In case you missed it, I had a JW and her mother call on me last week of July. (see Anti-Witnessesing: Passive Agressive Style Effective for Quotes)
Well, this afternoon Dana came back, this time not with her mother (Maria) by with another woman named Joyce-Lynne.
After all the questions I asked her last time (but careful to not ask the "programmed" questions common in the "Reasoning" book) she started with exactly ONE answer.... sort of.
She explained how (by referring to the "What does god require of us" brochure she left last time) God's Kingdom would be ruled by Christ, from heaven.
DDDDUUUUHHHHH.... well, no kidding, Sherlock. That was what you said last time. My question a simiple, practical one, and was: how exactly would this king *COMMUNICATE* with us, his loyal subjects: telephone? email? writing on the wall? burning bush? giant booming voice from the sky????? And if its just some human that *CLAIMS* to be speaking for, and communicating with God/Jesus, how will we really know? Isn't there a possibility for confusion?
Well, after explaining to Dana that she really hadn't answered my question (I would have been happy with the basic cop-out of "I/We don't know") she started to read the bible scripture with the Lord's Prayer ("you see, it says kingdom on ..... EARTH, as it is in ....HEAVEN) I realized that she really was being a good politician: "Answer the question you WISHED they had asked you."
So I decided to use her bible verse to change the subject myself -- before she could, I guess!
I told her before I asked her a question, I wanted to verify something. Over the next 2-3 minutes, I got her to agree that she believed that the Catholic Church had apostasized by the end of the first century, and were "pagan" (her word!!) by the third century.
"So...." I asked "why do you use that book, called the bible, as your Holy Book? The selection of what would be included in the New Testament, and what would not make the grade and be left out, was performed by a committee of Catholic Bishops and Scholars in the Thrid Century. If the contents of the New Testament truly are an inspired message from god, you would have to believe that either (a) god was acting through those 'pagan' Catholic scholars, to ensure that his message got preserverd, or (b) they just got lucky (whew!!!)" (I didn't give her the obvious (C) option: that the process of biblical book selection reveals a rather human source).
Well, it took about 45 minutes for Dana and Joyce-Lynne to really understand the question. At first they simply didn't know what I was talking about, to which I said "I'm disappointed. I thought you were Bible Students, I thought you would know about the history of your own Holy Book." They kept going off about "the catholic church didn't write the bible in the third century" -- which of course isn't what I said at all. I had to start with the basics: that there were many, MANY, *MANY* gospels floating around by the third century, and it was entirely because of that abundance of riches that the Church had to boil it down and separate the wheat from the chaff -- and that was the crux of my question: a Pagan, Apostasized Church committee selected the New Testament, how can you reconcile that with it being truly holy?
It really became an amazing example of watching someone speak out of both sides of their mouth: Joyce-Lynne mentioned the Apocraphal texts -- which I jumped on: "See, thats an example of what I'm talking about. The Apocraphal texts are books and letters that kind of, almost, sort of, made the final cut but not quite. But there were many, many MANY more that didn't even get "apocraphal" status.
Finally (!!!) they started to understand my question, and Joyce-Lynne said, essentially, that although there were other letters, that the items we now have as the New Testament were always kept separate and special and were always, right from the day they were written, known to be special and kept separate and revered. I said, with a sincere but sad smile, "I don't want to be rude Joyce, but you are totally wrong. That is simply not correct, but we'll have to agree to disagree on that. However, I guess you then feel that the 3rd Century Catholic Selection Committee simply had to "rubber stamp" their approval of the divine texts, since they were already seperated out?" THey replied "But we know the bible is true and inspired" and Dana read the "All scriptures inspired..." scripture.
"Dana" I said, smiling but unsuccessfully hiding my growing agitation at such zombie-like circular reasoning, "I'm asking you a basic, fundamental question about the 3rd Century compliation of the New Testament, and your response to me is 'we can trust the bible is inspired because the bible says it is inspired'. That is circular reasoning, a logical fallacy. I have had similar conversations with a Muslim, 'trust the Koran, it is inspired, the Koran says so.'"
Near the end, Dana reads Revelation "...bring to ruin those ruining the earth" and she says the fact that someone writing 2000 years ago, before modern day pollution, could know about pollution on a global scale, proves that the bible is inspired.
Woah! That was a new one on me. But I came back with: "I thought the begining of Revelation says it is signs and symbols? And here you are saying it refers to a literal runination of the globe? Maybe it is symbolic of something, since that is what Revelation says it is: filled with signs and symbols!"
"But [Quotes], what else could it possibly mean? Surely it could *NOT* be symbolic!"
"Joyce, I'm not going to pretend that *I* know what it symbolizes, all I'm saying is that Revelation says, in Revelation, that it is signs and symbols."
Dana says then that there are signs and symbols, but also some non-symbolic stuff too (like this verse, I guess...and the literall 144,000 too, I guess!) but before I respond, Joyce asks me again what else it could possibly mean.
"Well..., a writer in a largely agrarian society, in the first century, likely "earth" refers to the fields, the soil, the farm. Plundering armies back then would raze farms to the ground -- ruin them -- and that was likely a bad thing to a society so heavily dependent on agriculture, and surely they felt that god would "ruin" someone that ruined the earth -- soil -- fields in this manner."
So, Joyce promised that next time she would show me the greek word used was indeed refering to the Planet Earth, not simply the ground or soil. Once again, they, aparently arbitrarily, decided when I had had enough of their "delightful, correct words of truth". But Dana did give me a copy of "The Bible: God's Word or Man's" so I guess she gets a placement out of it. ;)
I guess I've got about 6-8 weeks to do my homework before thier next visit.
~Quotes, of the "really didn't have the time or the patience for them today" class
Had my Return Visit (tm) today
by Quotes 12 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Quotes
-
candidlynuts
quotes! you probably sent those poor women home with a headache and PMS!
they'll pass you off to a male pioneer or an elder next time lol
-
carla
It took a whole 2-3 minutes for them to agree that the Catholic church was apostate?! Wow! usually only takes my jw a whole 1-2 seconds! They couldn't understand what you are saying? I know that far to well. Daughter just experienced first hand for the first time! She is quite bright and recently had a conversation with the said jw. She tells me the next day, " I've never had a conversation like that in my whole life!" He didn't get one thing I said? She did however 'stump' him a number of times!!! Good for her! But, sadly, the next day apparently everything was forgotten by him. It all just went right over his head and asked her some REALLY stupid things the next day. You may say there are no stupid questions. I normally would agree. However, you will have to trust me, on a personal level, beyond stupid. Now we can both share that same wall to bang our heads against! sadly, carla
-
Quotes
CN, I accept no responsibility for the side effects of making someone think! ;)
carla, it only took 2-3 minutes, because at that point I was going slowly, and drawing them out step by step. I could have just asked them "approx when did the catholic church apostasize" but I didn't want to ask a "loaded" question they way they always do. I wanted the conclusion and statement of their beliefs to come from themselves. :)
Funny statement made by your daughter; at one point today, in pure frustration, I said "Dana, I understand what you are saying, but you totally are not addressing my question. It's like we're both talking to each other yet not having a discussion"
They really did a good job of, as I said above, "asnwering the question you wish you were asked" -- after all that is what they practice for! Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't recall a "Reasoning" book entry that says "What if someone asks how godless, pagan, apostate catholics selected the books for our new testament?
Note to people of faith: please accept that I do not mean to offend with my question. I think it is a valid question, and can lead to some very interesting discussions about faith, the bible; unfortunately, my "conversation starter" never got started.
~Quotes of the "My wife is Cathoic, but she is not a pagan" class -
Quotes
sphere asked: "How, how, how could I have been such a brain dead JW?"
My personal answer to that question: "I was raised in it, and didn't know any better". It makes me feel better, even though I hadn't figured it out by the time I was 17 and got baptized. It wasn't until my late 20s that I finally wised up. "Why, why, did it take me so long????"
Hey, does anyone know if there is a good deconstruction of the book "The Bible: God's word or Man's" book on the web? Might save me a lot of time. -
Poztate
Good work Quotes,I am suprised that any JW's call on you at all. I thought with the "slight problem" between you and the legal dept at HQ that you would have been RED CIRCLED as a DO NOT CALL. I guess they were not aware of http://quotes.watchtower.ca oops....just read your link
-
kwintestal
It's a good thing they didn't call on your place today, then you REALLY wouldn't have had the time or patience for them!
Kwin
-
damselfly
I'm glad poor Maria got to stay home this time.
Dams
-
lawrence
Howdy-I remember us sitting at the kitchen table and talking about the upcoming RV. It all transpired, except for sending an elder - the entire BOE must be too busy with plans for Gulf States Assistance; NOT!
I think the idea about setting up a legal fund is rather cool.
Wishing you both a great weekend.
-
Leolaia
"So...." I asked "why do you use that book, called the bible, as your Holy Book? The selection of what would be included in the New Testament, and what would not make the grade and be left out, was performed by a committee of Catholic Bishops and Scholars in the Thrid Century. If the contents of the New Testament truly are an inspired message from god, you would have to believe that either (a) god was acting through those 'pagan' Catholic scholars, to ensure that his message got preserverd, or (b) they just got lucky (whew!!!)" (I didn't give her the obvious (C) option: that the process of biblical book selection reveals a rather human source).
A clear example is the book of 1 Enoch, which is quoted verbatim in Jude as a genuine "prophecy" of Enoch (cf. 1 Enoch 1:9). "Prophecy" implies "inspiration" (see 2 Peter 1:21). We know that this passage was quoted from 1 Enoch because (1) this passage is attested in copies of 1 Enoch in Dead Sea Scrolls dating to the early first century AD...BEFORE the letter of Jude was written, (2) the rest of Jude shows numerous allusions to OTHER parts of 1 Enoch, and (3) 1 Enoch 1:9 is allusive of the OT like the rest of ch. 1 of 1 Enoch. It is also worth pointing out that in the second century, several other Christian writers quoted 1 Enoch as inspired "scripture" (including Tertullian). So what does it mean if the "inspired" Bible refers to a book outside the Bible as inspired "prophecy"? Does it mean that one isolated verse in the book is inspired merely because it was quoted by someone else, while the rest of the book is not?
Near the end, Dana reads Revelation "...bring to ruin those ruining the earth" and she says the fact that someone writing 2000 years ago, before modern day pollution, could know about pollution on a global scale, proves that the bible is inspired. .... But [Quotes], what else could it possibly mean? Surely it could *NOT* be symbolic!"
This is simple. The Greek word in this verse (Revelation 11:18) is diaphtheiró "corrupt, defile, destroy utterly", which is the intensive of phtheiró "corrupt, defile, destroy", and those condemned are those "destroying/corrupting the earth" (diaphtheirontas tén gén). In 19:2, Babylon the Great is described as "corrupting the earth", not though toxic pollution (LOL!) but through her "fornication": "He judges fairly, he punishes justly, and he has condemned the famous prostitute who has corrupted the earth (ephtheiren tén gén) with her fornication; he has avenged his servants that she killed". We similarly read in 14:8 that she "made all the nations drink the maddening wine of her fornication" and 17:2 states that "all the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine of her fornication". The sense of "fornication" defiling the earth is borrowed from Leviticus 18. This chapter lists prohibations against almost every kind of sexual immorality and ends with this statement:
"Do not defile yourselves by any of these practices, for it was by such things that the nations that I have expelled to make way for you made themselves unclean. The land (gé "earth" in the LXX) became defiled; I exacted the penalty for its fault and the land had to vomit out its inhabitants....For all these hateful things were done by the people who inhabited the land before you and the land became defiled" (Leviticus 18:24-28).
Thus, it is pretty silly to say that Revelation 11:18 is a prophecy of modern ecological pollution!