The Jehovah's witnesses and the rest. What's the stumper?

[metis]

I do not believe he was the only one and John could be considered more spiritual. I wouldn't count James out when it comes to spirituality. One may be spiritual and an administrator also.

This is not my judgement but the N.T.'s. Jesus told Peter to "feed my sheep...". Also, when multiple apostles are mentioned, Peter's name is almost always first. When Paul needed to discuss Jewish Law, he went to Peter. There is also the tradition in the early Church that's mentioned by Ignatius and Clement around the end of the 1st century that stated that the Bishop of Rome would have a certain leadership authority because of Peter (and Paul) being martyred there.

I believe this sounds like people trying to claim a line of succession rather than reporting facts.

The issue of succession doesn't deal just with Peter but, even more importantly, with the apostles and the successors they chose per Jesus' directive. If one removes Peter from the discussion, literally nothing changes on this.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I think the boredom may come from the usual JW contempt for learning.

I wonder what you find as 'contempt for learning' as found at www.jw.org _______________---

 

[exchemist]

I wonder what you find as 'contempt for learning' as found at www.jw.org _______________---

No need to waste time looking up websites for that. I find it all over this forum, from the JWs here.

 

[metis]

No need to waste time looking up websites for that. I find it all over this forum, from the JWs here.

And it begs the question why are there so many JW's here at RF as they are a very small percent of the world's population? Well, I think we all know the answer to that question, thus what is the rather obvious answer is in violation of a RF rule that says that this is forbidden: "8.Preaching/Proselytizing".

Any surprise?

 

[firedragon]

And it begs the question why are there so many JW's here at RF as they are a very small percent of the world's population? Well, I think we all know the answer to that question, thus what is the rather obvious answer is in violation of a RF rule that says that this is forbidden: "8.Preaching/Proselytizing".

Any surprise?

maybe they are more active because they are more versed in scripture so that noise is louder than others.

Maybe.

Nevertheless, it’s not fair to look for hypocrisy rather than assess their arguments.

I don’t have to agree with their dogma, just like they don’t have to agree with mine, yet I can at least understand their arguments and counter them with Valid arguments.

 

[metis]

I don’t have to agree with their dogma, just like they don’t have to agree with mine, yet I can at least understand their arguments and counter them with Valid arguments.

Exactly, and this is what I do as well since I'm quite familiar with both the teachings and their weaknesses. Generally speaking, they overall tend to be nice people, based on my many experiences anyway, and I do give them credit for their commitment.

Let me just add to the above that religion in general is in a high area of uncertainty, thus certainty tends to be the enemy of good theology. As Confucius supposedly taught, the more you know, the more you know you really don't know much [paraphrased]. This is why I often have told others that I'm in the camp of "lunatic left-wing Catholicism", whereas I pretty much question everything. Therefore, statements of certainty often rub me the wrong way, although people do have the right to believe and teach as such.

To put it another way, as an anthropologist, I'm much more scientifically inclined than theologically inclined, truth be told.

 

[firedragon]

Exactly, and this is what I do as well since I'm quite familiar with both the teachings and their weaknesses. Generally speaking, they overall tend to be nice people, based on my many experiences anyway, and I do give them credit for their commitment.

Let me just add to the above that religion in general is in a high area of uncertainty, thus certainty tends to be the enemy of good theology. As Confucius supposedly taught, the more you know, the more you know you really don't know much [paraphrased]. This is why I often have told others that I'm in the camp of "lunatic left-wing Catholicism", whereas I pretty much question everything. Therefore, statements of certainty often rub me the wrong way, although people do have the right to believe and teach as such.

To put it another way, as an anthropologist, I'm much more scientifically inclined than theologically inclined, truth be told.

i agree that the more you know the more you know you don’t know much. But if you don’t know much you don’t know much.

there is an old saying that says to shun the one who doesn’t know he doesn’t know.

peace brother. All good.

 

[exchemist]

And it begs the question why are there so many JW's here at RF as they are a very small percent of the world's population? Well, I think we all know the answer to that question, thus what is the rather obvious answer is in violation of a RF rule that says that this is forbidden: "8.Preaching/Proselytizing".

Any surprise?

Not really. But tell me, do you think this also explains the large number of Baha'i on the forum? I can honestly say this is one religion I had never even heard of until I joined RF.

 

[sojourner]

Exactly, and this is what I do as well since I'm quite familiar with both the teachings and their weaknesses. Generally speaking, they overall tend to be nice people, based on my many experiences anyway, and I do give them credit for their commitment.

Let me just add to the above that religion in general is in a high area of uncertainty, thus certainty tends to be the enemy of good theology. As Confucius supposedly taught, the more you know, the more you know you really don't know much [paraphrased]. This is why I often have told others that I'm in the camp of "lunatic left-wing Catholicism", whereas I pretty much question everything. Therefore, statements of certainty often rub me the wrong way, although people do have the right to believe and teach as such.

To put it another way, as an anthropologist, I'm much more scientifically inclined than theologically inclined, truth be told.

Problem is that, in my experience, any valid argument on their part quickly degenerated into: “Nuh-uh, because I say so, and the experts in the field are all wrong, because I said so.”

 

[sojourner]

Okay,,,,, So where within God's word, the Bible, is this 'purgatory' teaching spoke of ??? And where within God's word, the Bible, is there a command that there should be 'successors of the Apostles' ??? I know, that the Bible does state clearly that NOTHING should ever be added to, or taken out of God's word, and that whomever chooses to do so, shall be cursed.

1) The entirety of the Faith is not encompassed by the Bible. The Faith is an organic, growing changing community — not a museum piece.
2) Ever read the Bible stories about the apostles electing replacements, such as Matthias?
3) what do you suppose the Church did before there was a Bible? Before there were Gospels?

To extend your “logic,” where in the Bible is the Internet spoken of? Yet JWs make use of it. When one keeps a family member under wraps and controlled, it’s called Munchausen Syndrome. Keeping the Faith from change and growth isn’t healthy.

 

[sojourner]

Babylon is the place from which all false religious ideas sprang. It is a fitting symbol of the false religious empire created by the devil, since the common threads linking all false worship, can be traced back to this notorious city.

And yet, many of the OT stories were lifted from Babylonian mythic stories...

Are you saying that these OT stories are false religion? Once again, a statement that runs completely off the rails.

 

[exchemist]

1) The entirety of the Faith is not encompassed by the Bible. The Faith is an organic, growing changing community — not a museum piece.
2) Ever read the Bible stories about the apostles electing replacements, such as Matthias?
3) what do you suppose the Church did before there was a Bible? Before there were Gospels?

To extend your “logic,” where in the Bible is the Internet spoken of? Yet JWs make use of it. When one keeps a family member under wraps and controlled, it’s called Munchausen Syndrome. Keeping the Faith from change and growth isn’t healthy.

Exactly. What some people don't realise is that traditional, pre-Reformation Christianity has always provided for the development of theology and doctrine, through the idea that the ordained successors of the Apostles inherit authority from Christ to further interpret scripture and and adapt teaching for the time. Furthermore the traditions of the church, inherited from its earliest beginnings, close to the lifetimes of the Apostles, are thought to be authentic sources of doctrine, alongside scripture itself. So scripture and tradition are two parts of the "deposit of faith".

The sola scriptura Protestants dislike all this, understandably, since it has given rise to abuse over the course of history, and consider it too dangerous. However the potential snag of sola scriptura is an ossified faith, which comes to seem more and more irrelevant to the modern world.

Regarding Purgatory, my understanding this derives from the practice of praying for the souls of the dead, which seems to have taken place right from the beginning of Christianity. Doing so implies that these souls may not yet be in a heavenly state but some sort of intermediate state of purification. The idea of after-death purification is also, I gather, to be found in Judaism. The notion of Purgatory as a place, as opposed to a state, is not actually part of Catholic teaching, just popular representations of this state in art etc.

 

[firedragon]

Exactly. What some people don't realise is that traditional, pre-Reformation Christianity has always provided for the development of theology and doctrine, through the idea that the ordained successors of the Apostles inherit authority from Christ to further interpret scripture and and adapt teaching for the time. Furthermore the traditions of the church, inherited from its earliest beginnings, close to the lifetimes of the Apostles, are thought to be authentic sources of doctrine, alongside scripture itself. So scripture and tradition are two parts of the "deposit of faith".

The sola scriptura Protestants dislike all this, understandably, since it has given rise to abuse over the course of history, and consider it too dangerous. However the potential snag of sola scriptura is an ossified faith, which comes to seem more and more irrelevant to the modern world.

Regarding Purgatory, my understanding this derives from the practice of praying for the souls of the dead, which seems to have taken place right from the beginning of Christianity. Doing so implies that these souls may not yet be in a heavenly state but some sort of intermediate state of purification. The idea of after-death purification is also, I gather, to be found in Judaism. The notion of Purgatory as a place, as opposed to a state, is not actually part of Catholic teaching, just popular representations of this state in art etc.

Are you saying that Christianity was "developed"?

 

[exchemist]

Are you saying that Christianity was "developed"?

Well of course. You only need to read a bit of the history of the church to see that. Just like Islam, Judaism or any reasonably complex religion.

 

[firedragon]

Well of course. You only need to read a bit of the history of the church to see that. Just like Islam, Judaism or any reasonably complex religion.

Nah. I think Islam, Judaism, Buddhism etc are irrelevant.

Cheers.

 

[metis]

Not really. But tell me, do you think this also explains the large number of Baha'i on the forum?

I didn't use a one-size-fits-all approach. Also, I've had a great many experiences with JW's over several decades to know what their approach and tactics in general are, especially proselytizing people who are in other faiths.

 

[sojourner]

Exactly. What some people don't realise is that traditional, pre-Reformation Christianity has always provided for the development of theology and doctrine, through the idea that the ordained successors of the Apostles inherit authority from Christ to further interpret scripture and and adapt teaching for the time. Furthermore the traditions of the church, inherited from its earliest beginnings, close to the lifetimes of the Apostles, are thought to be authentic sources of doctrine, alongside scripture itself. So scripture and tradition are two parts of the "deposit of faith".

The sola scriptura Protestants dislike all this, understandably, since it has given rise to abuse over the course of history, and consider it too dangerous. However the potential snag of sola scriptura is an ossified faith, which comes to seem more and more irrelevant to the modern world.

Regarding Purgatory, my understanding this derives from the practice of praying for the souls of the dead, which seems to have taken place right from the beginning of Christianity. Doing so implies that these souls may not yet be in a heavenly state but some sort of intermediate state of purification. The idea of after-death purification is also, I gather, to be found in Judaism. The notion of Purgatory as a place, as opposed to a state, is not actually part of Catholic teaching, just popular representations of this state in art etc.

With regard to your second paragraph, what many forget is that most of the canon texts began life as oral transmissions — including the Gospels — and were only later codified in writing. So it’s not really “the Bible” that matters, so much as the spirit of the texts therein. The spoken word is a living word. The spoken word is different from the written word; it’s conceived, formed, transmitted, received, processed, and understood differently. And as one poster here has said, “words matter.”

Jesus said lots of stuff that was apropos to the moment — not necessarily “for all time, in all circumstances.” When we understand “the word” as “our particular canon texts,” we lose sight of the living nature of the word — and consequently misapprehended the significance of “the Word made flesh.” We also lose sight of the fact that the Word is still being spoken by God, and that circumstances alter cases. IOW, nothing is “sure” but the hope we have in God’s grace.

 

[sojourner]

Are you saying that Christianity was "developed"?

Yes. Just as all living things develop. Can you read the Bible and not see the development of theology, faith, practices, community, and concepts of grace, salvation, and mercy?

 

[sojourner]

Nah. I think Islam, Judaism, Buddhism etc are irrelevant.

Cheers.

Small perspective. The world and spirituality are not so easily compartmentalized and dismissed.

 

[sojourner]

maybe they are more active because they are more versed in scripture

Their arguments here mostly belie a woefully inadequate exegetical treatment of the texts, resulting in faulty interpretations, which, in turn, foster really wonky theological constructs.

But if you don’t know much you don’t know much.

there is an old saying that says to shun the one who doesn’t know he doesn’t know.

Which is why I choose to shun them.