by Earnest 49 Replies latest jw friends
A question for Earnest:
To what extent do you consider Paul's letters inspired? He didn't seem to claim such inspiration. Wouldn't he have said 'God does not desire women to be teachers' (rather than 'I') ?
Just curious... to me I can see clearly that the more dear it became to its readers the more 'inspired of God' it consequently became.
cellomould
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
Earnest, again I appreciate your comments. I'm again impressed to see a somewhat pro-JW person do the careful research that you've done. In my experience it's the rare JW-defender who will go that far.
You've focused on an issue that I and others see as central to what is wrong with the Watchtower organization, namely, "Franz's answer to the question : Don't you have some fixed creeds that don't change?" Refiner's Fire" correctly pointed out that the only truly fixed creed of Jehovah's Witnesses is the "faithful and discreet slave" doctrine. A creed does not have to be written down. According to Webster's the definition of "creed" includes "an accepted system of religious belief, any system of belief or of opinion". Saying that "the Bible is our only creed" is nonsensical because one can extract any number of beliefs from it, often conflicting ones, as "the faithful slave" has so amply demonstrated. In my view, saying this is the equivalent of saying, "our creed is whatever we choose to believe", which is just plain stupid.
As you point out, a JW can certainly believe whatever he chooses to believe -- as long as it's kept in his own head. While it's true that a religion could fall apart if a certain amount of unity of speech is not maintained, that's really beside the point in terms of our discussion here. Why? Because the Society teaches that it is wrong for a "Christian" to hold -- even in his own head -- opinions that differ from the Society's. Thinker pointed out that the August 1, 2001 Watchtower stated that "a mature Christian ... does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. Rather, he has complete con-fidence in the truth as it is revealed by Jeho-vah God through his Son, Jesus Christ, and "the faithful and discreet slave." In other words, anyone who holds private opinions differing from the opinions of the Governing Body is immature at best and an apostate at worst. This is blatant manipulation.
So, while a person can in principle "harbor private ideas", in practice JWs are told that this is against Jehovah's will. This is precisely what Knorr and Franz were doing in their testimony in the Moyle trial. What they did is acknowledge the obvious -- that JW leaders are not infallible and are not inspired -- but they turned right around and acknowledged that the Society equates its teachings with God's because they do not allow that there are any differences between theirs and God's. In other words, they practiced doubletalk. Worse, because they probably believed what they were saying, they practiced Orwellian doublethink.
Everyone acknowledges that JW leaders are not inspired, and their record proves it. The problem is that JWs are required to act is if JW leaders are inspired. This means that in practice, JWs must pretend to believe that everything in Watchtower publications is inspired, because if they voice a differing opinion they may well find themselves in serious trouble with elders.
My point in this thread, and in plenty of others, is that if one acts as if one were inspired, then one is really claiming to be inspired. It doesn't matter if one then claims, "I never claimed to be inspired". If one does, one is being disingenuous and practicing doubletalk, or even doublethink.
This attitude of claiming for all practical purposes to be inspired goes right back to C. T. Russell. I'm sure you've read enough old WTS literature to know the way he did this. He claimed that he was only teaching about "God's dates" and such, that he found in the Bible. But he also claimed that these teachings were opened up to him by holy spirit -- that he could never have figured it all out under his own power. Whatever you want to call it -- divine guidance or divine inspiration -- it's the same thing. Russell claimed to get knowledge by supernatural means.
Rutherford and his boys engaged in the same kind of doubletalk. Go back and reread the Moyle transcript you quoted (columns 1473,1474) and see if you can pick out the doubletalk. I could do it in some detail, but once one catches on to how the Orwellian mindset works, anyone can easily do it.
AlanF
Some very valid points have been raised in the preceding posts regarding the fact that the GB compare their role today with that of the apostles in the first century. I don't think that extends to the belief that WT publications are an extension of the Bible canon, similar to the belief the Latter-Day Saints have of 'The Book of Mormon'. But it seems it might be likened to letters of Paul and other apostles which are not canonical, e.g. the letter of Paul to the Laodiceans (Colossians 4:16). I also think the suggestion that a mature Christian "does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding" has a very post-apostolic flavour to it. The Acts of the Apostles is full of disputing and dissension among the rank and file, and even Peter, a rock of the church, is notorious for his personal opinions. There is some evidence that soon after the apostles died there was some form of hierarchy which enforced conformity in the copying and distribution of the scriptures. This can be seen both in the universal use of 'nomina sacra' (recognised abbreviations for sacred words) and the use of books rather than scrolls for christian writings. But such conformity was not true of the apostolic period.
But what does perturb me in the light of Fred Franz's insistence that JW are not a religion, is the attempts in recent years to obtain legal recognition as a religion. I personally think the UN furore is a storm in a teacup but I think it is symptomatic of a much broader policy to gain political respectability. This is rather drifting from the thread of this post (which was about the misuse of selective quotation) and for the sake of simplicity I would like to expand on that in another thread as soon as I can do so coherently. But I do think it is directly related to the experience of the early Christians and we will have to come to terms with what we would have done if we had been living in the second and third centuries rather than now. But more on that at another time in another thread.
I recognise the issue that Alan raises, that "everyone acknowledges that JW leaders are not inspired...but JWs are required to act is if they are" and agree it probably is doublethink. I can remember a part I had on an assembly a few years ago where I was to ask an elder to explain the modern-day fulfillment of the book of Ruth. After a couple of rehearsals I was convinced it was nonsense and decided I was not going to agree I understood it. But when it came to the crunch in front of an audience of a few thousand my nerve failed me. The fact is that neither I nor the elder believed that interpretation to be inspired. We both knew that interpretation belongs to God and in the future the "light might get brighter". But the types and antitypes were explained with such certainty there really wasn't any room for disputing and dissension.
But I do think there is divine guidance involved. This is necessarily my "personal opinion" but it will put much of what I have said in context. Paul asks "who has come to know Jehovah's mind" and it is often difficult to understand why He does things in a certain way. It must have been difficult for the Jews to understand why Jehovah would use gentiles like Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus to accomplish his purpose. But he did use them because they were at the right place at the right time. As far as I know he had no use for them outside his dealings with Israel. When we come to the post-biblical period it is largely conjecture as to who God is guiding. We do know that his purpose is to have the good news preached throughout the earth. To that end I believe he used many dedicated men and women to translate and disseminate the Bible. I believe he used men like Erasmus and Luther and, even, Cardinal Ximenes. I am convinced he used and is using various Bible societies. I am also convinced he is using JWs, both to publish the Bible and to preach the message of good news. I find the universal emphasis on getting out and talking to people a very compelling argument in their support. And I think there is divine guidance in the publications when, and only when, it suits his purpose to do so. How then do we tell what is divine guidance and what is not. Ahhh! There's the rub. We can only do what Knorr explained we need to do, namely "when we present the publications of the Society, we present with it the Scriptures, the Scriptures set forth in the Bible. The citations are given in the writing; and our advice is to the People to look up these Scriptures and study them in their own Bibles in their own homes."
And so if we come across some of the issues that refiners fire mentioned, like wearing a suit to meetings or not growing a beard or engaging in door to door activity then it is incumbent on us to determine whether these are scriptural requirements. You ask why "every single male Dub across the entire planet shaves his beard". That's simply not true. There are brothers in my congregation with beards. I grew a beard for some time until the thought of food getting stuck in it rather put me off the idea. I have been told that beards are prevalent in congregations at fishing ports. It's just nonsense to suggest that is viewed as a commandment from Jehovah. I agree that it is discouraged for various reasons and the elders can choose to pressurise conformity but it is not and never has been "inspired". Similarly with the wearing of suits. Not everyone wears a suit. I didn't have a suit for years and when I lived in Africa there were very few suits in the middle of summer. You'd die of the heat. What you are talking about is standards of dress and we all know the Bible just sets out principles. Of course there are ways and means of getting people to conform but that is not the same as believing something to be inspired.
I have gone on far too long. I fear that the later the hour the more verbose I get. Hope this will still make sense in the light of day, if not I am sure you will let me know.
Earnest
"Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch!" - Rev. Charles Dodgson
Hi Earnest
just a couple of comments, you said
"...come to terms with what we would have done if we had been living in the second and third centuries rather than now..."
If there was a group preaching the WT doctrines of today, back in history, they would have been severely suppressed, rooted out, there was no tolerance , there would have been extensive writings refuting the heresies. They already exist in 1st & 2nd century. Then look what happened to Luther. He was radical but no where near to the WT of today.
Even Russell did not believe or teach key WT doctrines of today. (and I'm not just referring to failed dates)
"I am also convinced he is using JWs, both to publish the Bible and to preach the message of good news."
You seem to agree that what the JWs publish resembles the bible and that the message of good news is the same commission the apostles carried out. The JW's good news is a different gospel and as the bible reader will see - you are not to follow them.
The mormons and the JW's at least have the decency to NOT call their bible the Holy Bible and have given it another name so as to identify it as different. Simple clue, often missed.
Hi Will,
Thanks for your comments and those posted earlier which I thought were quite succinct. Those and other responses homed in on the primary issue of just what we mean when we speak of active direction. If you don't mind I will expand on the early Christian scenario in another thread as mentioned earlier. On the matter of the Bible and the message of good news I think we must agree to differ although I am sure that when it comes to prophetic speculation there is no modern-day christian group that resembles the beliefs of the early Christians.
Earnest
"Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch!" - Rev. Charles Dodgson
They are slowly and surely selling out to "Babylon the Great" buddy.
Selling their soul to the "system". "Compromising with the world".
All the while righteously condemning those practises.
How , in a conglomerate world, can you run a 6 million member empire without climbing into bed with the Government, the tax department, and assorted other organizations?
Answer: YOU CANT.
Thus, because they make mouthings about how wicked the government is and its run by Satan, they have no option but to practise a double standard and sneak into their harlots bedchamber in secret.
That takes double think Ernie.
You have to do it while telling yourself youre not doing it.
And why are they doing this?
its because they have their market share.
Theyve got 6 million.
The Adventists 6 million.
The mormons 10 million.
They are content.
Now they are thinking, "How can we get more comfortable?"
They arent unique in this.
We were talking the other day about these pentecostal churches that preach that antichrist is going to come and set up a world dictatorship to fullfill Bible prophecy.
The only problem is they actively work fighting tooth and nail to fight the establishment of this anti christ system they supposedly cant wait for.
Isnt that working against Gods purposes?
Of course it is.
Extremist churches that preach death and destruction are all caught in this same bind.
The blood and thunder is exciting and gets the rubes in the door.
But once theyve got a big congregation they start thinking about their belly and their new car.They say they want Armaggedon to come but work the opposite reality.
refiners fire, you're stealing my thunder with your observation
How , in a conglomerate world, can you run a 6 million member empire without climbing into bed with the Government, the tax department, and assorted other organizations?
Answer: YOU CANT.
I believe that is true now and it was just as true for the early Christians. That is the nub of my argument in the thread I've promised to raise but I'm just checking my information on the issues the early christians faced before I present it. I'm glad to see we've found something we can agree on.
Earnest
"Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch!" - Rev. Charles Dodgson
Hi Earnest,
You said:
We can only do what Knorr explained we need to do, namely "when we present the publications of the Society, we present with it the Scriptures, the Scriptures set forth in the Bible. The citations are given in the writing; and our advice is to the People to look up these Scriptures and study them in their own Bibles in their own homes."
This seems to imply that you are free to read the quoted scripture and make up your own mind. I don't believe a JW can do that and publicly disagree with the WT's current interpretation.
Also, just because a scripture is quoted means nothing. The INTERPRETATION of that scripture often changes; therefore the scripture itself is not the issue. The "interpretation" is.
Concerning the speading of the good news, did you know the WT used to have a radio program, used to print articles for newspapers? They stopped. Now, they stopped subscriptions to WT and Awake. How do these actions further the spreading of the good news?
As far as being lead by the holy spirit, as far as I know, Russell was the only one who attempted to explain this in writing. I have studied his explanation in this thread:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp? id=19324&site=3#243890
thinker
I guess this serves as evidence that the biggest Christian value that JWs are lacking, is humility.
At their core, they believe that God listens first and foremost TO THEM. At the exclusion of everyone else, whom he is going to destroy.
Sad. Very sad.
cellomould:
You asked:
To what extent do you consider Paul's letters inspired? He didn't seem to claim such inspiration. Wouldn't he have said 'God does not desire women to be teachers' (rather than 'I') ?
I agree that at the time Paul wrote he was probably not thinking that his letters would be part of the NT. They all thought the end was so close I am sure what was written was for immediate instruction only (with the possible exception of Revelation). But when the end did not come they had to maintain their faith with what they had left. We have more of Paul than anyone else because Paul wrote more and encouraged the congregations to share his letters. If printing had been invented he would surely have started a printing works.
I believe this is another instance of Jehovah using someone because "they were at the right place at the right time". I am not convinced he was inspired in the sense that God predetermined everything he wrote to the congregations. He does sometimes distinguish between what is his opinion and what is "from the Lord" (1 Cor.7:25). So he was aware some of what he wrote was directly from God. Some was not. Perhaps the rest was only inspired in the sense that Paul based it on already existing scriptural principles. Or on things that Jesus had said. But at the end of the day I choose to think that God is not so slapdash that it is a matter of luck what instruction became part of scripture.
I am aware of the weakness of saying it is scripture because it is in the Bible. A rather circular argument. But the Bible canon is now a fait accompli and as with much else in a religious community, you either take it or leave it.
Earnest
Edited by - Earnest on 24 September 2002 19:22:34
