Is the Watchtower really wrong according to your standards? (page 3)

WTWizard

No. They create numerous hurdles and problems that shouldn't be there. They prevent people from seeking companionship outside the cancer. They provide answers that are sure to fail miserably. They teach things that are going to be changed a few years later. They teach things that have absolutely nothing to do with present day people. Their policies lead to stagnation.

And, the Asleep! is no better. Those things teach crap science, often out of context or blatantly wrong. Accounts of the Flood are so numerous (and blatantly wrong to anyone that understands the principle of buoyancy), and quite a few threads are up about that. The Young People Ask: Answers That Do Not Work (Parts 1 and the new 2) all come from the Asleep!, and those answers are crap. Certainly, they do not meet my standards.

hamilcarr

Your avatar is sideways, and you are likely below average intelligence..... how you like me now?

Could be, but it probably depends on the standards you use

And have I ever denied I like you?

hamilcarr

YOU: 'We all have a priori knowledge,
That is all I could read of this post or thread....I am not an idiot, but c'mon....talk common language please.....oompa

Actually I quote other posters, so it's not me talking, but still I'm sorry to confuse you.

One rough and oversimplified explanation is that a priori knowledge is independent of experience, while a posteriori knowledge is dependent on experience. In other words, statements that are a priori true are tautologies.

If you claim everyone has a priori knowledge, you assert that every person has a set of beliefs that can't be proved empirically, hence, cannot be falsified. Is this common language?

quietlyleaving

hamilcarr

'We all have a priori knowledge, so we can't claim objective knowledge. By the way, our senses only observe part of reality. Then, how do you dare asserting that you're right? Show me reality. Show me truth. Show me absolute knowledge. I guess you don't lease one of these things. So please think about that before you presume to challenge my stand.'

Firstly, I don't see myself as embracing relativism. (Where is the above quote from btw). But I do think that the poster who said that has a point.

Secondly, I don't think that I can say that the Watchtower is completely wrong because it seems to be right for lots of people and they do choose to be there. But those people will always be in a minority.

Thirdly, I believe that experts and scholars do gain objective knowledge to a very great extent but what they have isn't absolute truth.

In conclusion - Is it possible to take up a position between objective and subjective knowledge regarding JWs (and other religions for that matter) - if it is then that is the postion I'd like to occupy -i.e. to recognise the damaging effects of enforcing absolute truth on people (which is what I believe the WTS does) and making allowances for those who want to live like that.

whew - thanks for giving me the opportunity to sort that out for myself

ql

hamilcarr

ql,

Finally an intelligent reply on this thread

Firstly, I don't see myself as embracing relativism. (Where is the above quote from btw). But I do think that the poster who said that has a point.

I didn't want to quote a specific poster verbatim. Therefore, I only tried to convery a line of reasoning which is very common on this board.

jgnat

I, myself, am not a relativist. I believe there are some actions that are inherently good, kind, and right. I do concede that there are unprovable things, for instance, the length of God's toenails. It is useless to debate such things. Here are some of the (relatively modern) thinkers who have shaped my beliefs.

Frankl http://www.voidspace.org.uk/psychology/logotherapy.shtml
Schweitzer http://www1.chapman.edu/schweitzer/sch.reading4.html
The Existentialists who believe in God including Dostoevsky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism
Vanier http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/wisdomoftenderness/index.shtml
Vanier again just because http://www.unb.ca/bruns/9900/issue11/entertainment/book2.html

Against these standards, the Watchtower society has a lot to answer for. They impede human potential, bully, restrain natural affection, and encourage shunning.

ibme

jgnat,

Allow me to add, for the three time,

Me agrees.

Thanks

lesterd

You all agree, or dissagree, you are creating your own standard, who do all these religions claim to represent? None of them are going to fail or succeed by "our standard", only by the one they say they represent. Religion is a set of personal beliefs, each of us is a religion unto ourselves, so by what standard shall we rise or fall?

jgnat

By what standard shall we rise or fall? As my dad would say, my own. For now I see in the mirror, darkly, but one day I will come face to face...with myself! Will it be pretty?

hamilcarr

By what standard shall we rise or fall? As my dad would say, my own.

I agree with your dad.

"Man is measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not" (Protagoras)

On the Gods, this stunningly modern thinker wrote: "Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not or of what sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the subject, and the brevity of human life."

The ignostic attitude avant la lettre?

Is the Watchtower really wrong according to your standards?

Share this