Jump to content

HollyW

When a teaching changes after baptism.....

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

HollyW -
Witness -
105
3227

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

This tells me that you are following MEN and not God. 

I don't think Lloyd meant he would change his belief about the Trinity, but quite the opposite, if I read his post correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, HollyW said:

I don't think Lloyd meant he would change his belief about the Trinity, but quite the opposite, if I read his post correctly.

But he did say he would believe it:

"In other words, if the Watchtower suddenly published an article that said that the Trinity doctrine was correct, then I'd believe that, which is foolishness.....on several levels "

This demonstrates the power the WT has over his beliefs. He is willing to accept whatever he is told "All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not." - wt Nov 2013

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit late to the table, but would like to share my thoughts using science as an example. One hundred years ago, science knew all they could know at that time. Today, with the exception of some, many of those facts have changed. Were they wrong? No, not for their time. Today, one hundred years later, yes they are. Why? Because there are various limitations in our abilities at any given time. One hundred years ago, we simply did not have the technology to allow us to see more of what's out there. Right now, we understand that we are limited in our abilities to understand some things, but we can predict what we think should be out there with mathematics and physics calculations. Often we have to wait for the technology to become available to test out those "theories". Some things get proven right, others get disproved and so we must move with the evidence.

So to with spiritual truths, in one hundred years time, spiritual truths will be quite different to how we know them today. A friend of mine died in 2009. Since then there have been so many changes that if he came back today he'd be mind blown! Now, think back a couple thousand years, the apostle Paul was given a vision of the third heaven. But he could speak about the things he saw. It is quite possible that part of what he saw was the spiritual paradise we enjoy today (according to current thinking) But what we know today, might be "words that cannot be spoken and that are not lawful for a man to say." Like scientists who wait for the technology to be invented to allow them to understand deeper truths about the universe, we too must wait on Jehovah, through Christ, to shine light on things we cannot see - isn't that what having faith is?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

But he did say he would believe it:

"In other words, if the Watchtower suddenly published an article that said that the Trinity doctrine was correct, then I'd believe that, which is foolishness.....on several levels "

This demonstrates the power the WT has over his beliefs. He is willing to accept whatever he is told "All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not." - wt Nov 2013

You're right that in that if it actually did happen, he would believe it, but he was saying the opposite because in context he was paraphrasing what I had said:

Quote

Lloyd, I believe you've presented exactly what baptism as a JW means, "to wait on the organization Jehovah is using", and that means you've agreed, by your dedication and baptism identifying you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with the organization you believe Jehovah is using, to change your beliefs about what the Bible teaches whenever that organization tells you to change them.  This tends to give "the truth" a rather fluid quality.

I believe he was saying that what I have in bold there is foolish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, HollyW said:

You're right that in that if it actually did happen, he would believe it, but he was saying the opposite because in context he was paraphrasing what I had said:

I believe he was saying that what I have in bold there is foolish.

gotcha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, let's start with this:

1. Shiwiii purported that Lloyd wrote: "if the Watchtower suddenly published an article that said that the Trinity doctrine was correct, then I'd believe that"       This tells me that you are following MEN and not God."

What I actually wrote was pretty much the opposite.  Here it is:

"It seems, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you [Holly] want to boil it all down to where any truth, being "fluid", could change at any time.  In other words, if the Watchtower suddenly published an article that said that the Trinity doctrine was correct, then I'd believe that, which is foolishness.....on several levels."

See those words "which is foolishness"? 

2. Shwiii wrote: "So you would accept that the org is right even though you know that they are not. That is called Cognitive dissonance. 

"

Again an attempt to put words in my mouth, a common tactic called a "straw man" argument where one takes issue with something that is easy to contend with, but which is quite different from the original discussion. 

But the answer is that if I thought I might have happened onto something that seemed more correct than what we had thought, I hopefully would just keep my big mouth shut and wait on Jehovah.  How would I really know that I was correct about a matter anyway?

3. "Who according to the Bible is to teach us all things? Who is to be called "teacher"? Who directs us? The answer to all of these is most definitely not an organization."

So is it you?  You're the one that has presumed to know more than the organization right?  Further, who did Jesus tell, 3 times, to feed my little sheep?  Who made the decision about circumcision that was distributed to the congregations?

  As I have already said, it is a group effort and by definition that involves organization.  They try their best to understand the Great Teacher and what is said in the scriptures and to use that understanding to build up those who want to be Jehovah's servants.  Try to grasp that.

4. Shiwiii said, "So your hope is in the elders to tell you what to do and what not to do. This is not the "main plot" or theme of the Bible."

Again, I never said that.  Just another straw man argument that Shiwiii relies on quite heavily. 

What I hoped that the elders would do in a case where I broke from the unity of Jehovah's people is to point out that I was embarking, like Eve did, on a course of independence.  And yes, choosing independence, as Eve did, over submission to Jehovah IS the main plot! 

5. Shiwiii wrote: >Lloyd: "I would hope that just because I hit on a point or points that were ultimately correct that I wouldn't feel superior to others or try and push ahead."  Shiwiii: "No one said anything about feeling superior to others or tooting your own horn."

Dude, YOU asked me, and I quote, "So tell me this, if YOU or someone understood a scripture to mean something and it was in disagreement with the WT. YOU were reproved for this because it went against the org, and later it became that YOU were right, what would that say to You?" (caps mine)

See the words, "What would that say to YOU?"  You are asking me to come at this as if I was the one with the problem, not you.  And if I was embracing beliefs that would break unity with Jehovah's people, i would feel like I was being superior and tooting my own horn, at least in my mind.

6. Shiwiii said: "This is the thinking that has been ingrained in followers to not think for themselves, or else they are being proud or boosting their own ego. This keeps people toeing the company line and turning in those who think differently.'

Wow. You really have no idea how Jehovah's people think, do you?  Dude, we've studied, sometimes for years and pondered deeply over just exactly what we are doing, thinking for ourselves, and coming to the conclusion that this is the way.  What you call "toeing the company line" is in reality a purposeful decision to remain loyal to an organization that obeys Jesus command to preach and teach the good news worldwide and has done so in over more than 700 languages with more to come, in some cases risking imprisonment or even death, and in almost all cases being made fun of, or how did Paul put it?  Ah yes, "we have become as the refuse of the world, the offscouring of all things."

You think that's fun?  But we endure because we choose Jehovah's side, and not the independent side.  We try to be patient, show a waiting attitude, and don't push ahead.  Yeah, we know lots of people have lots of different ideas, but we know from intense study that what we have been taught, coming from an organization that is actually doing what Jesus said to do before the end comes, is generally vastly superior to anything else.  So we don't take issue.  Instead, having received this vastly superior knowledge, we try and show gratitude and deep appreciation.  If one receives a beautiful work of art, is it wiser to condemn that art because there is a minor flaw somewhere, or would it be wiser to express gratitude that you even were able to own such a masterpiece?

Fact is, you know the drill, and it seems that you have made your choice.  But you have precious little time to become humble, and pray that Jehovah allow you to return.  Everyone would think most highly of you if you did so.  But I'm gonna guess that you will remain stubborn, remain independent, and continue to choose Eve's way.  Big mistake.  Big.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, LloydSt said:

Ok, let's start with this:

1. Shiwiii purported that Lloyd wrote: "if the Watchtower suddenly published an article that said that the Trinity doctrine was correct, then I'd believe that"       This tells me that you are following MEN and not God."

What I actually wrote was pretty much the opposite.  Here it is:

"It seems, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you [Holly] want to boil it all down to where any truth, being "fluid", could change at any time.  In other words, if the Watchtower suddenly published an article that said that the Trinity doctrine was correct, then I'd believe that, which is foolishness.....on several levels."

See those words "which is foolishness"? 

 

Hi Lloyd,

I think the point Shiwii is making is that you would accept the Trinity doctrine, or any other doctrine you were told to accept, in order to, as you've said, not break unity with the other members of the WTS.  This would be looking to men and not to God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr_VHC@WNF said:

I'm a bit late to the table, but would like to share my thoughts using science as an example. One hundred years ago, science knew all they could know at that time. Today, with the exception of some, many of those facts have changed. Were they wrong? No, not for their time. Today, one hundred years later, yes they are. Why? Because there are various limitations in our abilities at any given time. One hundred years ago, we simply did not have the technology to allow us to see more of what's out there. Right now, we understand that we are limited in our abilities to understand some things, but we can predict what we think should be out there with mathematics and physics calculations. Often we have to wait for the technology to become available to test out those "theories". Some things get proven right, others get disproved and so we must move with the evidence.

So to with spiritual truths, in one hundred years time, spiritual truths will be quite different to how we know them today. A friend of mine died in 2009. Since then there have been so many changes that if he came back today he'd be mind blown! Now, think back a couple thousand years, the apostle Paul was given a vision of the third heaven. But he could speak about the things he saw. It is quite possible that part of what he saw was the spiritual paradise we enjoy today (according to current thinking) But what we know today, might be "words that cannot be spoken and that are not lawful for a man to say." Like scientists who wait for the technology to be invented to allow them to understand deeper truths about the universe, we too must wait on Jehovah, through Christ, to shine light on things we cannot see - isn't that what having faith is?

 

Thank you for joining in Mr V. :) Others have also posted using the comparison of science to what we believe the Bible teaches.  I don't agree with this comparison because of what the Bible tells us. 

For instance, Paul did not expect his teaching to change: Galatians 1: 8  But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

He also cautioned against being "tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine," Ephesians 4:14.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Holly said: " If the men on the governing body did claim to be infallible, what would that change for you?"

Why do I feel like I'm being set up for some quote from many years ago that someone might interpret as the governing body or a Watchtower president saying they are infallible?

So let's skip ahead.  Here's the answer to that upcoming quote (if I have guessed right).  While it may appear that they had been saying that they were infallible, actually they likely did believe that what they had come to believe was correct, perhaps even as if it came from Jehovah's mouth.  But in that, they could have been somewhat mistaken.  The happy conclusion is that, as demonstrated by the quote from the Revelation book, that, as a group, they humbled themselves and purposefully admitted that they were NOT infallible.

2. Holly said: "As you posted earlier, 1 Cor. 1:10 was Paul admonishing the Christians in Corinth to be in agreement and not be looking to a person nor promoting one person over another, even if that person were himself or one of the apostles.  It's a call for Christian unity, not a call for uniform acceptance of teachings that keep changing."

How is it even possible to speak in agreement if there is no agreement about the tenets of the group?  That makes no sense.  When there was a disagreement about circumcision, the governing body of Biblical times decided what was correct and sent out a decree to the congregation so that they would all be in agreement.  This is basic.   

3. Holly said, "Don't you count on those in other churches to ignore this very scripture and change their beliefs to yours?"

I'm not sure I know what you mean.  I know, as I'm sure you do to, that there is an almost shocking lack of agreement amongst even individual denominations, not to mention the so-called "Christian" groups as a whole, and amongst almost all other religions as well, witness the disharmony amongst Muslim religions today.  However, we welcome folks to come out from those non-unified religions to become part of one that is unified on a worldwide basis, in harmony with 1 Cor 1:10.

 

    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Forum Statistics

    61,675
    Total Topics
    114,481
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,505
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    Leander H. McNelly
    Newest Member
    Leander H. McNelly
    Joined




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.