A question for Jehovah's Witnesses. Please answer.

by rassillon 9 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  rassillon

  I know there are some of us lurking.

  I am still in good standing so you must be truthful with me no spiritual warfare with me.

  It is almost an automatic response that it is not fair to bring up old literature and old teachings when questioning the WT authority and stand.

  I present that since the WT still uses references to early years and bases their authority and choseness on events that happend in those early years and the justification is the differences in what they taught and what nominal christianity taught. Based on these facts and the fact that if you disprove their claims to be chosen at that time they have no basis for authority or claiming a chosen status.

  Do you still agree that it is not fair to discuss this old literature?

  If you answer yes, when were they chosen by God and what proof do you have for that. You may not use any references to literature and times I am not allowed to reference.

  If you please....

  -r
• 

  Finally-Free

  I've always wondered why it's perfectly acceptable for Jehovah's Witnesses to bring up the past mistakes of other religions, yet when someone brings up their past mistakes they are very quick to cry "foul". They also do the same with current mistakes; just read the new tract. They talk about clergy being involved in child molestation scandals, yet fail to mention their own scandals.

  W
• 

  dedpoet

  I've always wondered why it's perfectly acceptable for Jehovah's Witnesses to bring up the past mistakes of other religions, yet when someone brings up their past mistakes they are very quick to cry "foul".

  Because their mistakes were due to the light not shining as brightly then as it does now. "Present truth" is all that really matters, so "old light", like "this generation shall by no means pass away", or "Jehovah and Jesus are the superior authorities in Rom 13", weren't mistakes, it was just that jah wasn't quite ready to reveal the full truth to them then.

  Other religions always had it wrong, because jah gave up on them in 1918, and chose the wtbts as his sole representatives on earth, so any non - jw religions mistakes are just that, they never had any light in the first place, new or old.

  From the look of a few topics on here lately, there seems to be even more "new light" about to be revealed.

  dedpoet, of the light stopped shining for me years ago class
• 

  DannyBloem

  well, I may be in good standing with them, but they are not with me, but like to answer anyway

  it depends I think how you use the old quotes. If you use it to prove that they use to believe or how thngs have changes, or like what strange things they believed in at the moment they claim they are choocen, then it is perfectly legitimate to use the quotes

  how else would you prove that, or make your point about that?

  if you want to discuss current believes that you should limit quotes until the 60's. That is what they do.

  Danny
• 

  cognizant dissident

  Yes, when I was having discussions with my husband about how the society has contradicted itself, I told him I could prove it using only quotes from the magazines. I asked him if he would believe it if I showed him from the society's own words. He said, "only if you show me using literature after 1960". Why is that I asked him? Does everything the society wrote that has been proven incorrect magically not count if it was written before 1960? Who assigns this arbitrary cut off date?

  Cog

  ps. It didnt' really matter since there have been plenty of changes that don't make any sense post 1960.
• 

  Jeffro

  I am still in good standing so you must be truthful with me no spiritual warfare with me.

  LOL. In the real world (the one that JWs don't seem to realise they still live in), we don't call it "spiritual warfare", we just call it "lying".
• 

  jayhawk1

  if you want to discuss current believes that you should limit quotes until the 60's.

  He said, "only if you show me using literature after 1960". Why is that I asked him? Does everything the society wrote that has been proven incorrect magically not count if it was written before 1960? Who assigns this arbitrary cut off date?

  That is well and good except for those pesky "watch out for 1975" articles. If I was still a JW, I wouldn't debate anything written before 1980, but oops again there's that pesky generation is about to end thing. Scratch that... If I was still a JW, I wouldn't debate anything written before 1996, just to be safe.
• 

  looking_glass

  Jay - just to be on the safe side they need to just say ... I will not debate anything at all unless I am the only one allowed to (mis)use quotes. That would solve the whole debate.

  As for the 1960 thing. What's the deal. According to JWs old law is good law. They clearly use old literature. They love to pull out Taze's crap or the Judge's famous words. Like as if they are quoting from Lincoln or Kennedy.
• 

  jayhawk1

  I am going to just throw a dart in the dark and try to answer that question. Keep in mind, this is an uneducated guess at best.

  Why is the cut-off date circa 1960? Look at the current make-up of the Governing Body. Most of these guys was 30-ish in 1960 and likely involved in the writing dept or similar capacity at the time. They know what they said, or at least they think they still remember, so that word is inspired. Everything before that was done by somebody else, therefore, not as inspired as their own writings.

  Another possiblility for the unofficial 1960 thing...

  Wasn't the Elder arrangement started in the latter part of that decade? Maybe that might have some sort of application to this unofficial rule.

  As far as C.T.R. and Da Judge being quoted, how much of that stuff does the average JW see? I hardly saw much when I was an active member during the 1990's. Has there been some recent digging up of the past? I haven't touched a freshly printed Watchtower mag or book in 6 years.
• 

  nonamegiven

  Personally, I think it's crap that they don't want up to bring up anything, no matter how old. Remember, these words are supposed to be inspired by god so he can't be wrong. Plus, they do go back and quote older literature when it suits them. This was one of those "red flags" that I noticed at a relatively young age.