Waiting, hi sorry to pull you up on this but I noticed that you are still subscribing to Franz Christian Andersons fairy tales when you say things like this:
given the "elders in Jerusalem", where the governing body stationed themselves.-solidsender
Douglas Walsh Trial Testimony
by waiting 28 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
SolidSender
-
Pathofthorns
Friend:
That somewhat gets us back to the heart of possible applications of Romans 16:17. Do you think it is possible to be correct about an issue and still cause more damage than good by the manner in which we introduce or circulate that idea? I think that question has merit and is to some degree a necessary one in light of the text of Romans 16:17. What do you think?
I'm not exactly sure of what you are asking. If you mean do I think its better to hold to a false teaching because introducing what is truth could create more problems, I would have to say no.
When it comes to doctrine or matters of truth, one should always be free to uphold them no matter what the cost.
The way I see it is that divisions are often caused by the overly-sensitive, self-righteous ones claiming to be the "strong" ones. It is the failure of these ones to allow that their could be another viewpoint other than their own, and that another viewpoint could have equal merrit, that generally seems to cause "divisions".
This brings us back to the subject of intollerance, which I'm glad to see that at least we agree that there certainly could be more in the Organization.
I feel that just as it would be wrong to introduce divisions just to do so, or to create a following etc., it is also wrong to enforce unity by removing those who conscientiously disagree with your interpretations. I believe genuine truth will unite people of its own accord, and tolerance and love will hold them together as they each respect differences in thought and perception and viewpoint.
Path
-
waiting
Hey SS,
You did not use my full statement - which by the way is a cardinal sin of the WTBTS:
According to the Society, the teaching is found under the law given to Noah, not negated by the Jewish law, and continued under the Christian law, given by the "elders in Jerusalem", where the governing body stationed themselves.
I do not agree that there was any type of authority in Jerusalem except elders, or older men, just as in the other congregations. In reading this whole discussion on circumcism in the Bible, it can be seen that the congregations felt as equals:
1. free to disagree, and work towards unity
2. request the apostles' intervention
3. apologize to each other
4. act in unityIt is the WTBTS teaching that the Jerusalem congregation was the cong. in authority over all the rest and that a form of the Governing Body resided there. This is not my understanding.
waiting
-
waiting
Friend,
I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned . Keep away from them."—NIV (Italics added)
contrary to the teaching you have learned.
This scripture would give rise to at least two different types of "divisions and obstacles."
1. differences which were not contrary to the things you were taught, which I would think would be conscience matters - such as beards, etc.
2. differences which were contrary,such as forced circumcism, blood transfusions, etc.
This scripture urges us to watch out for divisions which are contrary - to Biblical teachings.
The Society, IMO, squelches, at least on the local level, differences in all forms - which is shown by the beard situation - and many more (how many rings on fingers, who we can do business with, who we can talk to, length & style of clothes, hair, earrings, pencil & paper for children in meetings, - the list is endless, Gosh, Darn, Gee Whiz, Golly Gee, Durn, -endless and useless) These are all conscience matters, where the local elders act as enforcers.
It would seem that there is room for the argument that the Society, perhaps, is the one who has introduced division amongst Christians by introducing teachings which are contrary to the Biblical things we have been taught. Such as blood transfusions, strict disfellowshipping, forced/free disassociation, strict interpretation of dates, etc. Now, that's an interesting subject...........I have been going at this discussion as if anyone who differed from the Society is the dissenter.
Perhaps the Society is the dissenter from Biblical teachings?
Friend, you mentioned the fact of Witnesses writing the Society about divergent opinions and research being sent to the Society and numerous follow-ups till the matter is cleared up. But you did not include any documentation to this strange fact.
I only know by personal experience - and absolutely do not speak for all letters sent to the Society - the first letter I sent to the Society - they did send CO & PO to my door - and I was nicely encouraged - and then strongly encouraged to be quiet (for the good of the congregation.)
The second letter I sent, and three further follow ups and our attorney's letter (business matter with local lying body of elders) and numerous phone calls by another congregation elder and our attorney - was totally ignored by the Society. When we approached our CO, who also called the Serv. Dept, our CO told us that the Serv. Dept. told him not to talk to us.
One year has passed, the WTBTS completely ignored our situation, basically shunning us. IMHO, the Society does not respond, even to numerous requests, for either change or meaningful communication.
The WTBTS wants obedience. If they can achieve that through keeping us silent - so much the easier. If they can achieve this through ignoring us - so much the easier. If they can achieve this through disfellowshipping us so that others will not know of our experiences - Fred Franz said they were willing to do that also, whatever it takes to keep the rank and file obedient.
waiting
-
Friend
SolidSender
WOW! Do you really expect anyone to take you serious, SolidSender. Apparently unnoticed by you is that the New International Version made the exact same past tense usage of learned as did I. Do you think those translators did not know proper usage of learned as a past tense of learn. If that is not enough, you turn around and introduce the following pitiful comment:
Friend, you've obviously learnt a thing or two from the WTBTS about hiding negative facts, the following is from the Merriam-Webster as quoted from by yourself:
Main Entry: learnt
Pronunciation: 'l&rnt
chiefly past participle of LEARN
And with that representation you introduce a straw man besides again embarrassing yourself. Between us did either claim that learnt is not a proper past tense usage for learn? I don’t believe either of us questioned that as a proper usage. In that case your representation above answers nothing whatsoever and is no more that a straw man. Perhaps you were hoping I would not notice your cheap dodge of the embarrassing criticism you offered earlier on, your embarrassment that is.
The question you raised had to do strictly with my use of learned, not learnt, and whether that was proper usage. Do you deny that at least one authoritative dictionary indicates that my usage is proper? Would you really deny that the NIV makes the exact same past tense usage as my own, namely learned? Would you really deny either? If so then I don’t know how you have enough intelligence to find your key board, let alone type an entry!
As for other dictionaries and their reference for learned as a past tense of learn, you can hardly find it missing in any legitimate dictionary. I suggest that you graduate from your favored pocket dictionary to something a little more analytical, at least before you embarrass yourself again on such an elementary point. Below I’ve done you the favor of providing links to a few excellent lexical resources. Perhaps consulting them will help you out, maybe.
[url= http://www.m-w.com/netdict.htm]Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary[/url]
[url= http://www.dictionary.com/]Dictionary.com[/url]
[url= http://www.yourdictionary.com/]Your Dictionary.com[/url]
[url= http://www.uwstout.edu/lib/reference/dicthesa.htm]University of Wisconsin-Stout Library Learning Center[/url]
I will add that it takes a small mind to nit-pick an issue of grammar when the setting is entirely casual and with the subject as the main item. You also apparently fail to realize that many of us do not use English as our first language. (That’s right, English should be spelled with an upper case E. I guess your pocket dictionary never taught you that one.) Maybe you should check with that non-English immigrant down the street before again offering English usage criticism.
Since you brought up the subject and question of education, SolidSender, I suggest that you go and get one! When you grow up we can perhaps discuss issues.
Pathofthorns
I'm not exactly sure of what you are asking. If you mean do I think its better to hold to a false teaching because introducing what is truth could create more problems, I would have to say no.
I think it depends upon the nature of the teaching. Some issues are more important than others. If a teaching is not adversely impacting a persons faith in Jesus and overall spirituality then creating a stir in that setting may be unnecessary, thus creating a division would be worse. Of course, some issue are essential and therefore are worth creating a stir over. I think that the Apostolic Counsel described at Acts chapter 15 represents just such an occasion.
From reading some of your previous posts I think we probably agree on this point. My only reason for introducing the question of Romans 16 is because that text provides some scriptural merit to the idea of shunning persons who may cause division over a non-essential fact, that is all. I certainly do not here defend actions of the WTS. In some instances teachings needing redress were/are rather essential, but not all. The problem is that what is essential to one may not be considered essential to another. That too contributes to arguing the legitimacy (or not) of the court record waiting posted.
waiting
Thanks for your reply.
This scripture urges us to watch out for divisions which are contrary - to Biblical teachings.
I’m not sure what you mean by biblical teachings. I think you probably are making a distinction between true biblical teachings versus things that Christians taught or believed that were false. However, without distinction, the subject text only refers to teaching that those Christians had learned. Some things those Christians learned were inaccurate, thus my question about Romans 16. With that in mind you can reconsider your comments if you wish.
Friend, you mentioned the fact of Witnesses writing the Society about divergent opinions and research being sent to the Society and numerous follow-ups till the matter is cleared up. But you did not include any documentation to this strange fact.
First of all, I do not claim that an issue is always cleared up, at least not to everyone’s satisfaction. Also, the suggestions to the Society I have in mind are those of doctrinal significance rather than personal issues needing resolution. Your experience of writing the Society, I believe, had to do with a personal matter that needed resolution. Without all the facts I cannot offer any meaningful reply to your experience or writing the Society. But, again, that is not the type correspondence I had in mind.
As for documenting what I have offered, the Society speaks of this themselves by saying that it is legitimate and that they will respond. I believe it was you and I that went around and around on that subject on another thread, I think on this forum. I forget which one it was. If you need it I can again scrounge up those references and post them.
Aside from what the Society has published I have my own experience and that of countless other that convinces me of what I have portrayed here. Of course, I can hardly reproduce that on a forum like this to anyone’s satisfaction and I will not for the sake of protecting my identity.
Please keep in mind, waiting, that I am not a defender of the Society. They are big enough to take care of themselves and should do so if it is necessary—which it is.
Friend
Edited by - Friend on 9 July 2000 23:9:24
-
waiting
Friend,
Romans 16:17 Now I exhort YOU, brothers, to keep your eye on those who cause divisions and occasions for stumbling contrary to the teachings that YOU have learned, and avoid them. NWT
For the word teachings, NWT refers readers to 1Co 16:23 May the undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus be with you.
Rev 22:21 May the underserved kindness of the Lord Jesus Christ be with the holy ones.NWT
Thus, the word teachingin the NWT, and the reference (for further insight) scriptures, and the Living Bible all refer to the divisions which are caused by other Christians teaching contrary things about Jesus Christ.
The Living Bible, Rom. 16:17 And now there is one more thing to say before I end this letter. Stay away from those who cause divisions and are upsetting people's faith, teaching things about Christ that are contrary to what you have been taught.
Rom. 16:18 Such teachers are not working for our Lord Jesus, but only want gain for themselves. They are good speakers, and simple-minded people are often fooled by them.
In the NWT, and The Living Bible, it is evident that the teachings which cause divisions are teachings contrary to what has been learned about Jesus Christ.And the teachersare not honestly questioning doctrine - they are trying to win people to them for gain for themselves.
Therefore, to have an honest difference of opinion on a scriptural belief about Jesus' teachings would not qualify for a person being disfellowshipped.
To have an honest difference of opinion on the Society's opinion of Jesus' teachings should definitelynot be a disfellowshipping matter.
Now, the problem would appear to me is who decides what is Jesus's teachings and what are the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Inc.'s teachings, such as the problem of what to do with those who do not agree with the WTBTS, but agree with Jesus.
The Catholic Church has always had this problem. Seems that the Society has come to their same level of organized religion.
Therefore, the problem is not only caused by divisions, but also:
1. The dissenters' main reason for argument - for true doctrinal reasons, or to gain followers for themselves;
2. Is the division caused by dissenters' who are teaching something different than Jesus' teachings?
This scripture urges us to watch out for divisions which are contrary - to Biblical teachings.
I qualified my statement because I felt Biblical teachings would be Jesus' teachings.
It would seem that there is room for the argument that the Society, perhaps, is the one who has introduced division amongst Christians by introducing teachings which are contrary to the Biblical things we have been taught. Such as blood transfusions, strict disfellowshipping, forced/free disassociation, strict interpretation of dates, etc. Now, that's an interesting subject...........I have been going at this discussion as if anyone who differed from the Society is the dissenter .
Perhaps the Society is the dissenter from Biblical teachings?
waiting
Edited by - waiting on 9 July 2000 21:45:2
Edited by - waiting on 9 July 2000 21:50:16
-
waiting
Friend,
I don't think you meant this as a kind act, but thanks for the Dictionaries On Line...
Cool sites!
waiting
-
The Quiet One
"Q. And unity based upon an enforced acceptance of false prophecy? A. That is conceded to be true. Q. And the person who expressed his view, as you say, that it was wrong, and was disfellowshipped, would be in breach of the Covenant, if he was baptized? A. That is correct. Q. And as you said yesterday expressly, would be worthy of death? A. I think – – – Q. Would you say yes or no? A. I will answer yes, unhesitatingly. Q. Do you call that religion? A. It certainly is. Q. Do you call it Christianity? A. I certainly do."
-
Vidiot
I've never actually read the full text of this, before.
Damn, no wonder the current GB is trying to erect as many legal firewalls between them and the R&F; they must be terrified of being called to the stand and having their ideology laid bare and deconstructed.
Not to mention that when a preacher in a minority religion publicly spouts stuff like that nowadays, he gets friggin roasted by the media.
Thanks for bumping this.