Christian denominations vs JW "New Light", Unity and Truth

[Samael_Khan]

This is true of Christianity also. If you were stranded on a desert island with only a copy of the Bible, you would not discover within its pages anything even remotely similar to modern Christianity. There were many variant forms of Christianity in the early days and even into the modern era.

True, but modern Christianity that I have come across allows people to leave with a figurative gun held to their head. It is not a modern doctrine to not even communicate with members who have left.

 

[Samael_Khan]

This is true of Christianity also. The life experience of a Christian at various centuries in history was vastly different. Modern Christianity would be unrecognizable to many Christians of past centuries.

You actually have a very good point here. But the difference between JW's and bible based Christianity is how they view doctrine. In most cases, interpretation of Prophecy and vague texts (besides the Trinity and catholicism) is open to many interpretations. One does not have to believe them and many people discuss them. With JW's, if you believe something today and that belief was said to be wrong by the GB tomorrow, you cannot dispute the understanding.

Also, when Christianity changes doctrines, the space between those changes is years with much discussion. So a person who accepts a belief would retain that belief till death. This is much different to JW's who change beliefs frequently without approval by the group as a whole, but only by a few men in charge.

 

[Samael_Khan]

JW is not historical Christianity in the manner that most other denominations and non-denominations are.

Correct

 

[Samael_Khan]

Ha ha. You are joking, right?

You will be surprised. I have uncovered dirt on them just by reading the Catholic Encyclopedia. And I am referring to not only the hierarchy but the laymen as well. So the laymen often express the faults such as with the child abuse issue. Witnesses as a whole will completely ignore the faults.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Yes. The truth is: Christianity is a false religion. Revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths are untrustworthy sources of truth and knowledge.

Interesting. Please explain.

 

[tayla]

You are actually making me think that the denominations are contradicting themselves.

You noticed. There are a lot of contradictions to notice, even in biblical interpretation.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Some of these ex-JW's would've had a hard time living and coping in ancient Israel. The Israelites had many issues / problems, but as a whole, they were still Jehovah's people. There was nowhere else to go for pure worship.

Irrelevent statement. Read Romans 5:20. The Mosaic Law made transgressions manifest. The Israelites did have a hard time keeping the law which is why they had to make sacrifices all the time. And then the Pharisees added to that burden.

Christianity isn't like the Mosaic Law for a reason. Christians don't have many laws just like Abraham didn't. Christians should have the Law written on their heart, which means very few laws necessary. They naturally do what is required if they are true Christians.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Some of these ex-JW's would've had a hard time living and coping in ancient Israel. The Israelites had many issues / problems, but as a whole, they were still Jehovah's people. There was nowhere else to go for pure worship.

Also bare in mind that every time "New Light" is revealed, it means that the Witnesses had a false belief. So I don't know what you mean by pure worship because there will be "New Light' in the future meaning that your current beliefs are tainted with falsehood.

In fact, what do you mean when you say "pure worship"? Because from what I understand there were different covenants with different requirements, but none of previous covenants which were overridden were wrong understanding.

 

[tayla]

How would a God communicate Revelation in a clear way? To what extent does the human mind deliberately distort what they read?

God doesn't reveal truth via religious or spiritual revelation. The human mind/soul is capable of discerning truth. We should use philosophy to discover false truth claims and to propose reasonable truth claims; these, worthy of belief (but not provably true). Only science within its proper domain is provably true.

 

[tayla]

if Harry Potter was a religious book it could be open to loads of interpretations.

Perhaps there will be a Harry Potter religion someday.

 

[tayla]

Depends on how one interprets what is truth?

Yes. This is the domain of philosophical epistemology. There are various views about it all which should be considered. Merely accepting every and any pulpit fist pounding preacher is a good way to be fooled.

 

[Samael_Khan]

What do you think? Do you think I "do not know"?

You forget....
Hebrews 10:23-25, "Incite one another to love and fine works....Do not forsake the gathering of yourselves together."

Are you encouraging worshippers of Jehovah to 'incite to love and fine works'? No ...you talk about & belittle your brothers, behind a computer screen.

You are more interested in your own "selfish desires": Proverbs 18:1, "One isolating himself is seeking his own selfish desires."

Each one must 'give an accounting'.

(For someone who claimed I 'bring them down to earth', you sure try to refute me! When you feel the need to be brought down.....)

But even Jesus called the Pharisees an "offspring of vipers", and they were his brothers. That sounds a bit rude.

Also, I think that it is belittling on your part to assume that a person is interested in their own selfish desires if they object to your beliefs. Its kind of condescending. If that is the case then one can say that Russell did the same thing when he started the Bible Students Movement.

You should be more objective and address points logically rather than attack a persons character. This goes for everybody who actually cares about making a valid point.

 

[tayla]

It is not a modern doctrine to not even communicate with members who have left.

I know this all too well.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Perhaps there will be a Harry Potter religion someday.

It actually wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Samael_Khan]

God doesn't reveal truth via religious or spiritual revelation. The human mind/soul is capable of discerning truth. We should use philosophy to discover false truth claims and to propose reasonable truth claims; these, worthy of belief (but not provably true). Only science within its proper domain is provably true.

Provably true yes. But what if a truth cannot be provable?

And on what basis do you say that God does not reveal truth via religious or spiritual revelation? Do you think that he wants it done through provable methods? Especially since those methods are only recent developments?

 

[tayla]

when Christianity changes doctrines, the space between those changes is years with much discussion. So a person who accepts a belief would retain that belief till death.

But if the doctrine is changed years later, after they died, they would have died believing something false. What good is a religion that allows people to die believing falsehood?

 

[tayla]

This is much different to JW's who change beliefs frequently without approval by the group as a whole, but only by a few men in charge.

It's not that different. The popes and theologians are the only ones changing doctrine in Christianity. The Christians at large are evicted from their churches (or burned at the stake) when they propose changes.

 

[tayla]

Witnesses as a whole will completely ignore the faults.

They are afraid of excommunication.

 

[Samael_Khan]

But if the doctrine is changed years later, after they died, they would have died believing something false. What good is a religion that allows people to die believing falsehood?

I would say they died believing what they genuinely believe in, whether it is false or not. They were not forced to accept something else that they didn't believe in. It isn't a matter of whether what the believed was true, it is a matter of whether they believed that their belief was true. If one joins a religion genuinely believing a certain doctrine, then two years later that doctrine is changed and they don't genuinely believe it then their faith isn't genuine and they are living a lie. Previously there was very little chance of this happening so the people could be true to themselves.

 

[Samael_Khan]

It's not that different. The popes and theologians are the only ones changing doctrine in Christianity. The Christians at large are evicted from their churches (or burned at the stake) when they propose changes.

They can still choose the doctrine and question it though. And when they are evicted these days they can still speak to their families who are in the church. In most cases we are beyond the burning at the stake idea.