by Honesty 16 Replies latest watchtower bible
Hey Mary... Well, I didn't get a response......because I haven't yet sent it. I started writing it this past March, and I've been playing with it ever since. I have promised myself that it will go out to her sometime between now and the one year mark.
Wish me luck,
Confession
Confession, no one is doubting that the WTS has distorted and abused the FDS concept. You miss the point though. Honesty is taking Jesus' words about hating the one and loving the other out of its natural context. Jesus was talking about loving things like money and material things more than loving him. Those things are in direct opposition to love of spiritual things. He wasn't suggesting Christians hate their religious leaders, who attempt to lead people to God and Christ, not detract from them. He never told any of his listeners to hate the Pharisees or Saducees. In fact he said to do what they said, despite their teaching leavenous (false) things and having proud, wicked hearts. I don't see it as reasonable to use Jesus words here to portray the extreme viewpoint that JW's somehow hate Jesus simply because they accept the FDS interpretation put forward by the Society. JW's are mislead by the Society and have given their thinking faculties over to it, but that hardly means they are in a position of hating Jesus because of that. It is more the case that the Watchtower Society has put itself in the seat of Moses, as it were, and that Jesus is being denied some of the proper honour and focus that he should be getting because of the Watchtower's obession with itself.
We may be debating something unnecessarily. I see that you recognize the Society has "abused the FDS concept." But, while I may not be in sync with your point, I don't think I'm missing the original point--Honesty's, which was...
Do Jw's agree with Romans 6:16 that if one obeys someone they are slaves of the one they are obeying?
While Jesus certainly made an important statement about not being able to serve God and riches, the illustration he used, ("no servant can be the slave of two masters,") should not really be limited to "riches," should it? Since we are here discussing Jehovah's Witnesses, I think it's appropriate to ask, how do they apply this scripture? Do they limit its interpretation to riches? I'm sure you know they don't. They use that scripture to teach that anything can pervert pure worship. I very much agree that JWs do not "hate" Jesus--in the sense that they openly demonstrate hate for him. But do you remember what the WTS has always said about that word, "hate"?
So, since Jesus probably did not mean that 'slaving for riches' would mean "intense hostility" or even a "strong dislike" of God, he probably meant "loving to a lesser degree." And I'd say this is very much in line with Honesty's orginal point. Not that JWs feel intensely hostile toward Jesus--but that, in devoting themselves so wholeheartedly to the WTS, they have both become slaves to them and, sadly, loved Jesus less.Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, p. 1042
In the Scriptures the word "hate" has several shades of meaning. It may denote intense hostility, sustained ill will often accompanied by malice. Such hate may become a consuming emotion seeking to bring harm to its object. "Hate" may also signify a strong dislike but without any intent to bring harm to the object, seeking instead to avoid it because of a feeling of loathing toward it. The Bible also employs the word "hate" to mean loving to a lesser degree.
Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2, p. 229
The account tells us that Leah was "hated." (Ge 29:31, 33) But it also recounts that, after he had finally got Rachel, Jacob "expressed more love for Rachel than for Leah." (Ge 29:30) Undoubtedly Jacob did not hold malicious hatred for Leah but viewed Rachel more lovingly, as his favorite wife. He continued to care for Leah and to have relations with her. Leah’s being "hated," therefore, would merely mean that Jacob loved her less than Rachel.
I agree with your thoughts there Confession. If that is the original point that was being got at then you have put it much better and reasonably than Honesty did.
Good discussion Gents 'yaddayadda' and 'confession'. I really enjoyed that!
As many as John543 over at beliefnet asks about.
As many as John543 over at beliefnet asks about. TheOldhippie
Honesty -------->>>>>>> John653 ----------->>>>>>> Honesty
