Lefty,
You said:
You have a lot of fun on this forum, don't you comment. Are you sure that those distrubing sensations that you're having aren't merely the pangs of constipation? Seriously, you haven't any justification for making a statement such as you just did. The WTS IS concerned with the "truth", otherwise it would take the easy way out and salute the flag like most other churches do.
My response:
If the WTS was concerned with the truth as its FIRST PRIORITY, individuals within the congregation would feel free to hold and discuss with others their own ideas.
Imagine a member of the congregation who said in 1980: "The generation referred to in Jesus' in Matthew 24 is not the generation of 1914, but the entire mass of wicked humanity who perceive the sign of Christ's presence but fail to respond appropriately."
What would have happened to that person if he told others in the congregation about his sincere belief and provided the same "Scriptural support" for the belief that the Society now insists all must accept as of 1995?
Answer: He would have been disfellowshipped.
However, if we are to accept the Society's reasoning, that belief was JUST AS TRUE in 1980 as it is today.
Therefore, the Society *is* more concerned with its enforced "unity" than with truth. I could cite plenty of other examples.
Your example about the flag falls apart when you consider that the Society doesn't adopt the same hard line toward the wearing of wedding rings, yet another object of pagan origin. The Society has its own selective notion of purity.
And why are wedding rings acceptable, while flag saluting, birthday parties and mistletoe wreaths are unacceptable? Probably, if you dug deep enough, it's because the wife of some Governing Body member said: "Oh, what a shame it would be if we couldn't wear our pretty wedding rings!"
You said:
quote]Meanwhile, when other churches make "adjustments" (what a nice euphemism!), it's an indication that they are part of false religion.[/quote]
Do YOU even know what you are talking about? Can you site an example to prove it?
My response:
Yes, I do. I suggest you read the April 22, 1970 issue of Awake!, starting with the article "Changes that Disturb People." This issue goes on at length about how shocking it is that the Catholic Church has changed its outlook on eating meat on Friday, the worship of saints, clerical celibacy and so on.
Here are a couple of crucial paragraphs:
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?"
Good question, O Anonymous Colombian Businessman! Jehovah's Witnesses might well say: "Just ten years ago we Witnesses had the absolute truth, we put all our faith in the notions that the generation of 1914 would not die out before the end of the system of things, that alternative service was unacceptable, that taking hemoglobin was unacceptable, and on and on."
(And if you want to argue that these beliefs were not so strongly held, why would congregation members be disfellowshipped for not adhering to them, except to maintain that enforced "unity"?)
In fact, adhering to these beliefs would have a FAR GREATER impact on a Witness's life than the Catholic beliefs I cited above.
So, when such important beliefs are changed, I ask: "How can I have confidence in anything?"
The Society is infantile in its unwillingness to accept the same criticism it inflicts upon other religions.
comment
