No, he cannot give honest answers to your points, but let us hope you help reading JW's on here find their "recovery".
Good post.
Let's Discuss Ray Franz's Books
by Recovery 131 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
sd-7
Well, I do think it makes little sense to discuss a book that you've never read. The fact that you changed your mind about walking away from the JWs is an indication that you have more to learn. I would say reading Ray Franz' books was a huge change for me, but that's not where any person of good common sense would stop--that's where their research would begin, if anything. I certainly didn't agree with everything he wrote, and would readily acknowledge that much of what he said was anecdotal--his personal experiences on the Governing Body, which comprise much of what is written in his books, though not all. That's stuff that I personally cannot prove happened, so as shocking as some of it was, it alone isn't/wasn't enough to convince me to have serious doubts about the Witnesses.
I guess Crisis of Conscience starts with the late Mr. Franz retelling his life story as one of Jehovah's Witnesses up until the time he began to serve on the Governing Body. (It actually reads a lot like many life stories still found in issues of The Watchtower today. He had a full life of service.) He goes on to discuss various concepts relating to the authority structure of the organization, the excess in rules where the Bible isn't necessarily clear, and inconsistencies to be found in Watchtower literature, including predictions that did not come to pass, teachings that were in error and how they were handled, and how individuals in the organization were impacted by the ever-changing policies made by the Governing Body. He uses direct quotes from Watchtower literature and his works seems very well-researched and thought out to me. He speaks as someone who personally wrote many Watchtower articles and a book or two himself, so I think his record commands a certain respect whether you agree or not. When it comes to being one of Jehovah's Witnesses, he was as at-the-top-of-the-game as they get. It's a long book, but someone ought to give you a copy, and if not I can, if no one else has yet.
I think one of the biggest things that helped me clear up how I felt about the organization was just reading the Bible itself. Verses considered in their context, rather than scattered through an article in The Watchtower, seemed so much clearer without any outside explanation potentially saying they mean something else that they may or may not mean. There is a reason why the Society says that you cannot understand the Bible without its literature--because the Society wants you to see only what they tell you to see, whether it is there or not.
But I want to be clear, even so: it's not my job or personal wish that you "wake up" and leave the Witnesses. If you read Ray Franz' stuff, do your own research on top of that, and are convinced nonetheless that Jehovah's Witnesses are the true religion, then fine. If that's what you believe, you have the right to that, and nobody should try and take it from you. I found that logical reasons to question the entire concept/system/organization/whatever weren't as important to me as emotional reasons to stay--the feeling of security and belief, in varying degrees of accuracy, that all was well inside this organization. That may not be the case with you, of course, you may feel that there are perfectly logical reasons to stay, and again, that's your choice.
Whatever the case, you are free to make your own decisions on this. And for the record, you would most certainly find yourself in trouble with the elders for reading Ray Franz' books. But only if they knew about it. Either that, or your elders would also be kind of questionable too. The way they swooped down on me, you'd think I was holding a protest sign outside the Kingdom Hall or something. I would be as skeptical as you are if I hadn't experienced it with my own two eyes. This was far more than human imperfection showing, this was a witch trial.
If you're serious about this, though, I think this could be a valuable opportunity, not to make fun or attack you personally, but to have an open forum for these issues for the whole world to see. But it's very telling that you want to talk about these books at all. If you think you have the truth, then why? There's no reason to go down this road if you want to be a Witness. If you are absolutely sure that's what you want, then you should never return to this site, for your own...good, shall we say? Because nothing here can help you be sure about remaining a Witness.
Well, I hope I've not been offensive or done ad hominem kind of stuff. Just my two cents, is all.
--sd-7
-
GromitSK
Well-put SD if I may say so.
-
King Solomon
King Sol said:
For the record, I HAVE read it, but found it to be a dull read, not worth risking getting DFed over (although, the very fact that you'd be risking getting DF'ed for reading such a dull book IS a question you SHOULD be asking yourself, not us).
Recovery said:
Well I've never heard of that in all my years. If I started reading the book today and finished it tomorrow I would not be disfellowshipped. Do you have a WT quote to back up these statements?
Notice I specifically said "RISK getting DFed for"; obviously whether you get DFed or not would depend on how good your acting skills are, i.e. faking a repentent state, being that you quite WILLFULLY disobeyed the counsel of the GB.
You're the master of WT policy: I'm sure you can research articles on CD or jw.org, or maybe Blondie will oblige you and do the onerous work of finding such references for you? Hint: search for terms "mentally-diseased apostates" or "Jehovah, the Master Physician". That should give you some results...
PS I have elders in my family, and maybe you might even have the honor of explaining the "proper" interpretation of GB policy to THEM during your JC (I know: you think the rules don't apply to you, right?).
@@@@
Ziddina, maybe you missed the "burnt offering" bit in the account?
30 Jephthah made a vow to the L ORD and said, “If You will indeed give the sons of Ammon into my hand, 31 then it shall be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the sons of Ammon, it shall be the L ORD ’ S, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.”
Here's where he actually followed thru on his vow:
39 At the end of two months she returned to her father, who did to her according to the vow which he had made; and she had no relations with a man.
Why would a Temple virgin need to be offered as a "burnt offering"?
It says what it says, and simply not liking the words is not reason enough to dismiss what it plainly says clearly across ALL translations....
Child sacrifice was an element practiced by some groups of early Yahwists in certain areas, and this fact has confirmed by archaeological findings around the turn of the century. It's likely Jephthah's "hasty vow" played a role in stamping out the practice amongst readers of the Torah, serving as a polemic against making hasty vows to YHWH (and some evidence suggests an early version of Abraham had him going thru with his offer, but later redactors changed the plot to conform to the prohibition).
Read "King Manassah and Child Sacrifice", a current work by biblical scholar Francesca Stavrakopoulou. Here's a free preview of the book on on Amazon:
-
OUTLAW
OUTLAW said: We don`t have to prove a thing.If you claim JW`s are Gods people..Your the one who has to Supply the Proof.
Have you read "Crisis oF Concience"?..
Fair enough, I guess I will have to provide proof for JW's, while everyone else spouts rhetoric and cut and paste from ex JW websites
No I have not read it. I've stated this days ago.
Yes..
You will have to provide proof just like anyone else here,who makes a claim..
You don`t know the meaning of rehtoric....
You probably don`t know the meaning of a lot of words..
Get a Dictionary..Use it..
.....................................................................................................................
The Definition of Rehtoric..
1 : the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a: the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b: the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion 2 a: skill in the effective use of speech b: a type or mode of language or speech; also: insincere or grandiloquent language ......................................................................................................................................
You want more posts without earning them..
You can`t be bothered to look up the meaning of words you use..
You want to discuss a book you never read..
Your Demanding,Poorly Educated and Lazy..
Are you One of the WBT$ GB?..
...........................
...OUTLAW -
Leolaia
We can discuss any claims/statements/scriptural arguments presented in either of his books, as long as it somehow proves Jehovah's Witnesses are not God's people.
It is an unfair burden to have to prove a negative when the claim in question (in this case, that Jehovah's Witnesses are [uniquely] God's people) has not itself met a burden of proof.
-
King Solomon
Outlaw, methinks he is referring to the footnote ("also") definition of rhetoric, as shown in your post:
also: insincere or grandiloquent language
If we use rhetoric, it's the "also" definition....
-
rip van winkle
"Recovery", I have observed you since you began this thread. I think you are a TROLL! James_woods called it from the get-go.
And our own King Sol recently taught me the word "strawman". You are a strawman.
Let me define it for you in this context; "A bundle of straw made into the likeness of a man and often used as a scarecrow. (Lions, and tigers and bears,Oh, MY!)
Oh, that may apply. Or maybe it's this: An argument or opponent set up to be easily defeated.
From the very first, you started to argue with everyone and not dialogue.
Troll, BE GONE! Stop inciting everyone. Do something worthwhile.
-
OUTLAW
Outlaw, methinks he is referring to the footnote ("also") definition of rhetoric, as shown in your post:...KS
Of course your right.. He can use rehtoric..
But..
He needs to return it,in the same shape he got it in..
...........................
...OUTLAW -
Recovery
I did not say my intention was not to criticize the book. I said that this was not something I had already done. I do not wish to engage in a meaningless discussion about who the burden of proof rests on and this logical fallacy's definition and this that and the third. Why do you all have to be such pedants? If I say..."the faithful and discreet slave was appointed in late 33 C.E." someone will correct me and call me a liar and say I'm wrong, "it was the spring of 33 C.E." they'll shout. If I say can you prove JW's scripturally wrong, they'll argue in circles about me needing to prove JW's scripturally right.
And instead of debating/presenting their viewpoints they would rather argue about who the burden of proof lies on. I could say the burden of proof rests with the members of this board since they don't believe JW's are God's people. They say I need to prove that they are God's people. Really, who has the time, or desire to engage in such meaningless and ridiculous gramattical technicalities?
Please continue with the insults and the name calling and the criticism. When all else fails, attack the person's character. Who I am is of no importance. If you want to insult me, show me where I am wrong scripturally. Show me to be nothing but a blind Bible thumping fool who believes in a book of legends and myths. That would be insulting and I would actually care about those insults.
However, thanks for the book! I'll start reading it tonight. I look forward to future discussions.
...OUTLAW