Visit From Jehovah's Witnesses

by Vanderhoven7 76 Replies latest jw experiences

  • Late Bloomer
    Late Bloomer
    We should be fighting to free the people we love from the faith based mentality which is at the root of all these problems.
    Vanderhoven I bear you no ill will but I hope no one has a discussion with my Mum like you are having with these two JWs, it would only reinforce the trap she's in.

    That's a bit of putting the cart before the horse isn't it? I gently suggest to my mom that there is no Jehovah and I don't believe in god altogether she responds with "Even people we meet at the door don't talk like that!" In other words, those worldly Christians who are part of "false religion" still hold more credibility with her than an atheist. She will never entertain any argument I put forth to explain my (non)belief. At her age, I don't hold out hope that she will ever be free of JWs, but if anyone has the best chance of opening her mind it'll be a Christian. Flies being more attracted to honey than vinegar or however it goes. Yes, I'm the vinegar.

  • nicolaou
    nicolaou
    if anyone has the best chance of opening her mind it'll be a Christian.

    Opening her mind to what? Look, I'm not insensitive. I've posted myself that other forms of Christianity are far less harmful than the Watchtower and would cause us far fewer problems, I get that. But a transition from JWism to any other faith still leaves an awful lot of unnecessary baggage.

    Genuine question. Would it be better for our JW relatives to convert to Judaism or Islam rather than embracing a godless reason and rationalism?

  • Late Bloomer
    Late Bloomer

    Opening her mind to the inconsistencies of her religion. I like Vanderhoven's method of backing S&R into a corner with their own JW literature. Could he do that if he weren't Christian? Maybe, but maybe the fact that they all share a common ground (belief in the bible) makes S&R more open to discussion.

    As much as I would love for JWs to leave belief behind completely, that's probably not a realistic path for most. Even some athiests on this forum were believers for a while before settling on logic and reason over faith. I understand your position, but if Vanderhoven can get these JWs to examine their beliefs more critically that's a huge accomplishment in itself.

    Genuine question. Would it be better for our JW relatives to convert to Judaism or Islam rather than embracing a godless reason and rationalism?

    Better for them or us? I'm selfish and I want a JW-free family so I can share my thoughts, opinions and life with them without fear of rejection. I'm less concerned with whatever belief system they choose, than how that belief system instructs them to act towards those outside it. They could embrace reason and still suck as people.

  • Crazyguy
    Crazyguy

    He will never see them again !

  • nicolaou
    nicolaou
    if Vanderhoven can get these JWs to examine their beliefs more critically that's a huge accomplishment in itself.

    Agreed.

    They could embrace reason and still suck as people.

    Absolutely true. I've said what I wanted and am happy to leave it there.

  • smiddy
    smiddy

    I think it`s an exercise in futility , sorry vanderhoven7 ,if you have genuine success with these discussions ,then I take my hat off to you for your patience .

    I would have either hung myself or shot them long ago.

  • FatFreek 2005
    FatFreek 2005

    Vanderhoven7: " I pulled out an old 1995 AWAKE...and immediately he asked when was that written? I said 1995. He waved his arm and said throw it away. We don't believe that (what) anymore. . . . So I pulled out some of their literature which he tried to discourage me from reading by asking for a date and saying that's old teaching...before even hearing a word. You can throw that out...(more throw arm waving)"

    Listener: "This is interesting Vanderhoven. The JWs aren't in the least bothered about earlier teachings but I didn't realise that they are only accepting as far back as what is currently online, which is to the year 2000."

    Denying incriminating statements from older publications sounds to them like a good escape mechanism but as a recent president of the U.S. once said, "That old dog won't hunt".

    They simply can't have it both ways. If they wish to quote their older publications to back up one of their arguments they do it without batting an eye.

    In a recent Watchtower (2015) they referred all the way back to an issue of September 15, 1950 to restate definitions (type and antitype) they had taught at that time. That's some 65 years ago.

    Other Watchtower literature has no problem referring to even older Zion's Watch Tower (ZWT, the predecessor to The Watchtower) magazines when it suits their purpose. A case in point, among many, is from a recent Watchtower magazine: "One of the reasons why Zion’s Watch Tower was first published in July 1879 was to defend the Bible teaching of the ransom. Its pages provided "food at the proper time," for in the late 1800’s, a growing number of professed Christians began to question how Jesus’ death could be a ransom for our sins." The Watchtower 2010, 8/15 p. 12 par. 2.

    That ZWT reference reasonably implies that there is no statute of limitations for "food at the proper time". And it is only one of some 1,507 references to the older (early part of the 20th century) "Zion's Watch Tower" within its modern literature since 1950. It's revealing that WT has no qualms about using the early literature when it reinforces what it wants its readers to believe.

    Len

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    FatFreak

    Other Watchtower literature has no problem referring to even older Zion's Watch Tower (ZWT, the predecessor to The Watchtower) magazines when it suits their purpose. A case in point, among many, is from a recent Watchtower magazine: "One of the reasons why Zion’s Watch Tower was first published in July 1879 was to defend the Bible teaching of the ransom. Its pages provided "food at the proper time," for in the late 1800’s, a growing number of professed Christians began to question how Jesus’ death could be a ransom for our sins." The Watchtower 2010, 8/15 p. 12 par. 2.

    That ZWT reference reasonably implies that there is no statute of limitations for "food at the proper time".

    Excellent point FF. Thanks. I may bring that up tomorrow at our next scheduled meeting if they try to prevent me from referencing older literature. It's amazing how they don't want to hear their pre-2000 publications, before they even know what they say. In other words, don't quote our material unless it agrees with we are teaching today.

  • stuckinarut2
    stuckinarut2

    So a simple question for them is:

    If God has been directing the organisation through the F&DS class since the start of the society, then did God get so many things wrong, or is that proof that God was not directing their message??

    They can't have it both ways!

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    Thanks Stuckinarut. I may use that tomorrow if they try to stop me from reading their literature.

    Was God directing your organization when this article was written? Well then you won't object to me reading it.

    What you have written you have written. Correct what God did not lead your organization to write.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit