Malawi and MCP Cards?

[Many Miles]

6 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

[__X_] some other reason other than because it's "rational" or "the society says so".

Juan,

I just saw your response. I haven't read it yet. But at first glance I saw this, and I want to say how much I respect a person who's willing to give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question.

Now, based upon the above response, I'll read your thoughts on how:

We should believe teaching "x" because of some other reason other than because it's "rational" or "the society says so".

Should be an interesting read. But, I already respect the straightforward answer and wanted to put that out front!

[Juan Rivera]

@Many Here's just one example of a question determined by the arbitrary choice of regulating texts, when an authoritative interpretative framework is not recognized. See link

 Experimental Theology: Universalism: A Summary Defense

The biggest objection to universalism involves the passages regarding hell in the bible. However, there is no doctrinal teaching that doesn't have contradictory tensions within the biblical witness. Witness the hermeneutical and exegetical diversity within the Christian tradition. In short, universalists are not in any unique position. This is the way it is with just about any doctrine.

The issue, then, ultimately boils down to which biblical texts will regulate doctrinal choices. For example, which of the two passages regulates your doctrine regarding female leadership in the church?

"I do not permit a woman to teach, nor have authority over a man." (1 Timothy 2.12)
"There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3.28)
If you are a Complementarian Passage #1 regulates your understanding of Passage #2. If you are an Egalitarian Passage #2 regulates how you understand Passage #1. And there is no way to resolve any debate between the two camps as these are meta-biblical choices.

A similar thing holds for the soteriological debates. Universalists have regulating passages that frame how they understand the texts about hell. Here are four regulating texts for universalists:

"God is love." (1 John 4.8)
"For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross." (Colossians 1.19-20)
"When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." (1 Corinthians 15.28)
"For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." (Romans 11.32)

As with the gender texts one has to choose regulating texts about hell. And these are meta-biblical choices. People who believe in a classical vision of hell will read the four passages above through that lens. Universalists, by contrast, will read the texts on hell through the lens of these four passages. That is, they will teach that hell must:

Be a manifestation that "God is love."
Be a means to "reconcile all things" to God
Allow God to be "all in all"
Provide a way for God to "have mercy upon all"

[Many Miles]

19 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

So our continuing openness to the pursuit of truth through reason doesn’t make us rationalists, nor does it mean that we are not really submitting to the GB

You'll have to explain what that means. Perhaps there's a typo or perhaps I've misread something.

Pursuing truth through reason does, by definition, make one a rationalist. So what does it mean when you say, "the pursuit of truth through reason doesn’t make us rationalists"?

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The Great Courses professor (David Kyle Johnson: The Big Questions of Philosophy) says that it does makes sense. It alone is logically consistent. He traces it to Augustine and says, ‘Maybe God permits evil because it is essential to his pursuit of his greater goal of allowing free will.’ This is essentially what the Watchtower says, though they develop it more.. Moreover, you who sniff because uneducated ‘dumbbells’ say it today might not sniff upon learning that a highly esteemed and educated philosopher also said it.

I completely agree with the comment by @Many Miles. 

Man's free will has nothing to do with God's decision to allow or not allow something, in this case evil. If God's will decided to allow evil, he did not do it because of my free will, because my free will has no influence on God's free will.

But God's free will to allow evil makes me unhappy. And it threatens my free will. It means that God is actually restraining my free will because his free will is more powerful than mine. It means that the idea of a person's free will loses its meaning, if mine is overpowered by someone else's free will.

Second thing. Quoting educated members of academia who support WTJWorg ideas is a ruse. How many educated scholars WTJWorg does not quote in its publications because their views are critical of the Society's doctrines or completely refute them. Do not use this method on experienced forum members. (We've covered 607 BCE in topics here. The scientific community says that's not the correct date, but JWs don't accept them.)

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If you do damage, or allow damage to happen, and you can fix it, that makes huge difference from one who does damage, or allows it to happen, and cannot fix it.

One who does harm to others should be prevented from continuing to do harm.

The one who allows someone else to harm his fellow man should be asked why he allows it. 

It remains to be seen whether the one who allows another to do harm can actually fix things. Usually, the damage is repaired by a third party, not by those who participated in the problem. The doctor is treating the wounds of those injured in the bar fight, but he did not take (active or passive) part in the conflict.

It is said that God did not prevent people from making war, because making war was a free decision of the warring parties, or at least one party, and the other had to defend itself even though they did not want war. Is God a doctor? Mediator? Or the Observer? Because God did not mediate in the reconciliation of the warring parties nor did He resurrect them after they died.

The Bible says; Whoever knows how to do good, but does not do it, it is his sin.

"Therefore, if someone knows how to do what is right and yet does not do it, it is a sin for him".- James 4:17 NWT

 

[Juan Rivera]

28 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

You'll have to explain what that means. Perhaps there's a typo or perhaps I've misread something.

Pursuing truth through reason does, by definition, make one a rationalist. So what does it mean when you say, "the pursuit of truth through reason doesn’t make us rationalists"?

@Many Miles Rationalism does not recognize a higher authority than one’s own reason. Faith based epistemology/fideism, by contrast, makes faith destroy nature by squelching or suppressing the pursuit of truth through reason. Genuine faith is neither destroyed by reason nor destroys reason. Faith is based on the truth, because faith builds on nature, not on a vacuum and because Jehovah the true God we love and pursue is also the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

If a JW is not convinced that the GB to which he is submitted is the teaching authority that Christ established, he cannot exercise faith in Christ through trusting that GB. Faith, to be faith, requires that it be built on the truth. That does not mean that we must understand everything we are believing,  that would be rationalism, and would rule out our faith seeking understanding. But we must have good reason to believe that the GB we are trusting to speak for Christ is, in fact, the GB that Christ authorized to speak for Himself.

[Many Miles]

22 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

So my submission to a divinely authorized Governing Body depends on the truth that this GB is in fact divinely authorized, just as a our faith in what the Bible teaches always depends on the truth that the Bible is the word of God written.

You may or may not have noticed a recent topic I started about what we need for belief. (It's probably part of that river you alluded to)

As a purely logical matter, it presents as presumption what others would say is etched in stone. I wrote, "1) Presumption that the written record we call the Bible is testimony of God's will."

As a logical function all this does is establish a premise for sake of making a logical construction. It's my way of saying, "For argument's sake let's just agree that the Bible is testimony of God's will."

I put it that way because, as you say above and I agree, "our faith in what the Bible teaches always depends on the truth that the Bible is the word of God written." There is no disagreement there.

But there's that other thing you mention. You write, "submission to a divinely authorized Governing Body depends on the truth that this GB is in fact divinely authorized".

There is a whopping difference between those two items, so big you could sail a super jumbo freight carrier through it.

- One is left for people to make of what they will, with potential future effect.

- The other can, will and does enforce what it says onto your life here and now.

That said, if you would have others accept that a particular "GB is in fact divinely authorized" then you have very heavy burden of proof to bear.

Individuals will likely be more willing to accept that a work they are left to make of what they will, with potential future effect is the word of God and less willing to accept that a particular GB is in fact divinely inspired that can, will and does enforce what it says onto your life here and now. Which means the veracity of evidence in support of the latter will have to be much greater.

This reminds me of Thomas who, though surrounded by men he knew and trusted, was unwilling to accept on trust alone a particular thing unless he had a way to better measure the veracity of the claim. Jesus made sure Thomas got what he needed. Thomas needed something measurable. Jesus gave it to him.

If, as you suggest, there is a particular GB that is divinely authorized (whose will we should submit to as the word of God) [the latter are my words], what's your evidence? And, should we accede to it no matter what?

Remember, you didn't check the box saying:

- We should believe teaching "x" because the society says so.

 

[Many Miles]

28 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

Rationalism does not recognize a higher authority than one’s own reason.

That's a misconstruction. 1) Reason is not an authority. 2) Reason is not something that belongs to anyone. 3) Reason is a method.

What you write above is as misconstrued as me saying,

- Mathematics does not recognize a higher authority than one's own math.

[Many Miles]

23 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

Faith, to be faith, requires that it be built on the truth. That does not mean that we must understand everything we are believing,  that would be rationalism, and would rule out our faith seeking understanding.

Reason (logical construction) is an objective method of deducing whether some notion is true, or at least sound to the extent evidence supports the notion.

It is true we may choose to accept things beyond our understanding (e.g., that God has no beginning). But to assert something is true supposedly based on deductive reasoning is something that is subject to reason and therefore falsifiable.

We do not say we can demonstrate through reason that God has no beginning, because we can't. Instead, we tell the truth and say we accept that God has no beginning because the Bible says so and we accept that as evidence. This is an instance where we accept something as true though we have no means of logically deducing it. Either a person accepts this or they do not.

But, again, teachings (assertions) supposedly the result of deductive reasoning is something that is subject to reason and therefore falsifiable. The society has done a lot of this. A lot! And there is plenty that has been falsified. Plenty!

Of course, we all know that all of us are imperfect. So are Presbyterians, ad infinitum.

[Juan Rivera]

2 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

That's a misconstruction. 1) Reason is not an authority. 2) Reason is not something that belongs to anyone. 3) Reason is a method.

What you write above is as misconstrued as me saying,

- Math does not recognize a higher authority than math.

Let me put it another way, see if I'm understanding and following your point. Perhaps we are using the same terms with different definitions.

Rationality is not negated by an act of trust in a higher authority. Abraham was not being irrational in obeying Jehovah when He told him to sacrifice Isaac. There is a middle position between rationalism and faith based epistemology/fideism. Rationalism would require Abraham to figure out for himself (on independent grounds besides God’s command) whether it was best to sacrifice Isaac. Fideism would entail that Abraham could rightly follow any voice, or no voice, simply to do whatever his will willed to do, for no reason at all, or for any reason at all. Likewise, rationalism would require Eve to figure out for herself the reasons why or why not eating the fruit would be good/bad for her. And fideism would entail that Eve could rightly follow either voice (God’s or Satan’s), or more likely Christian fideism would simply stipulate (pound table hard) that Eve should have followed Jehovah. But our teaching is that Eve acted contrary to her own reason when she ate the fruit. She knew, by her natural power of reason that Jehovah, being God, is entirely trustworthy and deserving of absolute obedience. That is the rational motive of evidence, which makes it entirely rational to trust God, even when the reasons for the divine command are otherwise inscrutable to us. If reason had no place in the obedience of faith, then Eve would have had no more reason to trust Jehovah than to trust Satan. And in such a situation, she would become by default her own highest authority, that’s rationalism. Rationalism would be true if man were the highest being. But since man is not the highest being, rationalism must be false. Yet, that does not leave us stuck with a faith based epistemology/fideism. It is precisely by and through reason that we know that Jehovah is to be trusted, honored, and obeyed. Faith doesn’t bypass reason, nor does it inject faith into us in a way that bypasses reason. Faith elevates reason, so that we know (through our reason) Jehovah as Father, and love Him as Father. So reason makes possible true faith (as opposed to a fideistic leap), even though faith itself is a gift of Jehovah. 

[Many Miles]

36 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

Rationality is not negated by an act of trust in a higher authority.

Rationality is negated by an act of trust in a higher authority without very, very good reason to do so.

- Abraham had good reason. God literally spoke to him. Presumably, when God literally talks to a person they are supposed to act accordingly or else.

- Eve had good reason. She would die.

BTW, saying "rationalism would require Eve to figure out for herself the reasons why or why not eating the fruit would be good/bad for her" is a red herring insofar as this discussion has progressed. (Underling added) Also, your statement presupposes Eve would need to know the answer to the question why not eat the fruit, other than she would die if she did eat it. Nothing prohibited Eve from exploring "why" but exploring "why" would not require eating the fruit, and not eating the fruit did not require Eve to understand the "why" of not. In Eve's case, the why of not could be as simple as because her husband had told her God said so, and God literally spoke to Adam.

[JW Insider]

On 11/29/2023 at 9:46 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

@JW Insider once put me on the track of a Great Courses university professor exploring the subject and it was well-nigh insufferable.

As I recall, you had already listened to that particular Great Courses professor and it raised your curiosity about the history of this particular teaching. I thought that our version was similar to Ellen G White's (Seventh Day Adventist) 1858 doctrine that comes under the heading of "The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan." It is summarized here as:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Controversy_theme

One of the 28 fundamental beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists states:

8. Great Controversy:

All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the universe. This conflict originated in heaven when a created being, endowed with freedom of choice, in self-exaltation became Satan, God’s adversary, and led into rebellion a portion of the angels. He introduced the spirit of rebellion into this world when he led Adam and Eve into sin. This human sin resulted in the distortion of the image of God in humanity, the disordering of the created world, and its eventual devastation at the time of the global flood, as presented in the historical account of Genesis 1-11. Observed by the whole creation, this world became the arena of the universal conflict, out of which the God of love will ultimately be vindicated. To assist His people in this controversy, Christ sends the Holy Spirit and the loyal angels to guide, protect, and sustain them in the way of salvation. (Gen. 3; 6-8; Job 1:6-12; Isa. 14:12-14; Ezek. 28:12-18; Rom. 1:19-32; 3:4; 5:12-21; 8:19-22; 1 Cor. 4:9; Heb. 1:14; 1 Peter 5:8; 2 Peter 3:6; Rev. 12:4-9.)^[4]

[JW Insider]

Rutherford had given talks and written booklets that I thought attempted to rework this doctrine into a kind of court case. (He sometimes had a theme of God's Plan as seen through the eyes of an attorney.) I think this is related to his repeated use of Isaiah 43:9.10 which finally became the very motto for the name Jehovah's witnesses in this universal court case.

Let all the nations assemble in one place,
And let the peoples be gathered together.
Who among them can tell this?
Or can they cause us to hear the first things?
Let them present their witnesses to prove themselves right,
Or let them hear and say, ‘It is the truth!’”
¹⁰“^{You are my witnesses,}” declares Jehovah,
“Yes, my servant whom I have chosen,
So that you may know and have faith in me
And understand that I am the same One.
Before me no God was formed,