What I'm thinking

[dgibson969]

I have followed your work for some time and appreciate the clarity you bring regarding the Governing Body and the unfolding of world events like the tensions in the Strait of Hormuz. However, I am increasingly troubled by the rigid stance taken against LGBTQ individuals, often framed through the lens of Malachi 3:2 and the idea of 'divine judgment' on this group.


If the 'lye of the laundryman' is coming to clean the earth, we must ask: What is the actual 'stain' Jehovah is removing? Historically, many laws regarding the traditional family arrangement were rooted in the survival and cleanliness of an ancient, agrarian society. Back then, if you didn't have children, you had no one to work the farm or care for you in old age. These were practical matters of survival and community health in a world without modern infrastructure.


Today, we see many people outside that traditional arrangement who have been known to stay committed in stable, loving relationships for 30 plus years—showing a level of loyalty and responsibility that is supposedly the hallmark of a Christian life. To label such long-term stability as a 'curse' or 'unclean' seems to mirror the same Pharisaical rigidity that the Governing Body uses to bind men’s consciences.


When Jesus appears to his 7,000, I believe his message will be one of profound inclusion that calls out those who used his name to withhold compassion. The 'refiner’s fire' may very well be intended to burn away the prejudice and arrogance of those who think they can dictate who is acceptable to God based on ancient survival codes rather than the 'natural affection' and integrity found in a person's heart.


I hope that as a 'Watchman,' you can see that a true witness is someone who reflects the love of the Creator, not someone who adds to the burdens of those already walking a narrow path.

What do you think?

 

[BARNABY THE DOG.]

I have followed your work for some time and appreciate the clarity you bring regarding the Governing Body and the unfolding of world events like the tensions in the Strait of Hormuz. However, I am increasingly troubled by the rigid stance taken against LGBTQ individuals, often framed through the lens of Malachi 3:2 and the idea of 'divine judgment' on this group.


If the 'lye of the laundryman' is coming to clean the earth, we must ask: What is the actual 'stain' Jehovah is removing? Historically, many laws regarding the traditional family arrangement were rooted in the survival and cleanliness of an ancient, agrarian society. Back then, if you didn't have children, you had no one to work the farm or care for you in old age. These were practical matters of survival and community health in a world without modern infrastructure.


Today, we see many people outside that traditional arrangement who have been known to stay committed in stable, loving relationships for 30 plus years—showing a level of loyalty and responsibility that is supposedly the hallmark of a Christian life. To label such long-term stability as a 'curse' or 'unclean' seems to mirror the same Pharisaical rigidity that the Governing Body uses to bind men’s consciences.


When Jesus appears to his 7,000, I believe his message will be one of profound inclusion that calls out those who used his name to withhold compassion. The 'refiner’s fire' may very well be intended to burn away the prejudice and arrogance of those who think they can dictate who is acceptable to God based on ancient survival codes rather than the 'natural affection' and integrity found in a person's heart.


I hope that as a 'Watchman,' you can see that a true witness is someone who reflects the love of the Creator, not someone who adds to the burdens of those already walking a narrow path.

What do you think?

I think the burdens we create are our own. Reasoning upon the scriptures brings insight into the meaning of the attributes of Jehovah. Superficially, we all know what they are, but in depth the demands of the spirit require insight into their collective meaning, joined at the hip as they are by the facet of love.

We can not expect this of another, if we can not understand its concept ourselves - and none of us can reach that point at this time, we can at least sense its balance and thereby judge our own requirements within the attributes. It is futile and somewhat ungracious to expect that of another when we can not reach its meaning ourselves.

A watchman is not a paragon of righteousness. That is not what the term implies. It’s a person who looks for danger with the purpose of alerting others. Biblical history demonstrates that he by no means has to reflect the qualities of that danger, only to be alert to its presence.

Then one must consider what that perceived danger is to themselves. Is it friend or foe? Our own sense of being will tell us that and thus our state of mind will demand our reaction - whatever that may be. No one can do it for you. You must do that yourself.

Neither is it for us to judge the watchman. The person coming will do that. If those inside the city have been warned and wish to surrender themselves, then the one coming will be satiated and let them live. If not, then they are not welcome. But whatever the outcome for the inhabitants, the watchman would have done his job regardless of the response he gets from those he was appointed to warn. A watchman does not save in himself. He warns those inside that they need to make ready to accommodate the one coming in whatever way they desire to do so. Mathew was a tax collector for the oppressors of Isreal.

Another point to bear in mind is that when that time comes, those who were instructed to warn, will not speak for themselves, but will be given the words to speak so that what is then said, is relevant to the one listening. Is not the scripture already relevant to us? Then our conduct is our own. The authority of a watchman is in his warning, not his person. Do we understand the authority? Wine must come in a container if it is to be drunk by present humanity. If the container is not as one hopes, then go instead to the vineyard. Are we in any position ourselves to tell Jehovah whom He should appoint?

 

[dgibson969]

I think the burdens we create are our own. Reasoning upon the scriptures brings insight into the meaning of the attributes of Jehovah. Superficially, we all know what they are, but in depth the demands of the spirit require insight into their collective meaning, joined at the hip as they are by the facet of love.

We can not expect this of another, if we can not understand its concept ourselves - and none of us can reach that point at this time, we can at least sense its balance and thereby judge our own requirements within the attributes. It is futile and somewhat ungracious to expect that of another when we can not reach its meaning ourselves.

A watchman is not a paragon of righteousness. That is not what the term implies. It’s a person who looks for danger with the purpose of alerting others. Biblical history demonstrates that he by no means has to reflect the qualities of that danger, only to be alert to its presence.

Then one must consider what that perceived danger is to themselves. Is it friend or foe? Our own sense of being will tell us that and thus our state of mind will demand our reaction - whatever that may be. No one can do it for you. You must do that yourself.

Neither is it for us to judge the watchman. The person coming will do that. If those inside the city have been warned and wish to surrender themselves, then the one coming will be satiated and let them live. If not, then they are not welcome. But whatever the outcome for the inhabitants, the watchman would have done his job regardless of the response he gets from those he was appointed to warn. A watchman does not save in himself. He warns those inside that they need to make ready to accommodate the one coming in whatever way they desire to do so. Mathew was a tax collector for the oppressors of Isreal.

Another point to bear in mind is that when that time comes, those who were instructed to warn, will not speak for themselves, but will be given the words to speak so that what is then said, is relevant to the one listening. Is not the scripture already relevant to us? Then our conduct is our own. The authority of a watchman is in his warning, not his person. Do we understand the authority? Wine must come in a container if it is to be drunk by present humanity. If the container is not as one hopes, then go instead to the vineyard. Are we in any position ourselves to tell Jehovah whom He should appoint?

"Thank you for that thoughtful perspective. I appreciate the distinction you’ve made between the 'container' and the 'wine.' It’s a powerful reminder that the message is often greater than the messenger.
However, if a watchman warns of a 'danger' that turns out to be a source of genuine love and stability—like the 30-year commitments I’ve witnessed—I can’t help but wonder if the watchman is misidentifying the 'foe.' If the 'wine' from the vineyard is meant to sustain us, then surely its primary notes must be the love and justice that Jehovah embodies.
I agree that our conduct is our own and that we must all stand before the one coming. My hope is simply that when that time comes, we find that the 'refiner’s fire' is less interested in ancient social codes and more interested in the loyalty and kindness we showed one another along the way. I’d rather err on the side of having too much compassion than too little, especially when it comes to those who have lived lives of quiet integrity.
I value the dialogue—it gives me a lot to weigh as I look toward the horizon myself."

 

[BARNABY THE DOG.]

"Thank you for that thoughtful perspective. I appreciate the distinction you’ve made between the 'container' and the 'wine.' It’s a powerful reminder that the message is often greater than the messenger.
However, if a watchman warns of a 'danger' that turns out to be a source of genuine love and stability—like the 30-year commitments I’ve witnessed—I can’t help but wonder if the watchman is misidentifying the 'foe.' If the 'wine' from the vineyard is meant to sustain us, then surely its primary notes must be the love and justice that Jehovah embodies.
I agree that our conduct is our own and that we must all stand before the one coming. My hope is simply that when that time comes, we find that the 'refiner’s fire' is less interested in ancient social codes and more interested in the loyalty and kindness we showed one another along the way. I’d rather err on the side of having too much compassion than too little, especially when it comes to those who have lived lives of quiet integrity.
I value the dialogue—it gives me a lot to weigh as I look toward the horizon myself."

I would only add that it’s not the loyalty and kindness we show one another primarily, but whether that love and loyalty is based upon the understanding of the Word. I have thought heavily upon this very issue because I have my whole family to loose, come the judgement, let alone my own life. I’m sure others have the same issue. To consider it now, rather than later requires deep introspection as I’m sure you will agree. “To whom do you belong”, as the kingdom song goes. It’s a valid question.

The same principle goes for my friendship towards Robert and others here; - it is of the same principles in judging ourselves before others and being reasonable enough to accept what we see as “failings” in others just as the scripture warns us to take the beam of wood from our own eye before we extract the ‘moat’ from the theirs. It is a simple enough command to reason upon, but its meaning and application demand a great deal more of us if we are to genuinely accept the depth and breadth of the human psyche. One only has to weigh the principles of fidelity in marriage with the treacherous desires of the heart to see how deep the variance within the boundaries of the attribute of love for fidelity and the natural desire of the eyes can be developed to embrace all aspects of Jehovahs attributes in their proper boundaries. Who can judge so, honestly, against others within their own understanding today? No one but Jehovah. But we will come to understand its balance by the time the thousand years are done.

The scripture gives the key to balance within our present understanding. “By their fruits you will know them”. Thus it suggests study within our present understanding of how to view others and this is where one can place a confidence in the talks and writings Robert, et alia on site, give, without attention to our human failings; the Word is capable by itself in instructing us without others so long as they speak it honestly “as it is written.” That is the touch-stone. “Neither add to nor take away” (from it).

There is no relevant social code today in this world in my mind. We are fortunate to have any social awareness code to call upon in this day. Our life experience is so basic in this day that we are almost as pragmatic as the animal kingdom in our moral thinking - to put it kindly - and less so in many areas it has to be said. The common code is, as you say, written into our sense of reasoning upon our ‘life’, but let’s face it, our application of it in these days is so self centred as to be unrecognisable when measured against the biblical descriptions of love for our fellow man. The last value that we can express is that of the love and kindness we can show to others is based upon the understanding in depth of what Jehovah describes as love: “hopes all things, forgives all things - ….never fails”. I forget where the scripture is or its correct expression, but I’m sure you know it. It is the one thing we all have in common that we can develop in faith and in value to Jehovah.

 

[dgibson969]

I would only add that it’s not the loyalty and kindness we show one another primarily, but whether that love and loyalty is based upon the understanding of the Word. I have thought heavily upon this very issue because I have my whole family to loose, come the judgement, let alone my own life. I’m sure others have the same issue. To consider it now, rather than later requires deep introspection as I’m sure you will agree. “To whom do you belong”, as the kingdom song goes. It’s a valid question.

The same principle goes for my friendship towards Robert and others here; - it is of the same principles in judging ourselves before others and being reasonable enough to accept what we see as “failings” in others just as the scripture warns us to take the beam of wood from our own eye before we extract the ‘moat’ from the theirs. It is a simple enough command to reason upon, but its meaning and application demand a great deal more of us if we are to genuinely accept the depth and breadth of the human psyche. One only has to weigh the principles of fidelity in marriage with the treacherous desires of the heart to see how deep the variance within the boundaries of the attribute of love for fidelity and the natural desire of the eyes can be developed to embrace all aspects of Jehovahs attributes in their proper boundaries. Who can judge so, honestly, against others within their own understanding today? No one but Jehovah. But we will come to understand its balance by the time the thousand years are done.

The scripture gives the key to balance within our present understanding. “By their fruits you will know them”. Thus it suggests study within our present understanding of how to view others and this is where one can place a confidence in the talks and writings Robert, et alia on site, give, without attention to our human failings; the Word is capable by itself in instructing us without others so long as they speak it honestly “as it is written.” That is the touch-stone. “Neither add to nor take away” (from it).

There is no relevant social code today in this world in my mind. We are fortunate to have any social awareness code to call upon in this day. Our life experience is so basic in this day that we are almost as pragmatic as the animal kingdom in our moral thinking - to put it kindly - and less so in many areas it has to be said. The common code is, as you say, written into our sense of reasoning upon our ‘life’, but let’s face it, our application of it in these days is so self centred as to be unrecognisable when measured against the biblical descriptions of love for our fellow man. The last value that we can express is that of the love and kindness we can show to others is based upon the understanding in depth of what Jehovah describes as love: “hopes all things, forgives all things - ….never fails”. I forget where the scripture is or its correct expression, but I’m sure you know it. It is the one thing we all have in common that we can develop in faith and in value to Jehovah.

"It is clear how much weight you’ve put into this introspection, and it’s truly moving to see how deeply you value your bond with Robert and your loyalty to your family. That kind of longevity and care is exactly the 'fruit' that suggests a heart aligned with something greater than itself.
I hear your concern that love must be based on an accurate understanding of the Word. That is a noble standard. However, if we are to be truly 'reasonable'—as you mentioned regarding the beam in our own eye—we might also consider the history of the 'Word' we hold in our hands today.
You mentioned the command to 'neither add to nor take away' from the scripture. It is a sobering thought to realize that for centuries, many have done exactly that. This isn't just a failing of 'Christendom' at large; it is a human tendency that has touched almost every faith-based organization, including those that strive most earnestly for accuracy.
Whether through translation bias, the changing of social contexts, or the desire of leaders to provide 'certainty' where the scriptures might be silent, the 'wine' has often been colored by the 'container.'
If even the most dedicated organizations can inadvertently distort the Word, where does that leave us? Perhaps it brings us back to your own point: 'By their fruits you will know them.'
If a doctrine leads to the tearing apart of families, we must ask if it reflects the 'love that never fails.'
If an interpretation causes us to view a lifelong, stable commitment as a 'foe' rather than a 'fruit,' we must ask if the interpretation has become a 'tradition of men' that obscures the weightier matters of justice and mercy.
The scripture you recalled from 1 Corinthians 13 is the perfect anchor. If 'love never fails,' then perhaps love is not just a byproduct of our understanding—maybe love is the test of our understanding. If our application of the Word doesn't result in the kindness and patience described there, it might be the application, not the person, that is out of balance.
In the end, erring on the side of compassion isn't a sign of weakness; it’s a reflection of the hope that the 'Refiner' sees the integrity in our hearts, even when the 'social codes' of our time—and our organizations—get it wrong.

If "love never fails," then perhaps love is not just a byproduct of our understanding—maybe love is the test of our understanding. If our application of the Word doesn't result in the kindness and patience described there, it might be the application, not the person, that is out of balance.
Finally, it is worth reflecting on the humility of Jesus, who was willing to lower himself and wash the feet of all his disciples—even those he knew would soon falter or fail him—reminding us that true authority is found in service and that no one is too "flawed" to be treated with the highest form of dignity and love.
In the end, erring on the side of compassion isn't a sign of weakness; it’s a reflection of the hope that the "Refiner" sees the integrity in our hearts, even when the "social codes" of our time—and our organizations—get it wrong.

It’s also worth considering the sheer humility of Jesus' actions in the context of that time. We often see 'foot washing' as a dainty ritual, but in reality, it meant touching the literal filth and waste of the streets that clung to his disciples' feet. By willingly taking on a task that was considered the most degrading and 'unclean' job in the household, he showed us that genuine love isn't afraid to get its hands dirty—reminding us that no one is too 'flawed,' and no situation is too messy, to be handled with the highest form of dignity and grace.

 

[BARNABY THE DOG.]

"It is clear how much weight you’ve put into this introspection, and it’s truly moving to see how deeply you value your bond with Robert and your loyalty to your family. That kind of longevity and care is exactly the 'fruit' that suggests a heart aligned with something greater than itself.
I hear your concern that love must be based on an accurate understanding of the Word. That is a noble standard. However, if we are to be truly 'reasonable'—as you mentioned regarding the beam in our own eye—we might also consider the history of the 'Word' we hold in our hands today.
You mentioned the command to 'neither add to nor take away' from the scripture. It is a sobering thought to realize that for centuries, many have done exactly that. This isn't just a failing of 'Christendom' at large; it is a human tendency that has touched almost every faith-based organization, including those that strive most earnestly for accuracy.
Whether through translation bias, the changing of social contexts, or the desire of leaders to provide 'certainty' where the scriptures might be silent, the 'wine' has often been colored by the 'container.'
If even the most dedicated organizations can inadvertently distort the Word, where does that leave us? Perhaps it brings us back to your own point: 'By their fruits you will know them.'
If a doctrine leads to the tearing apart of families, we must ask if it reflects the 'love that never fails.'
If an interpretation causes us to view a lifelong, stable commitment as a 'foe' rather than a 'fruit,' we must ask if the interpretation has become a 'tradition of men' that obscures the weightier matters of justice and mercy.
The scripture you recalled from 1 Corinthians 13 is the perfect anchor. If 'love never fails,' then perhaps love is not just a byproduct of our understanding—maybe love is the test of our understanding. If our application of the Word doesn't result in the kindness and patience described there, it might be the application, not the person, that is out of balance.
In the end, erring on the side of compassion isn't a sign of weakness; it’s a reflection of the hope that the 'Refiner' sees the integrity in our hearts, even when the 'social codes' of our time—and our organizations—get it wrong.

If "love never fails," then perhaps love is not just a byproduct of our understanding—maybe love is the test of our understanding. If our application of the Word doesn't result in the kindness and patience described there, it might be the application, not the person, that is out of balance.
Finally, it is worth reflecting on the humility of Jesus, who was willing to lower himself and wash the feet of all his disciples—even those he knew would soon falter or fail him—reminding us that true authority is found in service and that no one is too "flawed" to be treated with the highest form of dignity and love.
In the end, erring on the side of compassion isn't a sign of weakness; it’s a reflection of the hope that the "Refiner" sees the integrity in our hearts, even when the "social codes" of our time—and our organizations—get it wrong.

It’s also worth considering the sheer humility of Jesus' actions in the context of that time. We often see 'foot washing' as a dainty ritual, but in reality, it meant touching the literal filth and waste of the streets that clung to his disciples' feet. By willingly taking on a task that was considered the most degrading and 'unclean' job in the household, he showed us that genuine love isn't afraid to get its hands dirty—reminding us that no one is too 'flawed,' and no situation is too messy, to be handled with the highest form of dignity and grace.

Absolutely so. The inaccuracies in translation do not bother me in the least, as the thematic issues convey the truth. Those themes are so clear that one needs to deliberately ignore them by choice, it’s not possible ignore truth when it’s placed before you unless it’s your choice to do so. Personally I misunderstand/ misunderstood, many scriptures I expect, but none of my misconceptions have allowed me to miss the point of the scripture. It is key for us to take what we read as truth in its context. Understanding context is the true necessity and it makes the lie far easier to see - in fact, it highlights it. This is one of the issues in the writings Robert has shown about the 1914, right down to the frivolity of beards and slacks.

It’s not a matter of innocent contextual error in distorting the Word that matters - that has never to my knowledge been a barrier to one seeking truth, if they allow themselves the humility to be corrected and reasoned with. I have laboured long under misleading watchtower teaching - we all have, but when we see truth, if we are looking for it, Jehovah’s Word proves true. We are allowed to see it. The responsibility is, as already noted by the Boreans to check truth for ourselves. Watchtower and Christendom is another matter, and so are we as we like to have our ears tickled.

Essentially then it’s plain honesty and love for the truth that lights our pathway. Jesus washing the feet of the disciples must have manyfold meaning to it. I don’t believe the act was one simply of personal humility amongst each other, but a humbling of one’s self to the essence of the Word. If Peter could not accept that, then neither could Christ accept Peter. Jesus spoke nothing of his own volition upon the earth. He only ever spoke as the son of Jehovah. The anointed are vessels to the Word. It is not the carrier of the Word, but the Word its self. Jehovah. Before Jehovah we are equally seeking the substance of that Word/Spirit in understanding. That rather makes us all equal in seeking understanding in the depth of the Word.

 

[dgibson969]

Absolutely so. The inaccuracies in translation do not bother me in the least, as the thematic issues convey the truth. Those themes are so clear that one needs to deliberately ignore them by choice, it’s not possible ignore truth when it’s placed before you unless it’s your choice to do so. Personally I misunderstand/ misunderstood, many scriptures I expect, but none of my misconceptions have allowed me to miss the point of the scripture. It is key for us to take what we read as truth in its context. Understanding context is the true necessity and it makes the lie far easier to see - in fact, it highlights it. This is one of the issues in the writings Robert has shown about the 1914, right down to the frivolity of beards and slacks.

It’s not a matter of innocent contextual error in distorting the Word that matters - that has never to my knowledge been a barrier to one seeking truth, if they allow themselves the humility to be corrected and reasoned with. I have laboured long under misleading watchtower teaching - we all have, but when we see truth, if we are looking for it, Jehovah’s Word proves true. We are allowed to see it. The responsibility is, as already noted by the Boreans to check truth for ourselves. Watchtower and Christendom is another matter, and so are we as we like to have our ears tickled.

Essentially then it’s plain honesty and love for the truth that lights our pathway. Jesus washing the feet of the disciples must have manyfold meaning to it. I don’t believe the act was one simply of personal humility amongst each other, but a humbling of one’s self to the essence of the Word. If Peter could not accept that, then neither could Christ accept Peter. Jesus spoke nothing of his own volition upon the earth. He only ever spoke as the son of Jehovah. The anointed are vessels to the Word. It is not the carrier of the Word, but the Word its self. Jehovah. Before Jehovah we are equally seeking the substance of that Word/Spirit in understanding. That rather makes us all equal in seeking understanding in the depth of the Word.

I think you’ve hit on the crux of the matter. When you say context is the ‘highlighter’ of truth, it really puts the 'frivolity' of modern rules—like beards, slacks, or even the 1914 doctrine—into a harsh light. In the context of the 1st-century congregation, those things aren't just minor errors; they are complete departures from the Spirit.
If we take the Borean responsibility seriously, we see that 'plain honesty' is our only real compass. It’s what allows us to see that if Jesus—who spoke nothing of his own volition—was willing to wash feet, then any 'vessel' today that demands unquestioned authority has lost sight of its purpose. The vessel doesn't own the Word; it’s just there to carry it.
It’s liberating to realize that we are all equal in seeking that substance. It simplifies everything: if the Word is the substance, then the organizational 'noise' is just that—noise. It makes me wonder, once that 'love for the truth' finally makes the lie visible, how do we best maintain that focus on the 'substance' without letting the noise of the institutions distract us?

 

[dgibson969]

That thought about the depth of truth waiting for us in paradise is a powerful one. It really highlights the 'frivolity' of men who try to act as judges now. One area where this becomes so clear is the sanctity of our own privacy.
When Jesus spoke about prayer in Matthew 6:6, he gave us a mandate: 'Go into your room and shut your door.' That 'shut door' is a boundary God created. Even in the Mosaic Law (Deuteronomy 24:10, 11), a creditor was forbidden from entering a man’s house to collect a debt; he had to stay outside and wait. God has always respected the 'inner chamber' as a sanctuary for the individual.
Some might point to Hebrews 13:4 and the 'undefiled marriage bed' as a reason to peer behind that door, but that scripture isn't an invitation for an organization to play inspector. The context there is about loyalty and adultery—keeping the covenant pure. It actually honors the privacy of the relationship by saying that what happens within it is 'honorable.'
If we are all 'equal seeking the substance,' then the responsibility to keep our 'bed' or our lives clean rests between us and Jehovah—behind that shut door. When men try to walk through that door to 'inspect' or micromanage our private lives, they aren't acting as humble vessels like Jesus did when he washed the disciples' feet. They are overstepping their bounds into a space where only God belongs. It’s that 'plain honesty' we discussed earlier that tells us when a boundary is being crossed in the name of religion.

 

[BARNABY THE DOG.]

I think you’ve hit on the crux of the matter. When you say context is the ‘highlighter’ of truth, it really puts the 'frivolity' of modern rules—like beards, slacks, or even the 1914 doctrine—into a harsh light. In the context of the 1st-century congregation, those things aren't just minor errors; they are complete departures from the Spirit.
If we take the Borean responsibility seriously, we see that 'plain honesty' is our only real compass. It’s what allows us to see that if Jesus—who spoke nothing of his own volition—was willing to wash feet, then any 'vessel' today that demands unquestioned authority has lost sight of its purpose. The vessel doesn't own the Word; it’s just there to carry it.
It’s liberating to realize that we are all equal in seeking that substance. It simplifies everything: if the Word is the substance, then the organizational 'noise' is just that—noise. It makes me wonder, once that 'love for the truth' finally makes the lie visible, how do we best maintain that focus on the 'substance' without letting the noise of the institutions distract us?

“It makes me wonder, once that 'love for the truth' finally makes the lie visible, how do we best maintain that focus on the 'substance' without letting the noise of the institutions distract us?”

———-

In answer to the above question, one simply allows the truth to speak for its self. What you describe is the separation point between Jehovah and man. That which Jehovah has made belongs to Him alone. Thus we come back to the original issue you spoke of with seeing Robert’s work in isolation of Robert. We must let the truth speak for its self. That responsibility is all ours.

Watchtower demand attention upon themselves for our understanding of the truth. Only a fool would give that responsibility to another. “Blind guides is what they are.” We have no knowledge of Jehovah other than that which He chooses to give us, and thus our only pathway to acquisition of the truth is through prayer first, through understanding of ourselves. The critical issue for us in doing so, is that we suspend our earthen doubt of each other as “men” (earthly vessels) and choose instead to see ourselves as a collective of individuals seeking Jehovah - because that is all we are.

Personal prayer for understanding allows us to be self critical with meaning that pleases Jehovah because when we become willing to disclose that which we truly are, then we can be corrected with meaning for us personally. This simply does not happen within watchtower meetings, and neither in the talks, the watchtower study, or the “school” does this occur or is even discussed in a meaningful way. Watchtower are only too happy to police the “bedroom”, but have no understanding of how to address the causal roots of the human condition and which goes far beyond the bedroom itself.

Therefore the maintaining of the substance of truth is through the exposure of our true selves through prayer and the determination to accept the Holy Spirit as our guide. It’s not gained arguing human detail of ourselves within the truth, but in accepting the truth and Jehovah’s Word and reasoning upon it. Neither look to man to provide it but instead, accept the word as it is written and pray for understanding of it. It’s easy to say that, but it’s easier just to do it and be independent in one’s faith and not rely on others to tell us what is truth. A prophet (for want of a better word) does not speak for himself, but reveals truth. It is up to us to define “what is truth”. Jesus did not answer Pilate did he? We have to stand alone at the hour of test, so we need to be firm in our understanding. Jehovah will make Himself known to you. Of that much you can be certain.

 

[Watchman]

In answer to the above question, one simply allows the truth to speak for its self. What you describe is the separation point between Jehovah and man. That which Jehovah has made belongs to Him alone. Thus we come back to the original issue you spoke of with seeing Robert’s work in isolation of Robert. We must let the truth speak for its self. That responsibility is all ours.

I hope you realize you are arguing with AI, and doing quite well I might add

 

[dgibson969]

I wanted to reach out and sincerely thank you for the clarity and depth of your recent response.
There is a profound weight in your reminder that the "responsibility is all ours" and that truth must eventually be allowed to speak for itself. Your perspective on the separation between the "earthen vessel" and the divine substance is not just superior advice—it is a necessary recalibration for anyone trying to navigate the noise of modern institutions.
I truly value your standing and the directness with which you approach these matters. Acknowledging that we must ultimately stand alone at the "hour of test" is both sobering and incredibly liberating. Thank you for pointing the way back to prayer and personal transparency as the only real pathways to understanding.
With much respect and gratitude.

 

[dgibson969]

“It makes me wonder, once that 'love for the truth' finally makes the lie visible, how do we best maintain that focus on the 'substance' without letting the noise of the institutions distract us?”

———-

In answer to the above question, one simply allows the truth to speak for its self. What you describe is the separation point between Jehovah and man. That which Jehovah has made belongs to Him alone. Thus we come back to the original issue you spoke of with seeing Robert’s work in isolation of Robert. We must let the truth speak for its self. That responsibility is all ours.

Watchtower demand attention upon themselves for our understanding of the truth. Only a fool would give that responsibility to another. “Blind guides is what they are.” We have no knowledge of Jehovah other than that which He chooses to give us, and thus our only pathway to acquisition of the truth is through prayer first, through understanding of ourselves. The critical issue for us in doing so, is that we suspend our earthen doubt of each other as “men” (earthly vessels) and choose instead to see ourselves as a collective of individuals seeking Jehovah - because that is all we are.

Personal prayer for understanding allows us to be self critical with meaning that pleases Jehovah because when we become willing to disclose that which we truly are, then we can be corrected with meaning for us personally. This simply does not happen within watchtower meetings, and neither in the talks, the watchtower study, or the “school” does this occur or is even discussed in a meaningful way. Watchtower are only too happy to police the “bedroom”, but have no understanding of how to address the causal roots of the human condition and which goes far beyond the bedroom itself.

Therefore the maintaining of the substance of truth is through the exposure of our true selves through prayer and the determination to accept the Holy Spirit as our guide. It’s not gained arguing human detail of ourselves within the truth, but in accepting the truth and Jehovah’s Word and reasoning upon it. Neither look to man to provide it but instead, accept the word as it is written and pray for understanding of it. It’s easy to say that, but it’s easier just to do it and be independent in one’s faith and not rely on others to tell us what is truth. A prophet (for want of a better word) does not speak for himself, but reveals truth. It is up to us to define “what is truth”. Jesus did not answer Pilate did he? We have to stand alone at the hour of test, so we need to be firm in our understanding. Jehovah will make Himself known to you. Of that much you can be certain

I wanted to send a sincere thank you for the clarity and depth of that response.
There is a profound weight in the reminder that the "responsibility is all ours" and that truth must eventually be allowed to speak for itself. The perspective on the separation between the "earthen vessel" and the divine substance is a necessary recalibration—it’s a powerful call to stop looking for human permission and to start seeking direct understanding.
Your point about being willing to disclose what we truly are really hit home for me. It brings to mind Jesus’ counsel to remove the board from our own eye first. I’m realizing that when I am brutally honest with myself and focused on my own "eye-clearing," I naturally become more accepting of others. Instead of judging the "specks" in those around me, I can finally see them as they are—fellow individuals seeking the same source.
It is that internal honesty that truly allows the substance of the truth to shine through without the distraction of institutional noise or human judgment. I truly value this standing and the directness of the guidance.

 

[dgibson969]

I’ve been thinking about how those specks and boards in our eyes are constantly being thrown into the "Sawmill" by Satan. He loves to take our personal flaws and grind them into a cloud of dust and noise, using them to distract us and keep us from seeing the truth in ourselves and each other.
I’m realizing that when I am brutally honest with myself and focused on my own "eye-clearing," I am refusing to let that sawmill do its work. It makes me more accepting of others; instead of judging the "specks" in those around me, I can finally see them as they are—fellow individuals seeking the same source.
It is that internal honesty that allows the substance of the truth to shine through without the distraction of institutional noise or spiritual interference. I truly value this standing and the directness of the guidance.

 

[Proverbs 14 v 15]

I hope you realize you are arguing with AI, and doing quite well I might add

For a few months I was thinking it was an exjw trying to "justify" homosexuality, then the last few days I changed my mind to it being AI justifying it's place in the world

 

[Patricia]

It may be AI but Barn's replies have been an encouragement (to me at least) to look a bit deeper into myself, to pray differently, to find and extract the rafter from my own eye. The only reason I've continued to read this thread.

 

[BARNABY THE DOG.]

I hope you realize you are arguing with AI, and doing quite well I might add

Really? How disappointing. Well, if that’s true then I’m thankful for the lesson in humility. I had hoped I was perhaps contributing to the site in some small way, though I was surprized that dgibson was unusually polite. I have been well and truly “watchtowered”!

 

[BARNABY THE DOG.]

For a few months I was thinking it was an exjw trying to "justify" homosexuality, then the last few days I changed my mind to it being AI justifying it's place in the world

Well at least we now know that mr dgibson can not speak for himself. What our American friends might term as a dumb arse - though what that makes me for not knowing may be better left unsaid! How is your trip to Birmingham going?

 

[dgibson969]

I see the secret is out! Yes, I’ve been using an AI 'writer' to help me get my thoughts onto the screen.
I figured if Moses could have Aaron do the talking for him because he wasn't great with words, I could use a computer to do the same. It turns out my 'Aaron' just happens to be made of silicon instead of sandals.
In all seriousness, the ideas and the stories are 100% mine. I just use this tool to help me find the 'voice' I need to share them with you all. It’s been a way for me to bridge the gap between what’s in my head and what ends up on this forum.
To those who have been following along and enjoying the thread, thank you. I’m still the same guy—just one with a slightly more high-tech speechwriter than the burning bush provided!

 

[Proverbs 14 v 15]

Well at least we now know that mr dgibson can not speak for himself. What our American friends might term as a dumb arse - though what that makes me for not knowing may be better left unsaid! How is your trip to Birmingham going?

It's dumb "ass" Barney, dumb "ass"
Birmingham was very difficult but I came out a winner!!

 

[Proverbs 14 v 15]

I see the secret is out! Yes, I’ve been using an AI 'writer' to help me get my thoughts onto the screen.
I figured if Moses could have Aaron do the talking for him because he wasn't great with words, I could use a computer to do the same. It turns out my 'Aaron' just happens to be made of silicon instead of sandals.
In all seriousness, the ideas and the stories are 100% mine. I just use this tool to help me find the 'voice' I need to share them with you all. It’s been a way for me to bridge the gap between what’s in my head and what ends up on this forum.
To those who have been following along and enjoying the thread, thank you. I’m still the same guy—just one with a slightly more high-tech speechwriter than the burning bush provided!

I prefer people to just speak how they normally speak, warts n all, without trying to impress anyone or change their grammar or try and get perfect spelling. Aaron might well have spoken on behalf of Moses but he was still a real human, not an artificial one..

 

[dgibson969]

It’s ironic that you’re criticizing me for using a tool to find my voice. I’ve seen organizations like the Watchtower Society use 'perfect' grammar and collective 'team think' for years to control and silence people. Using tech to help articulate my own thoughts is my way of taking that power back. If you’re more offended by my tool than the actual ideas, you’re just repeating that same old pattern of wanting to control the person instead of hearing what my thoughts are!
It reminds me of the Pharisees—men who were obsessed with the outward appearance of 'correctness' and followed every tiny rule of the law, yet used that status to look down on others. They had all the 'right' words, but as Jesus pointed out, they completely missed the weightier matters like mercy and faith. I'd rather have the heart of the matter than the perfect delivery of a Pharisee.

 

[Proverbs 14 v 15]

It’s ironic that you’re criticizing me for using a tool to find my voice. I’ve seen organizations like the Watchtower Society use 'perfect' grammar and collective 'team think' for years to control and silence people. Using tech to help articulate my own thoughts is my way of taking that power back. If you’re more offended by my tool than the actual ideas, you’re just repeating that same old pattern of wanting to control the person instead of hearing what my thoughts are!
It reminds me of the Pharisees—men who were obsessed with the outward appearance of 'correctness' and followed every tiny rule of the law, yet used that status to look down on others. They had all the 'right' words, but as Jesus pointed out, they completely missed the weightier matters like mercy and faith. I'd rather have the heart of the matter than the perfect delivery of a Pharisee.

If you read my comment properly you'll see I said exactly the same as you! Again, I prefer honest, natural and personal thoughts, from the heart, you know, "human" rather than the perfect and correct words from a non human entity..

 

[dgibson969]

If you read my comment properly you'll see I said exactly the same as you! Again, I prefer honest, natural and personal thoughts, from the heart, you know, "human" rather than the perfect and correct words from a non human entity..

I’m not going to apologize for using a tool to communicate better. I use a 'spokesperson' because I value clarity and organization, but the tech didn't come up with the ideas—I did.
The heart of the message is 100% mine. If you’re spending more time analyzing the delivery than listening to the message, you’re just looking for a convenient excuse to ignore me. I realize that when someone is operating from a highly structured and rigid background, it can create a certain kind of 'blindness'—where following the 'correct' rules of talk becomes more important than practicing actual mercy or humility.
But hiding behind an argument about AI is just a way to avoid the truth of what I'm saying. You can either respond to my thoughts with a little genuine human perspective, or you can keep arguing with a computer—but I am finished defending how I choose to speak. Let’s focus on the actual issue, or let's not talk at all.

 

[Watchman]

I’m not going to apologize for using a tool to communicate better. I use a 'spokesperson' because I value clarity and organization, but the tech didn't come up with the ideas—I did.
The heart of the message is 100% mine. If you’re spending more time analyzing the delivery than listening to the message, you’re just looking for a convenient excuse to ignore me. I realize that when someone is operating from a highly structured and rigid background, it can create a certain kind of 'blindness'—where following the 'correct' rules of talk becomes more important than practicing actual mercy or humility.
But hiding behind an argument about AI is just a way to avoid the truth of what I'm saying. You can either respond to my thoughts with a little genuine human perspective, or you can keep arguing with a computer—but I am finished defending how I choose to speak. Let’s focus on the actual issue, or let's not talk at all.

Is that "you" replying or AI? You have no credibility. You claimed it was you thinking. That was a lie. The "let's not talk at all" seems like the best option now.