Truthseeker 1
if i can give you some advice, it is as follows
READ READ READ as much as you can on the org
if you are a true Truthseeker then you will find it.
but you must be willing to accept it regardless of what it says
you must be willing to call a spade a spade and let the chips fall were they may.
you made the following statement:
"There are inaccuracies, but the Org DOES change their beliefs when they see that they are wrong. Other religions don't do this."
*******
now with just a little research you can see that your statement is wrong, in fact not to dog you per say , but only to illustrate that your statement merely reflects what happesn when a jw tries to defend the org and has very little background on what the org has said on matters,
notice how many poster praise the wt for seeing the need to CHANGE DOGMA, how wonderful it is to change dogma,
yet notice how when OTHERS DO THE EXACT SAME THING CHANGE DOGMAS
THE WT DOGS THEM
Please do your research it will be to your benifit
this is a REPOST, it is long but read thru it carefully and ask yourself some SOUL SEARCHING QUESTIONS on the LOFTY CLAIMS OF THE WT
namely:
WE ARE THE ONLY SOURCE OF TRUTH ON THE EARTH BEING THAT WE ARE GOD'S EXCULSIVE MOUTH PC
REPOST
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Posted by N.H. [Pravo] on June 10, 1999 at 00:00:18 {y2u3G9j8XoaIoBvjGAvoX.sgIvMbfw}:
Friend
You stated on Witness.net:
:We could discuss those statements made by the WTS suggesting that 1975 would realize
Armageddon, but why, they have admitted as much. Just like early Christians, Christians today make
mistakes. So it is with Jehovah’s Witnesses. Have there been mistaken notions about beliefs, yes,
many in fact.
However, the making of mistakes, even doctrinal ones, is not the criteria for
determining Christianity. Love is that indicator. Besides that, Christians pursue teaching people the
Bible, unrelentingly so. Additionally, real Christians are willing to alter beliefs previously held
dear, if they are demonstrated wrong.
I am glad you cleared up this one, because this prove that the Catholics are "real Christians" back in
the seventies when they changed the, abstain-from-meat-on- Friday" rule.
Your masters in Brooklyn however milked this change for all its worth and ridiculed the Catholic
church because of this change. They quite obviously disagree with you that, "to alter beliefs
previously held dear" is a sign of a "Real Christian", unless of course when it is the WTS who make
the change. Just take a look at this:
Changes That Disturb People
Was the title of an article in 22 of April 1970, Awake! Magazine. As the title indicates people became
disturbed by certain changes. What changes? Let the Awake! Tell us:
*** g70 4/22 8 Changes That Disturb People ***
Changes That Disturb People
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?
Oh yes, how awful. Millions of Catholics have of course been shocked by all the doctrine shift’s of
the church. How wonderful it must be a JW, because we all know that the Watchtower Society
NEVER changes anything.
*** g70 4/22 8 Changes That Disturb People ***
Changes That Disturb People
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?
The businessman from Colombia certainly raised some interesting questions which indeed demands
some answers. Maybe they should ring some bells with the JW’s as well.
Anyway, the changes that was so shocking to the poor Catholics was as follows:
*** g70 4/22 8-10 Should Meat Be Eaten on Friday? ***
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).
Imagine that! Some Catholics even regarded this as “a law of Almighty God” and then (gasp) it was
CHANGED!! No wonder they were upset. But Awake! continue to milk this subject for all its worth.
*** g70 4/22 8-10 Should Meat Be Eaten on Friday? ***
Should Meat Be Eaten on Friday?
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?
*** g70 4/22 8-10 Should Meat Be Eaten on Friday? ***
Should Meat Be Eaten on Friday?
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 Evident
The 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.
The Awake! article indeed raises interesting and good questions. It would indeed be disturbing for a
sincere Christian when the church that he belong to for many years claim that something is a deadly
sin and then suddenly it isn’t. This would be especially disturbing if that church claimed to be the only
true Church. In defense of the Catholic Church it can be said that not eating meat on Friday’s didn’t
put anybody’s life in jeapordy. A stupid and inconvenient rule, yes, but hardly lethal.
The superior and indignant tone of the Awake! article indicates that something like this could of
course not take place in the Watchtower Society. Jehovah’s Organization are of course different from
those “man made”. To display such shifts in doctrine is of course unknown for Jehovah’s “Channel of
communication”. Or is it?
Lets investigate and see what we will find. In the 60thies when transplants was in its beginning the
Watchtower wrote:
*** w61 8/1 480 Questions from Readers ***
• Is there anything in the Bible against giving one’s eyes (after death) to be transplanted to
some living person?—L. C., United States.
The question of placing one’s body or parts of one’s body at the disposal of men of science or
doctors at one’s death for purposes of scientific experimentation or replacement in others is
frowned upon by certain religious bodies. However, it does not seem that any Scriptural
principle or law is involved. It therefore is something that each individual must decide for
himself. If he is satisfied in his own mind and conscience that this is a proper thing to do, then
he can make such provision, and no one else should criticize him for doing so. On the other
hand, no one should be criticized for refusing to enter into any such agreement.
As correctly pointed out there wasn’t anything in the Scriptures about this so it would be up to the
individual, and there should be no critizism of the decision. Then in 1967 another Question from the
readers gave this answer:
*** w67 11/15 702 Questions from Readers ***
Questions from Readers
• Is there any Scriptural objection to donating one’s body for use in medical research or to
accepting organs for transplant from such a source?—W. L., U.S.A.
Humans were allowed by God to eat animal flesh and to sustain their human lives by taking
the lives of animals, though they were not permitted to eat blood. Did this include eating
human flesh, sustaining one’s life by means of the body or part of the body of another human,
alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people….
To show disrespect for the sanctity of human life would make one liable to have his own life
taken.—Gen. 9:5, 6….
When men of science conclude that this normal process will no longer work and they suggest
removing the organ and replacing it directly with an organ from another human, this is simply
a shortcut. Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another
human. That is cannibalistic.
From being a question of individual conscience it was now regarded as cannibalism to accept
transplants. If you remember one of the statements from the above Awake! article that said: “For
centuries Catholics abstained from eating meat on Fridays. It was a Church law.
Many sincerely
believed it was a law of Almighty God.” So like these Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses who had
sincerely believed that transplants was up to them to decide, now very sincerely had to believe that it
was cannibalism and “a law of Almighty God”. In obedience to the “Almighty” all JW’s abstained
from transplants. Compared to the “meat on Friday” business this was a much more serious matter,
because it involved peoples health.
But that didn’t stop “Jehovah’s Channel” in Brooklyn from continuing the tragedy.
13 years later it was time for Jehovah’s Witnesses to once again “sincerely” believe that transplants
“is a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovah’s Witnesses”
*** w80 3/15 31 Questions from Readers ***
Questions from Readers
• Should congregation action be taken if a baptized Christian accepts a human organ
transplant, such as of a cornea or a kidney?
Regarding the transplantation of human tissue or bone from one human to another, this is a
matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovah’s Witnesses…….
While the Bible
specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the
taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision
on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously
what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal.
6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone
accepted an organ transplant.
The Catholic’s “meat of Friday” change, completely pale in significance compared with this insane
mess of wishy washy rules who puts peoples life and health in danger. Look at how the Awake!
ridicule of the Catholic’s approach to the Bible:
*** g70 4/22 8-10 Should Meat Be Eaten on Friday? ***
Should Meat Be Eaten on Friday?
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.
Oh, dear. You can’t find anywhere in the Bible instructions about refraining “from eating meat on any
Friday”. Yet the same complete lack in the Bible of instructions about refraining from transplants,
didn’t stop the Governing Body from presenting them as “a law of Almighty God”. That this so
obviously wasn’t “a requirement of God” didn’t seem to bother them a bit. But of course Catholic’s
has every reason for being disturbed and upset. JW’s obviously hasn’t.
*** g70 4/22 8-10 Should Meat Be Eaten on Friday? ***
Should Meat Be Eaten on Friday?
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. But there are other changes that are
also disturbing people today.
According to Awake! this shift in doctrine had the effect that “truth-seekers” now could se that: “the
Catholic Church has not been holding strictly to God’s Word.” Apparently there is no reason for any
“truth-seekers” to draw such conclusions about the Watchtower Society despite the fact that their
changes are far more serious.
Imagine what would happen if a Witness “in Medellín, Colombia,” had expressed these questions:
“how can I have confidence in anything? How can I believe in the Bible, in God, or have faith? Just
ten years ago we Jehovah’s Witnesses had the absolute truth, we put all our faith in this. Now the
Governing Body and our elders 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?”
Let us do another experiment, lets take another part of the Awake! article and substitute Catholic
with JW, etc and see how well these things fit the Watchtower:
The Effect
The effect upon many devout Jehovah’s Witnesses has been devastating. “All these years I thought it
was a sin to take an organ transplant,” 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 Jehovah’s Witness, can you
understand how a practice that was considered by the Society a “mortal sin” can suddenly be
approved? if it was a sin 13 years ago, why is it not today?
Many Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot
understand. When a woman in Canada was asked how she felt about the changes in her religion, she
replied: “I don’t know. Maybe you can tell me. What are they going to do with all those people who
was disfellowshipped for accepting an organ transplant?” Not just a few Jehovah’s Witnesses have
asked such questions.
The change in teaching has shaken their confidence in the Society. 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?
Why don’t we see such relevant questions posed by Jehovah’s Witnesses. Because the person asking
them would immediately find himself outside the organization. It is only Catholic’s and others who
can afford the luxury of being “disturbed” by doctrinal changes.
Jehovah’s Witnesses have of course no reason to do so. When the teachings of the Watchtower
changes it is of course an entirely different matter.
*** rs 205 Jehovah's Witnesses ***
Why have there been changes over the years in the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses?
The Bible shows that Jehovah enables his servants to understand his purpose in a progressive
manner. (Prov. 4:18; John 16:12) Thus, the prophets who were divinely inspired to write
portions of the Bible did not understand the meaning of everything that they wrote. (Dan.
12:8, 9; 1 Pet. 1:10-12)
The apostles of Jesus Christ realized that there was much they did not
understand in their time. (Acts 1:6, 7; 1 Cor. 13:9-12) The Bible shows that there would be a
great increase in knowledge of the truth during “the time of the end.” (Dan. 12:4) Increased
knowledge often requires adjustments in one’s thinking. Jehovah’s Witnesses are willing
humbly to make such adjustments.
The Catholic’s of course not being Jehovah’s servants cannot claim that they understand God’s
purpose in a progressive manner. I mean when the Prophet’s of old didn’t understand what they were
writing how can one expect that the GB should understand it.
They have time and time again demonstrated their inability to understand anything in the Bible. So
when Catholic’s realized how utterly unbiblical the “meat on Friday” ban was and simply stopped the
charade, that would lead to “truth-seekers” realizing that they was less than “strict” with the Bible.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are unlike these detestable Catholic’s “willing humbly to make adjustments.”
The moral of this matter is that when other religions make doctrinal shift’s, that is a a matter of great
concern for their members who the has every reason to be upset, disturbed etc. Sincere
“truth-seekers” should then realize that: “the Catholic Church has not been holding strictly to God’s
Word.”
When Jehovah’s Witnesses does much more serious full circle shifts from regarding transplant as a
individual decision to regarding it as cannibalism back to being an individual choise. It is painted as
understanding God’s purpose in a “progressive manner”, and perfectly in order. You can say
whatever you want about the Watchtower Society, but honesty isn’t one of their most noticeable
characters.
Don't you think that this Awake! article is a good example of the double standard in Brooklyn? Why
is all the doctrinal shifts and changes so wonderful when the WTS do it and why is it so horrible when
the Catholic church so it? Could you explain?
Norm.
