Cowdip:
I visited your home page link last night (and read your letter to the WTS) in hopes of being better able to understand the preenings of a sanctimonious buffoon such as yourself; and to my surprise what I found there was a fairly well reasoned piece of apologetics. So, did you score any points with the boys in Brooklyn for challenging their entire belief system in such an ingratiating way? We’re left hanging on the outcome, though I’m sure the fact that their 120 some odd years of accumulated ravings could be so easily dismantled by someone like you was a brief cause for some concern.
Your depiction of the “Treasure Store of Knowledge” as an allegory was a bit off the mark, in my opinion.
You might update it as follows: think of it not a treasure box, but as a refrigerator. One that is stuffed chock full of baloney. As some of the baloney gets old, and starts to spoil and stink (so much so that anyone can notice the smell) it has to be removed and replaced with new baloney. And so on, and so on.
You had said:
If you had a good argument to offer you would offer it.
With that in mind then, let’s widen this argument out, and make it a bit more inclusive, shall we?
I think that most here would at this point agree that the Watchtower’s eschatological theology has failed abysmally. As might be the case with a dead star, it is imploding at an accelerating pace even as we speak. This poses no real problem in and of itself, except when apologists, such as yourself (and by extension, apologists who’ve attempted to resuscitate every failed religious system), refuse to allow it a gracious though deserving death.
Instead, in your determination to prop up the Society as God’s instrument on earth, (as I said previously) you resort to taking something written thousands of years ago and seek to superimpose it over a set of contemporaneous circumstances that appear to you as having some discernable connection. This stems from your belief in bible inerrancy, and the peculiar form of circular reasoning that infects all WT sycophants, ie: that the WTS as an entity, is acting as God’s agent (in some form) and so therefore its inherent failings must be defensible through various exegetic explanations and justifications.
In this you are no different then the chain of individuals who came before you (including Russell, Rutherford, et al), and others whose roots extend to attempted explanations of first century failures. In large part, the song remains the same.
As I’ve said before, ideas such as you, YK, and others present here are not new – they did not originate with you, and they’ve been circulating for years amongst the brothers. Why is this so? Because as a brother I know once said: “there is nothing stronger than the will to believe.” And since you want to believe it so badly, you’ll conjure up any vatic revelations, or specious arguments (scriptural or otherwise), to feed and sustain it. This is tolerable until you begin to claim quasi-inspiration as you have on this thread (in so many words), and as all of your predecessors have done before you.
Why has the Society not adopted these new ideas that you’re so enamored of? Especially since they (the lords of denial) are bereft of any originality themselves, and time and circumstances have proved their doctrines false? Obviously, they are NEVER going to throw out the baby with the bath water by immediately gutting core tenants.What will happen is that they’ll slowly drain the tub a cup at a time, diluting the polluted remains with new infusions of water (or baloney if you prefer). After all, the sort of doctrinal modifications you’ve suggested would destabilize the whole order, particularly the concept that light (in any form) originates with them.
As you can see, rather then continue to trade pointless barbs, I thought I’d sum up our exchange, as I see it, in the above.
Finally:
I’d asked:
Yes, somehow “those who get the ball rolling so as to affect a needed change in the Society’s teachings” are those who have absolutely no influence whatsoever on policy, or the levers of power. How they “get this ball rolling” has yet to be explained. Yes, how DO they get the ball rolling? Do tell.
To which you replied:
You’ll know it when you see it.
Hmmmmm. . . is that the best you can do? Or as a “dog,” am I not entitled to a proper answer? You’re full of it Friday, and you know it. It further brings to mind your own words. . .
Like I said above, you have yet to prove what you say. All you really ever do is make statements like you just did, no proof offered.
You took umbrage at my earlier mention that you seem to be speaking for God, and claiming to understand his thoughts. I found your following statement revealing in that sense:
going contrary to the lords good advice by giving that which is holy to a dog.
The definition of Holy is: “Belonging to, derived from, or associated with a divine power; sacred. Regarded with or worthy of worship or veneration; Regarded as deserving special respect or reverence.”
So, it seems you actually imagine that the ideas you’ve presented here are somehow “holy.” Interesting.
Copernicus
