Looking for definitive answers . . .HELP

by patio34 27 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  proplog2

  Dungbeetle:

  You could conclude that the "crazy" governing body decisions have some colateral benefit.

  Wrong dates: You need wrong dates to sustain an organization in a kind of emergency status for the 100+ years it takes to attract a significant number of people.

  Blood Transfusion: Refusal of blood tranfusions may have saved as many lives as have been lost. (Who Knows?) Advantage: every member makes a life and death decision and therefore is more committed to the over-all effort.

  Prison time served because of refusal to do alternative service: Strengthened the resolve of organization to avoid even the appearance of compromise.

  It is clear that if JW's were only interested in members they would have an entirely different set of doctrines.
• 

  patio34

  Hi Waiting,

  You must have been posting at the same time I was. Did you have a good lunch? It's so weird being on the other side of the fence now, huh?

  Okay, JT--I JUST LOVE THIS NET THANG! Ha-ha! And what JWs usually do--myself in the olden days--is back off when you suspect someone knows of whence they speak. Or conclude they're apostate.

  Propolog, good luck in defending your stance.

  Thanks all,

  Waiting, I'll leave my phone plugged in, but will be screening my calls. So talk a bit into my answering machine, okay, to give me time.

  TTFN,
  Pat
• 

  Introspection

  Prop, I have to point out one thing and that's the fact that if one expects to be resurrected (not to mention good old peer pressure) dying for your beliefs is not dying in their belief system. This also puts a lot of other things into perspective, because there is the potential motivation of salvation, rather than love for God or righteousness.
• 

  jurs

  Seeker,

  I haven't even finished reading this thread but just finished reading your imaginary conversation with a JW. That was perfect!!! I find it so difficult to argue the point that their imperfect and Jah directs them that I'm at a loss to know what to say. I'm going to take the easy way out and print your response. All the JW responses are exactly how they'll respond and they know it. I have someone in mind whom I'm going to give this to. Thanks for sharing your dialouge.
  Jurs
• 

  Seeker

  Jurs,

  Thanks for the kind words, and I'm glad it helps. If you are going to print it out, print out the edited version I just made. I corrected some typos that were bothering me, and added a new line at the end to really drive home the point.

  However, I should point out that JWs usually don't take kindly to printed material that could have "come from apostates." The more effective approach is to learn their canned responses and develop ready answers that they can't handle. My script was an attempt to demonstrate how to do that.

  I find the most effective approach when discussing a contentious issue is to anticipate your opponent's responses, and then come up with things to say that take those responses into account ahead of time. Takes the wind out of their sails.
• 

  proplog2

  Seeker:

  I like the dialog format too! I have been posting what I call arguelogs for several years. Most of which are critical of JW's.

  Above all I believe people ought to argue in good faith.

  One technique is to seriously take the role of devil's advocate from time to time. That's why I have made pro-JW posts.

  In the earlier days of the Internet and On-Line servcies the bulletin boards were filled with a healthy mixture of JW's who would try to defend themselves. This is completely shut down. Not so much because the Watchtower condemns it but because JW's generally can't defend their beliefs. They give up.

  I am not interested in going to another forum to discuss these things. I want maximum exposure for anything I take the time to write. I hardly ever check out the other discussion boards. I check off e-mail notification for replies. So if you want to challenge any assertion I make - it will have to be here.
• 

  waiting

  Hey proplog,

  I am not interested in going to another forum to discuss these things

  Seeker & I didn't mean "another forum" - we meant another thread. Like entitled "Reasoning with JW's 101". Then present your Devil's Advocate process.

  I know when I present what I used to say to worldly people - some jump a little at me - until I say "heyyyyyy, I'm just telling you how I used to explain that!" Doesn't mean I still believe that. But it's a way - like you said - to sharpen the xjw reasonings. Perhaps even to the point of making a point.

  But Patio's point is good, and worth a thread. This is a Major Objection in my area: "The Governing Body is imperfect men, and they're going to make mistakes. But that doesn't mean this isn't Jehovah's Organization. I know what's right and I'm sticking with Jehovah's people." Convenient shut down at that moment with bobbing jw heads in agreement.

  Might as well be talking with a Pentacostal (as jw's around here say when meeting a closed-minded person.)

  Nice talking with you.

  waiting
• 

  Introspection

  I don't want to go off topic, but this is related anyways.. What do you guys think about what one might call "reaching the heart" for lack of a better way of describing it? I can understand how some will view that as involving emotional motivations, but I think there's a different way of looking at it.

  I think what it comes down to is a difference between rationalizing the issue and actually being engaged in the realities involved. For those of you with some psych background, you know what rationalization involves. Basically, we're looking at the difference between sounding reasonable for argument's sake and actually being putting two and two together in the real world. The former is just an intellectual construct, (not necessarily a very logical one, but intellectual) the latter engages the person's common sense and real world life experiences. I know this can be better explained, but do you guys see what I'm saying here?? I think this is why sometimes reasoning which may be logical and very plain to us will not work. It's like there's such compartmentalization that one area in the brain is for religion, and everything else is separate, or has very specific, limited interactions (or even one-directional communication, that is to only receive) with that part so that potential contradictions would be cut off from the flow to maintain the weird circuitry. So the question is, how can we make some more connections between religious doctrine and the real world? I think it has something to do with catching someone off guard, and pointing to something that would be very obvious to a mind that is more of a single coherent system.