'Pope' Arguments in Witness Mouths

by metatron 8 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  metatron

  It's getting more and more enjoyable listening to
  Witnesses defend the ever feared and worshiped
  ORGANIZATION because they now have to adopt the same
  arguments that Christendom's been using for centuries.

  "The brothers in charge are imperfect, but it's still
  Jehovah's organization!".

  Just like: "Sure, Popes had illegitimate kids, started
  wars, and lied but it's still the Holy Catholic Church!"

  Maybe the Catholics can file a 'friend of the court'
  brief to help the Watchtower with their molestation
  woes - wouldn't that be nice? I can remember Jimmy Swaggart
  crying about how sorry he was - but he made clear in his
  published literature that he was still appointed by God and
  still in charge (and still needed your $)!

  Oh, it's gonna be fun - and the amazing, fantastic thing is that
  the general deception of Witnesses is so strong, so complete,
  that not a single one of them will ever catch on that the
  QUALIFICATION for BEING a "faithful and discreet" slave is that

  you have to be faithful AND discreet!

  metatron (Priests -and elders- brothers together, covering up
  molested kids, kinda brings a tear to your eye, doesn't
  it?)
• 

  waiting

  Howdy,

  Being raised a Roman Catholic, I believe this is how the argument went:

  "The Pope is an imperfect man and speaks as one. However, when he speaks in an (sp?)insiglia (major christian document), he is speaking for God, and is considered in that speech infallible."

  The thought being - pope is a man - but at some point, he can't be disputed. Period.

  The WTBTS puts a little different spin on it, but the results are the same. The Catholics never put so much in print as the WTBTS. It's just a way of life, and Catholics try to get on with living.

  waiting
• 

  voltaire

  Very good observation. The WTS uses a very similar argument. They want you to treat what they say as infallible, but to overlook any mistakes on their part. I think this is perhaps the MOST disingenuous(sp?) doctrine of the society. They claim they aren't infallible but desire the authority that is due an infallible organization!
• 

  waiting

  In reality, what the jw's are doing now isn't different than what people of other religions have always done.

  Overlook the errors, lies, sins, of the governing body and keep praying to God. It's a necessary thing to do if one belongs to a relgious organization. Why? Because if we belong to a political organization, a corporation, a club, etc., - we expect our leaders, our co-workers to act in such a way, at least occasionally.

  But we fell for the line - Jehovah's Witnesses are different. We have a clean organization, a spiritual Paradise on Earth. A Direct Channel with God through the Faithful and Discreet Slave Class - and we're the Only Ones who will survive Armageddon.

  Can't get any better than that, eh? Too bad we were screwed. We never saw it coming.

  What jw's say about the Governing Body is no different than what Catholics say about their priests.
• 

  MacHislopp

  Hello Metatron,

  a good point indeed.

  But you should remember that WTS consider itself:; God's
  organisation on the earth and we have to

  " .. refuse to let human imperfections erode our
  loyalty to Jehovah's organisation.."(w.97 8/1 13-14)

  To waiting:

  ""The Pope is an imperfect man and speaks as one. However, when he speaks in an (sp?)insiglia (major christian document), he is speaking for God, and is considered in that speech infallible."

  The word is "ENCICLICA " an official written document released,
  usually after a "Council ".

  The other word is " EX-CATHEDRA " which signify that when the Pope speaks, in his authority as the "Sovereign Pontiff ", his teaching,
  by a decree in the 1870' , is considered - infallible -.

  Anyhow, as a liar is quite in a good company, with many other
  religious societies, corporations, Inc. etc.etc.

  Greetings, J.C.MacHislopp
• 

  Maximus

  Mac,

  Permit a small clarification.

  The Catholic Church has not trotted out the doctrine of papal infallibility (when Il Papa speaks "ex cathedra" or officially 'from the throne') for a VERY long time now. Seems as though the light got brighter for them earlier than the Watchtower governing body!

  Encyclicals from the Vatican have often been startling in recent years. Way back I published the Pope's encyclical about Biblical research, which essentially was an attack on narrow fundamentalism. (Yes.) What he wrote was that the Bible can best be understood by an appreciation of cultural background, milieu, language of the day, and so on. Essentially he said, Let the chips fall where they may, without forcing a previously held opinion--again an attack on the circular reasoning the Society embraces. I may get around to a post on that again--very revealing.

  Ex JWs generally are stunned when they read modern Catholic scholarship. Case in point: The New Jerome Bible Commentary. The New Jerome Bible Handbook is a much smaller version and has these fine encyclicals in its overview of textual and higher criticism; well worth reading.

  Mac, I really appreciate your posts. Incidentally, in the previous thread again some time back on that congressional hearing, I posted some questions raised in connection with what the Society had to do to get there in the first place. It's called politics; well, maybe appealing to Caesar sounds a little better, right?

  At any rate, Metatron is right on target as always. For years the org's chief enemy was the Catholic Church, for the very reason it had an ecclesiastical body that interpreted truth and dictated doctrine. Today compare excommunication with the pain of enforced shunning!

  Maximus
• 

  waiting

  Howdy Max,

  Today compare excommunication with the pain of enforced shunning!

  1. I had 18 years in the Roman Catholic Church. I never knew anyone, or heard of anyone, getting excommunicated. It was a threat - but nobody took it seriously.

  2. To my understanding, a person can (or could have been) excommunicated - which actually meant they *weren't in a state of grace.* And that meant, they couldn't take any of the sacraments, like communion, get married in a Catholic ceremony, etc. It probably meant that they would go to Hell (if there is one) if they died in that state.

  I am assuming that these views might not be up-to-date.

  waiting
• 

  MacHislopp

  Hello Waiting,

  excellent points, about ex-communication!

  Rarely applied expecially in the last 90 years, and only

  for very serious "sins" i.e. being openly agaist the RC Church!

  Nothing like the 35/40.ooo disfellowhipped every year by the

  WTS "..judicial committees ".

  Greetings, J.C.MacHislopp

  P.S. Max, excellent comments, well thought and

  ...logically presented!
• 

  waiting

  P.S. Max, excellent comments, well thought and

  ...logically presented!

  Awwwww, you're just saying that because he complimented you!

  I always enjoy your posts too, ya' know.

  waiting