by jgnat 153 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
One of the permanent effects of critically analyzing the Witnesses' claims is that I have become hypersensitive to weasel words. When a justification is given I ask myself is that the best explanation, or is it being used to bolster a weak argument (for example, that the bible is harmonious in its message)?
So an apologist's excuse that Jesus' prophecy did not come in to effect right away...sounds suspiciously like the "light getting brighter", or Jesus return is very soon.
To the point that Cofty brings up:
First... there is a different word that is translated as abandon, than there is for the word translated as 'left/leave'. But if you find that sort of research to be more than you are willing or feel able to do yourself, then consider also the following:
A man (or woman) leaves his family for work (or training) all the time without being accused of abandoning their families. For instance... if you are a soldier, you must leave your family for extended periods of time... be that for training or during a time of war, or rescue, or any service to your country that is asked of you. If you are an athlete, you must also leave for training camps and such. If your family is permitted and can follow you, then great. If not, then you'll see them when your work or training is served and complete. Sailors leave their families for their work for extended periods of time. Travelling salesmen or oilfield workers (since that is common here as I live in Alberta) leave their familes for work for extended periods of time. Men who work overseas for extended time periods also leave their families for their work.
They work to provide for their families and/or to protect/provide for others as well (such as a man who serves in the military/navy/etc) To provide for their families... and to protect life.
The world is a smaller place now (figuratively speaking), making it possible for extended time away to be shortened with less travel time, but even today if war happens or a war is being prevented or if troops are called in to help others/protect others, etc... a man will leave his family for however long he is asked/told to do so in order to serve his country. Back then the world was a bigger place (figuratively speaking)... and a man could be called to serve his king and country for years and years. Leaving houses, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, wives, children, fields. This was nothing new or extraordinary... to men or to women or to children. This was also not abandonment. So mothers, fathers, wives, children, etc... were capable of surviving without the men who left for whatever work or service had called them.
The apostles were called to work and service. Not forced, but called... and they answered that call. They did not work for monetary wages. They worked for a kingdom and for eternal life... for them and for their children.
What wife or grandparent would discourage a son/father/husband from working for such a thing, for himself and for his children (and their children, and their children, etc)? Unless they did not believe that this was the Messiah (and this is the problem that some have)... as His own mothers and brothers did not at first. But would Christ have been doing them or anyone any good if he listened to them and went home with them when they came to take him in hand?
How many fathers etc, have a problem today when their sons leave their families to serve their country, serving and protecting their 'kingdom' or another kingdom and its people elsewhere?
***
Christ did not seek out the rich man to call him. The rich man came TO Christ and asked Christ what he must do to inherit eternal life. Christ told him, and it did not involve giving up his riches. But that was not enough for the rich man. He pressed for more. He asked, I have done all of these things since I was a child... but what do I still lack?
So Christ answered the question asked of Him with the truth... and an invitation.
"IF you WANT to be perfect... go sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have riches in heaven. Then come and follow me."
That was more than the rich man was willing to do, and so he went away disapointed. But he asked a question, pressing for more... and Christ simply gave him the truthful answer.
Bringing to my mind the saying... "If you don't want the answer... then don't ask the question."
(And it is not like Christ said... sell your riches and give them - or even a portion of them - to our cause... as many false prophets/teachers/leaders do today)
***
On top of all that... Mothers, fathers, etc... could follow Christ also. We have examples of some doing just that from the gospels. (wives would have also been accustomed to maintaining the homestead while their husbands left for work or service) Or mothers/fathers/spouses/etc could welcome the apostles and Christ into their homes when they visited, if they were willing, as we also have examples of this in the gospels. Like Martha and Mary and Lazarus; and also the mother of one of the disciples. Once the physical ministry of Christ ended (1-3 years, although I lean toward 3) were the disciples not casting nets again, and shown to have wives and children - is there any reason that was not or could not have been their loved ones from before they left to follow Christ and do the work given to them by Him and His Father?
Some things for some who are seeking truth to consider, ask about, and keep in mind.
Peace to you,
tammy
Tammy - Watchtoweresque sophistry.
Jesus thought that following him around Palestine was more important even than family relationships and responsibilities.
He justified it with false promises about his imminent parousia
No wonder they were so willing to put a positive spin on his death. Who wants to go back home to the wife you abandonded and admit you were a mug?
Its blatantly obvious unless you need to believe that Jesus was a caricature of a good man.
He recruited the uneducated...thats the best way to start a religon....( sound familliar?)
Watchtoweresque sophistry.
I am pretty sure that is a red herring or some other fallacy. It does nothing at all to show that anything that I shared above is wrong.
But you can believe however you choose.
Peace,
tammy
You didn't say anything Tammy. You ignored the text and made up a flight of fancy as usual.
Jesus' disciples walked out on their families to follow the story-telling carpenter wandering around Palestine. This is a simple fact.
It is foolish to bother to debate with you since facts mean absolutely nothing to you. You have a direct line to a god who whispers a constant trickle of nonsense in your ears.
Peter and the rest of the apostles fudged on this "leaving the family behind" once the Lord was gone .
According to 1 Cor. 9:5 they hauled wives along with them. Maybe they had the kids in Christian daycare though-- as a partial concession to abandoning their hated ones.
Maybe they were hedging on Jesus. Or they deliberately twisted the definition of "in the recreation". Maybe they were ticked off at Jesus because of his double standard---after all, he handed his responsibility to his mom to another disciple at his death. Piker.
Yes its a simple fact Cofty, Jesus desciples walked out on there families...it is specutive if this was with or without there concent.
Yes they went home after Jesus got himself killed.
Acts tells us that the very early church adopted a commune-style of living for a while, holding all things in common, waiting on his return.
Of course they eventually had to settle down for the long haul and the christian "organisation" was born.
My point is that it is a mistake to think that the church with its rules and leaders was a departure from primitive christianity. It was a necessary development when Jesus' promises failed and the details of how to be a christian in the long-term in a non-christian world had to be worked out.
Jesus left no instruction for this because he taught that he was returning in the lifespan of the first generation
I ignored nothing about the text. You assign a meaning that is not supported. Not by the text. Not by the history and time period. Not by the examples given where loved ones also followed and/or were visited. Not even by the standards of today if a man is called to leave his family for work. Again, you choose to believe the worse... even though you have no problem with a man leaving his wife and children, or fathers and mothers, or houses and fields... to serve his country (kingdom), out of love for his king and country, as well as his own loved ones.
I am not going to continue to just go back and forth with you.
People can see and think for themselves and come to their own conclusions. Those who do not want to see will not. But those who want to see and have had trouble seeing... here is something that they can add to their reasoning and pondering, as well as something to ask about for themselves.
Peace,
tammy
