Incontrovertible Evidence

indireneed

I am writing to gather consensus on what are the most incontrovertible evidences against JWs. I am working to 'deprogram' my wife and am trying to compile a list of those things that are the most difficult to stand against.

For example, I believe that the JW treatment of 'false prophets' and their distinction between those who are simply overzealous and those who are just plain wrong looks silly in the face of their historical blunders.

Any opinions would be very helpful, especially with web-site references for good sources of information.

Thank, y'all are super helpful.

SixofNine

How can a group of people who believe (and practice as such) that wearing a beard is reason to treat a man as less than a child molester, possibly claim to be true Christianity?

bboyneko

Oragn Transplants= Sustaining Life through Human Flesh = Cannibalism

oops...we were wrong..however

Blood Transfusion= Sustaining Human Life through Blood = eating blood

That howerver still stands although

'Blood' is a word for a liquid composed of many different cells, essentially an Organ. When you take blood into your veins, it remains blood just like taking a human kidney transplant, the kindey remains a kidney and retains its functions as a kidney.

Insanity, and people are dying over this.

chappy

The first and foremost right of any human being is the freedom to think for ones self. Any person, government or organization demanding that you abandon that God given right is something to avoid at all costs. The 1980's watchtower article on "avoiding independent thinking" was the straw that broke the camels back for me.

later,
chappy

Gopher

Up until 1995, it was believed that the "generation" of people who saw the events of the year 1914 would have some survive to see God bring Armageddon against this wicked world.

Then the meaning of generation was officially changed by the Watchtower magazine to mean "a set of people" not necessarily tied to a timeframe.

So up until 1995, JW's had been preaching what is now known to be untrue. (Follow up question, what doctrines are they going to change again? Who knows if what is currently being preached as "official" WT doctrine that you MUST believe upon pain of disfellowshipment will change again....?)

There is no scriptural idea backing up the idea of "present truth" that the WT Society preaches. "Present truth" is a convenient way to allow changes and reversals of doctrine. TRUTH is TRUTH, it never changes.

GopherWhy shouldn't truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense.
Mark Twain (1835-1910)

mustang

Venice had an essay on 'tacking' at one time, on her website.
Tacking became a 'plausible' (the fools will swallow it) sounding 'explanation' (excuse) for the vagaries of JW insights ('prophecies that we can't call prophecies').

The trouble is WTS was really doing 'flip-flops', which are complete reversals (180 degree turns). Tacking only is a partial turn to go 'across the wind' not 'into the wind'. So the analogy is very poor and fails miserably. A really better descriptive term than 'tacking' would have been 'spinning your wheels'.

Someone documented about a half dozen reversals on the fate of the inhabitants of Sodom, as I recall. This is a good example of 'tacking' at its finest.

GodRules recent whining departure is another good example. He forgives the GB for their numerous mistakes as being 'only human'. This is NOT A TACTIC THAT THEY WILL DO FOR THEMSELVES. They take on the 'prophets mantle' with great trepidation, knowing the consequence.

So they 'blow it', with something that is wrong. They won't (can't) apologize or admit their error, as that is an admission of guilt. For in taking on this responsibility, they have said they are the ONLY CHANNEL, ARE 'SPIRIT DIRECTED' and are THE MOUTHPIECE OF GOD.

('SPIRIT DIRECTED': now there is a great one. They had to make up those weasel words to keep the lightning in the heavens and off their doorstep.)

They (the GB) knew the risk they are taking and can only brazen it out by claiming further omnipotence and daring anyone to dispute or take notice of the failure. The GB knows that it can't back up, but GodRules lets them off the hook. Sorry, the Bible, taken for what it says, doesn't work that way. If they were humble, as perhaps GodRules might be, they would confess and 'come clean' of their error.

Something along these lines, with lots of WT literature references over the years usually works well.

Mustang