Sheep and Goats

Category: Bible Books

  • The Wicked and Sluggish Slave Strikes Again

    I like the parables of Jesus where every word may convey meaning and none of it should be quickly dismissed as "filler" For example, the excuse proffered by the wicked and sluggish slave, and the master's rebuke:

    "Finally the slave who had received the one talent came forward and said: ‘Master, I knew you to be a demanding* man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you did not winnow.So I grew afraid and went and hid your talent in the ground. Here, you have what is yours.’ In reply his master said to him: ‘Wicked and sluggish* slave, you knew, did you, that I reaped where I did not sow and gathered where I did not winnow? Well, then, you should have deposited my money with the bankers, and on my coming I would have received it back with interest." (Matthew 25:24-27)

    The master does not deny the slave's allegation that he 'reaps where he does not sow,' letting pass without comment only the slave's perception that he is thereby 'demanding.' The slave has a bad attitude, for the master does not expect to make his own disciples personally – he expects his slaves to pull with him, and the slave ought to have gotten his head around that.

    Nonetheless, it seems that even with that bad attitude, the master could have worked with it. All it took was to deposit the money with the bankers – essentially a one-time only trip – and the master would have rolled with it. He may not have jumped for joy, but he would not have rebuked the slave – who worked up a sweat to thwart what would have occurred automatically.

    So there are be ones today who don't have the greatest attitude. They don't have to. It is better if they do, for immersing oneself in the kingdom work as it exists is the best way to strengthen faith and be happy, they surely build up the brotherhood more, and they may be heading for shipwreck if they do not, but it is only by actively opposing and 'beating his fellow slaves' (from Matthew 24:48) that the master gets riled - burying the money in the ground, which is the exact opposite of setting the lamp on a lampstand so all will see the light.

    Still pondering if I have the right read on his one. I am not sure it has been commented on in detail.

     

  • Pay Them All a Denarius

    If we accept the usual take that Matthew 20:1-15, about paying all workers a denarius, is about time spent in the Christian congregation and those arriving to it late have the same reward as those early, with its object lesson: 'don't gripe about it,' then how serious are we to take the questions within the parable? Do they mean anything or do they just flesh out the story?
     
    I'll opt for the former.
     
    The master's question smacks of a reproof: "Why have you been standing here all day unemployed?" Yet he accepts the laggards' answer: "Because nobody has hired us" and sends them also into the vineyard.
     
    Why shouldn't that be applied to the preaching work? At first glance, the master is taken aback that there yet are, at such a late date, so many just hanging around unemployed. But their answer is unassailable – nobody 'hired' them.
     
    It's not an exhortation to be active in the ministry and not to write off people as unresponsive? The master apparently agrees that it is just a matter of their not yet being reached.
     
    April_Patina_Vosges_Die_Vogesen_France_-_Master_Alsace_magic_Elsaß_Photography_2014_Color_de_Vins_-_panoramio
     
    I think the exchange of the master with the 11th hour ones serve as an exhortation to preach, and even to step it up where possible. 'Get out there so those ones know they are hired. They won't know it otherwise.'
     

    There is another application of Matthew 20:1-15 – 'pay them each a denarious' – that has nothing to do with time spent in the Christain way, which I like as much, or even better.

    It is: In any circumstance of life, you cut the best deal that you can and then you look ahead to the next deal You DO NOT look around, envious, at someone who may have gotten a better deal. Think of how much heartburn THAT would solve if we managed to internalize it.

    Neither do you gripe, like the initial vineyard workers, that the 'master' was unfair. Life will be fair in the new system. It is not typically so today.

    Maybe it is there in print somewhere. I haven't come across it. No matter. It is enough to stay within 'the pattern of healthful words' It is not necessary to but repeat the healthful words oneself.

     
    photo: Master Alsace Magic ElsaB Photography

  • It Really Does Seem Like a Big “Duh!”

    As much as Bethel tries to convey the point that Jesus wasn't smart-mouthing his parents when he asked "Why did you have to look for me? Did you not know I must be in the house of my father?" so that kids in the Kingdom Hall do not start smart-mouthing their parents, it really does seem like a big 'Duh!' And he was right. They should have known.

    Especially in view of the study note on Luke 2:46: "Historians say some of the foremost religious leaders would customarily remain at the temple after festivals and teach at one of the spacious porches there. People could sit at the feet of those men to listen and to ask questions."

    Where did his parents think he was going to be? Off in some alley shooting dice with the delinquints? They knew of his miraculous birth, even if he did not at that time. Holy spirit is said to descend upon him 'like a dove' after being baptized, presumably recalling to him all his heavenly past.

    He begins to minister in accord with what is revealed at his baptism and his relatives think he has gone nuts. "…they went out to seize him, for they were saying: "He has gone out of his mind." (Mark 3:21) But not his parents. They knew, so they should have known then, when he was 12.

  • They ask Jesus a question and he takes so long to answer that you figure he has forgotten all about it.

    The exchange is found at Matthew 15:1-20.  First he asks a counter question- a Strawman! – it would be called today (but wasn't then). He addresses their motive – an adhominem attack! – it would be called today (but wasn't then).
     
    (the handwashing has nothing to do with hygiene – it is a ceremonial thing and involves washing up to the elbow)
     
    Then the scoundrels who asked the question storm off and the disciples tell Jesus that they were upset. He tells them not to worry about it.
     
    Then he seemingly veers off on another topic over what it is that defiles a man- what comes out of his mouth or what goes into it. It is what goes out: foul things that he may say. Only then does he finally answer the question – 20 verses later – and the ones that demanded he answer are no longer around to hear it!
     
    Wash hands
     
    Then there came to Jesus from Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes, saying: "Why do your disciples overstep the tradition of the men of former times? For example, they do not wash their hands when about to eat a meal.”
     
    In reply he said to them: “Why do you overstep the commandment of God because of your tradition? For example, God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Let the one who speaks abusively of his father or mother be put to death.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother: “Whatever I have that could benefit you is a gift dedicated to God,” he need not honor his father at all.’ So you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition. You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you when he said: 'This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.’” With that he called the crowd near and said to them: “Listen and get the sense of it: It is not what enters into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him.”
     
    Then the disciples came and said to him: “Do you know that the Pharisees were stumbled at hearing what you said?” In reply he said: “Every plant that my heavenly Father did not plant will be uprooted. Let them be. Blind guides is what they are. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” Peter responded: “Make the illustration plain to us.” At this he said: “Are you also still without understanding? Are you not aware that whatever enters into the mouth passes through the stomach and is discharged into the sewer? However, whatever comes out of the mouth comes from the heart, and those things defile a man. For example, out of the heart come wicked reasonings,r murders, adulteries, sexual immorality, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies. These are the things that defile a man; but to take a meal with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”  (Matthew 15:1-20)
     
    photo: Mark Turnauckas

  • Did the Bible Writer Malachi have Teenagers?

    Either Malachi had teenagers or all teenagers have read Malachi. How else can you explain his style of writing?

    Everything is a challenge. Malachi is the last Bible book – a short job of just four chapters:

    “I have shown love to you people,” says Jehovah. But you say: “How have you shown us love?”

    And if I am a master, where is the fear due me?’ Jehovah of armies says to you priests who are despising my name.” But you say: “How have we despised your name?

    “‘By presenting polluted food on my altar.’ ‘And you say: “How have we polluted you?”’

    “You have made Jehovah weary with your words. But you say, ‘How have we made him weary?’

    Return to me, and I will return to you,” says Jehovah of armies. But you say: “How are we supposed to return?”

    “Will a mere human rob God? But you are robbing me.” And you say: “How have we robbed you?”

    “Your words against me have been strong,” says Jehovah. And you say: “How have we spoken against you among ourselves?”

    Enough already! Everything is challenged! Everything is hurled back in his face.

    Malachi is the last book of the Hebrew scriptures. Just for kicks, turn the page. Find yourself in the gospels and roll that attitude onto Mary, mother of Jesus. (Luke 1:26-28)

    "In her sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to…Mary. And coming in, the angel said to her: “Greetings, you highly favored one, Jehovah is with you.”

    “In what way is he with me?” she shoots back.

    “Forget it!” comes the reply. “There is my servant Ethel. She’ll do fine.”

    Whatever is wrong with Mary – not smart-mouthing the angel?

  • Babylon Will Rise Again

    What do you do when you spy the woman of wickedness trying to climb out of the ephah jar? (Zech 5:7)

    You grab the brazen hussy by the scruff the neck and boot her back down into the jar from where she came. (taking care in these volatile times that you do not get accused of harassment) Then you summon the two with wings to ship her back to Babylon.

    Maybe it was a reminder to the Jews who had just come from there to check their own ephah jars – or even their shoes, lest they had tracked something in. 

    Incidentally, present at our meeting was an Iraqi man who has responded to the Arabic group. The actual  Babylon means something to him, unlike to anyone else. He says it is the site of a festival each year, with music and food. Also that there is the slogan everyone knows: 'Babylon will rise again.'

    Hanging gardens

    On Facebook, one of my countless friends said: "Hussein's rebuilt Babylon was smashed to bits in the first gulf war. A Syrian brother told me the local Iranian word on the street was basically "Why did they bomb Disneyland?"

     

  • Learning From a Liar

    From yesterday's study article with regard to Luke 16:

    If the unrighteous riches are not of God's making but of this system's, why not use an unrighteous steward to teach a lesson with them? He uses money that is not his to reduce debts and make friends for himself.

    If we are debtors to God (who isn't?) we also can use money that is not 'ours' – all of it, since it is not God's idea – to reduce our debts to him and make him a friend. How cool is that?

    The illustration is not a strict parallel, but it works in a quirky sort of way.

    Then he also said to the disciples: “A rich man had a steward who was accused of handling his goods wastefully. So he called him and said, ‘What is this I hear about you? Hand in the account of your stewardship, for you can no longer manage the house.’ Then the steward said to himself, ‘What am I to do, seeing that my master is taking the stewardship away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. Ah! I know what I will do, so that when I am removed from the stewardship, people will welcome me into their homes.’ And calling to him each one of his master’s debtors, he said to the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ He replied, ‘A hundred measures* of olive oil.’ He said to him, ‘Take back your written agreement and sit down and quickly write 50.’ Next, he said to another one, ‘Now you, how much do you owe?’ He said, ‘A hundred large measures* of wheat.’ He said to him, ‘Take back your written agreement and write 80.’  And his master commended the steward, though unrighteous, because he acted with practical wisdom; for the sons of this system of things*are wiser in a practical way toward their own generation than the sons of the light are.

     “Also, I say to you: Make friends for yourselves by means of the unrighteous riches, so that when such fail, they may receive you into the everlasting dwelling places.

    I liked the notion that you can eliminate your footprint in politics and you can eliminate it in unbiblical religion, you cannot eliminate it in the world's commercial system. You can, however, lessen it.

    The illustration doesn't exactly line up with modern day principles of 'reason.' The components don't dovetail. But it is close enough that Jesus teaches a vital lesson with it. To me, it indicates that Jesus is not enslaved to today's insistence upon 'reason,' which has not served its world particularly well.

     

    Money-1428594__340

  • Ezekiel Comes Home After a Hard Day’s Work in Israel

    After Colombine, newspeople said that grief counselors had been dispatched, with the same air as they might use reporting that fire fighters had been dispatched to the house fire. “I’d love to hear what they have to say,” I told one woman in service. Her eyes got big. “You have an interesting job!” she exclaimed.

    But it’s not as interesting as Ezekiel’s.

    “Honey, I’m hooomme!”

    “Ezekiel. How was your day?”

    “Great! Today I bored a hole through the wall and carried out some luggage.”

    “Daddy, Daddy,” the children come running to embrace him. “That sounds like fun. Can we do that?”

    “Ha, ha, you’ll have to ask your mother first. Remember, she didn’t like it much when you crayoned on that wall.”

    “How did you get that bump on your head, Ezekiel?”

    “My boss had me cover my face so that I couldn’t see where I was going. Some of the guys at the assignment – it really is a rebellious place – said that I should report him to OSHA! Some of the other guys asked me what it meant that I was doing.”

    “And what did you tell them?”

    “I told them it meant they were toast.”

    “Oh, honey, I’m so proud of you!”

    “Thank you, dear. It was almost as fun as my gig last week, lying on my side naked staring at a brick.”

    “It’s a wonder you didn’t catch your death of cold.”   

    I have a lot of comments the spiritual gems portion of the meeting this week. The trouble is, will any of them be 30 seconds or less? (Highlights from Ezekiel 12)

  • Epochs and Aeons

    Tack as many zeroes as you want onto Earth's age. Jehovah's Witnesses have no issue with it. A billion years? Ten billion? One hundred billion? More? Not a problem. That's not to say we endorse it, necessarily. But we'll have no issue with it. Let scientists be scientists.

    “In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” reads the Bible's first verse. This is before the series of creative days commence, that period during which the earth fills with life. Whether each of those days are 24 hours in length, or 24 millenia, or 24 seconds…..it make no difference to the age of “the heavens and the earth.” They were created before.

    However, as to the days themselves, what say Jehovah's Witnesses as to that? Even many JWs themselves may not be up to speed, for it was once thought that each day lasted 7000 years…it seemed to fit some prophetic patterns. But that view has been abandoned. (A flip-flop!! I can hear Vic Vomodog screaming now.)

    Now, however, each day is described as an “epoch.” And the sum total of them: "aeons":

    From the Watchtower of Feb 15, 2011 pp 8-9)

    “The Bible goes on to describe what God did during a series of creative days. These are not 24 hour days but are epochs…….By means of his holy spirit, during creative days three through six, God created an astounding variety of plants and animals. …….After aeons had passed and God had produced innumerable animate and inanimate works, the earth was no longer “formless and waste.”

    This revision of “day” stems from recognition that the Hebrew word need not refer to only the 24 hour variety. Even on the first creative “day,” “God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night,” apparently as the thick clouds enshrouding the earth began to clear, allowing sunlight to reach the surface. So the entire period is a “day,” and also a portion of it is a “day!” Furthermore, after all six creative days are described, the Genesis account refers to all of it as a “day':

    This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.    Gen 2:4

    Okay? “Day” need not be 24 hours. It can be simply an non specific period of time. Even in English, we've all suffered old-timers carrying on about life “back in my day.” And if scripture doesn't insist otherwise, why squabble when scientists put forth numbers on life's development? We're not anti-science. Science is a powerful tool of discovery. We've nothing against it. To be sure, we don't see it as the be-all and end-all, and when scientists say “jump!” we don't instantly respond “how high?” But we're willing to acquiesce where there's no Biblical conflict. And in the matter of “days”, there is none. Far from being rigid (a frequent criticism), the Witness stand allows for incorporating findings of science.

    So it appears with this piece that I might conclude my Sean B Carroll trilogy, the prior two installments of which are here and here. His book impressed me….a book from an evolutionist published post genome mapping. I wonder if our stand on Genesis is good enough for him. Probably not, for he appears to want no trace of God in any evolutionary goings on, whereas we've said  (above) “by means of his holy spirit, during creative days three through six, God created an astounding variety of plants and animals.” But when Sean is muttering about the denyers….yes, yes, I know its a misspelling, but he apparently does it for the silly reasons given here, and I am this close to being equally silly and calling the other guys evolootionists….you know….'loo', the British term for toilet……but I just can't make myself be that juvenile, at least not yet. At any rate, Sean laments the denyers are “those straitjacketed by biblically based interpretations of the age of the Earth.” Like most everyone else, he takes for granted that fundamentalists truly represent the Bible….an assumption that burns me up to no end.

    Of course, we're not that way. Straitjacketed, I mean. We're not 24 hour people. We've no problem with epochs and aeons. Ought that not make Sean happy?

    Now, it occurs to me that if the Biblical days are as long as scientists say they are, well….that allows plenty of time for the evolutionary goings on that Sean Carroll talks about to go on….with the consequence that evolution, in the main, is a battle that we need not fight. Not that we have to endorse it. But much like the age of the “heavens and the earth,” we need not take much exception to it. As that Feb 2011 Watchtower states, “by means of his holy spirit, during creative days three through six, God created an astounding variety of plants and animals.” That's not very specific as to method, is it? Might the method through which holy spirit delivers be the one scientists describe? Dunno if that is the case, or to what extent, but I do know that if God molded each “kind” like a potter molding clay on a potter's wheel….well…..he could do that in a literal 24 hour day. So what's the point of the epochs and aeons? Frankly, life programmed to adapt via accumulation of genetic change strikes me as no less miraculous than potter-created life.

    No one's being dogmatic, here. Science is accommodated to the maximum extent without ignoring Scripture, which we ultimately consider the most reliable guide to life. The 2010 brochure Was Life Created? states: (page 27) ImagesCAVUV1FW Were these original “kinds” of plants and animals programmed with the ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions? What defines the boundary of a “kind”? The Bible does not say. However, it does state that living creatures “swarmed forth according to their kinds.” (Genesis 1:21) This statement implies that there is a limit to the amount of variation that can occur within a “kind.” [bolded print mine] Thus, our current view allows for what's described as micro-evolution (within a “kind”) but not macro-evolution (outside of a kind). But “implies” is not an ironclad word, is it? The point is, for the Christian, if the time element for developing life is indeed epochs and aeons, you need not squabble much with scientists who describe it. Let scientists be scientists. We'll teach the Bible.

    What about this statement immediately preceding the lines quoted above: Does this progressive appearance of plants and animals imply that God used evolution to produce the vast diversity of living things? No. The record clearly states that God created all the basic “kinds” of plant and animal life. (Genesis 1:11, 12, 20-25) “Evolution”, as Sean Carroll and others like to describe it, strictly excludes all hints of “programming,” and they positively choke on any mention of “holy spirit.” But if you go and retrieve those words from the dumpster into which they've been tossed, you'll do just fine. For today we recognize a strong (and unnecessary) anti-God element among the evolutionists. From the same brochure (Was Life Created?  page 22):

    Why do many prominent evolutionists insist that macroevolution is a fact? Richard Lewontin, an influential evolutionist, candidly wrote that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

     In this regard, sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes that in research universities, “the religious people keep their mouths shut.”  

    Now, I admit, I'm a bit fearful of using these quotes lest grousers suppose I'm implying that the above fellows reject evolution. They don't. “Quote mining” is the charge grousers may level, and who wants to be guilty of that? But I've already dealt with the subject here. I don't know what else I can do. You should never play the God/no-God game with atheists according to their rules, since their primary rule is that you can't move any of your pieces.

    But with the acceptance of epochs and aeons, vast areas of conflict between the science camp and the JW camp vanish, and others become largely immaterial. Not all, to be sure. The creation of Adam remains a topic on which I don't yet see grounds for agreement. From that same Feb 15th Watchtower: “Yet, Jehovah had not finished using his spirit for creative purposes. He was about to produce his highest earthly creation. Toward the end of the sixth creative day, God created man. How did Jehovah do so? By using his holy spirit and the elements of the earth.”

    Yet if the Watchtower has taken to interviewing guys like Michael Behe, who accepts evolution in the main, but acknowledges it has limits, well…..I mean…..they wouldn't do that if the two hated each others' guts. Our people are not being dogmatic here. They recognize where other views can be accommodated, and are not so presumptuous as to try to instruct scientists on their own turf.

    I thought I might be the first to blog such a subject, but no! When googled 'Michael Behe' and 'Awake interview', I find there is a discussion some time ago on “is the Watchtower preparing to accept evolution?” I suppose I should link to it, but I'm not going to. It's a sorehead grouser site, largely populated by those who've abandoned spiritual things upon discovery that God is not Santa Claus….that he does more than just give us stuff, that he has requirements, that the Christian course involves sacrifice and self-discipline, and is not just opening presents, and….gasp!….it involves human organization, which may sometimes decide matters contrary to one's individual preference!…..a violation of freedom and independence!!!! These type of guys exasperate me. Find them yourselves if you must.

    Plus, they view any such adjustment in JW viewpoint as a slick marketing ploy. For me any modification of view stems from recent scientific ability to read the genome….to grow fast-reproducing goo and slime, and to track each and every gene involved and spot which ones have reproduced faithfully and which ones have not and what are the accumulated effects of those that did not. It's a major tangible advance for science, and while fundamentalists might ignore it, we don't.

    Well, if you were impressed with Sean Carroll's book so much, Mr Sheepandgoats, then why don't you let him dictate everything to you….he makes no allowance for programming or God or holy spirit. The answer is that I've chosen the Christian course represented by Jehovah's Witnesses based upon several lines of reason, present scientific opinion being but one of them.

    In the main, it becomes apparent that the greater conflict is not between the Bible (and us) and science. It's between the fundamentalists and science. These religious characters do the same with “day” that they do with trinity and hellfire. They take words and phrases literally….words which in any other context they would instantly recognize as metaphor. If they read of someone shedding “crocodile tears” in a novel, they know exactly what that expression means. If they read it in the Bible, they take it as PROOF that the shedder is a crocodile, since the Bible MEANS what is SAYS and SAYS what it MEANS. They exasperate me to no end, since they make the Bible an object of ridicule to anyone deciding to use the brain God gave us.

     

    [edit: 1/20/2012,  see interview between New Republic's John McWhorter and Michael Behe. Sean Carroll & his work comes in for mention, around the 11-12, 22-24 minute marks. He's a nice guy, Behe says.]

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

    ******  The bookstore

  • Playing With Dinosaurs

    The kid at work thinks I’m old. He addresses me that way. “Hey, old man!” he says. It’s all good-natured fun, or at any rate, I may as well let the little snot think I regard it as good-natured fun. I ask him if he’s ever seen Fred Flintstone on TV.

    “I knew that guy,” I tell him. “Not real well,” I admit. He was pretty old when I was a kid. He lived down the street, and my folks warned me to stay clear because he would barrel along in that foot-motor car of his…he sort of was a public menace as he got older.” [see Yabbadabba man] I used to play with dinosaurs when I was a kid, too. They were great fun. Downright mean as they got older, but not to you if you’d befriended them when they were small and cuddly. So I always did.

    Aging’s not so bad, because you can remember a lot of things, and can start to put them all into context. Youngsters don’t remember anything different from the here and now. Pop says he did some of his best work at 60, an age I haven’t touched yet, though I’m pushing it. (pushing it pretty hard, too) And wasn’t it Andy Laguna who said he didn’t mind getting older, since with each succeeding year, he found more reasons to be grateful to Jehovah? Hangups that you might have once had sort of resolve themselves as you get older. ‘You don’t really know anything before age 40,’ I tell the kid. ‘Oh, you can figure out how to use the toilet, and perhaps change the TV stations,’ but real smarts don’t kick in till later.

    I did some calculating once, and figured that, per the Bible’s chronology, a youngster who’d met Adam, when the latter was an old guy, might conceivably, when he himself had grown ancient, speak to the adolescent Noah, long before the latter had attained boat-building fame. It’s almost as if one could have know Fred Flintstone back then. It may be two links were actually required between Adam and Noah, but it almost seems that it was just one. Of course, most today think those early biblical lifespans of 800-900 years are but nonsense, but didn’t I write here and here how it all sort of hangs together?

    If you play with this notion for awhile, you begin to appreciate the coherence that might have developed among human society when one might reasonably speak to, not merely his grandparents, but his great grandparents, and great great grandparents, and great great great grandparents, and so forth for several generations out. You’d get deep roots that way. Whatever prior generations had seen or learned, they almost couldn’t help but pass it down.

    Today, roots are wafer-thin. We’ve all seen those studies in which the modern child communicates with a parent a mere minutes per day. And where’s the rest of the time spent? It used to be TV, usage of which is still pretty heavy, but is now supplemented by no end of other media options. This might not be so bad if these connected one with something of consequence; one might think the internet could greatly expand people, but you know, and I know, that it connects with pop culture and values entirely from the here and now. You can see it in Wikapedia, a source that Winged Migration Man (where is he, by the way?) looked upon without favor; an item of history runs a few paragraphs, whereas review of a pop TV show runs pages and pages per episode. Is it any wonder that young folks readily accept today’s conditions today as normal? They’ve not been exposed to anything else. There’s almost no transference from one generation to the next. Didn’t I carry on about it here?

    Family mealtime was also once a relaxed setting in which perspectives might flow from one generation to the next. Therefore, some years ago the Watchtower began suggesting that family meals ought not be sacrificed to modern life – families ought to strive to eat at least one together. I was surprised, for I hadn’t fully realized the custom had fallen by the wayside. In fact, when I first stuck my toe into “evening witnessing,” I didn’t want to start too soon after dinnertime, lest I break up such a family meal. But in time I found that only rarely would that happen, no matter when I started. If it did, I would  apologize and withdraw. Common meals are not really that common, today, even in neighborhoods where you might think they would be. And to think that Torre, from the old country, would not call on folks even during the noon hour, a self-prohibition I thought absurd. But he remembered when even that time was sacred, a time reserved for family and friends.

    Times have changed.

    Not long ago I was riding with Tom Weedsandwheat. He had to swerve and brake hard so as not to hit some kid who had stepped out right in front of him, headphones on, pants hanging down, skull empty as a beach ball. “There can never be another generation,” he muttered to me. 

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

    The bookstore