Quote:
What puzzles me most of all about all this is the sheer defensiveness that has emerged. My questions were seeking information and enlightenment. In fact, as it turns out, I am receiving both as to what people's reasoning is, but it's certainly not the kind of explanation i was hoping for or expecting.
There is no great defensiveness, Char. You are reading something that is not there.
May I ask what kind of explanation you were hoping for or expecting? Might help to understand what is at issue.
The reason that i assume there is more at issue than just asking us what we mean about 'my lord' or 'our lord', is in your words:
Quote:
All your answers are fine as far as they go. But I think there's more to consider.
More to consider about what?
Quote:
"There is no such thing as "Shelby's Christology"." Actually, there is. Shelby has a unique and distinct understanding of Jesus Christ. Perhaps you share it, perhaps you don't, though you have made it clear that you share some of it, not necessarily because she has it, but just of yourself. The free dictionary on the web defines Christology here
I read the definition, and I must disagree still.
But no need for us to be concerned over minor differences/words. You are correct in that i took it as meaning that it is "shelby's theology" that some/many here are following... rather than Christ, Himself. So if that is not what you meant, then no worries.
Quote:
"it is not because Shelby teaches it to be so. You of course can choose to believe that, or you can just outright reject that. " I am not sure why you say any of that. Never have I said that you believe something because Shelby teaches it to be so, annd so I have never rejected it, so, no thanks, I decline your offer that I may reject something I have no inclination to reject. Tammy, you sound here as though you are in an argument wiith hostile inquisitors on JWN. This is not JWN, and I am not a hostile inquisitor.
I say that because of your words here:
For those who will do as you say, whatever you say, if they're convinced, great for themIt does not matter if you meant me personally or not. I try always to answer personally so that I do not presume to speak for others.
Quote:
Please would you explain where I insulted anyone? None was intended.
Saying that people will do as 'she' says, 'whatever she says'... sounds very similar to those hostile inquisitors that you mentioned. Perhaps without the hostility, but the question and implication sound the same. Since you are aware of that history, then i am sure that you can understand how the same kind of question, said in a different tone, is still the same kind of question. If you can wrap your mind around that tongue twister ; )
But I accept that you did not mean to imply that, and so meant no insult.
Quote:
"Doing as" someone says is not cause and effect.
Well, it is here. Doing as someone says is doing what they tell you to do.
If I am to understand you correctly now, you are saying that you meant that many of us are doing the same thing, and you are questioning the reasoning or motive behind that?
Calling it 'shelby's christology', however, puts the emphasis on our position in regard to her and her lead; rather than on our own understanding/relationship with Christ. Dismissing the witness and faith that we have to Christ. Which is why it sounds as though I am responding to you in the same way as I did/do those who do that elsewhere.
Do you kind of understand what I am trying to explain?
Quote:
"Taking issue" seems to be on your mind. It's really not a phrase in common usage in this country, though I've met others who use it a lot. It seems to be general forum-speak. If by "taking issue" you mean "finding fault with" or "criticising", then no, I was not criticising and found no fault. I am not the only, or the first one, who finds some modes of speech used by Shelby and some others here, though naturally not because Shelby uses them, and rarely encountered elsewhere, and so it was a natural question to ask. Again, the defensiveness of the reaction is remarkable, and somewhat mystifying.
LOL... you seem to be just as defensive as you think others are being. Note that there was no defensiveness on behalf of anyone answering until after the 'doing as Shelby says, whatever she says' comment. I don't think there was, anyway.
By taking issue I do mean having a problem or concern with, yes. The progression of the thread... from asking about 'my lord', to mentioning your concern that some think they are exclusive and over others and that Christ did not come to save them... leads me to think that you perhaps think that 'my lord' indicates this exclusive feeling. But it does not; nor do I think that you or someone else saying 'our' lord denotes a less personal meaning. I would not think about that one way or the other.
Quote:
Yes, noting the consistent employment of the personal possessive pronoun I was musing on its distinctive and unusual use by just a few people here...not, I think, most....and submitted a genuine request for clarification. The resulting...and if I may say so rather paranoid and definitely very defensive response of some reactions... not all, thank you again, justmom!
...is even more puzzling, and merely serves to deepen the oddness.
I believe you got very genuine answers, and the turn in the thread stemmed from other remarks/misunderstandings.
Quote:
Quote:
He is my Lord and your Lord and Our Lord, here for us all. I believe that accepting a teaching that he is here just to save a few who will then go to heaven and sit on thrones is a mistake, not a deliberate human deception on the part of a human, but it's just plain not true.
I think you must be referring to what I wrote about sittiing on thrones? Actually, you're wrong there, Tammy. It would be a month or so ago, but during the course of a thread on the old forum Shelby insisted that this was exactly what Christ's chosen ones, or something like that, I forget her exact words, WOULD be doing, and when I demurred there was a Biblical reference to demonstrate to me that I was wrong. I let it go then, but I haven't forgotten. It'll be there in the records if that thread has come across, but I didn't bookmark it and am not sure when exactly it was. I'd say within the last couple of months, but I'm guessing. I was very surprised, and that's why it made an impression on me.
No, lol... actually, that sitting on thrones and reigning as kings and priests with Christ is the one thing that I agree that many DO accept here, based on Christ's words that refer to those thrones, and then also Paul backs that up, and also in the book of Revelation (they came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years; they will be priests of God and Christ and will reign with him a thousand years, and also Rev 5:10, that mentions kings and priests from every tribe, nation, tongue).
I objected to the jw teaching that some go to heaven, and some remain on earth (two hopes); and that just a few are saved... (though many are called; few are chosen... those are the words of Christ also) But in that kingdom, there are those who are in union with Christ (the great crowd that no one can number) as well as 144000 of Israel (both first resurrection who reign with him a thousand years); then all of Israel; all who have done good to even the least of his brothers - the sheep that HE knows, even though they do not know Him, by what they DO: anyone whose name is written in his book of life (and all of these are in addition to those who belong to him and who he gathered in the first resurrection); as well as anyone the Father may choose to have mercy upon... and He may have mercy upon whomever He chooses.
That is more than a few saved ; )
I did not meant to get into that with you, lol, and I understand that we differ on this matter, and that is no big deal... I just needed to correct the 'few' aspect of what you thought some of us understand, as well as the whole 'heavenly' thing. Those two aspects
are jw in nature. Very exclusive, everyone else dies, and even among them, a portion go to heaven, and the rest are on earth.
Quote:
" No one has taken issue with anyone saying our lord." I didn't say anyone had. I merely asked why, from some people, "my" was used where others would more usually use "our". Simple question. Why all the fuss?
There was no fuss until a certain point. Please forgive the length of the post. Hopefully we are all cleared up now? Or getting closer?
Peace and love to you,
tammy
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
and new for me to know. I swear I learn something new everyday. 
It was as Tammy shared, it 