Malawi and MCP Cards?

[Many Miles]

6 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

I hear you, there is a fundamental difference between that for which a person is culpable before Jehovah, and that by which we (humans) may judge another human. I don’t think anyone here would claim that apart from the guidance of the Congregation, people cannot read and understand Scripture to some degree, a degree that allows them to have a conscious saving faith in Jehovah and Christ. Thankfully, they can. Knowing Jehovah and Christ is a matter of degree (not all or nothing). Jehovah and Christ can be known in various ways through different means, Scripture, worship, prayer, tradition, community, service. Jehovah can even be known (in some degree) through incorrect interpretations of Scripture. Hearing His voice does not necessarily mean perfectly hearing his voice correctly about every truth within the content of our faith. So a person can truly come to know and love Jehovah, without yet knowing that the Congregation is what Jehovah established and into which all Christians should be incorporated.

Even the notion that they must be either good guys or bad guys already makes it a loaded answer, because the truth may be more complicated. There is also the matter of motives, and of actions. Actions can be good in one respect, but deficient in another, all while motives may be very good. And so forth, so it is not so black and white. It is good, all other things being equal, for persons to be told about Jehovah and Christ and His love for us, and that He died for our salvation. It is not good for persons to be in schism, to be deprived of true worship, to be taught false doctrine (to be taught that they can never lose their salvation), to be deprived of the fulness of the truth, and all the other aids to our salvation available within the Congregation.

So far as I know, people like that prostitute you encountered, or James White, TD Jakes, Billy Graham, Greg Stafford, Raymond Franz, or Rolf Furuli were doing the best they could with what they knew, and bringing a message of Jehovah and Christ to many people. And in that way, they are good guys. But it is not for me (or any other JW) to judge the hearts of our fellow man and determine that this one or that one has placed himself in a state of sin by such a choice. We cannot read hearts, only Jehovah can. The principle of love calls us to believe the best about someone, all other things being equal, and to pray for those we see in error, rather than judge them. Not presuming that there is some intellectual dishonesty in their heart at the level of the will regarding this question, and not presuming that they are violating their conscience, but instead with the assumption that they are following their conscience as best as they can, and desire to know the truth, and will in fact sacrifice all to find and follow the truth no matter what it is. 

But such persons are in a gravely deficient condition, especially and to the degree that their understanding of Jehovah is incorrect. It is much more difficult to be saved without the fullness of the Good News and the means of help available in the Congregation which are the ordinary means by which we are to grow up into the fullness of conformity to Christ.

I know that because the holy spirit is at work in the hearts of all men, and because Jehovah is omnipotent, the Congregation does not rule out the possibility that persons in a condition of ignorance concerning the fullness of the Good News and the Congregation, can be saved. And the testimony of Scripture supports that teaching, which is not universalism but rather a recognition of the power and mercy of Jehovah who desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4). Paul wasn’t being redundant there. Knowledge of the truth about Jehovah is very important, but it is not the essence of salvation, we’re not saved fundamentally by gnosis, but by love and faith.

Correct doctrine allows us more perfectly to know Jehovah, and thus more perfectly to love Him. The more one knows the truth about Him, the more one is able to love Him, because we cannot love what we do not know. Similarly, the more one knows the truth about Jehovah, the more reason one has to love him. Moreover, not all theological error is equal, and not all theological error completely eliminates the possibility of loving Jehovah. It is possible for our beliefs to be imperfect and believe some falsehoods about Him, and still love Him. Yet the more distorted one’s understanding, the more difficult it is to love Him. 

What I have argued is that if Jehovah and Christ want us to be united in faith and love, then He would have provided the necessary means by which to preserve that unity. And in the Governing Body of the Congregation He has provided just that, a means by which our unity of faith, unity of worship, and unity of government are maintained. Even though Scripture is clear enough for a person to come to saving faith by reading it, it is not clear enough to preserve the unity of the Congregation without an authorized governing body. So for me a Governing Body it’s not just extremely valuable and convenient, which would amount to a pragmatic ad hoc way of thinking, but rather organic and intrinsic to the Christian faith.

@Many Miles @JW Insider @TrueTomHarley @Anna

Perhaps I should write this under the Galatians thread. Here’s anyways😅 

I’m beginning to think that the idea that we can approach the bible without an inherent bias or rose tinted glasses is an illusory ideal. This abstract view from nowhere seems to be more effective when we think we have obtained pure objectivity, all while unknowingly presupposing contemporary ideas and assumptions. Everyone uses glasses of some sort when they come to Scripture. No one can interpret Scripture from a completely clean slate. The question is not whether one will have glasses through which to interpret Scripture, but rather which glasses are the correct ones?

@Many Miles I understand that that our Congregation (Jehovah's Witnesses) takes pride in not articulating/ categorizing or claiming of having any explicit background philosophy (like Thomism, Scotism or Platonism) or theology per se. And that we Witnesses say that no background philosophy is needed, but prefer to base our beliefs on the Bible without philosophizing. But even though our Congregation says that no explicit philosophy drives our understanding of Scripture. I think we all agree that no belief developed in a vacuum and the Watchtower movement grew from different roots (In my opinion, from rationalist ideas from the enlightenment, humanism, democratic individualism and was influenced by different traditions according to at least one study -Rachel de Vienne and B. W. Schulz: Volumen I & II Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion's Watch Tower: 1870-1887.)

When we read (and interpret) scripture we are not starting from a clean slate. There is no traditionless theological vacuum, abstract view from nowhere from which to read or interpret Scripture, we come to it with some sort of glasses (tradition). There is no initial space where the reader brings nothing to the text, and where his interpretation is not contingent on what he brings to the text. Even biblical studies cannot be carried out in a philosophical vacuum (that is, their tools, techniques, principles and methods, all presuppose a framework). Theology and religion always start from certain hermeneutical principles whether explicitly or implicitly. And if we do not realize that we are even bringing philosophical presuppositions to the interpretive process, I don't think we will not be getting to the fundamental causes of our interpretive disagreements. Only then I think we'll realize that we need some way of evaluating these assumptions. Claiming to evaluate them by way of Scripture simply ignores the fact that we would be using these assumptions to interpret Scripture, so the evaluation would be question begging, and thus worthless.

When each person is deciding for himself what is the correct interpretation of Scripture, Scripture is no longer functioning as the final authority. Rather, each individual's own reason and judgment becomes, as it were, the highest authority, supplanting in effect Scripture' unique and rightful place. I believe the discussion hinges on whether there is an authoritative interpretive authority and how that authority is determined. This is why I'm starting to believe that our attempts to resolve our disagreements by way of proof texting or exegesis is futile. The root of the disagreement is not fundamentally in an exegetical error, but instead within philosophical and theological assumptions we bring to the text. So this idea of approaching scriptures only thru hermeneutics presupposes that kind of rationalism and that hermeneutics and exegesis would solve interpretative problems. But there is more than exegesis that is at work in interpretation and it's not just exegetical tools but underlying philosophical and theological assumptions we bring to the text even if unaware.

Here's what a friend and philosophy professor (who won an award for excellence in the field of Biblical exegesis) challenged me on.

Let's test this claim Juan (that exegesis alone, without any reliance on philosophy or theology can first determine the meaning of Scripture, to which we can then subject our philosophical and theological assumptions). Lay out any exegetical argument you think resolves a substantive doctrinal disagreement that presently divides us, and I'll show you the hidden (or not so hidden) theological/philosophical assumption in that argument, an assumption either immediately brought to the text or built on an interpretation that is itself based on a prior theological/philosophical assumption brought to the text.

Juan, that's a lot of words, and to be honest, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say.

Because above you write:

"The question is not whether one will have glasses through which to interpret Scripture, but rather which glasses are the correct ones?" [Underlining added]

Let's start with something simple. Check the box that applies:

We should believe teaching "x" because:

[______] it's rational.

[______] the society says so.

[______] some other reason other than because it's "rational" or "the society says so".

[Pudgy]

I have not a clue as to what Juan Rivera was trying to say, and individually, I understood every word. 

It was hard work trying to stay focused, perhaps because I was well aware that that style of writing, and length of writing, is often deliberately used to induce hypnosis. 

I did try.

HEY! This calls for a CARTOON! 

 

[Thinking]

7 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

I hear you, there is a fundamental difference between that for which a person is culpable before Jehovah, and that by which we (humans) may judge another human. I don’t think anyone here would claim that apart from the guidance of the Congregation, people cannot read and understand Scripture to some degree, a degree that allows them to have a conscious saving faith in Jehovah and Christ. Thankfully, they can. Knowing Jehovah and Christ is a matter of degree (not all or nothing). Jehovah and Christ can be known in various ways through different means, Scripture, worship, prayer, tradition, community, service. Jehovah can even be known (in some degree) through incorrect interpretations of Scripture. Hearing His voice does not necessarily mean perfectly hearing his voice correctly about every truth within the content of our faith. So a person can truly come to know and love Jehovah, without yet knowing that the Congregation is what Jehovah established and into which all Christians should be incorporated.

Even the notion that they must be either good guys or bad guys already makes it a loaded answer, because the truth may be more complicated. There is also the matter of motives, and of actions. Actions can be good in one respect, but deficient in another, all while motives may be very good. And so forth, so it is not so black and white. It is good, all other things being equal, for persons to be told about Jehovah and Christ and His love for us, and that He died for our salvation. It is not good for persons to be in schism, to be deprived of true worship, to be taught false doctrine (to be taught that they can never lose their salvation), to be deprived of the fulness of the truth, and all the other aids to our salvation available within the Congregation.

So far as I know, people like that prostitute you encountered, or James White, TD Jakes, Billy Graham, Greg Stafford, Raymond Franz, or Rolf Furuli were doing the best they could with what they knew, and bringing a message of Jehovah and Christ to many people. And in that way, they are good guys. But it is not for me (or any other JW) to judge the hearts of our fellow man and determine that this one or that one has placed himself in a state of sin by such a choice. We cannot read hearts, only Jehovah can. The principle of love calls us to believe the best about someone, all other things being equal, and to pray for those we see in error, rather than judge them. Not presuming that there is some intellectual dishonesty in their heart at the level of the will regarding this question, and not presuming that they are violating their conscience, but instead with the assumption that they are following their conscience as best as they can, and desire to know the truth, and will in fact sacrifice all to find and follow the truth no matter what it is. 

But such persons are in a gravely deficient condition, especially and to the degree that their understanding of Jehovah is incorrect. It is much more difficult to be saved without the fullness of the Good News and the means of help available in the Congregation which are the ordinary means by which we are to grow up into the fullness of conformity to Christ.

I know that because the holy spirit is at work in the hearts of all men, and because Jehovah is omnipotent, the Congregation does not rule out the possibility that persons in a condition of ignorance concerning the fullness of the Good News and the Congregation, can be saved. And the testimony of Scripture supports that teaching, which is not universalism but rather a recognition of the power and mercy of Jehovah who desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4). Paul wasn’t being redundant there. Knowledge of the truth about Jehovah is very important, but it is not the essence of salvation, we’re not saved fundamentally by gnosis, but by love and faith.

Correct doctrine allows us more perfectly to know Jehovah, and thus more perfectly to love Him. The more one knows the truth about Him, the more one is able to love Him, because we cannot love what we do not know. Similarly, the more one knows the truth about Jehovah, the more reason one has to love him. Moreover, not all theological error is equal, and not all theological error completely eliminates the possibility of loving Jehovah. It is possible for our beliefs to be imperfect and believe some falsehoods about Him, and still love Him. Yet the more distorted one’s understanding, the more difficult it is to love Him. 

What I have argued is that if Jehovah and Christ want us to be united in faith and love, then He would have provided the necessary means by which to preserve that unity. And in the Governing Body of the Congregation He has provided just that, a means by which our unity of faith, unity of worship, and unity of government are maintained. Even though Scripture is clear enough for a person to come to saving faith by reading it, it is not clear enough to preserve the unity of the Congregation without an authorized governing body. So for me a Governing Body it’s not just extremely valuable and convenient, which would amount to a pragmatic ad hoc way of thinking, but rather organic and intrinsic to the Christian faith.

@Many Miles @JW Insider @TrueTomHarley @Anna

Perhaps I should write this under the Galatians thread. Here’s anyways😅 

I’m beginning to think that the idea that we can approach the bible without an inherent bias or rose tinted glasses is an illusory ideal. This abstract view from nowhere seems to be more effective when we think we have obtained pure objectivity, all while unknowingly presupposing contemporary ideas and assumptions. Everyone uses glasses of some sort when they come to Scripture. No one can interpret Scripture from a completely clean slate. The question is not whether one will have glasses through which to interpret Scripture, but rather which glasses are the correct ones?

@Many Miles I understand that that our Congregation (Jehovah's Witnesses) takes pride in not articulating/ categorizing or claiming of having any explicit background philosophy (like Thomism, Scotism or Platonism) or theology per se. And that we Witnesses say that no background philosophy is needed, but prefer to base our beliefs on the Bible without philosophizing. But even though our Congregation says that no explicit philosophy drives our understanding of Scripture. I think we all agree that no belief developed in a vacuum and the Watchtower movement grew from different roots (In my opinion, from rationalist ideas from the enlightenment, humanism, democratic individualism and was influenced by different traditions according to at least one study -Rachel de Vienne and B. W. Schulz: Volumen I & II Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion's Watch Tower: 1870-1887.)

When we read (and interpret) scripture we are not starting from a clean slate. There is no traditionless theological vacuum, abstract view from nowhere from which to read or interpret Scripture, we come to it with some sort of glasses (tradition). There is no initial space where the reader brings nothing to the text, and where his interpretation is not contingent on what he brings to the text. Even biblical studies cannot be carried out in a philosophical vacuum (that is, their tools, techniques, principles and methods, all presuppose a framework). Theology and religion always start from certain hermeneutical principles whether explicitly or implicitly. And if we do not realize that we are even bringing philosophical presuppositions to the interpretive process, I don't think we will not be getting to the fundamental causes of our interpretive disagreements. Only then I think we'll realize that we need some way of evaluating these assumptions. Claiming to evaluate them by way of Scripture simply ignores the fact that we would be using these assumptions to interpret Scripture, so the evaluation would be question begging, and thus worthless.

When each person is deciding for himself what is the correct interpretation of Scripture, Scripture is no longer functioning as the final authority. Rather, each individual's own reason and judgment becomes, as it were, the highest authority, supplanting in effect Scripture' unique and rightful place. I believe the discussion hinges on whether there is an authoritative interpretive authority and how that authority is determined. This is why I'm starting to believe that our attempts to resolve our disagreements by way of proof texting or exegesis is futile. The root of the disagreement is not fundamentally in an exegetical error, but instead within philosophical and theological assumptions we bring to the text. So this idea of approaching scriptures only thru hermeneutics presupposes that kind of rationalism and that hermeneutics and exegesis would solve interpretative problems. But there is more than exegesis that is at work in interpretation and it's not just exegetical tools but underlying philosophical and theological assumptions we bring to the text even if unaware.

Here's what a friend and philosophy professor (who won an award for excellence in the field of Biblical exegesis) challenged me on.

Let's test this claim Juan (that exegesis alone, without any reliance on philosophy or theology can first determine the meaning of Scripture, to which we can then subject our philosophical and theological assumptions). Lay out any exegetical argument you think resolves a substantive doctrinal disagreement that presently divides us, and I'll show you the hidden (or not so hidden) theological/philosophical assumption in that argument, an assumption either immediately brought to the text or built on an interpretation that is itself based on a prior theological/philosophical assumption brought to the text.

Thank you Juan and I definitely got the gist of your words, I’m sort of getting used to the way you write…and I sure hope when I speak in short bursts you get my awkward gists 

[Thinking]

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Well, GB does not prohibit the carrying of weapons for private or official use. But those JWs who have it are not ideologically eligible/acceptable for any ministry in the congregation. With Jesus, the apostles were eligible/acceptable for service. So GB does not follow Jesus. Clear as a sunny day. lol

We have a police officer who carry’s a gun etc in his line of duty and he witnesses……times are a changing…

[Thinking]

16 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

I have not a clue as to what Juan Rivera was trying to say, and individually, I understood every word. 

It was hard work trying to stay focused, perhaps because I was well aware that that style of writing, and length of writing, is often deliberately used to induce hypnosis. 

I did try.

HEY! This calls for a CARTOON! 

 

I tend to break Juan’s and even JWI and their writing up in paragraphs at a time..just cannot do it in one hit …but it’s usually worth it even if I don’t understand everything…

[Thinking]

On 11/26/2023 at 8:20 AM, Many Miles said:

In arguments before the US Supreme Court in Barnette v West Virginia State Board of Education, the society offered an alternate pledge of allegiance for JWs.

When Justice Jackson rendered the Courts opinion he recited the alternate pledge of allegiance offered. It reads:

“I have pledged my unqualified allegiance and devotion to Jehovah, the Almighty God, and to His Kingdom, for which Jesus commands all Christians to pray. I respect the flag of the United States and acknowledge it as a symbol of freedom and justice to all. I pledge allegiance and obedience to all the laws of the United States that are consistent with God's law, as set forth in the Bible.”

One can only wonder why the society felt the need for that alternative pledge of allegiance when they could have just told JWs they could pledge the same oath of allegiance sworn by all the society's top men, which reads like this:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation, or purpose of evasion; So help me God."

Anyone have any notion why the society didn't simply argue for the pledge all their top leadership was already swearing to? I mean, it's the highest oath of allegiance recognized in the USA.

Never could figure it out

[Pudgy]

To be fair, I have ADD, and a 77 year old with ADD really needs to write with crayons.

[Many Miles]

9 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Never could figure it out

I hate to say it because 1) it sounds bad. But because 2) I could think of no other reason, and 3) given that the society's top leadership could not have ever imagined their own sworn oaths of allegiance to the United States of America would see the light of day, I 4) teeter between disingenuous and duplicitous.  

[Thinking]

On 11/26/2023 at 12:34 AM, JW Insider said:

Don't know if this will help, but I think he is just saying that when a foreigner comes to another country, that foreigner must still obey the laws of that country. But there is a limit to that obedience, because a foreigner isn't required to take an oath of allegiance or obedience in everything. For example, would a Chinese citizen visiting Australia be required to fight for Australia against China if war between the countries broke out during their visit? (Or vice versa.) In the same way, Russell says that Bible Students are all for obedience to the laws, but don't take an oath of obedience and allegiance in all things, because Bible Students are essentially "foreigners" in their own country when it comes to their higher allegiance to God. 

Thanks for trying but it still seems murky waters..if I had to say that to leave Australia I would think I was giving allegiance to our constitution thus our country…..so happy we never had this problem. Americans are very very political and religious compared to us…makes things so much easier on us.

[Many Miles]

9 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

When we read (and interpret) scripture we are not starting from a clean slate.

Yes. I agree with that. And, people can debate the veracity of an interpretation. But once someone (anyone!) asserts an interpretation of a given text then they have no choice but to accept that interpretation equally and not pick-and-choose where and when they want that interpretation to apply. That is, if they want to use that interpretation rationally.

Here's an example of one such interpretation:

"So Satan’s ploy roused Eve’s curiosity; it got her to focus on the one thing in all the garden that was forbidden to her."

Short version:

There was only ONE THING in all the garden that was forbidden to Eve.

Among other things, that would mean:

Eve was not forbidden to eat meat, or blood.

Oh. Wait. That would interfere with a pet teaching, wouldn't it.

[Srecko Sostar]

3 hours ago, Thinking said:

We have a police officer who carry’s a gun etc in his line of duty and he witnesses……times are a changing…

He can go to field service and conduct Bible study with people, i guess only this. According to articles from 2005 and 2017, your elders are not working according to the regulation if he have duties in congregation (carries microphone, reading, public speech etc. lol.

Unless, you can provide written WTJWorg material that say opposite.

 Can a Christian maintain a good conscience if he accepts armed employment?

Engaging in secular work that requires carrying a firearm or another weapon is a personal decision. But armed employment exposes one to possible bloodguilt if one uses the weapon and to the danger of injury or death from an attack or reprisal. A Christian carrying such a weapon would not qualify for special privileges in the congregation. (1 Timothy 3:3, 10)—11/1, page 31. - https://www.jw.org/hr/biblioteka/casopisi/w20051215/Sjećaš-li-se/

Christians strive to be exemplary. (2 Cor. 4:2; 1 Pet. 5:2, 3) After receiving Scriptural counsel, a Christian who continues to keep a gun for protection against other humans could not be considered exemplary. He would therefore not qualify for responsibilities or special privileges in the congregation. The same applies to a Christian who continues to carry a firearm as part of his secular work. How much better to seek other employment! 

 - https://www.jw.org/hr/biblioteka/casopisi/strazarska-kula-proucavanje-srpanj-2017/posjedovanje-oruzja-radi-zastite/

[Pudgy]

I don’t know how else to say this, so here goes…. 

Do we REALLY want Elders in the Congregation to carry guns?