LOVE THIS QUOTE

by Zep 25 Replies latest jw friends

  • Zep
    Zep

    "If you find that you are stumbled or are offended about something being taught in God's
    organization, or some adjustments being made, keep this in mind: God has put enough in the
    Bible to provide a complete foundation for faith. (2 Tim. 3:16, 17) He has also left many
    details of various events in the Bible out of the account, enough so that one whose heart is not
    right, who wants to discover an apparent fault, who wants to find an excuse for leaving the
    way of truth, can find it."—The Watchtower, August 15, 1972, p. 507.

    Good for a laugh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • SolidSender
    SolidSender

    Zeb - a classic example of doublespeak. Either way you lose! - You ought to frame it.

  • Frenchy
    Frenchy

    There is a truth hidden in that portion of the article you quoted here. I am of the firm conviction that a person will find exactly what it is that he wants in the Bible. If a person wants to find God he will find Him there. If he wants confirmation of his disbelief in God, he shall find it there also. We don't go to the Bible to find the truth for nowhere within its pages is it laid out for humans to find. We first decide on what is true and then we go to the Bible and pick up the fragments that in our estimation lead credence to our convictions and we hold these things up high and shout to the world: "See, it says right here what I have said all along!" Then we go about quietly explaining away all the fragments that cast doubt on our self made faith.
    The Bible is not a dictionary of faith. It is not a listing of doctrine. It is rather a medium through which we pass, going into the places that appeal to us and avoiding those that do not. In the end, it serves to show what we truly are as a result of the choices that we made.
    The book of Job is a clue to its nature. Job (representing the good man) is tested beyond belief and all the while he is unaware that it is even a test. Job is allowed to believe that it is God bringing this upon him and in a way it is because it was and is in God's power to prevent the cruelties inflicted upon mankind. The test would not have worked had Job known what was happening.
    Whatever the issue that was really raised in Eden has been carefully hidden from us. We are in a test about which we know nothing because our knowing would not allow our true natures to be revealed.
    The Bible is a collection of puzzles with all the pieces mixed up and with us not knowing which picture it is that we are supposed to put together. The picture we choose, I believe, is more important than our ever getting all the pieces into it.

  • Zep
    Zep

    Frenchy, i found this text on a site defending the societies 607 date for the fall of Jerusalem and 1914 as the end of the gentile times.The context in which it was used seemed to imply that if you cant understand the information we provide here or you if disagree then your just being deceptive, your heart is not right because we are right and your wrong.Its a low argument....a low defence!.Rather than working on a clinical level, of which debate should, its playing on the heart strings!
    I see it this way, its possible to interpret the bible almost however which way you want...people will see want they want to see after all, as with most things, your right there!.The society, like a lot of people, sees what it wants to see...and interprets accordingly! and then when the facts dont add up or when confronted by tough Questions they resort to silly defences like ....ah, we are right, we are Gods chosen, your heart is just wrong...as if saying so makes the intial Questioner any less valid, they prefer to stick their head in the sand so as to preserve there own illusion of being gods Chosen rather than confront there own doubts.
    Personnally, i respect someone who simply has the Guts to say the words "i dont know"....these words are pretty rare when reading WT literature.

  • Frenchy
    Frenchy

    Zep: Yes, I understand the intent of the article. The phrase 'wait on Jehovah' is used to mean, 'wait on us' and is understood that way by the rank and file. Every now and then there are statements suggesting that if you 'don't understand' (WTS language for: 'Don't agree') then don't leave but just hand around and perhaps later a 'clarification' (WTS language for: 'Hey, we may change our minds on this later and agree with YOU although we will never put it that way!)will be made on the matter. IMHO, to suggest such a thing is to admit that there are things which are very 'hazy' at best but yet these things are presented as 'gospel'. It's like saying 'stay with us even if you know we're wrong' and my reply to that is: "Why?"
    I used that phrase (I don't know) quite a bit when I was an elder. Most of the friends didn't like to hear that. They wanted a quick, clean answer. I stopped giving those a while back.

  • August Mann
    August Mann

    Why does a "loving" god need to be such a trickster?

    August

  • SolidSender
    SolidSender

    August - hi and welcome to the discussion - in answer to your question - Because he needs to control a publishing and property owning empire valued at billions of dollars plus control the minds of the millions of JW's funding this empire and its human power base. It's that simple.-SolidSender

  • somebody
    somebody

    Here are some quotes that are truly amazing too!

    This is from an article called.....Changes That Disturb People..... in the 22nd of April 1970, Awake! Magazine.

    "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?" Awake! April 22, 1970, p.8.

    "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?" Awake! April 22, 1970, p.8.

    "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)." Awake! April 22, 1970, p.8-10

    "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?" Awake! April 22, 1970, p.8-10

    "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." Awake! April 22, 1970, p.8-10

    "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." Awake! April 22, 1970, p.8-10

    "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." Awake! April 22, 1970, p.8-10
    -------------------

    I can't help but think about all the changes the society has made over the years regarding matters of life or death, and yet, they would publish thier opinion of why changes that have no effect on life or death would\should disturb people in other religions. If a catholic abided to what they were previously taught regarding the "don't eat meat on Fridays" could they have died?....If a Jehovah's Witness abided to what was previously taught regarding the " organ transplants are a shortcut to consuming human flesh", could they have died when they need the transplant to live? And that isn't even metioning what the society was teaching to be God's view of vaccinations.

    thinking,
    somebody

    somebody

  • Pathofthorns
    Pathofthorns

    In some research I have been doing, I've broken down that same article, just to show how we so closely parallel what is condemned.

    *** g70 4/22 8 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? 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?”

    The above statements could even more so be applied to Jehovah’s Witnesses. The following article goes on to state just what exactly one of these changes consisted of that so disturbed these Catholics. The irony is that while the Society would rip into the Catholic Church for changing their long stand on eating meat on Friday, such a change pales in significance when compared with the changes that have taken place among the Witnesses.

    *** 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.

    For decades Witnesses also held to certain teachings which they believed was the law of Almighty God. As with the Catholics, changes have been made, even more frequently so.

    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?

    Even as the Pope enacted rules which are made an “obligation”, throughout the Society’s history they too have had Presidents and a Governing body that similarly interpret Scripture and impose rules on the members as well.

    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).

    The Witnesses also teach that if someone “knowingly and willfully” commits a sin by breaking certain rules (as was the case with transplants, blood fractions, alternative civilian service) and is “unrepentant”, that person will go to “hell”. Of course, our interpretation of hell is different and means “the grave”.

    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.

    Witnesses teach that “failure to obey could lead to their eternal punishment” as they will be forever destroyed at Armageddon.

    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.

    In recent times, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses has also “saw fit” to “modify” the position they held on certain matters. This is frequently referred to as “new light”.

    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.

    The effect upon many Witnesses “has been devastating” as well. Things that were “a sin five years ago” are suddenly “a conscience matter”. Many Witnesses are also asking themselves “how a practice that was considered by the [Organization] to be a [disfellowshipping offense] can suddenly be approved?”

    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?”

    We could well ask “what are they going to do with all those [Witnesses disfellowshipped for following their conscience in matters such as organ transplants when they were forbidden?]” Are they going to apologize for their “over-zealousness” and welcome them back?

    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?

    “Not just a few [Jehovah Witnesses] have asked such questions.” “The change in teaching has shaken their confidence in the [Organization]. But the question is, is a Witness permitted to “feel the same way if what [he] had always been taught to be vital for salvation was suddenly considered unnecessary?” Is a Witness permitted to “question other teachings of [his] church also?”

    The Catholic Church, however, has not completely changed its position on Friday meat abstinence. Even now Catholics are still required to abstain from eating meat on “Good Friday.”

    Also, in some places they must not eat meat on Fridays during the Lenten season.

    But why is it considered wrong to eat meat on “Good Friday,” but permissible to do so on other Fridays of the year? It has caused thinking persons to wonder.

    Thinking Witnesses also wonder about inconsistencies such as why we are required to “abstain from blood” yet are permitted to accept certain parts of blood (blood fractions).

    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.

    Many persons have written to the Society on matters such as “blood fractions”. These Witnesses cannot reconcile that such fractions are permitted when the scriptures specifically state that we are to “abstain from blood” and that it “is to be poured out on the ground”; and not collected, processed, stored, and injected. “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.

    Interestingly, “what becomes evident” regarding the Catholic Church is not permitted to “become evident” for the Witnesses. Because the Catholic Church has changed its views on eating meat on Friday, it makes evident that “it has founded many of its beliefs and practices on the unstable traditions of men” and “has not based its teaching upon what God’s Word says.” Yet it is “new light” when the Society changes its stand on more important matters such as identifying the “superior authorities”, the time for “judging the sheep and the goats”, whether Witnesses could accept blood fractions, transplants, vaccinations, civilian service, higher education etc., as well as changes regarding dates and predictions and understandings such as the “generation of 1914”.

    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. In fact, the Catholic edition of the Revised Standard Version Bible says that enjoining or commanding “abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving” is an evidence of a departure from the faith.—1 Tim. 4:1-4.

    What is left out of the article is that many of the things the Organization required acceptance, or required abstinence of were also not “a requirement of God.”

    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.

    This last statement cannot in any way apply to Jehovah’s Witnesses, even though comparisons reveal that Witnesses have made even more changes than the Catholic Church, and even more serious ones. Of course, the article was written before many major changes occurred, so it was quite easy to lambaste the Catholic Church for making this disturbing change regarding the eating of meat on Fridays. Since the article was written, the 1975 prediction would fail, changes in viewpoint would occur regarding the generation of 1914, sheep and the goats, blood fractions, transplants, civil service, and education. These changes certainly impact more on the lives and health of members than any change regarding the eating of meat on Friday. In light of this fact, it would be rather surprising to see an article such as this printed in the year 2000.

  • waiting
    waiting

    Hey Somebody,

    Nice to meet you. Enjoy your posts. I was raised a devout non-meat-eating-on-Friday Catholic, or better known as Croppie Crunchers in the midwest. In my 18 yrs. as Catholic, I found only old Irish/Italians and young kids really were afraid of going to Hell for eating Friday meat. And most Catholics will tell you for that mortal sin, or any other (such as sex on Friday nite after a hamburger) you just confess it in the morning. If you went early to church, you could even get away with no make-up and a scarf to cover your uncombed hair. You came late to Mass, said confession, left after Communion (10 min.) and back in bed no time flat. (During the winter, you could wear your pj's if you rolled up the pant legs and wore a coat.)

    That was in the '60s. I find it hard to believe any Catholic would be devestated by being allowed to eat meat on Fridays. Anyone who studied their catechism knew it was a church law. The Catholic church has made huge changes, and it's about time.
    Catholics are used to changes, at least since the '50s. Major.

    IMO, one of the major differences in the Catholic church and the Society is the Hell/disfellowshipping-disassociating issue.

    With the Catholics - you commit a mortal sin worthy of Hellfire. You go to confession (2/5 min. Hail Marys, etc. 20 min) and your forgiven. You would not believe how fast a Catholic can rattle off 50 Hail Marys and 5 Our Fathers [rosary]. But that's it. Your family/friends/strangers/boss is never privy to private information about your affairs. It's highly debateable even if the priest was listening.

    The Society's much more attuned to our sins. We must confess & convince 3 men of our repentence - even if we "sinned" to save our child's life ("real" blood transfusion). If they are not convinced of our sincerity, we used to be DF'd - now DA'd. Our family/friends/strangers/boss use to know that we were either unrepentent sinners and/or the offense was public knowledge and a "statement" had to be made. Now being DA'd, family/friends/strangers/boss would know that we are apostates, worthy of death, enemies of God.

    In one fell swoop, a perceived unrepentant JW's has lost family, friends, standing with God, standing in his community, perhaps his employment, security, reputation, value of being - and is looking towards the Second Death at Armageddon.

    The Catholic Church, IMO, is much kinder to sinners, even with the Hellfire doctrine. Usually some poor schmuck will buy a couple of Masses for a dead person to buy him out of Hell. But you never know how many to buy, so the schmuck just keeps on buying........

    At least those old brothers who use to wear those billboards were right about Catholics and JW's - "Religion is a snare and a racket."

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit