by honorsthesis 47 Replies latest watchtower bible
Wontleave- Your post about Moses as an example of the GB is very intelligently laid out.
It was also for me thier policy- the way they treated people that was difficult for me. I too believe them to be much more like Pharisees.
In any case, that was a great few paragraphs to read, thank you for that.
If someone is truly who they say they are, their arguments should convince people. An introductory English creative writing course could teach you to invent other characters more persuasively. The trick is to alter your writing style. I don't think I could do it but then the Witnesses killed creativity in me. Perhaps I am such an art buff because I realize the lack of creativity in me. Like most NYers, I coddle artists.
As for the subject of the thread, I believe we have no further to go than the earlier author in the New Testament, Saint Paul. If there a central governing body that dictated all thought, Paul would clearly not be the true founder of Christianity. The gospels and Acts reveal that James, Jesus' brother (some say twin brother, and Peter were the dominant figures for Jewish Christianity. Paul resisted. I feel there may have been an undocumented compromise that there Christianity would flourish in Israel while Paul would preach to Gentile godfearers (Crossan points out that Paul targeted those Gentiles already worshipping in synagogues who did not want to be circumcised).
Another thing I've noticed is that the gospels are laced with references to authority and legitimacy concerning Jesus. Over and over again, Jews proclaim he may be working miracles but so could the devil. Their concern is not with the good news of the blind seeing, the lame walking but Jesus' lawfulness. It is a persistent theme. If I witnessed Lazarus raised from the dead, would I ask whether it was lawful to raise the dead? It does lead me to wonder about the authenticity of the miracles.
The very canonization of the New Testament lacked unity. It was highly controversial. There was big fight between the Four Gospels revealing the whole truth in a gestalt manner vs. complining one gospel and omiting the differences. I am glad they voted for four gospels b/c now we have flavor and different empahses on one basic narrative. John is pure theology. Mark is very stark and apocalyptic. Matthew stresses the social gospel. Jehovah did not appoint the delegates. It was very much a political process. Certain churches would have more clout than others. Rome certainly carried the imperial weight. Most Church Fathers were Middle Eastern, not Roman. A church founded by Paul himself would have more power than some church in the boondocks. Imagine how impoverished our culture would be with one unified gospel. Rather, the church fathers decided to have diversity because a larger unity could be served.
The problem with all this is that Witnesses do not have access to this record. They are not encouraged to read Paul in consecutive verses or read world history. Their lack of study of comparative religions means they do not recognize themes and challenges. Christianity is hardly unique. How many Witnesses read Augustine, Origin, the Desert Fathers? Is imperial Rome studied? No, all they can access is Witness literature.
Watch, I will receive a bad grade from our self-designated instructor.
if it's ok that the GB errs, and we have to wait on them, what's the difference to "false religion" again? how wrong can a belief be to still call it "the truth"? and on how many lies would you bet your life?
Growing up I always heard the prhase, "truth." My family used it about twenty times a day. Use of the word expresses their disdain for others. Imagine the repeated assertion of "truth" and the WTBTS. Math isn't true. Einstein wasn't true. All the benefits of civillization, such as roads, the wheel, urban areas, engingeering aren't true. Only one thing is true and we do not need to guess what it is.
Jesus isn't true to the Witnesses. Paul isn't true. Indeed, only the WTBTS is true. One assertion is one thing. Repeating the word truth and the express statement that only WTBTS is true isn't a JW concept but blatant brainwashing.
My earliest struggles with the Witnesses had to do with truths that I was taught in school. Scientifc theories, superb music - all denied. It was very hard for a young person to understand. Despite myself, I liked high culture. What was so evil about reading and math? The constant mocking enraged me.
If the Germans had critical thinking skills, Hitler could not rise to power. Antisemitic thoughts would have been laughed off the stage. Much as Sarah Palin gets trounced. I don't equate her with Hitler at all. Only that demogagues could not flourish. Perhaps our elementary schools need to teach thinking as much as concrete factual skills, such as reading, writing and arithmetic.
Different people view authority in different ways. Some scholar commented that it is not specific doctrines but how authority is viewed that provides the immense gulf between Roman Catholics and Protestants. Witnesses don't draw from normal people. People slavishly devoted to authority for many reasons will find a path to the Witnesses. Sometimes I yearn for certainty.
I doubt if new people understand the commitment when they enter and that it will be very hard to leave. My brother saw my father's slavish, fanatical devotion to Witnesses and the hypocrisy. Yet he became a Maoist only one and half years after we left the Witnesses. Cults prey on vulnelrable people. Yet I hate using the word cult because it is perjorative. I wish someone would coin a neutral usage.
Since people prone to dependency are attracted to JW, it is very hard for them to realize. Even when you realize, leaving is hell. Blessed hell but hell.
> Yet I hate using the word cult because it is perjorative.
maybe you prefer "high control group"
If someone is truly who they say they are, their arguments should convince people. An introductory English creative writing course could teach you to invent other characters more persuasively.
Watch, I will receive a bad grade from our self-designated instructor.
BOTR you seem to be doing your own instructing which is a pretty poor effort since you haven't got your facts right.
If someone is truly who they say they are, their arguments should convince people. An introductory English creative writing course could teach you to invent other characters more persuasively.
Watch, I will receive a bad grade from our self-designated instructor.
BOTR you seem to be doing your own instructing which is a pretty poor effort since you haven't got your facts right.
