The Searcher,
Politicians don't claim a monopoly on "truth" and to be God's direct channel of communication on earth - but the org/G.B. does!!!
Sorry, but politicians do act like gods and believe that they have a monopoly on the "Truth".
Is changing the "truth" / presenting "new light" really so bad?
by Zana 39 Replies latest jw friends
-
Village Idiot
-
yodastar
Yes it is BAD. They say God's standards never alter. They use this defense in DF'D. All the goalpost changing since I left coming up 20 years ago is mindboggling. If God can't change his stance then how come the borg can? Because the are a man run NOT spirit influenced borg - hypocrites but I have enjoyed reading this thread, what fun
-
Village Idiot
Zana,
What's the difference between the GB changing bible interpretations compared to parliaments all over the world changing laws?
Viviane,
Great question! All you have to do to know that is look at the difference between a parliament and the GB to get that answer.
GB - not elected, no accountability, claim to be speaking directly for God, claim to have the only truth
Parliament - elected, accountable, speaking on behalf of those that elected them, open to points of view, compassion, and compromise
Oh come now Viv. Politicians are accountable to the oligarchy who decide, by means of campaign funds, who gets voted in.
-
SAHS
“Village Idiot”: “Sorry, but politicians do act like gods and believe that they have a monopoly on the "Truth".”
True. That, unfortunately, can happen. . . . . Just ask North Korean president Kim Jong-un.
-
JWdaughter
The stillborn children issue is not new light. It was just backing off from the standard blowhard position that was stumbling huge amounts of distraught JWs. The GB realized that it was a teaching that was just them, blowing smoke out of their butts with no basis for it in scripture. The thing is, miscarriages and stillbirth happen to almost every family, and usually very close. Ones child or sibling. Almost everyone has this happen. Blood comes up more than transplants, but both those things changed because of politics or pressure, too. The kid in the early 70s who was told that getting a transfusion would result in him being abandoned. . .that kind of dogmatism made JWs look like monsters because it is monstrous. So they have modified the "understanding"
When people are devastated, having their hope cut off just because (probably) Rutherford pronounced it in his all knowing godlike way and there was no biblical reason, well it would be stupid to stubbornly persist when the whole reason they join that cult is for the HOPE they are promised to meet their loved ones. Rutherford didn't care. His own son is a footnote in his life. But a"we don't know" allows them to dare hope. This is something they stood to lose on by being dogmatic.
Anyone else find it interesting that all these "bible students" need permission to be allowed to believe what they understood and they needed to seek authorization from the GB to say it?
No thought control there!
-
notsurewheretogo
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.
That just doesn't stand up though...they are imperfect men but when they come together as the GB and IF the Holy Spirit is involved then being imperfect means nothing...they will always be right IF Holy Spirit is involved.
If they get it wrong from time to time as your example states then Holy Spirit is NOT involved and how can anyone trust anything they say? Getting it nearly right means diddly squat if a life-saving decision is involved.
Someone dies because they never took blood but hey...the GB "nearly" go it right...doesn't make an iota of a difference to the dead person!
The whole thing is flawed.
-
Vidiot
Zana - "What's the difference between the GB changing Bible interpretations compared to parliaments all over the world changing laws?"
When Parliaments change laws, it's usually a significant improvement that benefits everyone.
When the GB changes Bible interpretations, it's usually a band-aid.
-
Chook
Ask a judge in a court of law if you change what you swore as truth to another story it's called PERJURY
-
LisaRose
This organization has a history of making thing up, claiming the bible says things it doesn't and making date predictions based on pure speculation. When these predictions fail, instead of learning from their mistakes they just make up new things that will also inevitability fail. It's a consistent pattern designed to keep people feeling the urgency of impending destruction. You can't have a doomsday cult without a doomsday looming.
1914 is a perfect example. Prior to 1914 they believed they were already in the last days and Armageddon was going to be in 1914. When that didn't happen they invented the "invisible presence of Jesus" and still said Armageddon was imminent. For years they taught that the end would come before the generation of 1914 passed away. When that became impossible to keep up anymore they made up the ridiculous "overlapping generation" doctrine. Who know how many overlaps they will get out of that before they have to come up with something new?
They are not just making innocent mistakes, and then correcting them, it's a pattern. They claim to be directed by God, people believe them and make life decisions on their made up doctrines. They never admit their past mistakes, hide their history and go on deceiving people.
-
JW_Rogue
I would say that the motive behind changing something would have to be sincere and honest. For example, let's say a passage was traditionally interpreted a certain way but linguistic research showed that it could have a different meaning more in line with the context of the scriptures. Or a historical fact could disprove a certain interpretation and a new one that fits the historical reality would have to be made. In both cases the change is being made because new evidence has been found. The problem lies in changing doctrines and prophecies which really had no evidence to support them to begin with like the overlapping generation teaching or the FDS teachings. Nothing had changed, they were not grounded in a unbiased interpretation to begin with.