Very simple Its a business.
Diddling, adjusting, changing Doctrines? Why not leave it alone?
by Terry 29 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Terry
I'm not sure what the target of your point is, Joe.
IF it is this: ** (see below)
I'll save us the spelunking in the abyss of calculus as to what constitutes FIXED teachings.
I'm making a comparative evaluation and not an absolute statement.JW's change their teachings far more often than, say, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics GENERALLY SPEAKING.
I'm suggesting there is a far greater level of academic confidence in those above named denominations as to what Christianity (for then) requires of their members.
The GB members in the Society are human Mood Rings rather than scholars. Whim and whimsy litter the history of changes to beliefs and practices.
One glaring example is Romans 13: 1,2.
Russell's view was that Superior Authorities had the right to require Christians to join the Army and go out onto the battlefield, but he advised that the Christian in uniform "fire over the heads" of the enemy.
Rutherford changed the historic definition of Superior Authorities entirely and summarily to Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. As a result, the Governments were stripped of the right to send Christians into uniform or the battlefield. This cataclysmic overhaul remained in effect until about 1963 when it was--just as summarily--flipped back to the traditional interpretation of Russell's day once again.
However, under Knorr, a secret policy went into effect requiring JW boys to refuse their legally provided Alternate Service. Not because of the Rutherfordesque flip of Romans 13: 1,2--but rather because THEY SAID (the GB) it was a violation of "Christian Neutrality")
This sort of morphology is common to cults and far less common in Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc. "Mainstream" churches.
This is the point I was striving to make. I hope this suffices to clarify.
**______________________
"Mainstream Christianity has FIXED teachings."I don't think so. The various christian sects and divisions have (as I understand it) a near 2000 year history of being at variance about their teachings and of changing, refining and adapting their teachings.
-
Joe Grundy
"They don't have fixed teachings because it's a way of weeding out the disloyal ones. Only those who are truly loyal will remain."
I think that there's a lot to be said for that. Somewhat like Orwell's '1984'. If you betray that your thinking is not absolutely in line with the latest thinking or position, you're marked as actually or potentially disloyal.
-
Terry
I think that you're thinking too narrowly here - and too recently.
_________
The context of my comments are under the specific heading of the Topic and not an academic dissertation on the MYTH of what constitutes a monolithic religion.
________In my view, there is no such thing as Christianity. That is too general a term. But, most of us speak (for convenience sake) as though there is.
Judaism was sectarian. Christianity even in the first 4 centuries was sectarian. Islam is sectarian. That is certainly historically true.
What makes Jehovah's Witnesses so weirdly individual is the fluidity of its absolute authority in a narrow strip of time (roughly 100+ years.)
(There has been no schism resulting in a Reform Church of JW's etc. as you will see in the Mormon church and other sects. Therefore, all the upheavals in teaching remain under one roof, so to speak.)The fixation on predicted dates and events is weird because it easily falsifies the premise of God's direction.
Any hack politician knows better than to make definite statements that do not contain plausible deniability later:)
JW's shoot from the hip and pretend the other guy drew first.
-
Terry
"Only those who are truly loyal will remain."
_____________What is fascinating about that comment is this.
Take two events, 1925 and 1975. Members who left were
looked upon as culled from the herd. This meant those who remained were more devout (i.e. deeper cognitive dissonance.)
The net result of 1975 was an increase rather than a decrease in numbers of hardcore members.
These "shake-ups" are Evolutionary events.
The strong survive and the weak perish.
I sincerely doubt there is a conscious effort just to "mess with" members by changing, altering, modifying, adjusting present "truth".It's more a question (I think) of piss poor planning and irrational thinking than a diabolical strategm.
-
-
Joe Grundy
Terry:
I don't think we're at odds here. My point was that all religions, all sects and divisions within those religions, seem to have changed, adapted, fiddled with, their doctrines and beliefs throughout history. One of the strongest examples is Islam, which claimed (uniquely, I think) to be the final revelation. Didn't turn out like that.
To me (a personal view) any deity which inspired a religion but couldn't or didn't maintain the original message is hardly a deity at all.
To expand on my point about the relative 'newness' of religions: I live in West Wales. Nearby is St Davids cathedral, about 1000 years old (king Alfred 'the Great') was involved there. It was a 'holy site' about 1400 years ago. You can see the effects of the Reformation (a relatively recent 500 years ago). Also St Govan's chapel (800 years old) built on the site of St Govan's rockface cleft hermitage(1400 years ago) (was he Sir Gawain of Round Table fame?). The local churches in my town are 800+ years old, so went through the Reformation.
There is no doubt that many local religious sites pre-date the Roman invasion and were pagan/druidic. There is still a noteable pagan/wicca presence here.
In my small town there are memorial sites where 'heretics' of different persuasions were burned to death.
May I recommend that you read the 'Shardlake' novels by C J Sansom? Tremendous read, and sets the scene for Reformation-era England.
-
Joe Grundy
Terry:
I never was a JW, and I bow to your superior knowledge of them and their history.
I am an atheist because all of my research has led me to the conclusion that all claims by all religions fail when subjected to the scrutiny or reaosn and evidence.
-
JeffT
The WTBS has two fundamental problems in this.
1) they have no standards for hermeneutics and exegesis, that is the methodology of used to understand a text and the resulting interpretations. These would include careful analysis of who wrote a particular text, who he was directing his comments to, as well as close critical textual examination of a text. The WTBS runs into trouble because it doesn't apply any of this to any text, everything is taken as literally true and subject to their understanding of what that means. Since they have no standard method for explaining a verse, they can just shoot from the hip all the time.
2) A classic method of control is to constantly move the goals, purposes etc of whoever you're trying to manipulate. I've worked for a couple of control-freak bosses and it is very much like have the GB as your boss. You have to do it exactly right, or you'll get in trouble, but what is "exactly right" changes constantly. You're lucky if you get to find out in advance what that is.
edited to add: I spent some years as a member of a "mainstream" church. That church and a majority of other protestant denominations all agree on what they consider major doctrines: salvation by faith, the divinity of Jesus, Baptism, regular communion etc. All of minor points are left to the individual to decide for himself, and are not considered major points for argument. Most of the differences between churches involve worship style and governance, not doctrine.
The WTBS regards individual thinking as intolerable.
-
Terry
I appreciate your thoughts, Joe, and your POV.
The psychology of Religion is even more fascinating than the plotting.
I think human psychology is as responsive to pressure in an evolutionary sense as the species adaptations as a whole.
Belief is a survival mechanism. Humans can survive in impossible situations if there is some HOPE things will improve. The nature of HOPE is pragmatic: "Everything will probably turn out okay, but it might not--so, I'll keep a positive attitude to improve the chances."
On the other hand, the red-headed, freckled face step-brother of HOPE is FAITH.
Faith is neurotic belief things will turn out great no matter what facts may mitigate against that outcome. Faith is narrow and deaf. In the face of contradictory evidence, Faith is obstinate and blind.
Perhaps this works only because of the community social support involved in rituals and recitation of creeds and the insistence on orthodoxy. In other words, the Crazy are pronouncing themselves "blessed" whether they are, in fact, in a terrible situation or not.
I remember as a child seeing the movie QUO VADIS. There is a scene where Emperor Nero (Peter Ustinov) is examining the corpses of Christians in the coliseum.
He exclaims with surprise at the faces of the sacrificial victims.
"They're smiling--why are they all smiling?" He screams.