Has anyone noticed that...no, no, I'm joking! Of course you all know what it's like to debate the R and F. You tell them about actual logical arguments that contradict the GB, and eventually all your "discussions" descend into a sort of "LA,LA,LA, can't hear you! I can't let those apostate ideas TOUCH my ears!" But when you think about it, despite the fact that there are numerous reasons why the GB are wrong, you could say they weren't God's organization by pointing out the lack of positive evidence to verify that firmly held belief. This is a lot like those arguments for atheism. Personally, I don't believe in anything that doesn't have a proverbial leg of evidence to stand on in the first place. If their faith in the GB is based on what they consider evidence--and evidence for the Bible in general, what evidence is this? What I'm trying to get at here is, They say things like how the Org MUST be of God because of the 1914 thing. Apologists insist 1914 is correct because 607 must be correct. They say 607 is correct because it is what the Bible says, and they look at a few stone tablets. When up against a mountain of evidence contradicting this, its all deaf ears and a thought-stopping cliche of the following variety: "well, Bible history is superiour to secular history." Seriously? What makes them so sure of this? Blind faith? 'Cause if it WASN'T blind faith, and it was, indeed, based in factual, verifiable evidence, that would mean the Bible would stand scrutiny and match up with secular history. I mean, it would be damned impressive if the mountain of evidence for evolution or the mountain of evidence for 587 bc matched what they interpret as truth. But it DOESN'T. When you have to block out all contradictions, there is a serious problem. When you have to ingore evidence, there is a serious problem. They say things like how they don't put blind faith in anything, that their reasoning is sound. And when information is inconvenient, it is ignored or labeled false. Point in case: Why do they believe the Bible is infallible and therefore superiour to anything "secular?" Is it because it came from God? How do they know? It's scientifically and historically accurate, you say? Well, what about the fact that humans are waaay older than 6,000 years? Well, you see, the Bible contains knowledge from GOD! (Why are you even QUESTIONING THIS?!) Really, well, why do you believe it is knowledge from God? It's scientifically/historically accurate!!! And then,iIf a faith in the Bible is not "weak" and does not rest soley on the basis of historical/scientific accuracy (and therefore, INERRANCY!!!), then your faith is blind. It is unwarrented. It is accepted without evidence. You can really see the circular logic at play here. And the blind and willing acceptance and submission to the FDS. Seriously, it's called theFAITHFUL and Discrete SLAVE. If you dare question them, you're one arrogant dick in their eyes. How dare anyone question blind acceptance.
Why the GB can get away with saying whatever the HELL they want--even literally
by Pika_Chu 11 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
diamondiiz
They say 607 is correct because it is what the Bible says, and they look at a few stone tablets.
Just needed to correct this one, they don't have any tablets to support 607bc.
-
sabastious
You cannot question blind faith.
-Sab
-
OnTheWayOut
jwfacts.com has a link called 15-Minute-Guide-To-Truth. I think the chart there expresses what dealing with a JW on this subject gets you:
-
Alfred
What Diamond said... there's not one shred of evidence that even remotely points to 607BCE as the date for the destruction of Jerusalem... not one... zilch... nada... so, even though there's a "mountain of evidence" against that date, this evidence isn't even needed when you consider the fact that WT fell flat on their face with this one a long time ago and have been scrambling ever since... Nevertheless, we all know they're the world's best experts at piling up one lie after another, each lie meticulously covering up the previous one with carefully orchestrated verbal gymnastics until it eventually becomes unintelligeable noise to the R&F who will generally find it much easier to simply believe whatever the GB feeds them...
-
OnTheWayOut
As far as 1914 goes, Russell said the end of the world was coming. (Not exact words but close enough.)
It didn't come and Watchtower later reinvented what was expected and said to make members believe that the coincidental start of World War One that year meant that Russell (and the Faithful and Discreet Slave) was right and had God's backing.It was way after 1914 that JW's doctrine developed to say that Jesus' invisible return was in 1914, but as soon as you show the one mistake of WT doctrine, the typical member just goes into the mantra, "The light got brighter" and "They are imperfect men" or even "Don't run ahead of the organization" is said to anyone who puts holes in the doctrine.
George Orwell had it right all along.
-
cantleave
Watchtower later reinvented what was expected and said to make members believe that the coincidental start of World War One that year meant that
Russell (and the Faithful and Discreet Slave) was right and had God's backing.
What's even more amazing is they have convinced 7 million people that WW1 started in October 1914.
I have asked several witnesses what month did WW1 start? They all answered October.
-
DesirousOfChange
Sorry that I have to admit I didn't read your whole diatribe on this, but the fact that I am here, as well as several other posted that I see recently, indicates to me that your assertion (sp? sorry the Cabernet has it's effect, and I don't care right now) is totally wrong. There are several recent issues, i.e., the over-lapping generations that have made many sit up and take notice. Personally, I don't take it all as God's Word anymore.
-
LostGeneration
Probably their most absurd claim is that they were "chosen" in 1919 as the one true religion. Based on what?
Because they say so.
-
saltyoldlady
And On The Way Out - (you must be Out by now with 13,000 posts plus.) The other day I compared the GB to George Orwell's Animal Farm - but no one seemed to notice. I suspect not many of this group have ever watched the cute (and profound) comedy Animal Farm - made from his classic work. But the pigs in the story are such a perfect analogy. I should have named my post Barks and Snorts instead - It was based on Matt 7:6.
