by gumby 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
sKally!!!
Thanks for the shout. Doesn't surprise me that you have not lost your zeal for revealing the truth about "the truth". A nobel cause indeed.
I believe that Terry's story....is in fact one of those 'truth posts'. He did a fine job of blending the reality with the mojo of jwdom. Understandable language for those in or out of the cult.
Nice of you to think of me. Hope you and your daughter are well.
Danny
terry
your post goes to the archives excellent points excellent points
Terry,
I just finished copying your post for my files too! Thank you for your thoughts.
hugs,
Annie
Oh heck!
I try to be very careful about my word choices so that I say what I mean to say.
My use of the word "merely" seemed to me to be the sort of modifier that would get my point across without misunderstanding. I see I was not careful enough and let the meaning meld into the very opposite as far as your reading of it was concerned.
If I say "Hitler was not merely an anti-semite but a victim of his own ideology" I mean to say that he WAS an anti-semite but, he was another thing ALSO.
Re-read my post and you'll see that I was trying to emphasize JW's are misled; but, more than that--they are not MERELY mislead, but......yadda yadda yadaa.
I hope I have cleared up what I was saying. I apologize for being unclear. It is the worst sin a writer can commit! I'll do penance by singing a Kingdom Song.
Thanks for putting me on my mettle,
Terry
Terry..I must concur..welcome to the forum your a fine addition, keep up the great posts.
Don't let that dirty (s
Terry, as with others, I agree with your first post on this thread; well-put and tightly reasoned.
However, in terms of your own last observation on that post:
But, that's just my personal opinion.
we get back to the heart of the issue: However tightly reasoned, and however scholastically structured a post, or book, may be, is it ever truly objective? And can any of us be assured that, in the attempt to be "clinically unbiased," that we haven't somehow, perhaps unwittingly (or unwillingly), overlooked other pertinent information that would serve as evidence contrary to the conclusion we've drawn from the facts available to us?
For all the millions of exJWs who are disenchanted with the WTS, there are other millions who are enthralled with it. The same could be said of Mormons, and many, if not most, all other religions. And for all the millions who've been killed in war, whose families resent the loss of their loved ones, there are tens of millions of others who are thankful that their own lives, and freedoms, were preserved by that same war. As a consequence, the collation of statements and experiences pro and con would lead to a draw, or perhaps even to a conclusion contrary to our own liking. The politics of religion and the politics of war are not subjects about which any person can be completely dispassionate (read "objective")...
in my opinion.
Gumbly, good thread.
Craig
As a further, perhaps we can consider the following, from S.I. Hayakawa:
"dispassionate, fair, impartial, neutral, objective, unbiased, unpredjudiced"
These words refer to a willingness to listen to all sides of a case without prejudging it. Disinterested does not imply a lack of interest, as it is sometimes mistakenly thought, but a receptive interest that does not take sides in a dispute, at least until the truth can be discovered...To be disinterested, in fact, requires attentiveness to detail and an evenness of temper, though it by no means implies coldness or lack of feeling. Fair is much more informal than disinterested...
Impartial and unbiased are more closely related to disinterested than to fair in emphasizing open-mindedness. Impartial suggests literally taking no one's part; it implies, perhaps, a greater impersonality than disinterested...While very closely related, unbiased suggests one who is inherently free of any predispositions toward conflicting sides or parties. A person who has such predispositions might still, by putting them aside, succeed in being impartial, but being unbiased suggests that he has none to start with...
Dispassionate and unpredjudiced both emphasize the control of emotions rather than of thoughts. Dispassionate suggests someone unswayed by extraneous appeals designed to excite sympathy or indignation...It is even more strikingly different from disinterested, however, in being applicable to...an involved contender who remains low-keyed, even-tempered, and factual in argument...Unpredjudiced, in this emotional context, relates most closely to unbiased, but unpredjudiced seems more fundamental and thoroughgoing, more inclusive in stressing the absence of any irrational, deeply ingrained emotional blind spot. Unpredjudiced, furthermore, might suggest an inward state, while unbiased would suggest the result or proof of this state...
Neutral and objective both suggest an even greater distance than any of the foregoing words. Neutral emphasizes the taking of no sides even to the point of rendering no final judgment whatsoever...Objective suggests an interest only in cold fact as distinct from belief, opinion, or attitude; unlike disinterested, it may also suggest lack of feeling: the objective attitude of scientists would be fatal if extended to the sphere of human responsibilities. Some writers would argue that objective is necessarily a relative rather than an absolute quality: No one can argue that he is wholly objective about anything.
Find the word you like, and define your behavior accordingly: Every one of these words has a subjective dimension instrinsic to its meaning and use.
Which raises an relevant exJW issue: Why would we be so concerned about being "objective" anyway?
It also raises questions about the fundamental disparity between Aristotleian western civilization perspectives and eastern philosophies of life.
Craig
Perhaps if we knew absolute answers to questions, it would make life less interesting........and then again, maybe it wouldn't.
Gumby
Gumby,
Please excuse my late rentry into this thread.
In presenting your dictionary definitions of the meaning of the word 'objectivitity', you did not present the definition of the word 'objective', which I now include :
Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair 1 . Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal
It seems that most participants who have posted on this thread do not feel that it is possible to be objective, that is, to able to step aside from emotions of personal preferences when it comes to matters such as the WTS. I beg to differ. Though this may be difficult, it is possible and it is essential in order to evaluate what is true and what is not in *any* given situation. The machinery of truth and justice cannot be served when it is passed through a sieve of personal bias and entangled emotions, as many XJW's are wont to do where the WTS is concerned. I believe that objectivity is possible, even in dealing with matters painfully intimate to our experience, if we retain critical thinking skills.
When a person is able to look at the WTS and evaluate it in the same light that they would any other group, be it religious, political and social, then the conclusions of that person are far more likely to stand the test of history than one based on an emotive and biased viewpoint. It is a noble territory of mind that one aspires to and as I have noted some XJW's who have suffered badly at the hands of the WTS have been able to consistently reach this state of mind. This is why I have to take exception to many points made in Terry's post above, which while striking an easy emotional and even sentimental note on an XJW forum, is an example of a conclusion that has been reached and that is clearly lacking in objectivity :
JW's aren't merely delusional. They are not merely mislead people who are otherwise honest. They are taught to defend lies and twist their own sense of honesty in the defense of policies and doctrines that destroy people's sense of being a citizen. How many political leaders come from among Baptists, Catholics, Mormons, etc? If JW's want to counter balance bad social policies and yet ignore the very meaning of what FREEDOM is all about by stifling patriotic participation in democracy---aren't they then fighters against democracy? Or, do they only avail themselves of the benefits and ignore the responsibility of freedom?
Jehovahs Witnesses *are* merely misled people who are otherwise honest. We were, among with numerous other high control religions, political and social groups throughout history deceived, and then taught how to peddle deception in favor of becoming ?all things to all people? in the Field Service, as are salesmen throughout the empires. I also know many JW?s who are honest to a tee and would never consider being dishonest, who raise decent human beings and despite being in a high control religion try hard to live good and productive lives.
Objectivity is possible where WTS matters are concerned and demand that we apply the same principles to the WTS as we would to any other religious, political or social group. If we are unable to do this then we are unable to think critically and without personal bias and should question our conclusions about the WTS with this in mind. An example of how many XJW's lose objectivity when discussing WTS matters can be seen in the way they side-step a very important point made by Raymond Franz in 'Crisis of Conscience', when he states that he feels that there are as many Christians within the WTS as any other religion, an opinion that as a non-Christian who has closely examined many other religions I would most certainly agree with.
The argument which is worn shiny with overuse, the ?even Hitler loved animals?, 'smiling Germans killed millions' one, merely reflects the human condition that is, that every man or women given the right circumstances is capable of everything. Knowing this should hone our ability to reach objective, unbiased and unfettered conclusions even more accurately.
Best regards - HS
Terry,
I note, too late for my post, that you have requalified your original statement, but I will let my own stand with my apologies. I am just too plain lazy to adjust it.
Best regards - HS
