in case you were wondering if the governing body we're going to become kinder and gentler, the answer is a big "no!!!
in the current study edition of the wt magazine, the sheeple are reminded of some very important key points.
1) god has an organization ( corporation ) that you must respect.. 2) only the gb/faithful slave can dispense spiritual food and only the gb/faithful slave can interpret the bible.. 3) individual dubs absolutely cannot learn "truth" on their own.. 4) god requires "unity of doctrine.
3) Individual Dubs absolutely cannot learn "truth" on their own.
This claim has no biblical support because we have Joseph resisting the attempt of the temptress when there was no law given against adultery, and we have David murdering his faithful friend to steal his wife in spite of having many wives and concubines when there was law given against adultery.
if we apply to the above verse jesus’ own criterion (“every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit”—mathew 7:17) we will know that it is unlikely that jesus did say it.. when i practiced it, i found that i was encouraging others to slap (whether in its literal or figurative sense) me more and more.
the same is happening in large scale when countries practice tolerance.
we know many countries who “turn the other cheek” when attacked, and it only invites more trouble (which means jesus’ advice is counterproductive).. but see what happens if you return more than what you receive in view of the principle god himself follows.
In the second point, you resort to threat which is not necessary if you take other things Jesus said. He himself warned that after he would leave, wasteful additions will be made to his teachings. (Mathew 13:24-26). Hence weed out the Bible and take only what appeals to “reason” which is what true worship means (Romans 12:1, 2; 1Thess 5:21) Hence what I am doing is something that Jesus would surely commend.
if we apply to the above verse jesus’ own criterion (“every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit”—mathew 7:17) we will know that it is unlikely that jesus did say it.. when i practiced it, i found that i was encouraging others to slap (whether in its literal or figurative sense) me more and more.
the same is happening in large scale when countries practice tolerance.
we know many countries who “turn the other cheek” when attacked, and it only invites more trouble (which means jesus’ advice is counterproductive).. but see what happens if you return more than what you receive in view of the principle god himself follows.
So, you mean to say those who understand will understand, and others will not.
Here I agree with you because we have Joseph resisting the attempt of the temptress when there was no law given against adultery, and we have David murdering his faithful friend to steal his wife in spite of having many wives and concubines when there was law given against adultery.
This would mean that there is no need of anyone instructing others—especially using parable and exaggeration.
some time ago, during the mid-week meeting, the sanctification of god’s name was being discussed (chapter 4 in ‘god’s kingdom rules’).
in paragraph nine we read that in the early period the jw’s viewed jesus ransom sacrifice as the most important teaching of the bible.
then they said they gave overbalanced importance to jesus, and nowadays, they say the sanctification of god’s name is the most important thing in the bible.. .
If sanctification of God's name was the most important subject, Jesus would have used all his superhuman skills to teach this subject, and all his illustrations would have centered around it. Interestingly, his parable about Kingdom of God has nothing to do with sanctification of God's name but it looks alike almost counterproductive to this very concept because he said: “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened.” (Mathew 13:33) And, he did not explain it.
This leaves the reader to make his own conclusion: Vices work like yeast or leaven, thus Bible presents leaven as symbol of sin. (Luke 12:1; 1Corinthians 5:6-8; Galatians 5:9) Does it mean sin would appear again?
if we apply to the above verse jesus’ own criterion (“every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit”—mathew 7:17) we will know that it is unlikely that jesus did say it.. when i practiced it, i found that i was encouraging others to slap (whether in its literal or figurative sense) me more and more.
the same is happening in large scale when countries practice tolerance.
we know many countries who “turn the other cheek” when attacked, and it only invites more trouble (which means jesus’ advice is counterproductive).. but see what happens if you return more than what you receive in view of the principle god himself follows.
There are people who care about this because for them every verse of the Bible is "inspired and beneficial"
it was announced this week that the theme for the 3 day convention is "do not give up".
these are the words that are spoken to someone who is struggling and is in the process of giving up.
this theme tells me that many in the organization are tiring out and slowing down.
If the world was Sooo bad and the organization was sooooo good why the exorortation not to give up?
excellent question
if we apply to the above verse jesus’ own criterion (“every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit”—mathew 7:17) we will know that it is unlikely that jesus did say it.. when i practiced it, i found that i was encouraging others to slap (whether in its literal or figurative sense) me more and more.
the same is happening in large scale when countries practice tolerance.
we know many countries who “turn the other cheek” when attacked, and it only invites more trouble (which means jesus’ advice is counterproductive).. but see what happens if you return more than what you receive in view of the principle god himself follows.
You say “What he was saying is that a person should seek to make peace over seeking revenge. It was a fancy way of saying "you would seek revenge, but at what cost?"
If this is what Jesus originally meant,
1) What was the difficulty for Jesus to say the same by using the simple words such as ‘seek peace because revenge would bring a cycle of violence.
2) Why should Jesus set one standard for humans, and totally different for him as in Rev 22:12?
Even if we take it as you say, still we will have to ask “but at what cost?” Look at what India do. It goes on ‘turning the other cheek’ and others go on using it to their benefit.
some time ago, during the mid-week meeting, the sanctification of god’s name was being discussed (chapter 4 in ‘god’s kingdom rules’).
in paragraph nine we read that in the early period the jw’s viewed jesus ransom sacrifice as the most important teaching of the bible.
then they said they gave overbalanced importance to jesus, and nowadays, they say the sanctification of god’s name is the most important thing in the bible.. .
Sanctification and ransom are mutually exclusive subjects.
1) God’s name cannot be made unholy by a lie of Satan who himself is the product of somebody’s lie
2) Even if God’s name was made unholy by some lie, by permitting the innocent person to be murdered by sinners, and permitting such a death as a basis for the atonement for the sins of the sinners could only further tarnish God’s name
if we apply to the above verse jesus’ own criterion (“every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit”—mathew 7:17) we will know that it is unlikely that jesus did say it.. when i practiced it, i found that i was encouraging others to slap (whether in its literal or figurative sense) me more and more.
the same is happening in large scale when countries practice tolerance.
we know many countries who “turn the other cheek” when attacked, and it only invites more trouble (which means jesus’ advice is counterproductive).. but see what happens if you return more than what you receive in view of the principle god himself follows.
If we apply to the above verse Jesus’ own criterion (“every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit”—Mathew 7:17) we will know that it is unlikely that Jesus did say it.
When I practiced it, I found that I was encouraging others to slap (whether in its literal or figurative sense) me more and more. The same is happening in large scale when countries practice tolerance. We know many countries who “turn the other cheek” when attacked, and it only invites more trouble (which means Jesus’ advice is counterproductive).
But see what happens if you return more than what you receive in view of the principle God Himself follows. (Exodus 20:5, 6) You probably succeed in correcting the other person. We have modern example in this regard. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor as part of their aggressive/imperialistic policy. And US made them reap the consequences [it was like jaws for tooth, not just tooth for tooth—bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima], and Japan learned the lesson: Japan stopped attacking other nations altogether.
Interestingly, even Jesus himself did not practice “show the other cheek” advice (which is of course attributed to Jesus). When slapped, Jesus made a manly response saying: “But if I'm speaking the truth, why are you beating me?” (John 18:23) Because he was yet to make his final statement on this: “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done” (Revelation 22:12) which means he has never told us to ‘turn other cheek also when slapped on the left.’
i’ve been reading up on the last days of the roman empire.
the rule became a tetrarchy; by four regional emperors or caesars.
the emperors had these necessary concerns; they always gave first consideration to the security of their own positions followed by the annual extraction of taxes and their territorial authority.
Really, a true comparison, and it is sinking
