A discussion with a Jehovah's Witness

[DelsonJacobs]

I read DJ response and it is true they do not encourage higher education but my friend is college educated and she is not open minded . I would think that there are a few but not many higher educated JW. They do have their own lawyers.

Yes, a very few of them are college educated despite the fact that college education is officially discouraged by the Governing Body.

However ambiguity intolerance is not the exclusive earmark of the uneducated. Many very intelligent people have a need to compartmentalize everything in life as either “good” or “bad” with nothing in between. Therefore when anything is introduced that creates cognitive dissonance regarding their compartmentalized reasoning they close their minds. It has nothing to do with education, it is not even a mental disorder, it’s just a personality trait.

 

[Waynec]

Doctrine and dogma are two different things, yes. But the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not have such framework in their theology—and we are beginning to mix the two here, and this will cause confusion if we do that.

The Church’s doctrines are all true, even those that are not dogma, but her understanding of them and her practice in relation to them can sometimes be incomplete and once in a while have proved incorrect. So a teaching from the Church based on such a misunderstanding can be in need of correction or even dismissed without invalidating the doctrine or dogma it was based on.

This almost sounds like double speak to me. Even though the dogma is correct it can be interpreted wrong. I was under the impression that the HS prevented such error.

Can you give me an example of an incorrect dogmatic interpretation?

 

[Waynec]

That’s not true.

For example, prior to World War II the Catholic Church held views of the Jewish people that have been totally viewed as incompatible with the Gospel by the time of Vatican II.

Prior to the genocide of the Holocaust, the Church felt quite correct about its apathetic approach toward the Jews and their suffering. Since then and the development of a Jewish state in Israel things are different.

The Church has done an official turn-about, declaring its views on the Jews (and many of the subsequent historical events that took place as a result) as incorrect and in need of revision. Pope Benedict XVI, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, asked in the introduction to the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s official study on what meaning and connection the Jews really have to Christians: “The shock of the Shoah [the Jewish word for the ‘Holocaust’] has put the whole question under a new light.”

My understanding is that Jesus completed the Old Covenant with the New Covenant. So if the Jews are being told that their OC is still viable I think that this might be doing them a dis-service.

If they don’t recognize Jesus the way Christians do how are they to be saved?

A review of the testimony of the Scriptures and the Gospel message itself led the commission under then-Cardinal Ratzinger to conclude:

In the past, the break between the Jewish people and the Church of Christ Jesus could sometimes, in certain times and places, give the impression of being complete. In the light of the Scriptures, this should never have occurred. For a complete break between Church and Synagogue contradicts Sacred Scripture.–“The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible,” sec. IV, A.

This was not Catholic teaching prior to the Shoah, but neither did this correction of previous views bring the Catholic faith crumbling down, did it?

Plus, I think you misunderstood my comment. What I was discussing was an example of ambiguity intolerance–a trait NOT exclusive to Jehovah’s Witnesses (some Catholics have it too). For a person with ambiguity intolerance, their need to compartmentalize things as ALL IN or ALL OUT makes their belief system a “house of cards.”

To them, from their point of view, if one card is bad then the house is also doomed to failure. I was not saying that their religion itself was a house of cards from our stand point. We can always prove things wrong, but they don’t abandon it when we attempt to do so.

 

[CutlerB]

I’ll post an update on a parallel discussion I’m having.

I chose the same path as with Eric, but this time I was presented with some serious attempts to distract me, such as these:

“Do you even understand English?” — When we had been getting along well before, and my mother tongue is.

“What is the difference between Jesus and Jehovah?”

“Our point is… Is the whole Bible needed for our perfection to God?” — When that wasn’t at all “our point”.

And contradictions like:

Me: What is 2 Tim 3:14-17 referring to, when Paul speaks of the holy writing Timothy knew since he was a child?
JW: The Old Testament.
Me: So, this verse doesn’t have anything to do with which books belong in the New Testament.
JW: Paul means OT and NT.

The guy ended up arguing that 1 Cor 13:8-12 was referring to the rest of the New Testament to come. When I asked him to show me where it said “Scripture” or even anything close, he quoted Rev 22, a completely unrelated verse. The JW went offline then, and said he would return.

So far, I am not on his “blocked” list.

 

[Eruvande]

I commend you on your efforts - little seeds of doubt were necessary to my exit from the ‘truth’. But ultimately what rescued me was a community of genuine Christian believers who provided something that the Witnesses gave me - a whole sense of identity.

I’m speaking to some Witnesses this week, and my approach is very different now I’ve encountered Catholic teaching - I used to focus on Jesus’ divinity, but I’m focusing on undermining their version of sola scriptura now. But ultimately, it’s an endeavour that requires oodles of prayer and humility - and the work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, as He worked in mine.

 

[CutlerB]

I commend you on your efforts - little seeds of doubt were necessary to my exit from the ‘truth’. But ultimately what rescued me was a community of genuine Christian believers who provided something that the Witnesses gave me - a whole sense of identity.

I’m speaking to some Witnesses this week, and my approach is very different now I’ve encountered Catholic teaching - I used to focus on Jesus’ divinity, but I’m focusing on undermining their version of sola scriptura now. But ultimately, it’s an endeavour that requires oodles of prayer and humility - and the work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, as He worked in mine.

Absolutely, God bless you. Rest assured of my prayers for you, and I am so glad you are coming home to Holy Mother Church.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

This almost sounds like double speak to me. Even though the dogma is correct it can be interpreted wrong. I was under the impression that the HS prevented such error.

Can you give me an example of an incorrect dogmatic interpretation?

While this is taking the subject matter of course, I think you are confusing dogma with truth. They are NOT the same thing.

First, not all truths the Church teaches are dogma. Dogmata regulate the language, how the truths of the Church are to be believed and communicated, but they are not the truths themselves per se. A dogma is a divine truth presented in such a fashion that makes it binding as a matter of faith for all Catholics* in the precise manner* in which they are presented in dogmatic form.

When it comes to any truth that is not spelled out in dogmatic fashion, an understanding can be held that is incomplete or wrong by one or many. St. Joan of Arc was wrongly imprisoned, persecuted, and burned at the stake due to misapplication of truths cherished by the Church. The truths weren’t wrong, but the understanding of Church officials was incorrect, and it lead to the martyr of a saint.

Dogmas are not different types of truths among the beliefs of Catholics. They are different ways of presenting truth, a “spelling them out” due to their importance in the life of the faithful. At times certain truths have been challenged or were in danger of being threatened to the point of abandonment. So the Church made a thorough search of the subject and clarified what was absolutely certain and essential for the Christian faithful. What we were to believe was then presented in the form of a dogma.

Remember that dogmas consist of as well as require an ex cathedra pronouncement, but are not the invention of a new truth. But all other truths don’t require an ex cathedra statement in order for them to be viewed as truth.

So a truth can be interpreted incorrectly or acted upon in the wrong manner (and hypothetically speaking so can a dogma). But a dogma, itself being an interpretation of a truth, is less likely to be subject to such incorrect comprehension.

I wasn’t saying the Church had incorrect truths or false dogma. I was merely stating that the truths the Holy Spirit gives to the Church–and to each of us–are not always readily understood exactly the same way throughout history or by each of us. There are many other points I can add to this, but it would take us off subject. You may wish to speak directly with your parish DRE about the subject to get a better understanding. It can be very complex and I may be failing at presenting the information to you.

For the Jehovah’s Witnesses, all teachings are truths and all their truths are pronounced dogmatically. They are one in the same and viewed as such. My point is that this is not the same with Catholicism, therefore one is often at a disadvantage due to the fact that a Witness will fight each and every little point due to the way they perceive their own doctrines. This is what causes them to jump all over the place because they get offended at each and every step we take in trying to share with them what we as Catholics understand.

 

[Waynec]

While this is taking the subject matter of course, I think you are confusing dogma with truth. They are NOT the same thing.

First, not all truths the Church teaches are dogma. Dogmata regulate the language, how the truths of the Church are to be believed and communicated, but they are not the truths themselves per se. A dogma is a divine truth presented in such a fashion that makes it binding as a matter of faith for all Catholics* in the precise manner* in which they are presented in dogmatic form.

When it comes to any truth that is not spelled out in dogmatic fashion, an understanding can be held that is incomplete or wrong by one or many. St. Joan of Arc was wrongly imprisoned, persecuted, and burned at the stake due to misapplication of truths cherished by the Church. The truths weren’t wrong, but the understanding of Church officials was incorrect, and it lead to the martyr of a saint.

Dogmas are not different types of truths among the beliefs of Catholics. They are different ways of presenting truth, a “spelling them out” due to their importance in the life of the faithful. At times certain truths have been challenged or were in danger of being threatened to the point of abandonment. So the Church made a thorough search of the subject and clarified what was absolutely certain and essential for the Christian faithful. What we were to believe was then presented in the form of a dogma.

Remember that dogmas consist of as well as require an ex cathedra pronouncement, but are not the invention of a new truth. But all other truths don’t require an ex cathedra statement in order for them to be viewed as truth.

So a truth can be interpreted incorrectly or acted upon in the wrong manner (and hypothetically speaking so can a dogma). But a dogma, itself being an interpretation of a truth, is less likely to be subject to such incorrect comprehension.

I wasn’t saying the Church had incorrect truths or false dogma. I was merely stating that the truths the Holy Spirit gives to the Church–and to each of us–are not always readily understood exactly the same way throughout history or by each of us. There are many other points I can add to this, but it would take us off subject. You may wish to speak directly with your parish DRE about the subject to get a better understanding. It can be very complex and I may be failing at presenting the information to you.

For the Jehovah’s Witnesses, all teachings are truths and all their truths are pronounced dogmatically. They are one in the same and viewed as such. My point is that this is not the same with Catholicism, therefore one is often at a disadvantage due to the fact that a Witness will fight each and every little point due to the way they perceive their own doctrines. This is what causes them to jump all over the place because they get offended at each and every step we take in trying to share with them what we as Catholics understand.

First I would like to apologize to the op. I didn’t mean to get off the track. I tried to pm DJ but lost the entire message and responding to the thread was easier for me.

Thanks again Delson for the mini education

 

[CutlerB]

First I would like to apologize to the op. I didn’t mean to get off the track. I tried to pm DJ but lost the entire message and responding to the thread was easier for me.

Thanks again Delson for the mini education

Apology accepted.

 

[Waynec]

Apology accepted.

Thank you

 

[JohnGerard]

Hi CutlerB,

I have limited experience talking with Jehovah’s Witnesses and the interactions tend to be brief and face to face. Because of this I try to focus on a critical point. With JW’s I think it is “Who Is Jesus?” I figure, if we get it right about Jesus there is more to discuss…if we don’t get it right about Jesus, it doesn’t matter what else we do get right. (I believe they still teach that Jesus was really Michael the Archangel in Heaven, then was Jesus on earth, and now is Michael the Archangel in Heaven again.) So let me share with you some questions I’ve asked them and please give me some feedback on what you think and what I should do differently. I am interesting in learning about other people’s beliefs so I do ask them questions and I think the questions are legitimate.

First, here are the scriptures I use:
(Quotes are taken from the New World Translation)

In Matthew 17:5 Jehovah God says, “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved, listen to him.”

In John 5:39-40 Jesus says, “You are searching the scriptures, because you think that by means of them you will have everlasting life, and these are the very ones that bear witness about me. And yet you do not want to come to me that you may have life.”

In John 14:6 Jesus says, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

In Matthew 11:28 Jesus says, “Come to me, all you who are toiling and loaded down, and I will refresh you.”

Hebrews 5:9 reads, “…and after he had been made perfect he became responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him.”

So my questions are:

1. Is the command that Jehovah God gives in Matthew 17:5 optional or do we have to listen to Jesus?
2. Jesus repeatedly says we should “come to Him”. How do you, as a Jehovah’s witness, come to Jesus?
3. Since Jehovah’s witnesses don’t really “come to Jesus” through prayer to Him or any other means, it seems that if I wanted to become a Jehovah’s witness, one of the first things I would have to do is disobey Jehovah’s command in Matthew 17:5. That doesn’t make sense to me.

Like I said, my experience is limited. I would like to hear your feedback on that. I also would like some clarification from Jehovah’s Witnesses or anyone who knows more. It is my understanding that JW’s do not pray to Jesus and do not worship Jesus but I might be wrong on that.

What I have heard so far in response to the three points above are:

1. Yes, we listen to Jesus.
2. We come to Jehovah, through Jesus. (But I don’t think you can go through Jesus unless you first come** to** Jesus. I think that phrase is just a quaint saying, but lip service.)
3. Our website at jw.org has more information. (But it doesn’t answer my question about how JW’s come to Jesus in obedience.)

I know those points won’t convert anyone, but they should at least plant a seed and give them something to consider, shouldn’t they? Anyways, by trying to focus on just one issue (Who Is Jesus), I avoid some of the bible ping-pong that can occur.

Thanks.

JohnGerard