Imperfection is irrelevant. Who has the right to rule?

by bluecanary 117 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  palmtree67

  Interesting food for thought here, Blue.

  I don't know if you beleive in God or not, but I do. But does he have "the right to rule?" I guess so, to a degree. This is how I thinnk of it:

  The GB is always saying Jehovah is our "Heavenly Father". The Bible says the same. All of us are "sons and daughters".

  If this is the kind of relationship that god wants to have with us (parent to child), then what does having the "right to rule" mean?

  When my children were small, I probably had the "right to rule" over them. I told them when to go to bed, when to bath, what to eat or not eat, what to wear, etc......In many ways, when children are young, parents have "life or death authority" over them.

  But children progress and grow. I have an adult son, whom I really have no authority over, and a teenage daughter, who I have less and less authority over. (*sigh* that's a whole 'nother thread....)

  I don't expect my children to live their lives for me. It makes me happy to see some of the decisions they make for themselves, even if they are not the decisions I would make for them, or even for myself. When they screw up, they'll learn from it. I can't protect them from the consequences, only be there for them if things are tough. I don't want my children to feel they have to live their life a certain way just to make me happy. I want genuine happiness for them, and I don't think you can be genuinely happy in life when you are constantly bending your desires to someone else's.

  Back to the question: Who has the right to rule?

  I think God does. But as a "loving heavenly father", I'm not sure he wants to rule absolutely over us. The myriads of rules (especially the damaging ones) of the GB I no longer believe reflect how God wants to deal with us.

  I think God wants what I want for my children - for them to become full-grown, responsible people, having the life skills necessary to make the best decisions they can. And when it doesn't work out, He should be there for us to support us, as any parent would be for their children.

  I think the GB is taking away our indivual responsibility to God and trying to regulate too much of our life.

  I hope this makes sense. I'm only on my first coffee of the day.....
• 

  bluecanary

  palmtree, thank you for your well-reasoned thoughts. I've often wondered, for those who think of God's relationship to us like a parent-child relationship, do humans ever attain indpendent adult status?
• 

  palmtree67

  Ok, I have more to say. (Sorry)

  I also don't want the kind of relationship with my children where they live their life in fear of displeasing me. Now, my children know when I am going to be displeased with something.....(See the thread I started about my daughter's arrest.)

  But even when they REALLY screw up, I want them to know that I would NEVER stop loving them, or being there for them. I wouldn't want my children to live in fear of me cutting them off.

  This is another area in which I think the GB over-steps God's intentions towards us. They seem to want to portray Him as constantly being displeased with us.....I'm not sure that's how God is.

  This understanding has been a big step for me. The time away from the congregation has actually made me feel much closer to God.
• 

  palmtree67

  Blue,

  Yes, I think we do each attain independant adult staus with god. But I don't think another human can dictate when that is. It's personal between you and God. The same as with children. Some are independant quicker than others.
• 

  palmtree67

  "In ancient times God chose who his spokes man would be..

  Today God has no choice..

  The WBT$ governing Body has chosen themselves as Gods spokes men.."

  Exactly, OUTLAW!! Well said.
• 

  mkr32208

  Why oh WHY all the attention on this Reniaa? I mean seriously just ignore her because you KNOW what she's going to do. She's going to open the thread and shout 'blue, funky winkerbeans, banana hammock!' Then run away. I mean seriously she won't yell that exactly but that nonsense I typed has just as much relevance to the question as what she WILL type. Then you guys will get into a 5 page long argument (with each other) about whether the blue refers to the banana the hammock the funky winkerbeans are whats IN the hammock or maybe they are blue or the banana is or or or or etc...

  Then on page 6 or so Reniaa will log back in and scream 'chicken breast, cd calenders, electromagnetic jiggeryjolts!' (because whatever nonsense she post it won't have anything to do with either A) the original question or B) her original comments and you guys will be off again for another 5 pages.

  I mean seriously can you not see that she doesn't really care? She's not here for knowledge or even arguing she's just here for attention! I mean this is porn for her and you guys are giving it to her as hard and fast as you can!
• 

  palmtree67

  Excuse me, mkr....

  This thread was on topic until now.

  Your post once again directs attention to Reniaa and does not even have 1 comment about the topic: Who has the right to rule?

  Try again, hunny......
• 

  Deputy Dog

  mkr

  Why oh WHY all the attention on this Reniaa? I mean seriously just ignore her because you KNOW what she's going to do. She's going to open the thread and shout 'blue, funky winkerbeans, banana hammock!' Then run away.

  I've wondered about that myself. She likes to push buttons. I thinks it's the lies and the way she tries to defend them. She provides proof that JWs believe the WT has this authority. Maybe it's fun to shoot her lies down and or expose them.
• 

  Narkissos

  The "perfection / imperfection" category pair as used by the WT reflects its technological age and background... and is only as "relevant" to anybody's "right to rule" as we allow it to be imo.

  A "right" is no objective "thing". It is always granted. Dictators, democratic leaders, religious authorities and "God" himself would have no "right" to rule if people did not grant them such "right". (Reminds me of Baudelaire's famous blasphemy: "God is the only being who doesn't even have to exist in order to rule.") Might only makes right inasmuch as we allow it to. As long as people are willing to obey for whatever reason (fear, desire for safety, interest), no amount of "imperfection" on their (real or imaginary) leaders' part will deter them from doing so. And they will make it sound like "good reasons" (= "right"). Otoh no amount of "perfection" will add up to a "right" to rule if people are not willing to obey.
• 

  choosing life

  LOL @mkr. I don't know who has the right to rule. That phrase "right to rule", used so commonly by jws, just never did anything for me.

  I always hoped God had the right and intelligence to solve things through the application of love.