|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Sermon question time? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apothecus Member (Idle past 2436 days) Posts: 275 From: CA USA Joined: |
Hey Coyote.
Which one, if any, has the inside track on the truth, Truth, TRUTH, or TRVTH? Subjectively, the faithful will all aver that their own dogma is the "most" true. Although no one faith can objectively and legitimately claim this, it doesn't stop them from attempting to do so based on unverifiable "miracles", "revelation", "religious experiences" and the like. Personally, I prefer to view these reasons for belief with skepticism.
And how would one determine this empirically? There's the rub, eh? Have a good one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aware Wolf Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 156 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
Peg writes: my experience is that at JW meetings, the bible is always used to back up any statement made by the speaker I've never been to a JW meeting, so it could just be my ignorance, but it seems to me like just having Bibles on hand to check references wouldn't be enough. Don't the speakers have to interpret the passages at least to some extent in order to say anything of interest? And as soon as they interpret, there is the possibility of an incorrect interpretation, isn't there? Is there never any disagreement between the speaker and any member of the audience? ABE: whoops, just realized I'm repeating Hooah's objection. Peg, don't feel you need to respond to both of us. Edited by Aware Wolf, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6
|
Hi killinghurts,
I teach in my Church from the Bible and College level course books, using power point. Anyone can ask a question at any time during the lesson. They have decided not to ask questions around 12:00 because I will answer the question before they get to go home. In the evening services we go home when they get through asking questions. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
They ever ask you anything about lightning?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
In a Catholic Mass the sermon is the Homily.
Its not appropriate to interupt it with questions. The priest spends the week researching and preparing it, and its based off a lot of stuff from the church, and not just the priest's own interpretations. There's plenty of time after the mass to discuss the homily with the priest or anybody, if you have any questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apothecus Member (Idle past 2436 days) Posts: 275 From: CA USA Joined: |
But if you are getting no question time, except for after the sermon (when the pastor is ready to leave, as are you, so time is limited), then all you are getting is how HE interperates each passage, no? It seems as if you're under the impression that if a certain church service were to be offered under a Q&A format, that you'd get something other than his or her personal interpretation. I assure you, at least in my experience, that this would never be the case. Even after the service ends and you're in a more accepted venue in which to pose certain questions or comments, then still:
all you are getting is how HE interperates each passage, no? I'm sure the main reason why questions aren't asked during the sermon is due to the fact that most people aren't there for that type of thing. Sure, it may allow someone to clarify this or that point, but I'd think the risk that it'd turn into an all-out debate is something most preachers would like to avoid, at least until a later time. But make no mistake: you'd still be getting his personal interpretations (or those of the church) whether in some hypothetical Q&A sermon or 6 hours later. "My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4955 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
AwareWolf writes: but it seems to me like just having Bibles on hand to check references wouldn't be enough. Don't the speakers have to interpret the passages at least to some extent in order to say anything of interest? And as soon as they interpret, there is the possibility of an incorrect interpretation, isn't there? there is always the possiblity that a speaker may say something that is incorrect, of course. But i should point out that JW meetings are a bit different to most church services. We have 5 meetings each week and only 1 of those meetings is where a brother will give a public bible discourse where the audience will listen and not participate. He works off an outline provided by the WT Society and this outline provides a theme & scriptures to look up in harmony with the theme. The only way he would make an error is if he deviated from his talk outline. ( the only other meeting we have where the audience listens without commenting is the Memorial of Christs death which is a once a year celebration) All the other meetings are audience participation meetings. The speaker will ask the questions and the audience will give the answers. Now i have heard audience members give a wrong answer (myself included) and the speaker has corrected the wrong answer given and given an explaination why. Other audience members can make comments and even ask questions at this time. In my 17 years, i have never heard a bible talk that was out of harmony with any of the literiture provided by the WT society....we accept it as true because it is provided to us with scriptural references and solid research that we can find ourselves from secular sources... and we are encouraged to do so because all JW's are bible students. We are expected to study the bible and are given the resources to do so. We all hold to the same teaching no matter where we are in the world. As an example, if i travel to India tomorrow, and go to the sunday meeting at the local kingdom hall over there, I will know exactly what material will be presented, and I will be able to prepare my watchtower magazine and participate in the meeting with the rest of the congregation. The same goes for the midweek meetings...i can go with my material from australia and they will be studying the same material over in Iceland.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
You, Buz, and ICANT (to name a few) shown all of us how differently the bible can be interperated. Each one of you has a different view. Now throw in slevesque, iano, etc... So you can't say that people can take it at face value when you know each pastor interperates the scripture he reads you. He explains it his way. Finally we agree on something, Hooah. For example, JWs don't take things like hell fire and the messianic kingdom on earth literally. They choose liberally what they want to metaphorize and what they want to literalize. There are indeed many diverse interpretations of scripture out there. Imo, the safe and wise policy is to keep it literal unless the context indicates otherwise. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Peg writes: He works off an outline provided by the WT Society and this outline provides a theme & scriptures to look up in harmony with the theme. This is perhaps where JWs need to question sermon outlines. Imo, it's not good policy for some central think tank to indoctrinate local churches on interpretations of scripture in sermons and lessons. Indigenous churches should think for themselves for interpretation of scripture. This was the big problem relative to the brutal Dark Ages and continuses to be with Roman Catholicism, though many parishes are wising up to thinking for themselves in our times. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4955 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
HI Buzsaw
Buzsaw writes: This is perhaps where JWs need to question sermon outlines. Imo, it's not good policy for some central think tank to indoctrinate local churches on interpretations of scripture in sermons and lessons. well i'd kind of have to disagree with you on that point I think the fact that many church's allow their priests free reign, has caused more problems for christianity because different ideas are taught and christianity is not consistent. Its what has led to the many thousands of different denominations with differing views on the scriptures. If you think about the early christians, they recieved their teachings and directions from one governing body...a group made up of the apostles and 'older men' of the jerusalem congregation. The account in Acts 15 shows that this was the case.
22Then the apostles and the older men together with the whole congregation favored sending chosen men from among them to Antioch along with Paul and Bar′na‧bas, namely, Judas who was called Bar′sab‧bas and Silas, leading men among the brothers; 23and by their hand they wrote: The apostles and the older men, brothers, to those brothers in Antioch and Syria and Ci‧li′cia who are from the nations: Greetings! 24Since we have heard that some from among us have caused YOU trouble with speeches, trying to subvert YOUR souls, although we did not give them any instructions, 25we have come to a unanimous accord and have favored choosing men to send to YOU together with our loved ones, Bar′na‧bas and Paul, 26men that have delivered up their souls for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27We are therefore dispatching Judas and Silas, that they also may report the same things by word. 28For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU! So to say that it is not good to have centralized teaching is not really in harmony with how the early christian congregation functioned. I like to know where the teachings come from...i think the source is important
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Peg writes: So to say that it is not good to have centralized teaching is not really in harmony with how the early christian congregation functioned. I like to know where the teachings come from...i think the source is important Hi Peg The difference is that the centralized teaching in the apostalic churches of the NT was the apostles themselves who inspiringly wrote the doctrines, i.e. the source. Now we have that apostalic centralized source just as the early churches had. It should, to this day, remain the holy scriptures. If more would let that apply, pastors preaching the sermons would be accountable to the scripture alone and not a centralized source dictated by the hierarchy of the source. It was the RCC that once enforced that none should be allowed to handle or interpret scripture aside from the popes and bishops. It must be done by the hierarchy. Unfortunately, during the Dark Ages the RCC had enough power and influence that thousands were brutally tortured and massacred simply because they chose to interpret scripture themselves. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4955 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
hi again,
Buzsaw writes: The difference is that the centralized teaching in the apostalic churches of the NT was the apostles themselves who inspiringly wrote the doctrines, i.e. the source. but not only the apostles wrote the NT...the letter of Jude was not written by an apostle and yet there it is in our canon as an inspired writing and its completely in harmony with the writings of the apostles. The same is true of the many letters written by Paul...he was not one of Jesus 12 apostles but an 'apostle to the nations' Then there is Luke who was not one of Jesus 12 Apostles...he became a christian after the death of Jesus and wrote two books (the gospel and Acts) And then we know that some of the 12 apostles did not write any books at all. In fact, the first-century governing body were not only apostles, but were other Christian diciples who were appointed as elders in the Jerusalem congregation. (Acts 15:2)
Buzsaw writes: Now we have that apostalic centralized source just as the early churches had. It should, to this day, remain the holy scriptures. If more would let that apply, pastors preaching the sermons would be accountable to the scripture alone and not a centralized source dictated by the hierarchy of the source. this is exactly the same senario as in the first century church. If you wanted to learn about christianity, you had to go to that centralized body. You couldnt learn about christianity anywhere else.But i certainly wouldnt say that today you could go along to any old church and learn the scriptures...i dont beleive they are all teaching the scriptures. Buzsaw writes: It was the RCC that once enforced that none should be allowed to handle or interpret scripture aside from the popes and bishops. It must be done by the hierarchy. Unfortunately, during the Dark Ages the RCC had enough power and influence that thousands were brutally tortured and massacred simply because they chose to interpret scripture themselves. yes im well aware of their atrocities and it is quite clear to any reasonable person that they are not a group who are influenced by Gods spirit, nor do they dont apply the scriptures they claim to teach. however, you must be interpreting the scriptures from somewhere, yes? Where do you get your doctrines from? Do you make them up yourself and if you do, how do you know your interpretation is correct? And if you dont make them up yourself, you must be teaching from the source where you learnt the scriptures from...What is your souce? Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Peg writes: however, you must be interpreting the scriptures from somewhere, yes? Where do you get your doctrines from? Do you make them up yourself and if you do, how do you know your interpretation is correct? And if you dont make them up yourself, you must be teaching from the source where you learnt the scriptures from...What is your souce? Hi Peg. I've come to be pretty much a one book man relative to source. That works quite well if you keep it literal unless text strongly suggests otherwise. In my early years after becoming a Christian I was reading every book I could get my hands on relative to the prophecies. There came a point when I realized that the writers of the books were doing the same and parroting what sounded good to someone way back like Dr Scoffield, who's notes were in a large majority of the old KJ Bibles. Only after I learned the art of corroborating all scripture relative to a given topic did things begin to make sense and harmonize nicely. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 827 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Finally we agree on something, Hooah. I suppose. I would just like to point out that I was in no way saying your version is correct and Peg is wrong. So, I wouldn't be thrilled agreeing with me on this if I were you, Buz. "Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws." -Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
hooah writes: I suppose. I would just like to point out that I was in no way saying your version is correct and Peg is wrong. I was responding to this which you said in that message:
So you can't say that people can take it at face value when you know each pastor interperates the scripture he reads you. He explains it his way. I was not touting my version. I was simply agreeing with your premise. Your reaction has been rather non-concilitory and uncivil. How does that make for productive dialog?
hooah writes: So, I wouldn't be thrilled agreeing with me on this if I were you, Buz. Acknowledging that I agreed on something with you was not meant to thrill you, Hooah. It was more of a Christian, if you will, conciliatory gesture so as to maintain civility in the thread. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024