The "new light" never extinguishes the old "light", but adds to it - C.T. Russell, WT February 1881

[Matthew9969]

Who names their kid Shelton?

[Pudgy]

Mothers who have children with at least nine multiple personalities let them name themselves, 

[Pudgy]

Since you are the first one to post that particular hieroglyph, my guess is that it is you, insulting yourself, Fausto !

 

[Pudgy]

…. reminds me of an episode of “Hill Street Blues”, about 40 years ago, of the narcoleptic comedian who could not get a job because he would fall asleep in the middle of his standup, and also because his name was Vic Hitler. 

 

[Pudgy]

20 hours ago, Pudgy said:

… try THIS one ….

ɲ𓋣𓋣𓈻𓉣𓂀

… get it?

 

1 hour ago, SheltonB said:

Does this message originate from individuals named Matthew9969 and Pudgy? We must ponder the reasons behind people's inclination to insult someone's name. It appears rather immature to me.

Is anyone able to contribute something intellectually stimulating to the topic, or are insults the sole focus here?

 

As ANYONE (except YOU, Fausto) can see quoted here the two postings are not even remotely similar. 

Therefore my statement still holds true, and you yourself proved yours is babble.

17 minutes ago, SheltonB said:

It appears that certain mothers fail to instill the value of honesty in their children.

 

YOUR POSTING IS THE FIRST AND ONLY ONE WITH THE PICTURE OF THE GUY SITTING DOWN! THAT MAKES MY STATEMENT TRUE AS WRITTEN AND YOURS MEANINGLESS AGENDA DRIVEN BABBLE.

[Pudgy]

… so much for self professed “intellectuals”.

[Pudgy]

Oh really?

[Juan Rivera]

On 9/28/2023 at 6:58 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

GB constantly finds reasons to change its previous point of view, opinion. And so it happens that the previous "Light" has become the current "Darkness".

@Srecko Sostar As I see it, a large part(not all) of those who claim to be Christians, including JWs, and the lady of the video you shared (JW Research Rose) all work under the same principle. The principle is that the Christian religion is to be learned by interpreting the sources independently of the claims of any particular church/congregation, so that one must pick or find a church/congregation on the basis of that interpretation. The differences arise from differences about what the relevant sources are, and about how they are to be interpreted. But the principle is the same. 

The point is, that a large part of those who consider themselves Christian whether they are part of a church or not, have a perpetual openness to discovering new biblical and theological arguments to take us back to what the first century congregation itself actually thought. So to claim that something can be settled by biblical and theological arguments seems to be incompatible with that interpretative framework itself. 

So it's not change for the sake of changing. 

On 9/28/2023 at 6:58 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

Every mind-unchained JW should be concerned about his role in believing and spreading today's "Truth", because tomorrow it will be declared "Darkness".

I understand your concern, as we all should, since it's clear we will stand before the Judgment seat and give an account for those whom we have aided in truth or misled. But this concern applies to everyone (not just JWs), especially those who are interested in knowing, loving, and serving God, according to the First Commandment (making every effort to seek out and embrace the religion God has revealed). 

Here's the issue I think we all have to face: 

If we as individuals and the Congregation are fallible, and thus could always be wrong, then the assent we give to doctrinal statements is always tentative and subject to substantive revision. If we and the Congregation could get it really, really wrong when we define a doctrine, then it would follow that we know next to nothing with any certainty. Statements of doctrine from a fallible authority of this kind cannot be clearly distinguished from human opinions, at least in theology, as distinct from, say mathematics or natural science. If this is so, then we don't know when what we're assenting to is a true expression of divine revelation, as opposed to a merely human way of interpreting the sources.  Everything remains up in the air, up for grabs, an open question yet to be settled and possibly false. 

On 9/28/2023 at 6:58 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

Regardless of how JWs feel about this, it is significant that a large number of their "Truths" are being changed to such an extent and significance that they can no longer be called, or even should not be called "Truth", but become, rejected and forgotten over time, "The Interpretation" of some human minds.

I think is important to distinguish between the type of teachings and pronouncements that are being discussed : Do the teachings have to do with faith, with morals? Are they prudential judgments, policies, disciplines, practices, admonitions, worship? Prophecies, symbolic language, parables, prophetic passages? 

The issue you are trying to point out. if I'm right,  is if JWs have a system where some teachings don't change by contradiction, but develop/change in continuity, as opposed to other provisional teachings that can come and go, and even contradict previous decisions, because they are temporally conditioned, and the leadership is fallible with respect to them. There are two points to keep in mind though. First, a doctrine that develops is not corruption, though both involve change. Not all change is corruption.

On the other end of that same conversation: 

Fallibilism is not fallibility. Just because not everyone reasons well (although some people are better at avoiding error than others),our fallibility doesn’t prevent us from having more certainty about x than y. We can perceive the truth of some things to a greater degree than we do other things. So we have to distinguish between being susceptible to error, and the possible falsehood of any beliefs we hold or state. The fact that we are susceptible to error doesn’t mean that we cannot know with certainty that any of our beliefs are true. Nor does it mean that every proposition we believe or state might be false. Being fallible does not mean being skeptical about knowledge or truth. The text(Scripture) does possess meaning and can be accessed by ordinary people by their own reading of Scripture without the instruction of others . But accessing that meaning requires bringing the proper interpretative framework to the text. So what we need is to have intellectual humility and recognize that no one is well enough to avoid error absolutely. We have to recognize where and when and how we are fallible (noticing that we have gotten things wrong in the past, in these sorts of circumstances, in these sorts of ways, etc.)

On 9/28/2023 at 6:58 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

Some JWs will try to rationalize this theological/doctrinal middle ground with the idea that "it is not the truth that changes but our understanding of the truth". "Present Truth" is changing, the book Proclaimers says, because of "advances in the understanding of truth."

The book Proclaimers deals with the terms:

1-"light is progressive"
2-"progressive understanding"
3-"shining of light is progressive"
4-"study of God's Word is progressive"
5-"progressive Truth"
6-"recognizing the progressive character of the unfolding of Scriptural truths"

But this issue is hardly new. You have Christians already in the 5th Century like Vincent of Lerins wrestling with John 17:3 and the idea of growth and development of understanding like Russell's "A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth. "New light" never extinguishes older "light" but adds to it."

On 9/28/2023 at 6:58 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

After this kind of terminology used to defend the changes in the doctrines of the WTJWorg, we may wonder what JWs actually believe. Do they believe in "The Bible"? Do they believe in "The Truth"? Do they believe in "The Progress"? Do they believe in "The Understanding"? Do they believe in all these separate elements, which can only be correctly connected and formed together giving the final product only within their Main Church Body aka GB?

The propositional content of our faith is crucial, but it is crucial with respect to its end, which is to safely direct persons to the living reality of God Himself, not merely to insist upon propositions about God.

[Juan Rivera]

On 9/28/2023 at 6:58 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

Some JWs will try to rationalize this theological/doctrinal middle ground with the idea that "it is not the truth that changes but our understanding of the truth". "Present Truth" is changing, the book Proclaimers says, because of "advances in the understanding of truth."

@Srecko Sostar Here's an excerpt from a book I read a few years ago that deals with this question from a broader perspective, or say a more specific perspective (Catholic Tradition). It's by moral theologian Richard A. McCormick's Notes on Moral Theology: 1965 through 1980)

"I believe it is correct to say that the notion of the assistance of the Holy Spirit needs a good deal of theological attention… Any who undertake to speak about the action of the Spirit, especially if they try to explain how the Spirit works, realizes in advance that they are more than ever likely to end up with a theological foot in their mouth and make an utter fool of themselves; for the operations of the Spirit are above all ineffable. Yet the possibility of gaining some understanding and the anticipation of charitable correction by others minimizes the arrogance of the attempt. With this in mind I should like to offer a possible approach.

In facing this question two extremes must be avoided. The first would explain the assistance of the Spirit to the magisterium in a way which dispenses with the human processes. The second would simply reduce this assistance to human process. The first is the notion of a special assistance by the Spirit which represents a new source of hierarchical knowledge, arcane and impervious to any criticism developed out of Christian experience, evidence, and reasoning. Such a notion of assistance results in a form of fideism which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to see how any authoritative utterance is not thereby practically infallible. Furthermore, this notion of assistance is a summary edict of dissolution for the scholarly and theological fraternity.

The second extreme is such an emphasis on analysis and reasons that the action of the Spirit is simply identified with the shrewdest thinkers in the community and ultimately imprisoned in the best reasons they can unravel. This is an extreme for many reasons, not the least of which is that it is a form of neorationalism which overlooks the complexity and developmental character of moral cognition, especially by bypassing the real significance of the communitarian aspect of moral knowledge, and especially of the sensus fidelium. If the action of the Spirit is primarily directed to the Church as a whole, and secondarily and in subordination to the needs of the Church, to its pastors as pastors, then surely this fact must influence the emergence of moral knowledge, the operations of the magisterium, and the notion of the special assistance of the Holy Spirit to the magisterium.

It would seem that any explanation of the assistance of the Holy Spirit to the magisterium (noninfallible) must be adequate to four factors: (1) the judgmental competence of the hierarchy within the whole teaching process, (2) the activity of the Spirit in the formation of such judgment, (3) the possibility and fact of error in these judgments, and (4) the relevance of the experience and reflection of the whole Church in forming these judgments.

I should like to suggest that the middle course we seek is one which would associate the activity of the Spirit with human processes without identifying it with them. The nature of this association can perhaps be illumined by a reflection on error. When error occurs in human judgments, it would seem to occur in either of two ways: in the gathering of evidence or in the assessment of the evidence. Obviously there can be many reasons why either of these processes would function inadequately, but it is the breakdown of one of them to which judgmental error can be traced. If this is true, then is it not reasonable to think that at least the proper implementation of these processes is generally required to avoid error in complex decisions?

When this is applied to the magisterium, we might say that error could occur either through evidence-gathering or evidence-assessing. Hence at least adequate evidence-gathering or evidence-assessing are required if error is to be avoided. Evidence-gathering is inadequate when consultation is not broad enough to allow the full wisdom stimulated by the Spirit's activity in the whole Church to emerge. Evidence-assessing breaks down when consideration of the evidence is insufficient to allow the Spirit to aid in the emergence of its meaning. In the contemporary world these inadequacies would seem to be traceable to a failure in the fullness of the collegial process at all levels.

Now the magisterium of the Church has special advantages to overcome these handicaps in arriving at moral truth. First of all, bishops as pastors are in a unique position to be in contact with the convictions, problems, beliefs, joys, sufferings, and reflections of all groups in the local Church. That is, they are positioned to consult the experience and convictions (the wisdom) of their flock. As collegial pastors they are in a position to pool this wisdom and weigh it through a process of dialogue and debate. In this sense the episcopal and papal magisterium have sources of information which exceed those available to anyone else. Summarily: negatively, the magisterium is in a wonderful position to reduce the barriers which bind the Spirit; positively, it is positioned to engage the total resources of the community and thus give the Spirit the fullest possible scope.

Therefore, though we cannot capture in human categories the operations and assistance of the Holy Spirit, can we not identify the human processes within which the Spirit must be supposed to operate? And since the hierarchy is uniquely situated to implement these processes, is it not open to the assistance of the Spirit in a special way when it does so?"
 

Here's a discussion by a Witness (Rotherham) in regards to this topic: https://michaeljfelker.com/2014/05/23/spirit-directed-and-spirit-inspired-is-there-a-difference/

[Pudgy]

2 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

 …. The propositional content of our faith is crucial, but it is crucial with respect to its end, which is to safely direct persons to the living reality of God Himself, not merely to insist upon propositions about God.

Two excellent, well thought out posts.

I especially liked the above quoted synopsis.

Since unfortunately, people like witch hunts, we must never surrender to the natural tendency to weaponize “new light”, for the consolidation of ecclesiastical power and authority.

  

[Srecko Sostar]

I hope you don't mind me using an older comment I wrote under the topic, "At what moment "Te Truth" ceased to be "The Truth"?" Although it is an old comment from 2018, I don't think it has expired , still.

 

 

First we should come up with an answer on what type of "inspiration" the GB speaks. As for the religious people who govern the believers, then we can safely assert that GB actually claims that they are not inspired by the divine spirit. 

In what sense of inspiration? In the sense of what is often used for written Bible text and its source, these are verses like - 2 Peter 1:19-21 and 2 Timothy 3:14-16. GB denied such divine inspiration for written and verbal text that coming from GB members mouth, or in extension, all what is produced as "spiritual food" by means, with help, through WT Company or JW Organization as god's chosen organized people who doing His will.

Now let us see something about word "inspire" (and all forms that come from this one).

few from dictionary:

 to make someone feel that they want to do something and can do it

 to make someone have a particular strong feeling or reaction

 to give someone an idea for a book, film, product, etc

to fill someone with confidence and desire to do something

If something or someone inspires something else, it causes or leads to it

 As we can see to be inspired can came from various sources. And all sources are normal (if they are normal :)). If you as JW member listen to Conventional program and hear some bro or sis how they are happy in missionary service, how they meet many interesting people, saw beautiful scenery of nature and  many more and after you heard that you want to be missionary .... Who INSPIRED Who? Nothing is wrong to be INSPIRED. 

If you read some book, watching TV, movie and something move you aka inspired you to say something, to do something ... it means you are INSPIRED. If God from heaven tell you to say, to do something, it means you are INSPIRED.

When GB of JW say how they are not INSPIRED what that means? Not inspired by spirit of God, not inspired by other people spirit , not inspired by own spirit??

How ever they claim, state, quote how they are not inspired, they are in fact want to say how GB is not RESPONSIBLE for nothing have been said and written. That is main reason for defending themselves with phrase "we are not inspired". 

Inspiration is divine gift. And was given to all people. Or better to say some will found that and some will used that.  :))) Not only for religious purposes!!!

 

To continue in the present. The old and new light coming from GB did not come from being "inspired by HS", as GB claims. But, they say, it (new progressive understanding) was created through a deep study of the Scriptures and the guidance of the Spirit.

What do they mean by "led, guide by the Spirit"? Whatever we think of it, it's obvious that the "light" in their conference room is playing with its shadows. And maybe it's just a problem: "in the gathering of evidence or in the assessment of the evidence". as @Juan Rivera pointed  by quoting theologian Richard A. McCormick's Notes on Moral Theology: 1965 through 1980)

 

[Srecko Sostar]

@say6hows7

prije 9 sati

Ironically, the governing body grants themselves, the right to question the doctrines, and even disagree, and suggest alternative explanations or interpretations to scripture, and yet, if any regular witness, was to do what they do every Wednesday, they would be disfellowshipped for apostasy

from YT :      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u25uLUBIilM&t=36s