Why do EX-JW's try to argue the bible/doctrine with JW's?

thedepressedsoul

I've watched a few Judicial Committee videos on Youtube. They all start out great but eventually the person starts to bring out bible teachings and doctrine. I understand that 99% of their teachings are complete crap, but to me it's a pointless battle.

As a JW growing up I remember being on countless calls where a JW would argue the Trinity with the householder. I have seen this at least a hundred times. Not once did the householder ever walk away no longer believing in the Trinity. The JW left feeling like he was right that the Trinity didn't exist and the householder would walk away still believing and thinking they were right and won the argument.

The point I'm trying to make is, there is a reason that there are thousands upon thousands of different Christian denominations. The bible can be used to justify just about any type of belief/teaching that you want. I mean look at how you can use the bible to try and get some crappy teaching like 1914.

I think the best thing when dealing with a Committee or an active JW is to focus on stuff where the bible doesn't even get brought up. The ARC, child abuse, donations etc... Most of these Judicial Committee's start off going over topics like this and the person that is going through the Committee is owning it. The elders stumble over how to answer the child abuse issues.

The 2nd you bring up doctrine you put the ball in their court. Just like every other religion can use the bible to try and support their beliefs, JW can do the same. There is no winning a bible argument since the bible can be used to support almost any belief. 99% of the time people leave believing what they believed before the debate.

That's just my 2 cents and how I plan on handling situations in the future.

the girl next door

Seeds of doubt can be planted regarding doctrine. It really depends upon how adept you are at arguing points. I agree with you somewhat, it is a laborious process. But picking apart doctrine does affect certain JWs. Many have woken up over 587 vs 607, 1914, false prophecy, trinity, Michael vs Jesus, etc. Again it depends on the audience. Yes issues like domestic violence, child sex abuse, blood transfusions, the two witness rule, shunning all are strong points to focus on. Still doctrine is interlaced and generally JWs can only be affected when you start on a common ground of basing all arguments on the Bible. As soon as one discredits or dismisses the Bible as a whole, JWs shut down in 2 seconds flat.

Simon

It is pointless as you say - does anyone truly believe the elders are going to say "wow, I think you may be right - this is all crap!".

Like many things, it's something we go through for our own benefit. I think it's the realization that they don't have a monopoly on biblical interpretation and they are allowed to be challenged and that is liberating and empowering.

As soon as you open a bible you've lost - it's all hogwash and quoting scripture to prove anything is a pointless and meaningless exercise although it's funny when you tie bible people in knots with their beliefs.

slimboyfat

Pretty futile. JWs teach that there's absolute truth. It's hard to shake off. Many former JWs jump straight from JWism into evangelical Christianity or strident atheism. All three are different sides of the same coin.

blondie

The important thing in my case was to avoid doctrinal issues but how people were treated in the congregation with concrete examples they were familiar with.

As to doctrinal points, jws are not taught to listen but to teach others but not to use the scriptures and if they do, out of context.

I was talking to a long inactive jw who did not realize that the phrase "governing body" is not in the bible at all. We looked over Acts 15 and 16 and they were stunned. It stopped them from think that they the individual was flawed and a sinner and has been checking everything they can on the internet.

In the end, people have to be at the right point to see it, some see it but are afraid and put it out of their mind until years later or when another similar point comes up. It took me 8 years to get but I am out, no "fading" but I am not df'd or have I da'd. Every day I learn more and adapt my thinking to the evidence I see.

notsurewheretogo

Doctrine v doctrine is one thing but when you bring up flaws within their own doctrine without comparing or stating you believe in another doctrine plants a seed as @the girl next door says...and eventually that can lead to a dub asking questions about their own doctrine for if every dub, before they become a dub, reviews and researches the WT doctrine on its own, do you think they would still become dubs?

No.

Whilst you will never get a JW walking away by pointing out the errors in JW doctrines because they believe that the GB are in Jehoovers hands you are planting a doubt about that very point...and once they get to the point that they contemplate that the GB are NOT in Jehoovers hands or the society is NOT Jehoovers channel used on earth then the house of cards comes tumbling down fast but the starting process is very small.

An excellent way I use with my wife is to pull apart other religions doctrines the same way I would the JW's by saying the new light method doesn't work and can't be the truth or mention the child abuse and policies and whilst not referring to JW land the point is the penny might drop that JW doctrines fail like all religions doctrines fail.

Point is though, doctrine bashing will not result in a JW walking away...if done in a mild manner it can lay the groundwork for doubts.

thedepressedsoul

Yes I do agree that Doctrine debates do have their place. If a JW expresses doubts it is the perfect time to use it. However, if you just meet a JW or are going against an Elder, stay away from anything Doctrine related.

Londo111

There is not a one-size-fits-all approach. And if people do not want to research on their own, they are not going to wake up.

I assumed even when I was DFed that even if the Bible was not divinely inspired, JWs had the closest interpretation of it. I was shocked to learn how many things were not really "Bible-based" and fell apart on examination or was just inconsistent. For instance, take "door to door", the Great Crowd/Other Sheep, ect... I thought 587/586 BC was fuzzy historically, some sort of guess by archaeologists, and that 607 BC was the date the Bible pointed too.

It's all part of fact-checking. But unless a person wants to confirm these things on their own, it will all go right past them.

Island Man

You have a point. It is best to avoid doctrine. But I think some doctrinal issues are clear enough to expose the JWs as being wrong. Other issues are open to interpretation and its pointless trying to argue it with them.

As an example, consider the policy of not clapping when it is announced that someone has been reinstated. That was a clearly unscriptural policy given what Jesus said about the rejoicing of the Father of the prodigal son and the rejoicing of angels when a sinner repents.

But even when you can show the elders that Watchtower is flat out wrong about certain clear cut issues, the elders resort to the reasoning that the org. is not perfect and you need to wait on Jehovah and who else has the truth, etc.

So even when you're able to expose a few clear cut doctrinal problems that they can't honestly deny, it's not enough for them to concede that you are justified in leaving Watchtower.

talesin

That's a good point. As far as I'm concerned, it's for two reasons,

1. You desperately want that person to know TTATT. You care about them, and wish to rescue them from themselves.

2. You like to prove that you have the superior knowledge and intellect.

We all want our loved ones to have the best life they can have. Reason #1 is altruistic.

If it's #2, then you best take a look in the mirror. It's unfortunate that those who wish to show their superior knowledge, don't seem to own any mirrors. xx

Why do EX-JW's try to argue the bible/doctrine with JW's?

Share this