Freedom of Thought and JW Opposers

by dunsscot 137 Replies latest jw friends

larc

Lone Wolf,
I am glad to see you back with us. I have always enjoyed your very thorough and thoughtful posts.
thinker

Dear Duns,
I was disappointed to see you had not replied yet. Perhaps you are researching the information I presented to you.?
You seem fond of Kant. Have you read "What is Enlightenment?"(1784) ?
Quote:
"Enlightenment is man's leaving his self-caused immaturity. Immaturity is the incapacity to use one's intelligence without the guidance of another. Such immaturity is self-caused if it is not caused by lack of intelligence, but by lack of determination and courage to use one's intelligence without being guided by another. Sapere Aude! [Dare to know!] Have the courage to use your own intelligence! is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
"Through laziness and cowardice a large part of mankind, even after nature has freed them from alien guidance, gladly remain immature. It is because of laziness and cowardice that it is so easy for others to usurp the role of guardians. "
"If I have a book which provides meaning for me, a pastor who has conscience for me,... then I do not need to exert myself. I do not have any need to think; ..."
I believe many here on the forum will recognize the GB being described in the above quotes.
I won't bore you with the WT quotes against "independent thinking".
Hope to hear from you soon.
Thinker
julien

bump
Has anyone considered the possibility that this Dunce cap 'person' is just here to provide JW lurkers someone to cheer for? I mean when Bethel looks into a forum like this and sees the discussions with the heavy-hitting likes of Farkel, AlanF, faraon, maximus (et al , too many to name ), and on the JW side there is You Know and Fred Hall and GodRules. They have got to be worry that Joe Witness logs in and sees how ignorant the JWs look. It's like watching a bunch of kids arguing with grownups about whether Santa exists.
So maybe they form a committee to come on here and post as an educated/enlightened JW, giving the JW lurkers the ability to say to themselves, "well Duncecap is really smart (after all lookee thar at them big words and book larnin he gots) and he believes the 'truth', so I can just disregard the arguments of AlanF and Farkel (as Duns seems to have done).."
what do you think? just a theory
dunsscot

Dear ianao,
I am sure glad that you did not try to prove (apodictically) that I actually typed the email you responded to, in my waking (or sleeping) hours. Descartes aptly writes that I cannot establish with any certainty that I am either awake or asleep. The only thing that one can declare with any certainty is [ego] cogito ergo sum. My point is that while I may not be able to convince you that the Witnesses have the truth by means of logical argumentation or reasoning from the Scriptures, this fact does not mean that my argument is invalid, unsound or uncompelling. I cannot apodictically prove that there are other minds besides my own. This fact does not mean that my conviction or belief in other minds is erroneous. Nor is my assured conviction that 2 + 2 = 4 wrong because I cannot irrefutably "prove" the aforesaid proposition. The same principle applies to Witness teaching.
Lastly, when I typed that Davies once said there are some things that we KNOW are true, but cannot prove them to be such, I was not talking about BELIEFS per se. In _The Mind of God_ (pp. 100-103), Paul Davies uses Godel's incompleteness theorem to show that there will possibly always exist "certain true statements that cannot be proved to be true." The sentence, "Tom cannot prove this statement to be true," is one such example. Of course, Davies goes on to qualify his point about Godel's theorem. See page 103 for that discussion.
I hope this post clears things up in your mind.
Duns the Scot
dunsscot

Dear MacHislopp,
I am not trying to impress anyone on this forum. To the contrary, I am aware of my manifest ignorance. Why, I cannot even spark ideas in one of my fellow rational agents: I am only a midwife who tries to assist other subjects to produce ideas with their own cognitive powers while I stand by helping in any way that I can.
In short, I am simply being myself and staying true to the name I have lifted from the stalwart metaphysical champion of the Middle Ages, namely, Dr. Duns (the subtle doctor).
Duns the Scot
dunsscot

Mr. Farkel,
1) God evidently has a universal organization and an earthly one. When I speak of "God's Organization," I am referring to God's earthly organization composed of the remaining ones of the heavenly woman's seed and those who loyally associate with this remnant.
2) In His holy Word, God Himself tells us that when we bless His worshipers, we are in effect blessing Him. Conversely, cursing God's servants is akin to "cursing" Him. So leaving God's organization is comparable to apostatizing from Him. The NT never promotes the notion of "Lone Ranger" Christians.
3) An Olympian perspective is an outlook that is comparable to the mythical gods who inhabited Mt. Olympus. It is a perspective that is not historically conditioned or filtered through any finite preunderstandings. One who articulates his or her Weltanschauung from an Olympian perspective is putatively able to transcend the existential fray of existence and speak as if his or her words are infallible in nature, ex cathedra.
4) You also asked me to prove that "so-called 'vile utterances'" even "bother a God "so far removed from us all that is pathetic." Well, what kind of "proof" would satisfy your mind. What type of argument would seem "cogent" to you? In many (if not all) cases, "proof" is person-relative.
Duns the Scot
ianao

dunscot:
I am sure glad that you did not try to prove (apodictically) that I actually typed the email you responded to, in my waking (or sleeping) hours.
Me too. I don't usually try to prove the unproven to the unprovable.
Descartes aptly writes that I cannot establish with any certainty that I am either awake or asleep.
No, technically you cannot prove that you are anything but the sum of total perceptions.
The only thing that one can declare with any certainty is [ego] cogito ergo sum.
Actually you can declare anything you want to. Certainty is measured by the amount of "sureness" one feels for said subject.
My point is that while I may not be able to convince you that the Witnesses have the truth by means of logical argumentation or reasoning from the Scriptures, this fact does not mean that my argument is invalid, unsound or uncompelling.
That's correct. You could have the dumbest idea in the world, and if your motives are to press your dumb idea (having not thought it through), then there will be at least one who buys it. One wonders whether your true motives are to "gain converts" over to something you feel yourself capable of arguing, or if you really believe all the bullshit you likely spout daily and are actually trying to help somebody.
I cannot apodictically prove that there are other minds besides my own.
Nor can you prove that YOU have a mind at all. (sorry, I couldn't resist).
This fact does not mean that my conviction or belief in other minds is erroneous.
One man's error is another's success. It's all a matter of perceptions and perspectives.
Nor is my assured conviction that 2 + 2 = 4 wrong because I cannot irrefutably "prove" the aforesaid proposition.
If you believe it, then you are right, according to you. That doesn't mean you are right, according to others.
The same principle applies to Witness teaching.
The same principle applies to anything you chose to believe since biblical doctrine is based upon mental interpretation (sorry don't have big pooty words for you) however, another's perception and interpretation may determine for that particular one that you are indeed making full use of faulty logic by their own standards. This makes your whole pursuit of witness teachings fruitless, as you will never attain absolute truth, as another will always disagree with your perceived reality, making your convictions mere opinion rather than utter truth.
Dunscot, please do me a favor.
While I enjoy a good joke every once in awhile, it does get old after some time. PLEASE get to the frigging point in your next point to me, otherwise, don't post at all. Thank you.
BTW: You make for an interesting JW apologist. I must admit that once people start conferring with you they have to wede through all of the utter bullshit to get to what you are actually saying. It's a pretty interesting tactic actually. Bore the listeners to death so they don't hear any real arguments, hoping that other JWs will hear/see your argumentation and assume that you are correct since nobody can shut your ass up.
Pretty cool. (I guess).
-ianao
(Watching the trolls eat class)
dunsscot

Dear TD,
1) I think that clear biblical teachings should be "enforced," as you say. But we must also allow room for the "fact" that certain forms of conduct that are evidently undesirable from God's standpoint, are not explicitly disallowed in Scripture. For example, I do not believe that Christians should smoke cigarettes. There seem to be a number of Bible principles that indicate true Christians should refrain from this practice. I am also of the mindset that the Christian ecclesia should discipline toward who smoke. Hopefully, this information will clear up any confusion.
On matters involving life and death, I can only say that God does not allow any evil occurrence that cannot be rectified in God's own due time. We have the hope of the resurrection. Furthermore, those leading God's flock will render an account to Him (Hebrew 13:17).
One more note on doctrine in the process of development. While I think it is a mistake to enforce a provisional UNDERSTANDING of Scripture, there are times when we must act in accordance with the Zeitgeist that obtains. God will show mercy where mercy is proper; but He will show severity (I believe) where the evidence indicates that an overseer has acted abusively.
2) My thoughts on blood transfusion are as follows. There is no explicit command to abstain from blood transfusions, but there seems to be a Bible principle that suggests one should not ingest blood in any way. Should taking blood thus be a matter of conscience? I personally think it should. And by this statement, I do not mean that we should consider those who take blood transfusions to be our former brothers, who have shown they did not want the truth. A matter of conscience should be a matter of conscience.
On the other hand, there are those who, after weighing the scriptural and medical evidence (either in a perfunctory in-depth manner), decide to abstain from blood transfusions. They also make this decision for their offspring and thus allow situations tat MAY involve the death of their very dear beloved children. They act in this way--suspending what to many might seem ethical--for a higher telos. They believe that they hear the voice of God (bath qol) in Scripture and through God's congregation, and they act accordingly. I cannot fault such individuals who take this course. In a way, they are akin to father Abraham.
Besto,
Dan
Duns the Scot
CPiolo

Dunsscot:
You demonstrate once more that you are selective in your responses.
My point is that while I may not be able to convince you that the Witnesses have the truth by means of logical argumentation or reasoning from the Scriptures, this fact does not mean that my argument is invalid, unsound or uncompelling.
In other words, just your opinion. As someone recently said: "Opinions and assholes." (clue: everyone's got one.)
The problem with this is that the WT and its members require that one follow these opinions as if they were from God himself with utterly horrible consequences in many cases where one goes contrary to the society and its teachings (opinions) -- shunning, and death in the case of blood transfusions.
So while your esoteric philosophy says:
I cannot apodictically prove that there are other minds besides my own.
or as Lao Tzu said upon waking from a dream that he was a butterfly: "Am I a man dreaming I'm a butterfly, or am I a butterfly dreaming I'm a man."
While we wait to find the answers to these questions, we have people in this reality, whatever that may be, suffering and dying due to the opinions of others.
CPiolo
Still waiting for dunsscot to answer the difficult and pertinent questions put forth by AlanF and Farkel. I'd also like to see a response to LoneWolf's insightful post as well.
The worst vice of the fanatic is his sincerity. -- Oscar Wilde
julien

On matters involving life and death, I can only say that God does not allow any evil occurrence that cannot be rectified in God's own due time.

Does this mean that I can beat the shit out of my wife as long as I also take her to the hospital?
1) I think that clear biblical teachings should be "enforced," as you say. But we must also allow room for the "fact" that certain forms of conduct that are evidently undesirable from God's standpoint, are not explicitly disallowed in Scripture.
How do you determine what these forms of conduct are? This sort of reasoning basically gives the "ecclesia" carte blanche ability to enforce any rule they decide to make up. Perfect for high control groups like the Watchtower..
For example, I do not believe that Christians should smoke cigarettes. There seem to be a number of Bible principles that indicate true Christians should refrain from this practice. I am also of the mindset that the Christian ecclesia should discipline toward who smoke.
Didn't someone say "all things are lawful but not all things are beneficial?".. so why talk about enforcing and dicscipline ?

Freedom of Thought and JW Opposers

Share this