by Terry 43 Replies latest watchtower bible
I think a good and simple explanation for Papias being rejected is that it did not square with what certain influential believer's found acceptable.
The HONEST reaction would have been to INCLUDE Papias evidence entirely. That would allow others the freedom to apply their own standards for acceptability. Instead, Papias' (and many others) were excluded, marginalised and (in many cases) burned.
Tammy (tec) wrote: God knows our hearts, so I think it is more of a heart crime than a thought crime.
Tammy, I'm not nitpicking here so much as making a query: Does one THINK in their brain or in that blood pumping organ?
Does it make any difference to your observation? I'm curious because words actually mean something.
Thanks!
Does one THINK in their brain or in that blood pumping organ? Does it make any difference to your observation?
I'll try to explain my meaning better; and I agree that words mean something. People argue over things they might otherwise agree upon, simply because each party attached a different meaning to a certain word.
When I say thinking from the heart, I don't mean the organ. I think of emotions, empathy, conscience. Probably there is a place in the brain that is in charge of these things; I don't think it matters.
If the heart (emotions/empathy/conscience) is right (I'm speaking of 'right' by the standards of Jesus' teaching and example - but you can use any standard of different societies) then you no longer have even thoughts that might be hurtful to another person: thought crimes.
If we don't have thought crimes because our emotions, empathy, conscience are 'right', then we shouldn't progress to having physical crimes. That's why I think Jesus taught changing the heart of the person, rather than just the rules or behavior. Harder to do, but a person would be less apt to be mislead or corrupted.
Heart = thoughts = actions. Although understandably, heart sometimes just = actions.
Not sure if I explained this better or muddled it up.
Tammy
So our heart is not right without Jesus? We need Jesus to do good?... sorry we are hj the thread
When I say thinking from the heart, I don't mean the organ. I think of emotions, empathy, conscience. Probably there is a place in the brain that is in charge of these things; I don't think it matters.
If the heart (emotions/empathy/conscience) is right (I'm speaking of 'right' by the standards of Jesus' teaching and example - but you can use any standard of different societies) then you no longer have even thoughts that might be hurtful to another person: thought crimes.
If we don't have thought crimes because our emotions, empathy, conscience are 'right', then we shouldn't progress to having physical crimes. That's why I think Jesus taught changing the heart of the person, rather than just the rules or behavior. Harder to do, but a person would be less apt to be mislead or corrupted.
Heart = thoughts = actions. Although understandably, heart sometimes just = actions.
I was confused because I try to separate my thoughts into connected ideas that are clear to me.
In Terry's World it is your Values that create Emotions. Emotions are an echo of those deeply held values.
Where it gets tricky is understanding that your Values can come from two sources.
1.Your personal decisions, observations, careful analysis
OR
2.By default through passive thinking and accepting and absorbing the views of others around you
Meaning what?
Whenever you experience an EMOTION which you do not UNDERSTAND-- you are really encountering one of those passively-accepted values which
you inadvertantly absorbed by passive thinking.
You can rationally "know" something or someone is bad for you--but--you find yourself attracted to it or them anyway!
I hate to sound like a broken record. But, I think using the word: HEART to mean the "emotions" is to employ an ANTI-CONCEPT which
destroys the communication process and stifles understanding.
If heart doesn't mean heart why not use a word that means what you really mean? You see? Communication is important. Accuracy in thinking is
vital. Our concepts can destroy our ability to think accurately if we have passively acquired them.
Cyberjesus and Terry - gotta go to work, will respond when I get home. But CJ - that isn't what I meant. I meant that I was using 'right' by Jesus' standard - but the concept of making your heart right so that your actions/thoughts will follow can be used in any society by any social morals that society deems 'right'.
Tammy
the concept of making your heart right so that your actions/thoughts will follow can be used in any society by any social morals that society deems 'right'.
Substitute the word values for "heart" and I'll happily go along with you up to a point.
Social morals might need discussion.
Morals are a practical matter. Each society has its own ideas about what behavior is acceptable. What you practice inside of one society
is unacceptable inside another. Consequently, a Christian who imposes absolutes on a society which finds the particulars of those absolutes
ridiculous or wrong will find Christian values to be wrong.
Generations of Missionaries have discovered the truth of this.
I can agree with using values for heart. I actually think we're on the same page.
You said, values come from two sources:
1.Your personal decisions, observations, careful analysis
OR
2.By default through passive thinking and accepting and absorbing the views of others around you
I agree.
Getting your heart/values 'right' means strengthening them through #1: personal decisions, observations and careful analysis. If you do allow yourself to believe through #2: default, passive thinking, etc... then you are far more likely to compromise the values you are living by, because they aren't really yours; merely a reflection of others' around you.
Comes down to the basic know yourself, and then be true to yourself.
When it comes to social morals, then I agree that they are dependent upon what is acceptable in each society. I just happen to think that the morality that Jesus taught could transcend every society. Not the rules that man added afterward, but the underlying values of love your neighbor, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Paul gave social morals in accordance to the customs of the time and place - such as women having long hair instead of having to wear a head covering/ and a wife not speaking in the church. In another time or society, social customs might dictate that this not apply. And as long as the people are still following the underlying values stated above, then I don't see why there exists a problem with that change.
But then, I don't see Christianity (as Jesus taught it/not what it has become) as a stagnant, doctrine based faith.
Tammy
When it comes to social morals, then I agree that they are dependent upon what is acceptable in each society. I just happen to think that the morality that Jesus taught could transcend every society. Not the rules that man added afterward, but the underlying values of love your neighbor, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
It sounded good to enough people two thousand years ago that Jesus' teachings are still with us today.
But--there is a problem with Jesus' teachings. A BIG problem.
If you live in a country where your "neighbor" country hates you and wants to commit genocide by invading your country--do you STILL "love your neighbor?" or do you defend your wife and daughter from rape and murder?
You see--the "morality" of Jesus is wonderful ----in the abstract---because it is benevolent and kind. The world we live in is often indifferent and hostile. The Jesus morality cannot protect the believer from the ravages of real world encroachment.
The pure application of Jesus' morality would end up with a situation that was visited upon Tibet when the Chines Communists invaded.
The Buddhist monks were non-violent. They formed no armies. The did not fight back. The were mercilessly slaughtered in the streets, in their temples and homes. The Dali Lama fled for his life.
Many people find the Dali Lama to be a wonderful fellow. But, for all the kindness and benevolence he preaches---the history of what happened to his native country of Tibet looms large in UTTERLY REFUTING his beliefs as having any practical value.
That's my rebuttal to Jesus.
I was a non-combatant in the Viet Nam era. As a result of my refusal to fight for my country OTHER YOUNG MEN went and died IN MY STEAD.
I have to live with this on my conscience. I was very lucky that the only thing that threatened me in prison was the attempted rape by another inmate.
Terry - I am the first person to admit that I know nothing about war, or what it personally costs the people who fight (or those who decide not to fight). I haven't been in either situation, nor had to worry about my children in such a situation yet.
Jesus seemed silent on the subject of protecting loved ones. I'm not sure that he was. I may simply not be understanding how to apply his teachings to these situations.
However...
One would not be very loving to his wife and daughter (both also included in neighbors) if he stood by and allowed them to be raped or murdered. In another sense, if I were that wife/daughter, I would want someone to come to my defense. (apply that with the golden rule - if I would hope someone would come to my defense, then I would hope that I would also come to someone else's defense)
And finally - Love covers over a multitude of sins. Shedding blood might be a sin. But standing by and watching innocent blood be spilled might even be an even bigger sin. I think this is a personal decision everyone must make, and that none of us has the right to judge that decision. But defending an innocent person is not the same as warring for profit or power.
Again, I'm not the authority on this, and Jesus could also have been preaching pacifism because we would be taken care of in the after life. That takes a tremendous amount of faith, though.
On a personal note, Terry - I've said it before, but I think you are a sincere and caring individual. Just the fact that you live with that on your conscience says this to me. I just hope you realize that YOU are not responsible for that war. YOU did not get anyone killed in your stead. You refused to go to war because you believed it was wrong... and I'm assuming you believed so because you would have had to kill anyone, which goes against what you were taught from the bible.
My point is, from the bit I've learned about you, your conscience would have been hurting either way. You didn't get off scott-free, either. You went to prison, and obviously suffered there as well. Standing up for what you believed was right, no matter the consequences, took strength.
Tammy
