HaHaHaHa!!!!! Exactly . . .less mess !
The Power of the Question: what most are missing
by Vernon Williams 37 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
bernadette
Your thread reminded me of richard dawkins meme theory. Looking at the JW story like that we can aim to modify the more damaging effects of their beliefs by taking charge of the question. I'm with lt.cmd.lore - so do you have any specific examples we can use.
-
Vernon Williams
The JW is talking about "God's goverment" being the central theme of Mathew 24:14. So you ask:
What good news is Jesus discussing?
JW: the good news of the Kingdom...God's Goverment by Christ.
Which good news of the Kingdom?
JW I am not following you.
Notice Jesus says: THIS good news of the Kingdom. So Jesus is saying that the good news he is preaching right then, right there IS the good news that would be preached until the conclusion of the system. Is that true?
JW: yes.....I would say so.
Did Jesus preach this good news until his death?
JW: yes
Did Paul preach the good news as Jesus did?
JW: Yes
Did the Apostal John?
JW: yes
Now, if John preached to someone in the year 85 would the good news have an effect?
JW: I don't know what you mean...
Would the good news have had an effect? For instance, would that person, if they believed the good news, repent?
JW: Yes
Be baptized?
JW: Yes
Be born again?
JW: yes
Celebrate the Lord's Meal?
JW: Yes
So, since Jesus said THIS good news would be preached as a witness till the conclusion, if a person in the year 436 heard the same good news would it have had the same effect?
JW: yes
1802:
JW: yes
2007?
JW: (he stalls....he is lost, so, he will ask a question) Yes, but we know there are two classess of Christians, so the effect will be different, now. For instance Rev. 21 1 through 4 states.......how do you explain that?
At this point, a question has been ask. The JW is in a corner and he wants out. So, he presents a "red heering" defense. If you address his question he has control. You must take the question back.
You have changed the subject. Can we stay on topic, please? Would the effect be the same....just yes or no...would the effect be the same?
JW: But there are two classes of Christian.....the new heavens and new earth of Rev and Isiah prove that.
Let us look at Galations Chapter 1. (Read) So, was Paul expecting any change, any difference in the good news presented?
JW: no
So, if the good news does not change, as Paul and Jesus state, then the effects would stay, permanatly and unchangably the same.....correct?
It goes on from there....you just keep control of the question ALWAYS, always, always.....
The JWs will ALWAYS try to take back the question. Why? Because of control.
Whomever controls the question controls all.
Comments?
V
-
Narkissos
Vernon,
Your last post illustrates your point quite well.
Let me try to show how it might illustrate mine:
What good news is Jesus discussing?
JW: the good news of the Kingdom...God's Goverment by Christ.
Which good news of the Kingdom?
JW I am not following you.
Notice Jesus says: THIS good news of the Kingdom. So Jesus is saying that the good news he is preaching right then, right there IS the good news that would be preached until the conclusion of the system. Is that true?
So far, so good, assuming you are meaning "Jesus according to Matthew). You're discussing Matthew 24:14 (Mark 13:10 has "the good news," no "kingdom") and you can point to 4:23 and 9:35 where the same expression occurs.
JW: yes.....I would say so.
Did Jesus preach this good news until his death?
JW: yes
Matthew's Jesus? Probably, Matthew doesn't tell otherwise.
Did Paul preach the good news as Jesus did?
As for Matthew's Jesus, I doubt it, in view of the violent charges in Matthew against people who teach that people can be saved by calling Jesus "Lord," WITHOUT observing the Law (5:17ff; 7:21ff etc.; compare Romans and Galatians)
JW: Yes
Did the Apostal John?
Assuming you hold him to be the author of the Fourth Gospel, where the "Kingdom of God" occurs only once and has a completely different focus, I don't think so.
...My point (which is not a criticism, I do respect your view): your "question-guided" pedagogy (which may be quite effective actually) is neither neutral nor objective. It is constructed from a specific standpoint (what slimboyfat would probably call a broader "narrative"), which assumes the essential unity of early and later mainstream Christianity. An assumption that can be questioned from another (historical) perspective (which can be, in turn, questioned from yet another "place").
My choice is to stick to very limited (and admittedly negative) questions, such as, if "this good news" in Matthew refers to what Jesus preached according to Matthew, is the 1914 date a necessary or even plausible part of it?
-
Vernon Williams
You are focusing, I think, on specific data or opinino. I am not going to resist your position.
My approach is methodoligy...if that is a word.
We must approach the JWs with a mind set of "winning" which, in this case, means backing them in a corner and beating the living stuffings out of them. I have NO sympathy for the JWs and they are the only people I do not mind leaving bleading and beaten at the end of an arguement. I am not out to destroy the person or his Faith in the Divine. I am out to prove the WT doctrine for what it is: false and dangerous. Since the JW has volunteered to "protect" the WT, he is the first warrior I will confront and I will battle with gusto. The best weapon in my arsonal is the question.
Now, after he lies beaten, will I comfort him? Yes, I willl bind wounds and encourage him to strength once he realizes he has been protecting a castle of cards built on a foundation of sand.
I would not, of course, have this mind or heart set with someone that recognizes the error of the WT and wants to come out. I would use questions: mildly and kindly.
I have researched this topic a lot and read a lot of "answer" or "provide the correct info" approach. I am convinced that controlling the question is the best of all methods in interacting with those bent on defending the WT.
Humbly,
V
-
Vernon Williams
You are focusing, I think, on specific data or opinino. I am not going to resist your position.
My approach is methodoligy...if that is a word.
We must approach the JWs with a mind set of "winning" which, in this case, means backing them in a corner and beating the living stuffings out of them. I have NO sympathy for the JWs and they are the only people I do not mind leaving bleading and beaten at the end of an arguement. I am not out to destroy the person or his Faith in the Divine. I am out to prove the WT doctrine for what it is: false and dangerous. Since the JW has volunteered to "protect" the WT, he is the first warrior I will confront and I will battle with gusto. The best weapon in my arsonal is the question.
Now, after he lies beaten, will I comfort him? Yes, I willl bind wounds and encourage him to strength once he realizes he has been protecting a castle of cards built on a foundation of sand.
I would not, of course, have this mind or heart set with someone that recognizes the error of the WT and wants to come out. I would use questions: mildly and kindly.
I have researched this topic a lot and read a lot of "answer" or "provide the correct info" approach. I am convinced that controlling the question is the best of all methods in interacting with those bent on defending the WT.
Humbly,
V
-
Deputy Dog
VW
Have you ever read any of Wilbur Lingles stuff?
Another good question is: In John 6 Jesus call himself " the bread of life" which came down from heaven.
What came down from heaven? Spirit? Flesh? What?
-
Vernon Williams
No, but I will do a search on him.
What is the reaon for the question on Christ?
V
-
betterdaze
Hi Vernon,
"Approaching Jehovah's Witnesses in Love: How to Witness Effectively Without Arguing" by Wilbur Lingle is quite sincerely written. He really did his homework on the JWs and it shows. He provides practical advice along the lines of questioning you're discussing. It's somewhat like an antidote to the "Reasoning" book.
His questions can and do stop JWs in their tracks... in a loving and non-confrontational way, which is of paramount importance. It was not until reading his book that I realized some Assemblies of God and non-denominationals had been using Mr. Lingle's scripture-based tactics on me!
~Sue
http://www.amazon.com/Approaching-Jehovahs-Witnesses-Love-Effectively/dp/0875087027
http://www.lovetoshareministries.com/ -
Vernon Williams
I will look into that book.
I have read several books that deal wih interacting with the JWs. All fail. The reason is two fold. First, they discuss the topics one needs to stay away from: the Trinity, state and future of the Dead, Micheal the Archangle, and a few others. Secondly, they don't discuss those areas of weakness: Central theme of the Good News, Justification, the effects of the good news, and some others.
Next, from my own experience. as a Witness, in dabating people on these topics, they do not provide a "flow chart" to guide the interaction. The books I have read are almost comic. The Witness will just take control of the discussion In these interactions, I was far from correct: totally wrong, yet, confident, mentally strong, and determined and trained in WT argumentation.
It takes a person that has a good grasp of Scripture, a fair appraisal of the HIstory of Christianity, and a total knowledge of JW "theology" (mythology is better....) in order to interact with them.
There are two settings: family, friends, workmates in an easygoing setting that is prolonged and comfortable. The second is the one Sir Nose is getting into: down and dirty it is going off the curb and into the street and it's going to be bloody. In the first there is time for a gentle nudge, a hint, a thought put in as seed to develope later. The second requires an arsanal of weapons, a knowledge of the groin kicking, sand in your face style of true WT debate, and a aggressive stance.
Baclk to my central thought: In all these situations, the bottom line always comes back to the same reality:
Whomever controls the question controls all.
I like your comments...you are cool.
V