Hey everyone! I don't know whether anyone will find this interesting or not, but, when I was an undergrad, I wrote a paper evaluating Jehovah's Witnesses. It provided me with an opportunity to organize my thoughts at that time concerning the religion. Reading Metamorphosis' paper reminded me of my own and gave me the idea of posting it. I'd be interested to get feedback on it although I must admit my perspective has changed since I was an undergrad. http://www.youshare.com/view.php?file=JoyCastro.doc
undergrad paper on Witnesses
by veradico 4 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
slimboyfat
Thanks for sharing that, it was interesting. I would say you are a bit free with the words "error" and "correct" for my taste, but there are some interesting thoughts in there especially about various apologetic Witnesses. You certainly like to use big footnotes. I like reading text with chunky footnotes, although I have been told by tutors that overuse of footnotes and appendices indicates structural flaws and unclear development. I would have liked an explanation of what sort of methodology you were using in your survey/analysis: historical, theological, sociological?
I am not sure Edgar Foster would agree with your description of his rejection of sola scriptura though. I mean, I don't think he believes in sola scriptura, but then I don't think the Witnesses do strictly speaking either. He uses the particular approach of 'argument from authority' in Christology, but then the Witnesses also use that form of argument in their publications when it suits them.
Slim
-
veradico
I agree with you about my use of such words as "errors" and "correct." I would be far more cautious and quiet now. However, I might disagree with your tutors about footnotes and appendices (although the context of their advice would be important, of course). I think footnotes and appendices allow one to remain organized and focused in the main text while still indulging the desire to digress. Edgard Foster's use of authorities is more honest than that of Jehovah's Witnesses. Perhaps the word "rejection" was too strong, but I do think his willingness to make arguments from Church authorities is significant. Jehovah's Witnesses give their converts a sense that they adhere to sola scriptura. As you mention, this is not in fact the case, but ordinary Witnesses are not aware of this fact. It would have been a good thing for me to have identified and adhered to a particular methodology. That would be my main criticism of the paper. Some of my arguments assume a humanistic bias (i.e., that everything else should yield to what is good and healthy for humans--and perhaps, in this, I did not go far enough, for, in my anthropocentric perspective, I ignored the rest of the living world), but others assume a theological bias (i.e., that the 'correct' interpretation of scripture and the 'correct' relationship with God is the highest good, to which the human good must sometimes yield). Throughout, I attempted, at the very least, to avoid violating the historical/grammatical methodology. However, I was using this paper as an opportunity to explore and express my feelings about a faith I was still a part of at that time. Also, I was an undergrad. I don't think I even thought about my methodology. Thanks for your thoughts, Slimboyfat!
-
John Doe
Don't have time to read it now, but I thought I'd comment that you were quite a verbose undergrad. What was your major?
-
veradico
Classics. But I wrote the paper for the honors program at my college.