Posted by felix a [angler] on April 01, 1999 at 22:04:28 {feW1wc1uNQJwrLA196zEXXuUsiPcoA}:
Lomad,
Part of what I was getting at is that there is more than one form that freedom takes and the beginning’s of physical enslavement
begins with the shackling of the mind and voices of those who dissent. The article made
this point, "In their pursuit of power,
ambitious men and women continue to show little or no compunction about crushing the freedoms of others." The
churches and men of God through out the ages have been
ambitious for the Lord, and exercised power in his name yet have
managed to step on the freedoms of others in their exercise of these desires.
Nor do velvet gloves lessen the damage of a blow.
So physical chains of bondage are not the only chains that we as individuals desire freedom from. The Watchtower article itself
pointed out a few of these chains, namely, poverty, imperfection, sickness and death, calling
them "brutal masters". Yet failed to
touch on the gilded cage of emotional and mental bondage. For some this cage is of their own choosing, some are born into it,
others do not know how to escape its bars, yet know they are bound.
Now if you do not always feel the chains, or see the walls
that hold you does that make you any more free and no less a slave.
You had stated, 'I would argue that the quote by JJ
Rousseau is implying a physical liberty -- vs. an absolute intellectual
freedom. The civil liberties of humans have been violated throughout history by many forms of government. If a man is
in "chains" -- he is still free --
intellectually, no one has the power to take that
freedom from a person's mind (Rom. 8). Paul himself was an "ambassador in chains."' On these thoughts I would offer only a limited agreement. Physical liberties
as I've
stated are without argument an occurrence threw out the history of man. However, while the freedom of ones ideas may not be
robbed of a man in physical shackles. That freedom of thought and its expression can be shackled through the
velvet bonds of
emotion and community, the effectiveness will rest on the strength of the community and the ties one has to it.
Physical bondage is often more easily endured by those held
captive when its source is the exercise of ones mental freedom. That
was Paul’s case, his voice, and the ideas he shared were the cause of his physical bondage. John the Baptist to was imprisoned
for exercising his voice in
expressing his opinions. The thoughts, the ideas they shared, were not palatable to those in power, who
saw them as a threat to their way of life, the result imprisonment and death.
The
physical hardships more easily endured by the intensity and fervor of their beliefs, which were directly attacked. Martyrdom
and endurance through faith cannot be denied as a powerful motivator and influence upon the human spirit.
Belief a powerful tool.
So as you can see I'm not arguing that governments haven't through the millennia ruled man to his own injury. I would suggest that
most of us would never argue that
thought. Most of us here in the west have now been raised in a society that demands freedom.
Freedom to believe what we wish, freedom to act on our beliefs, freedom from having the beliefs of another forced upon us.
Freedom from
racial prejudice is a battlefield still and freedom of religion is a cry that is being heralded as loud as ever. I would
contend that as has been evidenced by governments, individuals, and our own religion that the greatest cries over
lost freedom have
most frequently been that of our own and not that of the other person.
You also said 'I assume that by this you are referring to the "rank and file" witness being
unable or unwilling to express
a dissenting opinion in a public forum. I personally know of some (in good standing, I might add!) who have done just
this.' Lomad, I would ask you at this point to define what you mean by a
public forum if you don't mind. Also could you describe an
example of such a dissenting opinion?
The following thoughts expressed by you I would like to also address, as they seem to be of
one connected thought. In addressing
my comment that compares the status of GB to RF as teacher student you said, 'Not quite. The argument for academic or
philosophical debate within a spiritual body is weak for a few
reasons. First, a "supernatural power" HAS stepped in.
IF, the bible is to be viewed an absolute authority, THEN, arguing against its principles is not debate, but rebellion
(Samuel's account of "obedience vs. sacrifice").
You then followed this up with these comments on my quote of Bertrand
Russell regarding "doubtfulness of our beliefs" with these words, 'A person of faith does not doubt their beliefs. The majority
of JW's believe they do
"certainly know the truth" -- in which case there IS something to be said for teaching it. The
authority invoked is biblical and divine.
True the authority invoked is
biblical and divine. And if this were the sole source of authority by which a teaching was allowed
to stand or fall I would be able to fully accept your proposition. However, is that truly the authority upon
which the beliefs are
based? If the sole authority is biblical in nature by which a teaching is judged then the teaching could be allowed to stand
on its own merit no matter the source of the idea or teaching. But we
do not see this in practice. We as Jehovah's Witnesses
will hear warnings about "running ahead of the slave", or "what did the Watchtower say about this?" The GB act as
teachers, they speak from the
platform instructing both hundreds and thousands at a time, they serve as interpreters of the bible
and how or what applies from it to lives and to prophecy. Their authority is invoked by others as well as by themselves as
justification for what they may do or say. All the while basing their own authority on their interpretation of what they say it interprets
itself to say. Then within that body we have wrangling or debate over what
should be considered and how it should be
applied and settled not by leaving a matter to what is stated in Gods word alone or stepping away from the
indeterminable, but by voting on the matter. This I believe addresses your
contention that "The argument for academic or
philosophical debate within a spiritual body is weak for a few reasons."
I was attempting to get across the idea
that it should be more fully like that of a teacher to a student where a real discussion can
take place before all as the teacher is questioned on what he is teaching the student. Makin the teachings defense stand or fall or
be
modified by the insights or questions that are raised, while at the same time causing all to learn from each other and to think
and reason on what is said. This is a freedom that is lacking at all levels within our religion for all
intents and purposes.
I would contend that if there were no doubt at to ones beliefs that this is an act of blind credulity on the part of the believer.
Believing you know the
truth and knowing you know the truth are two very distinct things. This surety of true knowledge is
what is and should be doubtful. This sense of surety and in turn blind credulity, I do not believe is the case for most
introspective
individuals. I do believe that many people live an unexamined life where they do not examine all that they believe or why. For some
this is a result of contentment with the status quo. For others there is no
importance placed on that area of life since it may hold for
them no impact on how they live. While still others will stop short of further reflection because the impact on their lives would be too
severe.
So I ask you what parts do you believe? If those who write the magazines truly exercised the belief that they know the truth it
would be impossible for new light to shine forth. They prove belief is not static by
their actions. So in time we find out what parts
they no longer believe. You believe that the bible is Gods word, and if I understand the sense of your comments you exercise this
belief as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. There are
others here who believe the bible is the word of God and do not exercise this belief
as Jehovah's Witnesses but rather as Catholics, Protestants, Christians or some variation of "faith". As one of Jehovah's
Witnesses you may firmly
believe that what you have is the truth, and you will want to share it with those who are not of our faith.
You may be able to content yourself with an easy truce regarding the differences of your beliefs from theirs and accept the fact
that
they do not believe as you and not feel threatened by this. In witnessing to them you may appeal to that common bond of
respecting the bible as the ultimate source of God's revealed truth. Therefore at some level acknowledging
that they too accept
the bible as authority and even the source for some if not all of their beliefs. If you know of another source for the teaching they hold,
you may share it with them as you attempt to teach them that a teaching
really is not supported by the bible.
Yet if one of our faith begins to express a teaching that is not expressed in the literature or is in opposition to what is printed there,
an increased
discomfort begins to arise toward the one expressing this view. Even though they may be using the bible as the
authority and source for their beliefs. If they attempt to share with you what they have learned
to be the source of a
teaching and
that a belief you hold is not scripturally based what is your response and what is the response of the majority if he makes these
views known? Are they allowed to stand or fall on their own merit or are they not
accepted do to the source? If they are not
allowed to stand or fall on their own merit before all then where is the freedom? From what Authority source then do we
really argue our beliefs
from?
My further thoughts in response to yours.
I use the phrase our religion, working on the assumption that you are still one of
Jehovah's Witnesses and from knowing that I am
still one having not been DF'd or having DA'd myself and my semi-reg. Attendance as opposed to my full acceptance of the
teachings of the WBTS.
Regards and have a good day.
Felix Angler