I Do Not Understand Why JWs Leave & Become Catholics!

by minimus 239 Replies latest jw friends

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Hi Toreador,

    If you read BurnTheShips responses, I believe that he soundly shows more of the quotes to be in error, or in some way deficient. As Burn noted in email with me, it only takes a few minutes for someone to quote from a blog, and not check facts, creating some wild and scary claims ... but it takes many hours at times to trace down the sources to authenticate them only to discover and demonstrate their deficiency. I strongly recommend that when people make quotes that they do their homework and exhibit some academic honesty.

    I realize in your case you were reposting what Flatlander put up on CC, so I am not suggesting that you were being dishonest. I responded to Flat on CC with just one example to illustrate my point ... but I may follow up with Burn's more exhaustive work.

    Jim W.

  • Tom Cabeen
    Tom Cabeen

    Here is what I believe about hell, reniaa:

    Catholics and the Orthodox, following the teachings of the earliest Christians, believe that it is impossible for God not to love us, his earthly children. Love is his very essence and he made us expressly so that he could love us. God loves us so much that he sent his only-begotten son to save us and demonstrate the length he would go to to show us he loves us.

    Out of love for us, he made us in such a way that our deepest longings, our most profound needs, are satisfied in Him. He made us to find our fulfillment in the best he had, Himself. He made us to be his lovers; thus we will never be satisfied until we are in perfect relationship with him. When that happens, we will also be in the correct relationship with all other creatures who are in relationship with him, a huge loving family of giving and shared experiences. That is why he made us, so that he could love us and share his life with us.

    Love, by its very nature, must be spontaneous. It cannot be forced or coerced and still be love. In order to meet that condition, God had to give us free will, along with the qualities of character we would need to exercise that free will, including intelligence, curiosity, and the capacity for faith and love. As a consequence, we must make a free choice to obey God; we must come to him in pure loving response to what he has done for us. God would never try to force us into obeying him, even though He knows we will never be completely happy until we conform our thoughts and actions to His.

    But free will also has a downside. Since we have the God-given capacity for choice, He must also give us the right to reject Him. If that were not true, we would not truly have free will. If we choose to go down that path away from our Creator, God will use every means at his disposal, short of violating our free will, to call us to repentance. He offers free forgiveness and He demonstrates his love for us over and over again, in hope that we might come to realize that only in full, complete relationship with him will we ever realize our potential as his children, made in his own image. But ultimately, we have the right to reject him, even to hate him, to substitute love we ought to have for Him and give it to other, lesser things.

    In the words of C.S. Lewis on this subject, it boils down to this: "In the end, we either say to God: 'Thy will be done' or God will say to us 'Thy will be done.'" God knows (because he made us) that once we get to that point, despite all his efforts to demonstrate his love for us, that our hatred will grow until we hate Him with all our heart (just as Satan does). Those who ultimately will end up hating God will seek to be away from his presence, even if they would be welcome there.

    God will abandon such creatures to their own devices, and thus, they will be in what Jesus called "outer darkness". Just "where" that will be is not the point at all. Even if God were to allow such people full access to his presence, they would hate to be there. Like a Rock & Roll fan at an opera, or an opera fan at a Heavy Metal concert, the same "place", God’s presence, would be heaven for one and hell for the other. Imagery like fire is used in Scripture to represent the pain of separation from God (which is the Catholic definition of hell, by the way).

    One more point about eternity. Eternity does not mean an endless succession of days; millions, billions or trillions of them. Eternity means being outside of time, timeless (that is the literal meaning of the word). All of our linear, sequential time is included in timelessness. One way to envision that is to think about the relationship of our linear time to the "time" in storybooks on a shelf. We can open a book and enter a particular "time", the succession of events found in that story. Then we can close the book and be completely outside of that "time", then later reopen it and be right back in it. That is how some orthodox thinkers have compared the linear time we live in to the eternity in which God dwells.

    Those who reject God will end up living in timelessness also, but without the one thing they need to be happy: God. But it will be their own choice about the matter. They will not just be sent somewhere because they inadvertently broke some little rule or other. It will be because they have made a fully informed choice, of their own free will, knowing full well the consequences of their choice, to live without God, and, when offered the chance to change their mind and repent, will refuse. Those who do that will be, completely as a result of their own choice, in hell.

    I would recommend C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce" for a more complete (and much better) exploration of this subject, which was also very difficult for Lewis. It was very helpful to me.

    Tom

  • Carlos_Helms
    Carlos_Helms

    "If you read BurnTheShips responses, I believe that he soundly shows more of the quotes to be in error, or in some way deficient. As Burn noted in email with me, it only takes a few minutes for someone to quote from a blog, and not check facts, creating some wild and scary claims ... but it takes many hours at times to trace down the sources to authenticate them only to discover and demonstrate their deficiency. I strongly recommend that when people make quotes that they do their homework and exhibit some academic honesty.

    I realize in your case you were reposting what Flatlander put up on CC, so I am not suggesting that you were being dishonest. I responded to Flat on CC with just one example to illustrate my point ... but I may follow up with Burn's more exhaustive work."





    Carlos

  • minimus
    minimus

    Amazing

  • jschwehm
    jschwehm

    Hi Mary: It was realizing that the Catholic Church gave us the New Testament that got me interested in learning what the Catholic Church really taught. I had always been taught as a JW and a Protestant Christian that the New Testament books were inerrant but then I discovered that the JWs and all of the Protestant groups that I had associated with had very little to do with providing me with these books that they considered to be inerrant. When I found out that it was the Catholic Church that gave me and them (meaning the JWs and the different Protestant groups) the New Testament books that we believed to be inerrant, I was shocked because both the JWs and the protestant groups I associated with both were highly critical of the teachings of the Catholic Church--the very compiler of these inerrant books. It just seemed so inconsistent that we would accept as inerrant, a collection of books from the very same group (meaning the Catholic Church) that we were so critical of that we even referred to the Catholic Church as the Harlot of Babylon........It just seemed like such a logical contradiction that I could not in good conscience say that I believed that the New Testament books are a faithful and inerrant representation of what Christians believe without at least investigating what the Catholic Church, the very Church that gave us these books, really taught. Jeff S. www.catholicxjw.com

  • justhuman
    justhuman

    Excellent points Tom Cabeen....

    Eventually this is the way that the extreme Protestand groups are blaming Catholic Church for Hell, and the problem is that in English and other languages, the Translation of their Bible contains mistakes while the Greek Bible that the Orthodox Church is using are the original texts. That is why the Orthodox Church does not accept any translations to be used in the Ceremony inside the Church. That is why the issue of filioque occured between the East and West Roman Church because of mistranslation to Latin.

    While in the Greek Bible we have Hades, and Hell, and many times hades is translated in English with Hell. But Hades always in the Bible and the Hebrew scriptures is reffering to the place were the souls are waiting for judgement day. That is why in the Orthodox Church we have Jesus entering to Hades and preaching to the spirits in prison according to A Peter 3:18,19. and also that the Gospel was preached to the dead. So we have hades in the Hebrew Scriptures, while in the Greek scriptures we have also Hell(Kolasis) But again kolasis in Greek does not mean in any way a burning place. It is actually a personal situation -kolazome, and this is happening for those who decide to be way from the presense of God. Their choice to be way from God tortures them. That is why at the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich guy was in Hell(kolasis)and he was tortured because he was way from God's presense. Again for those who will claim that is only a parable and not a fact, Jesus was always speaking about real facts in the parables, and not fiction things, like flying dragons..

    Regarding the Bible Canon, it was fininalized by Saint Athanasius(Greek Orthodox)at the 4th century, when the last book was added the Revelation of John. So technically speaking it was the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church that set the Canon and at that time it was ONE UNITED CHURCH, the East(Orthodox)and West Rome.

    The point is that Protestands accept only the Bible. But what about the writtings of the Early Church fathers, or Epistoles from the Early Bishops of the Church like Clemes of Rome, or Ignatius the Bishop of Jerusalim at 97 A.D. All those writtings indicate to us that the Church is still operating like tha Early Church.

    We had Apostoles, Prophets, Bishops in the Church. The Church was Synodic and all the Bishops(Episkopoi)were equal. When a problem occured a Synodos was held to define Christian faith, exactly to what happened in Jerusalim with the problem of circumcission. That is why they had to make a Synodos in Nicea for the problem of Trinity due to Arius heretic views. The exact pattern of how did the meeting was held in Jerusalim is still carried on from the Orthodox Church for 2000 years, showing that the Early Church nevered apostasized.

  • reniaa
    reniaa
    Roman Catholic Beliefs

    The teaching of the Roman Catholic church prior to 1999-JUL has been consistent:

    bulletHell is a location where its inmates will be severely punished without any hope of relief, for eternity.
    bulletAmong those punished will be Satan, the angels that supported him, and persons who have died "with grave and unrepentant sins" which have not been wiped clean by church rituals. 1
    bulletThe level of torture in Hell will be meted out in accordance with the seriousness of the individual's sin. It will last forever. There is no prospect of relief or mercy. The Roman Catholic church teaches that punishment will be in the form of isolation from God, and some supernatural form of fire which causes endless, unbearable pain, but does not consume the body. Eastern Orthodox churches teach that the precise form of punishment is not known to us.
    bulletThe Church teaches that most individuals who are not destined to Hell first suffer punishment in Purgatory. This is a type of time-limited Hell during which they become fully cleansed and acceptable for admission to heaven.
    bulletIn the special case of newborns who die before being baptized, the church is ambivalent. It has no official stance. However, many Roman Catholics believe that newborns go to a place or state called "Limbo" which is separate from heaven, but where the infants are happy.

    On 1999-JUL-28, at his Wednesday general audience, Pope John Paul II made some statement that made the front pages of some North American newspapers. He said that:

    bullet"Hell is not a punishment imposed externally by God, but the condition resulting from attitudes and actions which people adopt in this life...So eternal damnation is not God's work but is actually our own doing."
    bullet"More than a physical place, hell is the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy."
    bulletHell is "the pain, frustration and emptiness of life without God."2,3

    I recognise when the witnesses changed generation to make it more paletable and allow more time so I'm surprised that former witnesses that condemn this in JW's accept the same softening of the Hell stance in Catholics to make it more main stream?

    The softening of hell was a massive change in 1999 Tom and quite the equal of anything people accuse JW's of hmmm.

  • nomoreguilt
    nomoreguilt

    Reniaa...............So, you are saying that the jw's changed the generation so that there would be more time for sheep like ones to embrace the truth, is that correct? So, then, JW's are in control of when the big " A " comes? And not some god figure? Hmmm They do have you totally brain controlled don't they. You continue to be the jw apologist that you are. And now you feel that you can debate what other religions teach just like in the old days f jw's when we would stick our foot in a door and rany and rave about how wrong they are for THEIR beliefs. Pity.

    NMG

  • reniaa
    reniaa

    attack me rather than the point I made nomoreguilt? good tactic!

    I recognise the problems with JWs and how that is reflected in changes and mistakes, but if the blinkers are off for JWs they are also off for any other religion and or political organisations.

    So I'm not going to do what most ex-Jw's do who turn from JW because of doctrine issues and just put a new set of blinkers on for another religion or organisation in this case catholism.

    The example I used which you ignored is exactly the sort of doctrine change you hold against the Jw's, in fact it's worse because it's a major doctrinal change from a set belief for 1800 years. I can probably dig up thousands of books fully illustrated of hellfire and damnation with full description of suffering sinners will have that all contradict this new statement from the pope, who because he is seen as God's mouthpiece and divine in himself has set a new doctrinal policy.

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    I recognise when the witnesses changed generation to make it more paletable and allow more time so I'm surprised that former witnesses that condemn this in JW's accept the same softening of the Hell stance in Catholics to make it more main stream?

    "The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, Hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy".

    The soul is from God, and belongs with God. Those that choose to not be with God will suffer the torment of the separation from God for eternity. To call it an eternal fire that torments is a good analogy.

    BTS

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit