Christians could and did. Can JWs? Do they?

by ANewLeif 61 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Terry

  Terry,

  You asked, "I wonder if we might broaden the discussion a bit?"

  No. But you don't seem to care.

  ANL

  ANL, I'm not opposed to your point of view. I'm suggesting there is more to the discussion.

  You laid out a very intelligent means of identifying what "christians" are.

  Within a tight and narrow context it is scathingly refutational to Jehovah's Witnesses.

  However, my viewpoint over the years has gone from two-dimensional analysis of Christianity to three-dimensional analysis.

  I now consider that there is a larger context than the Bible.

  Until I began to study the history of the Bible and allowed for the possibility that it was something other than a perfect mesuring device from a Divine source I was unable to make much progress.

  Today I see the Bible as part of an intellectual revolution. It is a device for differentiating empowered groups who narrowly self-define. Often it became necessary for these groups to add to or subtract from previous narrative contexts.

  The Bible was shaped by arguments, policies, politics, power brokers and philosophies.

  This view of the Bible in the context of its own history is the Cone Section.

  Knowing there is a Cone Section now enables me to see both the triangle of orthodox Christianity and the Circle of sectarian Christianity in terms of political and mythological Christianity (Cone).

  That's all I'm trying to say.

  Within your narrow frame of reference (and I don't use the term "narrow" pejoratively) you are quite correct.
• 

  ANewLeif

  I am using the reference point chosen by JWs. I didn't choose it, they did. This forum is to discuss Jehovah's Witnesses. This thread is certainly for that purpose. Within that narrow context (defined by the thread and the forum) I use their narrow reference point.

  How else would someone hope to counter their intellectual abuses? Do you think any ardent JW would agree with the argument in your posts?

  You show your hubris by making a request and then assuming permission. You do not have permission to expand the discussion scope, if you please.

  ANL
• 

  Pubsinger

  I think Gamaliel was one!!!!

  By secret I mean that they don't understand the nuances of their own dogma/doctrine.

  I guarantee that if you walk up to any JW in the street and ask "who is your mediator?" 99% will answer "Jesus" Less than 1% understand that according to official WT interpretation Jesus is only mediator to the 144000.

  I only found out after I left!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  So if you take that as a reflection of what they actually believe then you can see why i feel that they can be Christians.

  Interestingly if you ask any JW who they believe is their saviour they will again unflinchingly answer "Jesus" . If you ask them why they will say "because he died for me". If you ask them what they have to do to avail themselves of that sacrifice they will say "exercise faith in Jesus' ransom sacrifice"

  Now we know that the WT adds lots of riders to those answers, but based on individual beliefs and answers to the preceding questions I would venture that a vast amount of JWs are Christians and saved, but are caught in WT rules which govern the way they act.

  I believe that Jesus sees straight through all of this and his grace covers their actions and errors
• 

  Zico

  I don't know why anewlief has been attacked by a few posters on this thread. It's irrelevant what he believes about the bible, (in this thread at least) the JWs believe it's God's word, so when one of their beliefs contradicts clear statements in the bible, it's up to them to reconcile it, after all, it's JWs who claim absolute truth, as far as I can see, anewlief has not done this. JWs usually can't reconcile many bible statements with their own beliefs.

  I think that was the purpose of this thread.
• 

  ANewLeif

  Terry,

  Maybe I should be more clear. The reason I chose the points I chose is because they are not interpretive. The associated Scriptures directly state what happened and what happened does not fit with JW dogma.

  1 - Persons today baptized by the criteria of the Scriptures are considered invalidly baptized by JWs.

  2 - JWs who unrepentantly attend other religious services are branded apostates and shunned.

  3 - JWs who unrepentantly celebrate holidays (observe days) forbidden by JWs or engage in customs forbidden by JWs are likewise shunned.

  4 - JWs who use their own logic and reasoning on spiritual matters are accused of everything from running ahead to apostasy. If they dare spread their thinking they are condemned as apostates and shunned.

  5 - A JW who unrepentantly speaks to Jesus in a fashion similar to that of Stephen would be shunned.

  That is why your expansion falls so far outside the scope. The points I raised do not require interpretation. They only require reading what the Bible says. Christians did accept Scripture as valid, JWs claim to do so, so any challenge to its authority in this thread is also off topic.

  ANL
• 

  Terry

  You show your hubris by making a request and then assuming permission. You do not have permission to expand the discussion scope, if you please.

  Respectfully, I would submit to you that there exists something called the Rhetorical Question. The question I asked was not to gain your permission. That would assume you have the power to grant permission which you do not. A discussion group consists of equals contributing ad lib comments.

  I sought to display respect for you as the one posing the topic. However, your response has said more about you than me.
• 

  Pubsinger

  My contention is that the doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses disallows JWs from being Christian;

  My contention is that Jesus doesn't give a monkeys about "JW Doctrine"

  Jesus decides what disallows you from being a Christian.

  As he can see what each individual actually believes regardless of "official" beliefs and who is worshipping in spirit and truth, I believe that many are acceted by Christ.
• 

  mouthy

  Jesus decides what disallows you from being a Christian.

  Yep the WALK Not the TALK
• 

  ANewLeif

  Terry,

  You began, "Respectfully..."

  I disagree. Your post was off topic. You knew your post was off topic. I posted this topic in the section I chose and with the subject line I chose to prevent there being any confusion on the part of people who like to "expand the scope of discussions" which is euphemeistic for turning a discussion into one they prefer to have.

  You closed, "I sought to display respect for you as the one posing the topic."

  Feigning respect while commiting a disrespectful act is rather blatant disrespect. It is even disrespectful that you believed I would fall for the pretense of respect. Your attempt to convert this discussion is not any kind of respect I am familiar with ever experiencing before.

  I do agree with your perfect characterization of your post. Rhetoric is what leapt to my mind as well. Perhaps I am better suited to forums where posters don't bully others into considering their contrarian views on every forum section and in every thread subject. Maybe I should just take my leave.

  ANL
• 

  Terry

  Maybe I should be more clear. The reason I chose the points I chose is because they are not interpretive. The associated Scriptures directly state what happened and what happened does not fit with JW dogma.

  Once again, respectfully, I would submit to you that ALL reading is interpretive. The Scriptures (especially) cannot state anything directly because reading comprehension is an intellectual process.

  That is why your expansion falls so far outside the scope. The points I raised do not require interpretation.

  Perhaps your view disallows ANY interpretation because you do not see what you are doing as interpretive!

  Just to refresh your mind:

  Interpretation is a term used in informal education settings to describe any communication process designed to reveal meanings and relationships of cultural and natural heritage through first hand involvement with an object, artifact, landscape or site. This is primarily known as heritage interpretation.

  An interpretation can be the part of a presentation or portrayal of information altered in order to conform to a specific set of symbols. This may be a spoken, written, pictorial, mathematical, sculptural, cinematic, geometric or any other form of language. Complex meanings may be evoked where the reader consciously or unconsciously cross-references the text by situating it within broader frames of experience and knowledge.

  There are three things that allow interpretation to occur, and these are all interlinked and interdependable: the writer, the text and the reader. Through the act of interpretation the reader is the one creating meaning; the meaning of the text intended by the writer is potentially overlooked or ignored. The reader produces meaning by participating in a complex of socially defined and enforced practices. Interpretation is an active process of producing values and meanings, a process that always occurs within specific cultural and political contexts, directly linked to the world in which the reader lives.

  The purpose of interpretation would normally be to increase the possibility of understanding, but sometimes, as in propaganda or brainwashing, the purpose may be to evade understanding and increase confusion.

  from Wikipedia

  The Scriptures of the Bible pass through the following stages requiring interpretation:

  1.Purportedly from God's mind to man's mind.

  2.Man's mind to the written word in a particular languages

  3.Written language versions to other written language versions

  4.Edited reformulations and other redactions

  5.Selectively chosen translations

  6.Coalesced Theological statements including/excluding other points of view

  In view of this you may wish to revise your (pardon my judgement here) naive statements about interpretation.