by RR 13 Replies latest social current
JT,
Once again you strike at the core of the matter.
***for many of us when our examination took us back to the Core Dogma of the "We speak for God" like moses and the rest of the men of old- it became clear that that any reform would require admiting that no we don't really speak for god like we claimed.***
Once you have come to the above conclusion, all the rest is semantics.
Would be interested in any comments you may have on my thread Reforming the Ireformable?
Danny
Thanks, Mike Musto; you see, I was in grave difficulties recently, and among the topics listed were quoting from "Three Dissertations" and more specific from the page where Greg states why he postponed his work on John 8:58 but in stead chose to write on the present situation.
Thanks also, JT, for the kind words. Danny Bear's "Reforming the Irreformable" I have not read, but JT, you point at the core of the question. I would phrase it like this: If you speak in the name of God, how can you then be reformed? What need could it then be for reform? There would just be minor changes, purifications, clearifications, and not U-turns and to-and-froms and changes which clearly are made because of outside pressure. And IF because of a from-the-below-and-upwards-pressure reform is carried out, how could itthen be said that one spoke for God? One did not. But that again raises the question, if either the whole building is false, and need to be done away with - or if the membership as such is good and honest, but the careerists and the organizational men, those in it for the power and glory, are the ones that have corrupted it all, and need to be replaced. "The revolution eats its own children." How many members join the Communist Party in China because they are honest communists? Close to none. The truth is, because there is one State Party, one Party of which one needs to be a member in order to hold opffices etc., then one joins the Party in order to get power, money, wealth, glory. The organization takes on a shape of its own, it becomes the most important thing or object, and must be kept at all costs. Unity, in step, no dissent.
But when is dissent dissent from the Bible or dissent from man-made regulations which have lacking, poor or none Bible foundations?
I fight with those questions each and every day. And I am 100 % sure that Greg does the same. And I guess what both os us fear, is that someone tries to make us the "leading star", a "reform movement leading personality", because then we will last just as long as Bowen did. "I want an organization just as the one you say you want", aid a friend - and a chill ran down my spine. Why? Because if he fails, deviates - and is put under pressure, then what names will he come up with as the names of those having inspired him? ......
I'd like to quote John Mayall: "It's a Hard Road."
Greg is only doing what the Society claims it wants us to do: Read and follow what the Bible says. It is not his fault that the Society's own beyond-the-Bible practices are revealed.
Pastor Russell did a good thing when he wanted to get "back to the Bible" and away from the encrusted creeds of Christendom. But the later organization did not go far enough in getting back to the Bible. Throwing away the traditions of the churches, they built up traditions of their own, based on the teachings and speculations of mere men. That is what is causing the headaches and the problems.
So far I have not had anyone tell me "why are you preaching to us, you have enough problems in your own religion!" But when it happens, I note that the Reasoning book does not have an answer to that objection. I don't either.
There will be a revised Reasoning book issued in december or January - maybe that objection will be dealt with there ...... :-)
