Friend,
I got a laugh out of your last post to me.
Your post reekes with double speak. I think I will start a new topic on this.
"Apostolic succession"?
by Jokemyster 44 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Friend
SC
You said:
[Friend’s] post reeks with double speak. I think I will start a new topic on this.
I will look forward to the discussion. Before you begin, though, please save us both some time by carefully considering what I have said here. You should pay particular attention to the idea of two different ideas accommodating one another. Let me explain.
Two different ideas have four (4) possible relationships to one another. As follows:
1) Two ideas can have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.
Example: Johnny can read. Sue can read.
2) Two ideas can support each other.
Example: Johnny can read. Sue learned how to read from Johnny.
3) Two ideas can oppose each other.
Example: Johnny can read. Johnny cannot read.
4) Two ideas can accommodate each other.
Example: Johnny can read. Johnny can do nothing without glasses.
In the instance of the Society’s teachings about itself (meaning: what it attributes to Jehovah’s Witnesses) versus ultimate salvation, too many times persons fallaciously argue that one is teaching an absolute about the other when in fact that is not true. All those teachings do is accommodate each other.
The Society’s teachings about itself have to do with their viewpoint of who is living and teaching as Christians. They see such merit in their beliefs and resulting aspirations that, quite naturally, they offer it as practically a must for insuring a good future. Whereas the Society’s teachings about ultimate salvation represent the bottom line of who will or will not be saved, who will actually get saved. They teach unequivocally that only God can and will make that judgment.
Those ideas are not 1) unrelated nor are they 2) supportive of each other nor are they 3) opposed to each other. Rather, they 4) accommodate each other. One gives a belief about acceptance of certain teachings and actions and results thereof, and the other represents who ultimately decides that resultsfor us. In the case of ultimate judgment, no Jehovah’s Witness that I know would take judgment away from Jehovah and His son and give it the the Society. The Society does not even teach that.
Friend
Edited by - Friend on 7 June 2000 11:17:38
-
Scorpion
Friend,
Thank you for your interpretation of two ideas supporting another. What about two different ideas supporting each other.
I will post a new topic on this tonight. Right now I have to head off to work.
Right now I would ask you to read John 6:66-69 and tell me where the WTBTS is mentioned in these versus. It is not! As I said, I will post a new topic tonight and will be interested in your reply.
Thank you
-
Friend
SC
You said:
Thank you for your interpretation of two ideas supporting another. What about two different ideas supporting each other
You entirely missed the point. I did not address the single aspect of two ideas supporting each other. I discussed four possibilities of how two different ideas relate to each other. Please reconsider what I said. Take your time. I am in no need of an immediate reply.
You said:
Right now I would ask you to read John 6:66-69 and tell me where the WTBTS is mentioned in these versus. It is not! As I said, I will post a new topic tonight and will be interested in your reply.
A lot of things are not mentioned in that verse. What is your point? As for the WTBTS, it is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible, neither are a lot of things. Again, what is your specific point?
Jesus’ future followers were also not mentioned in that verses yet they are charged with teaching Jesus’ commands, making disciples and baptizing those disciples.
I will read, consider and respond to your new topic as soon as I can.
Friend
-
waiting
Dear Friend,
I'm still on my work computer, so I don't have Society material here with me. From your writing, it's would seem obvious you've been door to door decades like most of us here.
One of the biggest - and most feared objections - is: "You all think you're the only ones going to Heaven, don't you? You think all others are wrong and going to Hell (or die, etc.), don't you?"
If we're perfectly honest, we will say: "Yes, we are the only ones on the earth with God's approval, thus, a small group of us are the only ones going to Heaven, the Watchtower Society is God's only way of communicating with men, and you are going to be killed by God when this generation ends if you do not become one on Jehovah's Witnesses. But God may still kill you as He is the final Judge."
You did say in an earlier post that "we do not teach that salvation, (or not) of any individual is determined by us. Rather, we teach that only God through His son will make that judgement."
True statement.
But what judgement can God through His son come to about people at Armageddon who have been given the message? We are taught they will be killed by God if they do not respond to the message and come to Him. And how can people come to Jehovah? By becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses, because that is God's only channel with mankind.
However, it is true, that in the end, we might still be found disapproved and be killed. Thus, truly stated by you, Jehovah is the final judge of us.
In other words, if a person is not one of Jehovah's Witnesses (and not dysfunctional of some sort) at Armageddon, he will be killed by God. If a person is one of Jehovah's Witnesses, he's got a better chance at not being killed by God. Ultimately, it is up to God who He kills.
Wow, what we teach about God.
-
Friend
waiting
You have presented a false analogy. Let me explain.
Premise 1: John decides if apples are sold as good.
Premise 2: Betty believes her apples are good enough to be sold and she tells people that.
(Alternate) Premise 2: Betty believes her apples are the only ones good enough to be sold and she tells people that.
Premise 3: Betty acknowledges that John decides if apples are sold.
Conclusion: Betty tells people that her apples will be sold but she yields that eventuality up to John.
Switch a few nouns and that simple analogy pretty accurately portrays what we are preaching as Jehovah’s Witnesses about ultimate salvation and ourselves.
While it is true that JWs admit that some within their ranks will most likely be judged adversely by God, it is also true that they do not presumptuously attempt to thwart God’s role as judge by saying that everyone not a JW will be judged adversely. Sure, us sharing a conviction to that end certainly leaves that impression, but that is tempered in that we acknowledge that Jehovah will ultimately decide who gains salvation, not us.
Answering the following questions demonstrates the point:
1. Do JWs believe that Jehovah will ultimately judge each of us or do JWs believe they will do that?
2. Has Jehovah provided Jehovah’s Witnesses a preview of his judgments for each individual?
If the answer to one (1) is, “Jehovah” and the answer to two (2) is, “No” then Jehovah’s Witnesses can make all the noise they want about their beliefs yet are still yielding—as did Betty in our illustration—that, regardless of beliefs, they have no say whatsoever in who gains salvation. How would you answer questions one and two?
As the JWs in the 20th Century brochure indicates, we teach we are the right religion but we also teach that in the end God decides who make it.
Also, neither you nor anyone else on this board has offended me. If anything it has, unfortunately, been the other way around.
Friend
Edited by - Friend on 7 June 2000 23:39:0
-
RedhorseWoman
Friend....you are good....really good. Doublespeak? Undoubtedly, yes. But you present it well. :)
-
Friend
RedhorseWoman
"Doublespeak." That is easy enough to say, isn’t it? It is far more difficult to answer my questions raised and then argue such a conclusion.
Friend
-
Pathofthorns
While I'm sure definitions of "double-speak" will vary, I don't think you will find many thinking Witnesses who will deny that how we portray ourselves can often times differ from what actually is taking place in the real world.
Terms like "spiritual paradise" and "we are the happiest people in the world" are used, and yet any honest Witness realizes the abundance of "weeds" in the "spiritual paradise" and the amount of depression etc.
We all know too, while the Society may say one thing, and quite often very reasonably so, yet elders on the local level can hold to "old school" ways of doing things, completely disregarding aspects of the Society's present policies.
Many past statements regarding the conduct of churgoers, or how "people are leaving the churches" can be applied to ourselves. Since when have you read in a magazine that "Many of our fine youths are frequenting raves, engaging in illicit drug use, fornication, a great many are smoking, going to strip clubs and "massage" parlours." Of course they would never print such, even though I know personally that this is what is going on. Yet they would not hessitate to print such statements revealing the hypocrisy of Christendom.
We are quick to point out how "people are leaving the churches" yet when people are leaving us in large numbers, it is "a sifting work". Why can't other religions have a "sifting work".
We claim not to be perfect, thus justifying our mistakes throughout history. When the catholic church lays bare thier mistakes, and apologizes, it is stated such apologies are not genuine.
Why do we claim to fight for religious freedom, yet teach all other religion will be destroyed? Why do we denounce religious intolerance, yet impose heavy penalties on those who choose to leave or cannot accept things on grounds of conscience?
While we encourage others to be open minded and examine their religion, are we really free to examine all written materials on our religion? Does not a baptized Witness have to walk on eggshells when examining his own religion? What if he comes to a different conclusion than that which he is supposed to arrive at?
How can we say we are not inspired, admittedly fallible, yet demand 100% acceptance of all present teachings as though they were inspired?
One could go on and on and on with things that should be a certain way, but in reality are not as presented. Or their is one standard for God's people and another for false religion.
At least from my limited perspective, there is at least a measure of concern that there are some inconsistencies and possibly some double standards.
Pathofthorns
I
-
Friend
Pathofthorns
I agree with much of what you said. Some of your issues raised are among the strongest of my disagreements with the Society. How we cope with those disagreements and the Society is important to the quality of many people’s lives. In some cases that coping can be as simple as, “I’m gone.” In other cases things are not that simple—which I’m sure you are aware.
Friend