Srecko Sostar

It says that tradition does not choose its "victims". Cesar, you sound like burdened church member. Obsessed with phantasms. Please, use your argumentation about topic, you are better in that, and .... i like to discuss with you.

I suppose not, but he probably had fear about what would people talking about. This could mean that the issue of circumcision was resolved in two different (Timothy vs Titus) ways and that the dilemma around it was still a stumbling block. This is the second time you have mentioned @JW Insider and me in a non-existent context. What is your problem? :))

So this destroys the idea of 'collective conscience'. And it proves the idea of individual conscience. Unfortunately, we have some examples in which God does not punish the individual who has wronged, but the entire nation. This is easy to notice in the examples of the kings of Israel. One of the prominent events is when the people are counted, by the king's order, even though it was forbidden to do so. Thus, none of the individuals opposed the king’s command. Their individual conscience was suppressed by the king's command. After all, people feared for their lives if they disobeyed the king. Parallel? JW members are willing to suppress their conscience because of GB’s “commands”. The existence of a “Collective Consciousness”* is often so strong that it threatens an “Individual Conscience” of person and prevents her/him from acting on his own sense of good and bad. *“Collective Consciousness” - in context of this phrase, it denotes/refers to rules and standards set by prominent members (leaders) of how followers should behave and what standards they should follow. Deviation from them brings condemnation of the collective, because the collective consciousness is formed in accordance with the set rules. The change of rules in a group does not happen because of the "troubled conscience of an individual", but because of intellectual-doctrinal-ideological reasons. Eg. excommunication was an inconceivable way of dealing with individuals in WTJWorg (article in Awake 1947). The conscience of the individual was subject to the rules tailored by the leaders of the collective. As leaders changed their decisions, the “Collective consciousness” on the same issues also began to change. Determining what is good and what is evil has ceased to be a privilege of God, back in Eden. Because God himself concluded there: "now man has become like us and knows what is good and what is evil." - Gen 3:22 In the case of WTJWorg, the individual agrees to the third model. He renounces his own right to determine the good and evil provided by Adam and Eve, so he decided to leave that right, not to God, but to people who claims to represent God. PS - We also introduce a "new" terminology: “collective guilt”. Who is to blame for obeying the king's bad command? These are close associates (lower hierarchy- aka elders) who were to carry out the (wrong) command to count the people. Who bore the consequences of the proceedings? According to the biblical account everyone in the country. Why couldn’t a “judicial council” be formed to consider the matter and make a fair decision? Why did they wait for God to pass a "judgment", when they could prevent the process of "counting the people", on their own, and/or when they could "punish" the king for his bad decision, after counting, on their own?

So he arrived at Derʹbe and also at Lysʹtra.+ And a disciple named Timothy+ was there, the son of a believing Jewish woman but of a Greek father, 2 and he was well-reported-on by the brothers in Lysʹtra and I·coʹni·um. 3 Paul expressed the desire for Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews in those places,+ for they all knew that his father was a Greek. - Acts 16 What happened there? Circumcision because of a question of conscience? Whose conscience? Timothy's conscience or Paul's? Because of morals? Because of standards? Or did it all happen because of TRADITION and Jewish morals and standards written and required by Jewish Law? Is it Paul’s action a consequence (the pressure) of “collective consciousness” (or conscience, to interpret xero), so he too fell under the influence of the "collective conscience" and went against own conscience, even although he preached that circumcision is “nothing”? Was it Paul’s moment of weakness, was he ignoring one’s own conscience, or fearing of social condemnation, etc? What/which "collective conscience" did he considered and respected? From First Christian congregation or from Old Jewish congregation?

So I see that this is about Paul’s conviction/striving that he is doing the right things, that are right in the eyes of God and in the eyes of people. Whether everything Paul did was indeed right in the eyes of God is up to God to judge. Whether everything was right in the eyes of the people is also for discussion. First of all, we need to know which people Paul thought they had no objection to their conscience about Paul’s conscience and his life.

Please, so the difference is obvious. These are just two things: 1) Ideological / religious differences and/or 2) prejudices. It has nothing to do with the fundamental function of conscience.

Article has title: The Concept of Collective Consciousness I believe it is important to separate meaning in terminology, yet very similar words. Consciousness and Conscious vs Conscience Consciousness and Conscious: a) an increasing of concerned awareness b) the process of making people understand and be interested in important social or political issues c) having mental faculties not dulled by sleep, faintness d) perceiving, apprehending, or noticing with a degree of controlled thought or observation e) being concerned or interested Conscience: a) the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good b) a faculty, power, or principle enjoining good acts c) the part of the superego in psychoanalysis that transmits commands and admonitions to the ego I agree that we need to have an awareness (consciousness) of our own existence and that there is a conscience in us.

I would say that we can talk about individual conscience and different aspects of that phenomenon in a person’s life. But it seems to me that there is no “collective conscience”. I do not consider this possible, because a collective can only be a set of individuals with more or less the same thoughts, experiences, common ideas and standards. But this does not constitute a prerequisite for a “collective conscience”. We can only speak of collective manipulation and collective pressure in some circumstances What connects individuals in such a group are the reasons and goals of the association. The existence of collective influence or collective pressure on an individual, who is visible and invisible in its manifestation is what certainly exists. Reality that some individuals have a conflict with collective standards, morals, ethics, and ideology proves that every individual within a collective has an individual consciousness and conscience, not a collective one. This proves that individual consciousness and conscience make it a separate individual in collective existence, regardless of how strongly a collective is connected within itself and regardless of the positive or negative influence of the group on the individual.

Gentile parents teach their gentile children about own morals and standards, with or without "Christian" ethics. And they, parents and children, decide in mutual interactions what sort of conscience they will have and grow. How do you explain, where is the place/position and influence of "nature" spoken in Romans 2:14 in that process? And how do you explain that Romans 2:14 speaking in favour, very positive about them, gentile people, in comparison to Roman congregation to which Paul directed those chapters? Verse 15 continue with: They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them. Which and whose requirements was written on their hearts? When and how? Because their parents was "gentile" distanced(??) from "Christian" moral, standards and ethics. I agree with some of your thoughts how there are unknown and invisible processes around all this.

Xero: I'm trying to find a way to formulate, by way of illustration or otherwise (the shorter the explanation the better), the dividing line between conscience and scriptural responsibility and actively being told by authority that some non-obvious thing is true and that one must believe the non-obvious thing is true and teach someone else in the same manner that this non-obvious thing is true. dividing line between conscience and scriptural responsibility For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves - Rom 2 14 Gentiles don't have "Law", don't have "Knowledge", don't have WTJWorg "moral and standard".....but have "Natural driving forces" to act in a way as God accepts.

Don't understand. How is conscience formed? How is morality formed? How is the standard formed? How people changing conscience, moral and standard? ...and other things in connection with these three.

In the definition of what conscience is, it is said that one of the abilities / purposes of conscience is to distinguish good from bad. If I understood your statement well, you claim that conscience arose AFTER the sin of the first humans. A new act of God’s creativity after He created everything and start to REST from creation, is the creation of conscience in DNA?? Is it this what you talking about? Then we have more dilemmas about First Pair, Sin, Tree of Knowledge etc. Before sin, according to your statement, Adam and Eve had no conscious. Then this would means that they could not discern what is good and what is evil. To eat or not to eat The Fruit. We all agree that people need to have conscience ( as some comments gave picture, that would be - individual, collective or/and individual-collective conscience to be able doing right things). By your presented scenario, there is no existence of individual conscience and there is not collective conscience too, in Eden. What Adam and Eve had? Furthermore, the biblical text in Genesis also says that God said after they ate the Fruit from the Tree: "Now people have become like us and know what is good and what is evil". This suggest, also, how this couple had any (no) knowledge about good and evil (or about anything, about many thing else too??) Conclusion? Adam and Eve had no Conscience ... and had no Knowledge about good and bad? Can somebody explain why would God put them (or You) on test without Conscience? Why would God put them (or You) on test without Knowledge? According to Genesis, we could conclude that Adam and Eve done wrong decision because they were "without knowledge." And because they refuse to obey direct command from God. By this, it could mean how people don't need "Knowledge" and don't need "Conscience". But only to obey ban about the Tree. After all, the Bible elsewhere speaks to just that aspect and says that Israel "perished because they were without knowledge." The text of the Bible does not speak (openly or not at all) about the competition between conscience and knowledge. To act properly we need both tools: conscience and knowledge. And then other things; faith, love, courage etc. In example of old Israel lack of knowledge caused their ruin. What sort of "knowledge" trains individual and collective conscience in WTJWorg?? What sort of "obedience" substitutes conscience and knowledge in WTJWorg??

There are three of us, so it can't be wrong. Every testimony that is said by two or three witnesses is "the truth". :)))

It only means one thing: You have overcome prejudice. I adore you. adore = to love and respect someone very much, or to like something very much - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/adore

If you want to hear my opinion. There are two types of conscience. First is Natural conscience (in biblical terminology) given by God. It is obtained by birth and inherited by genetics that began with Adam and Eve. After birth, a child or in another situation an adult, comes under the influence of family, environment, society and their own choices. Second is Artificial conscience. For example, JW members have two types of conscience. The first one, natural, from God. The second type of conscience is called in the WTJWorg publication; "Bible-trained conscience." It is an artificially created conscience based on religious-ideological interpretations and doctrines. It has some positive aspects, but not always. For example, not greeting a former member of the Organization creates a certain conflict in the JW member. There is a conflict between two types of conscience: between the Natural Conscience given by God and the Artificially Created Conscience trained in the Organization.

bow down, do homage, adore, worship, fall on knees - to anyone entitled Pope is entitled, King and President are entitled, Caesar is entitled ...etc. King can present not only secular but spiritual (religious) authority. Elizabeth II is a monarch who heads the Church of England. Would a JW member bow (in any of possible form) to this Queen? She is entitled, because of Romans 13! Pope is entitled because of same verses. To what extent of understanding, about what is “worship” and what is not, will someone go? JW members are forbidden, by GB decree, to paint walls in some non-JW church. Is that sort of worship? Is that supporting "false religion"? Being part of UN and OSCE and sitting with religious leaders of various churches, done by GB, is it not showing "support" for secular and religious things - and sort of bow down, do homage, adore, worship, fall on knees .... if we stretch the terms a little to degree of famous painting church walls? Problem of understanding exist, of course, but WTJWorg contributing to that confuse too.

In continue John chapter 14, verse 15 say: If ye love me, keep my commandments. We have; ME and MY. Love ME. Keep MY commandments. When answering the question of the greatest commandment, he began with: Love God (JHVH nwt) and ended with Love Neighbor. Who was Jesus on Earth, to disciple? Neighbor? I don't think so. But for sure he was; God, Son of God, Lord, Master, King etc? In this verse he not directed people to LOVE JHVH. In this verse he not directed people to KEEP commandments of JHVH. He directed people to himself. Interesting.

Little funny intermezzo, if you don't mind. We have Russian Sputnik again, in form of vaccine. :))

No, that is not problem, really it is not. So many others in Bible times were wrong, is not good way to excuse yourself (myself, etc) for wrongs, errors we made. Justify one's own mistakes with a general truth like this; that we all make mistakes, is not the right way. To make justification in fact. Because, when we make a mistake, then we need to admit the mistake, correct the mistake and ask for forgiveness. I am sure you will agree.

Another Bible quote came to mind; My Father’s house has many rooms - John 14 So there’s something being said here about the idea that some will go to heaven. What does a lot of rooms (mansions, dweling places, abodes) mean? How many rooms and apartments are there? How many beds per room? If it really mattered or determined, I guess Jesus would have mentioned that thing. Or maybe not. But even this paragraph does not speak in favor of a fixed number of 144,000.

It could be. Some writers of WT study articles elaborated about mental state of people who take symbols, who are partakers. Yes, you make good point :)).

:))) ....there isn't really a problem with that aspect. If the number changes, it's because some anointed ones drop out, some replace them, and some dropouts come back again ... somewhere, or at least in WTJWorg. Only the Main Administrative Body (ruling council), which is the Ecclesiastical GB, can have a problem. Because their doctrine, which is in force because of their will and so called “guided” understanding, is incorrect. :))

17 However, if some of the branches were broken off and you, although being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became a sharer of the richness of the olive’s root...20 That is true! For their lack of faith, they were broken off,...23 And they also, if they do not remain in their lack of faith, will be grafted in,y for God is able to graft them back in. As we know, WTJWorg teaches that 144000 is a literal number. They also teaches that if some “anointed ones” drop out then they will be replaced by someone else, to get the number filled. Reading these lines, I see something for the first time. Fallen anointed ones are replaced by newly elected anointed ones. But the verse says that the fallen anointed ones can return and be attached to the tree again. So the tree always remains the same, but the number of branches is not determined. Returning the cut branches, there is no mention anywhere that the replacement branches will be cut off because the original branches are reattached. So, the number of "anointed ones" according to this illustration is not defined. It can be larger than the imagined number (144000).

Just for sake of discussion Is there a possibility that, the number, 144000 should not be taken literally? Revelation is full of symbolism and almost nothing is literal. Even the term 1000 year (Kingdom) should not be literally counted as one thousand years of 365 days each. WTJWorg has formally given up the length of Creative Day that lasted 7,000 years. But, it is still the idea that literal 1000 years of the Kingdom is PART of the literal 7000 Years (of 7th Creative Day). That is why it was a rumor around 1975, because then the period of 6000 years from the creation of man ended. According to such a WTJWorg chronology, the final part of the 7th day, with the 1000 years of the Kingdom of God, was expected to begin in that period. By overthrowing the idea of a fixed duration of Creative Day, the interpretation built on the rejected idea was called into question. But nothing new. The same can be seen in other interpretations.

No comment