At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
I thought about this for a moment or two before asking how anyone can possily know what all of anything believes. Do Jehovah's and Baptists, and Whatevers have machines that can read their minds? If a guy is sitting in a pew singing along with the hymnsheet how is it possible to know what reservations or innovations he holds in his mind?
Neither Baptists nor Jehovah's Witnesses possess machines that can read minds. However, Jehovah's Witnesses (and many other pseudo-christian, non-christian, and even some christian groups) do, through their organizations, have the machinery to control what goes into the minds of its adherants. That is why ChrisL could answer this thread with "this is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morganite
On the other hand, what did Paul say? (Philippians 2:5) Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus. Unless there were many different ands differing minds in Christ, to follow Him is to have the one mind whoever you are.
Paul did indeed tell the Philippians "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus." However, in the context of the passage we find that Paul was telling the Phillipians to have a humble attitude, as did Christ who "emptied Himself, taking the form of bond servant, being made in the likeness of men." You have taken the verse out of context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morganite
What else did he say? Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions amongst you: but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment, for it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions amongst you.
Here you quote 1 Cor. 1:10-11, but again you quote out of context. This passage speaks of spiritual pride, not individual understanding of scriptual doctrine. The divisions Paul speaks about regard those who claimed; "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and I of Christ." There ought not to be spiritual pride within the body of Christ. This, however, does not address the question at hand; that is does a specific group (in this instance the Jehovah's Witnesses) tell their adherants what they must believe regardless of scriptual teaching? Are their adherants allowed to challenge the groups stated beliefs? Are they allowed to think for themselves?
[QOUTE=Morganite]The Holy Word of God approves, nay, demands, of believers that they "all believe the same thing on all doctrine" Who can find fault with that?[/quote]
I have no idea where your quotation above comes from. Many doctrines, indeed all of the major ones, are clear in scripture, and "christians" are not Christians if they do not hold to them. Other doctrines are not nearly as clear and we find a diversity in doctrinal belief within Christianity. An example might be the doctrine of Eternal Security. My good friend Tony Kroah believes that it is a doctrine "straight from hell." I, on the other hand, believe that it is an important truth of biblical soteriology. I do not find that our difference in doctrinal viewpoint on this issue caused division or contention between Tony and me. We both, as Christians, open-mindedly seek and study to show ourselves approved.
[QOUTE=Morganite]The Holy Word of God approves, nay, demands, of believers that they "all believe the same thing on all doctrine" Who can find fault with that?[/quote]
I have no idea where your quotation above comes from. Many doctrines, indeed all of the major ones, are clear in scripture, and "christians" are not Christians if they do not hold to them. Other doctrines are not nearly as clear and we find a diversity in doctrinal belief within Christianity. An example might be the doctrine of Eternal Security. My good friend Tony Kroah believes that it is a doctrine "straight from hell." I, on the other hand, believe that it is an important truth of biblical soteriology. I do not find that our difference in doctrinal viewpoint on this issue caused division or contention between Tony and me. We both, as Christians, open-mindedly seek and study to show ourselves approved.
Be blessed,
Phil Debenham[/quote]
For your further consideration on internal unity in the Church of Christ.
1 Corinthians 11:1-2
1 ¶ BE ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ.
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you.
Room for change? Manuever? Write your own version?
When Paul said, 'let there be NO divisions among you,' he did not qualify it. "No divisions" gives no elbow room for shuffling around until we find a comfortable place. No divisions.
The quote you cannot find is MORGANITE 1.1.
Here is what Jesus promised ~ John 14:26
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
The all things that the Spirit of God will teach us, will he teach us all different things about the same gospel? Is God the author of confusion?
Ephesians 4:5 ~ One Lord, one faith, one baptism, Plain words. No room for elbow shuffling.
There is more ~ Ephesians 4:11-13 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Unity of the faith?
Jesus again ~ John 17:20-23 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
Jesus prays that the believers will become one as he and hs father are one. Are we to believe that God and Jesus differ in doctrine in the slightest degree? Is one in Tony's corner and the other in yours, or do they agree firmly?
I repeat Paul's words. If we take them at face value, what do they signify?
1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
Out of context? Misunderstood?
Acts 2:42 And [the newly baptized] continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
You might have good reason to write as you do, but I cannot see them. I will take the Word of God as my instructor in what God expects from those who follow him.
What Jeus identified as the "Holy Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father," teaches all things; and brings to the remembrance of the Saints all the instructions of the Master. He guides into all truth, and as in all truth there is unity or harmony, so, it is not comprehensible that those filled by this "Spirit of Truth" will be directed, one towards one door, and another towards a different one.
God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar.
You and I do not disagree unless you consider the example that I gave concerning Tony's and my differing understandings of the doctrine of Eternal Security as a "division." My point is simply this: When Paul used the term division he was not speaking of such things as Tony and my disagreement. He was speaking of real division. The "I am better than you because..." divisions. As for our unity, we (Christians) are all in unity as part of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13), and Paul wants us to know that we should act like it.
That doesn't in any way take away the individuality of the believer. We are not asked to leave our brain behind when we become believers. Consequently we will come to different conclusions about the more obscure doctrines. Some will believe in a pre-tribulational rapture. Others will believe it to be mid-tribulational, or post-tribulational. Still others will believe that no rapture will occur at all. These are not divisions, but just differences in understanding which the Lord will correct in due time. If you believe differently concerning the rapture (and I use this as an example, not as a digretion from the topic), that does not divide us, does it? Are we not still brothers or sisters in Christ?
You have pointed out a bunch of scriptures which I will not comment upon (unless you wish me to). Yes, you took the previous ones out of context and that is never adviseable even if it makes a valid point. A text without the context is a proof-text. By using proof-texts we can make the bible teach anything we want it to teach. Consequently I will challenge anyone who answers me with scripture out of context (and I welcome anyone correcting me in like manner.)
You quoted; "Let God be true and every man a liar," and I couldn't agree more (even though you directed that at me.) I would remind you that when you use God's word out of context you change God's truth to fit yours.
Interestingly, my original question concerning the control of the WTBTS over its adherants was never answered. "Let God be true and every man a liar" strongly fits this situation, for if the bible says one thing and the WTBTS teaches another, Jehovah's Witnesses will believe the WTBTS every time. If they don't, they will find themselves in danger of disfellowship.
I would just like to add that the bible speaks of man made churches and the doctrine of man. There are some churches or institutions that indoctrinate (synonym of brainwash) their congregation. However, there are also those that, as the apostles did, learned by the spirit, for through the spirit we shall learn the Gospel of Christ.
I would just like to add that the bible speaks of man made churches and the doctrine of man. There are some churches or institutions that indoctrinate (synonym of brainwash) their congregation. However, there are also those that, as the apostles did, learned by the spirit, for through the spirit we shall learn the Gospel of Christ.
There is a difference between brainwashing and indoctrinating.
Brainwashing is psychological mnaipulation to change a person;s mindset.
Indoctrination means teaching the doctrine of any church, sect, political party, etc.
Indoctrination is not sinister or harmful.
Brainwashing can be so, depending upon the circumstances.
I would just like to add that the bible speaks of man made churches and the doctrine of man. There are some churches or institutions that indoctrinate (synonym of brainwash) their congregation. However, there are also those that, as the apostles did, learned by the spirit, for through the spirit we shall learn the Gospel of Christ.
Since you do not mention who the "churches or institutions" are, I cannot comment. However, Morganite is correct that "indoctrinate" and "brainwash" are not synonymous.
I'll admit, indoctrination can be good, but if it is excessive it is brainwashing:
brainwash
v 1: persuade completely, often through coercion; "The propaganda brainwashed many people" 2: submit to brainwashing; indoctrinate forcibly
It depends on how it's done. There is a church in the Philippines, which i will not name b/c i have no right to create biases for anyone else on the issue, who manipulates and coerces many of their members through fear and humiliation. I also wouldn't name who these institutions specifically are because you can't typically point to one group as a whole. It could be a minister or pastor or bishop that does it in one location. It's not always in mass.
I'll admit, indoctrination can be good, but if it is excessive it is brainwashing:
brainwash
v 1: persuade completely, often through coercion; "The propaganda brainwashed many people" 2: submit to brainwashing; indoctrinate forcibly
It depends on how it's done. There is a church in the Philippines, which i will not name b/c i have no right to create biases for anyone else on the issue, who manipulates and coerces many of their members through fear and humiliation. I also wouldn't name who these institutions specifically are because you can't typically point to one group as a whole. It could be a minister or pastor or bishop that does it in one location. It's not always in mass.
Your example is too vague to be useful. If you can give further and better particulars so that it can be researched ...... ?
Dictionary definitions are always basic, even in a very good dictionary, but there are many other qualifying factors that need to be taken into account.
I'll admit, indoctrination can be good, but if it is excessive it is brainwashing:
brainwash
v 1: persuade completely, often through coercion; "The propaganda brainwashed many people" 2: submit to brainwashing; indoctrinate forcibly
It depends on how it's done. There is a church in the Philippines, which i will not name b/c i have no right to create biases for anyone else on the issue, who manipulates and coerces many of their members through fear and humiliation. I also wouldn't name who these institutions specifically are because you can't typically point to one group as a whole. It could be a minister or pastor or bishop that does it in one location. It's not always in mass.
Indoctrinate forcibly is far different that just indoctrinate. It is the word "forcibly" that makes it brainwashing. Without that word it is merely teaching.
Linear Mode
