Posted by Friend [Friend] on March 31, 1999 at 17:47:59 {ohFII14TUcanGQxY.YVUOgnjR4Br/g}:
In Reply to: *****What is a Prophet? posted by AF on March 31, 1999 at 10:14:35:
AF
: I believe that anyone who can unravel your so-called reasonings will see clearly who engages in massive twisting of words.: Is this supposed to be an explanation of why Revelation 2:21 has Jesus saying, "I gave her time"? Is it supposed to be an explanation of why Jesus acknowledged others remaining in association with false prophets as being in his congregation?
No, it's an invitation to readers to read what we've posted and see for themselves what the story is.
Fine, let them read. Here�s the link.
: You still have not dealt with those issues though they scripturally represent the manner in which Jesus actually judged false prophets and teachers amongst his people.I haven't largely because it seems so obvious to me that using something like Revelation to prove anything at all is an exercise in futility because it usually results in massive contradictions. Let's take one example. Suppose Rev. 2:21 can be applied as you claim. Compare this with the most common application of Revelation's image of "Babylon the Great" as representative of religious misleaders. You already admit that the Society is a religious misleader. Rev. 18:4 says "Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to receive part of her plagues." And of course we have lots of scriptures that instruct worshipers of Jehovah "not to touch the unclean thing". Which ones do you go by?
So, where is the massive contradiction? You certainly have not demonstrated one above. Babylon the Great of Revelation 18:4 simply was not repented, that�s it, no contradiction. The fact that her sins had amassed to the heavens is easily understood as her having been allowed time prior to adverse judgment.
Now let's look at Rev. 2:18-29 a bit more carefully. It's true that in verse 21 Jesus says that he gave Jezebel time to repent, and that the context acknowledges that others remained in association with this wicked false prophetess. However, in verse 20 Jesus castigated the congregation: "I do hold this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel". Starting in verse 22 Jesus (obviously speaking symbolically) says that he is about to punish her along with those who fail to repent of her deeds. Clearly, those who went along with her were among those whom she misled (verse 20). What about those who were not misled, but who willingly went along with Jezebel's false teachings? Clearly, Jesus held it against them.
Yes, that is right, Jesus gave Jezebel time to repent. (I noticed that you here completely dodge the point that that one fact alone proves that Jesus was not invoking the automatic condemnatory required at Deuteronomy 18) Again, you are right that Jesus held that congregations tolerance of false prophets against them, but he did not condemn them for it. For crying out loud, Jesus had himself tolerated the false prophet for some length of time. Rather than condemn them for their tolerance his words allowed that congregation to repent rather than outrightly being condemned as required by the Law of Moses. And that is my entire point, that common usage of the condemnatory judgment found at Deuteronomy 18 is inappropriately applied toward Jesus� congregation of followers.
Now, you may argue that it's perfectly fine to willingly tolerate and go along with false teachings and such that even result in the death of people, but I don't think that, according to Rev. 2, Jesus will agree with you. It may take time for him to deal with these people, but it's a different story when someone knowingly goes along with and supports and defends people or organizations that they know are hurting people and teaching false things about God.
No, I have not said it is perfectly fine. What I have said is that, according to Jesus own actions as recorded at Revelation, people, even communities, are not automatically condemned based upon being false prophets or tolerating them for a time. Jesus himself was somewhat tolerant by allowing time for repentance. Why should his followers be any less so?
So let's have a straight answer: should Christians knowingly tolerate something that Jesus explicitly says they shouldn't?
That is a variation of a do you still beat your wife question. The question focusing on my argument is this:
Are Christians automatically condemned for being false prophets or tolerating them for a time? Based upon Jesus actions described at Revelation 2, I say no.
Jesus knowingly tolerated Jezebel for a time even though he knew firsthand that she was a false prophet. Need I say more?
With reference to the Watchtower Society, you've admitted that you're painfully aware of how much falsehood this organization has promulgated, and still does, and that it hurts people. By its own standards you are an apostate because you don't go along with its most basic teachings, especially the most basic of all - that its leaders speak for and represent God himself. So you defend an organization that would kick you out if your real feelings became generally known among its members, and you claim that it's ok to associate with it because Jesus didn't immediately takes steps against a false prophet 1900 years ago.
No, by my own standard I am not an apostate. That has got to be one of the most self-serving comments I�ve ever heard from you.
I am not a defender of the WTS. They are big boys and can fight their own battles thank you. What I have done on this subject is pointed out that the automatic condemnatory judgment of Deuteronomy 18 has no application toward the Christian congregation. If that point made has application toward the Society, fine, let it apply. I have nowhere insisted that being associated with the WTS is required for Christians. Or am I missing something here?
:: The bottom line is that you feel that it's ok for a religious leader or organization to teach falsehoods and make false predictions and falsely claim to speak in God's name.: That is a bold accusation against my beliefs. I ask that you produce anything presented by me saying that I feel it's okay to teach falsehoods or make false predications in God's name. Not being immediately and adversely judged does not make those things okay.
Ok, fine - maybe you don't believe those things personally. But you support and defend those who do, and you go right along with people with a 120 year history of doing so. I merely assume that anyone who goes along with an organization to the extent of defending and supporting it must agree with its basic teachings and policies. Do you or do you not defend, support and agree with Watchtower teachings and policies in the main, despite admitting that they've taught plenty of false stuff?
At last an admission of fact! It�s a pity that you muck up such purity by careening into a mire of supposition. How can you say that above with a straight face after I specifically pointed out to you that I see no need that anyone must associate with the WTS? How can that possibly be contrived as defending the WTS?
No, I don�t fancy myself a defender of the WTS. As I said earlier and as I�ve told you countless times, I am not a defender of the Society but rather a defender of those individual making up Jehovah�s witnesses. You would automatically castigate them for tolerating some form of false prophecy, I will give them some time.
:: [Bottom line] It's fine to associate with such known teachers of falsehood.: More bold and unfounded accusation. Not being condemned for remaining in association with false prophets does not necessarily make it fine or necessary.
No, it's founded on your posted statements to H2O. You admit that you associate with known teachers of falsehood. You say that you do it for your own reasons. Therefore you must think that it is ok to do so. Otherwise you'd have to say that you're doing something you think is wrong, which would make you insincere and a hypocrite. Since I don't think you're insincere or overtly a hypocrite, I can only conclude that you think it's ok. If you think that something is wrong with this line of reasoning, then check off which of the following statements you agree with:
[ ] It's fine to associate with known teachers of falsehood.
[ ] It's wrong to associate with known teachers of falsehood.Or is there some other explanation that I've missed?
Thyatirans Christians associated and tolerated false prophecy, at least for a time. Jesus tolerated false prophesying amongst his people for a time. Did that mean that Jesus thought it was okay? Certainly not, and that is not even the point. The point is that the automatic condemnation of Deuteronomy 18 was not applied toward the Christian congregation by Jesus. What is so hard for you to understand about that?
What you missed is this, the main point:
[X] Christian communities are not automatically condemned for association with known teachers of falsehood.
:: [Bottom line] It's ok to condemn other religions for doing the same thing, but not JW leaders or the organization that supports them.: More ridiculous misrepresentation of my beliefs. Show everyone where I've ever said such a thing.
Your actions prove it. By remaining an active JW you give tacit support to the Watchtower Society's policy of condemning all other religions for not following JW teachings. If you disagreed strongly enough with this policy, you'd quit. Giving tacit support to an organization when you could easily show active non-support proves where your loyalties lie.
"The same thing" requires that things to be totally equal. Being totally equal includes magnitude of time. Jehovah�s Witnesses have not been promulgating any type of falsities for the length of time that organizations such as the Catholic Church have. JWs have not been promulgating falsities that have been disproved for centuries like so many other organizations have. At best JWs have taught some falsities for many decades. Along those lines the willingness to change is actually in their favor. At least when they realize that something is blatantly wrong they eventually fix it. That�s all Jezebel had to do, but she was unwilling even after being allowed time for it.
In yours words above you fail to accommodate that the Thyatirans also gave tacit support to false prophesy. As for me, my actions are toward making life better for each one of my fellow believers and for doing what the Bible requires to the best of my ability.
:: Why is it ok? Because Jesus has not overtly stopped them, and so no one else should either.: Nothing in my post entitled Falsely Prophesying or on related threads suggests that notion; it is just another of your misrepresentations. I suggest you produce something to back all these wild ideas.
You've consistently justified your claim by statements such as at the beginning of this post: " ... Revelation 2:21 has Jesus saying, `I gave her time' ". If Jesus "gave her time", then he has not overtly stopped them, and anyone who did could be construed as "running ahead", which no one else should do. My point is proved.
I have never claimed that anyone should associate with the WTS until Jesus overtly stops them. Contrarily I�ve said that there is no reason that anyone must associate with the WTS. What about that don�t you understand? Nowhere have I claimed that Jesus is today overtly stopping anyone. Instead I have said that each person must decide when enough is enough. My point is that the automatic condemnation of false prophets found at Deuteronomy 18 is not applied by Jesus towards his followers. Why do you continue to skirt that, the main point?
:: Of course, anyone who isn't a JW can instantly see how such rationalizations are hypocritical and unchristian.: What a hoot! You can say that with a straight face after all those bold misrepresentations you just made?
My characterizations were on the money. Obviously I've struck a nerve.
Another hoot.
:: JWs won't let themselves see it because of the high cost of getting out of the organization.: Your statement pretends that I consider remaining in association with JWs as somehow necessary.
No, not "necessary", but in your own best interests. That doesn't mean that I think you're wrong to remain a JW, but that your doing so is inconsistent with JW teachings and biblical teachings. It creates plenty of problems for your conscience. I'm not judging you, not by a long shot, but am pointing out that you know perfectly well how much it would cost you in social terms to quit the JW religion. Gone would be a good relationship with your parents, your family, your friends. Your wife might leave you. You could be disfellowshipped and isolated, and your grown children might shun you. That, my friend, is the cost tradeoff. With such a high cost, rationalization comes easy. Having gone through most of these steps personally, I know what I'm talking about.
And who else should I let decide what is in my best interests, you? You have gotten to the point of special pleading. My continued association with JWs is consistent with several cherished personal convictions. Like you I agree with most of what Jehovah�s witnesses advocate. Unlike you I have found a way to tenably coexist with some untruths until now. Consistent with JWs I have a tenacity for fixing what needs fixing. That I have so far done best as one of Jehovah�s witnesses. Individuals such as yourself have played a part in encouraging change amongst JWs, but, don�t fool yourself, if it weren�t for individuals like myself standing up to the WTS about issues they would not change, ever.
As for any social effects from any leaving from JWs, well, our social life is deeply effected by any number of decisions we make in life. You nor I will never know what adverse conditions our social lives would have taken if some small decision in the past had been made differently. You hold up your personal experience as if it is the same for everybody, it is not, that I know from my own experience. Does your experience outweigh my own? Should I pompously use my own experience to presume what might or might not happen to your social life depending on decisions I�ve made integral with my life? It�s not that simple, my friend. Your entire line of thought on this point is a big red herring in our discussion.
: Also, you mistakenly pretend that people cannot have pure motives and good reasons for remaining in association with JWs and by extension the WBTS. I assure you that that is a mistaken notion.In my experience, those who remain JWs despite knowing that the Society's most basic teaching is false - that JW leaders speak for God and are God's representatives to mankind today - do so for one basic reason: fear of complete loss of their social structure. When I came to know some of these folks I learned that they had a lot of other reasons, such as helping people deal with their problems and helping relatively helpless JWs deal with "the bears" (I got that expression describing hardnosed elders from one elder with a lifetime of experience in and on the fringes of the JW religion). These people certainly have "pure" motives in the sense that they are purely selfish. They also can find plenty of justification for helping people with their problems and perhaps even getting the Society to reform. Note that I'm not saying that selfish interests are wrong, just that one should recognize one's motives and not deceive oneself about having "higher motives".
In your experience, maybe, but your experience is not universally applicable nor is it necessarily typical, it is just your experience. Additionally, the experiences of people you attract is not necessarily typical. You should understand by now that you are a virtual lightening rod for JW dissidents. I�m sure you understand the concept the birds of a feather flock together, don�t you? Is it sound for Canadian geese to look around during migration and conclude that all birds look like geese?
I know perfectly well that things are not quite as black and white as I've painted them here.
You should have thought of that before you made all those "bottom line" accusations toward me and my convictions!
Individuals vary as to their mix of motives, but I think I've got the basics down solid with respect to the common denominator of wanting to avoid a social catastrophe.
Perhaps, but it is unwise to assume too much from our own experiences. Frankly, our horizons are expanded not when we narrowly see our own experiences in others but when we consider views from people with different experiences from our own. It is true that presumption breeds a fall.
People who know the truth about "the Truth" usually wage a constant battle with their consciences because they know that the most unifying of JW teachings - that "we are uniquely God's people" - is wrong and probably suspect that it is even condemned by God because of the principle of not "declaring the righteous one wicked".
Or else they work like a dog helping their fellow believers realize the benefits of unity among mankind rather than unity of ideology. God allows freedom of choice and so should we. The battle is life, not our conscience.
How does one remain in good conscience under such circumstances? One does pretty much what other religious people do - realize that their religion is just another in the pile and not think too much about the things they disagree with. After awhile one realizes that quiet reform of a religion like the JWs does not take place.
Who�s talking about quiet reform?
Perhaps by now you realize just how wrong your condemnatory accusations against my beliefs were. At least I hope so.
Your
Friend
PS I�ve not taken time to proof
read any of the above. Frankly, your accusatory manner has me quite frustrated and I limit my exposure. One day