Help - how to reason from 'best out there'?

by Xander 28 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Xander

  Okay, another discussion with the brother. He did mention I was a bad influence, but, feh, he still talks and listens a little, so I'm not too worried.

  I've got him whittled down to - "If nothing else, at least this org tries to follow the bible the closest, every other religion has serious flaws."

  This is kind of a hard one to beat, as, in the end, what the society SAYS is generally quite good and positive. What is actually DOES is not relevant to him - he's falling back on the old "it's run by imperfect man" argument again. (Why god leaves his one true followers in the hands of such flawed men is not a point he's willing to argue).

  So, given that, what would be the best counter? He's not willing to debate the possibility of christianity being false, so I'm not going to try and push that point, but how to get him to see the errors in the JW teachings?

  What should I point out as 'gotchas' - teachings that Jesus and disciples espoused that they DON'T follow, or ones they follow incorrectly?

  FWIW, I've got him to concede that the prohibition on birthdays is nonsense (don't ask how that came up), but that it is still okay to DF someone for celebrating them, since they would be rebelling against the organization.

  He maintains that Jesus and his disciples WERE the 'organization' back in the day, and rebelling from the organization then had the same effect it does now - hence, their DFing policy is just by biblical standards. Where to go from there?
• 

  Mum

  Xander, I'm not the greatest at this, but I'm going to offer a suggestion or two because no one else has.

  Ask him to cite examples of people who were "disfellowshipped" by Jesus and his followers. Then ask him why they were disfellowshipped; i.e., was it because of behavior (something they did) or because of some twisted notion of "disloyalty" because of asking honest, sincere questions (something they thought).

  Since he agrees with you on the birthday issue, and the non-celebration of birthdays is supposedly based on the Bible, ask him if it might be possible that other JW doctrines are based on the Bible but by adding to it in some way.

  Ask him why Jesus told his followers to go into their closet to pray and not to make a display of piety, and then Jesus told them on another occasion to let their light shine before men so that their good works would be seen and God would be glorified.

  E-mail Farkel. He's a master of formulating good, incisive arguments and questions that expose the Watchtower's corruption just like a skillful surgeon does the same for diseased organs.

  Ask him if he would accept the same excuse about being run by "imperfect men" with regard to the Catholic Church or any other church.

  Make notes and prepare yourself. Let us know what happens.

  Good luck!

  SandraC
• 

  hooberus

  I've got him whittled down to - "If nothing else, at least this org tries to follow the bible the closest, every other religion has serious flaws."

  I don't know "who's the best at witnessing to a JW" bur here is a few things that might help:

  You might bring up the other religious organizations which are similar in beliefs to the witnesses.

  For example there are other organizations which use Gods name such as the "Assemblies of Yahweh", the "House of Yahweh", "Jehovahs Christian Witnesses" etc.

  There are also many other organizations which preach God's kingdom such as the Mormons, and born-again Christians.

  Also many organizations are do not participate in politics, doesn't this mean that they too "are no part of the world"? Why does the WT them present itself as being the only org that is "no part of the world?"

  Also many organizations do not go to war (some remained neutral in WW1 unlike the WT) so how can the WT say that they are the only ones who "have love amongst themselves?"

  Also many other religious organizations have similar theology to the WT on many subjects such as "no immortality of the soul", "no Trinity" etc. (Although these things are actually supported by the Bible.)

  Edited by - hooberus on 30 January 2003 21:54:0
• 

  hooberus

  He maintains that Jesus and his disciples WERE the 'organization' back in the day, and rebelling from the organization then had the same effect it does now - hence, their DFing policy is just by biblical standards. Where to go from there?

  You may also need to address the issue of loyalty to God vs. loyalty to an organization, and where else can he go to?

  The January 15, 1970 Watchtower p. 37-40 contains arcticle titled:

  "Which Comes First- Your Church or God?"

  "The "first man" represents the believers who remain faithful to their church out of loyalty to the religion they were brought to believe in. Thier attitude is: Right or wrong, it is my religion! Is that the way you feel? If so, you are certainly a loyal person. But to whom do you owe the greater loyalty-to your church, or to God? With so much disbelief rife throughout the earth, you are to be commended for maintaining your faith, but where should your faith be placed-in a religious organization, or in God?" p.37

  "The "second man" mentioned in the Nouvel Observateur represents those Catholics and Protestants who stay with their church because they do not know where else to go. They havebeen taught that their church represents God, and they do not want to turn away from him. They disapprove of many church practices or doctrines, but they hope to reform their church from within. Typical of these are the 744 French Catholics who, in November 1968, sent a long open letter to the pope. In it they stated: "Today the Christian needs to live in a 'true' Church . . . Therefore all that is false, contrary to the Gospel and scandalous within the Church today wounds the Christian." Then followed a long list of grievances against the Catholic Church and it current teachings and practices. Yet, toward the end, these catholics expressed their unconditional adherence to their church by alluding to John 6:68 and stating: "Who could we go to? In her [the Roman Catholic Church] we find the One who has words of eternal life." p.39

  I beileve that this Watchtower arcticle can with a few simple questions be used effectively to separate the witnesses "Loyalty to God" from "Loyalty to the Organization". The Issue of faith in a religious organization being separte from faith in God is addressed nicely. Also issues of "where else to go" and the misappication of John 6:68 from Christ to a "church" or "organization" can be very effectively brought up using this arcticle.

  In an earlier post the follwing was given by a former witness as some of the reasons for staying in the Watchtower Organization.

  "Obstacles/hinderances: Loyalty. Thinking that there was no where else to go. Fear of the unknown. Believing God and the Watchtower were inseperable. Believing we would lose Gods protective barrier and bring death on our family (Like Job) if we left."

  I believe that the above article can be used effectively and non-offensively to deal with these common issues.

  Edited by - hooberus on 30 January 2003 21:44:17
• 

  hooberus

  Once you get him thinking that his faith in God can still survive even if he looses faith in a religious organization (this may take a little time) you may then (and only then) wish to bring up a few devastating points from the Bible and WT history.

  "The wild beast that you saw was, but is not, and yet is about to ascend out of the abyss, and it is to go off into destruction. And when they see how the wild beast was, but is not, and yet will be present, those who dwell on the earth will wonder admiringly, but their names have not been written upon the scroll of life from the foundation of the world." Revelation 17:8 NWT

  "We cannot but admire the high principles embodied in the proposed League of Nations, formulated undoubtedly by those who have no knowledge of the great plan of God. This fact makes all the more wonderful the ideals which they express. For instance, it has been made plain by President Wilson and the advocates of his ideas that the proposed League of Nations is more than merely a league to enforce peace. They would not have us consider it to exclusively from the standpoint of politics or of military relations. It should be considered as fully from the economic and social points of view. The President's idea seems to be that the League of Nations which he proposes would stand for world service rather than mere world regulation in the military sense, and that the very smallest of nations shall be participants in its every arrangement. In other words, his idea undoubtedly is that the league shall not be established merely for the purpose of promoting peace by threat or coercion; but that its purpose, when put into operation, will be to make all nations of earth one great family, working together for the common benefit in all the avenues of national life. Truly this is idealistic, and approximates in a small way that which God has foretold that he will bring about after this great time of trouble." Watch Tower February 15, 1919 p.51 reprints page 6389

  Comments: The Watchtower loves to quote the beliefs of other religious organizations regarding the Leage of Nations. The Revelation (1988) Book quotes from several church's their endorsement of the ideals of the League. However as seen by comparing the above Watchtower quote to Revelation 17:8 the watchtower actually is closer to the exact words of Revelartion: ("wonder"- "wonderful")("admiringly"-"admire") than the other organizations which they condemn!!!!!
• 

  XandersEvilTwin

  Sadly, he has no problem with 'new light' replacing 'old light' - so bringing up articles anything other than RECENTLY has no impact at all. The old "Yeah, that's how it WAS, but imperfect men, blahblahblah, NEW LIGHT is...." etc.

  other religious organizations which are similar in beliefs to the witnesses.

  This seemed to be a very good angle, I think I made some success with this one, but my knowledge of non-mainstream religions is sadly lacking.

  Other examples would help a lot.

  (damn posting limit! LOL)
• 

  peacefulpete

  Just a note..Actually the identification of the League of nations with the image in Revelation was first made by Southern Baptist Churches who likewise reasoned that any attempts to bring peace through human means was from the Devil. As to your question. The assertion that this religion is the best out there is the result o predetermined criteria. If your church teaches that the Bible says this or that then declaring your Church is unique and special BECAUSE it teaches this is to ignore the conviction and faith of all others. I remember being upset that people who left the org. being happy. I was sure they were lying. Happiness was the monopoly of JWs! When I read of people giving their lives for a cause they believed in, I asked myself how they got the courage (strenght) without Holy Spirit. I began to wonder if my experience was as unique as I was told it was. It ultimately then moved me to read other interpretation of prophecy. I found that every church, every nut had plausable spins on passages in Daniel and Revelation. It was then I realized how my own indoctrination had lead me to a very narrow place. My subsequent studies in the psycology of religious thinking and religious history were my final breakthroughs. I could now understand why I had thought the way I did and how this made me like most everyone else. I was now free to learn with a fresh perspective. I suppose this is like many others here. Perhaps your best answer then is to ask what helped you and offer it to him if he askes for it.

  Edited by - peacefulpete on 31 January 2003 1:1:53
• 

  larc

  I think the weakest chain in the JW doctrinal chain is the Armageddon around the corner concept. It has been around now for 123 years. They named three dates, 1914, 1925, and 1975. They also hinted at others.
• 

  Xander

  Yeah, but as long as he keeps buying 'new light', that will never phase him.

  I just don't know what tack to take, really. It's more of a social club to him now. All his 'friends' are in, and although he acknowledges that not one of them is someone he would hang with if NOT for their religious similarity - he somehow rationalizes that its a GOOD thing. IE., I wouldn't have these people as my friends if not for our religion, so thank god for our religion, or I wouldn't have any friends.

  I think pete might be right - as long as I show him how happy the wife and I are, how much better we get along than he and his wife, etc, it will be the only way to REALLY errode his beliefs. I think.

  It's hard to reason with him because he doesn't WANT to think about it. He has 'the truth'. Period. His whole life revolves around it now - such as it is - and I don't think he wants to think of life without it. Both because he has no experience with that life, and is afraid of the unknown; and he doesn't want to admit that his choices have doomed his course of life to a certain path he would NEVER have taken otherwise (IE., he's dropped out of community college, works full time as a sales associate at a chain store, married someone he has nothing in common with but religion, drinks like a fish whenever he can, etc.)
• 

  Ravyn

  I was just where your friend is. I saw corruption for 30 yrs. I thot emotion was weakness and the heart untrustworthy, but when I found this I no longer had any excuses. This is from a letter I wrote my father last yr:

  <<<If there was one single thing that took me out, it was a careful study(with no ulterior motive--as it was something I just came upon accidentally) of Revelation 7: 9 and 11 in the WTBS' own Kingdom Interlinear. Briefly, in verse 9 it is talking about the Great Crowd, and in verse 11 it is talking about the angels. Now unless the angels are going to be on the Earth, the Great Crowd is in Heaven. The Greek word that identifies where these two groups are is exactly the same. There is not degrees of 'before the throne' indicated here, nor does the Greek word used support that stretch of a theory(for this I spoke with a professor of ancient languages at Harvard). There are other Greek words that could have been used to differentiate a different place, but that is not how the inspired writer wrote it. It says that the angels, in the circle of throne-Heaven, will worship in the same place as the Great Crowd-who came OUT of the Earth--and that place is before the throne. This is not talking about the 144,000. Verse 14 reiterates the place where the Great Crowd are, using the phrase again-and adds the phrase 'in the divine habitation of him'---so now WTBS would have us believe that not only do the angels come down to the Earth to worship but that God himself lives here? I know they explain it that his tent will spread over the Earth---but that is not what the SCRIPTURE says. The scripture says that the Great Crowd will join him in his tent. No where does it indicate that this tent will be on Earth. No where. And the logic that they use to say that his tent will be extended to the Earth is flawed logic, making scripture fit WTBS' own dogma. THAT is criminal. To manipulate the Word of God in order to cover your own butts! It sickens me.>>>

  Ravyn