About 100 years of wasted paper.
What's the difference between the invisible enthroned Jesus and no Jesus?
by Terry 19 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
DagothUr
OnTheWayOut, you switched the pictures! The left one is "No Jesus" and the right one is "Invisibly throned" because it's half a milimeter higher.
-
trevor
According to the bible, gentle Jesus is going to crush his enemies and dash kings to pieces before his sits on his heavenly throne and shepherds the nations with an iron rod. Also turn weapons into farm tools and slaughter a great many horses while he's at it.
This being the case we will have to wait a while longer for his holiness to get his finger out.
-
PublishingCult
A group of people in one religion will treat with skepticism and ultimately reject the assertions and beliefs of another group of a different religion. But they never stop to think and question their own irrational beliefs. Lunacy.
-
Terry
For over 100 years the Watchtower followers have made it their central purpose to interest people in their publications by GRABBING ATTENTION.
They grab attention by arresting interest in "signs" seemingly signalling the END of the World as we know it.
To mainstream Christianity the "signs" mean Jesus is going to return soon.
To Jehovah's Witnesses the "signs" mean Jesus is already here!
Think about that for a minute!!
The irony is amazing if you just stare at it and think.
Both groups (mainstream Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses) are looking at the SAME WORLD EVENTS and drawing opposite conclusions while pointing to the Bible as the source authority for their conclusions!!
This is only possible because IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE on way or the other.
An already enthroned Christ and a soon to arrive Christ are identical in producing NOTHING at all but silence.
The only reasonable conclusion a rational mind can summon is that there is a whole lot of hysterical rabble rousing on both sides
-
trevor
For over 100 years the Watchtower followers have made it their central purpose to interest people in their publications by GRABBING ATTENTION.
This is what publishing companies do. Combined with a religious doomsday front, they are invincible - they think!
-
designs
Where's a Video from Stephen when you need one
-
Terry
What answer would JW's give if you asked them: WHAT HAS JESUS accomplished SINCE HIS INVISIBLE RETURN these last 97 years which is
distinguishable from anything BEFORE 1914?
Whatever their answer you can reply: HOW is this provable?
The fact of the matter remains: Jesus on the throne is no different from Jesus before he took the throne.
It is all WORDS and ASSERTIONS and no concrete proof of anything happening at all that has not happened before.
-
sabastious
I believe Carl Sagan, for the most part, got it. Thank you for this essay, Terry, it was riveting.
-Sab
-
Dogpatch
Publishingcult sez,
A group of people in one religion will treat with skepticism and ultimately reject the assertions and beliefs of another group of a different religion. But they never stop to think and question their own irrational beliefs. Lunacy.
That's what you learn in the world of exit-counseling. That is why originally appealing to one unfalsifiable religious assumption to "correct" or refute another is a clue to the cult member that you have no tools better than theirs. You have to teach the principles of sound logic and probability and Occam's Razor to finally shake them up. But beware if you have the same tendencies towards unfalsifiable beliefs, even if you share the same core beliefs with the cultist. Your efforts will be all wasted and they will become stronger in their unfalsifiable ideas. You will need a pat on the back from your peers to assure you you are correct before you go on to bullshit the next person.
Your cvommon foundation must be an appeal to the primal evidences - the 5 senses, and the most sound of historically-verifiable facts. That is COMMON SENSE.
Teach frameworks of logic and probability, or just teach them how obfuscation works, and they cannot refute it and stay smug. THEN go on to the tenets of the religion. If yours turns out untenable, how will YOU react? Go back to church for prayers against the unfalsifiable Satan?
I have seen this in attending many so-called "deliverances" in churches. Ultimately, it is not a logic battle at all in this case. Rather, it is a case of who can argue the best. And what is the most primally appealing to believe.
I used to listen to the arguments of Greg Stafford, who learned techniques of winning argumentation by default, because the other person could not follow the strained trail of obfuscation he would cleverly lay down. Eventually, because of his tenacity to wear them out with "possibilities" and pseudoproofs, he seemed the victor. He won time after time only using a common technique of argumentation not dissimilar to an attorney like Johnny Cochran and the O.J. trials.
Beware the tendency to declare a "winner" in an argument when closer research reveals an untenable or improbable conclusion. I live with an attorney. He is honest, but he knows the tricks of the judges, the cops, and the robbers, and especially the other attorneys. Don't underestimate the importance of talent in argumentation vs. sound logical conclusions.