WHAT IS TRUTH?

by DATA-DOG 21 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Cold Steel
    Cold Steel

    I felt a murderous rage well up within my heart and I had to yell at the monitor.

    First, contention is the enemy of communication. Frustration, resentment, hatred and especially murder are of the Adversary, and are not worthy reactions to false religion. The Jehovah's Witnesses are just one example among many. Scientology, Jesus cults and prosperity gospels all are out there, and some of the professors really believe what they're saying, while others knowingly deceive to gain power, wealth or both.

    Three phrases were particularly ironic:

    1) Jesus did not demand that anyone believe assertions without proof.

    No, but he encouraged it. "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." (John 20:29) Also, " But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them." (Matthew 13:16-17) Yet the prophets believed.

    2) We should examine everything. It's hard work, but we should do it.

    Agreed. But we also ought to have the integrity to believe that which is right. Despite the evidence of seeing, when Peter acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Jesus said, "Blessed art thou...for flesh and blood hath not revealed this to you, but my Father, which is in Heaven." (Matthew 16:17)

    3) A fool puts faith in every word, but the wise man understands the need for proof.

    God will provide evidence, but never proof. He ultimately does this for our own good because if he gave us proof, we would be obligated to act on it, and many people would be under condemnation; for where much is given, much is expected. If one seeks earnestly, one can come to the knowledge of perfect truth, but then if they deny that truth they sin against the Holy Spirit, which is the unforgivable sin.

    In the case of the Jehovah's Witnesses, they're not asking you to believe something they haven't said themselves — and they've never claimed to have had any revelation or confirmation from Heaven that they have been called of God. Ask the members of the Governing Board if they've ever seen an angel, or God, or if they've ever had a vision or other form of revelation and they're honest. They'll tell you no. The days of apostles (which actually means "sent ones") is over, they'll say. The spiritual gifts are gone. So if they have no revelation, and YOU have no revelation, then isn't it like the parable of the blind leading the blind? Jesus said if the leaders and followers and both blind, then both will fall into the pit. By very definition, if they have been sent, they will be apostles.

    Finally, in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. Not only that, but didn't Amos declare that "Surely the Lord God will do nothing save he reveal his secrets to his servants the prophets. (Amos 3:7) There is NOTHING in scripture that foretells the advent of the Governing Board. There is nothing to indicate the Lord's Kingdom is to be based in a publishing company or to point the way to Charles T. Russell or Joseph Rutherford. Daniel, in fact, said that the Kingdom would "not be left to other men" (meaning it would be governed by God), and that it would eventually replace all the governments of the earth.

    So no revelation, no scripture, no witnesses, no spiritual gifts; just presumption. When I ask most JWs how they know they're members of God's true religion, they use a bizarre process of elimination. "Well, if it's not us, who else would it be?" they ask. This is how they know Jesus inspected all the religions of the earth and (heh heh) picked them!

    Bottom line: It's a manmade church with a governing body that assumes it's been chosen, and that it's inspired. Okay, so they've been wrong repeatedly, and if you don't accept them as God's servents, then Jehovah will destroy you. It's fairly simple.

    As for what is truth, it's very simple. Truth is that which was, is, and is to come. It has nothing to do with objectivity, subjectivity, or anything else. It simply is.

  • chapstick
    chapstick

    Real truth comes in two forms, objective and subjective. Subjective truth is personal truth. It is real truth to you but not others. For example a woman is married to a fat ugly slob who everyone else detests to be around. They hate him. She loves him and really thinks he's the most hansome man in the world. Truth to her isn't truth to everyone else. Subjective truth is truth that can be researched, stands for itself on its own merits and is accepted by most everyone. Subjective truth is provable truth. Objective truth is unprovable to anyone but the individual who believes it. The group of blind men evaluating an elephant from different vantage points is a good example...

  • AndDontCallMeShirley
    AndDontCallMeShirley

    chapstick-

    You were doing good right up to this point: "....Subjective (should have said "objective") truth is truth that can be researched, stands for itself on its own merits and is accepted by most everyone. Subjective truth is provable truth (should have said "objective"). Objective truth (should have said "subjective") is unprovable to anyone but the individual who believes it..."

    Objective:

    Of or having to do with a material object.

  • Having actual existence or reality.
    1. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See synonyms at fair 1.
    2. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
    3. Medicine. Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
    4. Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/objective-3#ixzz2UpmNHnwG

      Subjective = subject to personal opinion or emotions

      Objective= provable with physical evidence by an outside source (not your own feelings).

  • chapstick
    chapstick

    Thanks Shirley. My dyslexia is rearing its ugly head

  • Phizzy
    Phizzy

    Hey Shirley, (if I may call you that), if you are going to get pedantic, shirley, sorry, surely, you should have written "JW's COULDN'T care less" in your post above.

  • ÁrbolesdeArabia
    ÁrbolesdeArabia

    They are lying, the WTS will not address the UN NGO problem.

    DCMShirly, that 1967 Watchtower say's it all, "We have brothers who do all your research, you don't need to do it!" JWs are too busy to dig deep into the truth of the Bible, let's rely on men who have a long line wrecked homes, poverty strictened families and disappointing people for 140 years. What's the talk about 2034, they are trying to put the '120 years" untop of the 1914 doctrine from Genesis when God said he would get the lifespan under 120 years. Why don't they shut up, why bring up 2034 and say 2014 is the "count-down year!". They make me sick, they are false prophets or false teachers and won't fess up to the fibs they tell.

    I might be wrong but I thought during the Apostate Talk 2013 D-Convention they had to nerve to talk about the 1978-1981 Witch Hunt. Now with all those brothers dead, they feel safe enough to bring this up because they think nobody knows the real reason we lost Ray Franz and Ed Dunlap and many others who refused to worship the Governing Body.

    Try asking the Society why Freddy Franz attacked the concept of a Governing Body in his Gilead Talk and I bet you will be labelled a trouble maker!

  • tornapart
    tornapart

    DD, it's something you could use if you get questioned by the elders. Say those very 3 points that were said in the DC and say you are just following that advice.. ;)

  • Heaven
    Heaven

    Truth doesn't change. And it stands up to scrutiny.

  • AndDontCallMeShirley
    AndDontCallMeShirley

    Phizzy:

    Hey Shirley, (if I may call you that), if you are going to get pedantic, shirley, sorry, surely, you should have written "JW's COULDN'T care less" in your post above.

    ---

    I'm not being pedantic, Phiz. "Chapstick" made a great observation and I didn't want it to get lost in the mix-up.

    you should have written "JW's COULDN'T care less" in your post above.

    Let it go, Phiz.

    (BTW- you noticed my mistake ("could/couldn't") in another thread, and I appreciate the correction (honestly, I do). I didn't dismiss it by saying it was just pedantics.)

  • *lost*
    *lost*

    good stuff guys

  • Share this

    Google+
    Pinterest
    Reddit