by GBSJG 32 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
God did not tell those who felt they had the closer 'truth' to show hatred toward those who had lesser amounts of 'truth'.Jw's allow their own imperfection of belief, but hate those others who have the same. They reject the body of Christ in such action.
I like that. Too bad the average JW will say "We don't hate those in Christendom, we just cannot
tolerate the darkness with the light, they need to see that their doctrine is wrong and ours is right."
You have to use the tactic they do when preaching: waiting for a vulnerabilty. Sooner or later every JW experiences an injustice so deep from the the org.
or made possible by the org. that they will question whether it is indded God's Organization. THAT"S the moment to take advantage.
Zack-----
To a JW who believes in the infallibility of scripture, Zico's argument is excellent indeed.
(As a side remark, what was the point in making an infallible book if you can only understand it through a fallible channel? It's a bit like purifying water at great cost and then pouring it in dirty glasses...)
From a different perspective, I'd say the major difference between the early Christians and JWs is not in the "mistakes," but in their "correction" or the lack thereof. In the first century there may have been "mistakes" of all kinds but there was no central Christian authority to correct any of them. As a result we have a lot of diverging and opposite viewpoints in the NT but no overruling "warning" to the reader as to who (of Matthew, Paul, James or John for instance) is right.
After almost 130 years of false prophecy, someone claims that the Watchtower makes fewer mistakes?
What kind of idiots are they? ( nevermind, I used to be one). Suppose the local cable company promised to
come to your house for installation across 130 years??!! The Watchtower has taken people's money and offered
false promises to a degree that dwarfs any modern fraud like Enron.
metatron
Sooner or later every JW experiences an injustice so deep from the the org.or made possible by the org. that they will question whether it is indded God's Organization. THAT"S the moment to take advantage.
True, that is usually the enabler. However, I know of individuals who became inactive over such things, never did any research on the org, and are now back in full swing. It is much harder to convince these folks. They already learned how to live with their cognitive dissonance.
j
You might want to consider discussing whether the Bible teaches a doctrine of "new light" at all.
The verse they (and many other religions) overuse as support for such a view is Proverbs 4:18. In paragraph context, it is plainly not referring to dogma of any religion, much less one that would be due to pop up out of Millerite/Adventism roots in the late 1800s.
While Galatians 1:6-9 strips anyone, including Paul himself and even angels, of any legitimacy to a claim of bringing "new light." According to Paul, anyone who does so—even a member of the 1st Century Governing Body (i.e. Paul, according to their doctrine)—deserved to be accursed.
Galatians 1:6-9 — I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
With the exception that "grace" is perverted into "undeserved kindness", the NWT conveys the same meaning on every point.
Once these Galatian Gentiles (Gaul was an entire province, not just one congregation) received the "gospel of Christ" they apparently had all they needed to be a Christian.
Here's another line you might find helpful at least in firming up your own mind, if you still have confidence in the Bible:
1 John 2:26-29 — These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.
The context of 1 John 2:26-29 argues strongly that John had some reason to remind these people that they needed no one to be teaching them, other than the holy spirit. The anointing did not teach through the Governing Body in Jerusalem. It taught each anointed individual directly.
And that is exactly what John recorded Jesus saying the Spirit would do in John chapters 4; 7; 14; and 16. To me, the question becomes why did the anointed in 1919 need anyone to be teaching them?
According to John, if they need someone to teach them, they aren't anointed.
Hope it helps.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
Dear GSBJG,
You may want to tell them that ANY organization that claims to be a prophet and claims to speak in God's name should be held accountable for their actions. They have put themselves right next to Jehovah God himself and have put them between the rank and file and Jesus. I don't know any other organization that does that! Also the ones that Jehovah used to make proclaimations and who he used to direct his people were speaking in his name and all they said would happen did happen. Unlike today when you look back at the history of things taught and how none of them ever happened and the teachings were discarded.
Sincerely,
Lady Liberty
I have pasted a good article on this that is easy to show the parallels between what it discusses and the WTS (e.g. blood transfusions).
*** g70 4/22 8-10 Changes That Disturb People ***
Changes That Disturb People
THE churches are in rapid decline. Even in the United States, where religion still enjoys perhaps the greatest popularity, nearly three out of four persons polled said that it is losing influence. Why is there this decline in religion?
One of the reasons is that people are disturbed by what is happening in their churches. Yes, millions of persons have been shocked to learn that things they were taught as being vital for salvation are now considered by their church to be wrong. Have you, too, felt discouragement, or even despair, because of what is happening in your church? A businessman in Medellín, Colombia, expressed the effect the changes have had on many.
“Tell me,” he asked, “how can I have confidence in anything? How can I believe in the Bible, in God, or have faith? Just ten years ago we Catholics had the absolute truth, we put all our faith in this. Now the pope and our priests are telling us this is not the way to believe any more, but we are to believe ‘new things.’ How do I know the ‘new things’ will be the truth in five years?”What are some of these changes that disturb people?
Should Meat Be Eaten on Friday?
FOR centuries Catholics abstained from eating meat on Fridays. It was a Church law. Many sincerely believed it was a law of Almighty God. But now this has changed.
The fact is that the meatless-Friday rule was made an obligation only some 1,100 years ago. Pope Nicholas I (858-867) was the one who put it into effect. And how vital was it considered that Catholics abide by this rule?
A publication that bears the Catholic imprimatur, indicating approval, states: “The Catholic Church says that it is a mortal sin for a Catholic to eat meat on Friday knowingly and wilfully, without a sufficiently grave and excusing reason.” It adds: The “Church says that if a man dies in unrepented mortal sin, he will go to hell.”—Radio Replies, Rumble and Carty (1938).
Thus the devout carefully avoided eating meat on Fridays. They sincerely believed that failure to obey could lead to their eternal punishment in a fiery hell.
But then, early in 1966, Pope Paul VI authorized local Church officials to modify this abstinence requirement in their countries as they saw fit. The pope was acting in line with recommendations made at the recently completed Second Vatican Council. Thus, in one country after another, meatless Fridays were virtually abolished—in France, Canada, Italy, Mexico, the United States, and so on.
The Effect
The effect upon many devout Catholics has been devastating. “All these years I thought it was a sin to eat meat,” explained a housewife in the midwestern United States. “Now I suddenly find out it isn’t a sin. That’s hard to understand.”
If you are a Catholic, can you understand how a practice that was considered by the Church a “mortal sin” can suddenly be approved? if it was a sin five years ago, why is it not today? Many Catholics cannot understand.
When a woman in Canada was asked how she felt about the changes in her church, she replied: “I don’t know. Maybe you can tell me. What are they going to do with all those people sent to hell for eating meat on Friday?”Not just a few Catholics have asked such questions. The change in teaching has shaken their confidence in the Church. Would you not feel the same way if what you had always been taught to be vital for salvation was suddenly considered unnecessary? Would you not be inclined to question other teachings of your church also?The Catholic Church, however, has not completely changed its position on Friday meat abstinence. Even now Catholics are still required to abstain from eating meat on “Good Friday.” Also, in some places they must not eat meat on Fridays during the Lenten season.
But why is it considered wrong to eat meat on “Good Friday,” but permissible to do so on other Fridays of the year? It has caused thinking persons to wonder.
Many persons have begun to ask questions regarding the basis for this teaching, as well as about other Church teachings. And what especially disturbs them is that they have not received satisfying answers.
What Becomes EvidentThe inability of the Church to explain its position Scripturally makes evident an important fact: The Catholic Church has not based its teachings upon what God’s Word says. Rather, it has founded many of its beliefs and practices on the unstable traditions of men.This is obviously true with regard to Friday meat abstinence. For, look as you may, nowhere in the Bible will you find that Christians were ever instructed to refrain from eating meat on any Friday of the year, or on any other day. It is not a requirement of God. In fact, the Catholic edition of the Revised Standard Version Bible says that enjoining or commanding “abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving” is an evidence of a departure from the faith.—1 Tim. 4:1-4.
Thus, many truth-seekers are having their eyes opened to see that the Catholic Church has not been holding strictly to God’s Word. And they are wondering whether any religion that does not do so is worthy of their confidence and support.
Shadow,
Good to see you posting, fella! That first article sent shivers up my spine. GREAT find. I don't remember having read that one before.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
(As a side remark, what was the point in making an infallible book if you can only understand it
through a fallible channel? It's a bit like purifying water at great cost and then pouring it in dirty glasses...)
Take that excellent comment OUT of the parenthesis. Magnify it.
Why is God's perfect Word, explained through trial and error? The scriptures say they are complete,
but the Watchtower says you need help understanding them. Why would the help be so
error-ridden?
