by Elsewhere 6 Replies latest jw friends
Ever notice how the WTS rarely ever makes a clear statement? They tend to phrase things in the form of a question allowing the reader to infer the "correct" answer.
I wonder if this is to sidestep responsibility.
"As every one knows, there are mistakes in the Bible" - The Watchtower, April 15, 1928, p. 126
Believe in yourself, not mythology.
<x ><
Of course it's to sidestep responsibilty. They DELIGHT in being abusive to the "faithful." When they spouted the 1975 hypothesis they said "would it not be appropriate if...?" [Jehovah God would bring the system to an end in 1975].
So everyone jumped on the 1975 bandwagon, BECAUSE THE FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE SAID IT!!!!!!
When it didn't work out they then blamed "certain Christians" for being anxious about the timetable that God is using to restore Paradise to "suffering mankind."
The Watchtower is THE PINNACLE of abusive treatment meted out by a religious organization to its followers, and deserves all the woes that are certain to befall it!!!
Jehovah's "eye" will certainly not "feel pity" for the Borg when it has heaped upon it all the horrendous abuse it's handed out to others.
Someone back in Brooklyn is a big Jeopardy! fan?
Intro, please phrase you're response in the form of a question.
"As every one knows, there are mistakes in the Bible" - The Watchtower, April 15, 1928, p. 126
Believe in yourself, not mythology.
<x ><
It's called mind manipulation. If this is done in a court of law there would be an objection from the other side.
Lawyer 1 "Wouldn't you say......??)
Lawyer 2 "Objection, leading the witness Your Honor"
Of course, there's another variation on this rhetorical tactic that the Society loves to use.
It's the one where they ask the question and then HOLLER something at you to tell you how to view the issue.
For instance:
"Do we ever doubt the value of Bible-based counsel from spirit-appointed elders? Never may that prove to be the case with us!"
Or:
"Did the first-century Christians shirk their responsibility of having a full share in the preaching work? Far from it!"
Is not such an approach loving, balanced and reasonable?
comment
This reminds me of the joke (well, almost a joke):
Bill: "Paddy, is it true that an Irishman always answers a question with a question?"
Paddy: "Who told you that?"
(BTW: Apologies for the steryotype name but I actually work with an Irishman called Paddy!)
