Hi NewWay. I loved your post, your picture, your outlook....WELCOME!
Judgement Starts At The House Of God
by NewWay 37 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
You Know
The glaring condradiction in your reasoning is that if God's judgment begins with his own house first, as the scripture says, that means in fact that it is God's house. Your fallacy is in the faithless assumption that Jehovah is not cognizant or that he is incapable of dealing with corruption within his organization. That of course is an absurdity and an insult to both God and Christ. / You Know
-
-
Bang
Hi NewWay,
Good to see things looking up for you. I'm not a jw or even an ex-jw, so I don't know the spiritual gems - to be blunt I haven't heard any that I can think of. Also I can't see any 'first judgement' going their way, though I do see a judgement (consideration) according the Word; just as I haven't heard spiritual gems, I wonder that they don't have fore-giveness, spiritual growth having been withheld ("it is God who gives the growth").
And Youknow, your right about God not being incapable. It has occurred simply as it was said, as it does to all - and just like He said, they prefer to remain in the dark ("and this is the judgement").
Bang
-
NewWay
YouKnow: Actually, my view is that the organisation is not the house of God, but that if it were then it would surely be in line for His judgement first, if the principle contained in the scripture is accepted and would be rather apt considering the designation 'Bethel'. Re-interpreting prophecy (to apply to the organisation) is not something I have an inclination to do - it's been done too many times by others; but I do believe in scriptural principles. I certainly have faith that the Almighty sees all things and that He will do whatever He sees fit according to his purpose. In fact, my faith (as in being confident of his ultimate ability and wisdom) has grown more since not 'running in the race for strife'. Whether His judgement comes specifically first on the organisation for even assuming to speak directly for God, or later after other judgements is neither here nor there, but judgement is something that I believe will come the organisation's way eventually. BTW, a few years ago I would have taken offence at your caustic remarks about my personal views, but time and experience has taught me that this leads nowhere (see James 3:16-18).
-
Bang
NewWay,
judgement is something that I believe will come the organisation's way eventually
I think you've begun a journey into the light - and that you'll come to see how judgement has already come their way. Perhaps what your looking for is that they come into the light, and see themselves.
Bang
-
NewWay
Dungbeetle:
Thank you for your enthusiastic welcome!
Bang: The spiritual gems are Biblical observations/cross-references over the years that have been printed in different publications. Some might say that these same gems could have been (even have been) unearthed by others before the organisation did. I don't think it would be unfair to say though that some of the organisation's 'finds' were a result of reading non-JW literature. I don't make the mistake of casting aside what I feel confident is true based on logical argumentation just because I heard it first from the society. Being an avid reader (of non-fiction) I have learned that valuable information can come from very unexpected quarters - that's why I believe it to be important to be open-minded. I've also found that valuable information is often available only to those who treasure the freedom to think for oneself. Despite what the society says, independant thinking is a must for those seeking truth. History itself bears out that any great change for the better occurred when people decided to question the status quo.
You might think that I believe in a 'restoration' from within the society, but I think it more likely that a 'restoration' will be made outside of it, for a 'clean break' would be for many, the only way forward to starting a fresh spiritual life, being led (as it should be) individually by the "Good Shepherd" - now that is where real faith comes in. Spiritual maturity means not having to let others dictate for us a particular mode of worship, and accepting individual responsibility for our actions. This does not mean that we should become insular and not commune with like-minded people, for this gives much pleasure and encouragement.
It is interesting that Jesus Christ did not promote a new religion (with associated buildings and ritual), but rather a new way of thinking (English 'repentance' = Greek 'metanoia' = 'change of mind').
bjc: Thank you for enlightening me as to the two different viewpoints. I try to keep an open mind, but at the moment I think I tend to agree with the second group, with the exception that I do believe that God is in the picture in some way. Of course, there is an indirect way that God's judgement can be felt: 'Whatever a man is sowing this he shall also reap'. This judgement of course operates like this: All the laws of the Universe, including moral and physical laws, have been put in place by God, so as a natural consequence of breaking those laws, the law-breaker will suffer a 'judgement'. The same can happen within a group of people whether as part of an institution, nation, or even a world community. Eventually the natural inclination for wanting justice will emerge as a large number of people become enlightened as to gross injustice and abuse (for example the Holocaust), and finally 'judgement' is passed (for example, the Nuremburg Trials).
One might argue that if God's "wrath" is only applicable to a religiously-covenanted people then few people need fear Armageddon. It seems that this would contradict other Bible passages which indicate a large-scale destruction of 'the nations'. My view is that the Apostle Paul (in Romans 4:15 & 5:13) is simply showing that whereas 'wrath' would be a consequence of breaking the Mosaic law (accepted as part of the conditions of the covenant) on account of sin - which could not be permantly atoned for - there would be an absence of 'wrath' in the case of Christian freedom due to the permanent atonement of sin. Rather than being a hard and fast 'formula' for determining who generally receives God's 'wrath' and who doesn't, I believe the context of the scriptures shows this is a Mosaic-law/Christian-freedom comparison. Nevertheless, I do accept that a directly-covenanted people (i.e. those that God has in reality made a covenant with) are of special interest to the Almighty and will of course be answerable to him for their behaviour. I don't feel obliged to accept that all prophecies in the Bible have a 'type' and an 'anti-type'. For instance, I think it quite reasonable to accept that, say, a particular prophecy directed towards ancient Israel had just one fulfilment. If we use the 'type' and 'anti-type' procedure with regard to prophecy, then the field is open for a whole range of interpretations, which poses the question: 'Which interpretation is right?' Sometimes it just might be better to accept that some things written to a certain people simply applied to them in their time, and leave it at that.
Having said that, I respect your views, and at the end of the day you and I obviously agree that in His own time and in His own way God will 'sort things out', even employing human beings and political entities in the process of doing so if he wishes. Again, thank you for the welcome! -
hillary_step
Robert,
You often complain that persons on this Board attack you in disgraceful tones, forcing you to react with abrasive language to protect both yourself and the God whom you feel you represent and whose cause you champion.
This person came on this Board as a new poster, with whom you had never exchanged words with before. You claim to be one of Christ's Annointed Undershepherds, and as such gladly take on yourself the responsibility to mimic his character and ethics. This new poster gives you an opportunity to display these ethics in practice, here a lost sheep actually came within your grasp. Let us see how you Robert, the great undershepherd reacted to this first meeting:
The glaring condradiction in your reasoning is that if God's judgment begins with his own house first, as the scripture says, that means in fact that it is God's house. Your fallacy is in the faithless assumption that Jehovah is not cognizant or that he is incapable of dealing with corruption within his organization. That of course is an absurdity and an insult to both God and Christ
Repectfully Robert, from your post this person could only conclude that you are both an 'absursity' and an 'insult' to God and Christ by your claim to be a friend of Christ. The reality is that you appear in your posts to be nothing but a spiteful, unreasonable wind-bag with a penchant for theological fraud.
HS
-
hillary_step
NewWay,
Welcome to the Board. I am looking forward to hearing more from you.
Please try to ignore YK, his hemorrhoids are raging this morning and it makes him a little short-tempered.
Kindest regards - HS
-
NewWay
HS: Thank you for the welcome! I must say that I am used to JWs, at least on the net displaying less than a Christ-like spirit. I think it important though that folks recognise that this form of communication is not the best. People are sometimes in a hurry to write posts and may word things in such a way as it appears contradictory (maybe their choice of words are not the best) or may appear dismissive of others comments, etc. That's why its necessary to have patience and not jump to conclusions, but rather politely ask questions that will make it clear what the person really means. Although I believe it may be necessary at times to speak forthrightly, I think it best to speak in such a way that does not point the finger directly at an individual present. For instance, I feel no qualms about 'telling it like it is' concerning the society (it then becomes an object rather than a group of people), but I would not want to point the finger directly at an individual, unless of course that one had obviously been rude and needed to be told so - this is especially important where a person claims to be a disciple of Christ, whom one would expect to stand out as a good example. Thanks anyway for your support.