What is truth?

by Heisenberg 114 Replies latest jw friends

  • Richard Voss
    Richard Voss

    Herr Heisenberg, You have my respect for attempting to take on more than 50 at the same time ;-)

    You get the 'Bruce Lee Award' for today. Your avatar reminded me how little I know about your namesake, so, a little google and Wiki brought me this quote,

    "Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000181 EndHTML:0000002658 StartFragment:0000001966 EndFragment:0000002622 SourceURL:file:///Macintosh%20HD/Users/rvsessions/Documents/heisenberg.doc

    On 24 March 1973, Heisenberg gave a speech before the Catholic Academy of Bavaria, accepting the Romano Guardini Prize. An English translation of its title is "Scientific and Religious Truth." And its stated goal was "In what follows, then, we shall first of all deal with the unassailability and value of scientific truth, and then with the much wider field of religion, of which – so far as the Christian religion is concerned – Guardini himself has so persuasively written; finally – and this will be the hardest part to formulate – we shall speak of the relationship of the two truths."

    I find exploring the relationship between the two far more challenging than the usual stand-off between 'believers' and 'non-believers'. I mean, haven't we had enough of the separations, i. blacks and whites, Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants, Israelis and Palestinians, Muslim minorities and Muslim majorities..and perhaps the greatest segregation - Scientists and non-Scientists. I refuse the labels that mark as one side or the other, in part, because I have been on both sides.

    There were a number of good answers to your inquiry and I have hope more will come...more questions - more answers. I leave you with another quote, “Hope,” Maimonides wrote, “is a belief in the plausibility of the possible as opposed to the necessity of the probable.”

  • goingthruthemotions
    goingthruthemotions

    Spoke like a true JWombie....the B.I.T.E model is in full effect. hope one day you see the light. 

    your treading on dangerous ground being on a apostate site.

    nothing you say is going to change us....were more apt to open you eyes. 

    Remember...once you learn TTATT...you can't undo it.


    the worse mistake of my life was joining this cult..if i could turn back time.


    shalom

  • millie210
    millie210
    your treading on dangerous ground being on a apostate site.

    But is that completely the definition of this site? Is this merely another "apostate" site;     

    quoting from the front page of this site:

    "The biggest, busiest JW discussion forum for Jehovahs Witnesses or anyone affected by the Watchtower society or interested in the JW.Org"

    nothing you say is going to change us....

    I dont know who "us" is but speaking solely for ME, I am having to change right now...letting go from a lifetime of being a JW.

    Never again will I assume that I "know" everything. Always, always, always I will be open to anything reasonable and will be flexible in my approach to others. I can always learn as long as I am willing to change. 

    Your words sound born of frustration goingthroughthemotions.

    I share your frustration.

     



     

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    Hello.  I just wanted to help you out with some more thoughts.   The Watchtower ruins lives and lets children die for their agenda.  Pardon me if I hate it.   Don't confuse hating WTS with hating the members.  If we use strong language toward the members, it is usually on an individual basis, or it is a general thing where we still have a hard time believing they accept the new light as it is shoveled in.  I wish someone were in my face when I was a JW jackass to help me see what my problem is.  Even there, we vent our frustrations here and very few of us would say some of these things to a JW and send them back figuring we were the prophesied persecution.  

    I can attack the Catholics or Muslims from time to time, but this is a forum for support for JW's and former JW's and those affected by the JW's. 

    As far as atheists exposing other Christians here, you should read more before you are so sure that isn't happening.  We discuss that often here.  

    On to celebrating Christmas. I don't have any problem with family and friends who join the wave of celebration at a particular time of year and share presents, well-wishes, and hopes of peace.  IT is awesome to participate, but if it bothers you then don't.  Christmas has nothing to do with Jesus- so true.  So don't worry about why I exchange gifts in December. 

    As far as your opinion that everyone would get to choose from two (or three) possible belief systems, who are you to decide.  People can do/believe all kinds of things.  On the belief side, there are endless possibilities of what they believe "IN" and almost as many on the non-belief side.  I never met an atheist who believes the Bible, and as silly as it sounds, your adament disagreement with such a person would be equal to the way a former JW might pick on a JW.  So who are you to decide?

    And if agnostics don't choose a side, will they be tormented forever?  Many never do choose a side.  

    Being a JW was about being "right."  I hope I am right now, but it is not about that anymore.  You are still hung up on being right.  Chill out.  


  • LosingMyReligion
    LosingMyReligion

    I am astounded when I hear of former JWs that now celebrate Christmas. Are you kidding me? You want the truth but then go back to the deepest, darkest pit of deception. We all know Christmas has nothing to do with Jesus. Why would you trade one set of lies for another?
    99,9% of people celebrating christmas do it not as a religious activity, but as a social activity. It's an excellent opportunity to come together with family and relatives and enjoy some time together in a pleasant setting.

  • Vidqun
    Vidqun
    Why is the issue of shunning a problem? If the bible was very clear about who should be shunned and how this should be done, would that be more acceptable to you?  Human society has always shunned people that do not conform to the rules. If you commit a crime, you may be punished by being sent to jail and excluded from society until you 'repent' by changing your attitude. Who determines these rules? In many lands, adultery and homosexuality are still punishable by death or jail. It is up to each group of people to decide the rules and the consequences for breaking them. Wasn't the great schism of the Catholic church an act of shunning?

     Firstly, Paul did not disfellowship those that criticized him, i.e., the so-called “superfine apostles.” Read 2 Cor. 13:10 to see what he had in mind. Interestingly, Paul asked whether some of them had started ruling prematurely (cf. 1 Cor. 4:8)? Secondly, the GB claims to be “the faithful and discreet slave.” Would you say “judgment” is part of the commission of “the faithful and discreet slave”? By the way, is God not the ultimate judge, and did he not defer judgement to the Son (Acts 17:31)?

       Allow me to list the main scriptures the GB of JWs apply to judge, condemn and disfellowship individuals. Judge for yourself whether these are applied correctly. Note the one in 2 John deals with the antichrist. How many of those do you know?


    15 Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.

     16 But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established.

     17 If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector. (Mat 18:15-17 NWT)


     9 In my letter I wrote YOU to quit mixing in company with fornicators,

     10 not [meaning] entirely with the fornicators of this world or the greedy persons and extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, YOU would actually have to get out of the world.

     11 But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.

     (1 Cor 5:9-11 NWT)


     7 For many deceivers have gone forth into the world, persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

     8 Look out for yourselves, that YOU do not lose the things we have worked to produce, but that YOU may obtain a full reward.

     9 Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. He that does remain in this teaching is the one that has both the Father and the Son.

     10 If anyone comes to YOU and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into YOUR homes or say a greeting to him.

     11 For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works. (2 John 1:7-11 NWT)

     

    9 I wrote something to the congregation, but Diotrephes, who likes to have the first place among them, does not receive anything from us with respect.

     10 That is why, if I come, I will call to remembrance his works which he goes on doing, chattering about us with wicked words. Also, not being content with these things, neither does he himself receive the brothers with respect, and those who are wanting to receive them he tries to hinder and to throw out of the congregation.

     11 Beloved one, be an imitator, not of what is bad, but of what is good. He that does good originates with God. He that does bad has not seen God.

     12 Demetrius has had witness borne to him by them all and by the truth itself. In fact, we, also, are bearing witness, and you know that the witness we give is true.

     (3 John 1:9-12 NWT)

     

  • Richard Voss
    Richard Voss

    after reading thru this list, it dawned on me that it was Jesus who upheld the 'two witness' rule, "in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established.". ( emphasis mine) This is often cited in arguments against JW's and the GB and the position they take as regards investigating a charge of sexual abuse within the Congregation.

    A couple of things that strike me immediately from many of the truly angry crowd and their criticism of this issue;

    1 Does anybody associated with the witnesses for any length of time really believe that Jehovah's witnesses do not despise this crime as readily as the general population? ... that being said,

    2 Is this not a perfectly reasonable interpretation of a general Bible teaching as regards governance among Christ's followers?...now before everyone lines up with their sticks and stones, What I am NOT saying is this policy should not or could not be modified or adjusted in light of the obvious problems pointed out with respect to a young person confronting an older individual, especially one in a position of authority who has abused them,sexually or otherwise.

    Having set thru some of these cases and been an eyewitness to true and false charges regarding this very sensitive issue, I feel as do many,  someone overseeing this needs divine wisdom. The kind that Solomon prayed for when elevated over the people after David's death. The 'wisdom of Solomon' that sliced thru the web of charges, true and false, to arrive at the insight that silenced his doubters and returned the child unharmed to his mother.

    And yet, Jesus said to his generation who kept looking for a sign, " The queen of the South will be raised up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it; because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, but, Look! something more than Solomon is here.

    The fact that pedophiles are among Jehovah's witnesses does not condemn this Corporation to me. It simply makes them no better or worse than other religions. The fact that they do not have the answer, makes me keep searching for 'something more than Solomon'.


  • Vidqun
    Vidqun

    Richard, why is it that churches in general do not fall back on the two-witness rule? First of all, it is part of the Mosaic Law, which had been cancelled by Jesus (cf. Col. 2:13, 14). Secondly, if you look at the context where it was used by both Jesus and Paul, you will see that it has nothing to do with crime, especially pedophilia. Here’s the scriptures. Note the context:


    15 Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.

     16 But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established.

     (Mat 18:15-16 NWT)

     

    11 I have become unreasonable. YOU compelled me to, for I ought to have been recommended by YOU. For I did not prove to be inferior to [YOUR] superfine apostles in a single thing, even if I am nothing. (2Co 12:11 NWT)

     

    20 For I am afraid that somehow, when I arrive, I may find YOU not as I could wish and I may prove to be to YOU not as YOU could wish, but, instead, there should somehow be strife, jealousy, cases of anger, contentions, backbitings, whisperings, cases of being puffed up, disorders.

     21 Perhaps, when I come again, my God might humiliate me among YOU, and I might mourn over many of those who formerly sinned but have not repented over their uncleanness and fornication and loose conduct that they have practiced.

    NWT  2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to YOU. At the mouth of two witnesses or of three every matter must be established.

     2 I have said previously and, as if present the second time and yet absent now, I say in advance to those who have sinned before and to all the rest, that if ever I come again I will not spare,

     3 since YOU are seeking a proof of Christ speaking in me, [Christ] who is not weak toward YOU but is powerful among YOU. (2Co 12:20-13:3 NWT)

  • Richard Voss
    Richard Voss

    Vidqun, thanks for your response, but I don't see Jesus' words at Mt. !8 to his disciples as something they would forget after his death, when the Mosaic Law was fulfilled. The Apostles and older men met over the issue of Circumcision from the old Law and decided it was not a requirement for the Gentiles ( male or female, I assume ), but they did keep some of the restrictions...and they continued to be guided by prophetic words from of old.

    Acts 18:28 "for the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things..." which brings us to another main point of contention, 'Blood'. Again, I am NOT saying that the policy of JW's about Blood Transfusions is correct, but it is not an UNreasonable conclusion from the verses that emphasize the importance of respecting Blood. Whether this gets you a ticket into Paradise or not, I couldn't say..mostly because I think that paradise is a state of mind, one that leads you to a better place, or at least helps you to understand that Paradise is what we can make of a bad situation, and is often times standing right in front of you.


    As for why other churches do not use the 'two witness' rule..I assume they do. It is certainly a standard recognized by many courts. It avoids the he said/she said stalemate where some other sort of evidence must be found to  corroborate any single statement. It is not a foolproof method though....The Lord himself was the victim of false witnesses - two, or more, if memory serves me well ;-)

    But the main issues for pedophilia among critics of Religions is the covering up of wrongdoing, not warning others and not trusting in the police to investigate the allegations instead of some overworked/inexperienced/hapless/janitor, otherwise known as, elders ( I would not have added that last noun except I read it on a website condemning the Witness policies and one of my all time favorite elders had been a 'janitor')...All reasonable complaints !! Except, when those same critics assume the Police will somehow be completely different from the efforts of other well meaning, but...'inadequate' individuals. The Police will not bring bias or personal agendas to the investigation. They will follow the letter of the Law and thru tireless/diligent efforts and gathering of all relevant information arrive at the "TRUTH". They are the professionals and Experts! I mean, after all, isn't that what the tv shows and movies show us time and again? and Yes, I am being a little too sarcastic, but here's why...I lived thru the 90's in the State of Washington and there was quite a bit of this going around, as well as elsewhere, but a tiny little town in the middle of the state, Wenatchee, went NUTS ! ! ! ! ! over this issue. Time will fail me trying to retell the sordid details, but a simple trip to Google or the Library will fill in enough of the blanks to help you understand that this issue is ripe for misunderstanding. I am not exaggerating when I say it was a modern day Witch Hunt !

    In large part pursued by a local police officer whose family fostered one of the girls who had supposedly been abused , "she was removed and then placed as a foster child in the home of Lieutenant Robert Perez, who had been newly appointed as Wenatchee's sole sex crimes officer. Perez had no specialized training in this field; the departmental position was held on a routine rotational basis." It is not fair for me to suggest that every Police person will go crazy over this like Perez did, but i feel compelled to offer it as a lesson in 'unintended consequences'.

    Egan, Timothy (December 12, 1995). "Pastor and Wife Are Acquitted on All Charges in Sex-Abuse Case.". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-10-31. A Spokane County jury yesterday found the city of Wenatchee and Douglas County negligent in the now-discredited 1994-1995 Wenatchee child sex ring investigations, awarding $3 million to a couple who had been wrongly accused in the inquiry



  • Vidqun
    Vidqun

    Richard, you're right. The Catholic Church and the Witnesses are notorious for their cover-ups. But as had been mentioned here often, because these things are kept secret, the children of JWs are not safe. If you follow Barbara Anderson on Silent Lambs you will realize the extent of the problem. Why? Because most cases are handled internally, they are never sorted out and the victims do not get the necessary counselling or treatment - thus no closure. When they grow up, they will realize what had happened to them, and they will certainly detest the perpetrator as well as those that protected him/her, and rightly so (cf. Mark 9:42).

    Acts 15:28 answers your question. "for the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things..." Amongst the necessary things, they would have included the two-witness rule, if it was that important.

    That's the difference between a law and a principle. A law must be kept to the letter, whereas a principle should guide one to do what is right when applicable. Certainly it would be advantageous for a second witness to be present, but in the majority of cases there is no second witness. That's where Forensics come in: physical evidence, DNA testing, evaluation of psychologists and psychiatrists, etc.

    Unfortunately, the authorities also make mistakes, but their approach is progressive. They follow and apply the findings of the best in the field. They appoint people with the necessary qualifications to do the job. Contrast that to the doings and teachings of the Witnesses. These are stagnant, like the rotton water of a rancid pond, not fit for drinking at all.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit