• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White Evangelicals are Going Moderate. How Will Conservative Churches Respond?

devildavid said:
None of that even begins to answer it.
Click to expand...
“Hear this, you foolish and senseless people:
They have eyes but cannot see;
They have ears but cannot hear." Jeremiah 5:21
 
devildavid said:
The subject is obedience, not decisions. And sometimes the motivation is not pure or even completely conscious. I don't obey anyone out of love, but I act out of love, which are two very different things. Showing love does not always amount to obedience.
Click to expand...
Obedience can also be action or inaction. I don't think you've put much thought into this.
 
nota bene said:
Obedience can also be action or inaction. I don't think you've put much thought into this.
Click to expand...

I have put sufficient thought into it. Maybe you shouldn't make it personal and just stick to the subject.

Obedience is not simply decision making. It is acting on what someone else demands. This is a very specific basis of action.
 
devildavid said:
I have put sufficient thought into it. Maybe you shouldn't make it personal and just stick to the subject.

Obedience is not simply decision making. It is acting on what someone else demands. This is a very specific basis of action.
Click to expand...
Whatever you say. I'm not doing the willfulness thing tonight.
 
Elvira said:
Hardly...bishops hold no credibility with God or with me...

Should Christians Use Religious Titles?
MUCH is said about a shortage of clergymen in Christendom today, but there is hardly a shortage of religious titles among them. Some titles are simple; others are pretentious. Here are a few examples:
  • Clergyman: “Reverend.”
  • Anglican bishop: “Right Reverend the Lord Bishop.”
  • Roman Catholic bishop (in Italy): “His Excellency, the Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Monsignor.”
  • Cardinal: “His Eminence.”
  • The pope: “Most Holy Father.”
The titles “reverend” and “bishop” have been in use for such a long time that they do not grate on the ear of most church members. But are such titles authorized by the Bible?

“Reverend,” “Bishop,” and “Cardinal”​

In the King James Version, the term “reverend” appears only once, at Psalm 111:9, which says: “Holy and reverend is his name.” Whose name? The next verse says: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.” (Psalm 111:10) In one Catholic version, these two passages read: “Holy and awesome his name. The root of wisdom is the fear of Yahweh [Jehovah].” (The New Jerusalem Bible) Hence, according to God’s Word, godly fear, or reverence, belongs exclusively to Jehovah, the Almighty. Is it correct then to give it to humans?

“If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work,” wrote Paul to Timothy. (1 Timothy 3:1, KJ) However, according to The New Jerusalem Bible, the verse reads: “To want to be a presiding elder is to desire a noble task.” Early Christians with responsible duties were referred to as “elders” and “overseers.” Were those terms used as titles? No.

Such men were never called “Bishop Peter” or “Elder James.” That is why mature Christian men among Jehovah’s Witnesses who serve the congregation as elders never use the term “elder” as a title. The terms “elder” and “overseer” (bishop) apply to those holding a position of authority and responsibility. The terms also describe the qualifications of the men appointed and the work that they do.

What about the title “cardinal”? Is it found in the Bible? No. It is not in any version. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church admits that this title is not Biblical. The New Catholic Encyclopedia explains: “The word is derived from the Latin word cardo meaning ‘hinge,’ and in the words of Pope Eugene IV, ‘as the door of a house turns on its hinges, so on the cardinalate does the Apostolic See, the door of the whole Church, rest and find support.’” This reference work also informs us that “cardinals enjoy the privilege of being directly addressed as ‘Eminence.’” Their status also allows them to wear a red gown and a red cap. Did the apostles have those ‘privileges’? The Bible answers no.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101992565
Click to expand...

For your information, only Anglican Bishops who serve in the House of Lords in England are called "Lord Bishop". It's as much of a political title as a religious title. That's just one of the many things your JW claptrap got wrong. You will never hear an American Bishop referred to as "right reverend Lord Bishop".

The phrase itself sounds absurd because the syntax is wrong. Whoever wrote that is a liar. And you may quote me.

And liars have no credibility with God or me. JWs don't have titles because they don't deserve them. You pass it off as humility, but it comes off as pride.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom