Conscience individual and collective

[xero]

Musing more on conscience.

To listen to some, you'd imagine they'd suggest that to promote adherence to the Bible or any particular denomination one would have to first find one which currently had zero debatable anomalies in official statements from any imaginable scriptural, historical, archaeological or scientific "truths" perspective w/regard to belief otherwise to these, you're committing some kind or moral crime unless you in detail provide an exhaustive analysis of defects along w/the appendices of apologias on each side of the arguments.

 

[JW Insider]

12 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

I believe, your continued denial of insulting others in a subtle way has once again been exposed.

I don't deny that this was a subtle (and to some, not-so-subtle) way of insulting others. I have only denied specific false claims about ways in which persons claimed I had insulted them.

I don't mind calling out trolling behavior. I have specifically pointed it out with JB/4J2 and I don't mind that you have said that this can be insulting to others. There's an admitted element of trolling in what I just did, too.

[xero]

More musing...

Conscience seems very "gustatory" in the mouths of many. Taste and see. But when you don't like what you've tasted, maybe you tasted the wrong thing. Maybe you didn't cook it right. Maybe eating healthy is an acquired taste.

Even looking at organizations requires a certain artistic viewing distance.

A lot of complaints about chronology and other expectations. I get it.

On the other hand, I suspect w/o the expectations related to the imminence of the kingdom's arrival, this organization known as JW's wouldn't exist.

Who's to say Jehovah isn't behind allowing a little "operation of error" go to his servants so they do what they need to do?

If you were living in the 1st century, and Jesus said. "Come follow me. Of course you'll end up getting persecuted and you'll die before the end comes, but you'll eventually be happy you did and BTW that's thousands of years off from now." Just how enthusiastic would you really be?

People don't have the stamina to be on the bleeding edge of enthusiasm in perpetuity.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, xero said:

or any particular denomination one would have to first find one which currently had zero debatable anomalies in official statements from any imaginable scriptural, historical, archaeological or scientific "truths" perspective w/regard to belief

This might actually be simpler than it sounds. If you look at the style of many standard commentaries, for example, you can see that some weather the ages better than others, such that certain commentaries from 300 years ago,  have much greater, lasting value than many that have been made in the last 30 years. Of course, there will be obsolete sections in almost all works of men.

Take for example, a denomination that sets itself up as a teaching ministry, such as ours which says this about the meaning of the name Jehovah:

*** nwt p. 1735 A4 The Divine Name in the Hebrew Scriptures ***
What is the meaning of the name Jehovah? In Hebrew, the name Jehovah comes from a verb that means “to become,” and a number of scholars feel that it reflects the causative form of that Hebrew verb. Thus, the understanding of the New World Bible Translation Committee is that God’s name means “He Causes to Become.” Scholars hold varying views, so we cannot be dogmatic about this meaning. However, this definition well fits Jehovah’s role as the Creator of all things and the Fulfiller of his purpose. He not only caused the physical universe and intelligent beings to exist, but as events unfold, he continues to cause his will and purpose to be realized.

I don't think any Christian-oriented religious mind would find anything really debatable in that sentence, and it even includes the non-presumptuous statement that we cannot be dogmatic, and that this is our current understanding. So we are prepared for the idea that it is subject to change when and if more is learned.

This is similar to how many commentaries handle almost any Bible reference or teaching that might not be obvious. And there are Christian-oriented people who learn their Bible through and through with this kind of non-presumptuous, non-dogmatic teaching style. Changing a doctrine under this paradigm need not result in any debatable anomalies.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

13 hours ago, xero said:

To listen to some, you'd imagine they'd suggest that to promote adherence to the Bible or any particular denomination one would have to first find one

Does anyone see the problem with Xero's comment above ?

Well, he deliberately confuses the issue by putting the BIBLE and denomination in the same 'pot'.  

Adherence to the BIBLE is NOT the same as adherence to any particular denomination. But xero trys to pretend it is all the same. Xero, you are wrong.

 

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

12 hours ago, xero said:

On the other hand, I suspect w/o the expectations related to the imminence of the kingdom's arrival, this organization known as JW's wouldn't exist.

Yes, the Watchtower / JW org relies on MONEY to keep them running. The money comes from dragging in more innocent people that believe the lies about 'Only baptised JWs will survive Armageddon'. So those Orgs have to keep pushing the lies that Armageddon is coming in five minutes, so you'd better get baptised in this Org. 

[xero]

5 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

This might actually be simpler than it sounds. If you look at the style of many standard commentaries, for example, you can see that some weather the ages better than others, such that certain commentaries from 300 years ago,  have much greater, lasting value than many that have been made in the last 30 years. Of course, there will be obsolete sections in almost all works of men.

Take for example, a denomination that sets itself up as a teaching ministry, such as ours which says this about the meaning of the name Jehovah:

*** nwt p. 1735 A4 The Divine Name in the Hebrew Scriptures ***
What is the meaning of the name Jehovah? In Hebrew, the name Jehovah comes from a verb that means “to become,” and a number of scholars feel that it reflects the causative form of that Hebrew verb. Thus, the understanding of the New World Bible Translation Committee is that God’s name means “He Causes to Become.” Scholars hold varying views, so we cannot be dogmatic about this meaning. However, this definition well fits Jehovah’s role as the Creator of all things and the Fulfiller of his purpose. He not only caused the physical universe and intelligent beings to exist, but as events unfold, he continues to cause his will and purpose to be realized.

I don't think any Christian-oriented religious mind would find anything really debatable in that sentence, and it even includes the non-presumptuous statement that we cannot be dogmatic, and that this is our current understanding. So we are prepared for the idea that it is subject to change when and if more is learned.

This is similar to how many commentaries handle almost any Bible reference or teaching that might not be obvious. And there are Christian-oriented people who learn their Bible through and through with this kind of non-presumptuous, non-dogmatic teaching style. Changing a doctrine under this paradigm need not result in any debatable anomalies.

This isn't an example of what I'm getting at. Opposers would insist that if you have no complete answer for every issue, you simply should shut your mouth and not go door to door.

Now as a former atheist, I thought certainly the public ministry was incredibly important as an exercise for anyone who imagined he had the truth. The ministry would at some point disabuse him of any truly glaring deficiencies as the "wisdom of crowds" would flatten any truly deficient belief he might hold at present to be true.

Opposers would argue that it's YOUR job to argue as in insider on behalf of the HH who might not even have the intellectual capacity to understand the question to begin with. THAT is an unreasonable position to take.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

12 hours ago, xero said:

People don't have the stamina to be on the bleeding edge of enthusiasm in perpetuity.

The Org once taught that people should serve God because GOD DESERVES TO BE SERVED, not for the gain of everlasting life. 

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This is similar to how many commentaries handle almost any Bible reference or teaching that might not be obvious. And there are Christian-oriented people who learn their Bible through and through with this kind of non-presumptuous, non-dogmatic teaching style. Changing a doctrine under this paradigm need not result in any debatable anomalies.

Basically leaving yourself wriggle movement. But the True Anointed won't need to do that because their information will be through Holy Spirit. JWs will be shocked when it happens. 

[xero]

18 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

Does anyone see the problem with Xero's comment above ?

Well, he deliberately confuses the issue by putting the BIBLE and denomination in the same 'pot'.  

Adherence to the BIBLE is NOT the same as adherence to any particular denomination. But xero trys to pretend it is all the same. Xero, you are wrong.

 

I shouldn't reply. But hey. Buddy... Unless you are part of a denomination you aren't going to go door to door pushing living by the Bible. If you do w/o being part of a group, then you'll come off like the dangerous kook you likely are.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

12 hours ago, xero said:

Opposers would insist that

 

12 hours ago, xero said:

Opposers would argue that

This is so funny........   It's @TrueTomHarley  all over again.  Tom is xero your AKA ? 

Firstly he lumps all so called 'Opposers' together.

Secondly he thinks he knows exactly what those Opposers would think or do. 

[xero]

8 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

 

This is so funny........   It's @TrueTomHarley  all over again.  Tom is xero your AKA ? 

Firstly he lumps all so called 'Opposers' together.

Secondly he thinks he knows exactly what those Opposers would think or do. 

I know one thing you're not doing. Preaching the good news of God's Kingdom. Opposers are like fat leftist introverts who stare at their shoes and play dungeons and dragons and go to cosplay conventions because they loathe life and the demands it makes on them. Therefore anything excellent, they seek to tear down. They don't create, because to create is to be subject to criticism. Nope. They just like to sit in their fat, unaccomplished obesity in their mother's basement.