Recovery said:
This is not my line of reasoning at all. Notice my original question: Let's assume, as most of your probably have, that the anointed Christians are not the FDS.
We don't have to ASSUME that, as that IS the default position most here HAVE.
If the anointed are not the FDS, who are?
That's been answered repeatedly, but for some reason you don't feel compelled to accept our interpretation, just as we don't feel to accept yours? Since you've simply assembled a series of nebulous inferred claims based on your desire to convert a parable into a prophecy, you haven't presented sufficient evidence to convince anyone, so we don't accept it... If you HAVE further evidence, lay it on us: we're all ears.
My question does not require that anyone accept what JW's teach about the FDS.
Oh, don't worry about us accepting it: we won't, unless you present compelling evidence and a stronger case as to WHY we should accept it.
The only thing my question is requiring is that it be shown that the FDS interpretation is wrong.
You still don't get it: YOU CANNOT EXPECT US TO DISPROVE YOUR INTERPRETATION. The burden of proof is on YOU TO SHOW US WHY WE SHOULD ACCEPT IT.
I haven't accepted it, and don't accept ANY interpretation other than what the 'plain-text' reading of the passage suggests (that it is a parable designed to teach a broad principle to everyone who cares to consider Jesus' message).
JW's have been converting parables into prophecies with greater ease than with which Jesus turned water into wine, taking Jesus' words well beyond what a plain-text reading suggests, and what credible Biblical scholars and theologians support. The temptation to do so is great, esp when there's $$$ and control to be gained if done successfully (as it HAS been done by JWs GB).
Oh wait: I see you're going to give someone with a doctorate degree from UC Berkeley (nice place: ever heard of it?) in a scientific discipline a lesson in the principles of logic and rhetoric. OK, this should be amusing (or tedious)....
It is like this: Someone says to me: You are not straight! (JW's are not the FDS) You are gay (JW's are not the FDS). I say: Okay, that might be true, but since you're saying that I am definitely not straight, prove it.(prove that JW's are wrong, you don't have to assume they are right, just prove them wrong) You don't have to believe that i'm straight to prove that I'm not. (You don't have to accept JW's FDS teaching to prove them wrong) Then the person responds: No, your logic is all messed up! YOU need to prove that you are straight. (No, the burden of proof is on you). I don't believe you are straight (JW's are not the FDS) but it is not my responsibility to prove that you are not straight (but the burden of proof is on you), it is yours to prove that YOU ARE straight!
WOW.... Not amusing, but tedious.
Look, simply because you can rephrase a question into the reverse form doesn't change the true FACTS of the situation:
The default historical reading of the passage is that it's a PARABLE. In 1875, a small sect of evangelical Christians called themselves JWs, and sometime later decided that this passage points to THEM and THEM ALONE (although, AFAIK it was used by other churches to claim a stewardship role over other Christians). However, the burden of proof for their claims to the exclusive use of the passage as a prophecy remains on them, to overcome the traditional reading: THEY are in the position of having to prove THEIR interpretation being correct/consistent with the other passages.
It is the opposers who have the ridiculous and absurd reasoning as shown here. My question did not require that anyone accept that JW's teach until it is proven wrong.
No Spit, Sparlock: no one said you DID require us to accept your interpretation in order to reject it. THAT'S THE POINT.
It only required that the JW's be proven wrong. What a sly inference to thwart and belittle my reasoning ability when that was never a requirement of the question.
Uh, NO (see above).
PS we also don't have to offer you some other explanation than what's been offered, just to make YOU sleep better at night worrying if you're in a cult: that's not OUR responsibility, either.
To repeat:
We're saying we HAVEN'T accepted it, so if you want us to accept YOUR interpretation, YOU have to prove it, convincing us that it is more logically consonant with the principles of logic, prior scriptural passages that support the non-standard interpretation, etc.
