by AuldSoul 39 Replies latest jw friends
Narkissos: The problem of course lies in the quantity and quality of "Human" mediations, or through which means does the Holy Spirit exercises its/his/her authority.
I agree, and that will be the thrust of my eventual treatise...Where should the boundary be drawn and why? However, you have hit on it. It is not the authority of the individual. When the individual asserts or assumes authority, it isn't the authority of the Spirit. That will be the crux of it.
With profound respect,
AuldSoul
Auld:
I wasn't trying to take your thread off subject. I was trying to enlarge the context in which it is discussed in order to put things in a realistic perspective.
After all we aren't playing dungeons and dragons. If you assume that somewhere in the real world there is this Holy Spirit guiding and directing things you ought to be able to specify some criteria for identifying the activity of Holy Spirit. Again it shouldn't be ambiguous. Still Jesus made it clear that some would expel demons and prophesy and do other powerful works that would ordinarily be attributed to Holy Spirit - yet they would be workers of lawlessness.
This is not an easily digestible chunk for those who are looking for rationality and order.
At best the argument over how much "organization" is necessary is one of preference. It is easy to be caught in the IS-OUGHT fallacy. We usuaully frame this in the form of assuming that because something IS NOW the practice, it ought to be the practice. But there is the converse also - assuming that because something is NOT the practice, it OUGHT NOT to be the practice.
At various stages of development an organization may be structured differently. Upstart organizations are not as organized as a more mature organization. There is a process of defining structure and boundaries. At some point there is CON-SOLID-ATION. The structure becomes hardened or solidified. Creeds (purpose statements) are put together. Marching orders. Hierarchy. This cycle keeps repeating.
What confuses me is that the best answers come from secular experience and explains ALL types of organizations. Holy Sprit can't explain anything because you can't even explain exactly what Holy Spirit really is and what differentiates it from so-called natural processes.
The question of What is the True Organization is another topic. Or is that REALLY the topic you are discussing?
I hate being the last to post on a topic.
I hate being the last to post on a topic.
I can understand that; trolls generally aren't thread-killers by nature.
proplog2: I wasn't trying to take your thread off subject.
I strenuously disagree. I warned everyone with the topic subject. Then, in a post I warned you and any who wanted to follow in your coy footsteps. I sincerely doubt your insipid play at innocence will wash.
proplog2: Still Jesus made it clear that some would expel demons and prophesy and do other powerful works that would ordinarily be attributed to Holy Spirit - yet they would be workers of lawlessness.
If you read very carefully, I believe you will find Jesus said some would lay claim to having done certain things in his name. I defy you to demonstrate this outrightly false assertion with a Scripture. You are attributing to Jesus something the Bible never said he did. If you have any integrity you will admit your error publicly, in the same way you made it.
Since you have made very clear on other threads that you are not a Christian, you can't possibly have been confused into thinking your contrary views would be a welcome addition to this thread clearly marked "(For Christians)".
proplog2: If you assume that somewhere in the real world there is this Holy Spirit guiding and directing things you ought to be able to specify some criteria for identifying the activity of Holy Spirit. Again it shouldn't be ambiguous.
If you wish to start a thread to discuss criteria for identifying the activity of the Holy Spirit, more power to you (pun intended). I did not wish to do so, and have not done so. Please stop sidetracking this thread topic. This thread assumes that Christians believe that somewhere in the real world there is Holy Spirit, therefore there is no need to establish this belief as well-founded on a thread marked "(For Christians)". I didn't assume you believe that, because you aren't a Christian, nor do I feel compelled on this thread to measure up to your secular standards of proof for any statement I make.
For that matter, you have never particularly compelled me to "measure up" in any respect, whatsoever. Present discussion being no exception.
proplog2: What confuses me is that the best answers come from secular experience and explains ALL types of organizations. Holy Sprit can't explain anything because you can't even explain exactly what Holy Spirit really is and what differentiates it from so-called natural processes.
Over the course of your posts you have made it abundantly clear that quite a LOT about Christianity "confuses" you. You obviously use "confusion" as a euphemism, which I could care less about. I do not have to make you okay with Christianity or any aspect thereof in order to discuss a topic designated "(For Christians)" while assuming certain commonalities among Christians.
For those who've experienced Holy Spirit there is no need to explain what Holy Spirit is or what differentiates it from natural processes (although, since Holy Spirit is part and parcel with natural processes dividing the two, as though separate, seems stupid to me), and to those who reject the possibility there is no need to explain because words will never convey it. I will not allow you to hold me accountable for the lacks in human capacity to express reality through verbal communication, nor will I have my thread held hostage to your sensibilities regarding Holy Spirit before continuing with a discussion "(For Christians)".
This will be the final warning to you, specifically, proplog2, and should serve as only needed warning to anyone else who thinks to play with me about sidetracking this thread.
Sincerely,
AuldSoul
I meant to come back and simply inform that I am still researching some of the wonderful ideas brought up here, and have already adjusted the outcome of my initial analysis. So, thank you all who have participated within the spirit of the thread topic. It may be over the weekend before I can present my final analysis. As always, no one need consider my analysis correct.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
The j-dubbys like to use the scripture in Isaiah of going up the mountain of jehovah and learning his ways to prove they are the organization mentioned . Isaiah 2:3 I think that organization is a good thing it's just that people in the WTBTS abuse whatever power they have and try to control beyond the scope of the bible writers intentions .They allowed for dissention , inspired exspressions were put to the test , it's how the son of destruction was revealed . Such as prophesies that did not come true ,wink wink . This organization goes beyond the station of moses even with claims of taking jesus place as mediator .That is blaspheme. I don't even remember where moses changed any parts of the belief structure such as what the WTBTS continues to do , it does seem absurd for them to even take the seat of moses .............
AuldSoul:
I consider myself a Christian. You have a narrow definition that makes you intolerant. I can comment on any thread I choose. If you don't like it ignore me.
I have heard that several legalistic religious organizations use John 6:68 to try to show that even if you find flaws with them, where else will you go? "Aren't we at least better than the "others"?", they ask. Actually this verse does not speak of going away or to any religious organization. It speaks of going directly to Jesus.
You can go on to read John 5:39-40. This tells the theme of the O.T. and N.T. Not a religion, but Jesus. Eternal life does not come from the knowledge of Scriptures. It does not come from "doing" good things.
Romans 8 and Galatians 4 explain in great detail what we need to have in order to be pleasing to God. We need His Son. Gathering with others who believe the gospel, as it is presented in the Bible, is a way to strengthen our faith. A religion is not necessary. A relationship is.
The comparison is made in the Bible of a slave and a son. A slave is not a family member. He stands to inherit nothing. But if that slave were adopted as a child, he shall also share in all the benefits of being a son.
Before we are Christians, we are slaves to sin. Even when we do something good, it is often for the wrong reasons. But as Christians, we experience freedom from the sin nature. We are no longer existing in the flesh only, but we now have the Spirit of Christ dwelling within us. We can now call God our Father. He's no longer impersonal and out of our reach. When we accept His Son, just as He arranged it, then that gives us the righteousness we need to be acceptable to Him. See Luke 11:11-13-- We are encouraged to ask for the gift of the Holy Spirit. There is nothing in the Bible that tells us we cannot.
Jer. 31:30-34 foretells the new covenant. It explains that His laws will be written in our hearts and minds, and will no longer need to be taught to us by others. In John 14, Jesus explains this new covenant. He is the only way to the Father. God arranged that we come to Jesus for forgiveness. He gave Him the power to forgive sins. The only way to be saved from our own sins, is to go directly to Jesus and ask his forgiveness. John14:14 tells us to ask JESUS, not to merely mention His name in the process of talking to God. You can cross reference this to Psalm 91:14-14 and you can also look in the Kindom Interlinear at Jonh 14:14, in the original Greek text and see that it says we are to speak directly to Jesus. John 14:15-26 explains the promise to come as a result of accepting Jesus. Notice: this promise was not limited to a certain number of people. It was not for a particular denomination. It was for ALL who accept Jesus (vs.21and vs. 23).
An organization of Christians who come together to worship and to build each other up is not a bad thing. Corruption comes when they start adding human rules and regulations, and then claim it is God doing it. Col. 2 tells of the freedom we have as Christians. Vs. 16 tells us that we should not let anyone judge us by what we eat or drink, by holidays, etc... Vs.22 says these things are based on human commands and teachings. They lack any value. Col.3:2 goes on to say that we should set our minds on things above, not on earthly things.
Legalistic religions are more interested on outward earthly appearances than on prayer and worship of God. If the focus is not on worship and teaching directly from the Bible, then it is not a good place to be.
The Bible doesn't promote "religion". It promotes faith, love, and salvation through Jesus alone (Acts 4:12). Anything good we do after that, is a result of being saved. We cannot add to our salvation through good works, because that would be saying that Jesus was not sufficient. The Bible is clear on the fact that He was completely sufficient.
Any denomination claiming to be the one and only true church, should raise red flags. No where in the Bible does it say that. There are two covenants, the old and the new. Two groups of Christians? No! Two groups of people, yes. The Jews and the Gentiles. One church = ALL Christians. (John 10:16-- ONE flock, ONE sheperd.)
Don't take mine, or anyone else's, word for it. Research it yourself and you will see the truth. And it really will set you free.
In Christ,
Whyizit
Whyizit,
I'm quite wary about the "Christianity is not a religion" line.
It begs for the question: "What is it then?" (Philosophy? Politics? Art? Entertainment?)
Besides the apologetic/propagandistic talk ad outsiders (e.g., à la JW, "it's not a religion, it's a way of life" -- something any preacher of any religion might say) what usually lies below is dogmatism: "it is not just a religion (among others), it is the (only) truth." Which, in effect, means, "I don't want to step down from my vantage confessional perspective to submit to down-to-earth sociological appraisal with its frustrating objective categories."
While modern Protestantism did historically allow for the possibility of a more individualistic take at Christianity (I am an "independent Christian," my own relationship with God/Christ is all that matters), this is hardly how the whole Christian tradition in its diversity (including the historical Protestant churches) viewed it. Christianity always existed in the form of communities with a given ritual (e.g. baptism, Eucharist) and a particular set of beliefs. Which fits the description of a "religion" imo, and (back to the topic) also implies a measure of organisation.
Narkissos,
I would say, rather, that "traditional" Christians are the ones who wrote the record of "traditional" Christianity. The form it is always recorded as having is not necessarily the form it has always had.
It begs for the question: "What is it then?" (Philosophy? Politics? Art? Entertainment?)
I would feel very comfortable referring to Christianity as philosophy. That a philosophy is accompanied by a custom or two doesn't necessarily mean the philosophy is a religion.
Every philosophy has a basic set of assumptions, whether directly stated or not, that establish the basic framework of the philosophy. Nowhere within the basic framework of the Christian philosophy does a need for human organization appear. For instance, I need a Christian to baptize me as a Christian. But he or she need not be of a certain position in a certain religious body. I need no one to administer the Eucharist to me, and my keeping of that custom can be entirely private.
To the contributors on this thread:
The human tendency to formalize and restrict and impose opinion is responsible for dogma, and for attaching Christianity to organized religion. I did not say that human organization was unlikely, only that it was unnecessary for Christians or for Christianity. I don't think anyone has written anything to demonstrate otherwise, thus far. I have been researching out the many points raised in this thread, but I have yet to find evidence of necessary human organization, only evidence of the existence of human organization.
For instance, on the occasion of the dispute arising over the apportioning of material goods, Christian love could have made the introduction of an authority structure (in the form of ministerial servants) unnecessary. An equalizing could have taken place without that authority structure. What I see repeatedly is evidence that human organization is spawned in response to individual Christians demonstrating that the Christian philosophy is not something to which they actually subscribe. Appeal, in this case, did not go to those who were not having an equal sharing but who were taking more for themselves than was allowed for others. Appeal went to Jerusalem. Was Jesus' counsel on handling problems applied, or not?
Human enforcement of that which is fundamental to the philosophy itself is unnecessary. Such attempts to enforce the philosophy run counter to the very philosophy humans are attempting to enforce. QED, when human organization arises to authoritatively enforce these philosophical fundamentals, such human organization is unnecessary and is itself contrary to the basic assumptions of the Christian philosophy.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
