by dunsscot 137 Replies latest jw friends
Duns,
You are well versed in philosophy, which leads me to two questions.
1. What is your view of the Society's stance on a college education. Although officially accepted, it is discouraged at the local level and from the platform at conventions.
2. What are your brother's and sister's view of your knowledge of philosophy? In my day as a Witness, it was the most reviled form of advanced education.
Dunnscot:
It seems to me you are saying that because JW's have good intentions and base ALL their main doctrinal beliefs on a lie then they are worthy of recognition as the true religion. Is that really what you would have us believe?
ONE....
bigboi
"it ain't what ya do. it's how you do it" quote from the song "True Honeybunz" by Bahamadia
Dunsscot,
Your approach is interesting, but strikes me as deficient on several counts.
First, the observation that biblical Christianity cannot be an entirely "open" system is fair enough, but does little to justify the essentially “closed” system of the JW’s where however respectful, however qualified, the exchange of logical arguments is actively discouraged.
Second, since you have stated that you are a JW in good standing then I hardly need to remind you that JW’s believe that life belongs to Jehovah, (Ezekiel 18:4) that when life is lost by design, by accident or by negligence, those responsible are accountable with their lives (Genesis 9:5,6; Ezekiel 3:18,20; 33:6,8) and that causing the death of someone completely innocent has been one of the most detestable things to Jehovah since the time of Abel. (Proverbs 6:16,17; Genesis 4:10; Psalm 5:6; Psalm 55:23 Jeremiah 7:30,31) There seems to be no accounting in your explanation for the fact that the JW system forces Christians at times to choose between obedience to partially formed ideas and obedience to the Divine law itself. For example, if you are at all familiar with the JW blood doctrine then you are aware of at least some of the significant reversals that have occurred after nonconformity with the doctrine became a offense enforced through judicial inquiry and sanctions. (e.g. Use of serums, clotting factors, isovolemic hemodilution, cell salvage equipment.)
Third, your use of the phrase “we must not be hindered by such small details” strikes me as a flat denial of the gravity of these situations. If, for example you were the Witness parent of a child stricken with neonatal immunological deficiency syndrome during the period in the early 60’s when the Society decided that you could not be considered a Christian and allow the administration of IVIG to your child, you would have had a serious problem. Such a child can often have a sniffle in the morning, a raging fever by noon, be hospitalized with double pneumonia by evening and not survive the night without this preparation. Looking back, nearly forty years later when no one thinks twice about serum preparations and albumin can be found either as an excipient or adjuvant solution in the battery of immunizations that most children must have to attend public school, this hardly seems to be a small detail. Enforced “conformity to certain ideas that are not in fact fully formed” induced JW’s to erroneously set aside the plain and simple, crystal clear, black and white statements within the captioned scriptures and children came to harm as a result.
Tom
duns,
after reading your little treatise on the Hegelian Dreischritt etc., I'm beginning to wonder whether there is anything of actual _depth_ behind your words. Either I'm completely stupid and don't grasp your point(s), or you're simply dressing up platitudes with borrowed obscure language.
I'm heavily leaning towards the second option when I'm reading completely unnecessary smart-ass references to Kant like "Each autonomous subject IS an end in itself" followed by non sequiturs like "being one of Jehovah's Witnesses allows me to act thusly toward my fellow man or woman". Oh, my. Shunning apostates is a way of treating your fellow autonomous subjects as the ends that they are themselves? No? Ah, I forgot the teleological suspension of the ethical. Stupid me (slaps forehead)!
If you want to impress people with obscure language, go to your KH. As a matter of fact I believe that obscurity of language is in >90% of all cases not an indication of _deep_ thinking, but of _muddled_ thinking.
f., who has read some of the books you're quoting from, and thinks you're a very bored troll.
Fodeja:
Ever heard the expression: Talkin loud, but aint sayin nothin? I think that fits here.
ONE....
bigboi
"it ain't what ya do. it's how you do it" quote from the song "True Honeybunz" by Bahamadia
Duns the Scot is actually
Scot the Dunce.
QED.
Dear larc,
1) I have a college degree. I based my decision on what the WT said about education in the middle 90s. Not everyone agrees with my decision, however, and some do think that you should not attend college at all. But I had to do what was practical for my family, and what is more, I love the life of the mind. It is what keeps me going in this world.
2) I received a lot of heat for studying philosophy. But no one can rightly tell me that I cannot studying this subject. Admittedly, most Witnesses are antipathetic towards philosophy. But I know a number of brothers and sisters who are not. Certain Witnesses (like myself and the others I mentioned) think that we can use philosophy to defend the truth. Look for books written by Witnesses to come out that take this approach.
Christian love,
Dan
Duns the Scot
Dearest bigboi,
I do not think that JWs base their beliefs on lies. Their unique doctrinal framework is founded on biblical exegesis that is filtered through certain preunderstandings under the guidance of holy spirit.
Secondly, do not berate what you do not understand. Admittedly, a number of continental philosophers have used seemingly obscure or tortured language that is difficult to grasp at first blush. It does not mean that such language lacks depth or substance. Duns Scotus was called the "subtle doctor" because his writing style was opaque (in fact, the formula "dunce cap" has its origins in my man); Heidegger and Hegel are often criticized on the same score. It is Heidegger who talks about a thing showing itself from itself.
When one delves into the abstract depths of each man's thought, however, he or she begins to tap the surface of a brilliance that has hitherto been unrealized. I try to be concise on this forum, while being philosophically precise. This fact does not mean that I'm trying to be glib.
Duns the Scot
Duns,
I have to admit you do know your philosophy. However, scripturally my simplistic mind goes back to one thing: Love is the identifying mark of true Christians correct? And before Paul made the point about when someone thinks he knows something he does not yet know it as he ought to know it, in verse 1 of 1 Cor. 8 he said 'knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. So it seems the real question is, do you see true Christian love in the congregation? I'm not talking about social pleasantries which can exist in other contexts, but is that agape' really there?
"It is not so much that you use your mind wrongly--you usually don't use it at all. It uses you. This is the disease." -Eckhart Tolle, The Power of Now
Secondly, do not berate what you do not understand. Admittedly, a number of continental philosophers have used seemingly obscure or tortured language that is difficult to grasp at first blush. It does not mean that such language lacks depth or substance.
Dunsie, some people have read them books, you know? Some may even have (gasp!) advanced university degrees. Some may even be smart enough without having a framed certificate of it. You should not belittle people who aren't instantly impressed by your rhetoric.
You have completely failed to produce _anything_ of substance in your postings. So far, you have presented a grand smokescreen of name-dropping and philosophical jargon. If that is necessary for you to rationalize the teachings of Dubdom, so be it. But pleeeze, don't try to impress us with your grand worldly wisdom. Thanks so much.
f.
