This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AuthorityTam (talk | contribs) at 22:44, 31 January 2012 (→Parable of the Faithful Servant: Please drop the extraneous nonsense.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:44, 31 January 2012 by AuthorityTam (talk | contribs) (→Parable of the Faithful Servant: Please drop the extraneous nonsense.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Christianity: Witnesses C‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 Archives |
Bible Student View "Out of Scope"?
Not quite sure I understand the reasoning on this one. The development of the doctrine is addressed, and it leads in to what the JWs believe today (as the interpretation and application have evolved over the decades). But why is noting that the Bible Students still hold to the original interpretation "out of scope"? Are we suggesting that this article is wholly about the Jehovah's Witnesses and any other views belong in a separate article? If so that seems excessive to me. But I'm interested to see what others think about this. Pastorrussell (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- The current Bible Student view is out of scope of the paragraph from which I removed it. If the 'faithful and discreet slave' is currently a primary teaching of Bible Students, it should be discussed in more detail in a separate paragraph, Or even in its own section, which would also require some refactoring of the existing material.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Hoekema
Today's injections of Calvinist minister and theologian Anthony A. Hoekema (...) were removed, as there is no added value in referencing him here and Hoekema's works are unabashedly anti-JW and anti-Watchtower.. Hoekema himself uses his dedication page thusly:
- "May the Lord use this book for the advancement of His kingdom and for the glory of His name. May He particularly use it to lead many from the errors of the Watchtower to the truth as it is in Christ."
--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- That would be the same Anthony Hoekema who was approvingly quoted by The Watchtower on July 15, 1997? Please don't inflict your prejudices on Misplaced Pages. Hoekema is widely cited by other authors of JW studies, including Andrew Holden, W.C. Stevenson and Robert Crompton. Misplaced Pages articles depend on reliable secondary sources and it is counter-productive to delete citations to such works; it is particularly irrational behavior when, as in this case, the statements the author makes are non-controversial and non-judgmental and accurately reflect the statements and doctrines of the Watch Tower Society. BlackCab (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Parable of the Faithful Servant
An editor recently nominated for deletion the article Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation (see here). While I believe that topic is notable, I opined that that topic could be discussed sufficiently at 'Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs'.
Similarly, I believe this topic (in this article) could be sufficiently discussed at 'Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs' and/or 'Parable of the Faithful Servant'.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. The Parable of the Faithful Servant is a brief, non-denominational discussion of the passage of scripture. Faithful and discreet slave refers solely to the Jehovah's Witness application of it, which has a complexity and history that warrants a standalone article. The article details:
- (a) the claimed role of this "class" of people supposedly foreshadowed by the brief parable;
- (b) the WTS explanations of how this group existed in an unbroken line from Jesus' day before emerging as the Watch Tower Society;
- (c) the changes in belief of the identity of this servant, from "the church" to the long-held belief that it was Charles Taze Russell alone, and then back to the anointed remnant;
- (d) the conflicting information from the WTS on when the "slave class" was given its commission; and
- (e) a critical view of the doctrine by someone who was apparently part of that "class", pointing out a major logical inconsistency in the teaching and conjecture on the reason for its continued use by the Jehovah's Witnesses.
- Despite the recent puzzling efforts of a JW editor, much of that information is sourced to secondary sources, indicating its notability as a subject of its own. Before proceeding to an AfD, if that's the proposal, I'd like to see a suggestion of which parts of those five major elements should be deleted from an abbreviated, merged version. BlackCab (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- It seems odd for the editor to refer to "a JW editor". I haven't seen any comments on this matter from anyone identifying himself as a JW. By contrast, of course, editor BlackCab aka LTSally has repeatedly identified himself as a former JW, and declared himself "sickened" by the "incestuous community" of JWs. By contrast, I am interested in the best interests of the Misplaced Pages community. I find it discouraging to see editors who openly insult and plainly campaign for or against a particular religious faith. Please drop the extraneous nonsense.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- It seems odd for the editor to refer to "a JW editor". I haven't seen any comments on this matter from anyone identifying himself as a JW. By contrast, of course, editor BlackCab aka LTSally has repeatedly identified himself as a former JW, and declared himself "sickened" by the "incestuous community" of JWs. By contrast, I am interested in the best interests of the Misplaced Pages community. I find it discouraging to see editors who openly insult and plainly campaign for or against a particular religious faith. Please drop the extraneous nonsense.