Freedom of Thought and JW Opposers (page 3)

dunsscot

To Larc, Introspection, and others:

I have not left the board. I do not plan on leaving. Moreover, I am not here to defend any organization. Contrariwise, my interest is primarily twofold.

First, I want to examine how human cognition functions in an environment where ex-JWs thrive and flock. Secondly, I want to provoke thought in those who oppose God's organization. Thirdly, I want to defend biblical Christianity and show that the very structures that make knowledge possible are inclined to seek and know an infinite horizon of being. That is, my apologetic efforts are focused on defending the Bible and the God who inspired it. I may also defend JWs in the process. But I do not think that JWs are perfect and unblemished, since we all sin and fall short of God's glory. If errors were what Jehovah watched, who could stand? Thus, despite the mistakes JWs have made through the years, I remain a JW because I think that Jehovah's people collectively constitute a pillar and support of the truth.

They have shown that Christendom's Trinitarian god is non-existent; there is no burning Hell, and God has not predestined some humans to everlasting life and others to everlasting torture. Furthermore, the ethics espoused by the Witnesses seem to conform closely to Scripture and insights from other world religions and natural law. While serving Jehovah, I have been protected by heeding the sage counsel of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. I have no worries about AIDS, illegitimate pregnancies or emotional turmoil over the commission of immoral acts. I also refuse to view my fellow autonomous self-constituting subjects as means to certain ends. Each autonomous subject IS an end in itself, and should be treated accordingly. Being one of Jehovah's Witnesses allows me to act thusly toward my fellow man or woman.

So I remain one of JWs for various reasons. I hope you'll reconsider your position as well.

Christian love,
Dan

Duns the Scot

ozziepost

Dan,

I thought you'd just arrived, and now you talk about leaving, or not leaving. I'm puzzled.

I remain a JW because I think that Jehovah's people collectively constitute a pillar and support of the truth.

Good for you, but tell us, what is the truth? Note Jesus' answer to the same question. If "Jehovah's people" are a pillar and support of the truth, why is it that they deny he is your mediator? Yet Jesus said no one comes to the father except through him. He also said that he was the way, the truth, and the life.

Sorry, old son, but you're willing to defend something that is flawed. A "pillar of the truth"? No.

Cheers,
Ozzie

"So often, the unpolished
the disjointed
Is on its way to the truth
Ahead of the finished
the polished."
Ken Walsh, Sometimes I Weep

dunsscot

The so-called "changes" in the WT used to bother me until I learned about Hegel's dialectical triad. The movement and unfolding of Absolute Spirit throughout human history regulates in an ontological and epistemological manner. Hegel's delineation of Spirit also sheds light on the cognitive workings of finite agents who share in the outworking of Spirit. Dialectically, thought develops by affirmation, negation, and then by negating the negation. Such epistemic movement might SEEM contradictory and maybe in a sense it is. But this dialectical triad need not be construed as false in any moment or erroneous in an absolute sense.

Think about it! :-)

Duns the Scot

SixofNine

Hegel's dialectical triad????

You are a hoot!

dunsscot

Dear SixofNine,

So you think that my use of Hegel's dialectical triad is a "hoot." Well I have a wry sense of humor, so I'm glad you got a kick out of my Hegelian apologetics. I'm also crazy about Paul Tillich and employ his dialectical theology as well. But I really do think that Hegel's dialectical triad explains the development of the Witnesses' teachings.

Duns the Scot

TD

But what trick of the imagination (assuming that you are a loyal JW in good standing) do you rationalize as conscionable the enforcement of doctrinal conformity on a teaching in the process of being resolved dialectically?

Marilyn

An excellent question, and one that often pervades my thoughts. If I may quote the great AF, who once said "there's their truth, our truth, and the truth"! Isn't it great to be able to talk about it though? Would the elders approve?

Marilyn

larc

Duns,

It seems to me that to use Hegel to justify the changes in Witnesses beliefs leaves one question unanswered. Since this arquement could be used to justify the changes in any religion, and in any of the sciences (at least in the sciences the light does get brighter), why would one want to stay with this particular constellation of of concepts known as the Witness religion?

It one leaves the esoteric world of ideas and enters into the more prosiac world of human affairs, I see no pragmatic justification for remaining in the Witness culture.

dunsscot

Dear TD,

Biblically, Christianity cannot be an entirely "open" system (I think some degree of openness, psychologically speaking, is okay). Those governing the body of Christ must watch over the flock and make sure that no "poisonous root" appears in the ecclesia. They govern in accordance with the knowledge that they possess at a certain Hegelian "moment."

Secondly, part of Spirit's unfoldment involves (in this case) believing that the part equals the whole at times. That is, we JWs may have part of the truth or to put it another way--Spirit may still be in the process of unfolding epistemically and we finite autonomous subjects who have to deal with ontological inertia (a term used by Merold Westphal) mistake a certain "moment" in Spirit's development as a realized or actualized development: Our cognitive powers do not function as they should in our infralapsarian state. We must deal with a form of inertia that affects our very being or existence. Thus the imperfect men of the GB may stress conformity to certain ideas that are not in fact fully formed. But we must not be hindered by such small details. The whole is more important than its constituent parts: I look at what the JWs teach as whole.

Christianity has always stressed conformity to the Christian deposit of teachings. But the same religion has also had to make continued adjustments. JWs do the same.

BTW, I am a JW in good standing.

Duns the Scot

dunsscot

Dear larc,

Why stay with JWs if any religion can claim it is in the process of development? What it basically comes down to is presuppositions and one's experience of the Living God. I might also add that intuition and phenomenological eideation play a part in my decision, larc. Simply put, being one of JWs works for me: It is in some ways pragmatic.

But maybe a more objective criterion will suffice here. I think the JWs are the pillar of support of truth when I look at their body of teachings and apply certain truth tests to the WTS. The Bible is of course my main touchstone of truth, but there are other ways one can discern the truth or lack thereof.

Is a certain religion's teachings coherent? For me, JWs are coherent in their dissemination of religious data (as a whole), though other religions and churches are not, for the most part.

Secondly, does the teaching correspond with my view of reality? I think that JW teaching does. See William Barrett's work _Irrational Man_ for a review of this notion.

Thirdly, is the doctrinal framework pragmatic? Does it work in praxis? I think that JW belief does.

Lastly, can JW doctrine meet the test of a semantic theory of truth (A metalanguage)? Again, I think we can answer affirmatively. But in order for anyone else to feel this way, he or she must experience the spirit of holiness at work in his or her life. The Bible's dynamic force must also exert power on his or her heart. Additionally, one must intuit truth as it (truth) shows itself from itself--as it presents itself from itself to consciousness in all of its essence or quiddity.

Duns the Scot

Freedom of Thought and JW Opposers

Share this