What degree of accuracy and consistency do you feel it's fair to hold today's religions to?

by The_Present_Truth 11 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • The_Present_Truth
    The_Present_Truth

    As most of us know, if you look at most any religion today you might see bit of good and bits of bad, bits of truth and bits of falsehood, some Christian teachings, some pagan practices & origins. Doesn't seem to matter where you look - the JW's included. So I find myself asking myself, "To what degree of accuracy and consistency is it fair to hold today's religions to?". Have you ever had that thought run through your mind? Are we overly critical of them (religions) now that we've seen the "light" in regards to the bill of goods we'd been sold by the WTBTS and now we just can't/won't believe anything? I find it near impossible to assign my beliefs to any of them that I've looked at. I mean, I have a friend that's a Mormon/ LDS and he's a super guy - as is his family, but the LDS beliefs! Wow ... have you checked them out? Beliefs in cities, peoples and events (battles for instance) that there is no other historical record of other than the Book of Mormon and their other publications? C'mon. Then there's the secret handshakes (sacred handshakes - for real) and "magic underwear" (protective undergarments). Nice people, don't get me wrong. But even when I try to buy into their beliefs I just can't. Some of it I could I can see myself buying and that all the other weird stuff and inconsistencies show up right behind the logical stuff and I'm back to square one.

    The next question it prompts is, "How accurate do you think a loving god requires "US" to get it?" I mean if being off by a bit is ok for one group, then why not another, and if another, then why not all?

    As most of us here know, just because you believe something- it doesn't mean you've got it right.

    Appreciate your thoughts.

    The_Present_Truth

  • Ding
    Ding

    A lot may depend on what the leaders of the religion claim for themselves.

    If the leaders claim (as the WTS does) that they are God's sole channel of communication and that their organization is the only way of salvation, they ought to be held to the highest standard possible.

  • agonus
    agonus

    Anbody can claim to have SOME "truth", it's hard not to find some small grains of truth in just about any religion.

    But when you claim to have The Truth (and the ONLY "truth"), as the dubs do? You better back that up with some serious evidence, pardner. Dubs literally cut people off by shunning those who no longer believe as they do. Is it unfair to hold them to a rigid standard/criteria for their truth claims? I don't think so. They're willing not only to die for their beliefs, but potentially destroy the lives of others who no longer believe.

  • agonus
    agonus

    On the second question, a God of love would most likely not withhold that love from you... unless he's got a really, really good reason. Matters of faith are just that... things we believe but, by definition, CANNOT know for sure. Why would God deny you salvation (an expression of love) for being wrong about something that HE knows YOU can't know? Does that sound like a really good reason to deny you love?

  • The_Present_Truth
    The_Present_Truth

    And I guess that's kind of my point Agonus, if we're incapable of knowing for sure that what we're subscribing to is the absolute accurate truth, then how could God punish the majority of followers of today's religions? They're likely as blinded as we were.

    I do agree that it's, at a minimum, fair to hold them to the same standards that they set for themselves and others. Unfortunately when they live by the sword, they often times die by the sword. The JW's especially.

    And yes, in the case of JW's or the WTBTS, when they claim they are "God's ONE chosen channel of communication" ...that sets the bar pretty darn high.

    I guess my fear is that I may start holding my faith to the same standards that I hold matters of science - needing proof, continuity, etc. (Terry would be salivating over this statement.) And often times I can see the point that Terry makes in his writings. Where I find myself leaning today though is a firm belief in God, but a God who doesn't have an earthly organization. I lean towards the notion that man has it all wrong.

    I'll say this, Joseph Smith of the Mormons/LDS said something in one of his writings that resonated with me. As he listened in on and looked around at all the religious bickering and fighting he said, "Surely God cannot be the author of all this confusion". (Should be a close paraphrase.) I find myself thinking the same thing many days.

  • MarcusScriptus
    MarcusScriptus

    Degree of accuracy based on what I was exposed to by the Watchtower? Can someone hold my head while I vomit? Thanks...

    Actually I’ve come to learn that there's nothing about other religions or philosophies from the Jehovah’s Witnesses that is fully correct, reliably accurate, or even smart to keep holding onto anymore. NADA.

    Enlightened by the Watchtower? Or Just Listening to the Un-Educated?

    For example, take Christmas—which is “right around the corner” (like Armageddon always is, supposedly). It’s not a celebration of Jesus’ birthday. It’s an eight-day commemoration of Christ’s nativity—and there’s a big difference. On a birthday one celebrates not only the anniversary of one’s birth but that a person has become one year older. The solemnity of the Nativity is the way Christians start their new year on their liturgical (religious calendar) which draws on the natural seasons of the northern hemisphere as a form of yearly catechesis. There's none of the connections with a birthday celebration associated with it.

    What about the “paganism” mixed in? Well first, it should be “heathenism,” not Paganism. To refer to some of these practices as Paganism insults modern-day Pagans (some of my friends are practicing Pagans) because a lot of these customs do not originate with them but with other religions.

    In the 1980s several significant studies that the Watchtower ignored but the rest of Christendom and academia has heavily impressed upon since is that the historical record of the origin of many Roman Catholic and Orthodox practices has been adulterated by North American anti-Catholicism. While there is likely some connection with some non-religious customs in the celebration of Christmas in some lands, the extent had been overly distorted. To illustrate, the date of December 25 th was actually chosen because of its connection to the Spring equinox and the Easter date. The Christian liturgists deliberately chose a date that would assist in the education of catechumens as well as mark the darkest and coldest of days to contrast with the marked differences in sunlight and temperature that could be witnessed on Easter (another eight-day celebration). While some have theorized that it was the Saturnalia the Roman Church was attempting to replace, that has only been a religious theory modern critics have been using to try to fill in gaps in history.

    Secular Customs Not the Same as Religious Customs

    Also missing from the Watchtower’s constant attacks on “customs” associated with Christmas is that no country celebrates the Nativity with the same customs that the Witnesses generally criticize as connected to “paganism.” The use of holly, a Yule log, a Christmas tree, and similar items are generally North American or European. They don’t represent other areas of the world where, for example, it is the Nativity scene that is generally set up, not a Christmas tree. In some places holly, Yule logs, etc. are never used since they don’t exist. Fireworks are more commonly used in the southern hemisphere to mark the days of Christmas. And, interestingly, none of these customs are connected to the religious celebration itself. They are locally observed, and have more to do with secular history than anything else.

    Not a Birthday but the Celebration of a Birth—And Not Even a “Day”

    In fact, Christmas is the name of the celebration in North America and the UK, but in the rest of the world it is called the Nativity of the Lord (which is in fact the way it is titled on all liturgical calendars). The name “Christmas” has to do with the first celebration of Mass (Christ’s Mass or Christian Mass) to mark the Nativity which can be held as early as after sundown on December 24, what most secular people call Christmas Eve, but known as the Vigil of the Nativity to religious observers. (In Christianity, especially in Catholicism, holy days are considered Sabbaths, regardless of the day they land on, and are thus observed from sundown to sundown.)

    Because the next festival, known as Epiphany, where the Magi come and visit Christ (likely at the time he was 2 years old—and yes the churches know this), occurs four days later, the festivities associated with the Nativity are carried on for 12 days—thus the Twelve Days of Christmas.

    Things the Witnesses don’t know or don’t get right because they aren’t educated in religion:

    1. Christmas is not a birthday. It’s not even a “day.” It’s a twelve-day observance marking the coming of Christ to earth and the new liturgical year/countdown to Easter—the most festival on the liturgical calendar. (Candidates for baptism generally begin their catechesis this time of year, also. They end it on Easter, getting baptized at its vigil celebration.)

    2. The secular customs associated with Christmas differ from country to country and are not “official” in a religious sense with Christian customs. Most of the official customs, such as Advent candles, the Christ candle, the naming of the coming year after either Matthew, Mark, or Luke (not John—totally different subject), are generally unknown to the secular or non-religious public. Interestingly very little to nothing is every mentioned about these by the Witnesses.

    3. The main decoration and image associated with Christmas celebration worldwide is the Nativity scene, not the Christmas tree. It is the center for family gatherings and kept up from Christmas Eve until a day popularly known as Candlemas, which occurs in February. The Nativity scene was introduced by St. Francis of Assisi.

    4. The date of the first day of Christmas has a specific connection to catechesis of the catechumens and the Easter Vigil date, not to specifically replace a heathen festival. It was chosen on the basis of its number of days and weeks until Easter baptism was held and to contrast (in the north) with the season of Spring. While there is some evidence to suggest the Christians wanted to overtake Saturnalia (change the date from the birth day of the sun to the day the “Son” was born in the flesh), this has never been objectively established even in ancient church records. Often the Roman Catholics proudly recorded when they switched something “pagan” and sanctified it to Christian use, but this is very unclear in this instance which is considered by academics, especially since the mid 1980s, to make the Saturnalia connection suspect.

    Now this is just Christmas. I've said nothing about the countless other things the Witness belie their claim of "understanding" with.

  • The_Present_Truth
    The_Present_Truth

    Marcus,

    I don't recall stating it as you did:

    Degree of accuracy based on what I was exposed to by the Watchtower? Can someone hold my head while I vomit? Thanks...

    That's absolutely NOT what I was inferring since I no longer use the Watchtower or the JW's as my baseline for determining truth or consistency. Instead, I'd like to think that we can use the Bible as a historical record along with other secular records to account for what happened in history, what didn't, cities that may have existed, the people that may have lived there, battles that may have occurred, artifacts such as swords and the like that would have been found to validate it, etc. Take for instance the Mormons/LDS and there claims that certain cities existed - yet there's absolutely no record or evidence of them being here. Or that they claim these enormous battles took place in upstate NY and yet there hasn't been one relic found to validate that - even by their own admission. Or that Native Americans are descendants of the nation of Israel - yet DNA studies conclusively show no link between Native Americans and those originating from Israel. Etc, etc.....

    Or how are we supposed to feel about religions that may give "incidental worship" to Satan by allowing, encouraging, or winking at celebrating morphed holidays that desensitize a person's conscience to things that may be displeasing to God? Halloween comes to mind - Demons, vampires, etc .... sure, Halloween's roots didn't start there, yet it's an obvious, visible part of the celebration today. I can't imagine for a second that Jesus would endorse that holiday or participate in it himself. That's the kind of baseline I'm suggesting. What would Jesus do? At least if you claim to be Christian. If you're Jewish then you obviously wouldn't use that baseline.

    The scripture about light and darkness not mixing ,..nor truth with untruth ... continually pops in my mind. That's straight from the scriptures and not the Watchtower. So is it too "critical" to hold today's religions to that test? And I mean all religions and beliefs - not picking on any one group or holiday per say.

    Thanks for sharing all that about Christmas Marcus - even though that wasn't what I was getting at with my question. It was an interesting read.

  • MarcusScriptus
    MarcusScriptus

    The reason you don't recall saying that is because you didn't.

    I was speaking about the rule you were using.

    My point was that Watchtower reasoning can stick with us and make deeper inroads than we realize. If we are not diligent we might not see where we are using techniques we've unknowingly taken from the Watchtower to make examination of things on the outside. The comments aren't about you personally, their directed at the Governing Body that is not well-versed on any subject they take up, whether its theism or atheism or anything else. They are wrong about it all. And sometimes they do so much damage to our reasoning abilities that it's hard to shake off.

    Examples, Examples

    You admit that you use the Bible as a historical record. Christianity doesn't do that. It is considered a religious interpretation of history, not history in the strictest sense. It cannot be made to fit precisely with historical secular records because it was never intended to. That is an Adventist belief that the Watchtower adopted.

    What's the harm in using such a view? It ignores the fact that various ancient genres were used to record religious lessons like fable, poetry, myth, and legend to carry sacred truths away from actual events. What's in the Scriptural record in not always meant to be historical the same way Christ's parables aren't meant to be considered actual events.

    If Jesus could make up characters to teach truths, can't God inspire writers to do the same at other times? If it's the same God, why not?

    Making it all historical truly makes the Bible sound silly. You mean there was a literal conversation between a rich man burning in Hades with a man being hugged by Abraham in the afterlife?

    Incidental Worship--Who Taught You That? Sound Like the Watchtower to Me

    Halloween, for example, did originate with the Christians. It is the Eve or Vigil of All Hallows or All Saints Day. It is meant to be seen as a demonstration of how the dead are victorious and how demons and the like are so powerless they are like playthings to us.

    As it was done for centuries in Ireland, at the vigil or eve Mass for All Hallows it is still a custom for the children to parade behind the priest at Mass dressed as sainted martyrs. Some of these getups can be, well, strange if you are not familiar with your saints. For example the St. Lucy costume is that of a young girl whose eyes were pulled out by Romans which she now carries on a platter. Other sainted martyrs are represented likewise, with some carrying their heads, others burnt to a crisp, etc. Of course, not all the children are dressed so graphically as in a horror movie of today--in fact it is never exactly gruesome--but when this was carried out, particularly in Ireland, the children went out afterwards going door-to-door requesting treats from their neighbors, still in costume of the dead. By then it was already night on All Hallows Eve.

    Eventually the custom also included dressing up as the things that heathens were afraid of, such as demons, ghosts, and witches, because Roman Catholics believe they cannot be harmed by such things and they have no fear of them. This not only frightened many of the heathens to some respect who were quite superstitious of making demons and spirits objects of folly, it was often seen as a "trick" to get the householder to offer goodies like the Christians. The custom of using heathen religious lanterns as literal lanterns to see where they were going (named "jack o'lantern" after the vernacular title for will o'the wisp that occurs in marshes) was another insult to heathens.

    When famine struck Ireland and many of them came to America to settle in the 1800s, they brought these customs with them (by the way, Halloween is really celebrated only in the USA; it isn't an official custom of any religion). The customs have been assimilated into secular culture where people who are not Catholic also join in and add some other things that normally are frightening to them.

    Today all people, of all beliefs, religious or not, for just one night a year laugh at what scares them. Death and evil and superstition are turned into folly for all. And according to Catholic view, Christ has made these things subject to even human beings--if not now at least in eternity when Christians rule with Christ. Dressing like the dead shows a belief in the resurrection, and making heathen objects of terror into playthings shows they are really nothing to Christ. They have no power over Christians.

    I do happen to be Jewish, by the way. But my family many centuries ago became Catholic, and while most remain Catholic today, some of us are not. There are also a good number of atheists too. I was the only one who became a JW in my teens and early 20s.

    However, I do know my religious history extremely well because after leaving the Watchtower I formally studied in religious academia under scholars in order to prepare me and get qualified for a job in the religious world--which I am not going into for the moment.

    What I have learned is that even the manner you are using is still Watchtower based. Sure, we don't mix light and darkness even in Judaism. But when God conquers something we often make fun of what that thing was before--like David did when he slew the giant. Heads of slaughtered enemies were paraded on sticks and made fun of.

    Irish Christians did the same thing with false heathen symbols associated with those who believed Samhain was a real god. The Irish Christians did things with these symbols that were supposed to bring that false god's wrath upon them for doing so. Did it? No. And today we all know that Samhain isn't real. When was the last time you heard of people geting stuck down by Samhain for making folly with his symbols as mere Halloween party favors? That was the point the Irish Catholics were making with their customs.

    Even the story of Noah and Flood is actually teasing the Babylonians about their account in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Who wants to worship the kind of gods that would bring a flood upon mankind that they describe? While Noah was real, and there likely was a big flood in ancient Mesopotamia, the Babylonian account of a world flood from an uncaring god is foolish--and it is interpolated into the Noachin tale to show how silly these heathens were. It is the same with Roman Catholics and Halloween--take what the heathens believe in and trample it underfoot to show how silly it all is.

    Only when the Puritans came to the US did superstition cause these Christians to avoid anything that "smacked" of heathenism. This fear eventually climaxed into the Salem Witch Hunts and trials which themselves ended that religion. But its superstitions were revived in the US with the restorationist movements like Adventism and Mormonism.

    Don't Be a Duck if You're No Longer In the Flock

    While it is difficult for someone who may not have been exposed to the amount of history and religious teaching I have been--and most people don't have the opportunity to actually be employed in the religious world among its leaders and great halls of study and learning as I have--what I say can sound like nonsense.

    Let that be. And really, you don’t need all that education to make good use of your mind. But the point should come across that you won't heal properly if you use anything--anything at all as learned by the Watchtower. Even if they are right about something, it is always an incomplete understanding at best.

    Just as you misunderstood my comment at the beginning, so you might not see how you are still grasping onto Watchtower-invented lines of reasoning to develop your views.

    Don’t be so quick to make judgments on religion, gods, atheists, agnostics, anyone at all—especially if you were once a Jehovah’s Witness. It takes a lot before we can make sense of ourselves once we leave. Besides, you have to love people for who they are, not in spite of something about their convictions you don’t appreciate or disapprove of. If you do that, then you don’t really love who they are in the first place, do you?

    But if it walks like a duck, and acts like a duck, and reasons with a Bible like a duck, I don't care if it claims to no longer be a duck...

  • wantingtruth
    wantingtruth

    As most of us know, if you look at most any religion today you might see bit of good and bits of bad, bits of truth and bits of falsehood, some Christian teachings, some pagan practices & origins. Doesn't seem to matter where you look - the JW's included. So I find myself asking myself, "To what degree of accuracy and consistency is it fair to hold today's religions to?".

    Religion is in fact "false worship" - not 100% lie , but its variable percentage (of lie) in religion make it fallible before God

    God requires "worship with spirit and with truth"

    Religion is an imitation of that ( more or less imitation )

    This unnumbered forms of worshiping (religions) are forming Babylon the great

    "Today" this Babylon is exposed and shortly it will reach its end

    What comes then ?

    God's Kingdom ! (formed by those practicing the "worship with spirit and truth" )

    So , let's listen to Jesus as the Father's will is ( Matt.17:5 )

    33. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness ... - Matt 6.

    wantingtruth

  • jwfacts
    jwfacts

    100% accuracy.

    If it is from God, teachings should be 100% accurate, as he has the power to make it so. Religions that claim the Bible is 100% accurate should be likewise.

    Actions are different than Accuracy. There is no reason to expect the actions of any individuals within a religion to be perfect.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit