I Do Not Understand Why JWs Leave & Become Catholics!

by minimus 239 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Jenlet

  "The belief that Mary worship is acceptable is counter to all Bible teaching. Infant sprinkling and baptism is unscriptural. Forbidding the clergy to marry or have children is a perversion of scripture and we can go on and on."

  Wow, you are certainly well trained by the WTS ... these are some of the most well-worn anti-Catholic chestnuts in existence.

  May I make a book suggestion? "Catholicism and Fundamentalism" by Karl Keating is a good piece of Catholic apologetics, in my opinion. Keating responds to your concerns directly, and I think very well.

  I am not Catholic but I found this book interesting.
• 

  hillary_step

  I can't speak for minimus, but I'm surprised at how many people have jumped to the Catholic Church's defense.

  Well, I am not sure that what is happening is actually a defence ofthe Catholic Church. I think people are merely trying to answer the question that Minimus raised, which I will remidn you was :

  I Do Not Understand Why JWs Leave & Become Catholics!

  Encapsulated within that question is a presupposition that finding one religion to be flawed theologically, then it would logically follow that another one is flawed also. That of course does not follow. Perhaps the question would have been better posed if it were worded: 'Why Do People Become Catholics', not why to XJW's become Catholic.

  My own suggestion which I will quote again:

  I own the full run of the Catholic Encyclopedia, I also own a full run of Insight on the Scriptures. Let us just put it this way, Catholic Theologians are rather more catholic than is the WTS and they are also far more advanced in their scientific and Biblical knowledge than Ted Jaracz and his lifeless flock of career compromised pseudo-scholars. Perhaps this has something to do with it.

  ...is that a person who has been versed on WTS theology, basically founded on the brain of a handful of suspect scholars like Frederick Franz, are suddenly presented with an overwhelming body of well preserved and established theology from Augustine to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, it can be a compelling discovery. The Catholic Church has, for example, had no issue with evolution since the 50's and has long adhered to the concept of ID, before it became the refuge of the defeated Creationist.

  I have been both a Catholic and a JW, and as far as I am concerned 'a pox on both their houses', but it is no real mystery as to why the Chruch would appeal to the mainly shallow religionists who stumble from the cult.

  HS
• 

  minimus

  Catholic.com library has that interesting comment about circumcision, I see.

  Regarding my dissing of Mariolatry, infant baptism and priests not marrying and having kids, this is not just a JW point of view. Most Protestants would agree that these issues are valid.

  It's funny, we can all diss JWs but we shouldn't expose the false beliefs and corruption of the Roman Catholic Church. Hmmmmm.

  Hillary, just to remind you, my theme has no question in it (for a change).
• 

  hamilcarr

  The Eucharist offers a collective and spiritual experience which appeals to our deepest sociobiological urges.
• 

  minimus

  Eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood will do that I guess.

  And this is supposed to be literal. Yum and dumb.
• 

  Satanus

  A book by ralph woodrow, called babylon connection? dubunks hislop. Here is a pasted rundown on it:
  
  Woodrow carefully covers the "sun god" argument that Hislop mounted against the Eucharist. He exposes the poor reasoning that tries to link the Eucharist to the sun god based on its round shape, while ignoring that the manna that God rained down on the Israelites in the dessert was also round. (Exod. 16:14) He also shows how Hislop's arguments turn against themselves.
  
  There is no evidence, so far as I have been able to find, that, in the Babylonian system, the thin round cake...was ever regarded in any other light than as a symbol... [nor did they believe it was] changed into the god whom it represented" (Hislop)
  
  ... the Catholics did not get the doctrine of transubstantiation from Babylon! On the other hand, it is the Protestants who regard the communion bread as a symbol!...In reality Babylon had nothing to do with it either way! (Woodrow examining Hislop pg. 65)
  
  Woodrow also carefully exposes the fallacies behind the "pagan goddess" argument against Mary. Mary had nothing in common with the perverted pagan earth goddesses. (more on the attempts to link Mary to pagan goddesses here) He disassembles the argument that the Pope is "actually canonized Satan" citing historical twists used by Hislop to link the Pope to Babylon. He exposes the faulty association that Hislop attempts to make between the pagan god Dagon (the fish god) and the shape of the Pope's hat (mitre) saying that the hat looks like a fish. The hat was not formed until after 1100A.D. and had many shapes over the centuries. To say we worship a fish god because the Pope's hat is pointed, is about as bizarre as saying a guitar is shaped like a fish so any Evangelical who plays a guitar is worshipping the fish god. Woodrow shows Hislop's faulty claims that Peter (who Catholics believe is the first pope) holding the "keys to the kingdom" is really Janus the god of doors, meanwhile forgetting that this reasoning could lead one to thinking Jesus is also Janus because Christ is described as holding keys. (Rev 1:18, 3-7)
  
  Woodrow shows how Hislop's creative numerology (which is no more than superstition) could be used to make almost any name add up to the mark of the beast, including the name "The Rev Alexander Hislop." Woodrow reclaims candles and lamps (which are used by Jews in the Old Testament), he defends the anointing with oil "...anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord." (James 5:14, 15 & Mat 6:13). Woodrow demonstrates the faulty logic that claims a Church steeple is a phallic symbol and the tower of Babel. According to Herodotus 425 B.C. Babel was a ziggurat shape and looked nothing like a steeple. (pg 28)
  
  Woodrow's in-depth book examines Hislop's attempts to re-write Church history against the Catholicism. Woodrow concludes that these are unfair fringe arguments against Catholic doctrine that don't reflect sound reasoning or research.
  
  Woodrow makes it plain that he himself is an Evangelical and holds Evangelical views. Although he doesn't agree with all Catholic doctrine, he says it is clear that the Eucharist and Mary have nothing to do with pagan practices. Catholics have Jesus in their hearts when they take the Eucharist and they are identifying with the woman of whom Scripture says "all generations will call me blessed" (Lk 1:48) when they think of Mary. The book is called "The Babylon Connection?" by Ralph Woodrow available on Amazon.com.
  
  http://www.gov.ph/forum/thread.asp?rootID=96656&catID=24
  
  ------
  S
• 

  hamilcarr

  Eating and drinking together. Can you think of anything more basic to humans?

  Protestants are far too rational in their denying the transsubstantiation
• 

  Tom Cabeen

  Hi Min,
  
  You write: "Apostasies occurred from the beginning of the Christian congregation. The Roman church continued to propagate beliefs that were not from the inspired scriptures." Before the NT canon was finalized in the fourth century, by what standard would one decide that some teaching or practice was "scriptural"? The Old Testament?
  
  You write: "I believe the trinity belief is incorrect, hence an example of apostasy." To what would you attribute the phenomenon that only groups like Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals and Unitarians have "seen through" this "apostate" teaching, whereas the vast majority of Christians historically have believed the teaching about the relationship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit that is currently taught by the Catholic church and most Protestant Christians. Do you think it is because none of them have ever read the Bible?
  
  You say: "Forbidding men to marry, scripturally, is a sign of a false teaching." I would agree. That is why groups like the Albigensians were condemned by the Catholic Church. Surely you do not consider that the Catholic church's decision to select priests from among men who had already chosen to follow Jesus' and Paul's teaching of the superiority of the single state from the perspective of pursuing a career in ministry to be the same as "forbidding men to marry", do you? I would hope not, especially in view of the fact that no religious community holds marriage and family in higher regard than do Catholics.
  
  Regarding popes, I agree that some of them have done shameful things, at least as shameful as Peter denying Christ three times, even after he had been warned about it in advance. Yet I still consider his letters to be inspired and free from error.
  
  Tom
• 

  Satanus

  We had a thread on hislop @ http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/65204/1.ashx
  
  S
• 

  willyloman

  Some people (I'm not saying Cabeen is one of them) leave the dubs for one reason or another but can't seem to live without finding another straight jacket to wear. For them, you can take the man out of the JWs, but you can't take the JWs out of the man. And thus they fall into another tightly-knit religious community, memorize its creeds, and carry on the fierce debate over who's wrong, who's right, but from a brand new perspective.

  All you've done is trade one set of preconceived notions for another. Both positions require you to judge others based on what they believe about a set of man-made religious doctrines.

  When you choose any religion doctrine and insist it must be "The Truth," you become judgmental, intolerant, and divisive. But of course you do not call it that; you call it spirituality.

  Religion divides. Spirituality unites. Go and learn that and make your Jesus proud.