by jaffacake 18 Replies latest jw friends
It?s like the "tacking" analogy/metaphor. The tacking maneuver in sailing allows one to "go against the wind" by cutting ACROSS it (the wind). Tacking does not admit to the useless practice of continuously reversing direction and going back and forth, to no useful purpose. Unfortunately, JW?s use the frequent reversal scheme instead of any real adjustment by design.
It's quite tempting to push the analogy one step further, à la A Paduan : only going against the Wind/Spirit requires "tacking"...
It's quite tempting to push the analogy one step further, à la A Paduan : only going against the Wind/Spirit requires "tacking"...
Si~!
"New Light' is what the dumbass elder told me to wait on when I found out about the UN thingy. Eff 'em all, I say.
"new light"/"tacking", WTS style:
The men of Sodom are condemned;
No, they will have a hope of ressurrection;
No, condemned...
No, that other choice...
Uhh, what was the ? again...
Mustang
just out of interest, who qualifies for a resurrection these days? a serious question as I've never been a JW.
You are right!
The path of the rightous begins with "truth", thats why they are deemed "rightous". It doesnt begin with total error and then turns into the truth along the way.
To demonstrate.... We can say that "today I learned that Jesus was born of a virgin" Then the light gets brighter, ie "Today I learned that he was the son of god" then brighter "Today I learned that he raised the dead" then brighter "He will die on a stake".
See, the path got brighter but it begins with a truth "he was born of a virgin".
See how the path gets darker for the unrightous..."Jesus returned in 1874".."No he returned in 1914"..darker still "The generation that saw 1914 will see the end..."He will resurrect the dead in 1925" darker still "It could be 1975"..."the end of this century perhaps??" too darn dark...
Ok, hope you get my drift..
Proverbs 4 is being used out of context..
Anything is scriptural. I mean, I can prove that sodomy is scriptural, that doesn't make it right. Likewise, just because something is scriptural, it doesn't mean that it is interpreted correctly, as posters have stated above. I mean, the WT forms a major doctrine out of a book of wisdom, or maxims, does that sound right?
Thanks all, I'm saving snippets from these posts to say at my next study!
Jaffacake!!!
If there is such a thing as "new light" it goes this way:new light must build upon itself and be progressive.I learned this in Crisis of Conscience.When the WTS tears down one of their beliefs to replace with something else,this is not new light.They are not building upon an established truth when they completely change their stand on something,therefore it is not progressive.
Also,why is if you no longer agree with a WTS teaching,you are weak.If you speak about it you could be labeled an apostate and DF'd.BUT when the WTS changes their mind on something and change the teaching,it's called "new light".
Hope this helps,
Goldminer
