How do you answer "you research just to criticize"?

by undercover 47 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  undercover

  Questioning your motive for doing research is easier than defending the results of the research. It's a diversionary tactic, and they'll try to use it to discredit you and, by extension, your research.

  Finally-Free, that's an excellent point.

  Drew, good points about dubs being conditioned to accept information without a lot of verification or proof other than the WT saying it's from the Bible. It can be difficult to try to break someone from that attitude when they're used to being rewarded instead of questioned.

  LWT, good question: Is it best that we just blindly follow what the Society says?

  With my friend I would probably ask first, "Is it good to blindly believe anything were told?" and if they answered in the obvious "Of course not", I would follow with, "is it good to blindly believe whatever the Society tells us?" and see if it creates a short circuit.
• 

  jaguarbass

  I would say I research to find the truth.

  I research to uncover lies.

  I research to reveal confusion.
• 

  drew sagan

  I remember thinking one time a great way to approach this subject would be to simply lay out a scenario that a JW would love, but at the same time feel somewhat uneasy about.

  You're out in field service and a person you meet at the door believes every word you say. He never questions you, and trusts every single thing you teach him. He never checks or verifies anything you say, but rather takes your word for it. It is on this basis that he wants to be a follower of your religion.

  Now sure the JW gets a convert, but did the person do any thinking on the matter? Is their ideal potential member a person like this? Somebody who just takes everything they say and pose no challenges? What does that say about a religion if the kind of converts they hope to meet just agree with everything they say without question?

  The main point being that JWs in search of naive people, not individuals who are guarded against being decieved. As much as they want to deny it, their entire religion depends upon people NOT getting involved in thinking heavliy about beliefs. All those studies and meetings keep peoples minds at the margins. They are not complex and detailed oriented. They are distractions. What the WT really wants are naive (and idealistic) people.
• 

  bennyk

  *** Awake! 84 8/22 p.28 From Our Readers***

  We surely were not trying to take cheap shots at the pope or the Catholic Church, nor

  were we criticizing Catholics. The Catholic Church occupies a very significant position

  in the world and claims to be the way of salvation for hundreds of millions of people.

  Any organization that assumes that position should be willing to submit to scrutiny

  and criticism. All who criticize have the obligation to be truthful in presenting the facts

  and fair and objective in assessing such. In both respects we try to live up to that

  obligation.—ED.

  *** The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life

  chap. 2 p.13 par.5 Why It Is Wise to Examine Your Religion***

  5 We need to examine, not only what we personally believe, but also what is taught

  by any religious organization with which we may be associated. Are its teachings in

  full harmony with God’s Word, or are they based on the traditions of men? If we are

  lovers of the truth, there is nothing to fear from such an examination. It should be the

  sincere desire of every one of us to learn what God’s will is for us, and then to do it.—John 8:32
• 

  WTWizard

  We are supposed to be defending a faith. The more integrated knowledge we have on that faith, the easier it is to defend that faith. If we only have one level of integration (that is, what the Filthful and Disgraceful Slavebugger tells us to use), it is going to be impossible to defend. Our defense can only be as sound as whatever the Filthful and Disgraceful Slavebugger puts out--if they put out Swiss cheese, our defense is also going to be full of holes. If they put out blatant lies, our defense is going to be blatant lies.

  If we do additional research and the religion is the truth, our defense is likely to be better than what the Official Source is. Not only we have what they have prepared, but we have additional material to back it up. If they have faulty arguments but a sound religion, our research will correct the mistakes, fill in the holes, and make it that much easier to defend. If their religion is basically sound but with a few minor errors, we will see the minor errors but realize that it is generally still a good program, even with the minor faults. We will have an easier time getting others to join if we can fill in their marketing shortfalls and technical errors.

  By banning independent research, they have basically admitted that the religion has more than technical faults. It is so horrible that research will reveal whopper errors at the most basic levels. There is nothing to defend--and the Bible itself (let alone common sense) can prove a good many of their lies. Not only that, but if they inadvertently create errors where none existed before, they will have no feedback that they messed up. Which will cause the public to look up those doctrines, and it will say in the Bible something totally different. When that happens, your defense of that religion will not work.
• 

  kurtbethel

  "I have family members and friends that tell me I am in a cult. How silly is that? Well I am digging deeper into research and intend to prove to them what the truth really is."
• 

  I quit!

  I would tell them that it really doesn't matter what my motives are. It boils down to is are my findings true or false. Why let the put it back on you. The issue is is the Watchtower teaching the truth not the motives of the messenger.
• 

  No Apologies

  I did the research because the WT repeatedly encouraged encouraged Witnesses to "make the truth your own".

  No Apologies
• 

  ColdRedRain

  My response: So what if I research to criticize. That doesn't make my research less valid.
• 

  minimus

  I'd say, "so??"