Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!

by BoogerMan 187 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Jeffro

  KalebOutWest:

  So who cares about 607 BCE anymore? In the face of all that failure and the new "we don't know" it is virtually meaningless. Believe in 607 BCE all you want. You just end up like the rest of Christendom who say "we don't know" as well, many of whom also believe these are the last days.

  You’re kind of right (and you hit right at the core issue), but also not. Though there could be a long term plan to quietly abandon 607 BCE, it is many years off if at all. The Watch Towers Society needs 607 BCE and 1914, and will do for the foreseeable future. One of their core tenets is that they are ‘the only true Christians’, but without their eschatology hinged around 1914, they’re just another group like other Adventists and more specifically other Bible Student movement groups. More broadly they’d be like other nontrinitarian groups such as Christadelphians. So, who cares about 607 BCE? They do. See also Are 607 BCE and 1914 still relevant?
• 

  KalebOutWest

  Jeffro:

  ...Though there could be a long term plan to quietly abandon 607 BCE...

  I am neither saying nor implying that at all.

  I only say what I mean here, not more or less. Nothing between the lines.

  People generally don't change their beliefs much unless forced, and then only what they must.

  The ideal for most is to stick to a doctrine in some shape or form, not because they are stubborn but because they are afraid to change.

  People are not comfortable with adjustments, so they won't, not that they can't, do them. The fictional character Harry Potter is brave mainly because he can change everything he believes about his situation in every story three-quarters or so into them and make immediate adjustments to these preconceived ideas, not much else. Real people don't do that. They are not courageous enough.

  I was not saying Jehovah's Witnesses were going to abandon their views. I was merely saying that the date of 607 BCE is quite meaningless at this point. But will they abandon it? I don't know. I can't foretell the future. I didn't say that they would.

  Reconstructionist Jews didn't abandon the term "God," but they do not believe that there is a personal God that exists or listens to prayer, yet they still insist on keeping the word in their theistic liturgy and they practice daily prayer to that God who they believe isn't listening. So it will not surprise me if Jehovah's Witnesses won't abandon 607 or 1914.
• 

  Jeffro

  KalebOutWest:

  I am neither saying nor implying that at all.

  Didn't say you did. 🙄 I gave a broader analysis.

  The part where you were wrong was really this bit:

  You just end up like the rest of Christendom who say "we don't know" as well

  Because that's precisely why they won't let go of 1914 for the foreseeable future. (Though that is separate to how they are perceived by outsiders as just another nutty group.)
• 

  KalebOutWest

  Jeffro:

  ...The part where you were wrong...

  You're just looking for something to call me wrong because you like to correct people.

  If you want to believe what you are saying, you can believe that as much as JW Scholar can believe in 607 BCE.

  It pleases me for you to act this way. This is what I want you to do. You couldn't do this unless I allowed it.

  In fact, I command you to reply this post.

  Or any future post I make...or past.
• 

  Jeffro

  😒
• 

  KalebOutWest

  Jeffro,

  You are clearly very smart. I really mean it.

  But my little "maneuver" of sorts in the last few posts was not to demonstrate any belief that I have power over you--but that when you lose your self-control, you become predictable...and you always have to have the last word and post something...even if it's just an emoji. You are far more than a predictable person.

  You know facts and figures and can debate history as sharp as any knife--and I am very impressed. You are, in fact, very brilliant.

  Some people are not open to be considerate with others, neither are they as capable or willing to be. All they can or wish to see is the mistakes (or what they believe to be mistakes) of others. And they actually make a sport of debating these with others.

  Regardless of any failings, I see great light in you. This is what I choose to see. There is a lot that is right about you. And this is what will keep growing, I am sure, years after today.

  I think people don't get a chance to see enough of who is really writing these posts. People decrease the value of the individuals to such limited context that they write such horrific things. Instead we should consider that there are real persons here, trying to say much more than the mere words they are typing.

  I wish you the best in all your endeavors.
• 

  Jeffro

  I don’t care for these tedious games. It hardly matters to me whether you think I’m predictable. I corrected you because what you said wasn’t correct. Nothing more.

  If someone says a person is not correct (and provides specific reasons), the person can either:

  • acknowledge the error
  • provide a valid refutation
  • provide an invalid refutation (‘scholar’s’ MO)
  • assert that the correction is invalid without giving reasons
  • ignore it
  • throw a tantrum

  I really don’t know why you so often choose the latter when you are clearly capable of better..
• 

  Duran

  • provide an invalid refutation (‘scholar’s’ MO)

  LOL!