THE BIBLE ITSELF the rotten foundation of Watchtower theology (page 2)

Sara Annie

Nice post Terry--I do so love a thought-out, purposefully planned, and well-written logical assertion.

Keep this up and you'll force me to post your name on that 'crush' thread!

the_classicist

Terry, you haven't considered what I've said, unless you feel it's invalid. Can you do what I've asked? Or do you wish to keep to your own idelogical world view?

Terry

Nice post Terry--I do so love a thought-out, purposefully planned, and well-written logical assertion.
Keep this up and you'll force me to post your name on that 'crush' thread!

Ohhhh, yummy. I thought I was too much of an old burnt out ember to even get honorable mention.

T.

Terry

Terry, you haven't considered what I've said, unless you feel it's invalid. Can you do what I've asked? Or do you wish to keep to your own idelogical world view?

Actually, I'm too tired tonight. I'll tackle it in the morning if I can pry my eyes open before I go to work.

I didn't realize I had an ideological world view.

Tell me again, now, what is it?

G'night.

T.

the_classicist

I would also like to ask, are there any disputed parts/readings in the New Testament manuscripts that involve doctrine? (there's only one I can think of off the top of my head, that is when a scribe changed a part from "the boy's father and mother marvelled," to "Joesph and his mother marvelled."). And thanks to modern manuscriptology, we are able to correct these scribal abbherations.

That's it above. Thanks for considering it.

I didn't realize I had an ideological world view.

We are all shaped by our experiences.

As an atheist, I wholeheartedly agree that the bible is riddled with errrors. However, I disagree with your thinking that the best way to refute JWs is to begin by refuting the bible. JWs are some of the most entrenched religious types there are, trying to begin by refuting their whole belief system has little chance of working. I think you have to break down the JW doctrine with them first, then you can try discrediting the entire bible. Baby steps. If you try to throw the touchdown pass on the first play (sorry if you UK folks don't get the reference), you will just waste a down.

Also, as many people have mentioned countless times in other posts, many JW doctrines aren't really bible based anyway. Or when they are, only marginally so, with twisted meanings added or invented by the WTS. I know personally, that if I discuss an issue with my wife, I have to step into a christian's shoes to argue a "legitimate" christian view vs a JW view, were I to give her an atheist argument she would just ignore it or say 'well, you know we disagree on that'. So for me, I am constantly speaking from a hypothetical standpoint.

For instance, the other day we were talking about the WTS stake vs the christian cross issue. Rather than approach it as an atheist, and say who cares, christ was just a man, I pointed out to her that the WTS has its own bible, which PURPOSELY mistranslates things when it suits them. (She still doesn't believe this, she thinks they just made it easier to read by replacing all the thees and thous with modern language. Though she doesn't outright call me a liar, I guess she just figures I am misinformed, or being atheist don't know what I'm talking about.) I told her that the WTS bible is the only religious book that I have ever heard of that calls what christ was crucified on a stake, rather than a cross. I told her to read a King James or revised standard to see, if she didn't believe me. She got a funny look on her face, I think maybe I got through and scored a point with that one. Not sure though, I guess this is what I've heard you guys talking about with cognitive dissidence, for shortly after that she found some reason to end the conversation.

jaffacake

AllAlongTheWatchtower

I think you are right, but only for some people. Others might readily respond best to athiest or scientific arguments. Others can only be penetrated by another form of religion or Christianity.

jaffacake

Terry and Tetra,
I love you guys! Posts like yours help to crystallize my thoughts.

THE POINT IS YOU CANNOT PROVE IT

Why isn't this approach taken? It stops the JW dead in his tracks and he can only mumble, "Well, I have to have faith that Jehovah has preserved his intentions." DEFLECTION! EVASION! The point is that you cannot DEMONSTRATE this point. You can only use the Bible (and your faith) to start a chain of circular reasoning. Just like every other crackpot idea in history it has to be taken on FAITH. So, don't pretend it is based on a FOUNDATION. The foundation has cracks.

You are so right that JWs or other believers of any sort cannot prove what they believe. But what you see as this major flaw is also their greatest strength. They don't really have to prove anything, they just believe it. It is equally impossible for you to prove there is no God, or that the Bible is not inspired in some way. It is not possible to argue against faith, only against doctrine, false predictions etc.

YES you CAN (almost) prove the JW interpretation of the Bible to be wrong or inconsistent, and you can demonstrate that there is no verbally inerrancy of the Bible. That proves JWs & other wrong, but that small victory leaves most christians unscathed. I still think it is far simpler to expose the WTS history, which is based on facts and the modern printed word - you don't have to get into faith arguments. However different strokes......

However, you have no more proof against me & other such christians or theists, than I have against your world view. I have an open mind and no doctrines. Now that is so much harder for you...your only weapons are discussion and persuasion.

I was once 100% convinced about my religious beliefs, then equally convinced they were all nonsense, now I have an open mind. I am now less dogmatic than when I was agnostic and apparently less so than JWs or athiests. I've learned to be very wary of anyone so sure they are right.

Terry

I didn't realize I had an ideological world view.

We are all shaped by our experiences.

There is a difference between having a Philosophy and having an Ideology.

You are shaped by your experiences when you passively accept what is forced upon you and what finds its way into your mind. If you acquiesce to indoctrinations, opinions, rumor, hearsay, common custom without challenging this input; yes, then you have an ideology. It is the result of passivity, laziness or lack of acumen.

However, forming a Philosophy based on an active search of the marketplace of ideas and an exhaustive Q&A of the ramifications of the methodologies the results are quite different.

When I was a JW I had an ideology.

Now I have a Philosophy. A willingness to change one's point of view must be factored in to the epistemology or you become an ideologue.

One is active and one is passive.

T.

Terry

It is puzzling to me that anybody familiar with Jehovah's Witnesses could assert they don't base their theology on the Bible.

They do.

Not only is it not possible to prove Jehovah's Witnesses' theology is not consistent with the Bible; it is POINTLESS to even try.

Why?

Because the same Bible inerrency problem confronts him who would try.

The Bible is not about proof texts or correctness of theology. It is a kind of cumulative junk heap dragged around from place to place and polished to a fine shine every so often.

The Bible has been the agenda of every Tom Dick and Harry and always will be.

You have to show the Bible for what it is and let the chips fall where they may.

Relgious certitude is not faith.

Terry

THE BIBLE ITSELF the rotten foundation of Watchtower theology

Share this