by EdenOne 54 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
It really felt like trying to reason with a "know-it-all" 8 year-old. I just gave up at that point because basically he pulled Monopoly's "free from jail" card, and would keep on using it time after time. Besides, as OEJ said, I was walking on thin ice then, and couldn't afford to be seen as blatantly apostate, so I felt it was wiser to drop it, despite my insides being severely revolted.
Eden
Laughably, JWs blow a gasket when they talk about non-JW parents who convince their children Santa Claus is real. How can they lie to their children like that? How can they keep a straight face year after year knowing their children believe an obvious lie (JW speak: error)?
Using this elder's "logic", can't it be argued the parents didn't really lie to their children? After all, only in "retrospect" did they lie, because at the time the parents perpetuted the lie, the children truly believed Santa Claus was real.
Tell me, what's the difference between the above scenario and, "If Jehovah allows for a teaching or procedure to persist, it's because He wants it that way, therefore it can Never be wrong at any time in present time"?
This is how I would argue the point....
"Did you know that the ancient Egyptians used to make paste out of dead mice and place it on infected teeth inside their mouths? It was used for toothache pain. Were they wrong to do that?
Did you know that doctors in ancient Iraq used to use sheep liver to diagnose human illness? Was that wrong?
Did you know that doctors in the 18tha nd 19th century used to cut off half of the tongue of people who stuttered in an attempt to stop their stuttering? Do you think that was wise?
You see, you can't argue that something was not wrong just because it was once accepted. Immunizations were rejected by the ORG way back when and people probably died because of that, was that God's will or his light? You can't argue that God "wanted" those people to die...
So, what's the difference with that "belief" and a "belief" where the Bible is the point in question? If the "generation" is not what was once taught but now a series of groups whose live's overlap, then the first understanding was absolutely wrong.
OR- you could simply scratch your head and say, "you are delusional, aren't you?"
It actually has its own logic, ADCMS, because, to a believer, Jehovah is The one who defines at any time what is wrong And what is right. If one accepts this proposition as true [and it's hammered countless times into JW's minds], then the logical leap to accept 'present truth' framework isn't all that big.
OR- you could simply scratch your head and say, "you are delusional, aren't you?"
Had to laugh at that one SOP.
Eden
If Jehovah allows for a teaching or procedure to persist, it's because He wants it that way
"So, you're saying that Jehovah WANTS to perpetuate lies? That sounds like a DIFFERENT god in mentioned in the Bible."
I'm curious, because that was an angle I had never heard before, albeit clearly skewed. If you had enough time to prepare a counter-argument, what would it be like?
I would simply blink my eyes, smile and say, "You're scaring me!"
Or, "What you just said invalidates Jesus' words at John 4:24: 'God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth'."
I would simply blink my eyes, smile and say, "You're scaring me!"
That's perfect!!!
Thinking about this a little bit more, I feel like part of the problem is that the word "truth" is so loaded by the cult. "Truth" to a JW means "JWism" so arguing that JWism was not true at some point causes them to do some mental gymnastics to defend JWism because their brain hears this sentence as "the truth isn't true" and it doesn't make sense to them.
Perhaps a better way to approach this is to use a synonym of truth (fact/accurate/etc) that doesn't fire off the same rigged mental pathways the way the word "truth" does. Unfortuantely even that's somewhat of a minefield - words like accurate can be quickly associated to the oft used phrase "accurate knowledge of truth" which leads you right back to where you don't want to go.
Elder - "The Organization is only wrong when we look back we see that Jehovah corrected its course. So, it's only wrong in retrospect, never at present time. If Jehovah allows for a teaching or procedure to persist, it's because He wants it that way, therefore it can Never be wrong at any time in present time".
_______________________________________________________________
That isn't an argument. This is a brain dead to reasoning.
This is casuistry through begging the question.
| synonyms: | sophistry, specious reasoning, speciousness, sophism, equivocation "the casuistry about altruism always being ultimately selfish" |
________________________________________________
You allowed him to get away with a silly premise. His premise is that POV determines truth. No, that is opinion.
What determines a true statement is how closely the statement actually matches reality.
You know the old saying? "Everybody is entitled to their own opinion--but NOT their own facts."
________________
THIS IS OFTEN A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH.
Go back and tell the idiot you were speaking to the following.
_________________________________
___________________________________
The Watchtower Organization published this widely:
"Thinking people would rather have smallpox than vaccination, because the latter sows the seed of syphilis, cancers, escema, erysipelas, scrofula, consumption, even leprosy and many other loathsome affections. Hence the practice of vaccination is a crime, an outrage and a delusion." Golden Age 1929 May 1 p.502
"Avoid serum inoculations and vaccinations as they pollute the blood stream with their filthy pus." Golden Age 1929 Nov 13 pp.106-107
This was partially supported on the basis that blood byproducts could not be used.
"Vaccination is a direct violation of the everlasting covenant that God made with Noah after the flood." Golden Age 1931 Feb 4 p.293
"Of all the inventions that have been foisted upon mankind for their defilement the most subtly devilish is that of vaccination." Ibid p.295
