You had to allow yourself to be open for debate. Most JWs that I've talked to use circular reasoning and you'll never get anywhere with them.
Do you find debating with a JW exhaustive?
by digderidoo 32 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
garybuss
I used to dislike (in person) exchanges with Witnesses. Now, since I have some training, I like it. For me, one on one debating with a Witness is like going into battle against an unarmed man. Two Witnesses at a time is most fun. I tried to get a circuit servant's mailing address once and after 3 hours I still didn't have it.
-
besty
I've found its a good idea to agree on a few premises before starting the debate.
Example:
I exchanged a few emails with a young girl who has left the JW's but who's mother is still a JW. The girl was trying to justify a 'live and let live' approach - I think she didn't like me saying we were DF'd and completely free from a high control group, implying that she was still under some sort of control.
Before going any further with a debate I asked her to confirm if she still believed the JW's had the truth. Before knowing how she feels about this there is no point in continuing.
So in your case Paul, I'd ask them to agree that given the WTS believes unity is more important than truth, (quote the relevant part of the Walsh Trial - http://www.lulu.com/content/762879) and their 'theocractic warfare' strategy ("As a soldier of Christ he is in theocratic warfare and he must exercise added caution when dealing with God's foes. Thus the Scriptures show that for the purpose of protecting the interests of God's cause, it is proper to hide the truth from God's enemies" (WT June 1, 1960:352)) that is it possible that the WTS could be deliberately concealing at least some of the relevant facts.
If they won't agree that this is at least possible, then end of conversation. Of course you will also have piqued their curiosity about the Walsh Trial - I bet 99% of JW's have no idea about that. You would of course mention the opportunity to read the fine witness given by Frederick Franz, Haydn Covington and Grant Suiter under oath in a Court of Law, and that the full transcript is a matter of public record.
If they concede that it is possible then you are much better placed in the following argument and you may just have opened a tiny crack in their mind.
-
digderidoo
Some good points made. I think i am going to bow out of the discussion i have had on the other forum as all the evidence from the UN is there for those that want to read it.
Besty, thanks for the info, i have never considered the "theocratic warfare strategy" before, it is a good opening line.
Paul
-
jaguarbass
It was exhaustive debating with a JW.
Or a christian.
Or an atheist.
Or a creationist.
I dont do it anymore.
I leave it for the young and inexperienced.
Every theory or belief is full of holes.
Unless its tangible like a rock and even a rock is not what many think it is.
Truth is where you find it.
And you still have to know when you have found it.
-
hamsterbait
You say Jehoobie, I say potahto.
HB
-
hamsterbait
Actually you can take a lesson from the Chinese Communists, who found that getting captured soldiers to agree on even just ONE TINY point where the United States were wrong, you planted a seed that ended up producing a pro Communist Mole.
Even a little thing like
Beards
Blood donation (wrong - yet they will take fractions sinfully donated by others)
AAAHH help - any more trivial things you could get them to agree with??
HB
-
Cheetos
For the love of Mike yes...
-
truthsetsonefree
Always.
Isaac
-
MidwichCuckoo
I don't think they have the ability to debate, as the WT has given them all the answers so they don't need (and are not allowed) to 'think' for themselves. I also think that the WT keeps them abreast of possible current 'apostate attacks' and supplies them with the defence (one line answer, lol) - so the R&F believe they are being prewarned and protected by God's Spirit (when in actual fact, 'God's Spirit' is trawling the internet to see what they are likely to be confronted with, lol)