good argument for 'new light'?

carla

Running out of ideas. Anyone have some good points against 'new light'? As you all know, on one hand the wt says to look back at old issues (however I think that issue itself is 'old') but if you do look back at old issues and point out contradictions, then of course it is 'old', out of date, etc... "that is the beauty of the org, things are revealed blah, blah,.....you know the drill. Head hurts from banging it against a brick wall, carla

Hellrider

I have a good (in my view) argument against "new light", but it`s not going to work, partly because it`s based on logical reasoning (and logic has nothing to do with JW-ism), and partly because, as you said it yourself, it`s like "banging your head against a brick wall". Ok:

1) "New light" means that God has lied to his flock in the past, and that is impossible, because God doesn`t lie. New Light means that it has become necessary (for whatever reason, usually a failed prophecy, like the generation-change in -95, or the failed predictions of -75), to change the doctrine. That`s what it actually means, to change the doctrine! And if it has become necessary to change the doctrine, that means that God must have lied in the past, because, after all, not telling the truth is the same as telling a lie. They will respond to this by saying that "people make mistakes" and that "the governing body is not a prophet, and has never claimed to be". Both arguments are weak. If "people make mistakes", then what guarantee do you have that they are not mistaken on other issues, or on the "new light". The second counter-argument is a lie, because there are many WTs, Awakes and books, some aren`t even that old, that proclaim the WTb&ts as "Gods prophet on earth in the last days", or "Gods prophetical organisation". However, this line of thought is to complex for the average JW-mind. Also, and this is where it gets really complex:

The term "New Light" indicates that that is just what it is: A "new light", that is, a term that does not relate to pure reason alone, but to a "new understanding of divine origin". That is, the new "understanding" has been given to the GB by God himself, either thru JC, the holy ghost, or angels (they even claimed that, once upon a time, that angels were in direct communication with the GB). That is really (logically) like saying that Gods words (thru the holy Bible) were not the "final say on the matter" (exemplified by it being necessary for them to come up with their own Bible translation, the NWT), but that God is in direct contact with humans, and that his revelations (ie his BIBLE) is "not finished", that it is a "work in progress". This is really dramatic, and indicates that the GB is not just a group of christians/bible students, studying the bible, but a group of prophets in direct contact with GOD! And this underlines the original argument i started this post with: Why has God chosen to tell lies in the past? Not only telling lies, but telling them directly to his organisation on earth!? Why? The answer will be "eh, oh, eh, there are some things God doesn`t want us to know yet", or whatever. Forget the whole thing, open a bottle of wine instead..

carla

Thanks, little early for wine. Maybe a bloodymary, to bad it would look so bad when someone is coming home from the hell! maybe later. carla

Rod P

Well, what I want to know is:

What was once taught as "Truth" (Old Light) was also in contradiction of what the theologians of wicked old Christendom were teaching.

Then along the way, the GB announces a "New Light" about the "Old Truth". Only problem is, now this "New Truth" is suddenly in harmony with what the theologians from wicked old Christendom have been teaching all along.

Of course, Christendom is regarded as part of the world-wide empire of false religion "Babylon the Great", with Satan the Devil as its head. The clergy are, therefore the spokespersons for this evil empire that is going to be destroyed in the Big "A".

So how is it that Satan's representatives are in possession of this "New Truth" years in advance of Jehovah's Faithful and Discreet Slave, the Governing Body?

A case in point: Back in the early 1960's there was a new teaching about the "Superior Authorities" or "Higher Powers" (KJV). The JW's were always taught that the "Higher Powers" were "Jehovah God and Christ Jesus" who they owed their subjection to, and not the "earthly governments and rulers" as taught by Christendom. Back in the 1940's (World War II) a lot of male JW's went to jail for precisely this interpretation of the scriptures. The courts brought in some Biblical scholars (theologians) to convince these JW's that they were basing their argument on erroneous interpretation of the scriptures. But they would have nothing to do with it, as they, of course, could not trust these wicked Pharasaical Theologians. And so they went to jail.

Then years later, further research by the FDS caused them to come to the conclusion that those passages of scripture where it speaks of these "Higher Powers" or "Superior Authorities", had to be understood as being the "earthly governments and rulers". (Exactly what the theologians have been saying all along.) Then they went on to say that notwithstanding this new interpretation, nevertheless, this was a "relative subjection", and "where a law of man contradicts a law of God, then we must obey God as ruler rather than men." However, this is a principle that most theologians and biblical scholars have taught and believed in all along. Nobody is arguing that essential principle.

What we are arguing about here is the fact that they have been defending a certain principle based on an erroneous interpretation of scripture. And Satan has inspired his wicked and evil servants of the "correct truth" years in advance of God's Sole Channel of Communication on the Earth between God and Man, the Faithful and Discreet Slave/Governing Body.

So tell me, what's wrong with this picture?

Rod P.

IP_SEC

1. There is no precident for it in the bible. (Save an example of Moses getting a better understanding of how to divide inheritances after the Israelites crossed into the promised land, by using the Urim and the Thumim)

2. The main scripture the Dubs use (the light gets brighter) is quoted out of context to mean that the "Light" is a better understanding of gods word. In context that verse only means that a person becomes wiser, happier, etc. as he follows gods path closer.

3. Dubs say that the reason for new light is because we cant handle making adjustments to the "whole truth/light" all at once. So the revelation of truth must be gradual. If this is so, why were the Israelites expected to adjust to a complex "law" all at once at Sinai? Why do witnesses expect bible students to accept the "whole range" of alien teachings all at once (or atleast with in six months to a year)

4. New light is a phrase/tactic/tool used by all of your best cults (Unification Church or moonies is the first to come to mind)

5. Jesus new law was simple, dubs make it out to be harsh, and difficult to follow.

6. Why do we only get this new light when old light is proven wrong? Cant holy spirit anticipate a better time to change? 1914, 1975, the generation? ETC.

7. New light should always be progressive. Why is it sometimes not? The men of sodom and the ressurection... oral sex. ETC

Blueblades

First of all, there is no new light. The passage at Proverbs 4:18 is a misinterpretation by the society to cover over their mistakes. The Proverb is all about the security one can find in attaining Wisdom by turning away from bad and seeking good. It is a Father having a heart to heart talk with his Son.

Blueblades

garybuss

The whole publishing empire as well as the religious flavored distribution division is all based on the idea that there will be something new to write about and to print, study, and distribute in exchange for a solicited donation. Call it new light or progressive revelation or spirit directed automatic writings, it accomplishes the goal, which is to advance the membership as well as the assets of the corporation(s).

greendawn

This whole new light concept is a clownish joke just imagine what the jWs and the world would say if for example the popes kept changing the catholic doctrines in the the same frequent and arbitrary way that the the GB does. People would cease to think of the RCs as a serious religion and treat them as incompetent fools not deserving to be heeded on any issue.

The truth is eternal and the jw truth can not stand the test of time even by a few decades so this is after all an irresponsible cult, being god's "channel" they have no excuse for getting anything wrong when it comes to doctrine especially when lives are put at risk.

A Paduan

The jw "might as well bang my head against a wall" problem stems strictly from language - their words are different from ours, carrying different meaning, and one cannot converse using our language, as they use this a a way of denying your valid statements - you'll need to use their language for this, but even then, when a chord is struck, fleeing is often the chosen mode of escaping their fright of the truth.

Gain verification of meaning before discussion

eg. to a jw envy means to covet, jealousy means envy, paying homage means worship, a lie means deception etc.

So a sk first, what is a lie - is a lie simply a deception, or does it include an untruth regardless of motive - in which case, do other church leaders who believe what they say tell lies ? The answer may be something like, "they're untruths" - and so go from there - establish language common to you both before entering a debate, otherwise it is like you say "might as well bang my head against a wall.

paduan

lawrence

My suggestion regarding New Light - WTS stop cutting trees to print HERESY. You started off with demonism, and ended up with demonism, you'll never get it right.

To current JWs reading this board in doubt; don't doubt, get the hell out. These men were always wrong, the only light they had was the damn glory we gave them.

G.B., "you are from your father the devil."

good argument for 'new light'?

Share this