sometimes i have expressed a longing for jw organization to tone down its rhetoric and become, well, nicer and more loving.
i have not been alone in my hope.
some posters have even said that if a wave of kindness washed over jw organization and, say, the shunning doctrine was modified (e.g., left up to the individual's conscience without fear of retribution from elders), they'd go back.
No leadership is possible without people consenting to be led. JW leadership exists because of its followers. And both are blind as to see the problem with the Bible which contains both verses against shunning and verses supporting shunning (just like it contains verses for and against trinity, soul’s immortality, Son’s godship, God’s Kingdom within and without …)
My own twin sister is a zealous Witness, and I know her nature so well that I would say she deserves to be in the JW org.
am i the only one who can't reconcile new light with the light gets brighter?
if it matters at all.
i bring a candle into my house and light it.
Lost in the fog, Your question is valid because lamp and light are not interchangeable. Let alone JWs, Bible writers themselves find in such a mess: What Malachi said (3:1) became what Isaiah said by the time it reached Mark (Mark 1:2)
'lead us not into temptation': why pope francis is wrong about the lord's prayer.
m j c warren, lecturer in biblical and religious studies, university of .
pope francis recently announced that he thinks the common english translation of the lord’s prayer is mistranslated.
Pope used the perfect logic that “I am the one who falls; it’s not him pushing me into temptation to then see how I have fallen. A father doesn’t do that, a father helps you to get up immediately. It’s Satan who leads us into temptation, that’s his department.”
This is an encouraging move.
At least somebody like Pope is drawing attention to the fact Jesus did not authorize scripture writings, hence it was done arbitrarily by humans writers which would mean they were simply imagining what Jesus would speak/do if he were sent by God. Hence we find statement Jesus could not have made such as John 3:13; wrong replies such as John 9:1-3; faulty logic of using David as a precedent such as Mark 2:25-26 (something not befitting son of God); faulty arguments such as (John 10:30-36 which is quote that was originally addressed to pagan deities) …
'lead us not into temptation': why pope francis is wrong about the lord's prayer.
m j c warren, lecturer in biblical and religious studies, university of .
pope francis recently announced that he thinks the common english translation of the lord’s prayer is mistranslated.
jp1692,
You nailed it perfectly.
Lord's prayer is not of divine origin--it is full of flaws--hence made by some thoughtless human being.
Cofty,
There was no need, in the first place, from going away from what I originally said: “What I LIKED THE MOST ABOUT JESUS IS THAT HE WAS AGAINST CONVENTION AND REJECTED MUCH OF THE SCRIPTURES OF HIS TIME.” When I used the expression “Scriptures of his time” it is simply all scriptures, not just “law” which are just 10 major commandments and around 600 sub laws which are like a drop in the ocean called “Scriptures of his time” which are basically human questions and human answers.
When I speak about ocean, you are restricting it into a drop which reduces the debate into a mere intellectual exercise as happening between atheists and theists which would never end because the way nature is can equally be interpreted in favor of both atheism and theism which means one doesn't have advantage over the other..
Cofty,
In Mathew 15:11 Jesus flouted the law about what is to be eaten--Law says certain flesh as clean and certain as unclean.
Again Jesus clearly flouted the law of Deuteronomy 24:16 (which says sins cannot be swapped) when he said he came to die for the sins of the world (Mathew 20:28; 26:28)
Leviticus 10:9 also he violated in a whole sale
I can give you many ....
(matthew 12:32) “....whoever speaks a word against the son of man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the g.b.
or the org, it will not be forgiven him, no, not in this system of things nor in that to come.”.
Yes, you cannot speak against "spirit-guided organization"
Dawkins must have a point because of the following:
Law says ‘you can lend money to the poor, but you should not charge interest’ (Exodus 22:25)
‘Leave something for the poor when glean your vineyard’ (Leviticus 19:10)
But see how far Jesus departed from such superficial Laws when he said: “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind.” (Luke 14:12, 13) He even indirectly hinted that such laws are not from God (Mathew 5:44-48)
Cofty,
I was reffering to conventions and scriptures of Jesus's time, not limiting only to the Law. Even Richard Dawkins shares this view: “Jesus was not content to derive his ethics from the scriptures of his upbringing. He explicitly departed from them. ... Since a principal thesis of this chapter is that we do not, and should not, derive our morals from scripture, Jesus has to be honoured as a model for that very thesis.”--God Delusion
Cofty,
It is true that Jesus "rejected the way the OT was being interpreted by the Pharisees."
But is also true that he undermined the authority of Bible writers like Moses and mixed two conflicting creation accounts when only either of them is true. (Mark 10:1-9)
When God made Solomon the wisest king that ever lived, stating there would never be another like him (1 Kings 3:12) Jesus simply declared he is greater than Solomon. (Mathew 12:42; Luke 11:31)
Jesus gives no thought to the correctness of what he speaks of OT events/persons. For example, when Ahimalech was the high priest when David ate the show-bread (1 Sam.21:1-6) Jesus declares it was Abiathar who was the high priest when David ate the show-bread. (Mar 2:26)
