Malawi and MCP Cards?

[Srecko Sostar]

42 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

In regards to the second part of Bro. Jackson’s answer, what do you think is presumptuous, arrogant, about claiming to be the Governing Body? Was Jesus arrogant when He claimed to be the Son of God? (No, because he is the Son of God.) It is not arrogant to claim something if you have it. Nor is it arrogant to claim to be what one actually is. Also, claiming that one’s own Congregation is the Congregation Jesus established is not triumphalism or sectarianism even when the person making the claim is mistaken.

If I misunderstood or mischaracterized your statement about this point, then I apologize and please follow up.

You understand the GB member's statement exactly as every faithful JW should; "When GB speaks it is the same as Jesus speaking." This part of understanding applies to the entire JW brotherhood.

How should this same statement by a GB member be understood by the world? Like this; "We (GB) are not the only ones who understand the Bible correctly and we are not the only ones who speak in the name of God. We are part of a broad community of believers in Jesus like many other religious communities."
A few (8) years later, another important new cognizance came that GJ didn't know about at the time, namely, that GB doesn't know (correct answers).

[Juan Rivera]

On 11/28/2023 at 6:28 PM, Many Miles said:

Asserting we must be organized to get things done is a slippery slop, and oftentimes the sentiment has ended up hurting people because too late folks discovered an organization had an underlying operating arrangement different than they were either allowed to or led to believe.

@Many Miles I understand, so let me be clear that I am not advocating any kind of autocracy, on the part of anyone, or any kind of abuse of power. Hierarchy does not in any way justify abuse of those for whom one is responsible. The Scriptures teach and speak of the importance of the strong helping the weak. And that is the purpose of the hierarchy, that those who have God given authority, might serve those entrusted to them. Of course a tyrant does not serve those whom he rules. But tyranny is an abuse of government, not the proper use of government. The true ruler of any society serves that society through his leadership. Hence, when Jesus says that the Apostles should not lord it over them, as the Gentiles do, Jesus is not contrasting leadership in the Kingdom with the way leadership in the state should be (as though civic leaders should not serve those whom they lead). The worldly (fallen) notion of authority is one of domination and tyranny. That’s not the way God has created hierarchy in the family, and in the Congregation. Indeed the leaders of the Congregation have been called to serve the sheep, and that is what they are supposed to do, through their teaching, and their prayers, and their ministry.

On 11/28/2023 at 6:28 PM, Many Miles said:

God is not dependent on humans organizing to get His will done.

I agree that Jehovah was not bound to do it this way. Jehovah, being omnipotent, could have done it other ways. He could have set up His Congregation such that it had no hierarchy, and each man was guided entirely by the holy spirit through his own reading of Scripture. But, that would be entirely unfitting to human nature. We are social beings, and our nature is expressed in societies, as Aristotle explains in his Politics. In addition, Jehovah delights in allowing us to participate in His work, and by setting up a hierarchy, Christ has given men the gift of participating in many unique ways in the extension of His work, with His authorization. The Body is an extension of the Head. The Apostles, elders and overseers have been given the great gift of participating in a very special way in the work of Christ, governing Christ's Congregation, sharing in His ministry, and guarding and providing the interpretation of the content of our faith.

On 11/28/2023 at 6:28 PM, Many Miles said:

Because people organize to get things done does not mean to get things done you have to be organized. Because someone does not organize does not mean they don't care about getting things done; it just means they don't organize….

I'm not anti-organization. I am for rationality and transparency. Any organization whose primary purpose is to help people follow Jesus should be completely transparent and rational in all things. We find these attributes in the early Christian church.

I hear your but, can we be ordered to a common purpose without a hierarchy? That’s like saying that societies and nations can function in an ordered way without a government. This is a common notion among twenty-something anarchists and anarchist leaning libertarians, and hippies. But it is naïve. In reality, throughout the entire history of civilization all societies have understood that without a hierarchy, the immediate result is that each man does what it is right in his own eyes, and the short term result is chaos, which inevitably and shortly leads to tyranny. See Plato’s Republic. No country sends out an army that has no hierarchy. An army has a hierarchy, precisely so that they will work together as one body. And that is why Christ established Apostles in His Congregation, and gave them authority. And it is why they appointed elders and overseers so that His Congregation wouldn’t be left as sheep without a shepherd.

The principle I am pointing out is that in any natural human society, unity requires one leader. Anarchy is loved only by those who haven’t tried it. Even a pure democracy or oligarchy will inevitably have a single functioning leader, even if the person isn’t given any formal title. Nature abhors a leadership vacuum. Pretty much everyone recognizes this.  My point is that it is ad hoc to accept this need for a single visible head in every other human society, whether large or small, at every level of human society, and yet deny it regarding the Congregation, where Christ cannot be the visible Head, because He (being in Heaven) is not now visible to us. As far as I understand, every human society is naturally hierarchical, it has a visible leader, from the family, to the local community, to the state. Any human society must be hierarchical if it is to be unified. That is a natural principle of a human society. It belongs to our human nature to be ordered. An organism (body) is unified in its hierarchy. Meaning the parts of a body are ordered hierarchically, in systems, organs, tissues, and so on. Not every part of the organism is the head according to Paul’s description of the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12) If there were no hierarchy, then the whole would not be a body. Do you agree?

Going back to my earlier point. We can draw from Plato’s Republic that all other things being equal, a unified form of government is a better government, because it is most capable of preserving the unity of the governed. And that form of government that is intrinsically most capable of being unified and preserving unity is that in which the highest political authority belongs to a single individual at a time. This is precisely why countries do not have multiple presidents at the same time, and companies do not have multiple CEOs at the same time, and congregations do not have multiple coordinators of the bodies of elders(circuit overseer) and to a similar degree a chairman/ presiding overseer/ coordinator of body elders at the same time. Both natural societies and man made societies require unified leadership. In Scripture we find that there are heads of families. The Congregation herself is described as “God’s household” (1 Timothy 3:15; Ephesians 2:19), “those related to us in the faith” or “household of the faith”(Galatians 6:10) and the “house of God” (1 Peter 4:17). Hence it would be odd if this family (the Congregation) did not also have a primary head for its government. A body with multiple heads is divided (and potentially divisible) in a way that a body with one head is not. So we should expect there to be a head for the society Christ established. So the fact that we believe that we are the head of our home, that our elders are the head of our congregation, that Biden is the head of our country, and that the CEO of our company is the head of that company. You seem to agree that every other social unit needs a head. So it would be ad hoc to believe that the Congregation does not need a visible head.  

Without a shared hierarchy, what it means to follow Christ and Jehovah will be different for every man, and in many cases, contradictory, in part because who they are, will be different for every man. If you don’t believe me, just look around. Think about all the contradictory claims the world is hearing about Jehovah and Christ and His Congregation, from all the thousands of sects each divided from all the others in matters of doctrine, worship, morals, and practice. Imagine if all Christians were truly united under one Governing Body, all holding and teaching the same faith, sharing all the same worship, and submitting to the same leadership. For example, instead of millions of people hearing Benny Hinn teach that there are nine members of the Trinity, they would hear the teaching of the Father as the only true God.

To clarify an earlier point. There is no contradiction between Christ being the head and leader of the Congregation, and the Governing Body being the head or taking the lead(leaders) of the Congregation, so long as we are very clear that the word head and taking the lead (leader) is being used in two distinct senses. Christ is the Head and leader of the Congregation, because He is the Congregation’s source, life, highest authority, and end. But the Governing Body is the visible representative of Christ, under Christ’s authority but acting in His authority as steward of the Congregation. So the Governing Body is the head and taking the lead (leader) of the Congregation in a different sense than Christ is the Head of the Congregation. The Governing Body is subordinate to Christ. But Witnesses are subordinate to Christ by being subordinate to the Governing Body, as Jesus said, “Whoever listens to you listens to me. And whoever disregards you disregards me also. Moreover, whoever disregards me disregards also Him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16) But if it were true that no one could speak for Christ without undermining Christ’s unique authority, this verse could not be in the Bible. This verse (along with others) shows how Christ’s delegation of authority in His Congregation does not undermine His unique authority, but allows others to participate in it, in a subordinate way. So you can start to see how the Bible speaks at times using negative phrases when in fact is not trying to exclude all others from being considered or described the same way as the subject here. What I am talking about is a different type of application, a different degree of usage. 

[Srecko Sostar]

There is no form of hierarchy without abuse of power. Unless the leader is very gentle and soft and allows everyone everything. But even then, he will have more sympathy for some people, and some will not be to his liking.

[Many Miles]

4 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

In regards to the second part of Bro. Jackson’s answer, what do you think is presumptuous, arrogant, about claiming to be the Governing Body? Was Jesus arrogant when He claimed to be the Son of God? (No, because he is the Son of God.) It is not arrogant to claim something if you have it. Nor is it arrogant to claim to be what one actually is. Also, claiming that one’s own Congregation is the Congregation Jesus established is not triumphalism or sectarianism even when the person making the claim is mistaken.

Here's the testimony you allude to:

Q. And do you see yourselves as Jehovah God's spokespeople on earth?

A. That I think would seem to be quite presumptuous to say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using. The scriptures clearly show that someone can act in harmony with God's spirit in giving comfort and help in the congregations, but if I could just clarify a little, going back to Matthew 24, clearly, Jesus said that in the last days ‐ and Jehovah's Witnesses believe these are the last days ‐ there would be a slave, a group of persons who would have responsibility to care for the spiritual food. So in that respect, we view ourselves as trying to fulfill that role.

Jackson said "we" (read: GB) "view ourselves as trying to fulfill" the role of a slave caring for the spiritual food.

Yoda 101: Do or do not. There is no try.

What is arrogant is the GB enforcing what comes from it under pain of potentially lethal shunning when, according to Jackson, the GB is not actually DOING the work of caring for spiritual food but, rather, are only TRYING to fulfill that role. If the role played by the GB is as you say then it's MEN should be CHRISTLY ENOUGH to say that in full open view, even if it means they are exposed to great personal sacrifice. Isn't that what Jesus did?

To those under its foot, the GB acts like a dictator. To those not under its foot, the GB acts like there's nothing to see here; please just move along and leave us alone (so we can keep doing to our subjects what we want to do to them because this is religion and religion is a protected activity).

 

[Many Miles]

14 hours ago, Thinking said:

If I remember correctly Doubting Thomas still paid a price for his doubt…

No. There was no consequence. Jesus gave Thomas what he needed.

[Many Miles]

3 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

You are right. It is possible by the working of the holy spirit, to have faith in Jehovah, and love for Him, without having heard about Jehovah or Christ.

It's likely that the majority of persons who have ever lived never heard of the man from Nazareth, Jesus. Yet all men have had opportunity to hear and respond to natural law and in doing so manifested fear (respect) for God and righteousness based on that law written in their hearts. What I've offered on this matter is not the other arguments you allude to (which you admit so I don't know why you throw them into a response to me). My offer is no argument from silence. We have the testimony of Peter and his entourage of Cornelius and his household having holy spirit being poured onto them though not worshiping as Judaism and before baptism as Christian. God accepted them just as they stood at the time. Of course, we know they were invited to baptism into Christ. But their worship was already acceptable to God.

[Many Miles]

3 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

I hear your but, can we be ordered to a common purpose without a hierarchy?

Yes.

We all have natural law written in our hearts. Those who choose to follow it don't need a hierarchy telling them what to do. Also, when encountering someone else holding the same common cause there is an equally natural unity, and that unity will maintain despite non-essential differences that may exist.

Folks who want a different system, say a political human government (nation), probably need some form of hierarchy. It's not going to be pretty. Man dominating men leads to ruin. After creating Adam and Eve God gave humans dominion over animals, plants and the earth. He did not given man dominion over men.

Do not put your trust in nobles or in earthling men. Read that again. Are you sure you read that?

[Juan Rivera]

18 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Yes. I’m familiar with those merry-go-rounds. I don’t ride those rides.

Here I have no goal of settling or resolving any disagreement(s). Were that to happen? Fine. But I’m here to share and learn. 

You are right. No dialogue at all is better than imitation dialogue.

Most online debates, whatever the topic, are a waste of time largely because the participants don’t have a strong enough handle on the concepts one needs to master so as to conduct theological debates carefully and fruitfully. They also lack the humility needed to understand that they need to avoid speaking or rather advance beyond their level of expertise. Since you and Tom mentioned Atheism earlier, I’m thinking of Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins as opposed to or in contrast to serious atheist philosophers like Graham Oppy, Quentin Smith, and J. Howard Sobel. 

Just a caveat: I’m not equipped to engage in any sort of historical theology, most especially at an academic level.😂 I am hoping that even what can be done at the simple level can be helpful for providing a non question begging common ground to keep having conversations here on the forum. I see no promising alternative (besides praying really hard) to finding common ground other than what we’ve been doing. So, even if we are going to be over-simplifying, it is better than nothing. Besides, there are enough participants around 😬, that I'm sure they'll correct us. 🙂

I meant it in a positive sense 👀

Thank your for your irenic comments, and also for raising your concerns on several topics here.🙏

[Srecko Sostar]

33 minutes ago, George88 said:

It appears that your perspective is slightly misguided. The crucial aspect isn't merely comprehending scripture, but rather implementing that comprehension into action.

Have you observed any other religions faithfully practicing all that Christ taught his Christian followers? If you believe there are "many," then it seems that there is a discrepancy between what is actually happening in this world and the practices of other Christian sects.

I had to laugh at your idea that only one religion (WTJWorg) has been able to resist (over 140 years) every human weakness while manipulating/using God's Word for the supposed benefit of followers. The GB admits that they are imperfect and that they make "mistakes", while at the same time expecting complete obedience to all the instructions they give to their followers. Any other hierarchical organization is susceptible to corruption, but WTJWorg is not? So George you and millions of your JW brethren, collectively believe in these contradictory ideas, still?

[Srecko Sostar]

45 minutes ago, George88 said:

This notion suggests that every human is born with evil tendencies, and even babies are contrary to God's intentions, haha! 

I'm delighted to witness an endorsement (upvote) of contradiction.

Yes, according to WTJWorg. But is it possible that you forgot the basic things from the Bible study before your baptism? People are born marked by sin. Familiar?
In addition, the idea is older than all of us because it is somehow written in the Bible..."every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood..." - Gen 8:21

lol

[Many Miles]

18 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

Most online debates, whatever the topic, are a waste of time largely because the participants don’t have a strong enough handle on the concepts one needs to master so as to conduct theological debates carefully and fruitfully.

That happens sometimes. When it does the problem is not how strong a person's grasp of concepts is but, rather, whether the person's willingness to learn is greater than their desire to persuade (or protect).

More often than not, the problem I see between persons engaged in a contentious subject is a goal to persuade (or protect) rather than a goal of sharing and learning.

[Juan Rivera]

On 11/30/2023 at 2:41 PM, Many Miles said:

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.

 

Just, noticed it about two days ago. I’ve been meaning to reply to the Thomas post asking for some clarifications. I have something prepared but I’ve been trying to be parsimonious 😆

But before that let me follow up part of your above point with some questions:

“What Is a Denomination? The English word Denomination comes from the Latin word denominare, which means "to name.” You will find that the names of denominations are diverse, reflecting a wide range of distinctive beliefs and practices. 

Denominationalism is a recent development that  proliferated in the US in the nineteenth and twentieth century, and has now been exported from the US all over the world. A denomination is “an association or fellowship of congregations within a religion that have the same beliefs or creed, engage in similar practices, and cooperate with each other to develop and maintain shared enterprises.”

~The Complete Guide to Christian Denominations: Understanding the History, Beliefs, and Differences" by Ron Rhodes. 

Jehovah’s Witnesses seem to define and use the word “denomination” interchangeably with any (including themselves) christian religious community. Be that as it may, since the 'denominational' concept is, less than two hundred years old. I wonder what you think about the early Church; was it, in your opinion, a denomination? If yes, then how did it not exemplify the true church. But if no, then what is the principled difference between what the early Church was and a denomination, and why do you think Jehovah’s Witnesses are a denomination and not what the early Church was? Until the Reformation, almost all Christians believed that Christ established an organization/institution (one hierarchically organized body). Were they all wrong? Was the true Church not exemplified until the plethora of denominations arose after the Reformation? Or the last two hundred years?