Defending WT changing Doctrines

by stillajwexelder 58 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  stillajwexelder

  OK - dont shout at me -but I know that Archaeologists will change a theory based on a new find. So will Historains. So will Scientists. I mean we no longer teach Wave Mechanics -it is now Quantum Mechanics and so on. In chemistry in 1975 I was taught that HSO3 with a positive charge was present in concentrated sulfuric acid and was involved in the reaction mechanism of sulfonation. Now I know that it is SO3.

  So what is so wrong with the WTS doing some research and changing a doctrine.? It is the same in other disciplines.
• 

  Abandoned

  So what is so wrong with the WTS doing some research and changing a doctrine.? It is the same in other disciplines.

  You're right, that pesky rule about a women being OK if she's too scared to scream while being raped needed some updating...
• 

  AuldSoul

  Other disciplines don't...

  (1) ...claim to be the only channel for communication from Sciencia, the all-knowing Goddess of science who communicates only through a small segment of elect scientists, the modern-day priests of Sciencia.

  (2) ...claim that anyone who does not believe Sciencia communicates only with this small group of elect are disfellowshipped and no other scientists may ever speak to the offender again.

  I am sure there are many more.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  cognizant dissident

  My husband asked a similiar question when I complained to him about the society's changing doctrines. He said scientists and doctors don't have all the answers either. They also change what they believe in over time. I agreed with him that is true. That's the beauty of science though. Scientists don't claim to have all the answers. Scientists don't claim those answers came from God. Scientists don't threaten all who don't believe their information with shunning and imminent destruction. When new information is discovered that proves old theories were wrong or misguided, then they are able to discard the old theories and follow the new best practice.

  The society gave up the right to do those things when they said they and only they have all "the truth". All those who don't accept this truth are false prophets or wicked. They claim an ifallibility and divine right that scientist don't claim. Therefore, they are held to a higher standard and lose all credibility when they are proved wrong.

  Cog
• 

  brunnhilde

  "So what is so wrong with the WTS doing some research and changing a doctrine.? It is the same in other disciplines." How often have the other disciplines asked someone to die on principle, and then changed their minds arbitrarily (without added information or evidence) that made that death unnecessary?
• 

  OUTLAW

  Lets see how well that works in practice.."Armageddon will be here by 1975..Ooopp`s!!..We got new light in 1976....."The generation of 1914 will not pass away"..Oooop`s the bastards are dropping like flys.The generation of 1914 is dying just to make the WBT$ LOOK BAD.....If the WBT$ actually did any research they woudn`t make retarted decisions.....If WBT$ had any dicipline they wouldn`t break thier own rules on a regular basis...OUTLAW
• 

  nvrgnbk

  Fantastic thread Stilla,

  Science JWism

  1. Based on observation of reality 1. Based on unique revelation

  2. Peer-reviewed, like it or not 2."We've received your question, and it is duly ignored"
• 

  J-ex-W

  OK - dont shout at me -but I know that Archaeologists will change a theory based on a new find. So will Historains. So will Scientists. I mean we no longer teach Wave Mechanics -it is now Quantum Mechanics and so on. In chemistry in 1975 I was taught that HSO3 with a positive charge was present in concentrated sulfuric acid and was involved in the reaction mechanism of sulfonation. Now I know that it is SO3.

  So what is so wrong with the WTS doing some research and changing a doctrine.? It is the same in other disciplines.

  Nothing wrong with it, as long as they're not claiming to be 'inspired' and in possession of the TRUTH of GOD'S mind, and viewpoint, on the matter...every step of the way, no matter what discovery or change they make along the way...................... But, Oh wait----------- The WTS does that........
• 

  proplog2

  nvrgnbk stated the big one: "no peer review"

  ooops. Forgot. Their only peers are the other members of the Governing Body.
• 

  IsaacJS2

  I've considered this question.

  When I was researching the Creation Book, I felt the Society's complaint about changing scientific conclusions was just as hypocritical. That is, where the Creation Book tries to undermine our confidence in science by pointing out how many of their own ideas they've shot down over the years, I kept thinking of the "light gets brighter" doctrine and how similar they are. Why can't the light get brighter for science as well? Especially since scientists don't claim to be "magically" inspired by outside forces.

  NOTE: I already know creationists and evolutionists disagree. That's fine. Please, let's not argue. I'm only citing my impressions of the Society's argument in favor of creationism. Please don't hit or yell.

  Anyway, that got me thinking more about it. The thing is that the Society claims divine inspiration from Jesus, except it seems that Jesus...for some reason I can't understand...has to be all sneaky about it. Even they admit they don't get phone calls from Heaven and that he never pops in and calls them all in for a board meeting, right? So how, exactly, is he guiding them toward this "new light?" Why is he being so coy? And how can they prove--even to themselves--that they are being divinely inspired in any way? I could claim to be divinely inspired and start a cult if I wanted. "Obey me or the god of phlegm will slime you to death!" But that wouldn't make it true.

  What everybody else said about holding them to a higher standard goes too. If everyone teaching false wisdom are false Christians, then that means that the WT was false Christianity the day before they revealed their new light. And the new light never stops. So when in their history, if ever, will they fulfill this requirement of being truly Christian? They are holding themselves, and so-called Christendom, to a double standard. They go way too easy on themselves for a group professing divine inspiration, yet treat everyone else with the same skepticism they should be treating themselves. After all, you'd think they would at least need to prove to themselves that they are divinely inspired, wouldn't you?

  IsaacJ