by Witness 007 3 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
It's like calling Hitler "Fair and Reasonable." The "Slave class"....
FAITHFUL - They abandon the original "No Blood" doctrine of the past due to bad publicity and now allow all fractions of blood to be used. They now allow Brothers to do civilian Service instead of Miltary training....even though thousands have died in the past for refusing to do this.
DISCREET - Armagedon in 1879, 1914, 1925, 1941, 1975, before the "generation" of 1914 dies......not very damn "discreet" at all.
Faithful- on the blood issue, I hear you. If they were so sure that NO BLOOD meant NO BLOOD WHATSOEVER, then they are just unfaithful to their own teachings. Oh, they can spin about medical advances and the principle not being violated, YADDA YADDA. The bottom line- they have abandoned their principles (if they had any) over lawsuits. Similar with civilian vs. military service.
Discreet- this is my huge issue with them. While I don't hold Russell up like a founding father with some special insight, still Russell said that revealed truth would not contradict established truth. If these guys had the guidance from the spirit they claim they have, then they would have some truth, some more truth, even more truth, etc. as time goes by. If they thought something but were not sure of it, being discreet would cause them to avoid being dogmatic or mentioning it at all. They would not allow a frenzy to build over 1975 or similar in the past. They would admit that they really don't know, but that there is a possibility. There would be no flipflop on "generation" or "superior authorities" or whether Sodom and Gomorrah victims would get a resurrection. If they knew, it would be said that Holy Spirit revealed it. If they did not know, their discretion would cause them to say it has not been revealed.
Them saying in the past that they may have been overly eager is an admission that they are not discreet.
They were very discreet about Jesus choosing them to be the FDS in 1918/9.
They didn't menton it for nigh on two decades.
Love
Wobble
While I don't hold Russell up like a founding father with some special insight, still Russell said that revealed truth would not contradict established truth.
Aye, there's the rub.
If the "old position" was "we don't know what scripture X:YZ means", and the later position was "scripture X:YZ means this", I could buy the "increasing light" paradigm.
But when it's "Scripture X:YZ means this, and if you disagree with us you will expelled", and then 10 years later it's "Scripture X:YZ means the opposite of what we said, and if you disagree we'll expel you", and then 20 years later it's "Oops, well, Scripture X:YZ really did mean what we said 30 years ago, and if you disagree with us now we'll expel you"....well. that's a bit hard to swallow.
