Jehovah's-Witness . com forum discussions

Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ I Do Not Understand Why JWs Leave & Become Catholics!
/  





 

I Do Not Understand Why JWs Leave & Become Catholics!
by minimus 8 years ago 239 Replies latest 8 years ago   jw friends
«
 1
 2
 …
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 »
 5
10
20
FlyingHighNow
FlyingHighNow 8 years ago

Burn, I am asking her to prove that sexual misconduct is higher in other denominations. Can you prove this? I don't think so. It exists everywhere. She was not speaking of children being molested specifically. She mentioned affairs involving adults as well.
I think the whole issue of celibacy is blown out of proportion.
It's actually a big deal to a lot of people in the church.
 
FlyingHighNow
FlyingHighNow 8 years ago


I can say that prior to this visit, I had no desire to belong to any religion at all, and I still feel the same way. But, upon walking into this beautiful Chapel I had an experience I cannot forget.
I felt beauty, peace, and some sort of higher power. I cannot name what it was, but I felt it. From my experience, I have come to the conclusion that their is a higher power somewhere, and I believe the same higher power that each individual religion, sect, believes in.. is the same higher power that everyone feels. Who or what it is, I do not know.. but I do now believe there is something out there. Not the God that most of us were raised to believe in, but something bigger. I truely did feel it.
This is why I attend the Episcopal Church and sometimes Catholic Mass.
When I was between the JW's and going back to church, and floundering in agnosticism, what struck me is the love we humans feel for our families. How painful it is when we see them hurt or death occurs. How that love continues until the day we close our eyes for the last time. And it's that love that I feel when I walk into a place like you did. And I believe it's God's love and spirit and perhaps the circle of Saints, or ones who are on the other side of death, who minister to those of us experiencing pain.
My Dominican Nun therapist tells me that all cultures have the basics, they just call them different things. Example: Great Spirit: God. Circle of Saints: Ancestors.
 
Wordly Andre
Wordly Andre 8 years ago

Wow this thread is still going on, It seems that this board is more accepting of people going back to meetings than joining the Catholic church, why are JW's and EXJW's hate the Catholic faith so much, people need to be more accepting and open minded to what people now believe and respect them and not forget what we are really all here for.
 
done4good
done4good 8 years ago

I'm with AK-Jeff on this. Can't say much for doctrine, but most Catholics I know are pretty respectable people.
j
 
justhuman
justhuman 8 years ago

One other thing that ex-JW's going back to Roman Catholic Church it is the need of the Rituals, and the Spiritual aspect of the Christian Worship. Something that you cannot find in the Protestand groups.

My dad was Christian Orthodox and my mam a Roman Catholic before they become JW's. I was born in that cult. But I was always asking both parents about their ex-religions.
They have lot in common and few things that sepperates those Early Churches. In my previous post I explained the differences between the 2 Churches and the reasons that cause the Schisma of the Early Church, and there is an effort for the union of the Church. I will talk about my experience in the Christian Orthodox Church.
Most of ex-JW are seeking for the PERFECT Church with the most PERFECT people. This is something that they will never find in this UNPERFECT World we are living. As a result they are becoming egnostics or atheists or they believe in Christ and they are not associated with any Church because they find mistakes. The point of the Christian faith is not seeking for mistakes to the people that are forming the Church, but to have holyness in our personal relation with Jesus. This is the goal of the Christian life - holyness. And this is foundamental in the Christian Orthodox faith.
While in the extreme Protestand movements our salvation was coming by preaching and reading the Bible and blindly obey the leadership of the religion, faith was a matter of knowledge of the Bible. But how was the Early Church was seeing the matter?
The Early Christians for about 300 years of persecution they had their Eucharist and Ceremonies in the Catacombs. They had Bishops, Prophets, and Deakons. They had the Holy Communion every week and all the congregation was in union with Christ with the Ritual of the Holy Communion. Protestands claim that the Wine and Bread only symbolize the Blood and Jesus of Christ. This is wrong because the Early Christians and in Orthodox Chruch this is not symbolic, and this is one of the Seven Mysteries of the Apostolic Church.
I had the privellege to attend to the Mystery of the Eucharist. I will tell you how is done in the Church because many of you don't know the Rituals of the Eastern Christianity: The congregation is waiting on line to receive the Wine and Bread of Jesus. There is a Holy Grail with Wine and Peaces of Bread in the Wine. The Priest gives the Wine and Bread with a long spoon. Every one shares that spoon. I was kind of supprised the first time I had the Holy Communion. I ask the Priest (who knew that I was ex-JW) if it is save (healthy reasons)for all those people to share that spoon? He smile and said: " Jesus Blood and Body is much more powerfull than any dissease. That is why NO ONE can get a dissease from the Holy Communion! In fact is a blasphemy to think of that!!!
In the Apostolic Church I found that there are living Saints, that God still performs miracles. I found that God is a living God and a powerfull God. I have see the dead bodies of Saints that they are preserved in a miracle way for thousands of years, showing to us that in God's kindom faithful Christians will receive an Immortal gloryfied body, similar to the one Jesus had after the resurrection.
I have see the Miracle of the Holy Fire in the Temple of Ressurection in Jerusalim, a miracle that is happening for more than 1300 years, at the Ceremony of the Resurrection. Thousands of Christians(Catholics and Armenians also) are witnessing this event when the Orthodox Patriarch enters the Holy Grave and comes out to announce the Resurrection of Jesus then you can see the candles of the faithfull ones to light from the Holy Fire that is all around the Church.
This is Christianity. Not just sitting in a Kindom hall and reading the Bible(Watchtower magazines). It includes much more than that. Because Christianity it is a miracle. If we stop believing in miracles then we are not Christians, because the foundation of Christianity is based in one of the most unbelievable miracles: Jesus reserrection from the dead. If we stop believing in the mirracles that the Early Christians were performing then we are in the wrong side of the line.
Christianity is more than knowledge. IT IS FAITH. Faith that Jesus Sacrifice in the Cross, set us free from the bondage of Sin, and believing in Him, asking Him to enter to our lifes we will be in Jesus Kindom
 
BurnTheShips
BurnTheShips 8 years ago

That was a beautiful post JustHuman.
BTS
 
Mary
Mary 8 years ago

gaigirl said: Whether or not the human Mary was divine, it is important to honor the feminine aspects of divinity.
Of course I'm divine! Kneel before me humans!!
I went to the Catholic Church a couple of times....didn't do anything for me. The bible is rarely used and there's way too much ritual for my liking. Plus I have a problem with all the idols as the bible clearly says you're not supposed to have them around. The whole Transubstitution I find really bizarre and like Minimus said, I find it creepy. The Catholic Church bears absolutely no resemblance to first century Christianity. In fact, I can't think of any religion today that does.
Bottom line is: everyone who still believes should be allowed to worship whichever way they want to, at whatever church, mosque or synogogue they want to. At one time we were all Witnesses, yet virtually no one on here is now. We've all taken different paths. Some are athiests, agnostics, Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, Protestant or Born Again. I figure whatever a person feels most comfortable with is what they should do.
 
Tom Cabeen
Tom Cabeen 8 years ago

Hi Mary,
 Just curious. You say " The Catholic Church bears absolutely no resemblance to first century Christianity."? On what basis do you make that comparison?
 When I read the writings of the early Christians, I discovered, to my great surprise, that the Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican churches believe and worship much more like the early Christians than does any non-Catholic church does today. That discovery made me investigate the Catholic Church, which resulted in my family and I becoming Catholic Christians. I based my comparison on historical data, comparing them with the teachings and practices described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
 In regard to use of the Bible, if you just attend a Catholic mass, you might not realize that perhaps 40 percent of every Mass is composed of Scripture, either read or sung. In my former Baptist church, much Scripture reading was done. At every Catholic mass, scripture passages taken from the Old Testament, Psalms, Epistles, and Gospels are either read or sung aloud. While the Gospel is read the whole congregation stands up to show their respect for “the Word of the Lord.” In a three-year period, a person who attends Mass regularly would hear the majority of the entire Bible (including the Deuterocanonical books) read aloud. What Catholics do not do is cite chapter and verse, which were a relatively recent addition.
 Tom
 
lonelysheep
lonelysheep 8 years ago

Justhuman, your post is very detailed & accurate. Excellent explanation.
 
Mary
Mary 8 years ago

Hi Mary, Just curious. You say " The Catholic Church bears absolutely no resemblance to first century Christianity."? On what basis do you make that comparison?
Several reasons really. First, their rituals (such as walking down the aisles waving smoke and sprinkling 'holy water' and chanting god-knows-what), during the services seems fairly strange to me, as is the custom of kissing the Pope's ring if you happen to meet him. I certainly don't recall anyone in the first century church kissing the ring of any of the apostles when they met. Then their bizarre idea that the wine and bread are literally turned into the blood and body of Jesus when members partake (which would be pantamount to canibalism), their practice of having idols in the churches (which I already mentioned was a big no-no in the bible) and their forbidding priests to marry cannot be supported anywhere in the scriptures. They also have a bizarre view of Mary, that she was 'born without sin'----a concept never taught in any of the Christian writings, nor is infant baptism.
The list is endless. But like I said, if someone wants to join the Catholic Church---go for it. Makes no difference to me and at least the Catholic Church finally apologized for covering up their pedophile problem and are doing something about it-----a concept that the WTS has yet to learn.
 
FlyingHighNow
FlyingHighNow 8 years ago

Wow this thread is still going on, It seems that this board is more accepting of people going back to meetings than joining the Catholic church, why are JW's and EXJW's hate the Catholic faith so much, people need to be more accepting and open minded to what people now believe and respect them and not forget what we are really all here for.
Hey WA, the reason this thread continues is because many here are very accepting of the RCC and are posting on this thread, like moi.
 
undercover
undercover 8 years ago


Wow this thread is still going on, It seems that this board is more accepting of people going back to meetings than joining the Catholic church, why are JW's and EXJW's hate the Catholic faith so much, people need to be more accepting and open minded to what people now believe and respect them and not forget what we are really all here for.
Hey WA, the reason this thread continues is because many here are very accepting of the RCC and are posting on this thread, like moi.
...and people like me, who haven't accepted the line the "Church" is handing out keeps posting as well... I wanna make one thing clear, just because I question why people would accept the Catholic religion doesn't mean I disrespect them or judge them. People have the right to worship as they choose. I respect that, though I may never accept their belief that their church is the way to go. There have been some posts that pointed out how many wonderful people there are in the Catholic religion. I agree. I too know some wonderful Catholics. But I also know some wonderful JWs. I knows some great Mormons. Hell, I even met an old snake handling preacher that was as nice an old guy you could meet. Just beause there are great people in various religions doesn't mean that I can't question or disgaree with their choice of religion or church. And it doesn't mean that I disrespect anyone's belief by voicing my opinion on it.
 
minimus
minimus 8 years ago

I agree with Mary and Undercover. I too, have no ill regard for Catholic persons. We should be able to believe whatever we want. Perhaps those that defend Catholism should cut some slack to JWs too. As Mary detailed, there's a lot of things that Catholics do in rituals that are not sanctioned by the scriptures.
 
Wordly Andre
Wordly Andre 8 years ago

Min, I've never heard any Catholic talk bad about JW's, Yes maybe EXJW Catholics, but none of my Catholic friends talk bad about JW's, even when I tell them I grew up in a JW home, they are mostly curious ask a lot of questions, like why we didn't celebrate birthdays, blood transfusions, etc. Even in church I've never heard anything bad about JW's from my priest, the only thing I remember was one priest talking about how in America its very easy for anyone to start their own religion and that is probably why we have so many religions in America like the mormons and JWs.
 
minimus
minimus 8 years ago

The Knights of Columbus, a "very" Catholic fraternity HATES JWs and has much inflammatory tracts against JWs.
Most Catholics that I knew were personable UNTIL they found out you were a JW. Then they'd slam the door in your face because the parish priests told them if they listened or talked to JWs they'd burn in HELL! i know many firsthand accounts of this.
 
RubaDub
RubaDub 8 years ago

JW's would like to see their leader (Ted Jaracz) drive around in a Pope-mobile waving at district assemblies.
Since that is unlikely to happen, they turn Catholic to live out the fantasy.
Rub a Dub
 
Wordly Andre
Wordly Andre 8 years ago

the KofC, ha ha ha I sent in my membership, have you done much research into the Knights? it's mostly about Insurance, taking care of widows, and helping young Catholics pay for college who can not afford it. As far as Catholic that slam a door in your face, I doubt it was a fear of hell but more "why are you bothering me on a beautiful saturday morning"
 
FlyingHighNow
FlyingHighNow 8 years ago

Perhaps those that defend Catholism should cut some slack to JWs too. As Mary detailed, there's a lot of things that Catholics do in rituals that are not sanctioned by the scriptures.
Catholics know that they follow traditions that are outside of scripture. And you don't kicked out if you don't believe everything they do. It is JW's who believe all practices have to sanctioned by scripture, not the Catholic Church.
 
Finally-Free
Finally-Free 8 years ago


Oh, nevermind.
 
BurnTheShips
BurnTheShips 8 years ago

Catholics know that they follow traditions that are outside of scripture. And you don't kicked out if you don't believe everything they do. It is JW's who believe all practices have to sanctioned by scripture, not the Catholic Church.
To refine your post a bit, Catholics hold that none of their Tradition, even if not specifically sanctioned in Scripture, violates anything in Scripture.
BTS
 

«
 1
 2
 …
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
out of all religions, catholicism, to me, is wrong and clearly could never be the truth.



Related Topics
Wonderment
The truth shall set us free!
by Wonderment 4 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 09-20-2015 WT Study (LOYALTY)
by blondie 6 months ago
Anders Andersen
Really beautiful Watchtower article about truth
by Anders Andersen 3 months ago
cappytan
Lurkers: A truth is either true, or it isn't. There is no in between.
by cappytan 2 months ago
lsw1961
JWs have more good points than bad
by lsw1961 4 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/157916/do-understand-why-jws-leave-become-catholics?page=8&size=20






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ I Do Not Understand Why JWs Leave & Become Catholics!
/  





 

I Do Not Understand Why JWs Leave & Become Catholics!
by minimus 8 years ago 239 Replies latest 8 years ago   jw friends
«
 1
 2
 …
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 »
 5
10
20
Mary
Mary 8 years ago

JW's would like to see their leader (Ted Jaracz) drive around in a Pope-mobile waving at district assemblies. Since that is unlikely to happen, they turn Catholic to live out the fantasy.

 
FlyingHighNow
FlyingHighNow 8 years ago


JW's would like to see their leader (Ted Jaracz) drive around in a Pope-mobile waving at district assemblies. Since that is unlikely to happen, they turn Catholic to live out the fantasy.

<.........laughing too, but for different reasons.
 
Tom Cabeen
Tom Cabeen 8 years ago

Hi Mary,
 Thanks listing some of the things that you believe to be inconsistent with early Christianity. But you may have misunderstood my question. I wondered about the basis upon which you make the comparison. Is it based on the New Testament, as you understand it? On examination of historical records? On general consensus? Or on some other basis?
 I ask this because sometimes people sincerely believe something to be the case based on, for example, their understanding of the Scriptures. A sincere JW might make the following statement: "Taking blood transfusions is unscriptural." Yet other people who study and hold the very same Scriptures in high regard, might say "I see nothing unscriptural about a blood transfusion." In that case, deciding who is right usually has to be on some other basis than "the plain meaning" of some Scriptural passages.
 One of these issues is of great importance: the idea that the bread and wine of the Eucharist become Jesus' body and blood. The Scriptures bearing on the subject have been understood in different ways by Christians: Prior to the Reformation, virtually all Christians took them to mean one thing. After the Reformation, virtually all Protestants took them to mean exactly the opposite. Can it be resolved? If so, on what basis?
 Rather than use this forum for explaining Catholic doctrines and their basis, I would be more than happy to address any issues you may be wondering about off forum. If you are interested, feel free to IM me. If not, that is fine, too.
 Best wishes,
 Tom
 
minimus
minimus 8 years ago

Tom, you didn't address Mary's valid points. (Or at least I didn't get it)..... Let's stick with the NT for starters, if you will.
 
mouthy
mouthy 8 years ago

just because I question why people would accept the Catholic religion doesn't mean I disrespect them or judge them. People have the right to worship as they choose. I respect that, though I may never accept their belief that their church is the way to go.I agree with that statement a 100percent
 
Mary
Mary 8 years ago

Hi Mary, Thanks listing some of the things that you believe to be inconsistent with early Christianity. But you may have misunderstood my question. I wondered about the basis upon which you make the comparison. Is it based on the New Testament, as you understand it? On examination of historical records? On general consensus? Or on some other basis?
A combination of reading the New Testament as well as other historical records of the time. I'm presently working towards my BA and will probably major in Religious Studies. First century Christianity did not last long in it's original form. No more than a century after Jesus died, you had various pockets of Christianity with different beliefs (ie. the Gnostics) and by the time the Catholic Church became the official religion, it had already changed dramatically from what the Messianic Jews (who of course were the forerunners of the first Christians), had practiced. In reality, Jesus never told his followers to start a new religion, he simply wanted to see changes made within Judaism itself. By todays standard, Jesus would be either a Reformed or Conservative Jew. He most certainly would not be a Catholic, Protestant or Jehovah's Witness.
 
BurnTheShips
BurnTheShips 8 years ago

First century Christianity did not last long in it's original form.
Second century Christianity did not last long in it's original form.
Fifth century Christianity did not last long in it's original form.
21st century Christianity will not last long in it's original form.
By todays standard, Jesus would be either a Reformed or Conservative Jew. He most certainly would not be a Catholic, Protestant or Jehovah's Witness.
Well then, to what do you atrribute Matthew 28:19, 20? Or John 3:16? Or basically the entire NT to? What kind of tradional Jew would teach such things? Obviously Jesus did not leave the religion fully formed, and if we take John 14:26 as having any weight at all, we would have to allow time and room for doctrinal development. As for Jesus looking like a Reformed or Conservative Jew, we must remember that Reformed and Conservative Judaism were greatly influenced by the dominant Christian cultural milieu in which they themselves developed!
BTS
 
undercover
undercover 8 years ago

Obviously Jesus did not leave the religion fully formed,
Maybe there's a reason for that...maybe Jesus (if he existed as the Bible portrays him) didn't mean for people to build a massive religion around him or build expensive, ornate buildings or force people to accept him as their savior at the end of a sword.
Maybe his message was one of love and peace (as Stephen Stills put it, Jesus was the first non-violent revolutionary) and he wanted people to find a way to happiness without the trappings of religious tradition and dogma.
 
BurnTheShips
BurnTheShips 8 years ago

Maybe there's a reason for that...maybe Jesus ( if he existed as the Bible portrays him) didn't mean for people to build a massive religion around him or build expensive, ornate buildings or force people to accept him as their savior at the end of a sword.
I think you don't get my point, if he existed as the NT portrays him, he left room for development after his leaving (John 14:12) under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit.
As for ornate buildings and such, we see Jesus treating the greatest, most ornate religious building in Judaism with a great deal of reverence and respect (John 2:13-17). We also see Jesus in the NT account frequently teaching in synagogues, which would have been among the most ornate buildings of the time in the area in which he lived.
Maybe his message was one of love and peace (as Stephen Stills put it, Jesus was the first non-violent revolutionary) and he wanted people to find a way to happiness without the trappings of religious tradition and dogma.
If that works for you run with it.
BTS
 
undercover
undercover 8 years ago

You failed to rationalize the part about forcing "people to accept Jesus as savior at the end of a sword" bit...
 
BurnTheShips
BurnTheShips 8 years ago

You failed to rationalize the part about forcing "people to accept Jesus as savior at the end of a sword" bit...
That has no excuse and no rationalization. BTS
 
minimus
minimus 8 years ago

I just heard on Boston radio that there will be an expose' on TV as to the Archdiocese knowing that many pedophile priests are living in neighborhoods with lots of kiddies and the Archbishop is not telling the public anything about where these priests are so as to protect the children.
When I hear how terrible JWs are for their policies regarding child abusers, which I agree are wrong, I can't help but wonder how anybody could support the Church with their continuing record of subterfuge with their sicko priests!
 
undercover
undercover 8 years ago

That has no excuse and no rationalization.
So, I have to ask...
Would Jesus want the organization that did such things to carry his banner?
If the Church lived within Jesus during that time, would Jesus have let them do such a thing? Or maybe they weren't as tight with the Christ kid as they thought...
...and if they weren't tight enough with him then, how can anyone prove they're tight with him now?
 
Mary
Mary 8 years ago

First century Christianity did not last long in it's original form.
Second century Christianity did not last long in it's original form. Fifth century Christianity did not last long in it's original form. 21st century Christianity will not last long in it's original form.
Yes but you're missing my point: Christianity had it's beginning during the 1st century (and not the 2nd or 5th century) and included those who had been taught directly by Jesus. Therefore it's only logical that any claims one makes of being the 'one true church' today, should be based on their ability to prove that they're not very different from the original Christianity. Catholicism, from what I can see, bears little resemblance to 1st century Christianity as I mentioned in my previous post.


By todays standard, Jesus would be either a Reformed or Conservative Jew. He most certainly would not be a Catholic, Protestant or Jehovah's Witness.
Well then, to what do you atrribute Matthew 28:19, 20? Or John 3:16? Or basically the entire NT to? What kind of tradional Jew would teach such things?

I never said Jesus was a traditional Jew. In fact I said the opposite. He wanted to see reform and changes made within the religion itself as it had become increasingly legalistic over the previous century or two and this of course is what got him into trouble. Nevertheless, he was still a Jew and he observed many of the Jewish customs such as the Sabbath (although not to the fanatical degree that the Pharisees did), all the feasts and celebrations that were part of his family's heritage and of course the Passover. His original disciples were all Jews and the New Testament was written exclusively by Jews. None of them were 'Catholics'. At the very inception, they weren't even known as 'Christians'----they were considered 'Messianic Jews' and they kept all the beliefs and practices they always had with the sole exception of accepting Jesus as the Messiah.
Obviously Jesus did not leave the religion fully formed, and if we take John 14:26 as having any weight at all, we would have to allow time and room for doctrinal development.
Like I said, there is no scripture that even hints that Jesus' followers were to start a new religion. Changes needed to be made yes, but there certainly was no indication that a whole rash of new doctrines was the way to go, with the abandonment of everything that Jesus himself had practiced throughout His short life. Had Jesus' brother James remained in the forefront of the early congregations, there's little doubt that Christianity would have retained much of the Jewish traditions and practices that they were all familiar with. Instead, Paul of Tarsus (who had never even met Jesus) grabs the reigns after his conversion and starts Jesus' followers down a different path. It pissed off many of the followers to the point where they wanted to kill Paul at one point.
I have no personal problem with any Catholic and if someone wants to convert---go for it. My whole point was that Catholicism today bears little resemblance to what original Christianity was; by many of their doctrines and their 'traditions'.
As for Jesus looking like a Reformed or Conservative Jew, we must remember that Reformed and Conservative Judaism were greatly influenced by the dominant Christian cultural milieu in which they themselves developed!
It matters little why they were influenced; the point is: Jesus would still have been a practising Jew were He around today. He would not be a "Christian". I've had this argument with Catholics before---some are quite insistent that Jesus was a Catholic and get quite irrate when you point out that He was not. I just don't get that.
 
Shawn10538
Shawn10538 8 years ago

I feel the same way about everyone who doesn't believe what I do.
 
FlyingHighNow
FlyingHighNow 8 years ago

When I hear how terrible JWs are for their policies regarding child abusers, which I agree are wrong, I can't help but wonder how anybody could support the Church with their continuing record of subterfuge with their sicko priests!
I guess I look at it this way: the church is huge. It's very complex in it's set up and vast spread. The church has it's dark side. The church has it's good side. The church does many very good things for communities and individuals around the globe. It's terrible that the pedophile priests have been protected and moved around and hidden, however the church is not completely evil. They do much more good than the fools in the church that have made these bad decisions concerning the priests who have hurt people. The Catholic church accomplishes tremendous good in feeding the hungry, running hospitals, orphanages, homes for mothers in trouble, centers for adoption of babies and children, food banks, housing programs, aiding the homeless, clinics, blood drives, giving haven to political refugees, ministering to the dying in hospices, ministering to the broken hearted and much more.
With the WTBTS, they do none of those good things. They are basically set up to make the lives of millions miserable, break up families, brag on themselves, etc.: you all know the drill.
 
FlyingHighNow
FlyingHighNow 8 years ago

Oh yes and the Catholic Church provides sliding scale fee counseling for the mentally ill. The WTBTS basically doesn't give a damn about the mentally ill.
 
Carlos_Helms
Carlos_Helms 8 years ago

"I just heard on Boston radio that there will be an expose' on TV as to the Archdiocese knowing that many pedophile priests are living in neighborhoods with lots of kiddies and the Archbishop is not telling the public anything about where these priests are so as to protect the children.
When I hear how terrible JWs are for their policies regarding child abusers, which I agree are wrong, I can't help but wonder how anybody could support the Church with their continuing record of subterfuge with their sicko priests!"
Wow. That was kind of below-the belt. You paint with a very broad brush, Minimus. I thought the pedophile priest horse had been beaten to death. So, tell me: if it was revealed that a member or two of your family participated in some sort of sinful misbehavior, would I be justified in dissing your entire family? My friend, the church isn't found in it's hierarchy; nor is it found in the priests, bishops or deacons. The body of Christ is found in the people. Good Lord, man...this is really elemental stuff. I don't understand where you're coming from, Minimus; but wherever it is, I don't want to be.
Peace!
Carlos
 
justhuman
justhuman 8 years ago

Wow still going strong with this subject....
Well here are some more tips:
Some friends in this post they have complained about the huge Churches that the Catholics and others are building. My question is: Why don't they complain about King's Solomon Temple of Jerusalim that was an amazing stracture!!! Build with gold, marble, prescious wood?
When Christians came out from the catacombs after Saint Constantine gave freedom of religion to the Romanae Empire, for the first time they had the chance to praise their God. That is why we see those Churches in the East and West Romanae. So is it wrong on their behalf to copy what King Solomon did? If you look at the Catacombs in the Roman Empire, most of the underground Churches have similarities with the Orthodox Chruches that we are building for more than 1700 years!!!
Regarding the "idols" idol "eidolo" in Greek, "eidos" it means the thing that we can see, or we can understand with our senses, and it has to do ONLY with the visualization of God. NEVER in the Bible refering the word idol exept the portrait God. In the Bible ONLY God cannot be portraited. That is why in the Orthodox Church you will not find an Icon fo God. There is a difference in the words Worship-proskino in Greek. There is honorable worship, and we can honour anyone. Jesus says to worship-proskinisoun - honour the Bishop of the Church Philadelphia It is honorable worship. Don't indicate the example of Paul and Barnabas, because in Greece the crowd tried to worship them as Idolater God's- Hermes and Zeus, and that is why they refuse. So in Church we honour the Saints, and Jesus Mother, and this is not idolworship...
The Orthodox Church kept the Apostolic succesion for 2000 years, and faith, as it was delivered by the Apostles and the Church. The Bible came out from the Church, it is one of the expressions of God's Gospel. Either you accept the Bible as it is - 77 books, or the Protestands must form a new Bible. Jesus left, but before He left He said to the disciples that He will sent the Holy Spirit to guide them. This Holy Spirit never left the Church and it is there for 2000 years to guide the Church.
As I said before both Early Churches have lot in common. But still there is a Theological problem due to language with the Catholic Church. I consider my self lucky to be able to have the original texts of the Bible in my language. And in no way I can accept anyone to try to explain to me the meanings of the Greek words like WT does. Indeed the Catholic Church has done many mistakes. But can you tell me someone that is perfect? I have seen also in the Orthodox Church human mistakes. Even a civil war in my country...I have see religious leaders to make bussiness as their profession, instead of taking care of the Church. On the other hand I have seen the Church to build hospitals, and youth centers for the drag addicted ones. They help many people finnancially and emotionally. I have see priests that they are next to the people and try to help them. On the other hand there are priests that they are doing bad things. So does it mean that the Theological dogma of the Church is wrong? Jesus accepted the Priests of Jerusalim, although there was corruption in the Temple, and He did fight that corruption. Still He accepted the Jewish faith, with all of their traditions.
I'm posting some links regarding the Christian Orthodox faith for those who would like to have more search on the matter of the Early Christianity and the function of the Apostolic Church that was preserved through the centuries
http://www.oodegr.com/english/dogmatiki1/F2g.htm formation and structure of the Church
http://www.oodegr.com/english/dogmatiki1/F2e.htm formation and structure of the Church
http://www.oodegr.com/english/dogmatiki1/E5.htm Christolgoy
http://www.oodegr.com/english/dogmatiki1/D2d.htm the filioque issue
http://www.oodegr.com/english/dogmatiki1/D2c.htm the filioque issue St. Augustines
http://www.oodegr.com/english/dogmatiki1/F2c.htm the Trinitarian issue
 
BurnTheShips
BurnTheShips 8 years ago


So, I have to ask...
Would Jesus want the organization that did such things to carry his banner?
If the Church lived within Jesus during that time, would Jesus have let them do such a thing? Or maybe they weren't as tight with the Christ kid as they thought...
...and if they weren't tight enough with him then, how can anyone prove they're tight with him now?
Jesus let Judas betray him.
Jesus let Peter deny him three times.
BTS
 

«
 1
 2
 …
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
out of all religions, catholicism, to me, is wrong and clearly could never be the truth.



Related Topics
Wonderment
The truth shall set us free!
by Wonderment 4 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 09-20-2015 WT Study (LOYALTY)
by blondie 6 months ago
Anders Andersen
Really beautiful Watchtower article about truth
by Anders Andersen 3 months ago
cappytan
Lurkers: A truth is either true, or it isn't. There is no in between.
by cappytan 2 months ago
lsw1961
JWs have more good points than bad
by lsw1961 4 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/157916/do-understand-why-jws-leave-become-catholics?page=9&size=20






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ I Do Not Understand Why JWs Leave & Become Catholics!
/  





 

I Do Not Understand Why JWs Leave & Become Catholics!
by minimus 8 years ago 239 Replies latest 8 years ago   jw friends
«
 1
 2
 …
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 »
 5
10
20
BurnTheShips
BurnTheShips 8 years ago

When I hear how terrible JWs are for their policies regarding child abusers, which I agree are wrong, I can't help but wonder how anybody could support the Church with their continuing record of subterfuge with their sicko priests!
You see a sicko priest. And so it is. But the Church also sees a sinning soul in need of help.
BTS
 
Mary
Mary 8 years ago

Regarding the "idols" idol "eidolo" in Greek, "eidos" it means the thing that we can see, or we can understand with our senses, and it has to do ONLY with the visualization of God. NEVER in the Bible refering the word idol exept the portrait God. In the Bible ONLY God cannot be portraited. That is why in the Orthodox Church you will not find an Icon fo God.
That simply is not true. First of all, Catholics worship a triune God: Father, Son and Holy Ghost. There are numerous statues of Jesus in most of their churches. Since Jesus is most certainly viewed as "God" by Catholics, you are in fact, worshipping an idol whether you want to admit it or not; something that the scriptures clearly condemns: Exodus 20:4, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:" Your rationalization that it "has to do ONLY with the visualization of God", is meaningless. Of course it has to do with 'visualizing God'-----why do you think the nations that were around in ancient times made idols? For the very same reason. Yet the Israelites were specifically told not to do it.
There is a difference in the words Worship-proskino in Greek. There is honorable worship, and we can honour anyone. Jesus says to worship-proskinisoun - honour the Bishop of the Church Philadelphia It is honorable worship. Don't indicate the example of Paul and Barnabas, because in Greece the crowd tried to worship them as Idolater God's- Hermes and Zeus, and that is why they refuse. So in Church we honour the Saints, and Jesus Mother, and this is not idol worship...
Oh please ----Mary is prayed to, bowed to, the statues of her probably outnumber those of Jesus. She's viewed as "Queen of Heaven" by Catholics and is most certainly worshipped as confirmed here:

"...May 7, 1997 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist News Service, 1701 Harns Rd., Oak Harbor, WA 98277) - On May 7 Pope John Paul II dedicated his general audience to "the Virgin Mary" and urged all Christians to accept Mary as their mother. He noted the words spoken by Jesus on the cross to Mary and to John-- "Woman, behold thy son!" and "Behold thy mother!" (John 19:26,27), and he claimed that in this statement "IT IS POSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND THE AUTHENTIC MEANING OF MARIAN WORSHIP in the ecclesial community ... which furthermore is based on the will of Christ" (Vatican Information Service, May 7, 1997)...."
"...John Paul II underlined that "the history of Christian piety teaches that MARY IS THE PATH THAT LEADS TO CHRIST, and that filial devotion to her does not at all diminish intimacy with Jesus, but rather, it increases it and leads it to very high levels of perfection." He concluded by asking all Christians "to make room (for Mary) in their daily lives, ACKNOWLEDGING HER PROVIDENTIAL ROLE IN THE PATH OF SALVATION" (Ibid.)...."
Idolatry is defined as:
1.Worship of idols.
2.Blind or excessive devotion to something.
Here's a couple of prayers that Catholics have that gives a pretty clear indication of how they view Mary:

The Church of Mary Queen of Heaven Prayer

Oh Mary. Queen of Heaven. Mother of God. Bride of the Holy Spirit. We beseech thee. Please forgive us our sins. Please lay your motherly hands upon us and allow us to suckle at your breast that gives eternal life. Show your Son who was first. You begot a God and gave him life. Without you there is nothing. Oh Mary! Queen of all goddesses. Mother of all gods, great and small, we are your devoted worshippers. Mary we pray to you so that you may take our prayers to your son and change His heart. Amen.
THE HAIL MARY
Hail Mary, distributor of all graces the Lord listens to you.
Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed are the cakes of bread we offer you.
Holy Mary, mother goddess, co-redeem us sinners now
and at the hour of death. AMEN
"The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, he is Jesus Christ himself" -Catholic National July 1895.
"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty" -Pope Leo XIII
"The Pope is not simply the representative of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, he is Jesus Christ Himself, under the veil of the flesh, and who by means of a being common to humanity continues His ministry amongst men ... Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ Who is speaking. Does he teach? It is Jesus Christ Who teaches. Does he confer grace or pronounce an anathema? It is Jesus Christ Himself Who is pronouncing the anathema and conferring the grace. Hence consequently, when one speaks of the Pope, it is not necessary to examine, but to obey: there must be no limiting the bounds of the command, in order to suit the purpose of the individual whose obedience is demanded: there must be no cavilling at the declared will of the Pope, and so invest it with quite another than that which he has put upon it: no preconceived opinions must be brought to bear upon it: no rights must be set up against the rights of the Holy Father to teach and command; his decisions are not to be criticized, or his ordinances disputed. Therefore by Divine ordination, all, no matter how august the person may be — whether he wear a crown or be invested with the purple, or be clothed in the sacred vestments: all must be subject to Him Who has had all things put under Him." -Evangelical Christendom, January 1, 1895, pg. 15,published in London by J. S. Phillips.
If this doesn't fall under the definition of "idolatry", I don't know what does.
 
NanaR
NanaR 8 years ago

JustHuman:
Thanks for the links!
Ruth


 
BurnTheShips
BurnTheShips 8 years ago

Therefore it's only logical that any claims one makes of being the 'one true church' today, should be based on their ability to prove that they're not very different from the original Christianity. Catholicism, from what I can see, bears little resemblance to 1st century Christianity as I mentioned in my previous post.
Actually no that is not true. They don't need to prove that they are not very different (and in reality they are not), they need to demostrate that they are the same institution that Christ founded. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches have Apostolic succession. They are the Church founded by Christ and passed on by the Apostles. Even in the 1st century, there was Earth-shredding change in the understanding of the religion.
Mary, have you ever read the Apostolic Fathers, or the Anti-Nicene Fathers?
He wanted to see reform and changes made within the religion itself as it had become increasingly legalistic over the previous century or two and this of course is what got him into trouble.
Jesus did not come to reform Judaism, Jesus came to save all humanity. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
Nevertheless, he was still a Jew and he observed many of the Jewish customs such as the Sabbath (although not to the fanatical degree that the Pharisees did), all the feasts and celebrations that were part of his family's heritage and of course the Passover.
Of course! He was a Jew!But he also said: I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.
His original disciples were all Jews and the New Testament was written exclusively by Jews.

Absolutely untrue. The second most prolific NT writer after Paul was Luke--a Greek. Please get your facts straight.
None of them were 'Catholics'. At the very inception, they weren't even known as 'Christians'----they were considered 'Messianic Jews'
By your logic, Christians shouldn't even be called "Christians". In Acts 11:26 they came to be called this. The first act of apostasy?

and they kept all the beliefs and practices they always had with the sole exception of accepting Jesus as the Messiah.
Well then the Church went apostate from the start under the Apostles themselves!
It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath." Acts 15:19-21
There were both Jewish and Gentile Christian communities. A diversity of ethnicity, a catholicity of faith, a unity of worship.

Like I said, there is no scripture that even hints that Jesus' followers were to start a new religion.
Baloney:
When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them inthe name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."


but there certainly was no indication that a whole rash of new doctrines was the way to go, with the abandonment of everything that Jesus himself had practiced throughout His short life. Had Jesus' brother James remained in the forefront of the early congregations, there's little doubt that Christianity would have retained much of the Jewish traditions and practices that they were all familiar with. Instead, Paul of Tarsus (who had never even met Jesus) grabs the reigns after his conversion and starts Jesus' followers down a different path. It pissed off many of the followers to the point where they wanted to kill Paul at one point.

Paul grabbed no "reigns" but submitted to the authority of the body of Apostles. The body of Apostles, including James, agreed with Paul as quoted above in Acts 15 and below:
When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
" 'After this I will return
and rebuild David's fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things'
that have been known for ages.
I have no personal problem with any Catholic and if someone wants to convert---go for it. My whole point was that Catholicism today bears little resemblance to what original Christianity was; by many of their doctrines and their 'traditions'
The nucleus for all Catholic doctrine is present in Scripture.
It matters little why they were influenced; the point is: Jesus would still have been a practising Jew were He around today. He would not be a "Christian". I've had this argument with Catholics before---some are quite insistent that Jesus was a Catholic and get quite irrate when you point out that He was not. I just don't get that.
"Catholic" is a title-and a description. "Christian" is also. This is semantics. Christ is in heaven at the right hand of the Father.

The point is the Church he founded exists today.
BTS
BTW why must you bold everything?
 
Mary
Mary 8 years ago

Absolutely untrue. The second most prolific NT writer after Paul was Luke--a Greek. Please get your facts straight.
Woops! You're right---my mistake.
BTW why must you bold everything?
I just figure it's easier to read; been doing it for years----but I won't do it anymore if it bothers you.  BTS, I don't want you to get the wrong idea: I read the bible and believe in Jesus. If you've found contentment and happiness in the Catholic Church, then that's great. Like I said in a previous post, we've all gone in many different directions and we all have to do what we think is best for us. I know there's a few others on here who have converted to Catholicism after leaving the Witnesses. While I admit I'm surprised, that's up to them and I hope they're happier than when they were Witnesses. I don't think anyone has the 'one true faith' today and I don't believe that we'll be judged on what religion we belong to. It's what's in our hearts that count and that's what matters in the long run.
 
BurnTheShips
BurnTheShips 8 years ago



 
justhuman
justhuman 8 years ago

Mary
On my remarks of Mother Mary it was for the Orthodox Church, an ex-jw that turned to Orthodox Christian, and again I will point out my tips :
1.Regarding the "idols" idol "eidolo" in Greek, "eidos" it means the thing that we can see, or we can understand with our senses, and it has to do ONLY with the visualization of God. NEVER in the Bible refering the word idol exept the portrait God.
2.There is a difference in the words Worship-proskino in Greek. There is honorable worship, and we can honour anyone. Jesus says to worship-proskinisoun - honour the Bishop of the Church Philadelphia It is honorable worship. Don't indicate the example of Paul and Barnabas, because in Greece the crowd tried to worship them as Idolater God's- Hermes and Zeus, and that is why they refuse. So in Church we honour the Saints, and Jesus Mother, and this is not idol worship ...
So that makes according to your logic Apostle John an idolater because he worshiped the Angel that gave the Revelation.(he was honoring God's Angel here)
In Joshua 5:13-15 we see that Josua WORSHIPED Jehovah's Archangel...so does this make Joshua an idolater???
In Revelation 3:7-10 Jesus said that he will make people to bow down on their knees and worship the Episkopos of Philadelphia!!! So is Jesus promoting idol worship here???
So we honor even the relics of the Saints because according to 1 Corinthians 3:16 they have been the Temple of God
Try to understand the difference from Honoring and idol worship, because honoring you can find it in the Old and New Testament and there is difference between the 2
Again I will ask those questions to the Protestands:
1.Is the Holy Bible the only basis for the Christian faith?
2. Were in the Bible indicates that only the Bible is our basis for our Christian Faith?
3. Who set the Biblical Canon?
4.What is the Protestand basis to accept the 66 books of the Bible instead of 77 that Orthodox and Catholic Church accepts?
5. Were in the Bible is telling us the Books that we should accept as the Biblical Canon are part of the Holy Scriptures?
6. Can you indicate a verse in the Bible that claims to be infalible?
7. Were in the Bible is showing us that the faith of the Church is being set according to the Bible and not the opposite?
8. In the Early Christian Church we had the Apostoles and the Prophets and they were appointed by the Holy Spirit Elders (Episkopoi in Greek)and this succesion is being carried for over 2000 years in the Apostolic Church, starting from James the first Bishop of Jerusalim.Do JW's or any Protestand has any Apostolic Succesion?
9. Has the Apostolic Church ever Apostasized?
10.Why do Protestands accept a Bible that was set by the Apostolic Church with Saint Athanasius(Greek Orthodox) at the 3th century who defined the Biblical canon?Is it correct on their behalf to accept a Bible that came out from the "apostate" Christians?
11. What do the writtings of the first 2 centuries of Christianity indicate to us regarding the Christian faith since we have letters from the immediate succesors of the Apostles like The letter to the Church of Magnisis from Saint Ignatios the Bishop of Antioch? It was written between 97 AD - 107AD.
12. Would Jesus allow Satan to turn the Church that He set with His Blood an "apostate"Church, and Satan would truimph over Jesus Church for hundreds of years?
Those are questions that need an answer....can any Protestand Domination give answers to the questions above...
I do not condemn any one that left JW's and decided to follow Christ according to their knowledge and try following the Bible. And there is no condemnation for anyone who is trying to follow Jesus, no matter were this indivitual belongs, because at the end we are all going to be judged according to our deeds from Jesus. This is a fact that no one can deny...because Jesus knows our heart and mind and knows our intentions.
I do not condemn even JW's because I know there are sincere people inside that cult that they are only trying to follow Jesus. Again I don't condemn anyone that became an Atheist, or even became Muslim, or Hindu. I strongly believe and this is a fact that we are all going to be judged according to our deeds
But I will strongly argue with anyone that claims that the Early Church became apostate religion and we cannot trace the origins of the Early Church because this argument does not have a solid ground. In my Island Cyprus, there are Ecclesiastical monuments that are coming out from the Early days of Christianity. Catacombs with Holy Icons that haven't changed ever since. Saint Lazarus was the first Bishop of my hometown Kition, and the grave he was burried it is there for 2000 years. Apostle Barnabas the first Bishop of the Island we find his grave in Salamis. I have see the writtings of the Early Succesors of the Apostles in my own language in Greek, the language that the Gospel was spread through the Roman Empire, and all those writtings indicate to me that the Apostolic Succesion it is still carried on for 2000 years in hte Christian Orthodox Apostolic Church.
The proof is there, and it is up to anyone who wishes to do REAL search regarding the History of the Early Church to see the reality. But before doing that is better to try to give answers to the questions above...
 
BurnTheShips
BurnTheShips 8 years ago

Exactly! Efkaristo!
 
Amazing
Amazing 8 years ago

Well stated Justhuman, BurnTheShips, Carlos_Helms, and NanaR.
Just a detail to add on to Justhuman's point ... I was greatly impressed by the Orthodox because their history reflected the same approach to Apostolic Succession as Rome's. And living closer to where early Christian history formed, it makes sense that archeology and historical writings from that part of the world would agree with what we find in Orthodoxy and Catholicism ... which are both the same faith.
The Bible was not compiled until Pope Damasus requested St. Jerome to do so in the late 4th century, which resulted in the Latin Vulgate. Until then, Christians only had word of mouth, recited creeds resembling the Apostle's Creed, and if they were lucky, they heard a copy, or partial copy of letter read that was written by an early Christian, or one of the Church Fathers like St, Ignatius, or an Apostle. It was not until around the 8th century that the Church declared the Bible to be inspired. It was not until modern printing from the 17th century (1609 and 1611) onward that Bibles even began to become available to the average household. What non-Catholics have by way of the Bible is a gift of the Catholic-Orthodox Church ... a gift that they accept largely as is ... they are in a way all daughters of Rome.
Jim Whitney
 
justhuman
justhuman 8 years ago

And here are some more usefull links regarding the Apostolic Succesion and how did the Early Church still functioned
http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/baptisma1/perieh.htm
http://www.romanity.org/cont.htm
http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/episkopos1/perieh.htm
 
justhuman
justhuman 8 years ago

And here is a link regarding the Biblical Canon, a very interesting one, and how the Books of the Bible are understood by the Church
http://www.oodegr.com/english/ag_grafi/kanonas0.htm
http://www.oodegr.com/english/ag_grafi/biblia.grafis1.htm
 
hamilcarr
hamilcarr 8 years ago

The Bible was not compiled until Pope Damasus requested St. Jerome to do so in the late 4th century, which resulted in the Latin Vulgate. Until then, Christians only had word of mouth, recited creeds resembling the Apostle's Creed, and if they were lucky, they heard a copy, or partial copy of letter read that was written by an early Christian, or one of the Church Fathers like St, Ignatius, or an Apostle. It was not until around the 8th century that the Church declared the Bible to be inspired. It was not until modern printing from the 17th century (1609 and 1611) onward that Bibles even began to become available to the average household. What non-Catholics have by way of the Bible is a gift of the Catholic-Orthodox Church ... a gift that they accept largely as is ... they are in a way all daughters of Rome.
Interesting information. Thanks!
 
minimus
minimus 8 years ago

Amazing, Jim, are you involved in a site called governingbody letters?????
 
Amazing
Amazing 8 years ago

Minimus,
Amazing, Jim, are you involved in a site called governingbody letters?????
No, never heard of it. What's your point? Jim Whitney
 
minimus
minimus 8 years ago

Jim, on the website Lettersfrom thegoverningbodyof jehovah's witnesses, the writing on the blog has your style. Check it out. governingbodylettersblogspot.com
 
mouthy
mouthy 8 years ago

The Catholic church accomplishes tremendous good in feeding the hungry, running hospitals, orphanages, homes for mothers in trouble, centers for adoption of babies and children, food banks, housing programs, aiding the homeless, clinics, blood drives, giving haven to political refugees, ministering to the dying in hospices, ministering to the broken hearted and much more.
THEY DO??? Well I beg to differ. A man got off the train here in Guelph, Had lost his wallet everything in it was frantically searching ,,couldnt find it. An EXJW> Lutz Kaukle >stopped to help him... The man was a Catholic... He felt if he could get to a church they would help him ....He lived in U.S.A.... Lutz drove him there ,went in with him, the man explained his dilemma ...but sorry the Preist said we cant give out Handouts.... So Lutz gave him the money to get home.
I see by this site Religion is doing its work again DIVIDING people who wish to LOVE!!! The ONLY thing GOD requires......It brings bad vibes into the heart when you want to push your religious beliefs ...I dont accept all of the Bible it is written by MEN!!!! Isnt a man living or dead that hasnt goofed ,in actions, writings, deeds, in my opinion
 
minimus
minimus 8 years ago

Mouthy, what parts of the Bible do you not accept??
 
mouthy
mouthy 8 years ago

Alot of the old testement. Laws of men!! I think Proverbs was an intelligent writer. I like some of Psalms .I also like all that Jesus said in the New... . I read it daily ! ( a little) But I would be a liar to say I believe it all. Since I am not a very intelligent person,I think the Creator knows that. I am one of those discribed in Jonah 4: 11...I think Mich 6:7,8 is sage advice
 
minimus
minimus 8 years ago

Mouthy, I must say I'm surprised that you really don't believe in the Bible as being God's word. You haven't turned Catholic too, have ya??
 
mouthy
mouthy 8 years ago

You haven't turned Catholic too, have ya??
O.K. Go to the bathroom & wash out your mouth NOW
 

«
 1
 2
 …
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
out of all religions, catholicism, to me, is wrong and clearly could never be the truth.



Related Topics
Wonderment
The truth shall set us free!
by Wonderment 4 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 09-20-2015 WT Study (LOYALTY)
by blondie 6 months ago
Anders Andersen
Really beautiful Watchtower article about truth
by Anders Andersen 3 months ago
cappytan
Lurkers: A truth is either true, or it isn't. There is no in between.
by cappytan 2 months ago
lsw1961
JWs have more good points than bad
by lsw1961 4 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/157916/do-understand-why-jws-leave-become-catholics?page=10&size=20






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ I Do Not Understand Why JWs Leave & Become Catholics!
/  





 

I Do Not Understand Why JWs Leave & Become Catholics!
by minimus 8 years ago 239 Replies latest 8 years ago   jw friends
«
 1
 2
 …
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 »
 5
10
20
minimus
minimus 8 years ago

The bottom line is that religion is usually the problem. If one wants to believe in God the way they want to, then it's all good, right.?
 
BurnTheShips
BurnTheShips 8 years ago

The bottom line is that religion is usually the problem. If one wants to believe in God the way they want to, then it's all good, right.?
Sure...but what if God wants me to smash little red dots? BTS
 
undercover
undercover 8 years ago

...what if God wants me to smash little red dots?
Your post may have been in jest, but it brings to light the problem with religion...
Too many people/groups claim to know what God wants and then they justify their bloody deeds (with apologies to Don Henley) on their belief that God wants them to do these things. They can claim visionary status or they can claim inspiration or they can claim an understanding of the scripures that they alone have. Along with this delusion, if they are charismatic enough, they can convince others to follow in their crusade.
This is true of a lot of religions. Look at radical Muslims...willing to die in order to spread a jihad against infidels. And a so-called Christian American president claims to be working for God in "bringing freedom" to an oppressed nation, thus justifying an invasion of another sovreign nation. Catholics and Protestants are willing to war each other...the list goes on and on.
 
minimus
minimus 8 years ago

So BTS thinks God wants him to kill me???
 
mouthy
mouthy 8 years ago

If one wants to believe in God the way they want to, then it's all good, right.?
No I dont think it is ALL GOOD!!! alright. Because differant Gods want differant things>>.Kill others,>>> d/f them,
I believe Love is the answer LOVE!!!!! but we live in a world where is seems it is impossible to put to use
 
Amazing
Amazing 8 years ago

Hi Minimus,
Jim, on the website Lettersfrom thegoverningbodyof jehovah's witnesses, the writing on the blog has your style. Check it out. governingbodylettersblogspot.com
I reviewed the site, which is a sales pitch to buy a book containing such letters. I read some of the sample material. I see no particular similarity in writing style. You may wish to furnish some examples. As stated above, I have never heard of the site, nor have I ever had anything to do with such a site, or such materials sold on the site. I still ask what is your point? Jim Whitney
 
mouthy
mouthy 8 years ago

So BTS thinks God wants him to kill me???
Well you look like a red dot to me bye,bye red dot
 
toreador
toreador 8 years ago

http://antichristpope.blogspot.com/2006/05/pope-claims-to-be-god-on-earth.html

"The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth."
Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, "Cities Petrus Bertanous".
"...the Pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief of kings, having plenitude of power."
Lucius Ferraris, in "Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica", Volume V, article on "Papa, Article II", titled "Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility", #1, 5, 13-15, 18, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition.
"The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth...by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth." Quoted in the New York Catechism.
These words are written in the Roman Canon Law 1685: "To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical."
Father A. Pereira says: "It is quite certain that Popes have never approved or rejected this title 'Lord God the Pope,' for the passage in the gloss referred to appears in the edition of the Canon Law published in Rome in 1580 by Gregory XIII."
Writers on the Canon Law say, "The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in heaven and earth."
Barclay Cap. XXVII, p. 218. Cities Petrus Bertrandus, Pius V. - Cardinal Cusa supports his statement.
Pope Nicholas I declared: "the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who, being God, cannot be judged by man."
Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can. 7, Satis evidentur, Decret Gratian Primer Para.
"The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not a mere man .... he is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief of kings, having plenitude of power." Lucius Ferraris, «Prompta Bibliotheca», 1763, Volume VI, 'Papa II', pp.25-29
"The supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires... complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself."
Leo VIII, «On the Chief Duties of Christians as Citizens», Encyclical letter, 1890
"God separates those whom the Roman Pontiff, who exercises the functions, not of mere man, but of the true God...dissolves, not by human but rather by divine authority."
Decretals of Gregory IX», Book 1, Chapter 7.3
"Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions (infernorum)."
Lucius Ferraris, «Prompta Bibliotheca», 1763, Volume VI, 'Papa II', p.26)
"Innocent III has written: "Indeed, it is not top much to say that in view of the sublimity of their offices the priests are so many gods."
The dignity of the priesthood by Liguori p, 36
"The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, he is Jesus Christ himself, hidden under the veil of flesh."
Catholic National July 1895
"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty"
Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Letter of June 20, 1894
"For thou art the shepherd, thou art the physician, thou art the director, thou art the husbandman, finally thou art another God on earth."
Labbe and Cossart's "History of the Councils." Vol. XIV, col. 109
Roman Catholic Canon Law stipulates through Pope Innocent III that the Roman pontiff is
"the vicegerent upon earth, not a mere man, but of a very God;" and in a gloss on the passage it is explained that this is because he is the vicegerent of Christ, who is "very God and very man." Decretales Domini Gregorii translatione Episcoporum, (on the transference of Bishops), title 7, chapter 3; Corpus Juris Canonice (2nd Leipzig ed., 1881), col. 99; (Paris, 1612), tom. 2, Devretales, col. 205
"The pope is the supreme judge of the law of the land... He is the vicegerent (replacement) of Christ, who is not only a Priest forever, but also King of kings and Lord of lords."
La Civilia Cattolica, March 18, 1871, quoted in Leonard Woosely Bacaon, An inside view of the Vatican Council (American Tract Society ed.), p.229
"Christ entrusted His office to the chief pontiff;... but all power in heaven and in earth has been given to Christ;... therefore the chief pontiff, who is His vicar, will have this power."
Corpus Juris chap. 1 column 29, translated from a gloss on the words Porro Subesse Romano Pontiff
"The pope is the supreme judge of the law of the land . . . He is the vicegerent of Christ, and is not only a priest forever, but also King of kings and Lord of lords"
La Civilta Cattolica, March 18, 1871.
"All the faithful must believe that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff [the Pope] possesses the primacy over the whole world, and the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and is true vicar of Christ, and heed of the whole church, and father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in blessed Peter to rule, feed, and govern the universal Church by Jesus Christ our Lord."
First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, "Eternal Pastor," published in the fourth session of the Vatican Council, 1870, chap. 3, in Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom. vol. 2, p. 262.
“The Pope’s authority is unlimited, incalculable; it can strike, as Innocent III says, wherever sin is; it can punish every one; it allows no appeal and is itself Sovereign Caprice; for the Pope carries, according to the expression of Boniface VIII, all rights in the Shrine of his breast. As he has now become infallible, he can by the use of the little word, “orbi,” (which means that he turns himself round to the whole Church) make every rule, every doctrine, every demand, into a certain and incontestable article of Faith. No right can stand against him, no personal or corporate liberty; or as the [Roman Catholic] Canonists put it—“The tribunal of God and of the pope is one and the same.”
Ignaz von Dollinger, “A Letter Addressed to the Archbishop of Munich” 1871; as quoted in MacDougall,
"The Saviour Himself is the door of the sheepfold: 'I am the door of the sheep.' Into this fold of Jesus Christ, no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff; and only if they be united to him can men be saved, for the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ and His personal representative on earth."
(Pope John XXIII in his homily to the Bishops and faithful assisting at his coronation on November 4, 1958).
"This is our last lesson to you: receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God's commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church; the strong and effective instrument of salvation is none other than the Roman Pontificate."
(Pope Leo XIII, Allocution for the 25th anniversary of his election, February 20, 1903; Papal Teachings: The Church, Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, St. Paul Editions, Boston, 1962, page 653).
"Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors."
(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical, Mortalium animos, January 6, 1928, The Papal Encyclicals, Claudia Carlen, I.H.M., McGrath Publishing Co., 1981, pp. 317, 318).
"We define that the Holy Apostolic See (the Vatican) and the Roman Pontiff hold the primacy over the whole world."
A Decree of the Council of Trent, quoted in Philippe Labbe and Gabriel Cossart, "The Most Holy Councils," col. 1167.




 
Amazing
Amazing 8 years ago

Toreador,
Your copy from the blogspot quoted Canon Law 1685 as: "These words are written in the Roman Canon Law 1685: 'To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical.'
Were you aware that Canon Law 1685 which you quoted is not to be found in official documents published by the Vatican?
The official text of Canon Law 1685 reads as:"As soon as the sentence is executed, the judicial vicar must notify the local ordinary of the place in which the marriage was celebrated. The local ordinary must take care that the declaration of the nullity of the marriage and any possible prohibitions are noted as soon as possible in the marriage and baptismal registers." - Code of Cannon Law, Prepared under the auspices of the Canon Law Society of America, Washington, DC 20064, Codex Iuris Canonici © Copyright 1983 by Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
Citing blogspots can be problematic, as they can be loaded with bias and misquotes, which can be misleading, or slanted in a way to give incorrect impressions to non-catholics. If one wants to disagree with Catholic theology, then at least do so with accurate quotes and correct understanding of what is/was really taught.
It would also be good to provide the context of the Canon Law Article quoted. The surrounding language of a specific Canon Law can help readers better grasp the intent of what the Canon Law conveys. Also provide the source citation from the year, as well as name of the actual document, authors, publishers, etc. because such things as Canon Law do change.
Example of context: Canon Law 1685 is taken from Book VII Processes, Part III. Certain Special Processes, Title I. Marriage Processes, (Cann. 1671 - 1707), Chapter I. Cases to Declare the Nullity of Marriage, Article 5, The Sentence and the Appeal.
One needs to understand how such processes are viewed and practiced in the Catholic faith. So, even if your above quote had been accurate, by providing such context it may yield a better understanding of the Papal office.
No self-respecting Catholic ever views the Pope as God. Rather, the office he holds belongs to God. In the same way the office of Apostle, Evangelizer, Teacher, Shepherd, Elder (Priest), Deacon, etc. all are offices that belong to God. Popes are sinful fallible men. Popes make mistakes, and local Bishops do not have to strictly abide by Papal decrees ... and they are not removed for their failure to comply with the Pope.
If someone not familiar with Catholic teaching and practice views your material, or the material from the blog, such one would get the opposite impression that the Pope is some type of absolute power dictator that is equal to God. This would be a false impression that would mislead the reader.
My quote of the entire Canon Law 1685 is taken from the Vatican web site at:
◦http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM
Jim Whitney
 
toreador
toreador 8 years ago

Hello Jim,
Thank you for clarifying. Do you know where the quote came from? Was in in the canon law at one time and then changed by a Pope at a later time?

Were the following statements actually recorded accurately?

"The pope is the supreme judge of the law of the land . . . He is the vicegerent of Christ, and is not only a priest forever, but also King of kings and Lord of lords"
La Civilta Cattolica, March 18, 1871.
"All the faithful must believe that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff [the Pope] possesses the primacy over the whole world, and the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and is true vicar of Christ, and heed of the whole church, and father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in blessed Peter to rule, feed, and govern the universal Church by Jesus Christ our Lord."
First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, "Eternal Pastor," published in the fourth session of the Vatican Council, 1870, chap. 3, in Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom. vol. 2, p. 262.
“The Pope’s authority is unlimited, incalculable; it can strike, as Innocent III says, wherever sin is; it can punish every one; it allows no appeal and is itself Sovereign Caprice; for the Pope carries, according to the expression of Boniface VIII, all rights in the Shrine of his breast. As he has now become infallible, he can by the use of the little word, “orbi,” (which means that he turns himself round to the whole Church) make every rule, every doctrine, every demand, into a certain and incontestable article of Faith. No right can stand against him, no personal or corporate liberty; or as the [Roman Catholic] Canonists put it—“The tribunal of God and of the pope is one and the same.”
Ignaz von Dollinger, “A Letter Addressed to the Archbishop of Munich” 1871; as quoted in MacDougall,
"The Saviour Himself is the door of the sheepfold: 'I am the door of the sheep.' Into this fold of Jesus Christ, no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff; and only if they be united to him can men be saved, for the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ and His personal representative on earth."
(Pope John XXIII in his homily to the Bishops and faithful assisting at his coronation on November 4, 1958).
"This is our last lesson to you: receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God's commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church; the strong and effective instrument of salvation is none other than the Roman Pontificate."
(Pope Leo XIII, Allocution for the 25th anniversary of his election, February 20, 1903; Papal Teachings: The Church, Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, St. Paul Editions, Boston, 1962, page 653).
"Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors."
(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical, Mortalium animos, January 6, 1928, The Papal Encyclicals, Claudia Carlen, I.H.M., McGrath Publishing Co., 1981, pp. 317, 318).
 
sacolton
sacolton 8 years ago

After reading all that, I can't help but think: CULT! RUN AWAY!
 
BurnTheShips
BurnTheShips 8 years ago



"The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth."
Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, "Cities Petrus Bertanous".

This quote doesn't check out. This is an exact quote that appears only on several anti-Catholic sites that seem to be quoting each other in a circle. I am unable to locate any document named "Cities Petrus Bertanous" nor to identify who the Barclay is. Please provide the full name of the Barclay in question (there are several possibles), a link to "Cities Petrus Bertanous", or a link to the document by Pius V where the words "The Pope and God are the same" appear.


"...the Pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief of kings, having plenitude of power."
Lucius Ferraris, in "Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica", Volume V, article on "Papa, Article II", titled "Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility", #1, 5, 13-15, 18, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition.

The Pope represents Christ on earth. Christ is God. Therefore, the Pope represents God on earth. However, the Catholic Church has never taught that the Pope is God.
Looking over several of your quotes here we could level the same accusations of blasphemy against Scripture. For example, in the OT in Exodus 21:6, 22:8,9,28 the Scriptures refer to the judges as "gods", (Elohim). This means that they were the supreme representatives of God on Earth and carry his authority. Blasphemy? They were as it were, God. Scripture is therefore blasphemous.
Or what about Exodus 4:16 referring to Moses:
"Moreover, he shall speak for you to the people; and he will be as a mouth for you and you will be as God to him."


And Exodus 7:1 again:
Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet.


Blasphemy? Only if taken out of context and with distortion of intent. Or intent to distort, as many of the quotes you copy here seem to be about.


"The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth...by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth." Quoted in the New York Catechism.

Here is the real, official Catholic Catechism:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm
This is actually funny! Does the "New York Catechism" even exist! LOL! I only seem to find it on anti-Catholic sites only. If it did exist (and I doubt it) it was probably from the time when ultramontanism was relatively widespread. Just as we have certain individuals in the Church today who publish questionable catechesis tools, so did the ultramontanists in their day, and they had a very extreme view of papal authority.


These words are written in the Roman Canon Law 1685: "To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical."

I challenge the sourcing of that statement! I have found it quoted as sourced from three different sources. It actually was not in the Canon Law of 1685.


Father A. Pereira says: "It is quite certain that Popes have never approved or rejected this title 'Lord God the Pope,' for the passage in the gloss referred to appears in the edition of the Canon Law published in Rome in 1580 by Gregory XIII."

This is thoroughly debunked:
http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/forgeries/zenzelinus.html
The problem here is, this argument only relies on an edition of the Extravagantes. Why not look at the original version in the Vatican? GASP This quote is an interpolation and is not in the original.



"The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in heaven and earth."
Barclay Cap. XXVII, p. 218. Cities Petrus Bertrandus, Pius V. - Cardinal Cusa supports his statement.
So first it is Cities Petrus Bertanous in the first quote and then it is Cities Petrus Bertrandus? Something smells very fishy here.


"The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, he is Jesus Christ himself, hidden under the veil of flesh."
Catholic National July 1895
A Protestant paper, the "Church Review," in England, October 3, 1895, charges Cardinal Sarto, Archbishop of Venice, with having uttered those words at Venice. Cardinal Sarto was elected Pope in 1903. But as soon as the charge was made in 1895 that Cardinal Sarto had said those words, inquiries were sent from England to Venice, and Cardinal Sarto produced the manuscript of his discourse. And this is what he actually did say:
"The Pope REPRESENTS Jesus Christ Himself, and therefore is a loving father. The life of the Pope is a holocaust of love for the human family. His word is love; love, his weapon; love, the answer he gives to all who hate him; love, his flag, that is, the Cross, which signed the greatest triumph on earth and in heaven."



http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num4.htm

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty" Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Letter of June 20, 1894
OUT OF CONTEXT. Here is the encyclical and a bit of context:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm


This thought has been, and is, a source of deep concern to Us; for it is impossible to think of such a large portion of mankind deviating, as it were, from the right path, as they move away from Us, and not experience a sentiment of innermost grief. But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth, and now that Our advanced age and the bitterness of anxious cares urge Us on towards the end common to every mortal, We feel drawn to follow the example of Our Redeemer and Master, Jesus Christ, Who, when about to return to Heaven, implored of God, His Father, in earnest Prayer, that His Disciples and followers should be of one mind and of one heart: I pray . . . that they all may be one, as Thou Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they also may be one in Us.
Who is the "Us"? It is not the Pope, but the Church, which is the body of Christ, which is the pillar and bulwark of truth (Tim. 3:15)!
I could go on and address all these quotes, but after fisking a few quotes in this anti-Catholic copy and paste I question the veracity of ALL OF IT.
If you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, read the Catechism. This is the official compendium of Catholic doctrine. This stuff you copied is crap.
BTS
 
BurnTheShips
BurnTheShips 8 years ago



Were the following statements actually recorded accurately?
I don't think so:
"The pope is the supreme judge of the law of the land . . . He is the vicegerent of Christ, and is not only a priest forever, but also King of kings and Lord of lords"
La Civilta Cattolica, March 18, 1871.
Vicegerent?
Here is the archive for La Civilta Cattolica of that time period. I have text-searched under "judge" (giudice) and "supreme" (supremo) singly and together and have found nothing even remotely similar to the statement above.


"All the faithful must believe that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff [the Pope] possesses the primacy over the whole world, and the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and is true vicar of Christ, and heed of the whole church, and father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in blessed Peter to rule, feed, and govern the universal Church by Jesus Christ our Lord."
First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, "Eternal Pastor," published in the fourth session of the Vatican Council, 1870, chap. 3, in Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom. vol. 2, p. 262.

Even if the quote were to be wrong in attribution or composition it is essentially correct. In Catholicism the seat of the Apostle Peter has primacy over all others. In the OT, the High Priest had the highest jurisdiction in religious matters. So much so that on his turban, in gold, was written HOLY TO THE LORD (Exodus 28:36). The OT religion was a type for the Christian religion (1 Cor 10:11), and Peter was given the primacy among the Apostles and the highest authority as well. (Matthew 16:18-19). Full power was given to Peter by Jesus Christ to feed and shepherd the flock. (John 21:15-17)
BTS
 
Mary
Mary 8 years ago

Who set the Biblical Canon?
The Catholic Church did. I have no problem acknowledging that we all owe them a debt of gratitude for doing that.....in fact, it's something I used to love bringing to the attention of the Dubs (usually during the Bookstudy). I can't remember which book we were studying, but it totally glossed over the fact that the NT writings were cannonized by the Catholic Church----I think it just said something like "eventually, these writings of Christs' followers were organized and became what we know as the Christian Greek Scriptures". No mention whatsoever that it was Public Enemy No. 1 that did this, so I "innocently" asked the conductor "..I think it was the Catholic Church that actually decided what books would be included as part of the Christian Greek Scriptures, wasn't it?"
Of course, no one there wanted to admit that they were so everyone just got a glazed look on their face as we quickly moved on to the next paragraph. I got a few dirty looks for pulling that one.

 
Wordly Andre
Wordly Andre 8 years ago

Mary! you bookstudy rebel
 
minimus
minimus 8 years ago

Amazing/Jim, I can't stay on the computer today as I have some business to take care of. I simply thought some of the writing was similar to yours. It certainly was not meant as an insult. Man, I think either you're a bit touchy or crotchedy. (sp?).....No big deal.
 
Amazing
Amazing 8 years ago

Minimus and Toreador,
Min:
Amazing/Jim, I can't stay on the computer today as I have some business to take care of. I simply thought some of the writing was similar to yours. It certainly was not meant as an insult. Man, I think either you're a bit touchy or crotchedy. (sp?).....No big deal.
No, I am not touchy ... unfortunately the one dismensional aspect of the PC eliminates real life reactions, and it forces the reader to overlay their own emotional connections to the words used. I just was curious about your point ... I do not insult easily ... relax, I am fine.  - Jim W. Toreador, I do not know the source of the blog used by Flatlander ... butr maybe I can look into it. However, it appears that BurnTheShips is doing a far better job responding to the details than I have done ... and it shows a continuous pattern where some blogs outright lie about things that they do not like. Hell, the Catholic Church has enough real juicy sins without having to invent things. Jim W.
 
reniaa
reniaa 8 years ago

I would ask one question of ex-jws turned catholic and that is.....
Do you now think we will all be eternally tortured in a fiery Hell?
 
Tom Cabeen
Tom Cabeen 8 years ago

Hi Min,
 Sorry, I thought I did. What needs clarification?
 Tom
 
Tom Cabeen
Tom Cabeen 8 years ago

Hi Mary,
 So, if there is no church around today that is *essentially* the same as apostolic Christianity, what happened to the early Christian congregation? In the Acts we see a "church" composed of local congregations, at unity with one another (holding "one faith, one hope, one baptism"). Did that church fragment into many "flavors" right from the start, or was there "one church" that had right teaching and practice, from which smaller heretical groups (like the Gnostics) broke off?
 When the gospel began to be widely preached to the Gentiles (as Jesus had commanded), would that justify any changes in the way the Jesus' teachings were presented? For example, why would the Greeks or Romans be convinced by extensive quotations from the Jewish sacred writings, which they did not regard to be either inspired or authoritative?
 Another question: If the first century church founded by Jewish disciples of Christ became fragmented almost immediately, why so many witnesses from all over the Middle East, Asia, Europe and Africa in the second, third, fourth centuries (and on and on) who testify that there was one main body of believers, in communion with one another, who believed and practiced the same things, whose overseers (bishops) preserved and handed down the teachings of the apostles? To what were they referring?
 If no church today is like the first century Christian congregation, what are the implications of that? Could it be that Jesus either decided that the first century church was of use then, but that from then on there would be other ways in which Christianity would be passed on and practiced? Or could it be that the first century Church changed in some aspects of its outward appearance as it grew and the message was preached to all nations, but not in its core teachings and practices?
 Finally, what teachings do you believe to have been introduced by the time of the Church of Constantines' day that were substantially, fundamentally different from those teachings held by the apostles and other first century Christians, many of whom were Jews who had accepted Jesus as the Messiah?
 Tom
 

«
 1
 2
 …
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
out of all religions, catholicism, to me, is wrong and clearly could never be the truth.



Related Topics
Wonderment
The truth shall set us free!
by Wonderment 4 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 09-20-2015 WT Study (LOYALTY)
by blondie 6 months ago
Anders Andersen
Really beautiful Watchtower article about truth
by Anders Andersen 3 months ago
cappytan
Lurkers: A truth is either true, or it isn't. There is no in between.
by cappytan 2 months ago
lsw1961
JWs have more good points than bad
by lsw1961 4 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/157916/do-understand-why-jws-leave-become-catholics?page=11&size=20






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ I Do Not Understand Why JWs Leave & Become Catholics!
/  





 

I Do Not Understand Why JWs Leave & Become Catholics!
by minimus 8 years ago 239 Replies latest 8 years ago   jw friends
«
 1
 2
 …
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 »
5
10
20
Amazing
Amazing 8 years ago

Hi Toreador,
If you read BurnTheShips responses, I believe that he soundly shows more of the quotes to be in error, or in some way deficient. As Burn noted in email with me, it only takes a few minutes for someone to quote from a blog, and not check facts, creating some wild and scary claims ... but it takes many hours at times to trace down the sources to authenticate them only to discover and demonstrate their deficiency. I strongly recommend that when people make quotes that they do their homework and exhibit some academic honesty.
I realize in your case you were reposting what Flatlander put up on CC, so I am not suggesting that you were being dishonest. I responded to Flat on CC with just one example to illustrate my point ... but I may follow up with Burn's more exhaustive work.
Jim W.
 
Tom Cabeen
Tom Cabeen 8 years ago

Here is what I believe about hell, reniaa:
 Catholics and the Orthodox, following the teachings of the earliest Christians, believe that it is impossible for God not to love us, his earthly children. Love is his very essence and he made us expressly so that he could love us. God loves us so much that he sent his only-begotten son to save us and demonstrate the length he would go to to show us he loves us.
 Out of love for us, he made us in such a way that our deepest longings, our most profound needs, are satisfied in Him. He made us to find our fulfillment in the best he had, Himself. He made us to be his lovers; thus we will never be satisfied until we are in perfect relationship with him. When that happens, we will also be in the correct relationship with all other creatures who are in relationship with him, a huge loving family of giving and shared experiences. That is why he made us, so that he could love us and share his life with us.
 Love, by its very nature, must be spontaneous. It cannot be forced or coerced and still be love. In order to meet that condition, God had to give us free will, along with the qualities of character we would need to exercise that free will, including intelligence, curiosity, and the capacity for faith and love. As a consequence, we must make a free choice to obey God; we must come to him in pure loving response to what he has done for us. God would never try to force us into obeying him, even though He knows we will never be completely happy until we conform our thoughts and actions to His.
 But free will also has a downside. Since we have the God-given capacity for choice, He must also give us the right to reject Him. If that were not true, we would not truly have free will. If we choose to go down that path away from our Creator, God will use every means at his disposal, short of violating our free will, to call us to repentance. He offers free forgiveness and He demonstrates his love for us over and over again, in hope that we might come to realize that only in full, complete relationship with him will we ever realize our potential as his children, made in his own image. But ultimately, we have the right to reject him, even to hate him, to substitute love we ought to have for Him and give it to other, lesser things.
 In the words of C.S. Lewis on this subject, it boils down to this: "In the end, we either say to God: 'Thy will be done' or God will say to us 'Thy will be done.'" God knows (because he made us) that once we get to that point, despite all his efforts to demonstrate his love for us, that our hatred will grow until we hate Him with all our heart (just as Satan does). Those who ultimately will end up hating God will seek to be away from his presence, even if they would be welcome there.
 God will abandon such creatures to their own devices, and thus, they will be in what Jesus called "outer darkness". Just "where" that will be is not the point at all. Even if God were to allow such people full access to his presence, they would hate to be there. Like a Rock & Roll fan at an opera, or an opera fan at a Heavy Metal concert, the same "place", God’s presence, would be heaven for one and hell for the other. Imagery like fire is used in Scripture to represent the pain of separation from God (which is the Catholic definition of hell, by the way).
 One more point about eternity. Eternity does not mean an endless succession of days; millions, billions or trillions of them. Eternity means being outside of time, timeless (that is the literal meaning of the word). All of our linear, sequential time is included in timelessness. One way to envision that is to think about the relationship of our linear time to the "time" in storybooks on a shelf. We can open a book and enter a particular "time", the succession of events found in that story. Then we can close the book and be completely outside of that "time", then later reopen it and be right back in it. That is how some orthodox thinkers have compared the linear time we live in to the eternity in which God dwells.
 Those who reject God will end up living in timelessness also, but without the one thing they need to be happy: God. But it will be their own choice about the matter. They will not just be sent somewhere because they inadvertently broke some little rule or other. It will be because they have made a fully informed choice, of their own free will, knowing full well the consequences of their choice, to live without God, and, when offered the chance to change their mind and repent, will refuse. Those who do that will be, completely as a result of their own choice, in hell.
 I would recommend C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce" for a more complete (and much better) exploration of this subject, which was also very difficult for Lewis. It was very helpful to me.
 Tom
 
Carlos_Helms
Carlos_Helms 8 years ago

"If you read BurnTheShips responses, I believe that he soundly shows more of the quotes to be in error, or in some way deficient. As Burn noted in email with me, it only takes a few minutes for someone to quote from a blog, and not check facts, creating some wild and scary claims ... but it takes many hours at times to trace down the sources to authenticate them only to discover and demonstrate their deficiency. I strongly recommend that when people make quotes that they do their homework and exhibit some academic honesty.
I realize in your case you were reposting what Flatlander put up on CC, so I am not suggesting that you were being dishonest. I responded to Flat on CC with just one example to illustrate my point ... but I may follow up with Burn's more exhaustive work."




Carlos
 
minimus
minimus 8 years ago

Amazing
 
jschwehm
jschwehm 8 years ago

Hi Mary: It was realizing that the Catholic Church gave us the New Testament that got me interested in learning what the Catholic Church really taught. I had always been taught as a JW and a Protestant Christian that the New Testament books were inerrant but then I discovered that the JWs and all of the Protestant groups that I had associated with had very little to do with providing me with these books that they considered to be inerrant. When I found out that it was the Catholic Church that gave me and them (meaning the JWs and the different Protestant groups) the New Testament books that we believed to be inerrant, I was shocked because both the JWs and the protestant groups I associated with both were highly critical of the teachings of the Catholic Church--the very compiler of these inerrant books. It just seemed so inconsistent that we would accept as inerrant, a collection of books from the very same group (meaning the Catholic Church) that we were so critical of that we even referred to the Catholic Church as the Harlot of Babylon........It just seemed like such a logical contradiction that I could not in good conscience say that I believed that the New Testament books are a faithful and inerrant representation of what Christians believe without at least investigating what the Catholic Church, the very Church that gave us these books, really taught. Jeff S. www.catholicxjw.com
 
justhuman
justhuman 8 years ago

Excellent points Tom Cabeen....
Eventually this is the way that the extreme Protestand groups are blaming Catholic Church for Hell, and the problem is that in English and other languages, the Translation of their Bible contains mistakes while the Greek Bible that the Orthodox Church is using are the original texts. That is why the Orthodox Church does not accept any translations to be used in the Ceremony inside the Church. That is why the issue of filioque occured between the East and West Roman Church because of mistranslation to Latin.
While in the Greek Bible we have Hades, and Hell, and many times hades is translated in English with Hell. But Hades always in the Bible and the Hebrew scriptures is reffering to the place were the souls are waiting for judgement day. That is why in the Orthodox Church we have Jesus entering to Hades and preaching to the spirits in prison according to A Peter 3:18,19. and also that the Gospel was preached to the dead. So we have hades in the Hebrew Scriptures, while in the Greek scriptures we have also Hell(Kolasis) But again kolasis in Greek does not mean in any way a burning place. It is actually a personal situation -kolazome, and this is happening for those who decide to be way from the presense of God. Their choice to be way from God tortures them. That is why at the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich guy was in Hell(kolasis)and he was tortured because he was way from God's presense. Again for those who will claim that is only a parable and not a fact, Jesus was always speaking about real facts in the parables, and not fiction things, like flying dragons..
Regarding the Bible Canon, it was fininalized by Saint Athanasius(Greek Orthodox)at the 4th century, when the last book was added the Revelation of John. So technically speaking it was the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church that set the Canon and at that time it was ONE UNITED CHURCH, the East(Orthodox)and West Rome.
The point is that Protestands accept only the Bible. But what about the writtings of the Early Church fathers, or Epistoles from the Early Bishops of the Church like Clemes of Rome, or Ignatius the Bishop of Jerusalim at 97 A.D. All those writtings indicate to us that the Church is still operating like tha Early Church.
We had Apostoles, Prophets, Bishops in the Church. The Church was Synodic and all the Bishops(Episkopoi)were equal. When a problem occured a Synodos was held to define Christian faith, exactly to what happened in Jerusalim with the problem of circumcission. That is why they had to make a Synodos in Nicea for the problem of Trinity due to Arius heretic views. The exact pattern of how did the meeting was held in Jerusalim is still carried on from the Orthodox Church for 2000 years, showing that the Early Church nevered apostasized.
 
reniaa
reniaa 8 years ago


Roman Catholic Beliefs
The teaching of the Roman Catholic church prior to 1999-JUL has been consistent:
bullet Hell is a location where its inmates will be severely punished without any hope of relief, for eternity. 
bullet Among those punished will be Satan, the angels that supported him, and persons who have died "with grave and unrepentant sins" which have not been wiped clean by church rituals. 1
bullet The level of torture in Hell will be meted out in accordance with the seriousness of the individual's sin. It will last forever. There is no prospect of relief or mercy. The Roman Catholic church teaches that punishment will be in the form of isolation from God, and some supernatural form of fire which causes endless, unbearable pain, but does not consume the body. Eastern Orthodox churches teach that the precise form of punishment is not known to us.
bullet The Church teaches that most individuals who are not destined to Hell first suffer punishment in Purgatory. This is a type of time-limited Hell during which they become fully cleansed and acceptable for admission to heaven.
bullet In the special case of newborns who die before being baptized, the church is ambivalent. It has no official stance. However, many Roman Catholics believe that newborns go to a place or state called "Limbo" which is separate from heaven, but where the infants are happy.
On 1999-JUL-28, at his Wednesday general audience, Pope John Paul II made some statement that made the front pages of some North American newspapers. He said that:
bullet "Hell is not a punishment imposed externally by God, but the condition resulting from attitudes and actions which people adopt in this life...So eternal damnation is not God's work but is actually our own doing." 
bullet "More than a physical place, hell is the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy."
bullet Hell is "the pain, frustration and emptiness of life without God."2,3
I recognise when the witnesses changed generation to make it more paletable and allow more time so I'm surprised that former witnesses that condemn this in JW's accept the same softening of the Hell stance in Catholics to make it more main stream?
The softening of hell was a massive change in 1999 Tom and quite the equal of anything people accuse JW's of hmmm.
 
nomoreguilt
nomoreguilt 8 years ago

Reniaa...............So, you are saying that the jw's changed the generation so that there would be more time for sheep like ones to embrace the truth, is that correct? So, then, JW's are in control of when the big " A " comes? And not some god figure? Hmmm They do have you totally brain controlled don't they. You continue to be the jw apologist that you are. And now you feel that you can debate what other religions teach just like in the old days f jw's when we would stick our foot in a door and rany and rave about how wrong they are for THEIR beliefs. Pity.

NMG
 
reniaa
reniaa 8 years ago

attack me rather than the point I made nomoreguilt? good tactic!
I recognise the problems with JWs and how that is reflected in changes and mistakes, but if the blinkers are off for JWs they are also off for any other religion and or political organisations.
So I'm not going to do what most ex-Jw's do who turn from JW because of doctrine issues and just put a new set of blinkers on for another religion or organisation in this case catholism.
The example I used which you ignored is exactly the sort of doctrine change you hold against the Jw's, in fact it's worse because it's a major doctrinal change from a set belief for 1800 years. I can probably dig up thousands of books fully illustrated of hellfire and damnation with full description of suffering sinners will have that all contradict this new statement from the pope, who because he is seen as God's mouthpiece and divine in himself has set a new doctrinal policy.
 
BurnTheShips
BurnTheShips 8 years ago

I recognise when the witnesses changed generation to make it more paletable and allow more time so I'm surprised that former witnesses that condemn this in JW's accept the same softening of the Hell stance in Catholics to make it more main stream?
"The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, Hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy".
The soul is from God, and belongs with God. Those that choose to not be with God will suffer the torment of the separation from God for eternity. To call it an eternal fire that torments is a good analogy.
BTS
 
digderidoo
digderidoo 8 years ago


"The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, Hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy".
Surely thats just a personal interpretation rather than a correct interpretation.
Paul
 
Tom Cabeen
Tom Cabeen 8 years ago

reniaa
 You asked a question of ex-jws turned Catholic: "Do you now think we will all be eternally tortured in a fiery Hell?"
 I answered that question honestly, in line with the official Catholic definition of hell from its official catechism (paragraph 1035).
 Your response is to post some non-official interpretations of Catholic doctrine you found on ReligiousTolerance.org, a web site managed by an Atheist, an Agnostic, a Christian, a Wiccan and a Zen Buddhist. You compare quotes you found there with quotes from Pope John Paul II and charge the church with softening its Hell stance to make it more main stream.
 Finally, you compare that "discrepancy" with the Watchtower Society's own reinterpretation in its own official publications of "the generation" due to yet another in a long string of failed predictions and interpretations.
 If you cannot see the difference between these things, I doubt there is anything I can say to clarify it for you. Sorry.
 Tom
 
trevor
trevor 8 years ago

"The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, Hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy".
I am getting the hang of this now. The Bible is not God’s Word but written by from a human perspective. An ancient and more primitive one full of anthropomorphism.
So we take a take a more nuanced and sophisticated view of any part of the Bible we like and interpret it to mean whatever we want it to. This explains how we have come to have so many Bible based religions that all believe different things.
Let me have a go at this - it looks like fun.
HELL is suffering among humans caused a number of things:
Giving in to greed and amassing material possessions bought on credit .
The burning ravages of sexually transmitted diseases caught from ignoring the Bibles commands regarding chastity in favour of satisfying lustful cravings.
Also a burning sensation in the throat caused by the way non-Christians pollute the air in their quest for pleasure and material gain which would include radiation fallout.
It is all starting to make sense now.
Who is the Pope Christ in the flesh or man?
Well he is not mentioned in the Bible at all - so let's spin him around and see whether he lands heads or tails.

trevor
 
Carlos_Helms
Carlos_Helms 8 years ago

Interestingly, I'm beginning to understand "hell" as I never had before (or it was never so well articulated): eternal life apart from God is a result of choosing (on a day-to-day basis) a life apart from God. It's the same issue that was presented to mankind from the get-go: "And the LORD God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.'" (Gen 3) In essence, God has respected our choices and allowed us to become "gods unto ourselves." Unfortunately, I live in a world dominated by those those who continue to choose spiritual "victim-hood," those who feel they are entitled to decide poorly and reap the benefits of those who choose well. Those and a significant number of folks who just choose not to think about (painful) cause-and-effect. Why not hell? Been there, done that. I choose not to go there again. Thanks, Tom.
Peace,
Carlos
 
toreador
toreador 8 years ago

Nice job ranaii. I think what you are forgetting Tom C, or trying to overlook is that the catholic church HAS changed its views on a number of things, such as hell, just as the JW's have as Ranaii has pointed out very well.
 
Dogpatch
Dogpatch 8 years ago

http://freeminds.org/media/cabeeninterview.htm
interview with Tom Cabeen!
Randy
 
reniaa
reniaa 8 years ago

Tom
You make a fair point, I'm sorry if I came across too harshly I actually respect you a lot for your williness to come forward and stand by your faith.
You do better than a lot on this forum that get so involved and wrapped up in their hatred of WTs they become anti-witnesses of a sort unable to move on and while in many cases it's because family members are still JWs, I can't help feeling that its a lot healthier to do as you have done and find a belief that they are happier in
reniaa
 
Tom Cabeen
Tom Cabeen 8 years ago

Reniaa,
 Thank you for your honest expression. Perhaps I can share with you some unsolicited advice:
 Many years ago, I ran across a quote which made a deep impression on me. I printed it out and it hung on my wall for several years. It is from Solomon ben Gabirol, a Jewish rabbi who lived about a thousand years ago and had a good deal of influence on the Christians of his day. He said (I am quoting from memory here):
 "A fool rejoices when he discovers error; a wise man rejoices when he discovers truth."
 This quote impressed me so much because it conjured up in my mind a mental picture of the method so many use to analyze things. They spend a lot of time trying to discover if things are false, and every time they do that, they congratulate themselves on seeing through another lie. There is little to be gained in proportion to the effort expended from that type of endeavor.
 If that same amount of effort is invested in becoming informed about things that can be verified to a reasonable degree, then each thing one learns contributes toward building a correct model of reality, which is what truth is. You gain something you can live by each and every time you do it.
 I resolved to take Solomon ben Gabirol's approach. The result has made me so much happier than I was when I was looking for error. I highly recommend it.
 Your brother,
 Tom
 
reniaa
reniaa 8 years ago

"A fool rejoices when he discovers error; a wise man rejoices when he discovers truth."
Thank you Tom it's a very good quote I like and I will remember it, also one I think a lot on this forum could benefit from listening too :smile:
Take care
reniaa
 
jehovahsheep
jehovahsheep 8 years ago

tom
you are a very pleasant person.i can only wish i was that way.i have to disagree with you on two points.when it comes to hell-the jws and other groups have it right.it can be proven with the scriptures.also the catholic church has been the biggest enemy of the bible over the years-burning people at the stake for having one.the catholic church still exists because god has not brought his punishment upon it yet.it well fits the description of babylon the great in revelation.i want to thank you on your perspective of how jws view the world.that has helped me in not giving in to my weakness of wanting to go back to the wts just to feel secure.my new view is that not one group posesses all the truth.when jesus returns he will instruct us.
 

«
 1
 2
 …
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 »
5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
out of all religions, catholicism, to me, is wrong and clearly could never be the truth.



Related Topics
Wonderment
The truth shall set us free!
by Wonderment 4 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 09-20-2015 WT Study (LOYALTY)
by blondie 6 months ago
Anders Andersen
Really beautiful Watchtower article about truth
by Anders Andersen 3 months ago
cappytan
Lurkers: A truth is either true, or it isn't. There is no in between.
by cappytan 2 months ago
lsw1961
JWs have more good points than bad
by lsw1961 4 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/157916/do-understand-why-jws-leave-become-catholics?page=12&size=20