by thetrueone 233 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
"My views on anything written is never 'set in stone' unless zid confirms it to me in spirit. I think I am doing spiritual writings...I am tuned in to your wavelength.....LOL..." Still Thinking, above
Oh, Still Thinking, I'm laughing now, but you have no idea how scary that sounds!!!
I guess it must have worked like that with the High Priest who had the Urim and Thummim. If he declared "thus sayeth the lord" who could argue? - Cofty
I don't understand your comparison either. If he (the high priest) said it? If so, then what does that have to do with what I wrote? I am not a high priest and no one has to listen to me, and I have never stated otherwise - Tec
It was a time when a man could get away with pretending to have a hotline to god. When there was a question he would consult the special rocks on his tunic and declare what the lord's decision was. It was not open to any sort of scrutiny. In retrospect we now know he wasn't really getting any answers on his speical rocks he was using god as a sockpuppet to avoid contradiction.
Now any christian can do something similar. With a hotline to god the world is your theological oyster.
"I can only imagine what the world would look like, if someone had refused the vulcanization of rubber, adding various trace metals to iron, the research into nutritional deficiencies, the anthropological digs in Africa, the paleologic digs illuminating further what the dinosaurs were really like - especially the latest discovery regarding a near-relative of the T-rex having feathers..."
"Zid, I don't understand what this comparison has to do with what I wrote. Might you break it down further?..." tec, page 11, post #8659
My comparison - as usual - has to do with the underlying mechanism, not the superstructure.
That might be the cause of your confusion.
Let me illustrate...
Looking at sailing ships... There are wide varieties and variations on sailing ships. Some have fiberglass hulls, others have wooden hulls, others have steel hulls.
But the underlying MECHANISM - a "hull" - remains, no matter what the materials it is made out of, no matter what sort of "superstructure" is built upon the hulls.
Let me try another illustration that has more to do with actions, than with objects...
Take the field of sales, for example...
A salesperson may be selling: cars, boats, planes, perfumes, interior decoration, insurance, stocks in a publicly-traded company, seminars to enable one to 'visualize' oneself back to health, seancés, management seminars or even self-confidence workshops.
But the underlying "mechanism" will always be the same - determine which segment of the population would be most likely to purchase one's product, service OR intangible 'benefit'; approach that population segment which is "softest" - most likely to consider your product/service/intangible 'benefit'; and present reasons - or stimulate fears or competitive feelings - which are most likely to prompt your prospects to buy the product/service/intangible 'benefit'.....
Now let's get back to your question...
Superficially, you are 'picking and choosing' which parts of the bible you choose to accept. But the underlying mechanism is simply refusal to accept facts which clash with your personal preferences.
The theological system which is the basis for your beliefs originated with standard Christianity, and the current "community" of Christianity consisting of various forms of Christianity which accept the bible as a whole - whether viewing it as completely literal, literal mixed with symbolic/allegorical/poetic, or largely ancient myths and wisdoms that nonetheless carry lessons which Christians can still learn from, today...
In your attempts to 'divorce' "Jesus" or "Christ" from those scriptures which do not fit your personal preferences, you have moved far afield from the "norm" - the generally-accepted procedures of current Christianity, based on a generally-accepted set of books established in a time close to the apparent beginnings of Christianity.
Now, going back to the illustration I used...
All of the scientific discoveries I listed, were made by people who relied upon the established scientific methods - observe, note circumstances surrounding accidental discovery/experiment, replicate results, publish so that other scientists within the same general "community" could replicate and confirm the original findings...
But if any of those scientists had used YOUR methods, they would have 'cherry-picked' the results that they wanted, ignored any results that didn't match what they wanted to hear, or denied the validity of any conflicting information.
This has happened, occasionally, in the history of science, and every time it did, it either stalled scientific progress or set it back.
And that is what I meant...
Your denial of facts removes you from the accepted 'norm' of the entire Christian "system", past and present, and brings any "progress" to a halt - in the sense that there is no established standard or procedure or even method to your selection and process of acceptance of scriptures...
As others have stated, your methodology is terribly obscure, which removes any common ground as a 'base' to establish standards and facts.
Amusingly, your behavior constitutes a process that competes with the established Christian "system". This process has frequently occurred in the past - you're certainly not the first to generate a schism within ranks - and such schisms are a primary reason there are so many Christian religions, sects, and cults in the world today. Schisms have divided Christianity, and have rightly called into question that claim/commandment of "Jesus Christ", that there would be "peace" - and unity - among "his" followers.
Scientists who behave in a similar fashion - denying facts, rejecting opposing viewpoints without proper experimentation and peer review, often set science - and humanity - back. Sometimes tens, even hundreds of years of progress is lost...
You do not assist progress - growth - achievements - by denying facts.
This will probably be my last discussion-oriented post to you, as I've analysed my biological incubator's behavior and situation further, and have realised something very significant about self-delusion...
"In retrospect we now know he wasn't really getting any answers on his special rocks he was using god as a sockpuppet to avoid contradiction...." Cofty, above [bold mine]
Hee hee!!
Cofty, don't you mean, "rockpuppet", instead..???
LOL....I scared the 'she devil'.......awesome!!!!!!!!
Good post above ^^^^^^ by the way...helped me clear a few things up in my mind.
Structure is required for probability of learning to take place. Whether or not a family goes to Church or not doesn't change the fact that morals need practice.
True Sab. but I guess its a matter of what are the morals being taught, some are obviously good, as equal some are obvious bad
and aren't those said morals completely diverse through the many religions around.
And isn't it important where those morals are derived from since many are established from ancient written texts by primitive civilizations
thousands of years ago. I think it should.
Zid - Yes, I thought that you were saying that I was 'cherry-picking', but I wasn't sure.
Superficially, you are 'picking and choosing' which parts of the bible you choose to accept.
Yes, to a degree... becasue it is not the 'bible' that I follow, but rather it is Christ whom I follow.
But the underlying mechanism is simply refusal to accept facts which clash with your personal preferences.
However this is untrue.
For one, what facts?
For two, it has nothing to do with my personal preferences. Believe me, there are times when my personal preference is not to turn the other cheek or forgive someone who has wronged me, lol. But Christ taught it, so personal preference or not, I know that it is right and true.
So yes, I might refuse to accept interpretations or ideas or statements that clash with Him and His teachings (and my personal understandings can be wrong or immature as well... barring things that He has taught me in spirit). But there are no facts that conflict with Him. If there was a fact that conflicted with my understanding of him, I would absolutely see it, absorb it, and if it was a fact, then also accept it.
You keep saying that I go against established Chrsitianity... and I have no problem with that, btw... but you seem not to realize that there are many different forms of the religion of Christianity. For instance, some believe the bible is the word of God and must be taken as literal and infallable. Some believe that Christ is the Word of God, as I do, and look to Him over anything or anyone else. Some look to a pope or a governing body, or whatever head of their religion is. I am seeking to avoid all of this, as well as the traditions and falsehoods that come with it, and choosing to follow Christ alone. Not starting a new sect for certain. (that would of course imply that I am the first person to do follow Christ and not religion or its traditions... and I am far, far from that)
Back to your analogy about scientists cherry-picking. You see it as cherry-picking. Perhaps I can offer an analogy to help show how I see it. (probably not, because I'm not a scientiest and will not get this very accurate, but hopefully it will be enough that you see what I am meaning)
In science, I am assuming that established scientific laws that we know are the constants in any e x periement or new hypothesis. So if you are trying to determine the mass of an object at its point of entry into the atmosphere, gravity remains a constant in the equation or test. Because it is a law. Density, material, the size of the crater or damage (if any) that different materials could inflict... these are variables in your test. But you don't change the law to try and squeeze in your personal hypothesis. Science uses known laws to measure and develop hypothesis and theories.
In faith (mine, at least), Christ is that law. He is that constant. Even the bible (if you take it as a whole) states this. Christ is the Truth and Image of God. So I do not attempt to change this law to suit the variables... I test those variables against the established law, dismissing those (or at least setting aside those) that conflict with the established law.
That is my 'methodology'. Christ as Truth, above anything or anyone else. (other than God, but Christ is the image of God so that kind of goes without saying)
As others have stated, your methodology is terribly obscure, which removes any common ground as a 'base' to establish standards and facts.
I do not undertand what is obscure to you and a few others. I truly don't.
You do not assist progress - growth - achievements - by denying facts.
You must establish something as fact before you can state that I am denying a fact. You have yet to do this.
Peace,
tammy
Sheeesh...
Here we go again...
Christianity is a SYSTEM of belief, based upon a collectively-accepted group of books...
You have rejected sections of those books, therefore, within your own version of belief "system", you have gutted the basis for the entire Christian belief system.
Which puts you drastically out-of-step with most mainstream and nearly all fundamentalist Christian churches - not to mention placing yourself above many of the bible writers that "Jesus" himself accepted as "divinely inspired"...
To use science again as an example, your behavior is analogous to a paleontologist who rejects the theory of continental drift, while attempting to present a valid explanation for the occurrence of certain fossils and fossil layers in both Africa/Europe and North/South America - both sides of the Atlantic.
Any paleontologist attempting that, would probably be laughed off-stage, due to his denial of the copious amounts of facts and research demonstrating that North/South America and Europe/Africa were once one continuous continental mass.
And there again is the underlying behavior pattern... Denial of facts that don't suit a viewpoint that has become extremely valuable to the person, for reasons that are personal rather than impersonal.
In the realm of religion, since it is not based on empirically-proveable facts in the scientific sense, a stance that is "outside" the norm can convey great power - as I pointed out before, the "outsider's" view has produced every schism in the Christian church.
But in the realm of religion, since one is dealing with an invisible product, one can make pretty much any claims - but again, if you're going to claim to be a "Christian", one requirement IS to believe in the bible.
Here's an experiment for you to try....
Call up a pastor of a Baptist church, a Lutheran minister, a Catholic diocese, and a Methodist minister, and run your particular idea of accepting some scriptures while rejecting others past them...
See what they have to say...
"You must establish something as fact before you can state that I am denying a fact. You have yet to do this...." tec, above
The fact is, almost all of Christianity accepts the bible as a whole - as did "Jesus" himself, according to people who allegedly were his companions during his "lifetime". That is the only fact I need - and that is the fact that you continue to deny.
Sociolgemycol.....pshycological....too many big words, moving on.
Which puts you drastically out-of-step with most mainstream and nearly all fundamentalist Christian churches
Ah... I have zero problem with this. No problem with it whatsoever.
So if you have been arguing for the religion of Christianity, and I have been arguing the faith for Christ... well, no suprise we cannot see eye to eye. Not talking the same language.
not to mention placing yourself above many of the bible writers that "Jesus" himself accepted as "divinely inspired"...
You don't know what He considered divinely inspiried, or how he viewed those books that he quoted passages from. And I don't place myself above any bible book writer... at the same time I don't think they would place themselves above Christ, or have a problem with someone who put Christ before them.
but again, if you're going to claim to be a "Christian", one requirement IS to believe in the bible.
Says who?
The requirement for being a Christian (or hoping to be one at least) is believing in and accepting Christ. As to your ex periement, I bet if I asked the same pastors of most of those choices you gave, what the requirement is to being a christian in one sentence... it would be to believe in and accept Christ. The bible, rules, traditions, doctrines, etc... all of those would be secondary to Christ, Himself.The fact is, almost all of Christianity accepts the bible as a whole. That is the only fact I need - and that is the fact that you continue to deny.
Much of it, perhaps. But almost all of it? I don't think so. Not that it matters to me one way or the other what the religion does, in its various sects. But I think your 'fact' is a bit flawed. If you can show me how you come to it, the stats and all that, I won't deny it. Why would I?
I do think you're wrong though. There are sects that accept the NT over the OT, when it comes to determining what God wants of us. Some who think the OT applies only to Israel, and only the message of Christ (NT) applies to all. Gideons spring to mind. Gnostics as well do not accept the bible as a whole, or perhaps even at all. I don't know enough about all the various sects to state how others view the bible, or inspiration, or the spirit. Perhaps you have researched all of these... because you would have to in order to be able to state 'as fact' that almost all of Christianity accept the bible as a whole.
Also... when you say accept as a whole, do you mean accept it as an all or nothing, divinely inspired book? Or something else?
Peace,
tammy
