by Jokemyster 19 Replies latest jw friends
Excellent points, all of you. I'm shaking my head because for so long I believed that I was the only one who felt this way. I'm in complete agreement to what has been said here in the last four posts especially.
So how does one go about structuring a religion that everyone is satisfied with? (not a rhetorical question)
Somewhere on the web, there's a terrific quote (5 pages) from an English government person - probably Parliment. He was speaking about Organizations, Labor Unions, Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, Religions - ANY sort or organization, because, when all is said and done - that's what they are.
To wit: a small group of people band together with a common cause - sometimes in rebellion against another, established organization (Reformed Baptist Church established from First Baptist Church established from Baptist Church, etc.)
This small group gets others into their group, and as they get larger, they need direction. A group within their group, usually the founders, start giving needed direction. The group gets bigger - they need more meeting places and an agenda as to what their goals and beliefs are. Thus, an organization is founded.
The organization grows until it needs to take care of itself (buildings, machines, taxes, PR, law suits, etc.)and rather loses sight of the people within the organization. Slowly, over time, the organization formed to help it's own people needs to keep it's people in line so that the organization can go get more people so that the organization can continue to grow.
At that point, the organization is it's own entity. At that point, the people within must consider whether they want to belong to the organization or not - for they joined to the group of people for a cause - not to be an appendage of the organization.
The politician was making the point that no one should expect to join an organization for life (or eternity) because organizations evolve - no matter what kind. His point was that organizations were useful - up to a point. An organization starts as people and ends up feeding upon it's own people to survive as an organization.
He also made the point, that before joining any organization - we should have in our mind that we will, in all probability, leave that organization at some time in the future because it has evolved into another type of organization - and it's agenda is no longer our, for whatever reason.
I was impressed by the logic behind the thinking, even if we keep religion out of it. How many people change political views in their lifetime? How many don't like the direction of their political parties? About everyone. Put our religion into the picture - and what he says make a lot of sense - if we were to look at the organization part of our religion - which is most of our religion, in my opinion.
waiting, I agree with the ideas expressed here about how organizations grow. I've often stated similar observations on other posts. I think that most religions start out with the right intent, i.e. to lead or direct people to God, or at the very least, provide a platform condusive to the worship of God. In time the religion grows and after a while it recognizes itself as an entity and then it must from that time forward, perpetuate itself. It finds it necessary to justify it's existence and wants recognition as an entity and then one day it realizes that it is after something else: POWER It wants control (power) over as many as it can. Soon it is demanding reverance and allegiance (most of the time it's called loyalty but it's the same thing, isn't it?) for itself. At that time it ceases to be a vessel for God but has now made itself a God in that it is asking for itself what belongs to God exclusively. Oh, it still uses God as a smoke screen to get this allegiance but it now wants the worship for itself. I believe someone else, a very long time ago, fell into the same trap on a little piece of real estate called the Garden of Eden.
waiting, I know the quote you're refering to and have it on my PC (somewhere). The gist of it is that any organisation ends up becoming an entity in it's own right whose sole aim is to survive and grow.
If I find it I'll post it - it's a very insightful read (esp for a politician !)
Weeellll, Frenchy, I made the observation to my son, after I started looking around that, in my opinion, what the meaning of anti-christ was: someone or something is put in place of christ (guess it could also be against or denial of christ). I suggested that if the Society had place themselves between Jehovah and man as mediator, then they had put themselves in place of christ's ransom. Or if they put themselves in place of christ as our channel to Jehovah.
Also, someone made the good point of H20, that if we read the letters from the apostles to the congregations in our Bible, they open them with the greeting: "Fellow slaves of Christ and doing God's will" - or something similar. Always bringing forth the thought that they were apostles of Christ Jesus and doing God's will.
There is nothing disrespectfull - just a lot different than how we introduce ourselves
as Jehovah's Witnesses. And not Jehovah's and Jesus Christ Witnesses. I know we have been told to call ourselves Jehovah's Christian Witnesses - but we were counseled from the platform to do this as people at the door were getting the strong impression that we were giving much more attention to Jehovah instead of acknowledging Jesus as our ransom.
I think both far ends are wrong (the way we do it today) - the apostles did give a lot of credit to Jesus - and Jesus led us to Jehovah - but I've got a sneeking suspicion that the Good News was Jesus opening the way to God's kingdom.
I know this is a confused post - but it's coming from a confused mind. The ramblings are valid, I think.
The points brought out about organization vis-a-vis religion, are exactly the points that make me think that we all need to get back to basics. i.e. our relationship with God.
Once a religious organization reaches a certain size, it definitely loses that "banding together for a cause" aura.
Can the WTBTS ever go back to what it once was....a group of people seeking to please God? I have my doubts. Even now, I find myself trusting my own feelings more than I trust the Society. Is this "independent thinking"? Yes. But is this necessarily bad? I think not. It seems that the more I trust my intuitive feelings about my relationship with Jehovah, the better that relationship becomes.
Yes, I agree. I believe that a religion should be a road to God, not the gate blocking entry to him.
frenchy wrote:" I'm shaking my head because for so long I believed that I was the only one who felt this way."
I always thought that I can not be the only thinking brother in the meeting. I always thougt, how can this or this brother believe that point with his smart brain and his education. And you can be shure, there are a lot of secret doubts, which everybody keep for himself, because of the well known reasons.
I was even surprised, what doubts my father (an elder) and mother have in there mind...but they would never question the slave for that...
Hi, mgm,
It does make a person wonder: Why are so many of us afraid to speak out in the open?
Why are we afraid to question?
What kind of organization does that to it's own people? We're your channel - but be silent if you don't agree.
Does make you wonder, doesn't it?
I'm sentimental and was reading the first posts of this board. I found this thread mesmerizing to me.
It shows the inner mind of some of the earliest posters.
How does it all begin? We say how we thought this and we did that at the start of our exits, but here are the actual thought processes in writing.
Enjoy this thread as an anthropologist might
