You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why don't Jehovahs Witnesses dance in worship to God at meetings?
- Thread starter Paul M
- Start date
inlakesh073
New member
The little chuch I attend sometimes i9s very quaint. people are known to get up and dance to the music being played, right in the aisles.
Why are Jehovahs Ws not allowed to dance in praise to their God during meetings?
Is it shameful to dance in worship to your God? Should people be too embarrassed and keep all their spontaneous dance to themselves in their houses where no one else can see them and be offended?
Are there not cases in the Bible where the true worshippers of God danced in praise to him, even playing tamburines and drums? In my church, people come with tamburines and shakers and bongoes. They dance, they raise their hands. They sing out loud.
JWs seem too prudish to praise God in dance. Too stiff. Why do JWs not worship God with dance?
Why are Jehovahs Ws not allowed to dance in praise to their God during meetings?
Is it shameful to dance in worship to your God? Should people be too embarrassed and keep all their spontaneous dance to themselves in their houses where no one else can see them and be offended?
Are there not cases in the Bible where the true worshippers of God danced in praise to him, even playing tamburines and drums? In my church, people come with tamburines and shakers and bongoes. They dance, they raise their hands. They sing out loud.
JWs seem too prudish to praise God in dance. Too stiff. Why do JWs not worship God with dance?
There are now throughout the world three hundred and fifty different denominations or churches, and all of them say the Bible is their guide and teacher. And we'll suppose they are all sincere. Are all of them true churches? This is an impossibility. Truth is one as God is one, and there can be no contradiction. Every man in his senses sees that every one of them cannot be true, for they differ and contradict one another, and cannot, therefore, be all true. The Protestants say the man that reads the Bible right and prayerfully has Truth, and they all say that they read it right.
Let us suppose that here is an Episcopalian minister. He is (just for the sake of argument) a sincere, an honest, a well-meaning and prayerful man. He reads his Bible in a prayerful spirit, and from the Word of the Bible, he says it is clear that there must be bishops. For without bishops there can be no priests, without priests no Sacraments, and without Sacraments no Church. The Presbyterian is a sincere and well meaning man. He reads the Bible also, and deduces that there should be no bishops, but only presbyters. "Here is the Bible," says the Episcopalian; and "here is the Bible to give you a lie," says the Presbyterian. Yet both of them are prayerful and well-meaning men.
Then the Baptist comes in. He is (again for the sake of argument) a well-meaning, honest man, and prayerful also. "Well," says the Baptist, "have you ever been baptized?" "I was," says the Episcopalian, "when I was a baby."
"And so was I," says the Presbyterian, "when I was a baby." "But," says the Baptist, "you are going to Hell as sure as you live."
Next comes the Unitarian, (presumably) well-meaning, honest, and sincere. "Well," says the Unitarian, "allow me to tell you that you are a pack of idolaters. You worship a man for a God who is no God at all." And he gives several texts from the Bible to prove it, while the others are stopping their ears that they may not hear the blasphemies of the Unitarian. And they all contend that they have the true meaning of the Bible.
Next comes the Methodist, and he says, "My friends, have you got any religion at all?" "Of course we have," they say. "Did you ever feel religion," says the Methodist, "the Spirit of God moving within you?" "Nonsense," says the Presbyterian, "we are guided by our reason and judgment." "Well," says the Methodist, "if you have never felt religion, you never had it, and will go to Hell for eternity."
The Universalist next comes in, and hears them threatening one another with eternal hellfire. "Why," says he, "you are a strange set of people. Do you not understand the Word of God? There is no Hell at all. That idea is good enough to scare old women and children," and he proves it from the Bible.
Now comes in the Quaker. He urges them not to quarrel, and advises that they do not baptize at all. He is the sincerest of men (not really, but for argument's sake), and gives the Bible for his faith.
Another comes in and says: "Baptize the men and let the women alone. For the Bible says, 'unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.' So," says he, "the women are all right, but baptize the men."
Next comes in the Shaker, and says he: "You are a presumptuous people. Do you not know that the Bible tells you that you must work out your salvation in fear and trembling, and you do not tremble at all. By brethren, if you want to go to heaven shake, brother, shake!"
have brought together seven or eight denominations, differing one from another, or understanding the Bible in different ways, illustrative of the fruits of private interpretation. What, then, if I brought together the three hundred and fifty different denominations, all taking the Bible for their guide and teaching, and all differing from one another? Are they all right? One says there is a Hell, and another says there is no Hell. Are both right? One says Christ is God; another says He is not. One says they are unessential. One says Baptism is requisite, and another says it is not. Are both true? This is an impossibility, my dear friends; all cannot be true.
Who, then, is true? He that has the true meaning of the Bible, you say. But the Bible does not tell us who that is -- the Bible never settles the quarrel. It is not the teacher.
The Bible, my dear people, is a good book. We Catholics allow that the Bible is the Word of God, the language of inspiration, and every Catholic is exhorted to read the Bible. But good as it is, the Bible, my dear friends, does not explain itself. It is a good book, the Word of God, the language of inspiration. Your understanding of the Bible is not inspired -- for surely you do not pretend to be inspired!
Now, then, what is the teaching of the Church on the subject? The Catholic Church says the Bible is the Word of God, and that God has appointed an authority to give us the true meaning.
Let us suppose that here is an Episcopalian minister. He is (just for the sake of argument) a sincere, an honest, a well-meaning and prayerful man. He reads his Bible in a prayerful spirit, and from the Word of the Bible, he says it is clear that there must be bishops. For without bishops there can be no priests, without priests no Sacraments, and without Sacraments no Church. The Presbyterian is a sincere and well meaning man. He reads the Bible also, and deduces that there should be no bishops, but only presbyters. "Here is the Bible," says the Episcopalian; and "here is the Bible to give you a lie," says the Presbyterian. Yet both of them are prayerful and well-meaning men.
Then the Baptist comes in. He is (again for the sake of argument) a well-meaning, honest man, and prayerful also. "Well," says the Baptist, "have you ever been baptized?" "I was," says the Episcopalian, "when I was a baby."
"And so was I," says the Presbyterian, "when I was a baby." "But," says the Baptist, "you are going to Hell as sure as you live."
Next comes the Unitarian, (presumably) well-meaning, honest, and sincere. "Well," says the Unitarian, "allow me to tell you that you are a pack of idolaters. You worship a man for a God who is no God at all." And he gives several texts from the Bible to prove it, while the others are stopping their ears that they may not hear the blasphemies of the Unitarian. And they all contend that they have the true meaning of the Bible.
Next comes the Methodist, and he says, "My friends, have you got any religion at all?" "Of course we have," they say. "Did you ever feel religion," says the Methodist, "the Spirit of God moving within you?" "Nonsense," says the Presbyterian, "we are guided by our reason and judgment." "Well," says the Methodist, "if you have never felt religion, you never had it, and will go to Hell for eternity."
The Universalist next comes in, and hears them threatening one another with eternal hellfire. "Why," says he, "you are a strange set of people. Do you not understand the Word of God? There is no Hell at all. That idea is good enough to scare old women and children," and he proves it from the Bible.
Now comes in the Quaker. He urges them not to quarrel, and advises that they do not baptize at all. He is the sincerest of men (not really, but for argument's sake), and gives the Bible for his faith.
Another comes in and says: "Baptize the men and let the women alone. For the Bible says, 'unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.' So," says he, "the women are all right, but baptize the men."
Next comes in the Shaker, and says he: "You are a presumptuous people. Do you not know that the Bible tells you that you must work out your salvation in fear and trembling, and you do not tremble at all. By brethren, if you want to go to heaven shake, brother, shake!"
have brought together seven or eight denominations, differing one from another, or understanding the Bible in different ways, illustrative of the fruits of private interpretation. What, then, if I brought together the three hundred and fifty different denominations, all taking the Bible for their guide and teaching, and all differing from one another? Are they all right? One says there is a Hell, and another says there is no Hell. Are both right? One says Christ is God; another says He is not. One says they are unessential. One says Baptism is requisite, and another says it is not. Are both true? This is an impossibility, my dear friends; all cannot be true.
Who, then, is true? He that has the true meaning of the Bible, you say. But the Bible does not tell us who that is -- the Bible never settles the quarrel. It is not the teacher.
The Bible, my dear people, is a good book. We Catholics allow that the Bible is the Word of God, the language of inspiration, and every Catholic is exhorted to read the Bible. But good as it is, the Bible, my dear friends, does not explain itself. It is a good book, the Word of God, the language of inspiration. Your understanding of the Bible is not inspired -- for surely you do not pretend to be inspired!
Now, then, what is the teaching of the Church on the subject? The Catholic Church says the Bible is the Word of God, and that God has appointed an authority to give us the true meaning.