Sheep and Goats

Category: Index

  • A Jungian Answer to Job

    I’ve said nice things about Carl Jung on my blog before. For example: “The next time I need my head examined, that’s the kind of guy I’ll seek out, rather than some modern-day critical type who declares: ‘First thing we have to do is get rid of this nutcake religion!’” I’m not sure how many do that—most recognize that value of faith—if only for the community that often comes with it, but it seemed a good line.

    Not only does Jung acknowledge that there is a spiritual side of things, but he maintains that the spiritual side is the more genuine, the more real, the more true. The “statements of the conscious mind,” he says, “may easily be snares and delusions, lies, or arbitrary opinions, but this is certainly not true of statements of the soul.” However, these latter statements “always go over our heads because they point to realities that transcend consciousness.”

    The “inferior” statements of the conscious mind, which initially seem persuasive, but in reality may prove to be “snares. delusions, lies, or arbitrary opinions,” are not limited to the conscious mind of the individual, but include entire populations, movements, nations, and eras. Doesn’t history continually bear this out? Nor do I think for one second that the modern day “age of science” will remedy this woe. Science gives us iPods and iPads but doesn’t teach us how to get along with each other.

    I like Jung. I like his writings on extroversion and introversion. I like his analogy on how the perspective of the rising sun differs from that of the setting sun. I like his work on personality types. His insights are the driving force behind those ubiquitous vocational tests that counselors foist upon us, in which you answer nosy-type personal questions, and they tell you what you ought to do for a living. Moreover, you have to be careful critiquing Jung, since he is a Great Man, and you are not. If he writes something spiritual with which you disagree, upon what basis do you disagree? “The Bible “says what it means and means what it says?” Be careful. You don’t want to come across as some Bible-thumping redneck.

    But sometimes, even with Jung, a guy has to stand up and say: “The emperor has no clothes!” Such is the case when Jung starts analyzing the Book of Job, which he does in ‘Answer to Job,’ published in 1952.

    Now, one has to know going in that, if Jung believes in spiritual things, that does not mean he is believes in any given set of scriptures. Rather, he maintains that certain spiritual legends and myths are universal; they are to be found in our “collective unconscious.” Furthermore, they pop up continually as wisps and ghosts and hints in various places, the Bible being but one.

    To briefly set the stage for the story of Job:  he is set up as an example—a test case, as it were, to settle the question of whether man can keep integrity to God under adversity. Satan, who appears only in the first two chapters of the book, charges that he will not: “Skin in behalf of skin, and everything that a man has he will give in behalf of his soul. For a change, thrust out your hand, please, and touch as far as his bone and his flesh [and see] whether he will not curse you to your very face.”

    God takes him up on this challenge and gives Satan permission to raise all manner of chaos. In short order, Job loses all he has, including even children. Too, he is struck by a painful sickness; chapter after chapter describes his suffering. Job’s three seeming-friends come to visit, supposedly, to comfort him. As time goes on, though, the comfort turns into accusation. ‘You know,’ they point out, ‘God doesn’t punish people for nothing. If you’ve fallen on hard times, it must be your own fault. Yes, you may have seemed upright outwardly, but God knows a scoundrel when he sees one! He knows your true worthlessness and so he’s settled the score.’ They merely hint this at first, but as Job protests his innocence, they become more and more strident, till toward the end, they’re fairly hurling epithets at the poor fellow.

    Now, Job is unaware of the Satanic challenge. He hasn’t the least notion as to why he is suffering, nor does he have any indication that it will end. But he does know that he’s done nothing to “deserve” it. Goaded on by these false friends, he gets increasingly heated declaring his innocence, hinting at first, then hinting more strongly, finally outright accusing God of villainy. Yes, if he could confront God face to face, he’d show Him who was in the right and who was moral! He’d argue his case—it was irrefutable—and God would have no choice but to back down! Job lets fly under his intense suffering and the provocation of his pals. Who hasn’t been there before: doing something we would never do otherwise but for the goading of others?

    Toward the end of the book, he gets his wish! God does speak to him! But not to be reproved by him. Rather, God poses a long series of questions to Job that serve to readjust his thinking. Afterwards, health and possessions are restored. Job has successfully answered Satan’s challenge—a challenge he never knew existed in the first place!

    Now, there are many things that annoy me about Jung’s commentary on the book of Job. In fact, almost all of it does. Why does Jung have to put the worst possible spin on everything? For example, with regard to when God manifests himself to Job, Jung writes: “For seventy-one verses he proclaims his world-creating power to his miserable victim, who sits in ashes and scratches his sores with potsherds, and who by now has had more than enough of superhuman violence. Job has absolutely no need of being impressed by further exhibitions of this power….Altogether, he pays so little attention to Job’s real situation that one suspects him of having an ulterior motive….His thunderings at Job so completely miss the point that one cannot help but see how much he is occupied with himself.”

    But isn’t it Jung who completely misses the point? Why not phrase matters as the Watchtower does (October 15, 2010, pg. 4)? “During his time of suffering, Job struggled with despair and became somewhat self-centered. He lost sight of the bigger issues. But Jehovah lovingly helped him to broaden his viewpoint. By asking Job over 70 different questions, none of which Job could answer, Jehovah emphasized the limitations of Job’s understanding. Job reacted in a humble way, adjusting his viewpoint.”

    There! Isn’t that better? I mean, before you go telling God how to run the universe, ought you not be able to answer at least one of the seventy questions? Issues were swirling about which Job knew nothing. Isn’t that always the case with humans on earth? “For the true God is in the heavens, but you are on the earth. That is why your words should prove to be few,” is a verse one is wise not to contest. (Ecclesiastes 5:2)

    And do not carry on about God bullying Job while he is in abject misery as though holding a captive tortured audience through a boring speech. An appearance by God will always make your day. It overrides all else.

    Furthermore, Carl Jung presents the entire matter as though it were a friendly wager between God and the Devil, serving no purpose other than their amusement, treating as nothing the intense suffering Job goes through. Why does he do that? It’s Jung who completely misses the point that Job is a test case to establish that man can keep integrity to God under the most extreme conditions.

    For, the fact is, people do suffer intensely at times. And when that occurs, some are inclined to blame God. Should they? In its opening chapters, the Bible spells out how mankind came to be in it’s present sorry state. In its closing chapters, it spells out how matters will ultimately resolve. (Abundant) supporting details are in between. Make a search of these things, and you’ll find why God is not to blame for human suffering.

    Now, drawing conclusions from his own ‘Answer to Job’ analysis, Carl Jung observes regarding evil: “We have experienced things so unheard of and so staggering that the question of whether such things are in any way reconcilable with the idea of a good God has become burningly topical. It is no longer a problem for experts in theological seminaries, but a universal religious nightmare…” Jung wrote this book in 1952. What unheard of and staggering evil do you think he had foremost in his mind? Take a guess. Hint: the Nuremberg trials, which brought justice to some Holocaust Nazi criminals, took place in 1945-46.

    Perhaps the most sadistic example of mass suffering in history occurred in Nazi Germany a mere decade before Jung wrote his book. Entire populations were herded into concentration camps, where many were gassed, starved, beaten, or otherwise worked to death. Twelve million died. The ones who survived left as walking skeletons. When General Dwight Eisenhower liberated Germany at the close of World War II, the mayor of a certain German town pleaded ignorance. Enraged, Eisenhower forced him to tour the nearest camp, he and the entire town’s population. Next day, the mayor hung himself.

    Among those imprisoned were Jehovah’s Witnesses. They were unlike all other groups in that they alone had power to free themselves. All they had to do was renounce their faith and pledge cooperation with the Nazis. Only a handful complied, a fact which, 70 years later, I still find staggering.

    From the Watchtower of February 1, 1992:

    “In concentration camps, the Witnesses were identified by small purple triangles on their sleeves and were singled out for special brutality. Did this break them? Psychologist Bruno Bettelheim noted that they ‘not only showed unusual heights of human dignity and moral behavior but seemed protected against the same camp experience that soon destroyed persons considered very well integrated by my psychoanalytic friends and myself.’”

    Why didn’t the well-integrated psychoanalytic-approved prisoners hold up? Probably because they read too much Jung and not enough Watchtower. Not Jehovah’s Witnesses. They were not hamstrung by having been nourished on Jungian theology. Job meant something to them. It wasn’t there simply to generate wordy theories and earn university degrees. A correct appreciation of it afforded them power and enabled them to bear up under the greatest evil of our time, a mass evil entirely analogous to the trials of Job. They applied the Book! And in doing so, they proved the Book’s premise: that man can maintain integrity to God under the most severe provocation. Indeed, some are on record as saying they would not have traded the experience for anything, since it afforded them just that opportunity

    So Carl Jung, in the Holocaust’s aftermath, stumbled about trying to explain how such evil could possibly occur, and could do no better than endorse the view already prevailing among intellectuals that the God of the Old Testament is mean whereas the God of the New Testament is nice. He ought to have spoken to Jehovah’s Witnesses. The latter didn’t experience the Holocaust from the comfort of their armchairs. Those in Nazi lands lived through it, due in large part to their accurate appreciation for the Book of Job. (February 2011)

    ******  The bookstore

    00

  • Standing Up to Hitler

    There are any number of serial gripers on the Internet who are alarmed at any favorable mention of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and who immediately attempt to negate such praise. Some of these characters strive with all their might to denigrate Jehovah’s Witnesses’ stand during the Holocaust. Of course, this is not easy to do, because the stand is among the most courageous actions of the past century. But they try. Generally, they feign applause for the astounding courage and faith of individual Witnesses, but then take shots at their organization, as though it were entirely separate. Yes, those Witnesses were amazing, they say. Too bad they were sold out by an oppressive, self-serving, uncaring Watchtower central machine.

    Any Witness of the time would say that it was because, not despite, the support and direction of their organization, that they withstood Hitler. Nazi troops overran Watchtower branch offices in lands they controlled; their occupants were arrested and imprisoned alike with the rank and file. The mainline churches refrained from criticizing the Nazis, lest there be reprisals. “Why should we quarrel?” Hitler (correctly) boasted. “The parsons…will betray their God to us. They will betray anything for the sake of their miserable little jobs and incomes.”* The major churches received large state subsidies throughout the war.

    Not so with Jehovah’s Witnesses. After the war, Genevieve de Gaulle, niece of latter French President General Charles de Gaule wrote: “I have true admiration for them. They…have endured very great sufferings for their beliefs….All of them showed very great courage and their attitude commanded eventually even the respect of the S.S. They could have been immediately freed if they had renounced their faith. But, on the contrary, they did not cease resistance, even succeeding in introducing books and tracts into the camp.” Would that Catholics and Lutherans, who comprised 95% of the German population, were similarly “sold out” by their respective churches. The Hitler movement would have collapsed.

    After the war, Catholic scholar and educator Gordon Zahn examined the records and found just one among 32 million German Catholics who conscientiously refused to serve in Hitler’s armies. He found another 6 in Austria. Why so few? He reports that his extensive interviews with people who knew these men produced the “flat assurance voiced by almost every informant that any Catholic who decided to refuse military service would have received no support whatsoever from his spiritual leaders.” Instead, Pope Pius XII, in 1939, directed chaplains on both sides of the war to have confidence in their respective military bishops, viewing the war as “a manifestation of the will of a heavenly Father who always turns evil into good,” and “as fighters under the flags of their country to fight also for the Church.”** No, it was not Jehovah’s Witnesses who were sold out by their organization.

     

    Now, seventy years later, along comes Ragoth, good old analytical Ragoth, who can always be depended upon for substantial comments—Ragoth, meaning no harm whatsoever, who “would also point out the Confessing Church during World War II, a la Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Granted, most of them were put to death, Bonhoeffer for spying for England and being involved with the plot to assassinate Hitler, but they stood their ground in opposition to the Nazi take-over of the German church. Now, also granted, they didn’t take a pacifist stance. Bonhoeffer and Barth originally started that way, but Bonhoeffer became convinced that as evil a thing as it would be, he would have to suffer the consequences in the afterlife to help the Brits, and, eventually, to become involved in the assassination plot…they were a relatively small group, but, I just wanted to throw in there were some other religious groups openly and constantly opposed to Hitler and the Nazi party, even in the face of death threats and directly against the rest of the churches out of which they came from.”

    Ragoth has a point. Not everyone in the German churches supported Hitler. Perhaps 10% of German Protestants took a stand against the Nazis. Doubtless Catholics as well. The point is, though, that they had to defy their church to do it. They were an embarrassment to their respective churches, from whom they received “no support whatsoever.” So some of them banded together into schisms of their own—such as the Confessing Church. Others acted independently as renegades. These were the “political prisoners” mentioned before, no doubt. I have nothing but admiration for these persons. Ragoth is absolutely right to recognize and honor them. They were extraordinary people.

    But not everyone is extraordinary. Most people are quite ordinary. It’s true with Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some are extraordinary, but most are just regular folk. Jehovah’s Witnesses did not have to stand against their own religious organization or form a new one because theirs had betrayed its values. They stood against Hitler largely because of their religious organization. Those others stood against Hitler despite theirs.

    People benefit from organization, even though “organization” has become practically a dirty word today. You should hear how often the terms “brain-washing” and “mind control” are applied to us. But without leadership from a genuine principled organization, only 10% of Germans were able to resist the greatest atrocity of all time. With leadership from a principled organization, virtually all were able to resist. If there really is a God, why would he not be able to provide some sort of organization so that believers are not tossed about like seaweed on the surf?

    After the fall of France in 1940, the Vatican’s Cardinal Eugène Tisserant wrote to a friend that “Fascist ideology and Hitlerism have transformed the consciences of the young, and those under thirty-five are willing to commit any crime for any purpose ordered by their leader.” It’s an extreme case, but it illustrates how people are. They run in herds, overwhelmed by national, economic, social or class concerns of the day. The then-current generation ever imagines they are the first to break the trend. When the dust settles, though, they’re seen to be subject to the same laws of human nature as everyone else. It takes a loyal God-centered organization to stem the popular tide, and keep moral principles ever before its people, as happened in WWII and as happens today.

     

    *Hermann Rauschning, The Voice of Destruction, 1940, pp. 50, 53.

    **quoted from the December 8, 1939 pastoral letter, Asperis Commoti Anxietatibus, and published in Seelsorge und kirchliche Verwaltung im Krieg, Konrad Hoffmann, editor, 1940, p. 144. (December 2009)

    From the book TrueTom vs the Apostates!

    00

     

  • Two Darwin Things That Might Have Changed History

    Two spiritual events can be traced in the life of Charles Darwin. Had those events turned out differently, one wonders what effect it might have had on his scientific contributions.

    The first came with the death of his favorite child, his daughter Annie. At age 10, the child contracted scarlet fever. She agonized for six weeks before dying. Also a casualty was Darwin’s faith in a beneficent Creator. The book Evolution: Triumph of an Idea, by Carl Zimmer, tells us that Darwin “lost faith in angels.” That is an odd expression. Why would it be used? They probably told him that God was picking flowers.

    Is there any analogy more slanderous to God than the one in which God is picking flowers? Up there in heaven he has the most beautiful garden imaginable. But it is not enough! He is always on the watch for pretty flowers, the very best, and if he spots one in your garden, he helps himself, even though it may be your only one. Yes, he needs more angels, and if your child is the most pure, the most beautiful, happy, innocent child that can be, well—watch out! He or she may become next new angel. Sappy preachers give this illustration all the time, apparently thinking it gives comfort.

    Not surprisingly, the ‘picking flowers’ analogy is nowhere found in the Bible. However, a parallel analogy is found in 2nd Samuel, where it is used to make exactly the opposite point: the flower picker should be executed. The setting is when King David took for himself the attractive wife of one of his subjects and, upon impregnating her, had that subject killed to cover his tracks:

    “The LORD sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, “There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor.  The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him.

    “Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him.”

    “David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the LORD lives, the man who did this deserves to die!  He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.” Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man!” (2 Samuel 12:1-7, NIV)

    Now, this analogy appeals to us. This is just. The man is not expected to take comfort that the king stole his wife. No, he deserves execution! So how is it that when we are told God has done the same, we’re expected to feel all warm and fuzzy?

    Isn’t this like Abraham Lincoln saying that he was not smart enough to lie? His meaning was that if you lie, you have to adjust every subsequent statement to be consistent with that lie, otherwise you will get caught. Telling the truth presents no such challenge.

    The picking flowers analogy is an attempt to cover a lie, and as we have seen, it doesn’t satisfy. The lie is that, when we die, we don’t really die because the soul lives on, going straight to heaven if we’ve been good. Thus, death is a friend. It is a chance for promotion, and we are all happy to see good people promoted. In this context, the Bible’s hope of a resurrection is meaningless. (Acts 24:15) How can someone be resurrected if they never actually died?

    Better to tell the truth from the start, and then you don’t have to invent ridiculous stories to cover your tracks. Death is not a friend, it is an enemy. Nor is it God’s purpose for humans; it came upon us due to rebellion. Nor does it bring us into a new state of consciousness; instead we become nonexistent, a state that can be likened to unconsciousness or sleep. Nor does God purpose to leave us in this sad predicament, but he’s taken steps to eliminate death.

    “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned,” says Romans 5:12. “For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.” (1 Cor 15:25) “For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten….Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave,  where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.” (Ecclesiastes 9:5,10)

    “After he had said this, he went on to tell them, ‘Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.’ His disciples replied, ‘Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better.’ Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep. So then he told them plainly, ‘Lazarus is dead…’” (John 11:11-14)

    How different history might have been had Darwin known the truth about death. Not just Darwin, of course, but everyone of his time, as well as before and after. Instead, fed a diet of phony pieties—junk food, really—he and others of inquisitive minds searched elsewhere in an attempt to make sense of life.

    The second spiritual event revealing another crisis of faith, is to be seen in a letter of Darwin’s to American colleague Asa Gray. Darwin stated: “…I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world.”

    Plainly, this statement concerns, not science, but God. His question was spiritual, or at least philosophical: ‘Why is there so much misery? How does that square with a God who is supposed to be all-loving and all-powerful?’

    Bear in mind that, in younger days, Darwin trained to become a clergyman. This is not to say that he was unusually devout. Rather, he was undecided as a youth; he didn’t know what he wanted to do with his life. Most go through such a phase. Many never emerge. At the time, the clergy represented a respectable calling for educated people who didn’t find a place anywhere else.

    Why didn’t he know why God permitted suffering? It’s not as though an answer does not exist. It is outlined in chapter 44. If Charles Darwin had been familiar with the answer, yet rejected it, that would be one thing. But it seems clear that he had no clue. The fault is not his. It is that of the church, which was charged to make certain truths, or teachings, known, but which failed to discharge that commission, choosing paths more self-serving. You might say that Darwin was spiritually starved.

    Had he known the Bible’s answer regarding misery and suffering, it may be that he, and other active minds of his day, might have put a different spin on discoveries of rocks, fossils, and finches. It is why Jehovah’s Witnesses are so enthusiastic over Scripture, sometimes to the point of being pests. The Bible’s explanation of the causes of suffering and death is tremendously liberating. It affects powerfully one’s outlook on life. (July 2006)

    ******  The bookstore

    00

  • Dr. Who Nixes Eternal Life – What Has He Been Smoking?

    When they asked physicist Robert Jastrow about living forever—would it be a blessing or a curse?—he said ‘it all depends.’ “It would be a blessing to those who have curious minds and an endless appetite for learning. The thought that they have forever to absorb knowledge would be very comforting for them. But for others who feel they have learned all there is to learn and whose minds are closed, it would be a dreadful curse. They’d have no way to fill their time.” If your purpose in life is to watch a lot of television, therefore, living forever would quickly become a drag. But our appetite for learning can be endless, unless we have closed down shop ourselves.

    Of course, Dr. Jastrow is an egghead—a thinker—and so he focused on learning. But other things are probably boundless, too, like our capacity to create and to love.

    Lately, though, pop culture has been selling death as though it were a benefit. It is probably those atheists. There are more and more of them and buying into their thinking means settling for a final death sentence perhaps not too many years away. Pay attention, and you’ll see the ‘Death is Beautiful’ notion a lot. For example, it surfaced in a recent Dr Who episode: ‘The Lazarus Experiment.’ Now, Dr Who, for a time, was the only show that I deliberately worked into my routine. A British import, it is science fiction with a quirky protagonist, clever writing, travel in a space ship that looks like a phone booth—“it’s bigger on the inside than on the outside!”—and it features endless visits from aliens, most of whom are up to no good. It just so happened that the show fit perfectly into some weekly down time in my schedule—I might never have discovered it otherwise. But having done so, I tried not to miss it. “Yeah, you just watch it on account of that cute blonde!” accused a workmate. But it was not true; the cute blonde was written out of the script, (she was stranded on a parallel universe) yet the show continued to hold its appeal. Years later, however, my interest in the show waned, so perhaps it was at least partially true after all.

    The episode name itself is a giveaway, since Lazarus is the biblical character whom Jesus resurrected. But this television Lazarus has invented a machine that makes him young again—he steps in aged and steps out a young man—to the amazement of all the high-brow folk invited to his gala bash. But Dr. Who (was he invited?) smells something amiss. He follows the newly minted youngster, and sure enough, the machine has malfunctioned and has doomed Lazarus to transforming back and forth from human to monster! (They like monsters on that show.) See, in setting back his DNA, the machine has selected ancient mutations long-ago rejected by evolution. (Hmmm…yes…indeed, plausible, nod all the atheists watching the show—whereas if you mentioned anything about God, they’d throw up.)

    The Time Lord doctor lectures Lazarus on what a curse everlasting life really is, and what a dumb, greedy thing it was for him to seek it. For when life drags on forever and ever and ever, you will get so tired of it. You will have been everywhere, done everything. Living will have become an endless, pointless trek to nowhere. You will long for it to end, but—fool that you were for choosing everlasting life—it will not end, but it will go on and on and on. Oh, the monotony! See, without death, it is impossible to savor life—and so forth.

    Please. Spare me (and Dr. Jastrow). This is atheist tripe. It all depends upon whether you see life as futile or not. If you do, then sure—you would want it to end. But as Jastrow stated, life is only futile if you have made it so. Of course, I’ll readily concede that baked into this system of things are various ingredients to encourage that dismal view—for example, old age and frailty—but if they could be vanquished…

    Next time you visit Rochester, New York, where I have lived, you may decide to visit the George Eastman house. Mr. Eastman, who brought photography to the masses and who founded Kodak, turned philanthropist once he’d made his fortune and built half the city. His mansion on East Ave showcases his life, his inventions, his contributions to society, and serves as the nucleus for all things photographic right up to the present. But snoop thoroughly and you will discover that he shot himself in the head at age 78. In the throes of old age, his health failing, one by one he saw his friends going senile, bedridden or wheelchair-bound. He left behind a note: “To my friends – My work is done. Why wait?”

    Q: Why did George Eastman take his life?

    A.) His work was done. Why wait?

    B.) He longed for the blessed release of death to finally end a futile life that had dragged on and on for much too long.

    C.) His health was failing and he (a lifelong bachelor) dreaded the indignities of old age -with its dependence upon others.

    Does anyone honestly think that, with health and youth, he would not have found more work in which to engross himself? Or would he have longed, nonetheless, for life to end? What! Are you kidding me?

    In this, Mr. Eastman is much like Leonardo DaVinci, the artist who painted the Mona Lisa, likely the most famous portrait of all time. Leonardo made his mark not only as an artist. He also contributed hugely in areas as diverse as geometry, anatomy, astronomy, architecture, and flight. Some of his sketches have been used as blueprints for devices in use today. He was a renaissance man; perhaps he even originates the term. Yet toward the end of life, he reportedly sought God’s forgiveness for “not using all the resources of his spirit and art.”

    Eastman and DaVinci—two fellows who typify Dr. Jastrow’s statement. And they would be joined by most everyone else, were we not sucked into a morass of drudgery, duty, debt, injustice and hardship. Sure—you might well long for death if you can only envision more of that. Ditto for the frailness that comes with old age. I recently attended a funeral of someone who was happy, content, and productive throughout life. Nonetheless, death was not unwelcome, his relatives assured me, since he’d grown “so tired of being sick.”

    That’s why the Bible’ promise of everlasting life on a paradise earth is so appealing. It’s Robert Jastrow’s dream come true—unlimited time to grow, minus the very real liabilities that eventually cause most of us to tire of life. Perfect health is promised, and an economic system will be in place so that people do not feel they are “toiling for nothing.” Note how Isaiah 65:21-23 describes life as God’s purpose is realized:

    “And they will certainly build houses and have occupancy; and they will certainly plant vineyards and eat [their] fruitage. They will not build and someone else have occupancy; they will not plant and someone else do the eating. For like the days of a tree will the days of my people be; and the work of their own hands my chosen ones will use to the full. They will not toil for nothing, nor will they bring to birth for disturbance; because they are the offspring made up of the blessed ones of Jehovah, and their descendants with them.”

    There’s a lot of things I’d like to do. I’ve done a few of them. But for the most part, I’ve just scratched the surface. And I’ve spent a fair amount of time shoveling aside the nonsense the present life throws at one. No, everlasting life, should I find myself there, will not be a bad thing. Not at all. (March 2009)

    From the book TrueTom vs the Apostates!

    00

  • Plato and the Governing Body

    In general, Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t know much when it comes to ancient Greek society. We are happy when the visiting speaker pronounces Socrates with three syllables, and not “So-crates.” Oh, the Greeks are back there in our school days somewhere. After all, they lived in a window of time during which civilization got its act together long enough for some privileged persons to think deep thoughts and record them for our benefit. But we don’t consider knowledge of them indispensable for enriched life. The rapidly ascending Chinese and Indian populations most likely are completely ignorant of Greece—the root of Western civilization, but not theirs—and don’t bemoan the loss.

    Nonetheless, there is this atheist fellow I’ve been conversing with lately who throws Greeks at me right and left. He’s even assumed a Greek moniker, Moristotle, and he’s prompted me to consider changing my own name to Tom Harleticus so as to win some respect. So it behooves me to read up on those Greeks. What do we find, for example, when we do some research on Plato?

    Plato put into writing his concepts of ideal government. He advocated rule by “philosopher-kings.” Several times in Moristotle’s blog I read the term. Plato favored monarchy, but not hereditary monarchy. Instead, his rulers were to be selected (by already existing rulers) on the basis of merit. This would follow a lengthy period of education designed to separate the wheat from the chaff—so lengthy that it seems nobody under age 50 would be eligible for consideration.

    Consider this excerpt from The 100, an intriguing book by Michael Hart, which undertakes to rate the one hundred most influential persons of history: (Plato is #40) “Only those persons who show that they can apply their book learning to the real world should be admitted into the guardian class. Moreover, only those persons who clearly demonstrate that they are primarily interested in the public welfare are to become guardians.

    “Membership in the guardian class would not appeal to all persons. The guardians are not to be wealthy. They should be permitted only a minimal amount of personal property, and no land or private homes. They are to receive a fixed (and not very large) salary, and may not own either gold or silver. Members of the guardian class should not be permitted to have separate families, but are to eat together, and are to have mates in common. The compensation of these philosopher-kings should not be material wealth, but rather the satisfaction of public service.”

    Anyone familiar with Jehovah’s Witnesses will realize at once that this description almost exactly describes their Governing Body, the agency that governs members of the faith. Only the “mates in common” does not apply.

    Compare Plato’s dream government with this depiction of the Watchtower organization, submitted by a reader to the Gary Halbert letter in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the 2005 storm that flooded New Orleans: “They are the most non-profit of non-profit organizations I’ve ever seen. All of their workers are voluntary. *All* of them. From the top down, the way the entity is structured, even the executives of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in Brooklyn, NY (headquarters of their worldwide organization) donate their time in exchange for very modest room and board. I’ve toured a few of their facilities in the Brooklyn, Wallkill and Patterson, NJ areas. I’ve seen it with my own eyes.

    “Everyone who works at their printing facilities (where they print bibles and bible literature for their worldwide bible education work) works for room and board and they get a very small allowance (somewhere around $120/mo.) for personal items. This entire organization is supported by means of voluntary donations. And it’s amazing……I mean, these people are not driving around in fancy cars and getting rich pocketing donations by any means.

    “They spend their money on maintaining their printing facilities, printing bible literature, housing & feeding their voluntary workers (who all live in an apartment-like community maintained by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society), supporting voluntary missionaries around the world, language and reading programs (where they teach illiterate people to read), DISASTER RELIEF….I could go on.

    “But the bottom line is that NONE of their money is used to line pockets of greedy execs.”

    This organization is duplicated in the one hundred or so branch organizations that exist around the world.

    Of course, one may object: Plato’s recommendation is for the government of nations. Jehovah’s Witnesses are a religion. But the similarities are more striking than the differences. Worldwide, Jehovah’s Witnesses number between seven and seventeen million, depending on the criteria you use in counting. That’s more than the population of a great many nations. Moreover, Jehovah’s Witnesses are overwhelmingly viewed as a moral, decent, and law-abiding people. This is no mere accident, nor is it explained solely by their belief in the Bible as the source of divine instruction. It is also the result of effective administration, governing if you will, since there are ever so many groups that claim to follow the Bible but whose lifestyles belie that claim. Jehovah’s Witnesses are unified in a common goal and purpose, as the above letter points out. They would appear to be Plato’s dream come true.

    Author Hart allows for a religious setting when discussing the application of Plato’s ideal. He suggests “there is a striking similarity between the position of the Catholic Church in medieval Europe and that of Plato’s guardian class.” I assume he is referring to the Church before the Inquisition. Otherwise, Hart acknowledges, Plato’s ideals have never been adopted by any human government.

    Oh, this is too rich! Here is Plato, poster boy of the modern Greek aficionados, devising a system of government which none of them have come close to reproducing, but which is adopted without fanfare by a group most of them would look down upon—Jehovah’s Witnesses! The reason, of course, is that Plato’s system depends on persons who are neither ambitious nor materialistic nor overly proud. It is not that such persons cannot be found among the general population. It is that the values of this world are such that these persons cannot rise to the top. Indeed, they are often dismissed as impractical nuts (as with Jehovah’s Witnesses).

    By the way, what happens when atheists themselves try to adopt Plato’s ways? Hart continues: “The role of the Communist party in the Soviet Union has also been compared with that of the guardian class in Plato’s ideal republic. Here, too, we see a self-perpetuating elite whose members have all been trained in an official philosophy.”

    Aren’t communist systems atheist, indeed the only governments officially atheist? Yes—and when the atheists try to implement Plato, their creations are hijacked by bullies and even mass-murderers: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and so forth. Look at these guys crossways and you do ten years hard labor.

    No, those atheists are unable to implement the ideals of their hero. Jehovah’s Witnesses, on the other hand, have done so. Okay, I guess it is too much of a stretch to suggest that if Plato were somehow to appear today on the world stage he would become one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, so I do not suggest it. But I can picture the educated elite rushing to embrace him as one of their own, and he, upon assessing how they have failed to implement any of his ideals, wanting nothing to do with them. Meanwhile, he could not help but be appreciative toward the one sizable organization on earth that has managed to transform his dream into reality. He might even rush right over to Bethel to consult, where they, having no idea who he is, would make him take a number. (February 2008)

    From the book TrueTom vs the Apostates!

    00

  • Enemies

    As though it happened yesterday, this gem appears on a recent Australian jurisprudence questionnaire:

    “Some Jehovah’s Witnesses approach people in a predominantly Roman Catholic neighbourhood and play a CD entitled ‘Enemies’ to them. The CD describes all organized religions as ‘instruments of Satan’ and then viciously attacks Catholicism in particular. Do you think that the law ought to prohibit conduct of this kind? Discuss with reference to rights and the public/private distinction.”

    So a certain blogger assumes that it did happen yesterday—why would she not? and fires off a response:

    “Oh I really believe this scenario. It’s exactly what they’d do. Not what I ever would have done. I never had that sort of conviction. Oh how embarrassing! No wonder other churches call them “weirdo religious strangers.” They call other churches “enemies” and “instruments of Satan,” for goodness sake!”

    Well, for goodness sake, it does seem mean-spirited, doesn’t it? But it didn’t happen yesterday. It happened eighty years ago. And it was a phonograph record, not a CD. Enemies was published in 1937 and was distributed for less than ten years. Someone’s doing a hatchet job here, hoping to embarrass me. But both the book and record were entirely appropriate for their time. In fact, given the same circumstances, I believe Jehovah’s Witnesses would do it again.

    In the aftermath of World War I, had not the mainline churches effectively proven themselves enemies of God, of Christ, and of man? They had, on both sides, stoked and cheered the conflict which would claim 16 million lives, with an additional 21 million wounded. With another world war approaching, they showed every sign of resuming that role. Yet in the interim, they had presumed to slide right back into that cozy seat of representing the Prince of Peace, claiming to speak in his name.

    Eighty years later, it is hard to appreciate how enthusiastic church leaders were for the war, how they worked as cheerleaders for both sides. It hardly seems believable. Surely, there must be an exaggeration. But, reflecting back, we find numerous statements validating the unbelievable. For example, British brigadier general Frank Crozier stated: “The Christian Churches are the finest blood-lust creators which we have and of them we made free use.” A few more quotes of the day follow, in all cases made by high-ranking clergymen, not lone renegades:

    Bishop of London A. F. Winnington-Ingram urged the English people: “Kill Germans—do kill them; not for the sake of killing, but to save the world, to kill the good as well as the bad, to kill the young as well as the old, to kill those who have shown kindness to our wounded as well as those fiends….As I have said a thousand times, I look upon it as a war for purity, I look upon everyone who died in it as a martyr.” (Perspective (a Journal of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary), Vol. X, No. 1, Spring 1969, p. 78) He said it a thousand times!

    And from the other side? The archbishop of Cologne, Germany, said the following to German soldiers: “Beloved people of our Fatherland, God is with us in this fight for righteousness where we have been drawn in against our wish. We command you in the name of God, to fight to the last drop of your blood for the honor and glory of the country. In his wisdom and justice, God knows that we are on the side of righteousness and he will give us the victory.” (La Dernière Heure, January 7, 1967).

    In America? An editorial in the Christian Register says it all: “As Christians, of course, we say Christ approves [of the war]. But would he fight and kill?…There is not an opportunity to deal death to the enemy that he would shirk from or delay in seizing! He would take bayonet and grenade and bomb and rifle and do the work of deadliness against that which is the most deadly enemy of his Father’s kingdom in a thousand years.” (The Christian Register, Vol. 97, No. 33 (Aug. 15, 1918), p. 775. quotation taken from the book Preachers Present Arms, by Ray H Abrams)

    Sure, such fighting words might come from a general. And in the midst of war fever, from a statesman, or a patriot, or a businessman, or the average citizen. But from the Church, the institution claiming Christian leadership, asserting that they and they alone speak for Christ? Is it not a tad at odds with Christ’s own words? “By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.” (John 13:35) If you don’t prove discipleship when it counts, during wartime, just when do you prove it? And after the war, should those clergy sweep their bloodthirsty record under the rug, and once again presume to speak in Jesus’ name? Jehovah’s Witnesses didn’t think so. If Enemies seems mean-spirited today, it wasn’t a fraction as mean-spirited as the catalyst that prompted it.

    Now, you must admit, it would take guts to distribute that book and play that record. Nowadays, every wussy milquetoast of an atheist takes swipes at religion on his anonymous website, but Jehovah’s Witnesses went eyeball to eyeball with those enemies, in person, and what’s more, they went to members of their flocks. Introducing Enemies to a convention audience in Columbus Ohio, Watchtower President Rutherford declared: “You will notice that its cover is tan, and we will tan the old lady’s hide with it!” It gives the lie to Sam Harris’s one-time complaint as to how the moderate “good” churches failed to condemn their more belligerent brethren, reining them in, refusing to “call a spade a spade.” We did it before he was in diapers and did it with a courage that he would be unable to match.

    From the 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses: “The phonograph work was not carried on without opposition. Ernest Jansma tells us: ‘There were cases of some having their phonographs literally and viciously smashed right before their eyes. Others had them ruthlessly thrown off porches. One brother in the Middle West stood by and watched an angry farmer blow his machine into oblivion with a shotgun, then heard pellets whine past his auto as he left the scene. They were vicious and religiously fanatical in those days.’ Amelia and Elizabeth Losch tell of an occasion when the recording “Enemies” was played for a crowd on the porch of a certain home. After the talk ended, one woman took the record off the machine and broke it, saying, ‘You can’t talk about my pope like that!’”

    Today, the influence of the clergy is insignificant compared to what it was then.  I mean, they’re respected so long as they stay in their place, but their place is much reduced from what it once was. In the days of Enemies, their place was anywhere they wanted it to be. They maintained a stranglehold upon popular thought. Catholics, in particular, as one may have heard great-grandparents say, were not allowed to read the Bible. That’s what the priest was for, and he would explain it as he saw fit, in accordance with church doctrine. In town after town, Jehovah’s Witnesses would place literature with interested persons, and clergy would follow and demand it back. Such was the command they enjoyed, that they often got it.

    Frankly, if Christendom’s influence is a ghost of what it once was, Jehovah’s Witnesses get the “credit,” in my view. The Enemies campaign was but one of many back in those days. Look, Wilbur and Orville Wright are credited with inventing the airplane. That doesn’t mean we wouldn’t have planes had they never been born. Someone else would have invented them. But they were the first. They had the foresight and guts to persevere with a notion that everyone else thought was impossible.

    Some, taking the opposite view of the blogger quoted in the third paragraph, mutter that Jehovah’s Witnesses have become too cordial with other religions, that they have made their peace, that they have wimped out. But there’s no point in kicking the ‘old lady’ while she’s down. We kicked her while she was up. Nowadays, everybody kicks her. So why should we? Whatever account she must render is with God, not us. All we ever wanted to do was loosen her hold on people, so they would not be afraid to listen to new ideas. That was accomplished decades ago. (May 2009)

    From the book TrueTom vs the Apostates!

    Aa

     

  • LANDRU – the Brainwasher

    As the $40 billion dollar Beijing Olympics romped through closing ceremonies, NBC commentator Cris Collinsworth gushed with emotion. Two weeks of persons from all corners of the earth mingling, smiling, and learning about each other’s cultures! No battling, save only that of sports, and that done amidst mutual respect and good will. Maybe….maybe….I mean, it’s probably pie-in-the-sky, he conceded, but maybe…..if they could do it for two weeks, then what about three weeks? And then what about a month? And then a year? And….oh, utopian dream come true!….why should the party ever stop? Can’t we all just get along?

    When they do, it’s called a cult.

    Of course, kids can also behave pretty well for the two weeks prior to Santa’s Christmas arrival, or at least, I was generally able to manage it. It is pie-in-the-sky Cris…..but then, he knows it…..everyone was moneyed and pampered and well-fed for those two weeks. Stress-free, really. And weren’t they all pretty upper crust? Excepting perhaps the poor relations of some of the athletes, and these must have seemed to be in material fairyland for those 17 days.

    Still, a glimpse of unity is very impressive, even if it’s temporary, even if it’s artificial. It speaks to a yearning deep within most of us. Is not the world breaking into more and more independent factions, all of whom resist cooperation with anybody else? So every once in a while there will be some circumstance to evoke a contrasting taste of unity and people like Cris wax poetic.

    But again, seven million Jehovah’s Witnesses enjoy such unity daily, as a matter of course—and it is called a cult. In all circumstances, our people of all races, nationalities, socioeconomic classes, and educational levels mingle freely and without strife. Wars, riots, and social upheavals do nothing to mar the peace. We tell people of this unity…doubtless we’ve told Cris…but by and large they want no part of it. Peace and unity….yeah, that’s great, it’s what they want….but not at the price of adopting an cult religion like Jehovah’s Witnesses!

    But it only seems cultlike because JWs have renounced attitudes that make unity impossible, and embraced those that facilitate it. This the general world has failed to do. Alas, it is not just a few teeny tiny tweaks that need be made so as to achieve unity. No, but a massive overhaul of thinking and behaving is required, and Jehovah’s Witnesses have done that. But that revised viewpoint makes us seem very strange to general society and not especially palatable. Nonetheless, surely it is beliefs that will get to the crux of why people can or cannot get along, and what institution in life is credited with molding a person’s beliefs? Where does morality come from? Surely it is not found in higher education. If we are warring louts, going to college usually just makes us smart warring louts. It is through spiritual growth that a person’s conduct can change for the better.

    The peace and unity typifying Jehovah’s Witnesses is so well attested that even detractors—we have quite a few of them—don’t deny it. Instead, they sometimes attribute it to (gasp!) LANDRU.

     

    ***~~~***

     

    Captain James T. Kirk and the Star Trek boys came across the LANDRU clan when they were way, way out there, on the very fringe of the galaxy. No matter how far they traveled, whatever aliens they found looked just like us, save for raised eyebrows, different skin color, pointy ears, peculiar dress and grooming, and so forth. This particular bunch was a nauseating race of folk with syrupy smiles who carried on trancelike and greeted each other with slogans such as “May you have peace…Joy to you, friend,” and…“LANDRU gives blessings,” and so forth. Tranquility prevailed, but none of them could think for themselves.

    Kirk couldn’t stand them, but then he found out why they were the way they were. A well-intentioned human named Landru had brainwashed them and stolen their souls—I hate it when that happens! He’d come across them when their world was about to self-destruct and given them peace though mind-control! Now—all was joy.  And Landru wasn’t even a person, but a machine (that should please the atheists) which the aging Landru had designed (that should displease them) to carry on after he died. And above all things, you were not to step out of line. If you did—why, there were enforcers to zap you into oblivion. The Enterprise crew was so distressed at this society that they violated their own Prime Directive [Mind Your Own Business] to short circuit the computer and free the people. Having done so, they cruised on, leaving the citizens raping and pillaging as in the good old days.

    Mind controlled zombies! Just like under LANDRU! That’s why Jehovah’s Witnesses are so peaceful, charge guys like Vic Vomidog, and even Tom Sowmire. But their unity is really not so strange, nor hard to understand. It just seems that way because that quality is unheard of in today’s world.

    Jehovah’s Witnesses share a common vision and purpose. Moreover, they defer to God Jehovah as their lawgiver. That’s really all there is to it. They’ve voluntarily made the choice, and so encounter a Christian formula for achieving practical unity. They find the Bible’s way of life to be not oppressive, but rather like a highway with guardrails. Nobody gripes about the guardrails in real traffic, recognizing that they serve a purpose. They neither infringe meaningfully on your freedom nor stifle your personality. On the contrary, they help you become all you can be. Just like in chess. Once you decide to abide by the rules, you can do amazing things on the board, but you can’t do any of them until you follow how the game is played.

    One of the public talk outlines currently in circulation spends considerable time contrasting unified and uniform. They’re not the same. Human organizations tend to squeeze persons into common molds, stifling individuality, often literally slipping them into uniforms. But unity based upon observing Bible standards is different. The apostle Paul likened it to the human body:

    “For the body, indeed, is not one member, but many. If the foot should say: “Because I am not a hand, I am no part of the body,” it is not for this reason no part of the body. And if the ear should say: “Because I am not an eye, I am no part of the body,” it is not for this reason no part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the [sense of] hearing be? If it were all hearing, where would the smelling be? But now God has set the members in the body, each one of them, just as he pleased. If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now they are many members, yet one body.” (1 Corinthians 12:14-20)

    Note that the eye, ear, hand, foot, and so forth cooperate seamlessly and yet do so without sacrificing any individuality or uniqueness. They don’t all become the same. Rather, they each bring their own contributions, for the benefit of the entire body. It’s much the same with Jehovah’s Witnesses. They are fully individuals, with unique likes and dislikes, strengths and weaknesses, assets and liabilities. You will like some of them; others may not be your cup of tea, just like anywhere else. In cooperating towards a common theme, they lose none of what makes them unique, but they carry on free from the endless divisiveness that characterizes the world today. It’s a very appealing aspect of JW society which newcomers tend to recognize quickly. Not like LANDRU at all!

    There! Another ill report disposed of! And now—“May…you…have….peace …friend….Joy….blessings….and tranquility!” (September 2008)

    ******  The bookstore

     

    Old computer

     

  • New Testament……..Click and Go

    Matthew

    Matt 2:1-23

    Matt 6:5

    Matt 6:9-10                           Matt 6:9-10                     Matt 6:10

    Matt 6:19-33

    Matt 7:3-5

    Matt 7:28-29

    Matt 10:8

    Matt 11:11                    Matt 11:11

    Matt 11:25

    Matt 11:28-30

    Matt 13:10-15

    Matt 13:24-30                    Matt 13:24-30

    Matt 18:23-34

    Matt 18:34

    Matt 20:25-27

    Matt 20:28

    Matt 24:3               Matt 24:3-7              Matt 24:3-8              Matt 24:9

    Matt 24:14                   Matt 24:14                      Matt 24:14

    Matt 24:36

    Matt 24:38-39               Matt 24:38-39

    Matt 24:42, 25:33

    Matt 24:45-47                Matt 24:45-47                  Matt 24:45-47

    Matt 24:48                     Matt 24:48-9

    Matt 24:48-49,25:13

    Matt 25:1-11

    Matt 25:14-18

    Matt 28:18                    Matt 28:18-20

    Matt 28:19                   

    Mark

    Mark 4:22

    Mark 4:35-41               Mark 4:35-41  

    Mark 5:26

    Mark 6:17-28

    Mark 9:43-48

    Mark 13:33-37

    Mark 16:9-20

    Luke

    Luke 1:31-33

    Luke 2:8-14

    Luke 3:1

    Luke 4:5-8

    Luke 8:5-15

    Luke 8:17

    Luke 8:43-44                 Luke 8:43-44

    Luke 9:26-37

    Luke 13:23-24

    Luke 16:2-8

    Luke 16:8  

    Luke 18:8              Luke 18:8            Luke 18:8

    Luke 19:11

    Luke 21:11                  Luke 21:11

    Luke 21:26,31

    Luke 21:36

     Luke 22:19

    Luke 23:29-30

    Luke 23:43

    John

    John 1:1                             John 1:1, 7:15

    John 1:41, 7:15

    John 3:16

    John 5:28

    John 6:14-15                    John 6:15

    John 7:48-52

    John 8:32

    John 11:11-14                  John 11:11-44

    John 12:19,17:19

    John 13:35

    John 14:12

    John 14:30

    John 15:2

    John 17:3  

    John 17:14-16                John 17:16                     John 17:16

    Acts

    Acts 1:6-7

    Acts 2:27

    Acts 2:31                        Acts 2:30-34

    Acts 2:41,4:4,6:7,9:31, 11:1-18

    Acts 4:13                    Acts 4:13                  Acts 4:13, 17:11

    Acts 4:13, 20:9, 28:21-22

    Acts 5:30                   Acts 5:30, 10:39

    Acts 12:15

    Acts 15:1-33, 16:4-5

    Acts 15:14

    Acts 16:4-5

    Acts 17:11                           Acts 17:11

    Acts 17:18

    Acts 18:1-4                        Acts 18:3-4

    Acts 20:29                   Acts 20:29                    Acts 20:29-30

    Acts 21:27-32, 28:21-22

    Acts 22:22-29, 24:24-25, 25:9-11, 26:24-32, 28:21-31

    Acts 23:6-10

    Acts 24:15                       Acts 24:15

    Acts 28:12

    Romans

    Rom 1:16          Rom 1:18-21                  Rom 1:20                        Rom 1:20

    Rom 1:22                       Rom 1:24-27  

    Rom 5:12                     Rom 5:12                      Rom 5:12

    Rom 6:23                       Rom 6:23

    Rom 11:33-36

    1 Corinthians

    1 Cor 1:10-15

    1 Cor 1:10-15, 16:16  

    1 Cor 1:18-28                      1 Cor 1:26-28 

    1 Cor 2:9

    1 Cor 3:19                          1 Cor 3:26-28

    1 Cor 4:6

    1 Cor 5:7

    1 Cor 7:18-20                       1 Cor 7:31

    1 Cor 8:5

    1 Cor 9:19-22                      1 Cor 9:24-27

    1 Cor 12:14-20

    1 Cor 15:24-26                     1 Cor 15:25

    1 Cor 15:45                        1 Cor 15:45

    2 Corinthians

    2 Cor 1:20                      2 Cor 1:24, 8:8, 10:1

    2Cor 4:4

    2 Cor 5:20                           2 Cor 5:20                        2 Cor 5:20 

    2 Cor 7:1

    2 Cor 10:3-5                     2 Cor 10:10 

    2 Cor 11:23-25                  2 Cor 11:23-27

    Galatians

    Gal 3:13

    Gal 5:1-3

    Gal 5:19-21

    Ephesians

    Eph 2:1-2

    Eph 4:11-13                          Eph 4:13-14

    Philippians

    Phil 2:3                Phil 2:12               Phil 2:12                Phil 2:12

    Phil 3:2-3                 Phil 3:8                      Phil 3:18-19

    Colossians

    Col 1:15-18                Col 1:26                   Col 1:26

    Col 2:8

    Col 4:1

    1 Thessalonians

    1 Thes 4:10-11                1 Thes 4:16                       1 Thes 4:17-18

    1 Thes 5:2-3

    2 Thessalonians

    2 Thes 3:4                       2 Thes 3:11

    1 Timothy

    1 Tim 1:7               1 Tim 1:7                  1 Tim 1:9                   1 Tim 1:19

    1 Tim 2:3-4                 1 Tim 2:5-6  

    1 Tim 3:11

    1 Tim 4:1

    1 Tim 5:23

    1 Tim 6:3-4                  1 Tim 6:7-8  

    1 Tim 6:17-19              1 Tim 6:17-19                 1 Tim 6:17-19

    1 Tim 6:20

    2 Timothy

    2 Tim 2:16                     2 Tim 2:24                        2 Tim 2:24-25

    2 Tim 3:1-5             2 Tim 3:1-5              2 Tim 3:1-5              2 Tim 3:1-5

    2 Tim 3:1-5                  2 Tim 3:2-4                  2 Tim 3:3

    2 Tim 4:2-3               2 Tim 4:3                   2 Tim 4:3                2 Tim 4:10

    Philemon

    Phil 8-9

    Hebrews

    Heb 3:4

    Heb 11:1

    Heb 11:8-10                     Heb 11:8-10                        Heb 11:9-10

    Heb 12:7-11  

    Heb 13:17                        Heb 13:17                        Heb 13:17

    James

    Jas 2:26

    Jas 3:2                         Jas 3:17                       Jas 3:17

    Jas 4:4                         Jas 4:4

    Jas 4:13-15                   Jas 4:17

    Jas 5:11                        Jas 5:19-20                      Jas 5:19-20

    1 Peter

    1 Pet 1:10-12  

    1 Pet 2:12, 4:3-4

    1 Pet 3:15

    2 Peter

    2 Pet 2:1-2                    2 Pet 2:1-2                          2 Pet 2:1-2

    2 Pet 3:3

    2 Pet 3:3-4                     2 Pet 3:3-4                     2 Pet 3:3-4

    1 John

    1 John 1:10, 2:4,22,:20, 5:10

    1 John 2:15-17                       1 John 2:15-17                          1 John 2:18

    1 John 5:7                   1 John 5:7                  1 John 5:7                      1 John 5:7

    1 John 5:19

    2 John   

    2 John 8-10                  2 John 9                     2 John 9

    3 John

    3 John 9-10                             3 John 10

    Jude

    Jude 3-4                       Jude 9                         Jude 22

    Revelation

    Rev 3:15

    Rev 4:1                                Rev 4:11

    Rev 5:2-10                      Rev 5:2-10                 Rev 5:10                         Rev 5:11

    Rev 6:2-8                         Rev 6:2-8                     Rev 6:3-8

    Rev 6:12-17, 4:11

    Rev 7:4-10                       Rev 7:9-17

    Rev 11:18                     Rev 11:18                        Rev 11:18

    Rev 12:9-12                  Rev 12:9-12                  Rev 12:9-12                 Rev 12:10-17

    Rev 13:14-15                     Rev 13:18

    Rev 17:1-18:18:1-24                   Rev 17:8                           Rev 17:16-17

    Rev 18:1                   Rev 18:24

    Rev 19:11-19

    Rev 20:1-6                     Rev 20:10                       Rev 20:10-15

    Rev 21:2-3                         Rev 21:4

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

      

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Old Testament……….Click and Go

    Genesis

    Gen 1:1,11-25, Gen 2:4          

    Gen 1:28, Gen 3:1-5          

    Gen 1:28         

    Gen 1:6-8, Gen 7:11-12         

    Gen 2:7         

    Gen 2:9,16, Gen 3:15,22-24          

    Gen 2:17         

    Gen 5:1-32, Gen 11:1-32, Gen 25:7         

    Gen 6:11-12         

    Gen 11:1-9         

    Gen 11:6                Gen 11:6         

    Gen 37:35         

    Gen 40:8                Gen 40:8

    Exodus

    Ex 14:11-12

    Ex 20:4-5               Ex 20:4-5             Ex 21:5-6

    Ex 32:24

    Leviticus

    Lev 17:11-12

    Lev 18:24-25, 19:9-10

    Lev 25:11-55

    Numbers

    Numbers 14:34

     Deuteronomy

    Deut 4:5-8

    Deut 13:1-5, 18:20-22

    Deut 19:21

    Deut 21:22-23

    2 Samuel

    2 Sam 12:1-7                2 Sam 12:1-7

    1 Kings

    1 Kings 4:33

    1 Kings 18:27                1 Kings 18:27

    1 Kings 20:23-25

    2 Kings

    2 Kings 2:23-24

    2 Kings 17:7-17

    1 Chronicles

    1 Chron 29:23

    2 Chronicles

    2 Chron 28:3

    2 Chron 33:9

    Job

    Job (throughout)

    Job 2:4-5,Job 38-41

    Job 14:13

    Job 26:7,10                 Job 26:7,10

    Job 15:15,32:2-3,42:7

    Psalms

    Ps 10:4                Ps 10:4

    Ps 16:10

    Ps 22:16

    Ps 23:1

    Ps 34:12-14

    Ps 37:10-11

    Ps 38:12-14

    Ps 83:18                   Ps 83:18

    Ps 93:1

    Ps 104:8

    Ps 110:1                  Ps 110:1

    Ps 115:4-8

    Ps 115:16                Ps 115:16

    Ps 120:6-7

    Ps 138:6

    Ps 146:3-4

    Proverbs

    Prov 4:18

    Prov 14:15

    Prov 18:11

    Prov 21:19

    Prov 22:29

    Prov 26:14

    Prov 30:7-9

    Prov 30:8-9

    Prov 30:12

    Prov 30:18

    Ecclesiastes

    Eccles 1:11, 2:18-19

    Eccles 5:2

    Eccles 7:1

    Eccles 7:7

    Eccles 7:16                Eccles 7:16

    Eccles 9:5,10

    Eccles 9:10                Eccles 9:10

     Isaiah

    Isa 2:4

    Isa 6:9

    Isa 11:6-9

    Isa 11:9-11

    Isa 21:9

    Isa 26:2

    Isa 38:13

    Isa 40:22

    Isa 55:9

    Isa 65:21-23                 Isa 65:21-23

    Jeremiah

    Jer 8:9, 10:23

    Jer 38:7-13

    Jer 45:2-5

    Jer 52:8-11

    Ezekiel

    Ezek 3:17

    Ezek 4:6, 21:25-27

    Ezek 18:25

    Ezek 21:5-6

    Ezek 33:32

    Daniel

    Daniel 2:42-43

    Dan 2:44              Dan 2:44            Dan 2:44            Dan 2:44

    Dan 4:7-26

    Dan 6:7-16

    Dan 12:1                       Dan 12:1

    Dan 12:4                       Dan 12:4

    Micah

    Micah 7:3

    Habakkuk

    Hab 3:17-18              Hab 3:17-18                Hab 3:17-18

    Zephaniah

    Zephaniah 3:9