I can see it now....no longer will they ask:
"How long have you been in "the truth"?
Maybe it will go something like this:
How long have you had "the view"?
I would like your input on this statement found in old "Zion's Day Star" advertisement. Is this true?
by AndersonsInfo 30 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Hoffnung
The problem with the WT Society, they never had "truth" to start with, not even to their own definition.
They claim to adhere strictly to the bible to define their doctrine. A comprehensive and contextual reading of the bible quickly reveals that they never were close to the message of the bible. So even if the viewpoint changes, they are still looking at the wrong things. Only a wholesale revision of the Watchtower doctrine to align it with the biblical message will bring improvement. As this will remove a lot of the mind-control techniques used to keep people bonded with the society, it is very unlikely this will ever happen.
Watchtower doctrines are based upon lies. As truth catches up with lies, they have to adapt it by modifying the lies, usually adding more lies to it, or by keeping silent over their past lies.
-
ballistic
Similar to what sizemik said, there is an "absolute truth" in philosophy. "Truth" is supposed to be "how it is". Our science is supposed to bring us closer to truth but rarely if ever can we be sure if we have truth because everything we know is through our senses and interpreted by our imperfect brain and filtered by our senses. The science of things that move at the speed of light, or values that are infinite or disappear with infinate speed or apear from nothing are all things our brains struggle to comprehend and yet these things make up the nature of the universe everywhere.
-
AndersonsInfo
Once again, thank you everyone! Interesting comments and they are helpful. Watson’s suggestion was funny?
Research indicates that Russell and Jones and others back when Jones wrote those words held to a similar “view” about "truth." The idea was that God had a “plan” and he revealed truths slowly depending on what era truth-seekers lived in. However, as we all know, Russell, and a few others of like-minded thinking, adjusted so-called “revealed truths” from time to time and justified those adjustments by saying “Truths never change, our views change.” And, of course, the Watch Tower still follows that mind-bending rule.
FTI, below find an early article of Russell where he defined (religious) "truth" in the first issue of ZWT, pages R8-9 in an article titled, "What Is Truth?" The italics are Russell's.
After you read the article, would you say Russell’s definition was an idealized description of truth that belonged to the Victorian era? In later articles, he elaborated lots more on the subject, but do you think his words in this article indicate he was prone to fantasy thinking? Do some of his thoughts border on gibberish? Please share your thoughts on what was going on in your mind as you read Russell’s article? Thank you!
“WHAT IS TRUTH?”
"This question is one which every sincere Christian should ask and seek to answer. We should learn to love and value truth or its own sake; to respect and honor it by owning and acknowledging it wherever we find it and by whomsoever presented. A truth presented by Satan himself is just as true as a truth stated by God.
"Perhaps no class of people are more apt to overlook this fact than the Christian. How often do they in controversy overlook and ignore truth presented by their opponents. This is particularly the case when arguing with an infidel. They feel at perfect liberty to dispute everything he says on religious subjects. This is not the correct principle. Many infidels are honest--as anxious to speak and believe the truth as are Christians--and if in converse with them we ignore truths which they may advance, we not only fail to convince them of our truths, but put an end to all hope of reaching them; for our failure to admit the evident truth which they advance begets in them contempt for the one who is not honest enough to admit one truth because he does not see how it can be reconciled to another. Accept truth wherever you find it, no matter what it contradicts, and rely for ability to afterwards harmonize it with others upon "the Spirit of truth, which shall guide you into all truth," as Jesus promised.
"Truth, like a modest little flower in the wilderness of life, is surrounded and almost choked by the luxuriant growth of the weeds of error. If you would find it you must be ever on the lookout. If you would see its beauty you must brush aside the weeds of error and the brambles of bigotry. If you would possess it you must stoop to get it.
"Be not content with one flower of truth. Had one been sufficient there would have been no more. Gather ever, seek for more."
-
james_woods
What is "Zions Day Star", and what era was this quotation?
EDIT - to say that I did not see the quote...so, we don't really know what this is, and who published it, or when?
Could I make the suggestion that if it were 50c a copy that this would have to be relatively modern?
Perhaps one of the offshoots of the Worldwide Church of God???
-
Marvin Shilmer
Ba! So good to see you around!
You write:
"Truth never changes, our views of it may change..."
Can this argument be used by religions like Watch Tower that often change the slant of their doctrinal interpretations to justify the change?
1. I don’t see an argument in the statement you quote. I see only a proposition.
2. I agree with the proposition that you quote. Basically it says that truth exists and no matter our view of that existence it does not change.
3. The existence of truth is no justification for change. The justification for change is learning.
4. That which is true is perfectly true; hence that which is less than perfect is not true.
5. Show me the person who asks others to treat an admittedly imperfect view as though it is perfect and I’ll have no trouble pointing to a dishonest religionessman.
6. Show me the person who asks others to consider their new learning for truth yet refrains from demanding it be treated as perfection and I’ll show you someone that might be honest.
Marvin Shilmer
-
Broken Promises
for an article I'm trying to put together that will be going to some pretty deep thinkers.
That counts us out then, LOL!!!
-
Mary
Truth never changes, our views of it may change..."
Which in essence means that when something that was thought to be "truth" is proven not to be "truth", then whatever it was that he party in question was putting forth as "truth" was in fact, a lie.
Walking outside the views of the Borg for a minute, consider the view of the earth between Galileo and the Catholic Church. In the early 16th century, he started to build on the ideas of Copernicus that the earth was not the center of the universe and that it revolved around the sun---not the other way around. The church of course insisted that the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was stationary. Everyone knew the Earth was stationary, it was God's truth and an accepted fact. The church presented these "truths" by making Galileo an offer he couldn't refuse and he recanted. It wasn't until 1992 that the Catholic Church officially apologized for their um 'mistake' and we all know today that Galileo was right all along.
So; we know today that the earth is not the center of the universe today and it wasn't in Galileo's time. That is a "truth". Was this just a matter of The Church's "view" of "truth" changing? IMHO, no. If you are promoting a doctrine that is not true, then it is a lie, plain and simple. You can't dress up a lie with pretty bows and frills, give it a place of honour and try to pass it off as "truth"----it just doesn't work that way.
Here are a few "truths" from the past that might bring a smile to your face:
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." -- Lord Kelvin, President, Royal Society, 1895
"Everything that can be invented has been invented." -- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899
"Inventions reached their limit long ago, and I see no hope for further development." -- Julius Frontinus, 1st century A.D.
"Space travel is bunk." -- Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of Britain, 1957, two weeks before the launch of Sputnik
"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction". -- Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872
"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value." -- Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre
"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons." -- Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949
"Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances." -- Dr. Lee De Forest, inventor of the Audion tube and a father of radio, 25 February, 1967.
"The aeroplane will never fly." -- Lord Haldane, Minister of War, Britain, 1907
-
AndersonsInfo
james_woods: On page one of this thread, blondie posted the following links that have the answers to your questions so that's why I didn't reply to a similar question asked by another poster as I thought it would be repetitious.
However, the year was 1881. The advertisement was published by A. D. Jones. Jones was a regular contributor to ZWT but started up his own paper named Zion's Day Star which was announced in ZWT in the October and November 1881 issue. The two men parted company over beliefs, specifically the ransom, at the end of 1882 as announced in ZWT. See page 423 in the Reprints.
http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2008/10/zions-day-star.html
http://www.biblestudents.com/htdbv5/r423.htm
http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbv5/r463.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=38SYXalMLeQC&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=%22zion's+day+star%22&source=bl&ots=wucWWQuJlG&sig=sAAl1w0lshEm4wNmN_6ZpNTdnmE&hl=en&ei=ion_TfmPAcLg0QHbsMTJAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&sqi=2&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22zion's%20day%20star%22&f=false
-
james_woods
Oh yes, Barbara - and I didn't read the quote quite well enough: 50C per year, not per copy.
Strange that all these pseudo-evangelists covered themselves for false prophecy in the same way - truth changes when we tell you it changes.
Also strange that a cut-and-dried prophecy is one of the few things in theology that can actually be tested.
Equally strange that so few of the people who believed a false prophecy can admit that it was wrong when it fails to come true.