"We don't believe only JWs will survive Armageddon, only Jehovah can read hearts" - Logic Fallacies by JWs (or us)?

by cognisonance 51 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  TheStumbler

  The Watchtower has explicitly stated that non-Jehovah's witnesses will survive Armageddon. It even says so on there current website. It is an excellent example of their duplicity

  HEre is an extract from an email I sent to a JW family member earlier this year:

  The 1989 Watchtower publication, Jehovah's Witnesses in the Twentieth Century, states that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that they are they only ones who will survive Armageddon:

  ‘Questions Often Asked by Interested Persons Do they [Jehovah’s Witnesses] believe that they are the only ones who will be saved? No. Many millions that have lived in centuries past and who were not Jehovah's Witnesses will come back in a resurrection and have an opportunity for life. Many now living may yet take a stand for truth and righteousness before the "great tribulation," and they will gain salvation. Moreover, Jesus said that we should not be judging one another. We look at the outward appearance; God looks at the heart. He sees accurately and judges mercifully. He has committed judgment into Jesus' hands, not ours. ’ (Jehovah's Witnesses in the Twentieth Century, 1989, p. 29)

  In answer to the question - ‘do they [Jehovah’s Witnesses] believe that they are the only ones who will be saved?’ - the Watchtower replies ‘no’. This is a straight forward enough answer however notice that the Watchtower’s following justification does not address the question asked - instead the Watchtower explains that ‘Many millions that have lived in centuries past and who were not Jehovah's Witnesses will come back in a resurrection’ – the original question was ‘who will be saved’ not who will be resurrected. Saying that millions of people already dead will be resurrected says nothing about those currently living who will survive Armageddon. In the very same year the Watchtower stated that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe only Jehovah’s Witnesses will survive Armageddon and that ‘[God] has committed judgment into Jesus' hands, not ours’ - it printed this:

  Only Jehovah's Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the "great crowd," as a united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer, have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil. (The Watchtower, September 1, 1989, p. 19)

  To summarise, in 1989 the Watchtower said:

  ‘do [Jehovah’s Witnesses] believe that they are the only ones who will be saved? No.’

  And in the same year it said:

  Only Jehovah’s witnesses….have any scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this….system

  Only one of these statements can be true so the other must be a lie – which is the lie?
• 

  TheStumbler

  This, of course, contradicts the Law of the Excluded Middle - if you are looking for the logical fallacy.
• 

  TheStumbler

  The Watchtower’s official media website currently still advises non-members that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not teach that they are the only ones who will survive:

  Frequently Asked Questions: Do you believe that you are the only ones who will be saved? No. Many millions who have lived in centuries past and who were not Jehovah's Witnesses will come back in a resurrection and have an opportunity for life. Many now living may yet take a stand for truth and righteousness before God's time of judgment, and they will gain salvation. Moreover, Jesus said that we should not be judging one another. Humans look at the outward appearance; God looks at the heart. He sees accurately and judges mercifully. God has committed judgment into Jesus' hands, not ours. http://www.jw-media.org/aboutjw/article32.htm#saved
• 

  cognisonance

  Stumbler, thanks for the logic fallacy (I'll read up on it) and extra PR information where JWs try to save face with the public when answering that question. Just like you I notice that the first part of the answer is a red herring and a non sequitur as it has nothing to do with the question being asked. Just as I did with their FAQ answer on JW.org in an earlier post, here is what they really are effetively saying in the jw-media quote:

  Do you believe that you are the only ones who will be saved [When Armageddon Comes]?

  No [Yes, but it's not our call]. Many millions who have lived in centuries past and who were not Jehovah's Witnesses will come back in a resurrection and have an opportunity for life. Many now living may yet take a stand for truth and righteousness [by becoming part of Jehovah's Organization] before God's time of judgment, and they will gain salvation. Moreover, Jesus said that we should not be judging one another. Humans look at the outward appearance; God looks at the heart. He sees accurately and judges mercifully. God has committed judgment into Jesus' hands, not ours.

  While they simply start with the answer, "NO." What follows contradicts that short answer. The no is in reference to them saying "see non JWs will be resurrected," which is unfortunte as it is irrelavent to the question. The next part of the answer says people that "take a stand for truth" will be saved. To the outsider "take a stand for truth" likely does not mean what this phrase does to those in the group. It's an example of loading the language, a thought reform tactic. If a JW reads this, they know that phrase is synonomous with siding with Jehovah's organization. The rest just says, they won't be the ones to execute judgement.
• 

  cognisonance

  Well, I had another conversation with the person who told me that JWs don't believe that they are the only ones to survive Armageddon and that only Jehovah can read hearts. I pointed out the 2000 KM that was very explicit about this. Paraphrasing the response:

  And how long ago was that? That was over a decade ago! Things are changing in our organization. We certainly don't take that view today.

  First, since when does an article form 2000 now become viewed as outdated. I could understand if I pointed to an article from the late 1800s, or mid 20th century, or even the 1980s, but 2000? So how recent does the article have to be? In some ways, no printed article is new enough.

  For example, when talking about the related question of do JWs think that worldly people overall are bad/wicked, or at least people we shouldn't be friends with (I brought this up in the context of JWs have black and white thinking, only they will get saved; us-verse-them mentality, JWs = good people, worldy = bad people; etc).

  This person told me that yes we used to feel that way, but things are now changing. The example given was a recent bethel speaker at the assembly or a CO at this year's pioneer school (don't remember which), talked about how we need to start viewing our neighbors, workmates, and other wordly people as potential JWs and be their friends, invite your neighbors over for a meal, etc. Let them get to know you and be attracted to you. This way you can be better able to help them with the truth. Viewing them as bad people can have us have a superior demeanor and turn them off. We don't want that.

  I ask what publication says for us to do this (there may indeed be one). The response though was not let me go look and see, but rather, that there might be one eventually to talk about this, who knows, but the talk/instructor shows that we no longer believe what we used to.

  Basically, the feel I got from the conversation was this: It does not matter what JWs have written on a given subject in the past (recent or distant). It's all past-tense and thus can be considered not current-light on matters. Current-light = publications that come out today, talks at conventions today, talks by COs today.
• 

  Black Sheep

  And how long ago was that? That was over a decade ago! Things are changing in our organization. We certainly don't take that view today.

  It is difficult to understand whether JWs you talk to are being dishonest with you, or if they have read between the lines to create their own sanitised version of the teachings that doesn't conflict with the humanitarian buried under the cult personality.

  They will say whatever is necessary to support their personal view (or hide the cultishness) of the Watchtower's position, but without producing any evidence. That is one reason why it is pointless doing their research for them. They have to do the research to find articles that support the BS they are spouting. That is the only way they will ever understand that they haven't got any, or that they subconsciously (or deliberately) 'quote mined' the articles they were thinking of and the articles don't support them at all.

  This person told me that yes we used to feel that way, but things are now changing. The example given was a recent bethel speaker at the assembly or a CO at this year's pioneer school (don't remember which), talked about how we need to start viewing our neighbors, workmates, and other wordly people as potential JWs and be their friends, invite your neighbors over for a meal, etc. Let them get to know you and be attracted to you. This way you can be better able to help them with the truth.

  He just contradicted himself. If non-JWs are going to survive Armageddon, why does he have to see 'other wordly people as potential JWs' and 'help them with the truth.' when they don't need to be JWs to survive Armageddon?

  You can try other ways of asking the question too.

  "If the 'other wordly people' never join your church, is Jehovah going to kill them at Armageddon?", then make sure that whatever he says is truly an answer to the question you asked. If it isn't, ask again and insist on an answer. If it is and it sounds like BS, get him to promise to get back to you tomorrow with a WT article, or book, that proves whatever he said.

  Make him feel guilty for any dishonesty he indulges in.
• 

  Black Sheep
• 

  Ucantnome

  i had a discussion recently with a witness about this. i was really surprised. it was a short discussion.
• 

  Ocean1111

  What JWs and many others should be focusing on is surviving the "new world order", lol, Armageddon would be a good thing in comparison! LOL

  And even in JW "logic", the "new world order" or "world government" by another moniker, comes long before the JW version of "Armageddon". This is why this "armageddon" distraction is really quite the amazing thing in the JW engineered mindset, I like, "what in the hell are they thinking?", "don't they even read their OWN books????"

  This is one of the weirdest illogics to ever transform in a religion in such short time, in such a context of "bible study". JWs are a very interesting case of the engineering of perception, but with a very specific picture in the mind of the programmer, very well reproduced in the JW collective mind.

  It's no joke, this verges on a sort of transparent hypnotic, literally like a chemically aided shift in comprehension that cannot be reset.
• 

  Vidiot

  TheStumbler - "Saying that millions of people already dead will be resurrected says nothing about those currently living who will survive Armageddon."

  Skillful deflection.

  A better question would, of course, be "can individuals who have no interest in affiliating with JWs and the WTS survive Armageddon?"...

  ...not that the WTS would ever frame it that way, because for them to answer honestly (according to their ideology), they'd have to say "no".

  It's funny; back in their heyday, WT loyalists would have had few if any compunctions about their willingness to say "no" in response to such a question; you had to sort of respect that level of conviction, even if it was kinda nuts...

  ...these days, though, your average rank-and-filer - even though he's technically still expected to subscribe to this - would rather piss molten glass than acknowledge it in public, because even if he won't admit it to himself...

  ...deep down, he knows it's an obnoxious, elitist stance that would offend anyone with half a brain.