Grrr, my normal formatting isn't going to work. I apologize as this may look sloppy:
First, forgive me while I try to figure out all of this forum's format options.
Alive-
But, our fundamental role is to make converts.
There's the first misunderstanding. I'm sure you remember the illustration of the faithful slave "providing spiritual food at the proper time." Really think about that illustration. What's the food? What is it that provides nourishment to the heart? Think about that illustration literally. I suggest that food is God's teaching through prayerful understanding of the bible. All the fancy peripheral books "What does the bible teach" and magazines and whatnot are the plates and silverware... they're not the food... they're a tool to eat the food. The greatest common factor I see among Ex-JWs is a disgust about how rarely they were reading "the bible" and how often they replaced it with a book about the bible as a substitute. Forks and knives are VERY useful for eating your food, but your stomach will be empty if you fill your plate with silverware. ... this doesn't mean silverware is useless. Some people just use it wrong.
Think of God as the Chef in his own house. He made all the food. The assignment the WBTS have is to manage the rest of us servents as we plate the food God's prepared (people who write study articles) and present the food to the guests at God's table (those to whom we're preaching).
If our goal is to rush the meal to get our guests to come work in the kitchen... how are those guests to enjoy the meal God prepared? Likewise if we push the meat aside and obsess over how friggin' awesome the cutlery is! That defeats the purpose.
The system works. We've been sloppy in it's execution (particularly since the 50's). Doesn't mean the food's bad. We've been assuming our primary function is to focus on the cutlary, so we have starved waiters. Then the food stops looking so good and people quit.
Make sense?
How can an honest person "witness" to folk with flawed and unscriptural doctrines - how could I possibly teach the latest generation teaching when I'm personally shaking my head and thinking...how could I have taught previous interpretations as if it were truth, absolute truth - praying with my students "that these marvellous truths sound down into their heart?"
There's your problem. Arrogance. We work for the best interpretation of scripture we CAN. To assume an understanding is "Absolute truth" is to point a spiritual gun at your spiritual face. Learning something better seems to be a "problem" instead of something to be celebrated. Tell me, assume again for a moment that God's plan is for you to live forever in his Kingdom. You can chill out with the big dude for an infinite amount of time and can ask him any question. If you had a 10 year long conversation directly with God... could you learn everything there was to know and completely run out of questions? In 10 years you couldn't even get a list of all the stars in a galexy, let alone know everything about each planet. What about a 1,000 year conversation? Could you understand everything that he's planned throughout history? Every artistic touch he's put in your DNA? How can we ever run out of questions? We'll never have a perfect understanding of the infinite knowledge there is in the universe... because that's how "infinite" works. I assume that after this system, after the 1,000 year reign, and a few million years into the future we'll STILL be improving our understanding of all the reasons God has for stuff. So, how arrogant can we be to assume that our interpretation of a TINY book is "absolute truth?" I agree that the book is inspired by God... but we need a lot more than a couple thousand years to fully comprehend all of the contexts. Be reasonable. Accept that we're still learning, and we always should be. This is a good thing. If you expect a group with an "absolute truth" ... you're looking for a group that's stopped asking questions. That's a bad thing.
How could I expect an honest hearted person to accept our stand on blood? Blood poured out for the intake of fractions is a conscience decision, but blood poured out for a transfusion is wicked and detestable to Jehovah? Is blood sacred or not? This isn't just about "us" - it's about proactively teaching others and drawing them into the organisation.
That, perhaps, is a tangent for another thread. For now, I'll leave it at this: It's a matter of conscience. The bible doesn't "Forbid" the use of blood. It says it should be "abstained from." Pray about it and trust God to help you find understanding. Blood isn't magical evil stuff... but it's dangerous to mess around with. Look at Noblood.org. This is NOT a JW site... doesn't have any religious connotation at all. Even with all of the advancements that have been made in how to most safely transfuse blood, there are a LOT of doctors who medically object to blood transfusions. There are dozens of hospitals across the US that are completely transfusion free. And there are a lot of advantages to that. There are very rational and irrational extremes on both ends, regarding this topic. In the end... it's not a "foundational Doctrine." It's not required for JWyness.
Would you witness and conduct bible studies, teaching interpretations which you have personally found difficult to swallow? What does that do to us? How damaging is that to our conscience? But what options do witnesses have? Is it fair to ask folk to join God's organisation knowing that once they are baptised, they will be expected to believe whatever new 'truths' are handed out.
I have a feeling there's a bit more context to this suggestion. Mind clarifying? For example, I'm skeptical about the theory that Michael and Jesus are the same being. Here's how I address that topic: Some witnesses SUGGEST that these two may be the same individual based upon the following correlations between the two: (And there are rational things linking them). However, the bible doesn't specifically say one way or the other... so it's something we'll find out when we find out. It's an interesting theory to consider. I would never say they DEFINITELY are the same person. I would never say the DEFINITELY aren't... because the evidence is sloshy... it's no stronger than the scriptures trinitarians use for their theory. Dissent is fine... just be reasonable and respectful. Just because you don't fully buy into something as an absolute truth... doesn't mean there's a malicious conspiracy or "intentional untruth." I do agree, however, that some people are arrogant in their understanding and preach topics such as this as unquestionable. I've seen it, and they'll have to answer to God for that, because I've seen it make people stumble. We think we're being "authoritative" ... but that arrogant attitude, assuming we have all the answers of unquestionable truth... is exactly what set up most of the people who are here today.
I have loved the teaching of paradise like so many here - but over the past 20 odd years, my conscience has taken a battering. I prayed for the understanding of what turned out to be error..... so many times. That hurts - and it hurts that I have delivered intellectually dishonest publications to folk, containing manipulative language at times. Not my words, but written by men who don't seem to think it's a problem.....it's heartbreaking.
I believe that you're heartbroken. I understand, and I've seen it many times. Some time I'll tell you about that circuit overseer talk I heard that literally almost had me stand up in the middle of the meeting to object. People make horrible mistakes. Even those we expect to be held to a higher standard. But we're all people. Some of us have lied and cheated and stole and killed and raped. Considering how most of the apostles have faltered and sinned, how can we expect perfection from speakers and article writers? They are expected to honestly try. But, we have to be rational and take, even what they say, critically. Don't put them on a pedistal. They're men.
So, what does the talk of an imperfect (even sinful) man have to do with the teaching of a paradise earth? Did his talk change what was written thousands of years ago? If a crackhead the street tells you 2+2=4... does this become untrue because of who said it? Ad Hominem. Horrible people can be right. Amazing people can be wrong. Wise men can sin. Not everyone in authority uses it properly. Why do these things change what you think of the bible?
