For instance, in the immediate context of 2 Timothy 2:19, we find that Paul tells Timothy “not to fight about words” and to “reject empty speeches.”(
Huh? Since when did they suddenly start caring about context?
Also, it appears that others were introducing controversial ideas. Even if the latter were not directly unscriptural, they were divisive
So if it's not directly unscriptural, then it has to be indirectly unscriptural. What would be an example of an "indirectly unscriptural" idea, I wonder? I guess the target audience is left to wonder, too. Oh, right. The safest bet is to just believe whatever's in the WT. It's 'indirectly unscriptural' if it's not in a WT, even if it is actually Biblically correct.
Good example, as I think of it is, wearing a beard. Perfectly okay, but 'indirectly unscriptural' because 'the brothers' say you should be clean-shaven. The rule itself is unscriptural, but since the 'brothers' made it, and you're not supposed to disobey them, breaking the rule is therefore 'indirectly unscriptural'. Nice.
As for the dancing and drinking stuff, basically it's just the usual building a fence around the potential sin by avoiding a situation altogether. They're not saying nobody can have fun, just that people who are used to having fun beyond what is WT-authorized (ie. used to getting really drunk and naughty dancing) should probably just pass on the fun altogether, just to be safe. No more paranoid than they usually are about 'recreation'.
--sd-7