul's words here do not rule out such a thing, but neither do they command us to go searching for victims of hunger or malnutrition in order that by the least thing of our feeding the hate-filled enemies over a protracted period of time it might be in and of itself enough to show them they should make needed changes in their personalities.

Joy writes:

> We have the example of Cornelius. He "gave
> generously to those in need and prayed to
> God regularly." And the angel said to him,
> "Your prayers and gifts to the poor have
> come up as a memorial offering before
> God." Acts 10: 2,5.
>
> Doesn’t this show us the heart of God?

Subj: Again, Ilvu . . . part 5
Date: 97-05-10 23:52:41 EDT
From: Plesion

Plesion responds:

We have no record that Cornelius made gifts indiscriminately to "the poor" as though he were making gifts of mercy both to Jews and Gentiles. Cornelius did not give indiscriminately when he was giving "generously to those in need" (Acts 10:2 New International Version). The Greek says that he was "making many gifts of mercy to the people" (poi-OON e-le-ee-mo-SU-nas pol-LAS tooi la-OOi). "The people" is a reference to the Jews, for it was from them that he had learned something about the true God so that he would pray to the God of the Jews and not to Zeus/Jupiter. Likely he had learned from the Jews how agreeable a thing it was in their eyes that a God-fearing Gentile should be making gifts of mercy to the Jewish people in imitation of even many Jews who also made "gifts of mercy."

[Excursus: There were Jews who had begun to make "gifts of mercy" without right motive of causing others to give glory to God, and thus increase thanksgiving to God's name. For them there was no linkage to the real gifts of mercy, which are spiritual values that should be in one, and the one possessing them should expound them so as to give spiritual gifts to others, for such are the real gifts of mercy, according to Jesus (Luke 11:41). Certainly Jesus' anointed followers should know how to give the real gifts of mercy (cf. Luke 12:33) because the object of their making such gifts to others is that they might become motivated and equipped to help God's covenant people.]

We know of another Gentile army officer who was making gifts of love and mercy to the Jews, he even having financed the building of a synagogue for some Jews (Luke 7:5). And so the same chapter of Acts tells us explicitly that it was to the Jewish nation--that nation was "the people"--whom Cornelius had especially endeared himself. And so conspicuous had become his making of gifts of mercy to the Jewish people that even two of his Gentile household servants and a soldier under his command were able to tell about how "well reported by the whole nation of the Jews" was Cornelius (Acts 10:22).

So once again we find that you have misapplied a verse from God's Word in order that it might seem to make your case.

Plesion

Subj: Responding to ILVU part 1
Date: 97-05-13 01:11:40 EDT
From: Plesion

Hello, Joy.

You quoted me (Plesion):

>> We have no record that Cornelius made gifts
>> indiscriminately to "the poor" as though he
>> were making gifts of mercy both to Jews and
>> Gentiles. Cornelius did not give indiscriminately
>> when he was giving "generously to those in
>> need" (Acts 10:2 New International Version).
>> The Greek says that he was "making many
>> gifts of mercy to the people" (poi-OON
>> e-le-ee-mo-SU-nas pol-LAS tooi la-OOi). "The
>> people" is a reference to the Jews, for it was
>> from them that he had learned something about
>> the true God so that he would pray to the
>> God of the Jews and not to Zeus/Jupiter.

Joy replied:

> I believe that Cornelius knew of Jesus Christ at
> this point, based on Acts 10:2, and also verse 36
> in which verse, Peter was speaking to Cornelius
> and his close friends and relatives (see 10:24)
> and Peter said, "You know the message that God
> sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news
> of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all."

Plesion responds:

But did Cornelius know of Jesus Christ based on his association with the Jews?

Joy continued:

> Please tell me, Plesion, were all of these
> Jews true Christian believers? Do you
> have any evidence of that?

Plesion responds:

Joy, what are you talking about? Where did I say that Cornelius was making gifts only to Jewish Christians? He did not know the truth about Jesus Christ's congregation, the new covenant people of God who replaced the old, Mosaic Law covenant people of the natural Jews. Very likely before his own conversion to Christianity, he did not make any gifts to Jewish Christians, certainly not to Jewish Christians because they were Jewish Christians. (Until Cornelius' conversion, there were no uncircumcised Gentiles in God's new covenant community.) We have no record in the Scriptures that Cornelius was giving gifts of mercy indiscriminately to the poor from among both Gentiles and Jews alike. The translation you used for Acts 10:2 suggests that Cornelius was not making any distinction as to who should benefit from his gifts. The translation you used might allow one to infer that just so long as someone was poor, then whether Jew or Gentile, "Cornelius was making gifts of mercy to them." The text in context allows that he was giving "to the [Jewish] people," and does not state that he was giving also to "the poor" from among the Gentiles. That is to say, we have no record of whether he gave to Gentiles. He may have. Who on earth knows? But we know he gave to Jewish needy ones. And it was his concern and willingness to support whom he believed to be God's covenant people at that time, among other things, that endeared Cornelius to God. Very likely when once he had learned the truth about the new covenant people of God (Christians), he made the poor among them the chief object of gifts of mercy.

Subj: Responding to ILVU part 2
Date: 97-05-13 01:12:19 EDT
From: Plesion

Joy quoted me as follows:

> Plesion:
>
>> [Excursus: There were Jews who had
>> begun to make "gifts of mercy" without
>> right motive of causing others to give glory
>> to God, and thus increase thanksgiving to
>> God's name.

Joy responded to the things she quoted:

> Please remember that Jesus said we to let our
> light so shine before men that they should
> glorify our Father in heaven (Mt. 5:16). Jesus
> was not speaking of being a light to believers
> here, but to unbelievers. And why? So that
> they "may see your good deeds and praise
> your Father in heaven." Giving gifts of mercy
> to the poor (unbelievers) is a way of doing
> good deeds before them, for the purpose of
> bringing praise (through them) to the Father.

Plesion responds:

And let us be sure to define "gifts of mercy" as did Jesus in Luke 11:41. Jehovah's Witnesses do this. The churches of Christendom have no clean standing with God because of the prevalence of nationalism, tribalism, and, sexual immorality. Why, even some of her missionaries turn a blind eye to polygamy in some of the African countries where they serve! Now, where this takes place, we certainly have no real gifts of mercy being given out, do we? Such "gifts of mercy" are not truly merciful because those missionaries are allowing the polygamous recipients of their benefactions to continue in their immorality, they (the missionaries) never intending to teach that fellowship in Christ cannot be enjoyed by those who persist in polygamy. How do World Vision missionaries measure up in these matters, Joy? When they give gifts of mercy, are they real gifts of mercy because they are helping the recipients to come into fellowship with Christ free of works of the flesh--free of nationalism, tribalism, drug addiction, and sexual immorality?

Joy quotes me as follows:

>> We know of another Gentile army officer who
>> was making gifts of love and mercy to the Jews,
>> he even having financed the building of a
>> synagogue for some Jews (Luke 7:5). And so
>> the same chapter of Acts tells us explicitly that
>> it was to the Jewish nation--that nation was
>> "the people"--whom Cornelius had especially
>> endeared himself. And so conspicuous had
>> become his making of gifts of mercy to the
>> Jewish people that even two of his Gentile
>> household servants and a soldier under
>> his command were able to tell about how
>> "well reported by the whole nation of the
>> Jews
" was Cornelius (Acts 10:22). So
>> once again we find that you have misapplied
>> a verse from God's Word in order that it
>> might seem to make your case.

Joy responds to the things she quoted from me:

> I don't think it disproves my case, Plesion.
> It adds to my case. Notice that Cornelius was
> "well-reported" by the whole nation of the
> Jews. Were the "whole nation" of the Jews
> the early Christians or not?

Subj: Responding to ILVU part 3
Date: 97-05-13 01:12:54 EDT
From: Plesion

Plesion responds:

See above for how you have misunderstood my argument. And remember that when you quoted Acts 10:2, you used a translation that allows too broad a focus as to who received gifts of mercy from Cornelius. On the basis of the Scriptures, we have no record of whether he gave to Gentiles. He may have. Who on earth knows? But we know he gave to Jewish needy ones. And it was his concern and willingness to support whomever he believed to be God's covenant people that, among other things, endeared Cornelius to God. Very likely when once he had learned the truth about the new covenant people of God (Christians), he made the poor among them the chief object of his material gifts.

Joy writes:

> [I] do not support the idea of just giving out food
> indiscriminately, but rather, as I have stated, using
> methods with the goal of presenting the love of
> Christ and the life-changing gospel, this taking place
> by the teaching of the Word of God.

Plesion responds:

Well, well, well! Finally we have some common ground as to a matter of procedure and terminology, one that does not embrace a social gospel; however, we do not agree on definitions of the terms. And so you come at JWs with your set of definitions as to what you feel is "presenting the love of Christ" and as to what is the gospel, and as to what is "the teaching of the Word of God." Well, let us agree that if one's "methods" (of administering what he alleges to be the 'gifts of mercy as Jesus defined them') were such that even a billion persons were being helped physically--and only physically--, still it should not please God because the ministry is spiritually deficient, it not being an administering of the real gifts of mercy as defined by Jesus--and may well be spiritually and morally corrupt to boot!

Joy quoted Plesion as follows:

> Plesion:
>
>> Indeed, if there had been no family of Jacob
>> needing preservation of "a remnant" for it
>> "in the earth," (Gen 45:7), then were it a
>> famine like all the other famines that come
>> about through chance and unforeseen
>> circumstance so that there were in it no
>> particular outcome that was especially
>> bringing glory to the God of Jacob, then
>> the Egyptians and her client peoples would
>> have starved to death as have countless
>> famine-stricken victims before and after
>> Joseph's foreordained presence in Egypt.
>> Joseph's presence in Egypt has nothing to
>> do with the kind of God your logic would
>> give us, for your logic would give us the
>> picture of a God who, in sovereign manner,
>> intervenes in the affairs of a nation on no
>> apparent principle than merely His interest
>> to show Himself as One Who can do whatever
>> He wants to do just whenever He wants to
>> even though nothing need be different for
>> that nation's circumstances than what has
>> always more or less prevailed in the nations
>> of the world. In other words, your
>> argument makes no essential connection to
>> God's working out His Kingdom purposes.
>> Your argument fails to reveal that careful
>> study of all the context for a Biblical event
>> can show us that God never acts out of an
>> attitude such as could give rise to the
>> following statement: "Ho hmm, let me see
>> what I am of a mind to do today; let me see
>> if I feel like saving fromfamine some nation
>> this week although I didn't do so last week
>> for the Mayans, simply because I was not
>> of a mind to do so."
>

Subj: Responding to ILVU part 4
Date: 97-05-13 01:13:29 EDT
From: Plesion

Joy responds:

> You know, God could have saved Jacob's
> family very specifically, without regard to
> the rest of the world, but He did not do that.

Plesion responds:

You know, actually God did save Jacob's family very specially even though not specifically" (singly), and He did so with "regard to the rest of the world" (the Egyptian Empire). We should find that Jehovah God was interested to intervene in behalf of Jacob's family in a very special and memorable way because he was purposing that certain prophetic dramas be enacted and a record made of them so that eventually these should have their greater fulfillments both in events connected with a Greater Joseph (Jesus Christ) and in events connected with the earthly sojourn of the Greater Joseph's spirit-anointed brothers. (Compare Romans 15:4--"For all the things that were written aforetime were written for our instruction, that through our endurance and through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope.")

Joy writes:

> Perhaps it is more accurate to believe that people
> in certain disasters are dying of starvation
> because Christians are not following Jesus'
> example and helping the poor.

Plesion responds:

It is accurate to believe that people in certain disasters are dying of starvation because God has not purposed to remove just yet all manmade efforts to solve long-term effects of war (disease, famine). However, when He intervenes according to His purpose with a solution that will eliminate all disasters and accompanying human misery, then is when survivors of the Great Tribulation will be shepherded by the Lamb of God to "fountains of waters of life," and then is when we will find no more attempts at a manmade solution (no more World Vision), for the Kingdom of God will be sufficient governance for all inhabitants in the earth so that racism, tribalism, and nationalism will not take root again to the general detriment of mankind.

Joy quotes Plesion:

> Plesion:
>
>> Here, then, is what it means for us to be loving our
>> enemies, and that is that we dedicate our lives to
>> follow in the footsteps of Jesus Christ closely as we,
>> like he did, put the emphasis on the preaching
>> and teaching of spiritual values (Luke 11:41) and
>> of the Good News so that any who respond to it
>> can benefit themselves both physically and
>> spiritually from the outreach of the Christian
>> congregation.
>

Subj: Responding to ILVU part 5
Date: 97-05-13 01:14:06 EDT
From: Plesion

Joy responded to things she quoted from Plesion:

> Christ taught us to do both. To teach and
> preach the gospel, and to feed our enemy,
> our neighbor, and our brother. I have used
> sufficient Scripture to show this.

Plesion responds:

Joy, you failed to make a case (out of Paul's involvement with a relief-ministry fund for Jewish Christians in the Judean famine) to the effect that we supposedly have in his involvement a model in the Scriptures which should show us that it is God's will that Christians should devote themselves to putting into effect a physical relief ministry (for dealing with certain long-term disasters such as AIDS epidemics in some African regions, famines, and the needs of war-displaced populations) that has Christians involved in an effort at trying to solve the problem for all afflicted ones. The only program that God has promised to back with holy spirit for a sure solution to all societal evils is that of His Son's Messianic Kingdom rule. And you can be sure that true Christians would never seek to support themselves by taxing any part of a relief fund generated for the purpose of relieving primarily the distress of true Christians who may be suffering from whatever kind of disaster has come their way.

Joy quoted me:

>Plesion
>
>> And let us be sure to define "gifts of mercy" as
>> did Jesus in Luke 11:41. Jehovah's Witnesses
>> do this.
>

Joy responded:

> Plesion, I believe that if you limit "gifts of
> mercy" to the inner quality that Jesus
> referred to in Luke 11:41, you are not
> considering the whole of the Scriptures.
> You are guilty of taking out the part that
> you want to believe, and ignoring many
> Scriptures, and other Scriptural principles.

My point in reminding us to make sure that the "gifts of mercy" are defined as Jesus defined them is indeed a reminder that true spiritual values are to be emphasized at the time the recipient is being helped. And thus my reason for attacking the "methods" of some missionaries in Christendom who imagine that they are bringing gifts of mercy to the physically needy and who, as they observe the improvements in the physical stamina of the recipients, never seem to get around to teaching the victims true spiritual and moral values based on God's Word, for the recipients may indeed embrace the missionaries' teachings about Christ Jesus, but have yet to be taught that polygamy is wrong. For a fact Presbyterian missionaries have made their peace with polygamy that is deeply rooted in many African cultures. Again I ask you: Has World Vision made its peace, too, with polygamy whereby any of its missionaries may accept into Christian fellowship with themselves victims they have helped to believe in the missionaries' God-man Jesus, but who are not taught how to repent polygamy? (And then there is the matter of tribalism which lies at the base of so many violent conflicts among some of the African cultures.) So, if the missionaries of the mainline denominations help a billion persons improve their physical stamina yet that billion persons are not being taught how to repent certain works of the flesh, then those missionaries never gave out real gifts of mercy, did they, Joy?

Take care!
Plesion

Subj: Joy, You quickly forgot? pt1
Date: 97-05-14 14:37:56 EDT
From: Plesion

Hello, Joy.

Joy quotes my words:

>> My point in reminding us to make sure that the
>> "gifts of mercy" are defined as Jesus defined
>> them is indeed a reminder that true spiritual
>> values are to be emphasized at the time the
>> recipient is being helped.

Joy comments on the quoted material from me:

> But all along, you have been saying that the
> "recipient" must be a brother, and not an
> unbeliever, except in disaster situations.

Plesion responds:

Not so! How quickly--conveniently?--you forget. You might do me the favor of reviewing my posts from time to time, or else, if you do not have them, asking for clarification instead of pontificating from faulty memory. Here is what I said about what our missionaries do in places where there is poverty and poor hygiene and malnutrition-caused diseases in the population:

> Subj: To Ilvu pt 1
> Date: 97-05-03 01:10:21 EDT
> From: Plesion
>
>> Hello, Joy.
>....
>
> Plesion responds:
>
>> We have missionaries in foreign assignments who
>> spiritually and morally educate those who are
>> willing to be taught. They also educate them in
>> matters of physical hygiene, e.g., how to use
>> locally available vegetables--sometimes
>> ignored through the populace's ignorance in
>> some countries--so as to stave off preventable
>> malnutrition-caused diseases. They help those
>> families who respond to the preaching of God's
>> Kingdom to get the necessities they need. If
>> we are not referring to a disaster area (e.g.,
>> famine stricken areas In Ethiopia), but we are
>> talking instead about certain other cultures
>> where there is addiction to betel nut, opium,
>> tobacco, cocaine, alcohol . . . or we are referring
>> to cultures steeped in expensive involvement in
>> spiritistic practices, then when any of those people
>> hear the Word of God with joy and thanksgiving,
>> they become ones freeing themselves from
>> harmful, hardship-working ignorance and
>> abusive habits. It would be a misdirection of
>> limited resources to give provender to those
>> who manifest hostility to God's people and
>> who refuse to respond to the Good News so as
>> to render thanksgiving in a way acceptable to God.

Joy asks:

> Are you now saying that the methods of
> Compassion Intl., World Relief and World
> Vision are acceptable because they put primary
> importance on personal holiness, and teach their
> recipients the same, in their act of giving?

Subj: Joy, you quickly forgot? pt2
Date: 97-05-14 14:38:38 EDT
From: Plesion

Plesion responds:

I know of no ministry besides that of JWs' who teach those listening favorably how to become part of the only worldwide brotherhood in existence. No wonder, because why would a ministry besides our own wish to teach anyone how to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses? :)

Joy asks:

> Now, will you say that it is good to help the poor
> people with the primary motivation of furthering
> the Kingdom of God? Helping the poor who are
> not already Christians with the intent of seeing
> their lives change and to see them become
> Christians, is not the same thing as giving aid to
> your brothers and sisters who are in a difficult
> situation. This is the position you have been
> taking, and the position that the WT holds.

Plesion responds:

See above my earlier post that answers your question here.

Joy added:

> Another thing I want to mention, that may
> perhaps give you a misunderstanding of the
> missionaries . . .

Plesion responds:

No, I have no misunderstanding as to how best to approach peoples of different cultures for the purpose of evangelizing them. The WTB&TS knows how to train true Christian missionaries. No, but the point of my concern is that a true Christian missionary does not compromise the moral and spiritual standards of God's Word: he does not wink at pagan fertility rites, spiritism (voodoo, juju, "roots"), ancestor worship, or polygamy.

Subj: Mercy or maudlin concern? 1
Date: 97-05-15 02:41:33 EDT
From: Plesion

Hello, Joy.

Joy announces wherein she needs clarification:

> I will comment on the sentence that perhaps
> made me misunderstand you, and feel free to
> correct me if I am wrongly judging your
> organization:

Then Joy quotes the sentence from me that gives her concern with the position of Jehovah's Witnesses:

> You [(Plesion)] said:
>
>> They help those families who respond to the
>> preaching of God's Kingdom to get the necessities
>> they need.
>

Joy responds:

> So... is this not giving help to those you consider
> a brother and sister?

Plesion responds:

No, they are not brothers and sisters until they are baptized into the Christian congregation. But what I am about to say does not play itself out only in foreign mission fields, but also for the benefit of poverty-stricken homes in this country, too.

If we go to the door of someone who is in need, and we begin sharing the Good News and we are not turned away but are given a hearing ear, then things begin moving very quickly for the physical and spiritual benefit of the meek and teachable family. Contrary to what you stated, we do not wait until they have begun to attend five meetings a week; indeed, they may not attend any meetings at the Kingdom Hall for several weeks. Eventually they will if they continue to show appreciation for what they are learning. But a poverty-stricken family studying with a Witness will find that the Witness is doing much to help that family. For an example, it may mean--and especially may this be the case in poverty-stricken countries--that the Witness circulates information among the Witnesses in the congregation, the Witness letting it be known that an interested family is in need of groceries, clothing, heating fuel. We have made gifts of these things to several very poor but genuinely interested families local to my area. We have inquired of local DSS officials as to what is being done or may be done by DSS in behalf of the family. And quickly the poor family is educated to the standards of God's Word so that financially crushing and physically debilitating works of the flesh--if present--are soon taken away from their lives, if they have been present in their lives.

Subj: Mercy or maudlin concern? 2
Date: 97-05-15 02:42:16 EDT
From: Plesion

To be sure, such assistance that we are "talking about" here is very personalized and conditional on discoverability of some level of genuine interest in our Kingdom message, an interest that is progressively blessed as the interest grows more and more until there is real desire in the student to do unreservedly God's will. Those making this progress to the point of dedication (disowning one's self) are the ones who finally have come to where they are benefiting from the things that Jesus promised in Mark 10:29, 30. Thus Jesus does not show us that the poor are being systematically helped by his disciples until there is definitely genuine desire on the part of a poor person that he live according to all the counsels of God's Word. You have failed to show that the Scriptures enjoin us to systematically sustain material assistance in behalf of those who show Jesus' disciples that they were pretending to be interested in the Good News, but are not really interested in applying all the counsels of God's Word. Jesus in Matthew 13:15 may be paraphrased this way:

For the heart of this [unresponsive] people [hearing
the Good News] has grown unreceptive, and with their
ears they have heard without response, and they
have shut their eyes that they might never see with
their eyes and hear with ears and get the sense of it
with their hearts and turn back [so that conditional
upon that repentance and conversion] I [may] heal
them [of their physical and spiritual needs].

Now, I will tell you a true story. We (my family) got a call from a Baptist woman who said that a poor family of Jehovah's Witnesses was living in a tent on the far side of her many-acres property, they living down by a creek! It was cold weather, too. She said the man was difficult to reason with, and that she was going to call the police and have them forcibly removed from her property. Well, of course we want to know what are the facts. And so we locate the man and his common-law "wife" (as it turns out). She had been raised in a family of Witnesses, but rebelled, turned to drugs and ran away from home in her late teens. Now she was pregnant, in her early twenties, and was living with this drug-abusing, paranoid man. She was not and never had been one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but she seemed to like to tell her (false) "story" about how her Witness parents had mistreated her. We contacted her parents and money was raised to get them out of a tent. Next, we paid a visit in their home. Now, they owe their presence in a heated home to Witnesses whom they have disparaged! (We got back to the Baptist lady to explain that the family was not nor ever had been JWs, but that her parents had been. In the meantime the Baptist lady had paid a visit out of concern, she says. But she was so rebuffed by the mentally ill man that she said we should not give them another penny.) Frankly, we gave help on the slimmest basis that the woman told her mother and father that she wanted to "come back to the truth." But her stupid "husband" (boyfriend named Mitchell O.) began to rant and rave at us JWs, and to say that we should quit talking the Bible, and just give them money without any more "talk about the Bible." He was more interested in hard cash instead of heating fuel, shelter, and groceries. Wonder why? :( Well, when it becomes apparent that ones we try to help will not make honest effort to use Bible counsel to improve themselves, then we are not duty bound to support their practices of works of the flesh.

Subj: Mercy or maudlin concern? 3
Date: 97-05-15 02:42:56 EDT
From: Plesion

Our last act in behalf of the needy family mentioned in the previous paragraph was to speak to a lady at DSS whom I know. We explained our concern that the young woman was pregnant, may be on drugs, was living with an unstable, drug-abusing man and father of her unborn baby. Surprise! Surprise! DSS helped by getting them into yet another place--an apartment in a housing project, got them food stamps, and other things. If I know Mitchell, he sold the food stamps for drug money. Even before the baby was born, they moved away into another community. I do not know what ever became of the family, but according to the Witness parents of the young woman, as far as they knew, their immoral daughter never did anything about straightening out her life, for it is unthinkable that she ever straightened her life out and yet remained so mean-spirited against her parents.

Joy, would you say that the family I referred to above fell into the category of those mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 13:15?

Joy writes:

> I'm not trying to be picky, here Plesion, but I
> truly believe that we do not see this the same
> way. In Christianity, help is offered in Jesus'
> name, and many respond to this help, and are
> blessed in their response, and grow as Christians
> in what would be a previously unchristian
> society. A requirement of attending 5 meetings
> a week, and of distributing literature (other
> than the Bible) is not known in what I am
> referring to, and also is not required for the
> person to receive the help they need.

Plesion responds:

Joy, just where did you get such an idea that we do not help persons unless they are attending five meetings a week and are distributing our literature? I think you ought to insert a thermometer in your mouth and check your temperature. If you are not running fever, then I see no reason for your surliness.

But apart from your surly caricature of our position, you do have one thing right. We Jehovah's Witnesses find that your model for offering and sustaining systematic provisioning of a needy but persistently fleshly (practicers-of-works-of-the-flesh) family is not according to anything in the Scriptures--no, not according to anything therein! I believe that your essentially unconditional give-away program is borne of an unscriptural concept of how men are to appropriate to themselves God's offer of Undeserved Kindness mediated through the ministry of the Christian congregation, for your model gives every indication that it is borne not of what is in accordance to the dictates of God's Word, but is borne of what is in accordance to the dictates of human reasoning. Now, human reasoning often runs a gamut of extremes: in one direction there is the extreme that gives rise to persecution against God's servants; in the other direction there is the extreme that gives rise to maudlin concern for those who obstinately resist God's holy spirit. Jesus' words at Matthew 13:15 are free of maudlin concern, would you not say, Joy?

Take care!
Plesion