I see that I was a little too hasty in my last reply. Yes, there is a subtle but distinct difference between Unity and Unanimity. Unity allows for change in direction with general agreement, and an objection by even one is seriously considered. Unanimity may still result, even producing an opposite result to the original general agreement. Unity and conformity are beneficial when working with properly-constituted direction.
"Trinitarians" how can you "lie" to the truth? Is truth a person?
by booker-t 30 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Arthur
Arthur,
Don't you find that an environment where there are wide ranging beliefs tests your agapé to a much greater degree than environments where everyone has dictated to them what they should believe on Scriptural topics?
It's funny that you bring this up. I was considering this shortly after the discussion of the trinity came up at one of our meetups. One would think that a doctrinal issue such as this would create heated debate and arguments. However, this hasn't occurred. I have noticed that both sides are generally diplomatic and humble when the topic has come up.
There is an irony in all of this. I have found that the agape of which you speak is easier to manifest in an environment where we are not micromanaged and coerced into a condition of sterilized unanmity and conformity.
-
AuldSoul
Fred: Unity and conformity are beneficial when working with properly-constituted direction.
Here we agree. But I bet we differ on what constitutes "properly-constituted direction". I believe Peter received direction in Acts 10. The old guys in Jerusalem didn't agree that his direction was properly constituted, which caused Paul to eventually go to Jerusalem to see about their resistance to the direction of holy spirit (properly constituted direction).
Note that in Acts 15 there is humility shown in the decision finally reached by the older men. "The holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except ..."
There is no such humility among the modern day Governing Body. They boldly dictate on many small things that go well beyond the light burden established in the 1st Century and they make no pretense that they have received their direction from holy spirit in these tittles of (relatively speaking) mint and dill. They gulp camels while straining gnats. They make grand claims of insight and simultaneously claim to have no special insights. Both cannot be true, yet they speak both as though each is true.
And you believe them to be "properly constituted", although there are many more similarities between their structure and the structure of Judaism under the Pharisees than there are between their structure and the 1st Century Christian structure.
Tsk.
—AuldSoul
-
AuldSoul
Arthur: I have found that the agape of which you speak is easier to manifest in an environment where we are not micromanaged and coerced into a condition of sterilized unanmity and conformity.
In an environment of "sterilized unanmity and conformity" there is no room for love. That is why the Pharisaical system of things was devoid of love. In such an environment consistent expression of agapé is all but impossible.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
Fred E Hathaway
AuldSoul: There is no such humility among the modern day Governing Body. They boldly dictate on many small things that go well beyond the light burden established in the 1st Century and they make no pretense that they have received their direction from holy spirit in these tittles of (relatively speaking) mint and dill. They gulp camels while straining gnats. They make grand claims of insight and simultaneously claim to have no special insights. Both cannot be true, yet they speak both as though each is true.
And you believe them to be "properly constituted", although there are many more similarities between their structure and the structure of Judaism under the Pharisees than there are between their structure and the 1st Century Christian structure.
Tsk.
That's a big brush you're using there with regards to claims about humility and pretense and grand claims and similarities. I've heard several of the GB give talks and prayers and there they were very humble throughout. Jesus and his apostles were very bold. The Christian Greek Scriptures are replete with counsel not found in the Tanakh, because of the influence of non-Jewish thought and culture. How much moreso do we need the fine-tuning, what with the subtle demonic influences which are even more pervasive than in the 1st century CE, especially with the TV and Internet and printed material available wherever we go.
-
Brother Apostate
Interesting discussion here.
I hold the Arian viewpoint of God's nature, yet I'm not so dogmatic in my view that I can't honestly see how another may interpret God's nature as a Trinity, using Scripture.
I think discussions such as this one on this thread point out major differences between the JW mindset (althogh not exclusively theirs), and the mindset that Christ and his disciples promoted.
In the context of Christian search for truth, praying for Holy Spirit to direct one's study and understanding of the Holy Scriptures is necessary.
As one progresses studying God's Word in this manner, it will become clear that many, many (perhaps most) scriptures can be interpreted numerous ways.
The question then arises, if there are some scriptures that can only be interpreted one way (or no interpretation is necessary), yet others can have numerous interpretations, why do the JWs feel that they must always have THE answer? They are always setting themselves up for future re-interpretation ad nauseum.
This is one of the many reasons I left the dubs, that they feel it is necessary to have only one "company line" conclusion on each topic from Scripture, when numerous other interpretations of Scripture exist, soundly based on Scripture.
I believe it really does come down to Agape, or a lack thereof, coupled with haughtiness- "we, the GB" are the only ones with the "correct" interpretation.
The "unity" and "love" is enforced by a narrow view, which is often changed, and sometimes changed back again.
And I'm not saying the JWs are the only ones guilty of this.
Think about it- if only those Scriptural teachings that need no interpretation form the basis of our core beliefs, then there is no need to disfellowship those who hold alternative, Scripturally based interpretations on other matters.
This promotes an atmosphere of true loving brotherhood and open-minded search for the truth.
It requires true humilty and love, the two earmarks of God's sevants throughout time.
Something you unfortunately won't find in the JWs, or organized Christianity as a whole, imo.
BA- Individuals sometimes want to have the "right" conclusion, when there exists no "right" conclusion.
PS- It's LOVE and HUMILITY to admit "I don't know" -there's not enough proof for most dogma- it is leaven of a devisive nature.
-
Fred E Hathaway
What you left is not as developed as it is now, nor will be as each issue comes out. The speculation that existed 5 or 10 or 20 years ago doesn't show up in the Congregation I'm assigned to now. But, then, just as each of the 7 congregations in Asia Minor received different counsel [in Rev.2 & Rev.3], so each congregation in the Apostle Paul's day had different issues, as does each congregation today. But, there is growth into Christ's fullness over time, where the holy spirit is at work. Where it isn't there's lopping off, as there should be.
-
AuldSoul
Fred,
But, then, just as each of the 7 congregations in Asia Minor received different counsel [in Rev.2 & Rev.3], so each congregation in the Apostle Paul's day had different issues, as does each congregation today.
We aren't discussing personality problems or spiritual difficulties. We are discussing problems of doctrine. You know, doctrine; like the dogma of the Catholic church that the JWs always bash because it doesn't adhere to the Bible? The dogma of Jehovah's Witnesses doesn't adhere to the Bible either.
I can't think of even one respect in which Jehovah's Witnesses are genuinely better than any other religion professing to be Christian, but I can think of many ways in which they are worse than most.
—AuldSoul
-
heathen
Hathaway
The speculation that existed 5 or 10 or 20 years ago doesn't show up in the Congregation I'm assigned to now.
The religion still makes claims to alot of things they can't scripturally support . The blood policy for one , the 2 witness rules for child abuse victims , the generation dogma is still a mess , the anointment dogma is just as screwy , there's a whole list of things they keep flip flopping on and tooling around with that nobody in their right mind would take them seriously on at this point.
Auldsoul -- there is one thing that does seperate them from most other religions and that is the teaching that they are not allowed to take arms and fight over politics . I know there are other religions that refuse as well , such as the amish .
-
Fred E Hathaway
Those who want to discuss my understandings rather than than the current thread subject can meet me at http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/131766/2343640/post.ashx#2343640. Thank you for your attention to this announcement. We now return to the Subject entitled: "Trinitarians" how can you "lie" to the truth? Is truth a person?.