Pharmer .. sorry, yes, you get past the defenses that way ... that is what happened to me, I allowed myself to view information about a religion that I considered false, I saw too many similarities to my JW faith, the other shelved items I mentioned above started falling off of the shelf.
Is this not an easy question?
by the pharmer 137 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
the pharmer
Djeggnog,
In reading your post and considering just your first three sentences, I highlighted areas that need to be reconciled.
You said:
If you were to read a passage of Scripture and were to draw a conclusion that is a different from the one reached by Jehovah's Witnesses, this would not necessarily mean that your conclusion was incorrect. Before the early 1960s, Jehovah's Witnesses had taken the view that the "higher powers" (KJV) or "superior authorities" (NWT) to which the apostle Paul refers at Romans 13:1 were Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. However, the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society were deluged with so many letters during this time period from Jehovah's Witnesses all over the world that were unable to follow the reasoning that led some to such a conclusion, but they continued to speak in agreement on this point as they awaited the settling of this question .
So the objective information you give in your first three sentences is:
· I can be correct about a scripture apart from the WT (i.e. independently), even to the point of being contraryto the WT.
(This seems reasonable)
· The WT can be incorrect about a scripture.
(This seems reasonable)
· JWs across the world were unable to follow WT reasoning on a WT incorrect view of scriptures (due to its incorrectness).
(This seems reasonable)
· These same JWs knowingly held fast to an incorrect view.
(This seems unreasonable)
· As regards the incorrect view, these JWs spoke that view to others as a correct view.
(This seems unreasonable and just plain wrong)
You said, “The truth is going to be the truth no matter who has it, so the question is, how sincere is your search for truth?”
I would like to answer that. I believe, as I’m in relatively in the beginning stages of examining things, I am as sincere as I possibly could be. I want to remain as open, objective, and unbiased as possible. I would like to think that if you or anyone else (including myself) were able to show me how a certain belief is not true, that I would not hold fast to that incorrect view. And I certainly hope I wouldn’t speak about the incorrect view as being trueregardless of the reason – that seems blatantly wrong. It would go completely against my conscience to live that way.
I hope that shows you just how sincere my search for truth really is.
Sincerely,
Pharmer
-
jgnat
One of my favorite quotes about Truth:
We are always hearing of people who are around SEEKING AFTER TRUTH. I have never seen a (permanent) specimen. I think he had never lived. But I have seen several entirely sincere people who THOUGHT they were (permanent) Seekers after Truth. They sought diligently, persistently, carefully, cautiously, profoundly, with perfect honesty and nicely adjusted judgment--until they believed that without doubt or question they had found the Truth. THAT WAS THE END OF THE SEARCH. The man spent the rest of his life hunting up shingles wherewith to protect his Truth from the weather. If he was seeking after political Truth he found it in one or another of the hundred political gospels which govern men in the earth; if he was seeking after the Only True Religion he found it in one or another of the three thousand that are on the market. In any case, when he found the Truth HE SOUGHT NO FURTHER; but from that day forth, with his soldering-iron in one hand and his bludgeon in the other he tinkered its leaks and reasoned with objectors. There have been innumerable Temporary Seekers of Truth--have you ever heard of a permanent one?
What Is Man? by Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)
-
the pharmer
I guess I want to clarify that it's not that I'm on a search for something, but rather, I want to test the somethings to see if they stand up to the claim - i.e. its authenticity.
I like the quote jgnat!
-
OUTLAW
DjEggNogg
there reason I never lose a debate is because I'm never on the wrong side of one.....DjEggNogg
No, I'm an educated person, highly educated. A Bible scholar; also a genius.....DjEggNogg
..........................
...OUTLAW -
warmasasunned
your wrong !
there right !
end of disscusion!
-
the pharmer
Djeggnog,
Given the fact that you gave an actual instance where I (as a non-JW) could have held a correct view which would have opposed JWs (who held an incorrect view as the WT defined it), how do you reconcile your two seemingly irreconcilable statements below?
If you were to read a passage of Scripture and were to draw a conclusion that is a different from the one reached by Jehovah's Witnesses, this would not necessarily mean that your conclusion was incorrect.
…
If you were to read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes my view as one of Jehovah's Witnesses as to the meaning of this same passage, in my mind you have a mistaken view that needs to be adjusted to the Scriptures
Thanks.
-
OUTLAW
Pharmer..
I have read and answered your PM..
..........................
...OUTLAW -
satinka
Ah, I see the problem...
The whole email was this: I want you to help me understand your view about something.
JWs have are not allowed their own view on anything. They are only allowed to think and speak the WT view. It leads your friend to think you have doubts and questions. They are probably consulting with the elders to see if you are an Apostate.
satinka
-
djeggnog
@the pharmer wrote:
If I read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the WT's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e. who is correct)?
@djeggnog wrote:
If you were to read a passage of Scripture and were to draw a conclusion that is a different from the one reached by Jehovah's Witnesses, this would not necessarily mean that your conclusion was incorrect. Before the early 1960s, Jehovah's Witnesses had taken the view that the "higher powers" (KJV) or "superior authorities" (NWT) to which the apostle Paul refers at Romans 13:1 were Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. However, the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society were deluged with so many letters during this time period from Jehovah's Witnesses all over the world that were unable to follow the reasoning that led some to such a conclusion, but they continued to speak in agreement on this point as they awaited the settling of this question.
@the pharmer wrote:
So the objective information you give in your first three sentences is:
· I can be correct about a scripture apart from the WT (i.e. independently), even to the point of being contraryto the WT.
(This seems reasonable)
Ok.
· The WT can be incorrect about a scripture.
(This seems reasonable)
Ok.
· JWs across the world were unable to follow WT reasoning on a WT incorrect view of scriptures (due to its incorrectness).
(This seems reasonable)
Ok.
· These same JWs knowingly held fast to an incorrect view.
(This seems unreasonable)
Ok.
· As regards the incorrect view, these JWs spoke that view to others as a correct view.
(This seems unreasonable and just plain wrong)
Ok.
djeggnog wrote:
The truth is going to be the truth no matter who has it, so the question is, how sincere is your search for truth?
@the pharmer wrote:
I would like to answer that. I believe, as I’m in relatively in the beginning stages of examining things, I am as sincere as I possibly could be. I want to remain as open, objective, and unbiased as possible. I would like to think that if you or anyone else (including myself) were able to show me how a certain belief is not true, that I would not hold fast to that incorrect view. And I certainly hope I wouldn’t speak about the incorrect view as being true regardless of the reason – that seems blatantly wrong. It would go completely against my conscience to live that way.
Jehovah's Witnesses are as aware as was the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 13:9-12) that we do not know all things, but "at present ... know partially," and we really won't know all things until Jesus' rule has begun. I'm sure that some in our ranks do not appreciate this fact and that many in our ranks are prone to speak with a degree of certainty as if they are privy to knowledge that Jehovah's Witnesses do not have, and all such persons that speak with such cocky assuredness about things that cannot be proved scripturally are typically given correction when possible so that they might not speak with an affirmative air about things that are speculatory in nature, that is, things that might be logical or reasonable to conclude based on what things Scripture does say, but things that Jehovah's Witnesses ought to explain when speaking to others are purely matters of speculation only.
Jehovah's Witnesses trust that we are being used by God to gather people of all sorts together in order to bring them into an accurate knowledge of the truth -- not a complete knowledge of it, but enough knowledge of it that they might know that their expectations for the future will be realized, especially upon their seeing that a true Christian brotherhood actually exists on this side of Armageddon -- which means that they must realize, as do we, that from time to time adjustments must be made to our viewpoint whenever it becomes necessary to abandon something that we may have formerly believed to be true.
In the example I provided in my post on which you commented, I sought to point out what the understanding of Jehovah's Witnesses was "before the early 1960s" regarding "the 'higher powers' (KJV) or 'superior authorities' (NWT)" at Romans 13:1 just to make the point that even if some among our ranks did not believe it correct to conclude that the reference to the "higher powers" or to the "superior authorities" was to Jehovah God and Jesus Christ, we would teach others not what our own viewpoint was, but what the viewpoint of Jehovah's Witnesses was in this regard, while letting the person know that because we are not infallible, we cannot be certain that what we believed to be true by consensus at that time had no application to the governmental authorities.
Thus no one interested in the resolution of this doctrinal issue in the early 1960s was at all surprised to learn that a doctrinal adjustment, indicating that these "higher powers" or "superior authorities" were the governmental authorities, who are "placed in their relative positions by God" (Romans 13:1), had been made by consensus. If Jehovah's Witnesses were to take the approach that each one can have his or her own opinion and teach to this effect, then we would have a situation that exists among Catholics, for example, believing that anyone divorced cannot remarry until the death of their former spouse or the Church annuls the former marriage, even if children should have issued from the former marriage and even if the former spouse has remarried, none of which things are scriptural btw, but are based on (Catholic) canon law, and the obvious result of each Catholic believing that they can disregard the teachings of the Church -- even though these teachings of the Church are wholly unscriptural and based solely on canon law -- is that they attend church services together, but are not united in worship in either what they believe or teach others.
Recently @The Finger indicated (in another thread) that he believed each creative day to be 7,000 years in length, saying the following:
I didn't understand what you mean, may be you could elaborate on this. I had always understood that the creative days are the same length. (As days are the same length)
Even if some of Jehovah's Witnesses were to believe, as in this example, that each of the seven creative days (in Genesis) were 7,000 years in length, this would not make it true that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that each of these creative days are 7,000 years in length, and anyone in our ranks that teaches others to this effect without explaining that this is one of those things that we had logically deduced or found to be reasonable to conclude based on what things Scripture does say, but, again, Jehovah's Witnesses ought to have explained to these few that believed due to their believing something on which Jehovah's Witnesses were teaching on the basis of doctrine and not on the basis of scientific fact as to the 7,000-year day that one was not the other.
We are persuaded that it is impossible for the earth to be less than 50,000 years old based on the flood waters having had an impact on the artifacts unearthed since the global deluge, for, from at least 1981, we have being persuaded that the earth is much older than just 49,000 years. There is a real danger in some holding fast to beliefs that have been abandoned by Jehovah's Witnesses and teaching these, which "is why it is necessary for us to pay more than the usual attention to the things heard by us, that we may never drift away." That is why we are always urging others to "make sure of all things" and to only "hold fast to what is fine." (Hebrews 2:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:21)
Further to all of this, @TheFinger also wrote:
The WT [publications] showed Adam's creation to be 4026 and stated that this was the year the 7th creative day started. They also stated when the half way, the morning of the seventh creative day, was reached some 3500 years later (I think I mentioned this to you before) Which would make a 7000 year creative day. The WT has taught that the end and the thousand year reign of Christ would take place before the close of the 7th creative day.
I hardly know of a single example of folks not paying "more than the usual attention to the things heard" than this particular example. Like the Jews, that Samaritan woman to whom Jesus spoke in John's gospel (at John 4:6-26) also believed in the Torah, and she thought you knew who Jehovah was, but her knowledge of God was incomplete, partial, even distorted, for her knowledge of God was based solely on the first five books of the Bible that Moses wrote when God had made known so much more known about Himself since those five books, which made her worship of Jehovah God unacceptable, which is what Jesus was telling her when he told her, "You worship what you do not know."
@The Finger mentioned how his father had frequently given a public talk regarding Bible chronology that "didn't sound like speculation more like evidence" to him, so there's probably no better example. What is true is that Jehovah's Witnesses have been able to calculate the number of years that mankind has been on the earth, which has no effect whatsoever on the age of the earth which geologists believe to be some 4.5682 billion years old (and the universe some 13.7 billion years), none of which facts are in conflict with the Bible at all.
While many Jehovah's Witnesses continue to believe and dogmatically teach a 7,000-year creative day and a 49,000-year creative week, this is not what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, and should not be what any of Jehovah's Witnesses in 2011 are teaching others. We must pay attention to the things heard by us and abandon what former doctrinal beliefs we may have had to embrace the truth as it becomes apparent to us. If we disagree with something that we are taught, we should make sure whenever it is that we are teaching others what we believe that we do not teach others according to what things we believe to be true as well, for unity of purpose requires that Jehovah's Witnesses "speak in agreement" (1 Corinthians 1:10) and teach the same things. If anyone should have a different view, it's ok to share this different viewpoint with one's own family members as long as they are informed that this is one's own viewpoint and not what Jehovah's Witnesses officially teach, for it is our endeavor to "keep from becoming causes for stumbling ... to the congregation of God." (1 Corinthians 10:32)
To one of the questions that he asked me toward the end of his post, @The Finger wrote:
Are you suggesting we may have thousands of years to go until the end (Armageddon)?
I hardly know no better way to answer his question that to quote Jesus' words at Matthew 24:36: "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father."
I don't know that you would be any different than many folks that either were and still are Jehovah's Witnesses, who did "not hold fast to [the] incorrect view. " This isn't about speaking any "incorrect view as being true," but not stumbling others by teaching your own views which are not being officially taught by Jehovah's Witnesses without telling whoever it is you are telling these things what you are doing. It may go completely against your conscience to believe one thing and teach another, but no one ought to be asking you to do anything against your own conscience.
The point is not to claim to be teaching what Jehovah's Witnesses are teaching while teaching something else altogether than what Jehovah's Witnesses are officially teaching others. This last is the very definition of apostasy.
@djeggnog
