Why do all intelligent Christians disobey Jesus?

by StoneWall 347 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  exjdub

  Sorry, but it appears that you have confused evidence in a criminal trial with the way history is done. You might want to read up on that as I do not have the time to instruct you. Secondly, I did not provide an appeal to authority. I provided an example that confirms the interpretation that you dismissed. You seem to think that dismissal is refutation which it isn't. Maybe you are reading too much of the four horse's asses of atheism,

  Regarding the verse you mentioned no Greel scholar, liberal or conservative, that I am aware of holds the JW interpretation. You might want to look into these things before you post.

  I am not looking for, nor do I need, your instruction. I actually was being polite by not initially laughing uproariously at your "evidence" of what Jesus meant by turning the other cheek. It was so convoluted and required such a stretch of imagination that I thought I would point out how your evidence is not evidence. Occam's Razor...most often the simplest answer is the right answer. You don't need to be a bible scholar or historical philosopher to understand what Jesus said: Turn the other cheek. So do it. If you choose to come up with a complicated workaround so that you can justify why Christians are willing to go to war and kill, go ahead. I am not the one who has to explain it to God, you do. For me I see it as hypocrisy.

  As far as the verse I mentioned, I used it as an example of how the JW's get caught up in minute details to support a doctrine that they have. You are no different. You need a convoluted workaround in order to justify a view that you have, so you use convoluted logic and unreasonably complicated explanations to make it work for you. No problem. Like I said, I am not the one that has to explain it, you do.

  I did not provide an appeal to authority. I provided an example that confirms the interpretation that you dismissed.

  Thank you for confirming my original issue. What you provided was an interpretation (or spin). There was no confirmation of the interpretation, it was a theory and a hopelessly blurry one at that. My original observation still stands: Christianity has core problems, especially modern Christianity, with the interpretation and obedience of Jesus' words. I think StoneWall has raised a very strong and fundamental topic. It seems to me that Christians have a really difficult time with these core issues and they would rather avoid them and think about the fluffy clouds of heaven and the personal relationship with the Lord, rather than focus on the fundamental problems of the Christian belief. It's called sticking your head in the sand. I did that for 35 years with the HoHo's. I won't waste any more time in fantasyland.

  exjdub
• 

  tec

  Christianity has core problems, especially modern Christianity, with the interpretation and obedience of Jesus' words.

  I'm not sure anyone here is disputing that. I think people, myself included, are disputing 'commands' being taken out of context.

  Tammy
• 

  XJW4EVR

  I am not looking for, nor do I need, your instruction. I actually was being polite by not initially laughing uproariously at your "evidence" of what Jesus meant by turning the other cheek. It was so convoluted and required such a stretch of imagination that I thought I would point out how your evidence is not evidence. Occam's Razor...most often the simplest answer is the right answer. You don't need to be a bible scholar or historical philosopher to understand what Jesus said: Turn the other cheek. So do it. If you choose to come up with a complicated workaround so that you can justify why Christians are willing to go to war and kill, go ahead. I am not the one who has to explain it to God, you do. For me I see it as hypocrisy.

  As far as the verse I mentioned, I used it as an example of how the JW's get caught up in minute details to support a doctrine that they have. You are no different. You need a convoluted workaround in order to justify a view that you have, so you use convoluted logic and unreasonably complicated explanations to make it work for you. No problem. Like I said, I am not the one that has to explain it, you do.

  Thank you for confirming my original issue. What you provided was an interpretation (or spin). There was no confirmation of the interpretation, it was a theory and a hopelessly blurry one at that. My original observation still stands: Christianity has core problems, especially modern Christianity, with the interpretation and obedience of Jesus' words. I think StoneWall has raised a very strong and fundamental topic. It seems to me that Christians have a really difficult time with these core issues and they would rather avoid them and think about the fluffy clouds of heaven and the personal relationship with the Lord, rather than focus on the fundamental problems of the Christian belief. It's called sticking your head in the sand. I did that for 35 years with the HoHo's. I won't waste any more time in fantasyland.

  Oh, yes, the old, "I'm smarter than you are because you are a Christian, and I'm not" ploy. Seen it too many times to be impressed by it. In fact, it's really pitiful when people like you have to play it. That's fine.
• 

  not a captive

  Exjdub,

  You didn't direct your comment to me but it made me think, so here goes--

  Something to think about: If it truly is a PERSONAL relationship, then why do so many Christians feel the need to tell the rest of the world how to live? Kinda makes it not so PERSONAL at that point, wouldn't you think?

  Good point. Paul talked to Christians about their conduct but thought they should not pick on each other about personal things--like what they eat, for instance. He told them more or less told --What difference does it make? "The meat for the belly the belly for meat--both will perish in time."

  Christians were discouraged to engage in behavior that broke down good order in the home and the larger community. It was seen as not only an affront to the community but put the word of God in a bad light--Drunkeness ,having sex with your step-mother, brawling, non-support of your family, and the like.

  But the idea that Christians tell the rest of the WORLD how to live? The way it seems to me (I'm trying to listen to Jesus)is that we are silly to tell the rest of the world how to live--but then it seems just as silly totell another Christian how to live. In either case we can only tell them how we see the matter in light of our own faith. But we are explicitly told not to judge the world--And that makes sense to me.

  The scriptures say there will be offenses committed by Christians--Jesus said that would happen at Mark 9:342-50. But he didn't outline an official judicial committee for resolving it. I know JWs say that Mat.18:15-17 is an official outline for the way do things. But it seems that Jesus said if personal troubles don't get resolved privately, then they go public ,into the open community. There is nothing hidden anymore. And if a person is found to be in the wrong and doesn't make things right, then it is up to the individuals in the community to withhold their close association. If it is a serious offense then you don't have to play card with him anymore or let your kids have a sleepover at his house.

  But this is not as it is done in the JWcongregation--no one knows what is going on behind closed KH doors , and that is not ,IMO, what Jesus wanted. It looks like he wanted more transparency. When so-and-so quit doing the rotten things and started showing Christian conduct maybe he got invited to play cards again. Christian conversation would resemble the discussions on this board a lot more ,IMO. Or at least I hope so.

  We can't do all that with non-Christian problems--not entirely. They don't have a personal relationship with Jesus, so they won't have the same point of reference as a bunch of Christians that you are around. But the priciples would still be useful. At least that is how it seems to me. But there are courts for when all else fails in both cases.

  Your thoughts?
• 

  not a captive

  About the value of perfect doctrine and real Christians--

  Christians I have learned the most from are ones who are simple in their faith and ignore doctrine. When they hear what Jesus says they try to do it. Witnesses don't really engage with them. Or if they do, they laugh at them later. These foolish people didn't have the "Truth".

  Thirty years ago I wasn't a Witness. I didn't think it mattered where I went to church, and at the time I thought that that's what I should do once I "found the Lord" (to use an expression that roughly describes a salvation experience) So I walked to a country church with a baby in my arms and my little girls tagging along with me. I didn't know it but I was about to hear a backwoods woman do the preaching there. She was kind of an on-call preacher who visited little group of Christians who met here-and-there in the community buildings in the rurals thereabout. Her name was Daisy and she was old then. Her husband no longer beat her for her love of Jesus.She said she just sang and prayed for him until he just gave up on drink and trying to beat Jesus out of her.

  She was very matter of fact about her mission and how she supported it since she had no income or help for her ministry from her husband. In the early days she put gas in the truck she drove by stopping at every fresh road kill she saw, skinning and dressing the pelt.Skunks too, she said. She sold the pelts (Until 15 years ago Madison Co. Arkansas still had a local pelt trade.) )That's how she had preached. She would accept "love" offerings as they called the informal collection for gas or mony gifts. But she would come at her own expense.

  She was non-doctrinaire. She reiterated the gospels, she made "altar calls"for those who needed to be prayed over or who wanted to commit to the Lord. But you had to make good yourself on a baptism if you got some one to do it. She lived the Gospel like Jesus was resurrected the day before. But she was really down to earth.

  She didn't know any better.
• 

  tec

  The christians I have learned the most from have been the ones who are simple in their faith and uninformed about doctrine.

  I like that. It's like listening to a child - and I don't mean that in an insulting way. They just disregard the BS and go straight to the stuff that matters.

  Tammy
• 

  not a captive

  Yes, it is hard to imagine Jesus throwing Daisy into the outer darkness for missing out on J. Calvin and St. Augustine.

  But don't anyone hold me to skinning skunks, now.
• 

  XJW4EVR

  Yes, it is hard to imagine Jesus throwing Daisy into the outer darkness for missing out on J. Calvin.

  The issues of Calvinism and Arminianism are not "closed hand" doctrines. In other words, they are not essential to the historic Christian faith (Jude 3). Therefore, these doctrines do not determine who is or isn't a Christian.
• 

  leavingwt

  I cannot understand why this would ever be a good thing:

  uninformed about doctrine
• 

  tec

  I think NAC is referring to man-made doctrine based on any given interpretation of scripture. Not ignorant of scriptures themselves.

  Tammy