Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
I agree with rayliotta's conclusion.
WN's exposition (first posted by Terry in post #17) was an attempt to close loopholes in the way people speak, not open loopholes big enough for "Lee to drive a Mack truck through." Is WN the first minister on record who began to detail how we humans can use "white lies" and the like to escape from telling the truth. I just don't see how WN's teaching in any way negates the command, "thou shalt not bear false witness," by replacing the Lord's word with some psychological construct.
Now if MikeH finds fault with the whole teaching on the distinctions of "mind, emotion, will," shouldn't that be be a part of another discussion? Introducing these topics has derailed the current discussion. Contrary to what MikeH has said, I see this as just one more serious instance where WL has seriously violated the teachings, not only of the mentor he claims to closely adhere to, but more importantly the Lord's clear instruction in the Bible.
No amount of rational teaching, least of all WN's quoted teaching, can justify what was recorded in the book Fermentation ... That is about as clear a case of "bearing false witness against your neighbor" as has ever occurred in the annals of history! What hypocrisy! And to think this was done by the same folks who appealed for relief from the US Supreme Court for some perceived injustice by another publisher!
|
Yes, what WL has done is fully condemned in the Bible as making a false witness that spreads strife. And, yes, WN's teaching surely does condemn WL's actions.
The issue with WN's teaching here, for me, is not that it doesn't condemn WL because it does. Rather, I find it makes the entire discussion far too complicated and thereby intimidates people from discussing it. Read it again, and ask yourself could you come up to this standard? I don't think so. Therefore it opens a huge loophole for the WL cronies to condemn anyone that speaks up "you are speaking based on your likes, your dislikes, etc..." I think that teachings like this in the LRC make it much more difficult to respond to a false witness being spread. Also it allows the purveyors of this falsehood to claim that anyone critical of their writing is speaking according to emotion, whereas they are speaking according to truth, etc. You could argue that these are all lies, but if someone is a liar then they will speak lies. All WN has accomplished is to confuse the issue which is the environment that liars like. This is not to say that there is anything wrong with his teaching other than it is ineffective and counterproductive. In my experience when you are dealing with a false witness you want to simplify and keep things as simple as possible.
So for example, in the Fermentation... book, what are the key concepts? First, what is rebellion? Is it rebellion for a church to reject a ministry? What authority do elders have? Is it rebellion to exercise their authority?
If you introduce enough confusion no one will be interested in untangling the ball of string, hence the response recently by elders that this is in our "distant past" and the desire to just forget the whole thing. Liars understand this and make every effort to create a tangled ball of string out of their lies. If you are going to untangle it you have to simplify and I don't think WN is helpful at doing that.