notsurewheretogo - "...I am on a JW level of thinking..."
Like... on purpose? :wink:
Is changing the "truth" / presenting "new light" really so bad?
by Zana 39 Replies latest jw friends
-
Vidiot
-
notsurewheretogo
Like... on purpose?
To illustrate my point...I made a similar point on another thread and got told those are not the only two options but naturally I meant from a JW point of view...man is it hard to put that hat back on and try and think like they do again...
-
konceptual99
This "old light" "new light" shite really grates on me.
If "new light" comes out and replaces "old light" who got the "old light" wrong?This is precisely why the GB has worked hard to try and remove the terms from the vocabulary of the Witnesses.
They have not used the terms in the context of doctrinal understandings for many years. The online library going back to 2000 has nothing with these phrases. "Progressive/increasing light" and "clarification" are the terms you should use. They don't even use terms that would suggest what went before has changed.
-
TheWonderofYou
For a witness of jehovah it is important to ask what means "BEING IN THE TRUTH" actually.
when jesus asked "what is truth" this could be understood as hint that human awarness is limited. Human awareness of truth....the new testament teaches that faith and revelation of god himself overcome the limitation and that the way to this truth is a way of relationship between man and god.
Nobody disposes of this truth absolutely, it can be made accessible time and again anew along a way, as pope Francis wrote in La Republicca, 9/12/13
„You ask me further if it is an error or or a sin to believe that an absolut truth does not exist. First I would say that also for a beliefer we would not speak of an "absolut" truth - for a christian the truth is the Love of God to us in Jesus Christ, thus a relationship! and each of us goes from own impulse when he adopts the truth and expresses is: dependent from his culture, history and situation ..... This does not mean that truth is subjective or changeable in contrary. But it offers itself to us as a way and as life. Did not jesus himself say: I am the way, the truth and the life? (translation mine)
Being in the truth - What do JW understand ?
a) being in the state of having all correct understandings of any doctrinal matter ..... certainly not
b) always telling the truth except in cases where Jehovahs name is in danger ... certainly not
c) living in harmony with JehovaH and his organisation, being in the way in the protected group .... more probably
d) accepting the gospel as "truth" ...less? probably
e) jesus is the truth and all words that he said? probably
...
in hebrew bile the word "truth" means something like "Amen"..... reliabilty ~ loyality and the gamut of reality
If this was seen as the key christian teaching than authority of the GB would not be so important but the relationsship with god.
Summary:The christian "truth" is not
- a speculation about philosophical absolut truth
- nor an organisational value systems/ legal system/doctrine
- nor everlasting new flashes of light or explanations/prophesies from a channel
but simply the relationship of love between God and men in Jesus.
-
notsurewheretogo
This is precisely why the GB has worked hard to try and remove the terms from the vocabulary of the Witnesses.
They have not used the terms in the context of doctrinal understandings for many years. The online library going back to 2000 has nothing with these phrases. "Progressive/increasing light" and "clarification" are the terms you should use. They don't even use terms that would suggest what went before has changed.Indeed...dubs will say to me the new light doesn't replace the old...well it does if it is wrong!
Ah but it is like lighting a candle in a dark room....getting brighter and brighter they say.
Except, as new light comes on, the old light is getting blown out...is the room getting any brighter?
NO!
-
Zana
Thanks people, for all you answers!
Is this another troll post?
No, it's not. I have two JWs in my life that probably belong in this category:
... OR it is the GB getting it wrong and Jehovah corrects them but then you simply can never ever trust that any doctrine is right.
Except they still trust the GB. So I started this thread in order to get some arguments against their position. These two people accept that the GB are just imperfect men and that they will get it wrong every now and then. But they trust them to try hard enough. And they believe that what the GB presents, is still the next best thing to God's real truth compared to any other religion.
You cannot criticise a current teaching of the WTS. You cannot lobby for change.
When talking about this, one told me, you actually can. His example was a change about the question whether miscarriages or stillborn babies have hope of a resurrection or not. First the GB said, "No, they don't." But after receiving many letters from concerned JWs they changed this to "We don't know."
You can trace most "increasing light" and "clarifications" down to one of the following:
- saving the org money
- making the org money
- minimising legal exposure
- controlling the membership
- covering up prophetic failures
This is very good! I will have to figure out how I can use this in a discussion with JWs without appearing overly aggressive.
-
konceptual99
When talking about this, one told me, you actually can. His example was a change about the question whether miscarriages or stillborn babies have hope of a resurrection or not. First the GB said, "No, they don't." But after receiving many letters from concerned JWs they changed this to "We don't know."
IF true then fair enough but this really is an exception. The GB are not immune to reason sometimes and have shied away from certain dogmatic statements over recent years.
You try having an open conversation with people in your local hall about things like:
- the biblical reasoning for the generation teaching and how it's changed over the years
- the complete lack of any evidence for a global flood
- the overwhelming evidence that man has been here for way over 6000 years
- whether or not the organisation needs any reform of it's child protection "policies"
- the increasing super-stardom of the GB
- the inconsistencies in the blood policy
- the UN scandal
- hypocrisy with the situations in Malawi and Mexico 50 years ago
- promoting change to the disfellowshipping policy
and so on....
The fact is that there is no way of being any kind of dissident without turning yourself into an apostate worthy of being DFed.
In this context, the GB deciding they don't actually know if still-born babies will be resurrected is of zero consequence.
-
stuckinarut2
Changing things is not the only issue
The MAIN issue is the way the society hides the past, or tries to cover over the past details for the new generation of witnesses!
They don't take ownership, or ever say "WE WERE WRONG. SORRY!"
The day they say SORRY will be the day Antarctica melts..
-
bennyk
From the "Faithful and Wise Servant":
All truth is in harmony, whether old or new. What was true at any time in the past must be true yet.... and if it is not true now, instead of being advanced light then it was terrible darkness. [...] We have sometimes been accused by unbelievers for teaching that the true way to advance was to displace the truth we learned yesterday by new truth learned today; but we utterly repudiate the absurd charge. To grow in knowledge is to retain the truth we have and add to our stock.
(Zion’s Watch Tower July 1880 WTR p. 119)
If we were following a man undoubtedly it would be different with us; undoubtedly one human idea would contradict another and that which was light one or two or six years ago would be regarded as darkness now: But with God there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning, and so it is with truth; any knowledge or light coming from God must be like its author. A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth. "New light" never extinguishes older "light," but adds to it. If you were lighting up a building containing seven gas jets you would not extinguish one every time you lighted another, but would add one light to another and they would be in harmony and thus give increase of light: So is it with the light of truth; the true increase is by adding to, not by substituting one for another.
(Zion's Watch Tower February 1881 WTR p. 188)
-
SAHS
“Is changing the "truth" / presenting "new light" really so bad?”
Not in itself, in general – at least not necessarily – however, the problem, as in the case of the Watch Tower organization, is that they claim to be the one-and-only mouthpiece for the Almighty God of the entire universe.
But, don’t forget this famous quote which was mentioned by the Late Raymond Franz: “With great power comes great responsibility.”
As the famous cosmologist Carl Sagan said: “Extraordinarily claims require extraordinary evidence.”
The famous republican comedian Bill Maher once said something when being interviewed by Larry King which I will always remember and which I think is quite apropos here: “I have no problem with God. I just have a problem with those who claim to speak for him.”
Well, I believe these great men above have most succinctly and poignantly summed up the precarious position of which those folks at the Watch Tower organization find themselves.
Finally, remember this well-renowned axiom: “So let the one who thinks he is standing beware that he does not fall.” (1 Cor. 10:12, RNWT)
