View Single Post
Old 03-07-2019, 12:58 PM   #4
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,169
Default Re: Pledge of Allegiance to Witness Lee

There are so many things wrong with this letter. Start with the fact that it even exists.

But let's delineate.

1. "all differences", as in "We repudiate all differences" - what does that mean? That we all have to dye our hair the same color? What differences fall under "all" and what do not? Last time I checked, "all" was a pretty comprehensive word.

Does the angel Michael have any difference whatsoever from Gabriel? If none, how then are they called by different names? Do we really think that no one could tell them apart? Do we really think the angels are all "absolutely identical, with no differences whatsoever", per the RecV footnotes? John doesn't give us this us this impression in his revelation from Patmos. He clearly sees differences.

As in heaven, so on earth - if the citizens of heaven have differences, then how can we not have them? "Star differs from star in glory". Shouldn't we be able to differ? Paul was minister to the uncircumcision, Peter to the circumcision - who gets to say if this is a difference that makes a difference, or not? Or is it just "differences in purpose"? Again, who defines purpose? Or differences in language used? Who then defines terminology?

It's all about control. The so-called wise master builder (WMB) gets to determine who is "different" and who is not. It's entirely based on the subjective whims of the Deputy God. The WMB gets to decide if your differences are noteworthy or not. Good luck. Hopefully he doesn't notice you. Try to blend in, okay? Don't stick out. You might be called "different".

What if the 12 foundation stones of the New Jerusalem repudiated all differences? They might as well be cinder blocks.

2. "Identical", as in "be identical". See above. Completely absurd. Do you think the Peruvians are identical with the Turks? Are they supposed to be? Why then does scripture speak of "every tribe and tongue and nation" if they are all amalgamated into some homogenous, bland ministry smoothie? Who wants to live thus? Nobody but WL and his deluded few. Did Jesus die for our redemption, then rise for us to live, merely for us to act like unwitted robots? Identical? Really? This is so clearly not divine!

3. "Giants". Doesn't WL realize how awful this word is, spiritually and biblically? Did he not read the Bible? Then why use it thus?

A. The Giants devoured people. Awful.

B. If you presume to be "great", however you use your terms, you are the "least". This is Spirituality 101 as taught by Jesus and repeated and clearly practiced in the NT and after. Those who are "great" in this age are not so great on the other side. Whether they call themselves "giants" or some other term is beside the presumption of the self-anointing - but that they call themselves "giants" is just obtuse.

WL often used clunky terminology. "Spiritual giants" is one of his worst. And the signees used it, because he used it. Did nobody stir uneasily when such terms were tossed about so loosely, and such presumptions were made so blandly? I would.
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'
aron is offline   Reply With Quote