The old and the new! AI generated

[Patricia]

Regarding the use of Revelation 3:15-16 about being 'lukewarm,' I think it’s worth looking at the actual history of that scripture. In the ancient world, the city of Laodicea sat between Hierapolis, which had hot medicinal springs for healing, and Colossae, which had cold refreshing mountain water for drinking. Both hot and cold were good and useful. The problem with the water in Laodicea was that it was stagnant and lukewarm—it served no purpose and provided no benefit.
When we use this verse to say there is 'no middle ground' and that people must either follow a rigid hard-line or be 'vomited out,' we might be misapplying Jesus’ point. Someone wrestling to reconcile their faith with science or their own nature isn't being 'indifferent' or 'lukewarm.' In fact, that struggle is often a sign of deep spiritual heat.
The real danger of being lukewarm, as mentioned in the very next verse (Rev 3:17), is the pride of thinking we have it all figured out and 'do not need anything at all.'
If we hold so tightly to a 2,000-year-old mindset that we ignore the reality of how people are wired, we risk becoming spiritually stagnant. We might be the ones failing to provide the 'healing' or 'refreshing' environment that allows everyone to have a relationship with Jehovah. If we invite people to the door but then demand they change their DNA to stay, are we truly standing on Jehovah’s side of mercy, or are we just standing on the side of tradition?
You mentioned 1 John 3:6 regarding 'practicing sin,' but it’s helpful to look at the balance provided in the very first chapter of that same book. 1 John 1:8 says, 'If we make the statement, "We have no sin," we are misleading ourselves and the truth is not in us.' It seems the message isn't a demand for overnight perfection, but rather a focus on the direction of our hearts. If a person is sincerely reaching out to Jehovah while navigating how they were naturally wired, that is a personal journey of 'remaining in union' that others shouldn't be so quick to judge.
This leads to the idea that 'all sins are equal.' While that’s a common saying, the Bible repeatedly tells us to identify true faith by its 'fruit' (Matthew 7:16). If a couple is living a life full of love, joy, peace, and kindness, yet they are being judged by someone who is technically 'following the rules' but lacks compassion, which one is actually showing the fruit of the spirit?
I also took your advice and spent some time in the book of James. It really is full of wise advice, especially James 2:13: 'For he who does not practice mercy will have his judgment without mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.'
In the end, I think we have to be careful not to build walls where Jehovah wants bridges. If we prioritize rigid rules over the 'mercy' that James highlights, we might be making it impossible for people to have the very relationship with Jehovah that we claim to be inviting them toward.

I think that your interpretation of the congregation in Laodicea is somewhat lacking. Not that this will alter your thinking but for anyone else who may read this thread, I'll try to make it clearer. And so you know, I took this from someone else's work, if anyone wants to know whose, I'll try to find it and let you know.
First, take note that Jesus introduces himself as the faithful and true witness and the beginning of creation. I'll be coming back to this.
Then Jesus comments on their works, their deeds are neither hot nor cold, instead they are in a lukewarm state. And as a result he will vomit them out of his mouth.
What does it mean to be "hot" or "cold" a and why is cold even preferred over "lukewarm"?
Verse 17: "Because you say: "I am rich and have acquired riches and do not need anything at all," but you do not know you are miserable and pitiable and poor and blind and naked,"
Jesus admonishes them for their false view of their situation.
What do these terms symbolize?
Nakedness--lacking Christ's atoning covering
Blindness--inability to see spiritual truth
Pitiable/wretched -unclean spiritual state
Poor--failure to share in the riches of Christ and the kingdom
Jesus condemns them for their state of unbelief--in what way?
The people were meeting together in a building, singing songs, praying and conducting services. But there were two groups in that building. Believers and unbelievers. Those walking in the spirit and those not. It's easy to imitate a believer.
Jesus' main concern is with the group as a whole and a rise of unbelief. Unrecognized unbelief is more dangerous than satanists or known unbelievers. We naturally lower our guard with others who say they are Christians. But the presence and influence of unbelievers in the congregation leads to apostasy and compromise. Also the unbeliever gains a false sense of security.
Now hot represents a believer and cold an unbeliever. Why would Jesus prefer cold over lukewarm? It is better to be cold--an acknowledged unbeliever--than to be lukewarm-- thinking you are a believer when you actually are not. The lukewarm person doesn't even realize what they don't have. These are those spoken of in Matthew 7:21-23- "Not everyone saying to me, 'Lord, Lord, will enter into the kingdom of the heavens... And yet I will confess to them: I never knew you! Get away from me you workers of lawlessness."
Those who are within the congregation that don't really belong to Christ, he will vomit out, just as the lukewarm foul tasting, sulfuric water was poisonous and resulted in vomiting.
Laodicea was the only congregation that Jesus said nothing good about. He did recommend the spiritual remedy for their poor heart condition.
1- purchase from him gold refined by fire so they might become rich- eternal treasure, treasures in heaven rather than on earth
2 - buy white garments to clothe themselves - placing faith it Christ's atoning sacrifice, purifying oneself in the blood of the lamb
3 - eye salve to see - seeing in spiritual terms means to come to an accurate knowledge of God's truth
Jesus calls them to repent and verse 20 he says : Look! I am standing at the door and knocking. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in...
Those who open the door of their.heart may receive him and possess what they have been missing.
The congregation in Laodicea had become predominately unbelieving. As a whole it was apostate having left the truth. Lukewarm -unbelievers masquerading as believers introducing false teachings. This mirrors a lot of what we have seen since the beginning of the 19th century with the teaching that the Bible is not inerrant, that it was written by imperfect men, that there could be things that were added or deleted from it. Interpretations began to be done in light of natural laws, human reasoning and scientific discoveries. Compromises were made to doctrines because unity was considered more important than truth (sound familiar). Now you will find in most churches, humanistic principles, self-help and pop psychology are taught instead of God's word. Jesus was highlighting this when he referred to himself as the faithful and true witness.
The rise of evolution being taught as a scientific fact further weakened confidence in Scripture. Jesus referred to this when he said he was the beginning of creation. If the Bible can't be trusted to explain how things began then how can it be trusted for how it will end? Without a beginning nor an end to worry about, life becomes about the here and now. The congregation in Laodicea left behind the "true witness" of God's word. They left Jesus and were an apostate human institution void of true faith.
The name Laodicea means "people ruling" or "judgment of the people". Fitting for them, the hearts of the people ruling themselves rather than being ruled by God.

 

[Patricia]

I appreciate your concern for mercy, compassion, and making people feel welcomed rather than condemned. Christians absolutely should not be cruel, mocking, gossiping, or self-righteous toward anyone struggling with sin. We all come to Jehovah as imperfect people needing mercy and help every day.

But mercy and approval are not the same thing.

I think the key issue is whether Scripture teaches that our natural desires define what is morally right, or whether Christians are expected to struggle against imperfect desires with the help of God’s spirit.

The Bible repeatedly describes a conflict between flesh and spirit. Galatians 5:17 says: “For the flesh is against the spirit in its desire, and the spirit against the flesh.” That conflict exists for all Christians in different ways. Some battle anger, greed, pride, addictions, immorality, or other desires deeply rooted in imperfect flesh. The existence of a strong desire does not automatically mean Jehovah approves acting on it.

Jesus showed compassion to sinners, yet he still said: “Go your way; from now on practice sin no more.” (John 8:11) He did not shame people, but neither did he redefine sin according to human feelings, psychology, or modern explanations about how people are “wired.”

You mention that attractions may remain throughout a person’s life. That may be true. But Christians are not promised that wrong desires will completely disappear in this system. Even Paul described an ongoing struggle with sin in Romans chapter 7. The Christian hope is not based on becoming desireless now, but on faithfully resisting what conflicts with God’s standards while relying on holy spirit.

The issue is not whether temptation exists. The issue is whether we justify the practice.

I agree Revelation 3:15-16 had a historical setting involving Laodicea’s water supply. But Jesus still used that illustration spiritually. The context was not about sincere people struggling with weakness; it was about spiritual compromise and self-satisfaction. A Christian can struggle and still remain faithful. But redefining what Jehovah calls sin is a different matter.

Acts 15 was about not imposing unnecessary burdens beyond what God required. But the same chapter also specifically instructed Christians to abstain from sexual immorality. So the apostles were not removing God’s moral standards; they were preventing man-made requirements from being added on top of them.

Jesus said his yoke is kindly and his load is light, not because discipleship requires no sacrifice, but because he helps us carry it. Jesus also plainly taught self-denial: “If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself.” Christians often must deny desires, ambitions, relationships, or lifestyles that feel natural to them.

You also mentioned “fruit.” Compassion is indeed fruitage of the spirit. But Bible love is not separated from truth or obedience. Jesus said: “If you love me, you will observe my commandments.” (John 14:15) A person can appear kind and loving while still practicing something Scripture identifies as sinful. Otherwise, moral standards become based mainly on human perception instead of God’s Word.

Mercy triumphs over judgment when we personally forgive, show patience, and help others draw close to God. But mercy never means telling people that repentance is unnecessary. James himself also wrote that friendship with the world is enmity with God. (James 4:4)

None of this means homosexuals are uniquely sinful or beyond hope. Christians should welcome anyone sincerely seeking Jehovah. But welcoming people and reassuring them that Jehovah has changed his standards are two different things.

The loving thing is not to condemn people harshly, but neither is it loving to reassure people that conduct Scripture consistently calls sin is now acceptable because modern society views it differently.

The Bible’s focus is not on condemning people for experiencing temptation. The focus is on whether we fight the flesh or justify it.

Thank you for that comment. You said that way better than I could.

 

[BibleLover]

Thank you for that comment. You said that way better than I could.

Thank you Patricia, I appreciate that. I also appreciate the balance you’ve tried to keep between truth and compassion.

One thing that has become clearer to me in this discussion is that the deeper issue is really about authority. Does human desire define morality, or does Jehovah as our Creator?

Modern culture increasingly teaches that if a desire feels natural or sincere, then acting on it must be right. But the Bible teaches that humans are imperfect and that many desires—not only sexual ones—must be brought under the guidance of God’s spirit rather than automatically affirmed.

That principle applies to all forms of fleshly desire, whether homosexuality, adultery, pornography, greed, drunkenness, or materialism. The issue is not one particular sin, but whether we let desires rule us or let Jehovah guide us.

That’s why God’s standards are actually protective, not oppressive. His commands help us develop self-control, holiness, and a life guided by spirit rather than impulse.

 

[dgibson969]

I think that your interpretation of the congregation in Laodicea is somewhat lacking. Not that this will alter your thinking but for anyone else who may read this thread, I'll try to make it clearer. And so you know, I took this from someone else's work, if anyone wants to know whose, I'll try to find it and let you know.
First, take note that Jesus introduces himself as the faithful and true witness and the beginning of creation. I'll be coming back to this.
Then Jesus comments on their works, their deeds are neither hot nor cold, instead they are in a lukewarm state. And as a result he will vomit them out of his mouth.
What does it mean to be "hot" or "cold" a and why is cold even preferred over "lukewarm"?
Verse 17: "Because you say: "I am rich and have acquired riches and do not need anything at all," but you do not know you are miserable and pitiable and poor and blind and naked,"
Jesus admonishes them for their false view of their situation.
What do these terms symbolize?
Nakedness--lacking Christ's atoning covering
Blindness--inability to see spiritual truth
Pitiable/wretched -unclean spiritual state
Poor--failure to share in the riches of Christ and the kingdom
Jesus condemns them for their state of unbelief--in what way?
The people were meeting together in a building, singing songs, praying and conducting services. But there were two groups in that building. Believers and unbelievers. Those walking in the spirit and those not. It's easy to imitate a believer.
Jesus' main concern is with the group as a whole and a rise of unbelief. Unrecognized unbelief is more dangerous than satanists or known unbelievers. We naturally lower our guard with others who say they are Christians. But the presence and influence of unbelievers in the congregation leads to apostasy and compromise. Also the unbeliever gains a false sense of security.
Now hot represents a believer and cold an unbeliever. Why would Jesus prefer cold over lukewarm? It is better to be cold--an acknowledged unbeliever--than to be lukewarm-- thinking you are a believer when you actually are not. The lukewarm person doesn't even realize what they don't have. These are those spoken of in Matthew 7:21-23- "Not everyone saying to me, 'Lord, Lord, will enter into the kingdom of the heavens... And yet I will confess to them: I never knew you! Get away from me you workers of lawlessness."
Those who are within the congregation that don't really belong to Christ, he will vomit out, just as the lukewarm foul tasting, sulfuric water was poisonous and resulted in vomiting.
Laodicea was the only congregation that Jesus said nothing good about. He did recommend the spiritual remedy for their poor heart condition.
1- purchase from him gold refined by fire so they might become rich- eternal treasure, treasures in heaven rather than on earth
2 - buy white garments to clothe themselves - placing faith it Christ's atoning sacrifice, purifying oneself in the blood of the lamb
3 - eye salve to see - seeing in spiritual terms means to come to an accurate knowledge of God's truth
Jesus calls them to repent and verse 20 he says : Look! I am standing at the door and knocking. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in...
Those who open the door of their.heart may receive him and possess what they have been missing.
The congregation in Laodicea had become predominately unbelieving. As a whole it was apostate having left the truth. Lukewarm -unbelievers masquerading as believers introducing false teachings. This mirrors a lot of what we have seen since the beginning of the 19th century with the teaching that the Bible is not inerrant, that it was written by imperfect men, that there could be things that were added or deleted from it. Interpretations began to be done in light of natural laws, human reasoning and scientific discoveries. Compromises were made to doctrines because unity was considered more important than truth (sound familiar). Now you will find in most churches, humanistic principles, self-help and pop psychology are taught instead of God's word. Jesus was highlighting this when he referred to himself as the faithful and true witness.
The rise of evolution being taught as a scientific fact further weakened confidence in Scripture. Jesus referred to this when he said he was the beginning of creation. If the Bible can't be trusted to explain how things began then how can it be trusted for how it will end? Without a beginning nor an end to worry about, life becomes about the here and now. The congregation in Laodicea left behind the "true witness" of God's word. They left Jesus and were an apostate human institution void of true faith.
The name Laodicea means "people ruling" or "judgment of the people". Fitting for them, the hearts of the people ruling themselves rather than being ruled by God.

It is helpful to look at these scriptures from multiple angles, but we must be careful that our "zeal" for a specific interpretation doesn't cloud the "mercy" that James highlights.
The idea that "lukewarm" refers to people who struggle with science or their own nature assumes that Jesus prefers a "hard-line" stance over a sincere struggle. However, if we look at the geography of the region—with the healing hot springs of Hierapolis and the refreshing cold water of Colossae—we see that Jesus wasn't condemning "middle ground" thinkers. He was condemning uselessness. A person wrestling to reconcile their faith with the reality of how they are "wired" is far from useless; they are often in the heat of a deep spiritual fire.
Regarding the point that Laodicea means "people ruling," we should consider a sobering warning from the Apostle Paul in Romans 10:1-3. He spoke of those who had a "zeal for God, but not according to accurate knowledge." He warned that in their zeal, they were "seeking to establish their own righteousness" and therefore did not "subject themselves to the righteousness of God."
If we create a "righteousness" based on rigid human traditions—demanding that people ignore scientific facts or change their very DNA to be acceptable—are we not the ones "ruling" instead of letting God rule? When we prioritize an organizational outline or a specific 19th-century interpretation over the clear "fruit of the spirit" (Galatians 5:22-23) seen in a person's life, we risk becoming the "blind" leaders Jesus cautioned against.
Jesus stands at the door and knocks (Rev 3:20). He doesn't say, "I am knocking only for those who have 100% of the doctrine figured out." He knocks for anyone who hears his voice. If a person is sincerely reaching out to Jehovah, showing love and kindness, yet we label them "lukewarm" because they don't fit a specific mold, we might be the ones building a wall where Jehovah intended a bridge.
As it was recently pointed out by a brother sharing a similar scriptural perspective: our focus should be on salvation and the Bible alone. If we "establish our own righteousness" by excluding sincere hearts, we aren't standing on the side of truth; we are standing on the side of tradition. Mercy triumphs over judgment every time.

 

[BARNABY THE DOG.]

I don't believe in that "wired differently" saying, it's quite a recent phrase, and absolves the "differently wired" person from whatever it is they want to be absolved from. Also, if it was a real, physical thing, you know, we've got wires in our heads and they're plugged into the wrong sockets so to speak, then where does it leave that scripture in James that talks about each one being drawn away by his OWN lust or desires? In other words, we've all got our own different desires or temptations and it's down to ourselves to try and get the mastery over them, not say "but I'm DIFFERENT, so I shouldn't have to change" no, we're all in the same boat and we can choose to try and serve Jehovah or not. I'm always shocked at how many exjws on the Reddit forum, when they stop going to meetings, go out and try and cram in as much "sin" as possible! They get some kind of newly found "freedom" But, that's the choice Jehovah gives us, and it's a very fair choice, But in the words of Freddie Mercury, some people just want it all, and want it now.

“Wired differently” refers to perception in understanding, but also challenges common pathways in thinking. It is not necessarily a fault. I saw what was deemed as a “funny” example of this the other day but in fact, it illustrates the point precisely and which is why we need to consider the point from the perspectives others see them if we are to respect their perception.

A boy was sent home from school for being sarcastic to a teacher. He was behaving badly and the teacher said to him “What you your mother say if I rang her?” She would say “Hello” the boy replied. The example simply illustrates that some do not necessarily extrapolate the same understanding from a common assumption of general expectancy of understanding projection of thought or thinking.

“Wired differently” is a modern way of describing a mental concept of understanding. It does not describe its affect or its effect to that one’s thinking. Another example of such mental outcomes would be, for example, to give a highly organised person an unannounced appointment at four o’clock in the afternoon. It puts their whole day out of kilter. These are real issues - there are far greater examples and implications within everyday life that people endure and that paralyse their lives in unmanageable and cruel ways.

The true explanation of what dg is referring to is actually not how a person is “wired”, but something entirely different, and that difference is an independent choice. The reason that it is ‘independent’ of one’s personality is because it is not necessary for their sense of what life is. This is a well documented facet of what we perceive as our natural lives. Desire is a collection of values obtained through reasoning facilitated by personally developed inclinations. This often leads to confusion over “wired desires” gained by deliberate ‘naturalisation’ within one’s thinking of alternatives. The emphasis being on the word ‘natural’ ergo, inbuilt. It’s not. It’s desired. Were this not the case, then an appreciation of the Holy Spirit of creation would be impossible. Desire is the basis of independent choice. It can be natural or unnatural. Thus the question is not one of fate, but of choice, to adhere to a given perception of perfection and which is embedded within us. How can falling short of the mark be measured without a standard? It would unjust to do so.

Psychology is an appreciation of what is deemed natural. And our understanding or nature is common to all of us. They are demonstrated through natural law by which we live.

To come back then to the issue of being “wired” correctly or incorrectly as an explanation of deviance from nature does not hold water because natures universal concept amongst humans forms the basis of our existence. Set rules by which we must exist. Everything else then is a choice outside of that, and not a ‘permissible perception’ that we may be born with.

Perfection then is our complete “understanding” of our needs - and even if not attainable, can be understood for their values and thus abstained from even if desired. One might ask though, how these things could be desired if understood for what they are? Thus we are told not to judge others because though we may entertain such thoughts we choose to fight against our proclivities rather than indulge them. Thus we cannot claim to be holy ourselves. Our needs are the attainment of understanding as set out by our creator. Within that perfection, character and variance is infinite within that gift. Our very DNA assures us of that. The makeup of DNA for our requirements is infinite, but it’s infinite within the standard of perfection set for it, just as are all the other laws of perfection within the creation.

 

[BARNABY THE DOG.]

Regarding the use of Revelation 3:15-16 about being 'lukewarm,' I think it’s worth looking at the actual history of that scripture. In the ancient world, the city of Laodicea sat between Hierapolis, which had hot medicinal springs for healing, and Colossae, which had cold refreshing mountain water for drinking. Both hot and cold were good and useful. The problem with the water in Laodicea was that it was stagnant and lukewarm—it served no purpose and provided no benefit.
When we use this verse to say there is 'no middle ground' and that people must either follow a rigid hard-line or be 'vomited out,' we might be misapplying Jesus’ point. Someone wrestling to reconcile their faith with science or their own nature isn't being 'indifferent' or 'lukewarm.' In fact, that struggle is often a sign of deep spiritual heat.
The real danger of being lukewarm, as mentioned in the very next verse (Rev 3:17), is the pride of thinking we have it all figured out and 'do not need anything at all.'
If we hold so tightly to a 2,000-year-old mindset that we ignore the reality of how people are wired, we risk becoming spiritually stagnant. We might be the ones failing to provide the 'healing' or 'refreshing' environment that allows everyone to have a relationship with Jehovah. If we invite people to the door but then demand they change their DNA to stay, are we truly standing on Jehovah’s side of mercy, or are we just standing on the side of tradition?
You mentioned 1 John 3:6 regarding 'practicing sin,' but it’s helpful to look at the balance provided in the very first chapter of that same book. 1 John 1:8 says, 'If we make the statement, "We have no sin," we are misleading ourselves and the truth is not in us.' It seems the message isn't a demand for overnight perfection, but rather a focus on the direction of our hearts. If a person is sincerely reaching out to Jehovah while navigating how they were naturally wired, that is a personal journey of 'remaining in union' that others shouldn't be so quick to judge.
This leads to the idea that 'all sins are equal.' While that’s a common saying, the Bible repeatedly tells us to identify true faith by its 'fruit' (Matthew 7:16). If a couple is living a life full of love, joy, peace, and kindness, yet they are being judged by someone who is technically 'following the rules' but lacks compassion, which one is actually showing the fruit of the spirit?
I also took your advice and spent some time in the book of James. It really is full of wise advice, especially James 2:13: 'For he who does not practice mercy will have his judgment without mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.'
In the end, I think we have to be careful not to build walls where Jehovah wants bridges. If we prioritize rigid rules over the 'mercy' that James highlights, we might be making it impossible for people to have the very relationship with Jehovah that we claim to be inviting them toward.

“The real danger of being lukewarm, as mentioned in the very next verse (Rev 3:17), is the pride of thinking we have it all figured out and 'do not need anything at all.'
— —
I disagree. It refers to indecision, sitting on the fence, being without the faith to be critical in our decision making. Being neither one thing or the other for the sake of one’s safety or advantage. “Did we not cast out evil spirits in your name……” refers to just such reasoning showing an active understanding of what is required to be seen to be doing the will of Jehovah.

Being neither one thing or the other does not relate to being self satisfied or inertia but to being in a state of cowardice in neutrality. It has nothing to do with pride, but of “being all things to all men” as we see evidenced in the hastening decline of watchtower who kow-tow governments now to beg for money.

If we are to be seen to belong to Jehovah we do not take the stand as to pacify those who are undecided, or to assume we have achieved our own salvation and need nothing more than our own satisfaction in achieving such heights, but rather to understand that, quite the opposite to sitting on our laurels, we need to actively seek first the kingdom. Even that is not possible were it not for the sacrifice from Christ.

Put it in human terms; of what pleasure is it if a child is indifferent to visiting and supporting their parent? What questions that that raise in the mind of the one who gave birth to them?

 

[kenmuldoon55]

Regarding the use of Revelation 3:15-16 about being 'lukewarm,' I think it’s worth looking at the actual history of that scripture. In the ancient world, the city of Laodicea sat between Hierapolis, which had hot medicinal springs for healing, and Colossae, which had cold refreshing mountain water for drinking. Both hot and cold were good and useful. The problem with the water in Laodicea was that it was stagnant and lukewarm—it served no purpose and provided no benefit.
When we use this verse to say there is 'no middle ground' and that people must either follow a rigid hard-line or be 'vomited out,' we might be misapplying Jesus’ point. Someone wrestling to reconcile their faith with science or their own nature isn't being 'indifferent' or 'lukewarm.' In fact, that struggle is often a sign of deep spiritual heat.
The real danger of being lukewarm, as mentioned in the very next verse (Rev 3:17), is the pride of thinking we have it all figured out and 'do not need anything at all.'
If we hold so tightly to a 2,000-year-old mindset that we ignore the reality of how people are wired, we risk becoming spiritually stagnant. We might be the ones failing to provide the 'healing' or 'refreshing' environment that allows everyone to have a relationship with Jehovah. If we invite people to the door but then demand they change their DNA to stay, are we truly standing on Jehovah’s side of mercy, or are we just standing on the side of tradition?
You mentioned 1 John 3:6 regarding 'practicing sin,' but it’s helpful to look at the balance provided in the very first chapter of that same book. 1 John 1:8 says, 'If we make the statement, "We have no sin," we are misleading ourselves and the truth is not in us.' It seems the message isn't a demand for overnight perfection, but rather a focus on the direction of our hearts. If a person is sincerely reaching out to Jehovah while navigating how they were naturally wired, that is a personal journey of 'remaining in union' that others shouldn't be so quick to judge.
This leads to the idea that 'all sins are equal.' While that’s a common saying, the Bible repeatedly tells us to identify true faith by its 'fruit' (Matthew 7:16). If a couple is living a life full of love, joy, peace, and kindness, yet they are being judged by someone who is technically 'following the rules' but lacks compassion, which one is actually showing the fruit of the spirit?
I also took your advice and spent some time in the book of James. It really is full of wise advice, especially James 2:13: 'For he who does not practice mercy will have his judgment without mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.'
In the end, I think we have to be careful not to build walls where Jehovah wants bridges. If we prioritize rigid rules over the 'mercy' that James highlights, we might be making it impossible for people to have the very relationship with Jehovah that we claim to be inviting them toward.

So homosexuality is a DNA issue and you’re naturally wired towards that bent?
Pretty rich how you make those not accepting your lifestyle the ones with the spiritual defect because they subscribe to “outdated” bible teachings.

 

[Proverbs 14 v 15]

“Wired differently” refers to perception in understanding, but also challenges common pathways in thinking. It is not necessarily a fault. I saw what was deemed as a “funny” example of this the other day but in fact, it illustrates the point precisely and which is why we need to consider the point from the perspectives others see them if we are to respect their perception.

A boy was sent home from school for being sarcastic to a teacher. He was behaving badly and the teacher said to him “What you your mother say if I rang her?” She would say “Hello” the boy replied. The example simply illustrates that some do not necessarily extrapolate the same understanding from a common assumption of general expectancy of understanding projection of thought or thinking.

“Wired differently” is a modern way of describing a mental concept of understanding. It does not describe its affect or its effect to that one’s thinking. Another example of such mental outcomes would be, for example, to give a highly organised person an unannounced appointment at four o’clock in the afternoon. It puts their whole day out of kilter. These are real issues - there are far greater examples and implications within everyday life that people endure and that paralyse their lives in unmanageable and cruel ways.

The true explanation of what dg is referring to is actually not how a person is “wired”, but something entirely different, and that difference is an independent choice. The reason that it is ‘independent’ of one’s personality is because it is not necessary for their sense of what life is. This is a well documented facet of what we perceive as our natural lives. Desire is a collection of values obtained through reasoning facilitated by personally developed inclinations. This often leads to confusion over “wired desires” gained by deliberate ‘naturalisation’ within one’s thinking of alternatives. The emphasis being on the word ‘natural’ ergo, inbuilt. It’s not. It’s desired. Were this not the case, then an appreciation of the Holy Spirit of creation would be impossible. Desire is the basis of independent choice. It can be natural or unnatural. Thus the question is not one of fate, but of choice, to adhere to a given perception of perfection and which is embedded within us. How can falling short of the mark be measured without a standard? It would unjust to do so.

Psychology is an appreciation of what is deemed natural. And our understanding or nature is common to all of us. They are demonstrated through natural law by which we live.

To come back then to the issue of being “wired” correctly or incorrectly as an explanation of deviance from nature does not hold water because natures universal concept amongst humans forms the basis of our existence. Set rules by which we must exist. Everything else then is a choice outside of that, and not a ‘permissible perception’ that we may be born with.

Perfection then is our complete “understanding” of our needs - and even if not attainable, can be understood for their values and thus abstained from even if desired. One might ask though, how these things could be desired if understood for what they are? Thus we are told not to judge others because though we may entertain such thoughts we choose to fight against our proclivities rather than indulge them. Thus we cannot claim to be holy ourselves. Our needs are the attainment of understanding as set out by our creator. Within that perfection, character and variance is infinite within that gift. Our very DNA assures us of that. The makeup of DNA for our requirements is infinite, but it’s infinite within the standard of perfection set for it, just as are all the other laws of perfection within the creation.

I'm pretty sure it's all a bit more simpler than that Barney.. we have our own, God given conscience, we have God's word, simple. Then we have our own sinful tendencies, our own death sentence, and we have Satan's influence to contend with, making things very difficult indeed, for ALL of us..
It reminds me of the 10 commandments and the 600 plus other rules and regs, it must've been a nightmare trying to stick to that lot. Then Jesus came along and simplified it all into just 2 "rules" love Jehovah and love other people, unfortunately, most of the Jews today still live the difficult way. I lived in Stamford Hill, Tottenham back in the late 70's, my goodness the life they lived was ridiculous, especially for the poor women. But I got the impression that many of the men preferred all the 100's of rules and regs

 

[Proverbs 14 v 15]

So homosexuality is a DNA issue and you’re naturally wired towards that bent?
Pretty rich how you make those not accepting your lifestyle the ones with the spiritual defect because they subscribe to “outdated” bible teachings.

I'm sure we'll continue to be the ones at fault with our supporting Jehovah's values and standards, until we or the Bible is thrown into the fire.. very interesting times are a coming..

 

[BARNABY THE DOG.]

I'm pretty sure it's all a bit more simpler than that Barney.. we have our own, God given conscience, we have God's word, simple. Then we have our own sinful tendencies, our own death sentence, and we have Satan's influence to contend with, making things very difficult indeed, for ALL of us..
It reminds me of the 10 commandments and the 600 plus other rules and regs, it must've been a nightmare trying to stick to that lot. Then Jesus came along and simplified it all into just 2 "rules" love Jehovah and love other people, unfortunately, most of the Jews today still live the difficult way. I lived in Stamford Hill, Tottenham back in the late 70's, my goodness the life they lived was ridiculous, especially for the poor women. But I got the impression that many of the men preferred all the 100's of rules and regs

I agree with what you say - it is simple if one can reason upon it in isolation of the normalisation of deviance that is spoken of above, and that has been given it by society as a whole. It’s not simply a question of what the bible says, but the thinking of justification in one’s circumstances, or, as some might put it, ‘what is normal’, irrespective of what nature tells us. For instance, what parent would not steal bread to give their starving child? Likewise, why should someone live a life of isolation simply because they are attracted to the same sex and not the opposite sex?

One has to be honest with one’s self first, if they are to face the principles involved within the standards of conscience set for us and all the more so if that conscience can be and often is, satiated by irrational thinking. That is the reality of it Proverbs. It’s not simply the question of reading the Word, but being able to “love and live” the Word as it should be understood. We must be in unity with Jehovah, not He with us. As we are all aware I hasten to add.

To be of value, it is insufficient to stifle a desire simply because one is told it’s wrong. We are either in our heart, honest with our self or we choose to deceive ourself. We can not live a lie and be found wanting in service to Jehovah. We must recognise and critically understand “what is written” if we are going to be able to pray for the strength to overcome it, not simply by not practicing it, but by the love of righteousness that allows us to truly see why we should not even entertain these thoughts. We cannot live a life we do not believe in - that is why the conscience demands clarity and understanding of and within, normalisation - to “be made holy”.

You are absolutely correct in that we have been given a conscience by Jehovah. But we must first understand the why and wherefore of its principles to be able to answer that conscience correctly. The greater our understanding of that, the easier it becomes because it unites with reason - also given us by Jehovah. This is what I suppose, is the basis of dgibsons question.

 

[BARNABY THE DOG.]

So homosexuality is a DNA issue and you’re naturally wired towards that bent?
Pretty rich how you make those not accepting your lifestyle the ones with the spiritual defect because they subscribe to “outdated” bible teachings.

Quite right. It’s society that has normalised deviance in many areas. The conscience is universal in mankind and essentially if one looks at the historical evidence with societies and religion, we see the evidence of corruption of what is a common inbuilt standard that we are born with, not learnt. We are able to “learn, desire and normalise” behaviour as a choice - the debate at Eden, - but the standards have always remained the same in value of perfection. This is how sin is judged by the degree of departure of the act from the standard already established by Jehovah. It has little to do with emotive reasoning but everything to do with loving the standard already set with the rules of living set by Jehovah. Oddly enough, the choices to be made within those standards of Jehovah in righteous regard of pleasure and enjoyment are nigh on limitless. Satan though concentrates on desires that have no part in that standard. That is where evil intent lies. It’s a difficult point for some to swallow that in that area, our choice is a reflection of what we truly are.

 

[Proverbs 14 v 15]

I agree with what you say - it is simple if one can reason upon it in isolation of the normalisation of deviance that is spoken of above, and that has been given it by society as a whole. It’s not simply a question of what the bible says, but the thinking of justification in one’s circumstances, or, as some might put it, ‘what is normal’, irrespective of what nature tells us. For instance, what parent would not steal bread to give their starving child? Likewise, why should someone live a life of isolation simply because they are attracted to the same sex and not the opposite sex?

One has to be honest with one’s self first, if they are to face the principles involved within the standards of conscience set for us and all the more so if that conscience can be and often is, satiated by irrational thinking. That is the reality of it Proverbs. It’s not simply the question of reading the Word, but being able to “love and live” the Word as it should be understood. We must be in unity with Jehovah, not He with us. As we are all aware I hasten to add.

To be of value, it is insufficient to stifle a desire simply because one is told it’s wrong. We are either in our heart, honest with our self or we choose to deceive ourself. We can not live a lie and be found wanting in service to Jehovah. We must recognise and critically understand “what is written” if we are going to be able to pray for the strength to overcome it, not simply by not practicing it, but by the love of righteousness that allows us to truly see why we should not even entertain these thoughts. We cannot live a life we do not believe in - that is why the conscience demands clarity and understanding of and within, normalisation - to “be made holy”.

You are absolutely correct in that we have been given a conscience by Jehovah. But we must first understand the why and wherefore of its principles to be able to answer that conscience correctly. The greater our understanding of that, the easier it becomes because it unites with reason - also given us by Jehovah. This is what I suppose, is the basis of dgibsons question.

I suppose it all boils down to what we love the most, pleasing Jehovah or pleasing ourselves. When I was 16 and heard a bit about Jehovah and the Bible I was too selfish to look into it any further and so left it right alone. Even though I was just a kid really I recognised that we can't fool Jehovah or ourselves. When I was 19, I learned a tad more, but was still too selfish to progress and chose to carry on with my selfish life and turned away from anything to do with Jehovah again. When I was 21 I learned a bit more, lasted a few months, but this time, I wasn't too selfish to pack up smoking cannabis, I NEEDED it to survive living in this world. So I had to pack up Jehovah again. Then, at 25 I decided that if Jehovah was so determined to get me into his organisation then he'd have to allow me to learn the truth and go to the kingdom hall with me smoking cannabis. And he did! At first anyway.. until I could reason things out and understood that you can't abuse Jehovah's mercy forever. So I threw my lot in and pleaded with Jehovah to help me straighten myself out and be able to function without cannabis. And the rest is history. Actually, it was nicotine that turned out to be the shocker, 10yrs it took me, stop, start, stop start, stop start, for 10 whole years. But, the time gap between each falI slowly got longer. Nicotine was definitely in my DNA

 

[dgibson969]

“Wired differently” refers to perception in understanding, but also challenges common pathways in thinking. It is not necessarily a fault. I saw what was deemed as a “funny” example of this the other day but in fact, it illustrates the point precisely and which is why we need to consider the point from the perspectives others see them if we are to respect their perception.

A boy was sent home from school for being sarcastic to a teacher. He was behaving badly and the teacher said to him “What you your mother say if I rang her?” She would say “Hello” the boy replied. The example simply illustrates that some do not necessarily extrapolate the same understanding from a common assumption of general expectancy of understanding projection of thought or thinking.

“Wired differently” is a modern way of describing a mental concept of understanding. It does not describe its affect or its effect to that one’s thinking. Another example of such mental outcomes would be, for example, to give a highly organised person an unannounced appointment at four o’clock in the afternoon. It puts their whole day out of kilter. These are real issues - there are far greater examples and implications within everyday life that people endure and that paralyse their lives in unmanageable and cruel ways.

The true explanation of what dg is referring to is actually not how a person is “wired”, but something entirely different, and that difference is an independent choice. The reason that it is ‘independent’ of one’s personality is because it is not necessary for their sense of what life is. This is a well documented facet of what we perceive as our natural lives. Desire is a collection of values obtained through reasoning facilitated by personally developed inclinations. This often leads to confusion over “wired desires” gained by deliberate ‘naturalisation’ within one’s thinking of alternatives. The emphasis being on the word ‘natural’ ergo, inbuilt. It’s not. It’s desired. Were this not the case, then an appreciation of the Holy Spirit of creation would be impossible. Desire is the basis of independent choice. It can be natural or unnatural. Thus the question is not one of fate, but of choice, to adhere to a given perception of perfection and which is embedded within us. How can falling short of the mark be measured without a standard? It would unjust to do so.

Psychology is an appreciation of what is deemed natural. And our understanding or nature is common to all of us. They are demonstrated through natural law by which we live.

To come back then to the issue of being “wired” correctly or incorrectly as an explanation of deviance from nature does not hold water because natures universal concept amongst humans forms the basis of our existence. Set rules by which we must exist. Everything else then is a choice outside of that, and not a ‘permissible perception’ that we may be born with.

Perfection then is our complete “understanding” of our needs - and even if not attainable, can be understood for their values and thus abstained from even if desired. One might ask though, how these things could be desired if understood for what they are? Thus we are told not to judge others because though we may entertain such thoughts we choose to fight against our proclivities rather than indulge them. Thus we cannot claim to be holy ourselves. Our needs are the attainment of understanding as set out by our creator. Within that perfection, character and variance is infinite within that gift. Our very DNA assures us of that. The makeup of DNA for our requirements is infinite, but it’s infinite within the standard of perfection set for it, just as are all the other laws of perfection within the creation.

I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about what you wrote. It’s a very powerful argument for human agency and the idea that we aren't just victims of our biological 'wiring.' The way you separate 'natural design' from 'personal desire' is a deep way to look at why we make the choices we do.
However, I keep coming back to the question of who actually sets the 'standard' of what is natural. If we look at it through a spiritual lens, we know that after Jesus’ death, the door was opened to the Gentiles—people who were coming from backgrounds and 'wirings' that were completely outside the original Law. It suggests that Jehovah knew the 'standard' was something we couldn't hit on our own, which is why we were given Grace and the Holy Spirit as a 'Helper.' If we could simply reason our way into perfect behavior, we wouldn't need that divine help.
I also wonder how much of our 'standard' is shaped by the personal preferences or even the 'yuck factor' felt by the men in leadership. For instance, the Apostle Paul mentioned that he wished all men could be as he was—essentially remaining single or 'eunuchs' for the sake of the work. While that was his preference, one could argue it was a bit of a selfish standard to put on others, as it goes against the very first 'natural' command to be fruitful and multiply.
We see a similar thing today with the organization. The Watchtower Society allows for contraceptives, which is an unnatural intervention in biology, yet it's permitted—perhaps because it’s convenient to have people working full-time in the field without the 'distraction' of raising children. It makes me wonder if we sometimes label things as 'choices' or 'desires' based on what the organization needs at the time, rather than what is actually built into our DNA.
History shows us that other cultures saw this differently. Many Native American tribes didn't see 'different wiring' as a choice or a falling short of a mark. They saw those individuals as having a specialized, gifted role in the tribe. Their 'variance' was seen as part of the creator’s design, not a deviation from it.
I agree that character is found in how we handle our proclivities. But if the 'Standard' is set by a Creator who knows we are but 'dust,' maybe that perfection is found in the diversity of the wiring itself. I don't want to be dismissive of your point, but I do wonder if we sometimes confuse 'God’s Standard' with the personal standards of men who might be looking for the most efficient way to run an organization.
Respectfully

 

[dgibson969]

I suppose it all boils down to what we love the most, pleasing Jehovah or pleasing ourselves. When I was 16 and heard a bit about Jehovah and the Bible I was too selfish to look into it any further and so left it right alone. Even though I was just a kid really I recognised that we can't fool Jehovah or ourselves. When I was 19, I learned a tad more, but was still too selfish to progress and chose to carry on with my selfish life and turned away from anything to do with Jehovah again. When I was 21 I learned a bit more, lasted a few months, but this time, I wasn't too selfish to pack up smoking cannabis, I NEEDED it to survive living in this world. So I had to pack up Jehovah again. Then, at 25 I decided that if Jehovah was so determined to get me into his organisation then he'd have to allow me to learn the truth and go to the kingdom hall with me smoking cannabis. And he did! At first anyway.. until I could reason things out and understood that you can't abuse Jehovah's mercy forever. So I threw my lot in and pleaded with Jehovah to help me straighten myself out and be able to function without cannabis. And the rest is history. Actually, it was nicotine that turned out to be the shocker, 10yrs it took me, stop, start, stop start, stop start, for 10 whole years. But, the time gap between each falI slowly got longer. Nicotine was definitely in my DNA

I appreciate the personal story about your struggle with nicotine and cannabis. It highlights something important: even when we try to label things as 'selfishness,' we often end up admitting it’s actually a matter of survival or DNA. You mentioned it took ten years of falling down to overcome nicotine. That tells me that 'wiring' is incredibly stubborn, and even with help, the change isn't always a sudden miracle.
This brings me to the Holy Spirit. We often point to the Spirit as the 'fix' for being wired differently, but the Spirit we see today seems very different from what was poured out in the first century. Back then, it was unmistakable—it let people speak languages they’d never learned and bypassed human biology entirely. Today, if the 'Spirit' takes ten years to help someone reason through a habit, it suggests that our human limitations and our DNA are playing a much larger role than we like to admit.
Many here feel they have received a Heavenly Hope. That is the ultimate invitation of Grace. But if one believes they have been extended that level of Grace from Jehovah, shouldn't that same Grace be extended to others who are struggling with their wiring? If you are invited to such a high calling, it should produce a deep humility and a willingness to respect how others process the world—especially those who may feel they have a very limited amount of Holy Spirit, or none at all, to help them fight their battles.
If the Holy Spirit today doesn't manifest with the power to instantly change our nature like it did in the past, then we shouldn't judge those who are 'falling short of the mark' because of how they were built. If the standard is perfection, we are all missing it. But if we are to follow the example of the one who extended that Heavenly Hope, then Grace—not judgment of someone's 'selfishness'—should be the first thing we offer.

 

[dgibson969]

"The Law of Averages vs. The Holy Spirit"
We’ve all heard the moving experiences at assemblies—the person who was contemplating taking their own life when a knock came at the door at just the right moment. It’s hard not to see a touch of guidance in those life-saving seconds. But if we are going to be honest, we have to look at the whole picture.
To what extent is the Spirit actually directing these footsteps? If we credit the Holy Spirit for the one person who was found just in time, what do we say about the thousands of others who reach that same point of despair and find no one there? There is no witness suddenly appearing on the side of the bridge for them. If the Spirit is a targeted, life-saving force, its absence in those moments is hard to reconcile.
Is it possible that what we call 'Spirit-led direction' is actually just the result of a massive, organized effort? If you have millions of people knocking on doors for decades, the law of averages says that eventually, you will hit a door at the exact right moment. But a 'numbers game' isn't the same thing as a miracle.
We see this same pattern in how we claim the Spirit for business deals or buildings. We cite Jesus' promise that 'where two or three are gathered, I am in the midst of them,' but we have to remember that a presence is not the same as a performance. Jesus may be there listening, but that doesn't mean he is the one negotiating the price of a printing facility or a real estate deed.
In the Bible, the Spirit’s hand was undeniable—it transcended biology and spoke through miracles. Today, we claim that same Spirit is behind our property deals and our 10-year struggles with habits. If we are only counting the 'lucky' timing and ignoring the silence on the 'side of the bridge,' are we really fact-checking the Spirit, or are we just labeling our own organizational success as divine approval?
How do we distinguish between a genuine divine force and a well-run human organization that benefits from the law of averages?

 

[Proverbs 14 v 15]

I appreciate the personal story about your struggle with nicotine and cannabis. It highlights something important: even when we try to label things as 'selfishness,' we often end up admitting it’s actually a matter of survival or DNA. You mentioned it took ten years of falling down to overcome nicotine. That tells me that 'wiring' is incredibly stubborn, and even with help, the change isn't always a sudden miracle.
This brings me to the Holy Spirit. We often point to the Spirit as the 'fix' for being wired differently, but the Spirit we see today seems very different from what was poured out in the first century. Back then, it was unmistakable—it let people speak languages they’d never learned and bypassed human biology entirely. Today, if the 'Spirit' takes ten years to help someone reason through a habit, it suggests that our human limitations and our DNA are playing a much larger role than we like to admit.
Many here feel they have received a Heavenly Hope. That is the ultimate invitation of Grace. But if one believes they have been extended that level of Grace from Jehovah, shouldn't that same Grace be extended to others who are struggling with their wiring? If you are invited to such a high calling, it should produce a deep humility and a willingness to respect how others process the world—especially those who may feel they have a very limited amount of Holy Spirit, or none at all, to help them fight their battles.
If the Holy Spirit today doesn't manifest with the power to instantly change our nature like it did in the past, then we shouldn't judge those who are 'falling short of the mark' because of how they were built. If the standard is perfection, we are all missing it. But if we are to follow the example of the one who extended that Heavenly Hope, then Grace—not judgment of someone's 'selfishness'—should be the first thing we offer.

I don't really understand what you're going on about Dgibson, it seems to me like you always reply to stuff I didn't even talk about Anyway, I definitely, definitely ain't going to live in heaven! I was definitely being selfish in my past (I was joking about nicotine being in my DNA!) We've all got exactly the same access to Jehovah as eachother. I think you imagine everyone here is "judging" you, I'm pretty sure no-one is judging you, we've got enough on our plates judging ourselves, by Jehovah's standards

 

[Proverbs 14 v 15]

"The Law of Averages vs. The Holy Spirit"
We’ve all heard the moving experiences at assemblies—the person who was contemplating taking their own life when a knock came at the door at just the right moment. It’s hard not to see a touch of guidance in those life-saving seconds. But if we are going to be honest, we have to look at the whole picture.
To what extent is the Spirit actually directing these footsteps? If we credit the Holy Spirit for the one person who was found just in time, what do we say about the thousands of others who reach that same point of despair and find no one there? There is no witness suddenly appearing on the side of the bridge for them. If the Spirit is a targeted, life-saving force, its absence in those moments is hard to reconcile.
Is it possible that what we call 'Spirit-led direction' is actually just the result of a massive, organized effort? If you have millions of people knocking on doors for decades, the law of averages says that eventually, you will hit a door at the exact right moment. But a 'numbers game' isn't the same thing as a miracle.
We see this same pattern in how we claim the Spirit for business deals or buildings. We cite Jesus' promise that 'where two or three are gathered, I am in the midst of them,' but we have to remember that a presence is not the same as a performance. Jesus may be there listening, but that doesn't mean he is the one negotiating the price of a printing facility or a real estate deed.
In the Bible, the Spirit’s hand was undeniable—it transcended biology and spoke through miracles. Today, we claim that same Spirit is behind our property deals and our 10-year struggles with habits. If we are only counting the 'lucky' timing and ignoring the silence on the 'side of the bridge,' are we really fact-checking the Spirit, or are we just labeling our own organizational success as divine approval?
How do we distinguish between a genuine divine force and a well-run human organization that benefits from the law of averages?

I just always thank Jehovah for everything that's good in my life, if most of it is "coincidence" and didn't really come from Jehovah it doesn't matter, he's not going to tell us off for thanking him for things he didn't give to us is he? I try and keep things simple and don't try to think too deeply or work every last thing out. We don't have to concern ourselves about the "law of averages" just Jehovah's law

 

[dgibson969]

I want to be clear that I’m not trying to diminish the deeply personal experiences some have had. There are those who describe a 'burning heart' or a 'midnight feeling'—even being tossed out of bed by the weight of a realization—where the Bible suddenly speaks to them in a way that is profoundly personal. For those invited to a Heavenly Hope, that internal conviction is their reality, and I respect that.
However, we have to ask: Does a personal invitation to an individual mean the Holy Spirit is also acting as a project manager for an organization?
The Bible shows that Jehovah often dealt with individuals in a way that was separate from the 'group.' If someone feels the Spirit acting on them personally, that is a private matter of Grace. But it becomes a different issue when we take those personal feelings and use them to claim that every business deal, property purchase, or organizational shift is also 'Spirit-led.'
Just because Jesus promised to be 'in the midst' of two or three gathered in his name doesn't mean he is directing the logistics of a printing facility. He can be a witness to our devotion without being the CEO of our operations.
If we claim the Spirit is acting on the entire body the same way it acts on an invited individual, we run into a contradiction. We see the Spirit’s power in the life-saving 'knock at the door' for one person, yet we see silence for the thousands who find no one there in their darkest hour.
Maybe the Holy Spirit is much more personal than we give it credit for. Maybe it’s an invitation to a heart, rather than a seal of approval on a real estate contract. If we recognize that the Spirit might act on some and not on everyone, it allows us to be more gracious toward those who are 'wired differently' and don't feel that same push. It moves us away from judging others as 'selfish' and back toward the idea that Grace is a gift, not a one-size-fits-all requirement.

 

[dgibson969]

I just always thank Jehovah for everything that's good in my life, if most of it is "coincidence" and didn't really come from Jehovah it doesn't matter, he's not going to tell us off for thanking him for things he didn't give to us is he? I try and keep things simple and don't try to think too deeply or work every last thing out. We don't have to concern ourselves about the "law of averages" just Jehovah's law

I think we actually have more in common than it might seem. I do the exact same thing—I thank Jehovah every day for the good things that sustain my life. I’m often in complete awe when I see how the world works; whether it’s a nature program or just watching our 'animal and insect friends' in the garden. When you think about how hard the bees work just so we can have honey, you can’t help but feel that sense of gratitude for the beauty around us.
My perspective isn't about diminishing that; it’s just about how wide I believe that blessing goes. I believe Jehovah sees the good heart in people everywhere, regardless of their religion or their status. He knows who is trying their best and who has a kind spirit, and I’m sure He blesses them just as He blesses us.
I don't 'go on' about these things to be difficult. It’s just that when I see that infinite variance in nature—from the bees to the way our own DNA is wired—it makes me hope that his Grace is just as infinite. I pray that He sees the good in everybody and helps them achieve their goals, because a heart that wants to do good is a beautiful thing no matter where it’s found. To me, that doesn't take away from Jehovah’s standard; it just highlights how great His reach really is.

 

[dgibson969]

"The Misunderstood Word: What the Kingdom Hall is Missing"
I had an English teacher back in Farmington Hills, Michigan, who had a rule that has stayed with me for decades. If she was reading to the class and caught someone yawning, she would stop immediately. She’d point to that student and say, 'You have a misunderstood word. Which one is it?'
Her point was that the moment the brain hits a word it doesn't truly understand, it gets thrown off. You lose the meaning of the entire paragraph, and the mind’s natural reaction to that confusion is to shut down—which physically manifests as a yawn. We’d have to stop and look up the definition before we could move on.
I often think about this when I’m sitting through meetings at the Kingdom Hall. We see people 'yawning' all the time—sometimes literally, but often mentally. We sit through hours of study using 'loaded' words like Grace, Sovereignty, or Nature, assuming we all have the same dictionary. But if those definitions were just handed to us as children and never truly examined, we aren't actually learning; we are just repeating.
It makes me wonder why the organization doesn't incorporate these kinds of practical insights. If we are 'the best-educated people on earth,' why aren't we taught the basic psychology of how we process information? If an English teacher in Michigan knew how to spot a mental block and fix it, why is the 'slave' falling short in teaching us how to recognize when our own 'wiring' or a misunderstood word is blocking our understanding?
Instead of just demanding we 'reason things out,' they should be teaching us how the mind works—how our DNA, our upbringing, and our language shape our perception. If we have the wrong definition of a word, the whole 'paragraph' of our faith will be out of kilter.
Maybe the reason so many feel disconnected or 'paralyzed' isn't a lack of faith or a 'selfish desire.' Maybe it’s just that we are all sitting in a classroom where the teachers don't realize we’ve been stuck on a misunderstood word for forty years.

It’s interesting to realize that while we are told to simply 'pray for more Spirit' when we don't understand something, secular teachers have recognized for years that there is a physical, psychological reason for our confusion. If an English teacher has a 'technology' to spot a yawn and fix a mental block, why doesn't the organization? We claim to have the greatest education on earth, yet we ignore the basic way the human brain is wired to learn. If we spent less time judging someone’s 'spiritual appetite' and more time checking to see if they actually understood the words being used, we might find that the 'truth' is a lot easier to grasp. Maybe it's time we stop blaming the 'heart' for what is actually just a 'misunderstood word' blocking the mind.

 

[Proverbs 14 v 15]

I think we actually have more in common than it might seem. I do the exact same thing—I thank Jehovah every day for the good things that sustain my life. I’m often in complete awe when I see how the world works; whether it’s a nature program or just watching our 'animal and insect friends' in the garden. When you think about how hard the bees work just so we can have honey, you can’t help but feel that sense of gratitude for the beauty around us.
My perspective isn't about diminishing that; it’s just about how wide I believe that blessing goes. I believe Jehovah sees the good heart in people everywhere, regardless of their religion or their status. He knows who is trying their best and who has a kind spirit, and I’m sure He blesses them just as He blesses us.
I don't 'go on' about these things to be difficult. It’s just that when I see that infinite variance in nature—from the bees to the way our own DNA is wired—it makes me hope that his Grace is just as infinite. I pray that He sees the good in everybody and helps them achieve their goals, because a heart that wants to do good is a beautiful thing no matter where it’s found. To me, that doesn't take away from Jehovah’s standard; it just highlights how great His reach really is.

Very wide

 

[BibleLover]

I appreciate the personal story about your struggle with nicotine and cannabis. It highlights something important: even when we try to label things as 'selfishness,' we often end up admitting it’s actually a matter of survival or DNA. You mentioned it took ten years of falling down to overcome nicotine. That tells me that 'wiring' is incredibly stubborn, and even with help, the change isn't always a sudden miracle.
This brings me to the Holy Spirit. We often point to the Spirit as the 'fix' for being wired differently, but the Spirit we see today seems very different from what was poured out in the first century. Back then, it was unmistakable—it let people speak languages they’d never learned and bypassed human biology entirely. Today, if the 'Spirit' takes ten years to help someone reason through a habit, it suggests that our human limitations and our DNA are playing a much larger role than we like to admit.
Many here feel they have received a Heavenly Hope. That is the ultimate invitation of Grace. But if one believes they have been extended that level of Grace from Jehovah, shouldn't that same Grace be extended to others who are struggling with their wiring? If you are invited to such a high calling, it should produce a deep humility and a willingness to respect how others process the world—especially those who may feel they have a very limited amount of Holy Spirit, or none at all, to help them fight their battles.
If the Holy Spirit today doesn't manifest with the power to instantly change our nature like it did in the past, then we shouldn't judge those who are 'falling short of the mark' because of how they were built. If the standard is perfection, we are all missing it. But if we are to follow the example of the one who extended that Heavenly Hope, then Grace—not judgment of someone's 'selfishness'—should be the first thing we offer.

I agree that all of us need grace and that none of us overcome imperfection instantly. But I think there is an important distinction between struggling against sin and redefining sin because the struggle is difficult.

The Holy Spirit in the first century certainly performed miraculous signs at times, but even then Christians still fought ongoing battles with the flesh. Paul himself described that struggle in Romans chapter 7, long after receiving holy spirit. Galatians 5:17 also says: “the flesh is against the spirit in its desire, and the spirit against the flesh.” So the presence of struggle was never proof that God’s spirit was absent.

The purpose of holy spirit was not to instantly erase every wrong desire or imperfect tendency. Rather, it helps Christians gradually develop self-control, endurance, faith, and a new personality while they continue fighting imperfect flesh.

Otherwise, many scriptures about perseverance, self-denial, resisting temptation, and “putting to death” fleshly practices would make little sense.

I completely agree that Christians should show humility, patience, and mercy toward those struggling with sin. We all fall short. But grace does not mean concluding that because a desire is persistent or deeply rooted, Jehovah therefore approves acting on it.

The issue is not whether humans struggle. The issue is whether we continue fighting the flesh with God’s help, or whether we decide the flesh should define morality instead.

 

[dgibson969]

I agree that all of us need grace and that none of us overcome imperfection instantly. But I think there is an important distinction between struggling against sin and redefining sin because the struggle is difficult.

The Holy Spirit in the first century certainly performed miraculous signs at times, but even then Christians still fought ongoing battles with the flesh. Paul himself described that struggle in Romans chapter 7, long after receiving holy spirit. Galatians 5:17 also says: “the flesh is against the spirit in its desire, and the spirit against the flesh.” So the presence of struggle was never proof that God’s spirit was absent.

The purpose of holy spirit was not to instantly erase every wrong desire or imperfect tendency. Rather, it helps Christians gradually develop self-control, endurance, faith, and a new personality while they continue fighting imperfect flesh.

Otherwise, many scriptures about perseverance, self-denial, resisting temptation, and “putting to death” fleshly practices would make little sense.

I completely agree that Christians should show humility, patience, and mercy toward those struggling with sin. We all fall short. But grace does not mean concluding that because a desire is persistent or deeply rooted, Jehovah therefore approves acting on it.

The issue is not whether humans struggle. The issue is whether we continue fighting the flesh with God’s help, or whether we decide the flesh should define morality instead.

A Respectful Perspective on Consistency and "New Light"
I appreciate the thought you put into that. You’re right—everyone needs grace, and the distinction between "struggling against sin" and "redefining sin" is a powerful one. Romans 7 and Galatians 5 clearly show that the Christian life is an ongoing battle. However, when we talk about not "redefining" things because the struggle is difficult, I think it’s only fair to look at how the Watchtower organization itself has handled that exact issue over the years.
While an individual is told they must never move the goalposts for their own conduct, the organization has moved the "doctrinal goalposts" many times. This isn't just about small tweaks; these shifts have had a profound impact on people’s lives, health, and families.
1. Moving the Goalposts on "Moral Sins"
You mentioned that we shouldn't redefine sin to suit ourselves, yet the organization has done this with very personal matters. For example, in the 1970s, the society ruled that certain private acts between married couples were "gross uncleanness" and grounds for disfellowshipping. Then, in 1978, they moved the goalpost and said these were actually private matters of conscience. People were disfellowshipped and lost their entire social and family support systems for "sins" that the organization later admitted it had no right to judge.
2. The High Cost of Medical Shifts
Perhaps the most difficult "goalpost moves" involve medical procedures. For decades, vaccinations were labeled as a "vile" violation of God's law (until 1952). Later, organ transplants were redefined as "cannibalism" (1967–1980). During those years, many faithful brothers and sisters refused life-saving surgeries, choosing death over what they were told was a "sin." When the light "got brighter" in 1980 and transplants became a matter of conscience, it didn't bring back those who had already passed away following the previous "truth."
3. The Burden of Prophetic Expectations
The goalposts have also moved regarding the "end of this system." From the failed expectations of 1925 to the "6,000 years of human history" ending in 1975, many people sold homes, delayed medical treatments, or decided not to have children because they were told the end was "months, not years" away. When these dates passed, the disappointment caused many to lose their faith or face an old age they hadn't prepared for. Even the definition of the "1914 Generation" has been redefined multiple times to fit the reality that time is simply running out.
4. Recent Shifts in Shunning and Appearance
Even recently, we’ve seen the goalposts move on things like wearing beards or how to greet a disfellowshipped person. For decades, these were treated as markers of one’s spiritual standing and obedience to God. Now, they are suddenly "personal choices."
The Core Question
The struggle you described in Romans 7 is about the individual fighting their nature. But many feel the greater struggle is trying to stay balanced when the "standard" itself keeps shifting.
If the Holy Spirit was guiding the "Slave" when they called organ transplants "cannibalism," why did that truth change? If it wasn't the Holy Spirit, then it was just human opinion being enforced as divine law. When the organization redefines "truth" every few decades, isn't that doing exactly what you warned against—redefining the struggle because the previous explanation no longer fits the facts?
I believe in grace and humility too. But true humility should also apply to those in leadership. When "New Light" is used to cover up past mistakes that cost people their lives, their health, or their families, it makes it very hard to see the distinction between "God’s guidance" and "moving the goalposts.

 

[dgibson969]

1. The Redefinition of "Porneia" (Sexual Immorality)
The most significant goalpost move in sexual matters involves what constitutes grounds for a "scriptural divorce."
The Old Goalpost: For years, the Watchtower had a very narrow definition of porneia.
The Shift: In the 1970s, the Governing Body ruled that homosexuality and bestiality were not scriptural grounds for divorce because they weren't "natural" sex between a man and a woman. If a person’s spouse committed those acts, the "innocent" spouse was not free to remarry.
The Move: A few years later, they reversed this, expanding the definition of porneia to include those acts.
The Point: If "moral laws" are eternal, why did God allow "innocent" spouses to be trapped in marriages for years based on a definition that the organization later admitted was wrong?
2. "Unnatural" Acts Within Marriage
This is perhaps the most personal "goalpost move" in the organization’s history:
1972–1978: The Watchtower ruled that certain private sexual acts between married couples (like oral or anal sex) were "gross uncleanness" and "perversion." Couples were told these were grounds for disfellowshipping.
The Move (1978): They suddenly reversed this, stating that the "private bedroom matters" of married couples were not the business of the elders.
The Irony: People were disfellowshipped and had their lives upended for "sins" that, a few years later, were no longer considered the organization's business.
3. The Definition of "Marriage" and Legalization
The organization’s stance on what makes a marriage "valid" in God's eyes has also shifted:
Common-Law Marriage: In some countries, the organization used to allow "Declarations of Pledging Faithfulness" for people who couldn't legally marry. Then they changed the rules to require a legal government document.
The Point: They redefined what God "approves" as a union based on shifting organizational policy, not a change in the Bible.
4. The "Flesh" vs. "Policy"
When your friend says the "flesh shouldn't define morality," he is making a good point on paper. But you can respectfully ask:
"If a certain act was 'sinful' enough to get someone disfellowshipped in 1975, but is a 'matter of conscience' in 2026, did the 'moral law' change, or did the men in New York just change their minds?"

The Human Cost: When the organization moves the goalposts on sexual "sins," people lose their families and social circles.
The Logic Gap: If the Holy Spirit didn't "instantly erase" the "wrong desires" of the Governing Body to create rigid, incorrect rules in the 70s, why should a rank-and-file member trust that their current definitions are the final, "divine" ones?
The argument effectively becomes: The "struggle" isn't just against the flesh; it’s a struggle to keep up with which version of "the truth" the organization currently expects you to follow.
It seems like trying to hold people to a "perfect" standard while giving the organization a "pass" for its own "imperfections."

 

[kenmuldoon55]

Quite right. It’s society that has normalised deviance in many areas. The conscience is universal in mankind and essentially if one looks at the historical evidence with societies and religion, we see the evidence of corruption of what is a common inbuilt standard that we are born with, not learnt. We are able to “learn, desire and normalise” behaviour as a choice - the debate at Eden, - but the standards have always remained the same in value of perfection. This is how sin is judged by the degree of departure of the act from the standard already established by Jehovah. It has little to do with emotive reasoning but everything to do with loving the standard already set with the rules of living set by Jehovah. Oddly enough, the choices to be made within those standards of Jehovah in righteous regard of pleasure and enjoyment are nigh on limitless. Satan though concentrates on desires that have no part in that standard. That is where evil intent lies. It’s a difficult point for some to swallow that in that area, our choice is a reflection of what we truly are.

This is how sin is judged by the degree of departure of the act from the standard already established by Jehovah.

“Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their own hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them”.Romans1:24

So therefore the bent towards homosexuality is not a hardwired dna, I can’t help it I was born this way type of dilemma but the result of departure from divinely established norms. At least this is how I interpret Paul’s words in Roman’s 1.