Malawi and MCP Cards?

[Srecko Sostar]

3 minutes ago, George88 said:

cross

WTJWorg is not honest about this, too. Encyclopedia Britannica is not consistently cited in JW publications.

[Pudgy]

…. neither are Superman comic books, or Popular Mechanics magazine ….

[TrueTomHarley]

6 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It is well not to describe religous interpretations as ‘lies’ when they cannot immediately be identified as such.

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

WTJWorg teaches believers that "truth" must be based on the Bible. Anything contrary to "Bible truth" is called, by WTJWorg, a "lies" or "false teachings". 

Within the Christian tradition, there is nothing inconsistent about these two statements. Except for a few scattered early mentions—no more than mentions—in early history, there is no place in which one can learn of Christianity but the Bible.

The ‘lies’ and ‘false teachings’ of the vast bulk of Christendom can immediately be identified as such. That the ‘soul’ is mortal and dies when the person dies, that with a single exception, ‘hell’ come from one of three original language words, none of which mean eternal suffering. That Jesus’s followers should be ‘no part of the world,’ whereas most Christian churches are fully part of the world—that God is not one-in-three persons, that the grand overall theme of the Bible is not, ‘be good, so you will go to heaven when you die,’—these teachings can be instantly identified by scripture as ‘false.’

Such ‘false’ religious teaching unfailingly paint those who espouse them into outrageous moral corners—such as ‘comforting’ bereaved parents that the reason their baby died was that God needed another angel in his garden, which is why he picked the very best—your child.

Most of the main teachings of churches are not found in the Bible. It is the attempt to read them in that causes persons to throw up their hands in frustration and even disgust. Deprived of nourishment, flooded with junk spiritual food, inquiring minds are left to scavenge elsewhere. Some settle for atheism, some for agnosticism, some settle on churches that pay scant attention to biblical things in favor of a social gospel, even a political one.

So, they are not just lies. They are harmful lies. They are lies that are near-universal in the church world. The GB has mounted a successful sustained, and worldwide assault on them. To ignore this and instead flail away about mistakes they may or may not have made is astoundingly small-minded to me.

[Many Miles]

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

So, they are not just lies. They are harmful lies. They are lies that are near-universal in the church world

I'm sure there are exceptions, but in my experience most religions are businesses. They end up selling what sells. It's good for business.

I'm not trying to generalize. There are good people found amongst various religions. It has always struck me that individuals can belong to a religion, attend its services and engage in its activities, yet openly speak of disagreements of which they hold diametrically opposed views. They don't see the religion they associate with as an anchor for their souls. They just see it as a place where they can be with people who want to do right and love people. For these people, the church they associate with is just a rendezvous point. Their personally held beliefs are something else altogether.

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The GB has mounted a successful sustained, and worldwide assault on them. To ignore this and instead flail away about mistakes they may or may not have made is astoundingly small-minded to me.

The hurt does not come from the fact of mistakes. The hurt comes when religious leaders pound an idea of basis-of-teaching that is then ignored by the same leaders to preserve a preferential position. Take, for example, the basis of 'soundly reasoning from the scriptures'.(1) That implies teachings will conform to rational conclusions. As an example, a teaching of what "soul" is. It's not a single thing by itself. Rather, it's two things in a state of composition that equate to "soul", when and only when those two things remain together as one. In the case of "soul", those two primary components are 1) a body formed from the earth and 2) breath of life. Together, those components were "soul". Apart neither is "soul". Only together is there "soul".

But the notion that a thing is not itself when it's decomposed is not treated equally across all teachings, even ones related to the subject of "soul".

1. "Reason from the Scriptures in a way that is convincing. Using heartfelt entreaty and sound logic, Paul convincingly ‘reasoned with others from the Scriptures.’" (Underlining added) (Ref https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20100215/Skillfully-Wield-the-Sword-of-the-Spirit/

 

[Pudgy]

How simple everything would be if we only had the old “Make Sure Of All Things …” book, the NWT before it was paraphrased, and the whole “.. stay alive till ‘75 …” fiasco was apologized for, and the Congregations were governed per Matthew the 18th Chapter.

…… sigh …..

[Pudgy]

I think I will try to get a copy off of Ebay ….

I miss that simple clarity.

[Pudgy]

YIKES!  $45 + shipping!

[Pudgy]

….. perhaps the JW Library has one ….

[Pudgy]

Surprise! 

The last “Make Sure ..” was published in 1965.

The JW Library only goes back to 1970.

(… it figures …)

[Many Miles]

8 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

The last “Make Sure ..” was published in 1965.

The JW Library only goes back to 1970.

Is there something in particular you're looking for in that book. I can look it up and share it.

[Pudgy]

20 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

Is there something in particular you're looking for in that book. I can look it up and share it.

Thanks, but that was the book I used for many years, and I almost have it memorized.

I just remembered I think I have a copy in my Service briefcase ….

…. I was just overwhelmed for awhile with nostalgia for the clarity.

….. sigh ….

[Juan Rivera]

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Most of the main teachings of churches are not found in the Bible. It is the attempt to read them in that causes persons to throw up their hands in frustration and even disgust. Deprived of nourishment, flooded with junk spiritual food, inquiring minds are left to scavenge elsewhere. Some settle for atheism, some for agnosticism, some settle on churches that pay scant attention to biblical things in favor of a social gospel, even a political one.

I agree with you @TrueTomHarley Today we are living on the aftermath of theological liberalism and modernism, where people come to religion and hopefully to our religion because they have some kind of hunger in their heart, or some kind of spiritual experience, and not because Jehovah's Witnesses are the Congregation Jesus established. We also now live in a broader culture very much influenced by Hume and the Enlightment and Scientism where many minds are darkened by false philosophies (skepticism, cynicism, nihilism, etc). The relativism and scientism that saturate our culture play a role in devaluing our perception of the possibility of knowing objective truth regarding Christian doctrine. In this state of epistemological skepticism and despair, the individual Christian is by default left with consumerism, seeing no other option than to choose a community that best suits his or her individual tastes. And this practice, in turn, leads to the proliferation of non institutional communities, and thus to the further fragmentation of unity among Christians. The church shopping phenomenon presupposes that none of the existing churches is the true Church that Christ established. That is precisely why the church shopper believes he or she can justifiably pick whichever presently existing church best suits him or her. Consumerism is precisely why Protestantism came into existence five hundred years ago, and why Protestantism continues to exist, so that people can practice Christianity as they wish, according to their own judgments and interpretations and convictions and desires.

2 hours ago, Many Miles said:

I'm sure there are exceptions, but in my experience most religions are businesses. They end up selling what sells. It's good for business.

I'm not trying to generalize. There are good people found amongst various religions. It has always struck me that individuals can belong to a religion, attend its services and engage in its activities, yet openly speak of disagreements of which they hold diametrically opposed views. They don't see the religion they associate with as an anchor for their souls. They just see it as a place where they can be with people who want to do right and love people. For these people, the church they associate with is just a rendezvous point. Their personally held beliefs are something else altogether.

Perhaps we all @TrueTomHarley@Many Miles have some vague sense that at a deeper level something is not right here. But what exactly is the root of the problem? I’m making my way to following up this train of thought on my Galatians thread pending JW insiders, Many Miles and Anna’s comments. Sorry 🙏

My assessment and judgment is that it’s due to the popularity of this consumeristic mentality/theological ideology (the notion that religion is about getting something out of it and not about giving to Jehovah his rightful due).

Clearly, a lot of religious organizations are trying to fill niches in consumer demand. Through a kind of free market process. They are reflections of what people believe they are looking for in a church. They reveal not only the various features that people want in their church experience, but also that many Christians in the US, whether consciously aware of it or not, now conceive of church in a consumeristic way. Church is about fulfilling my needs and desires, about giving me the best religious experience available in my area, with the best music and the most awesome worship experience, and the community that makes me feel most accepted and appreciated, through which I feel most spiritually edified and closest to God. The best church for me is the one that works’ best for me at meeting my perceived spiritual needs.

This consumerist mentality turns church into a market driven phenomenon. Just as we can get a personalized, custom made teddy bear at the local mall, so we can get a religious experience on Sunday morning that is custom made to fit our particular religious appetites, preferences, interpretations, expectations, beliefs, spirituality, etc. We can find a community of persons that most closely meets our perceived needs, people with whom we are most comfortable, people very much like ourselves who go the extra mile to understand and support us. Just like this video:

So here’s my apparent concerns(that may be wrong for all I know), about our criticisms of this ideology from my Jehovah’s Witness perspective.

Ultimately there is no principled difference between selecting a worship experience on the basis of what it does for me, and selecting a religion, theology, or interpretation of Scripture based on what it promises to give to me, or selecting a denomination, tradition, or ecclesial community based on how closely it matches my own interpretation of Scripture. In each case the ultimate criterion remains conformity to my tastes, desires, opinions and interpretations. There is no principled difference between choosing where to worship based on conformity to my own interpretation of Scripture, and choosing where to worship based on its conformity to my own musical preferences, whether the dress is formal or informal, whether there are plenty of people there my age, or whether the preaching feeds me. In each case, I remain the consumer, customizing my ecclesial selection at the drive-thru that is the religious scene of contemporary American life.

Criticizing consumerism while being a Jehovah’s Witness is like eating in an Old Country Buffet and complaining that all the other patrons aren't eating exactly the same combination and proportion of the food items on our own plate. How do we think we got the particular assortment of food on our plate? Did ours fall from heaven, but every other patron picked out their own according to their own taste/interest/interpretation? Why is it a consumeristic trap when they do it, but not when we do it?