There's something wrong with premise behind the OP let me point it out by way of an illustration. Imagine you read an OP like this:
A puppy increasing in size as the months go by - growth or cell-division?
Island Man
JoinedPosts by Island Man
-
11
Walking Fish - evolution or adaptation?
by Earnest ina recent article in nature reports on a fish that has a pelvic girdle with features associated with terrestrial vertebrates.. discuss..
-
-
Island Man
-
3
From a christian perspective, would true love expect to be thanked? Would true love bemoan the absence of an expression of thanks?
by Island Man ini think most people in most cultures see it as a bad thing to not thank someone for a good deed they've done you.
in fact you have probably heard someone say something like this - or you've said it yourself:.
"person x is so ungrateful!
-
-
Island Man
I think most people in most cultures see it as a bad thing to not thank someone for a good deed they've done you. In fact you have probably heard someone say something like this - or you've said it yourself:
"Person X is so ungrateful! I did/gave ABC for/to Person X and (s)he never even said thank you! I will not be helping Person X again!"
Is that a truly loving attitude? What is behind the desire to be thanked? Is it - should it be - a christian desire?
This OP will be a bit far out and will challenge norms of culture and courtesy that you take for granted and I'm hoping that it will also expose a bit of a contradiction in christian culture.
I think the first thing I should tackle is the question of what is behind the desire to be thanked. I think the desire to be thanked stems from the desire to be praised and recognized by others. Praise and recognition from others feeds the ego, giving you a shot of pride. So I think thanking someone is actually repaying them for their good deed, by stroking their ego and giving them a shot of pride.
Is it a good thing to expect recognition and praise for doing a good deed? Jesus condemned the action of doing good deeds in order to be praised by men. He said that good deeds done for praise will not be rewarded by his father in heaven. So how could it be a good thing to take offense at not being thanked for doing a good deed? What it actually means is that a person is taking offense at the fact that he was not given recognition, praise and a shot of pride as payment for doing a good deed.
I think there is even a subconscious recognition of the fact that being thanked is a form of praise that gives a shot of unwarranted pride. That fact is seen in the way people sometimes feel embarrassed and may blush at being thanked. It is also revealed in language. In America, persons often say, in response to being thanked: "it was nothing", "don't mention it", "no problem". What is the purpose of such expressions? It seems that the original intent behind these expressions is that the one being thanked is actually refusing the praise and recognition that he's being given by minimizing the stature of his own good deed. Of course, many people today use such expressions as a perfunctory custom without any genuine feeling behind the words. But the point is the origin of these expressions reveal an awareness of the fact that there a feeling of guilt, shame and/or embarrassment at being praised for a good deed.
So is it loving to be offended for not being thanked for a good deed? The bible says love does not brag and does not seek its own interests. The desire to be thanked is a selfish desire to be praised and recognized. True love does not seek its own interests but that of the person who is the object of the love. So if someone is giving with the expectation of being thanked - are they giving out of pure love? Wouldn't pure love be satisfied to know that the person was helped or made happy by the good deed or gift? Wouldn't that alone be reward enough without expecting to be thanked - to be praised?
And this brings me to a bible account that seems at odds with Jesus' earlier statement about not doing good to be recognized. It is the account of the blind men whose eyes Jesus opened. All of them went rejoicing at being able to see. Shouldn't that have been enough for Jesus - to see that these men are now happy and will have a better life ahead? No. For when one of them returned to thank Jesus, he bemoaned the fact that the others did not? Even Jesus, who says we should not do good for the sake of being praised by men, turned around and reproached those who did not praise him for his good deed to them, although he should have been satisfied that he had made them happy, given that his motive for helping them should be pure love and not a desire to praised for doing a good deed.
-
-
-
Island Man
Dystopia, what is the significance behind that choice of name? Are you a troll? I mean, your name seems to be vaguely alluding to reason why the JW religion and culture is hated.
The "spiritual paradise" that JWs live in is a dystopia.
A sick dystopia where the fanaticism of suicidally refusing medical treatment is lauded.
A sick dystopia where the pursuit of higher education is frowned upon.
A sick dystopia where persons are discouraged from using their own brain by the condemning of "independent thinking".
A sick dystopia where a domestic abuse victim is told to show more love and christian qualities to the abuser who may very soon kill her.
A sick dystopia where elders are trained to use scripture to counsel someone with suicidal thoughts but aren't told of the importance of directing such a person to receive professional counseling from experts trained in helping persons with suicidal thoughts.
A sick dystopia where all non-JWs are prejudicially labelled as "worldly" and "bad association" based solely on the fact that they're non-JWs and before and without even getting to know the individual's character.
A sick dystopia where pedophilia and other crimes by the members is kept secret from the police and other congregation members in the name "not bringing reproach on Jehovah's name"; and thus making it possible for pedophiles to abuse additional victims.
A sick dsytopia where a mother will shun her own daughter and a daughter her own mother for absolutely no other reason than the fact that one of them no longer agrees with a particular teaching of the Watchtower organization.
A sick dystopia where the organization that instituted the policy of shunning family; and the people who engage in shunning, turn around and blame the victim for the shunning.
A sick dystopia where people are literally afraid of finding out truthful information that would disprove their religion.
A sick dystopia where the meanings of words are changed for the sake of supporting an organization's agenda.
A sick dystopia where independent study of the bible is discouraged while blind trust in an organization with a history of embarrassing errors is encouraged and lauded.
Who loves a dsytopia? Who does not hate a dystopia? The brainwashed and deluded members of a dystopia who have come to be pass all practical and moral sense. They love a dystopia. But normal thinking people hate a dystopia.
-
23
What would you do if you won a $300 million lottery
by LevelThePlayingField ini would pay a highly rated, very expensive advertising company to run a 1 minute ad that ran nationwide primetime every night of the week until i spent $75 million of it telling how the wt was covering over pedophiles and for people to go to jwfacts.com for the truth about the truth.
it would be done in very good taste, way better than political ads.
i would spare no expense.
-
-
Island Man
I would retire. I would leave half of the money untouched, as a safety net and as an inheritance to pass on to family of my choice or some charity or what not.
With the rest of it, I would build a comfortably sized house (upper middle class) and live a comfortable, debt-free life on a budget. This is very important - keeping in budget. After I build my house, I would put aside some millions for healthcare. Then with the rest of the money I would calculate how much money I can spend per month so that it would last me the duration of my life.So month by month I would stick within that monthly sum.
The worst thing to do is to build a large mansion and live an exorbitant lifestyle. The more opulent the lifestyle, the quicker your money will run out. That's the mistake a lot of people make when they get a lot of money - they try to live beyond their means, without realizing that they're living beyond their means because they forget that living a very opulent lifestyle is very costly meaning they would run out of money before they die.
-
21
It's so awkward that people have to touch the emblems
by thedepressedsoul init's just so weird to me.
for a group that is against idolatry so much and yet each person has to "touch" the bread and wine.. one lady was standing and holding a baby.
she called the server over just so she could put her thumb on the bread and wine.. did jesus ever clarify what he wanted them to do in remembrance of him?
-
-
Island Man
Watchtower actually abuses the Lord's Evening meal for marketing purposes. It's basically a public spectacle, giving them an opportunity to sell the religion to the public by essentially saying: "See! we believe in Jesus. We do honor Jesus, contrary to what you've heard.". Of late, it's also an opportunity to boast about having a website with information available in over 700 languages. Is it really necessary to tell the public how many languages the information is available in? No. They're shamelessly and opportunistically capitalizing on what should be a sacred event, honoring christ, to bring glory to their man-made organization and website. -
21
It's so awkward that people have to touch the emblems
by thedepressedsoul init's just so weird to me.
for a group that is against idolatry so much and yet each person has to "touch" the bread and wine.. one lady was standing and holding a baby.
she called the server over just so she could put her thumb on the bread and wine.. did jesus ever clarify what he wanted them to do in remembrance of him?
-
-
Island Man
I think it boils down to human psychology and outward appearances.
Jesus commanded his followers to eat of the bread and drink of the wine. That is the objective behind him passing it to them. He didn't want them to pass it just for the sake of passing it. Passing the emblems is not an end in and of itself. Also, Jesus was not commanded the mere attendance at the event. Attendance is not an end in and of itself. Attendance is only a means toward the ultimate end of partaking. Thus, if one is not going to partake then there is no need to pass the emblems to him. In fact there would be no need to be present at all! But this reality would raise very ugly implications for the JWs.
In most congregations there aren't any anointed JWs. So there is no need to pass the emblems. In fact, there is no need to have the observance at all since the observance is ultimately about partaking of the emblems. So if JWs were to really be truthful and practical about this issue, most congregations should not be having this observance, and for those that do have it, only the anointed should be in attendance. Did Jesus instruct his disciples to make the event a public spectacle inviting all, including non-christians, to be "respectful observers"?
But if JW congregations were to rightly not have the observance (based on JW theology of who is not to partake) that would show up the JWs in a very ugly light. Their disobedience to Jesus would be shown up too starkly to the public. So to resolve this they have to dishonestly shift Jesus' requirement for the event from one of partaking to one of being in attendance. That is why you will hear JWs say, without thinking, that they attend the Lord's evening meal in obedience to Jesus. Really? Did Jesus command his followers to be present? No. He commanded them to partake. Being present is only a means to that end. If you're present but not partaking then you're not obeying Jesus' command. So they have the event to give the impression of obeying Jesus. But even that is not enough.
If they had the event and did not pass the bread and the wine that too would show up their ugliness too starkly. So they go even further by passing the bread and the wine to people they know are not anointed and will not partake! Why? Again it's to give the impression that they're obeying Jesus. "Jesus disciples passed the bread and the wine and so do we. See? We're doing exactly what the first century christians did. We're not strange! We're not a cult! We're passing the bread and the wine in obedience to Jesus, see?"
So it all amounts to this: They (Watchtower) are acutely aware that they're not doing exactly what Jesus commanded and they feel self-conscious about it. They are worried that it shows them up in a bad light. So to combat this they do their best to do as much as possible to produce the outward atmosphere and image of partaking, without actually partaking. This is why they put so much effort effort into having the observance on the right day and at the right time - after sunset - and making sure the bread is without salt and the wine is unfortified, etc. All of this minutiae of legalisms is a psychological way of professing their righteousness and making up for the fact that they're disobeying Jesus' command to partake.
Here's an interesting thing to ponder on: when was the last time you saw, in Watchtower literature, an evening meal scene showing one of the disciples actually in the process of biting of the bread or drinking from the cup? I can't remember ever seeing that. It always shows them passing the emblems but never in the moment of eating it. So Watchtower is shaping the subconscious of JWs to associate the memorial with passing the emblems - not actually partaking.
-
15
You are tomato sauce...
by rrb2016 inthe wife and i went to the memorial strictly out of respect for my mother-in-law last night.
luckily our 20 month-old grand-baby was restless and making noise, so i quickly volunteered to take him in the back.
so i didn't have to listen to the presentation.
-
-
Island Man
That illustration is an insult! It implies that the anointed are inherently better people than the other sheep. I doubt that illustration would have been approved by Watchtower. I believe the outline gives the speaker the freedom to use his own illustration based on local culture. This speaker's choice of illustration was thoughtless. -
23
Why did Jesus have to suffer?? Something I never thought about.
by ttdtt insomething dawned on me last night.
jesus was suposed to be a corresponding sacrifice for adam right?.
a perfect life for a perfect life.
-
-
Island Man
I think the explanation for why Jesus had to suffer is that Jesus served in a role similar to Job in that he proved it is possible for a human to remain faithful to God even under great trial and suffering. So they say that Jesus' faithful endurance of suffering proved false Satan's charge that humans only serve God in favorable circumstance and abandon him when things get bad. But there's another side to the subject of human integrity that neither Job or Jesus answered and that has never be tested and it's this:
Do humans serve God because they truly love him, or because of the promise of a future reward for the faithful and destruction for the unfaithful?
This is the more important test of integrity that the bible does not address. As long as there is a reward for obedience and punishment for disobedience, it cannot be demonstrated that human's obedience to God is borne of pure love untainted by selfish motives.
-
-
-
Island Man
-
1
The Kindness of an Atheist
by undercover ina song lyric i heard the other day, paraphrased:.
nothing is as good as the kindness from an atheistan act of selflessness that never has to be repaid.
interesting thought.
-
-
Island Man
Jesus is quoting as saying: "Happy is he that believes without seeing". I say: "Righteous is he that does good without believing. For if you do good expecting to be rewarded by God, or for fear of punishment, of what credit is it to you? Do not sinners also do good with the expectation of a reward, or to avoid punishment?"
You know that point JWs make about God allowing Job's integrity to be tested, so it can be seen if Job only served God because things were going well with him? Well I believe the point you're making actually raises an even bigger question about worshipers motives in serving God. How is it that Satan never challenged man's integrity on the grounds that humans are only obedient because they look forward to a future reward from God and/or to avoid future punishment/destruction? Isn't that a far bigger and more pertinent issue when it comes to human integrity. You would think that Satan would have addressed that first because the story of Job does not address it, for even while Job was suffering he was still looking forward to future reward for his faithfulness - the resurrection. (See Job 14)
The bible does not in any way address this issue. So what if a rebel accuses God of bribing and scaring humans to be good by promising them future reward or future destruction? How is god going to handle that issue transparently for all creation to see that such accusations are false? I think this is a major moral issue that the bible and JWs have overlooked.