Freedom of Thought and JW Opposers

by dunsscot 137 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Mommie Dark

  fodeja,
  thank you for saying what I was thinking. You put it nicely, and simply. That's a hallmark of clear thinking. Too bad certain JW apologists feel the need to bury every idea in piles of fancy language that says exactly doodly-squat.

  The only thing worse than a lame JW apologist is a lame JW apologist in love with the sound of his own voice parroting big words. This guy needs to hang with Greggy Stafford; the two are peas in the same gasbagging pod.

  He belittles those who aren't instantly impressed with his rhetoric? That's a heap of belittlin'... Unfortunately, he is too smugly assured of his own glorious brilliance to be aware that mere peasants are laughing their butts off at his grandiloquent posturing. He must think we reject his assertions out of ignorance.

  Mom had a technical term for guys like this:
  PUTZ.
• 

  dunsscot

  Dear TD,

  1) The JW religion is a "closed" system, plain and simple. I have weighed the pros and cons of an open vs. a closed system, however, and concluded that neither system is satisfactory IMHO. I personally advocate a system that essentially is a mean between the two previously-mentioned systems. For if Christianity is God-given and objective in nature when it comes to doctrines, individual believers should not have the freedom to pick and choose which doctrine they want to either believe or apply. Either homosexuality is okay, or it is not. Either we are allowed to drink too much, or we are not. God is triune or He is unipersonal or He manifests Himself/Herself/Itself in an infinite number of ways. Biblical Christianity does not seem to allow room for a totally open system doctrinally speaking. Conversely, I do not believe that a Christian should be barred from sharing ideas that may run counter to the beliefs of God's ecclesia. Such concepts should be put forth in a spirit of mildness and humility, however.

  2) I think that God will hold His representatives responsible for abusing their respective offices. A proper enunciation of God's law is supposed to emanate from the mouths of God's representatives (Mal 2:7). At the same time, a humble servant of God recognizes that he is always capable of misconstruing the divine message; we are fallible, plagued by ontological inertia, and finite (limited in understanding, among other things). A Christian will thus insist upon the provisional nature of any theological understanding posited by him or her. (One friend told me that Brother Karl Klein stressed this point before he died.)

  3) I am not minimizing life or death situations, when I talk about small details. I'm just saying that any so-called errors committed by the JW organization have to be juxtaposed alongside the entire framework of JW teaching and praxis. Even blood tranfusions or deaths that result from refusing such medical procedures must be weighed in this light. One Baptist professor of mine even understood this point. He felt that Witnesses have the right to refuse blood transfusions and seek alternative means of treatment. They perform risk/benefit analysis as they strive to maintain a clean conscience before God. Like Abraham, there are times when they choose in some sense to suspend the ethical for a certain telos.

  Duns the Scot
• 

  dunsscot

  Dear Introspection,

  Your question is difficult to answer because one's experience of love falls under the "lived existence" category somewhat. In other words, I have experienced agape since I became one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Love brought me to the organization, and it has been a major factor in my staying. I know brothers who would truly show the spirit of Christ and give their possessions and life for you (1 John 3:10-18). These same men and women never consider one's epidermal schema or existential situation when deciding whom they want to befriend. That is, regardless of your race, ethnicity, gender or socio-economic status--many, many brothers and sister manifest agape love.

  Are there examples of folks who do not show agape. Yes, there are! But the whole matters more than the part, IMHO. The Bible even indicates that some Christians may at times act more wickedly than those in the world ruled by Satan (Cf. the example of King Manasseh and the man in Corinth, who was sleeping with his father's wife). Such circumstances serve as tests for authentic servants of God.

  But I'm telling you what I have experienced. This very love is an objective reality for me. Maybe you did not see this love in the organization. But remember that we have two different frames of reference, introspection, so I'm not about to tell you what you have or have not experienced. I'm just telling my side of the story in Gilsonian style.

  Duns the Scot
• 

  Free2Bme

  Just wanted to ask,
  Do you talk like this in 'real life' or is this just an all-out attempt to impress?
  Well hey I'm suitably impressed
  And depressed!
  Bet the bros fight to work alongside you on the ministry.

  Free
• 

  dunsscot

  Deaf "f."

  There is nothing contradictory about saying on the one hand that I can and do treat my fellow autonomous subjects as "ends" while noting on the other hand that I refuse to fellowship with those removed from God's clean organization.

  When Kant said that we should treat humanity (both ourselves and others) as ends, he evidently meant that we should not treat humanity as objects to be used for purely selfish ends. We are not supposed to objectify humanity or use humanity for our own selfish gain. Moreover, Kant emphasizes respect for humanity when he puts forth this ethical directive. There is no non sequitur here.

  In what way does "shunning" violate Kant's ethical admonition concerning treating humanity as ends? How is "shunning" selfish? In what way does it objectify humanity? What else is a Bible-believing Christian to do in light of 1 Cor 5:11-13 and 2 John 7-11? Check the Mosaic Law to read about further prescriptions for heretics (ala Tertullian). <BG>

  Rhetorically yours,
  Dan :-)

  Duns the Scot
• 

  dunsscot

  Dear free2bme,

  I think you understand where I'm coming from, because your name expresses the way that I presently feel. I now enjoy the truth more than I ever have since I am determined to obey God as Ruler rather than any human.

  No, I don't always talk this way. Furthermore, contrary to my good friend "f's" contentions, I am not trying to impress anyone. The truth is that I love philosophy: I am immersed in the life of the mind. But I love the Bible and Christianity even more, and I do not think that the two facets of life are mutually exclusive. It took a lot of money, reading, and time to learn philosophical jargon. Now I'm going to use my education to help others, even if some misunderstand my tactics. :-)) Just think of Socrates and the real Duns Scotus. You'll then understand my project. I love people, and I hate to see one side of a story told. Hopefully my presence here will result in a more fair and balanced presentation on this forum.

  Christian love,
  Dan

  Duns the Scot
• 

  Eusebius Hieronymus

  <A Christian will thus insist upon the provisional nature of any theological understanding posited by him or her. (One friend told me that Brother Karl Klein stressed this point before he died.)>

  I take my frivolous pun back. Now you are making sense.

  This is a gem of wisdom to be burnished.
  And the anecdote is true.

  Jerry
• 

  bigboi

  Hey Dun:

  You said:

  I do not think that JWs base their beliefs on lies. Their unique doctrinal framework is founded on biblical exegesis that is filtered through certain preunderstandings under the guidance of holy spirit.

  So why do they change so often? Their understandings even of critcal matters concerning life and death change to often. If they are truly led by holy spirit as you claim, then why does God have such a reckless disregard for the very lives of even those who serve him?

  I would greatly appreciate your answer.

  ONE....

  bigboi

  "it ain't what ya do. it's how you do it" quote from the song "True Honeybunz" by Bahamadia
• 

  CPiolo

  Dunsscot:

  You've responded to almost all posters, with two notable exceptions -- Farkel and AlanF. They both made some valid points that you haven't addressed. I particularly would like to hear your response to the challenge Alan put to you.

  Why have you avoided answering them? Are you not up to the challenge and/or unable to respond? Avoiding difficult questions shows just how deep your "truth" is.

  CPiolo

  The worst vice of the fanatic is his sincerity. -- Oscar Wilde
• 

  ianao

  dunscot:

  I must say that I am mildly amused of not somewhat impressed with your ability to very intelligently spout forth the very same crap that I have heard every other true-blue witness preach on this forum: "I am a witness because it's what I believe I should be".

  What a long-winded way of telling us just about the very same thing conceptually that a member of "christiandom" tells you as they are slamming the door in your face!

  Big flipping deal.