Srecko Sostar

11 hours ago, César Chávez said:

freedom of speech is actually hate speech.

JW TV have just enough "fine" examples of hate speech by "top" elders of Organization.

11 hours ago, César Chávez said:

So, this open forum is just an "excuse" for "disgruntled" witnesses

Yes, and ...?? What do you have with that "disgruntled" witnesses ? They have their reasons for be such. And we will not argue their reasons, but we can about yours, if you agree.  

Perhaps some Betel elders have "task" to collect information about participants on this forum club and then give report to BOE. I know they doing that, because elders from Zagreb Betel (also elders in ex congregation) followed my Google+ in 2015, looking for "incriminate material". :))

15 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

I advocate, this OPEN FORUM portion be "relabeled" with a warning.

It’s a job for WTJWorg lawyers. No one can forbid the gathering of people on forums that deal, among other things, with JW’s beliefs. What is the difference between an Open and a Closed Club? According to GB, everything is ...  both are .... "illegal". :))

10 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Why would God need to answer to humans?

Maybe because he gave, mind, ability to think and free will and freedom to choose, to people......and because of  Most truly I say to you, if you ask the Father for anything,+ he will give it to you in my name 

5 hours ago, xero said:

Truth, like the quality of goodness inhere fully in and are defined by and perceived by and illuminated by Jehovah as he is the source.

5 hours ago, xero said:

These believe that there are personal and private truths which remain forever unverifiable save for the individual perceptions of the ones who possess the same.

We can and should discover the truth about ourselves all our lives. And it is a process that exists, no matter how much we participate in it or not. The more we participate in it, through various small and big events, the different truths become recognizable. These truths to a greater or lesser extent, sometimes imperceptibly and sometimes drastically, correct or redirect our life path and choices.

You put great importance on YHVH illuminating “personal truths” and "collective truths". ”You say; YHVH defines truth. It is possible so. But how did He define truth when he did not give Adam and Eve      “knowledge to discern good from evil”? Can the truth be defined without knowledge?

But let's leave the situation in Eden in the past, because since leaving Eden people have legally acquired ability to recognize good and evil, and in that knowledge they should continue to gain experience and knowledge at the same time.

Later some written instructions on what is good and what is not good came in. But some things remained unsaid and left to man to judge and choose. Also, some things in the past were regulated by prohibition, and even unregulated, so without prohibition. Today they got a new and different “illumination.” By that, and the truth from the past, it got a new face. To the least, the former truth is not the truth of today’s man, whether it is JW or non-JW.

6 hours ago, xero said:

There are adiaphoric cases

Perhaps Polygamy? Slavery? Well, there are some past individual and collective truths about that, right?

These things are not called "the truth" today. Maybe, they are called as just written past/history ?

6 hours ago, xero said:

Yet, those who did their best to go with Jehovah's representatives fared best overall)

Has it always been the best? Incorrect statement. There were few true representatives even in the Bible, let alone outside the Bible.

....... isn't it published in the wrong place? 

:)) Try with  Arts & Culture 

9 hours ago, xero said:

On a related note....

Eden phase: eating only plants
Phase after the Flood: eating meat (animals), no matter which
Law phase: eating only allowed types of meat (animals)
Phase after Jesus: eat what you want, if you want, but watch the conscience of the other

The first phase came naturally, and that is the creative act that determines the choice of food. There is no need for law or conscience to participate in food choices.
The second phase supports the general freedom of food choice, which is determined only by the place where one lives and the availability of animals to be used for food.
The third phase deals with the paragraphs that undo the two previous phases.
The fourth stage introduces a new order and involves conscience. But several thousand years have passed and conscience is determined by social and geographical rules of conduct.

4 hours ago, xero said:

Some languages don't have words for "try". You either did something or you didn't.

When washing dishes, your 3rd plate falls to the floor and breaks. So you managed to wash the dishes until that one fell out of your hand. The question remains, why did it fall out of hand.

We have all three models: he washed 2 plate, he didn’t wash all other plates, he tried. The attempt/try was partly successful and partly not. :))) 

"Open Club"........."Closed Club" ........"Open Conscience"........"Closed Conscience".........etc.

Is it possible just to speak frankly .... what we think about this and that?

43 minutes ago, Witness said:

What is meant by Jesus’ words in John 4:21-24?

That there should be no literal central place:
1) whence it is dictated how God should be worshiped
2) where "the truth is produced"
3) where to go on pilgrimage

32 minutes ago, xero said:

Interesting podcast...

https://simplyputpodcast.com/adiaphora/

 

.... we can choose a carpet for our living room...

... now we could also come to the question of what color and pattern the carpet should be. what if it is tastelessly chosen? :))

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

23 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

It says that tradition does not choose its "victims".

Good, how does your argument make any sense, then?

Some arguments matter to some listeners, and some don’t. It is, of course, difficult to always explain why this happens.

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

When your argument are swayed and influenced by the likes of "witnesses not in good standing" like Anna, TTH, and JWI, it makes it difficult to debate with the real, you

If we are going to judge their participation in the forum from the aspect of WTJWorg publications asking their members not to have contact with people who are “marked” by your organization, then you are right.

If we look at their participation from the aspect of various Bible reports and lessons, then their participation and interaction with people who have different attitudes and opinions is not forbidden. Forum members should judge for themselves who they will talk to and what they will talk about.

Take for example the conversation in Eden. There is no account from the book of Genesis in which God condemned Eve for talking to the Serpent. Nor did he condemn Adam for talking to Eve who was talking to the Serpent. He convicted them of actions that were not of a verbal nature.

Theoretical considerations [ edit | edit code ]

In the very history of the problem of conscience we find various theories that we can reduce to four basic types:

• Conscience is understood as participation in the Divine (Christian tradition, especially in Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther )
• Conscience in the function of the autonomous mind ( Kant )
• Conscience as a product of social-educational determination ( Locke )
• Conscience is the result of moral conflict ( Freud )

Perhaps we need to learn more about these aspects for further discussion. Some idea, please.

3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Of course Tom will now provide proof of God's true guidance and give names of the organisations that God used from the year 100 through to 1800.

I like this. You made excellent quote. WTJWorg publications only contain the claim that there were always people who worshiped YHVH between the 1st century and the appearance of Russell.

Not once did they name any "organization." So we have no indication, no evidence from WTJWrg, that God used any organized system (organization) and people who would be part of that system as believers / members.

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

What does that say about tradition? 😏

It says that tradition does not choose its "victims".

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Your thinking like him. Think for yourself.

Cesar, you sound like burdened church member. Obsessed with phantasms. Please, use your argumentation about topic, you are better in that, and .... i like to discuss with you.    

29 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Was Paul ever afraid to die?

I suppose not, but he probably had fear about what would people talking about.  

38 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Galatians 2:2, 3) . . .. 3 Nevertheless, not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek

This could mean that the issue of circumcision was resolved in two different (Timothy vs Titus) ways and that the dilemma around it was still a stumbling block.

40 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Are you still accepting JWI hidden messages to you?

This is the second time you have mentioned @JW Insider and me in a non-existent context. What is your problem? :))

10 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

14 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Forget what other people might perceive, it's your own conscience that God sees. God, is NOT going around and saying, whatever a member of Christ Church thinks and does wrong, the entire congregation or the entire church will suffer, its consequence.

So this destroys the idea of 'collective conscience'.   And it proves the idea of individual conscience. 

Unfortunately, we have some examples in which God does not punish the individual who has wronged, but the entire nation. This is easy to notice in the examples of the kings of Israel. One of the prominent events is when the people are counted, by the king's order, even though it was forbidden to do so. Thus, none of the individuals opposed the king’s command. Their individual conscience was suppressed by the king's command. After all, people feared for their lives if they disobeyed the king.

Parallel? JW members are willing to suppress their conscience because of GB’s “commands”. The existence of a “Collective Consciousness”* is often so strong that it threatens an “Individual Conscience” of person and prevents her/him from acting on his own sense of good and bad.

*“Collective Consciousness” - in context of this phrase, it denotes/refers to rules and standards set by prominent members (leaders) of how followers should behave and what standards they should follow. Deviation from them brings condemnation of the collective, because the collective consciousness  is formed in accordance with the set rules.

The change of rules in a group does not happen because of the "troubled conscience of an individual", but because of intellectual-doctrinal-ideological reasons. Eg. excommunication was an inconceivable way of dealing with individuals in WTJWorg (article in Awake 1947). The conscience of the individual was subject to the rules tailored by the leaders of the collective. As leaders changed their decisions, the “Collective consciousness” on the same issues also began to change.

Determining what is good and what is evil has ceased to be a privilege of God, back in Eden. Because God himself concluded there: "now man has become like us and knows what is good and what is evil." - Gen 3:22
In the case of WTJWorg, the individual agrees to the third model. He renounces his own right to determine the good and evil provided by Adam and Eve, so he decided to leave that right, not to God, but to people who claims to represent God.

PS - We also introduce a "new" terminology: “collective guilt”. Who is to blame for obeying the king's bad command? These are close associates (lower hierarchy- aka elders) who were to carry out the (wrong) command to count the people. Who bore the consequences of the proceedings? According to the biblical account everyone in the country. Why couldn’t a “judicial council” be formed to consider the matter and make a fair decision? Why did they wait for God to pass a "judgment", when they could prevent the process of "counting the people", on their own, and/or when they could "punish" the king for his bad decision, after counting, on their own?

On 3/25/2021 at 4:23 PM, César Chávez said:

This is the most "obtuse" forum of reasoning. I'm embarrassed, JWI agrees with this argument. When were the "gentiles" INCLUDED in Christian life? Did Paul by any chance, suggest TWO different Christian standards in the lives of Jews and Gentile?

Don't confuse, TRADITION with morals and standards, and if JWI is feeding you garbage through private message, research.

So he arrived at Derʹbe and also at Lysʹtra.+ And a disciple named Timothy+ was there, the son of a believing Jewish woman but of a Greek father, 2  and he was well-reported-on by the brothers in Lysʹtra and I·coʹni·um. 3  Paul expressed the desire for Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews in those places,+ for they all knew that his father was a Greek. - Acts 16

What happened there? Circumcision because of a question of conscience? Whose conscience? Timothy's conscience or Paul's? Because of morals? Because of standards? Or did it all happen because of TRADITION and Jewish morals and standards written and required by Jewish Law? 

Is it Paul’s action a consequence (the pressure) of “collective consciousness” (or conscience, to interpret xero), so he too fell under the influence of the "collective conscience" and went against own conscience, even although he preached that circumcision is “nothing”? Was it Paul’s moment of weakness, was he ignoring one’s own conscience, or fearing of social condemnation, etc?

What/which "collective conscience" did he considered and respected? From First Christian congregation  or from Old Jewish congregation?

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

I strive always to maintain a clear conscience before God and man.

So I see that this is about Paul’s conviction/striving that he is doing the right things, that are right in the eyes of God and in the eyes of people.

Whether everything Paul did was indeed right in the eyes of God is up to God to judge.

Whether everything was right in the eyes of the people is also for discussion. First of all, we need to know which people Paul thought they had no objection to their conscience about Paul’s conscience and his life.

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Then you undermine the experience. Take for instance, traditional weddings. If a witness has family members that are not witnesses, what kind of conflict could manifest? How about funerals, sweet 16, etc. 

*** w82 7/15 p. 25 par. 15 Benefiting From Your God-given Conscience ***
15 Was this ‘a matter of conscience’ for private decision? No. Even if an engaged couple’s consciences would permit something excessive or outrageous, the collective conscience of the elders could not be ignored. While not wanting to impose their personal tastes, they have at heart the peace, harmony and spirituality of the whole congregation. And they should be conscientiously aiding persons to ‘know how to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is a pillar and support of the truth.’—1 Timothy 3:15; 1 Corinthians 10:31.
 

 

Please, so the difference is obvious. These are just two things:

1) Ideological / religious differences

and/or

2) prejudices.

It has nothing to do with the fundamental function of conscience.

5 hours ago, xero said:

You ought to google once in a while.

https://www.thoughtco.com/collective-consciousness-definition-3026118

 

Article has title: The Concept of Collective Consciousness

I believe it is important to separate meaning in terminology, yet very similar words.

Consciousness and Conscious vs Conscience

Consciousness and Conscious:

a) an increasing of concerned awareness

b) the process of making people understand and be interested in important social or political issues

c) having mental faculties not dulled by sleep, faintness

d) perceiving, apprehending, or noticing with a degree of controlled thought or observation 

e) being concerned or interested

Conscience:

a) the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good

b) a faculty, power, or principle enjoining good acts

c) the part of the superego in psychoanalysis that transmits commands and admonitions to the ego

I agree that we need to have an awareness (consciousness) of our own existence and that there is a conscience in us.

I would say that we can talk about individual conscience and different aspects of that phenomenon in a person’s life.
But it seems to me that there is no “collective conscience”. I do not consider this possible, because a collective can only be a set of individuals with more or less the same thoughts, experiences, common ideas and standards. But this does not constitute a prerequisite for a “collective conscience”. We can only speak of collective manipulation and collective pressure in some circumstances

What connects individuals in such a group are the reasons and goals of the association. The existence of collective influence or collective pressure on an individual, who is visible and invisible in its manifestation is what certainly exists.

Reality that some individuals have a conflict with collective standards, morals, ethics, and ideology  proves that every individual within a collective has an individual consciousness and conscience, not a collective one. This proves that individual consciousness and conscience make it a separate individual in collective existence, regardless of how strongly a collective is connected within itself and regardless of the positive or negative influence of the group on the individual.

12 hours ago, César Chávez said:

DEVELOPMENT!! Your parents teach you morals and standards. The Bible teaches you Christian ethics. You decide what your conscience is, no one else

13 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves - Rom 2 14

Gentile parents teach their gentile children about own morals and standards, with or without "Christian" ethics. And they, parents and children, decide in mutual interactions what sort of conscience they will have and grow. How do you explain, where is the place/position and influence of "nature" spoken in Romans 2:14 in that process? And how do you explain that Romans 2:14 speaking in favour, very positive about them, gentile people, in comparison to Roman congregation to which Paul directed those chapters?  

Verse 15 continue with:

They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.

Which and whose requirements was written on their hearts? When and how? Because their parents was "gentile" distanced(??) from "Christian" moral, standards and ethics.

I agree with some of your thoughts how there are unknown and invisible processes around all this. 

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

Xero made some important comment about an 'authority' demanding that it's followers believed even things not understood. Then Xero extended that by saying that those people that were forced to believe, had to tell those things not understood, to other people.  Basically, doing the ministry or cart work. 

Xero:  I'm trying to find a way to formulate, by way of illustration or otherwise (the shorter the explanation the better), the dividing line between conscience and scriptural responsibility and actively being told by authority that some non-obvious thing is true and that one must believe the non-obvious thing is true and teach someone else in the same manner that this non-obvious thing is true.

dividing line between conscience and scriptural responsibility

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Once again, you are confusing, between conscience and morals and standards.

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves - Rom 2 14

Gentiles don't have "Law", don't have "Knowledge", don't have WTJWorg "moral and standard".....but have "Natural driving forces" to act in a way as God accepts. 

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

They developed a conscience after Satan exposed it to them, That's why it's on our DNA.

Don't understand.

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

you are confusing, between conscience and morals and standards.

How is conscience formed? How is morality formed? How is the standard formed?

How people changing conscience, moral and standard?

...and other things in connection with these three.