Perfect, Nearly Perfect, and Mostly Perfect....Religion

by jgnat 39 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • trevor
    the fact that scripture is divinely inspired and is the foundation for our morals and beliefs; the fact that Jesus is THE ONLY WAY to heaven

    Oh dear - shining one - have you learned nothing from Terry’s lessons. For something to be a fact , it has to be provable, otherwise it is a personal belief.

    Go and stand in the corner with your hands on your head and stop muttering.

  • Shining One
    Shining One

    >Mr.Pot, meet Mrs. Kettle. Whenever people state their beliefs/interpretations as the only right way they are setting themselves up as judge.

    Yes, I know that fundamentalists are characterized as you seem to believe. Too bad for you. You've got it wrong. When I state my belief of a particular text is 'correct', backed up by the context of the passage and the invaluable insights of reliable Bible translators, that is a truth. I don't have to go back and chip away or undermine what has already been settled.That is the 'black and white of it'!

    > What I really want to know, even if you reply to nothing else, is how your qualifications are superior to hers?

    The Bible is the word of God. That is the first axiom that has been settled in my mind. My qualifications as opposed to hers are irrelevant. You can study and analyze text using proven methods. A text out of context is a pretext. When one denies the foundation in part then where does it stop? Isn't there a 'slippery slope' that we put ourselves on when we deny the foundation? Are you really arguing against the use of Biblical text to clarify other texts? Are you really arguing against the life work of some of the most intelligent Christian's to ever live? I back up my interpretations with that of the most proven, reliable translators to ever live. If I look at a text and come up with some 'off the wall' idea that none have ever come up with before then I am on shaky ground indeed!

    I could also go on about my belief in the reality of the life of Christ and the assurance of Him living in me but that goes off into personal and incidental proof. It is, in reality, the most important truth of all.


  • Shining One
    Shining One

    >How depressing to see the "shining ass" succeed in hijacking what otherwise would have been an interesting discussion. Rex, please re-insert your head into your colon and allow the thread to proceed with the original question.
    I see you are up to your usual level of intelligent argument.

  • Shining One
    Shining One

    >Well, that would be fine and dandy if the WTBTS hadn't set themselves up as the sole mouthpiece for Jehovah in these 'last days'. My JW hubby brings up what he considers fatal flaws in my church's doctrines as why he could never participate in our worship. I wonder, how are the JW's any different?

    No hijack, I just pointed out her own hypocrisy as she regularly points out 'fatal flaws' in her own religion's statement of belief.

  • Shining One
    Shining One

    >On the contrary, aren't we judged by the "Word"? (Rom.14:10-13; Heb.4:12, 13) There's surely a mile of difference between Him and a dusty tome?

    If the Bible is just a 'dusty tome' to you, what is the foundation for your own intelligent belief and how can it be consistent? You say you are a Christian and I do believe that. If you cannot rely on scripture to be accurate and true (in context) then how can your foundation be laid upon the Chief Cornerstone and the foundation of the apostles?

  • Qcmbr

    I guess you have to classify what the word religion means -

    If you mean the authority to preach and teach - every church MUST claim perfection of authority by definition. If any church teaches that it doesn't have authority but it is going to give it a bash anyway it's like setting itself up as a cheap market stall selling doctrine during the Sermon on the Mount.

    If you mean in doctrine then if the above is true and you believe you have the authority then you must think your doctrine is nearly perfect (allowing for the odd change here or there as revelation / new light / circumstances dictate.) Why would any church think its doctrine wasn't at least nearlt perfect?

    If you mean by the membership then christianity was supposed to be for sinners (for the sick have no need of a doctor) and therefore the membership upon entering and joining in the christian body are in no way perfect and by recognising the constant need of repentance and forgiveness know that this is a process (and that would also include imperfect leaders.)

    If you mean in God then all would claim perfection (bit odd to say 'My God's good but he goofs fairly frequently') In fact there is a strong thread through most(all?) christian faiths that perfection is atainable in this life in and through a relationship with Christ in that the imperfect sinner has their failings compensated for by the sacrifice of the sinless son of God - thus when they take on the name of Christ - become His servants the debts are paid and perfection in Justice and mercy are achieved.

    If you mean in hope then again all churches (with one curious exception - JWs!) preach a perfect hope (return to God)for those who meet certain requirements (ranging from simply accepting Jesus to also keeping the commandments.)

    Religion is the means to perfection according to christianity in and through Jesus - .

  • LittleToe


    Too bad for you. You've got it wrong.

    Would that be a judgement? Could you miss the point more entirely?

    My qualifications as opposed to hers are irrelevant.

    On the contrary, you set yourself up as judge. If we are to listen to your interpretation of the Bible as opposed to someone else's, explain to us why? Since you pass off the words as your own, how are we to know that you are allegedly quoting from one of the many [condtradictory] translators, interpretors and commentators?

    Personally I love the commentary by John Gill, albeit he's a litle Hyper-Calvinist in places. Am I to set my store by a single man or a variety of them? How can it be said that I'm not just picking and choosing my commentators as much as my prooftexts, if I go down that route?

    I believe that you've fallen into the error of believing that your own subjective interpretation is correct, Rex. That you have some ancient supporters is neither here nor there, as you also have ancient detractors. This is as it has always been and always will be, this side of glory. Meanwhile (IMHO) you would do well to heed the admonition of our Lord to "judge none lest ye be judged".

    That would all be in accord with my opinon, of course

  • LittleToe
    If you cannot rely on scripture to be accurate and true (in context) then how can your foundation be laid upon the Chief Cornerstone and the foundation of the apostles?

    You've got that arse about tit...

  • AuldSoul

    If someone is relying on something it IS their foundation. If you are relying on Scripture (as defined by whom?) being accurate and true, then you aren't on the foundation of Christ.

  • silentWatcher

    Anyone who claims to have the whole truth needs to keep his mirror gleaming, and check often.

    yeah, but the rub is that they try to have both sides of the issue. The WT does NOT claim to be an inspired prophet, nor do they claim infallibility.
    There are WT articles where they explicitly state "We are not prophets". But, if you claim neither, then logically you must tolerate decsent. You acknowlege you MAY be wrong, and do not have all the answers.



Share this