drew sagan

Joined

• started 216 topics
• posted 4,120 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by drew sagan

• 
  66

  Why the Watchtowers "War" argument is totally bogus

  by drew sagan in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  from my own personal experience the watchtowers position on war always appeared to be one of the most difficult issues to navigate.

  a number of times when i was first leaving the wts i spoke with jws who all used this argument to show me how "wrong" i was about the "truth".

  while i knew the watchtowers arguments where wrong, i had a very difficult time figuring out exactly why it was wrong.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  drew sagan

  It's an argument they all use MissingLink
  
  I feel this line is usually a "trick" played by the JW. Even if you are able to produce for them a religion that has a similar position, they will then begin to tear that particular religion apart to prove that it isn't "the truth".
  
  That's why I think it is important to realize that they are simply making a bad comparison.
• 
  66

  Why the Watchtowers "War" argument is totally bogus

  by drew sagan in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  from my own personal experience the watchtowers position on war always appeared to be one of the most difficult issues to navigate.

  a number of times when i was first leaving the wts i spoke with jws who all used this argument to show me how "wrong" i was about the "truth".

  while i knew the watchtowers arguments where wrong, i had a very difficult time figuring out exactly why it was wrong.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  drew sagan

  You may be right but there is no way of determining this based on a hypothetical situation. You are treating a hypothetical claim as a statement of fact. There is no emperical evidence for claims about non-existant events.

  Nice to see you totally missed the point.
  
  The Watchtowers arguments are not wrong in some untested hypothetical claim, they are wrong because it is an unfair comparison! The only way to make the argument fair is to put the hypothetical in there!
  
  I use the illustration of a football game. While the game is going on a star player drops the football during a crucial play, loosing the game for the team. A guy in the stands then makes the comment that he is "better at football than the star player on the field because he has never dropped a football". Problem is, the guy in the stands has never even played football, let alone professional football! He has no idea what it is like to be on the field. The guy in the stands it making a totally unfair comparison. Nobody can say they are "better" than other people in regards to certain situations when they personally have not ever had to deal with it. It's also important to point out the guy in the stands never says he is better because he "wouldn't have dropped the football". This is not what he is saying. He is only saying he is better because he has not ever dropped a football.
  
  The illustration sounds absurd. How can a guy who has possibly never even touched a football able to say he is better than a star player on the field? While you never can actually "prove" they guy in the stands is better, that is irrelevant. The guys claim doesn't become true just because you can't prove it!
  
  This is what the Watchtower does. They have never had to deal with the issue of self governance. Just about all of the people they criticize have. In order for the argument to be fair the Watchtower would either have to take this into consideration in their arguments, or create hypotheticials that describe what they would have done in that position.
  
  But they never do. Instead of accepting all of the dynamics that make up this issue, they keep their reasoning very simple. They make it seem like this is a black and white issue. They unfairly say that they are moraly superior because they don't fight war. It's easy to say that when you are a minority hiding behind the majority to protect you.
• 
  66

  Why the Watchtowers "War" argument is totally bogus

  by drew sagan in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  from my own personal experience the watchtowers position on war always appeared to be one of the most difficult issues to navigate.

  a number of times when i was first leaving the wts i spoke with jws who all used this argument to show me how "wrong" i was about the "truth".

  while i knew the watchtowers arguments where wrong, i had a very difficult time figuring out exactly why it was wrong.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  drew sagan

  bttt
• 
  66

  Why the Watchtowers "War" argument is totally bogus

  by drew sagan in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  from my own personal experience the watchtowers position on war always appeared to be one of the most difficult issues to navigate.

  a number of times when i was first leaving the wts i spoke with jws who all used this argument to show me how "wrong" i was about the "truth".

  while i knew the watchtowers arguments where wrong, i had a very difficult time figuring out exactly why it was wrong.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  drew sagan

  Just wanted to add that I'm sorry this thread is so long! I have problems making things short. :)
• 
  66

  Why the Watchtowers "War" argument is totally bogus

  by drew sagan in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  from my own personal experience the watchtowers position on war always appeared to be one of the most difficult issues to navigate.

  a number of times when i was first leaving the wts i spoke with jws who all used this argument to show me how "wrong" i was about the "truth".

  while i knew the watchtowers arguments where wrong, i had a very difficult time figuring out exactly why it was wrong.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  drew sagan

  From my own personal experience the Watchtowers position on war always appeared to be one of the most difficult issues to navigate. A number of times when I was first leaving the WTS I spoke with JWs who all used this argument to show me how "wrong" I was about the "truth". While I knew the Watchtowers arguments where wrong, I had a very difficult time figuring out exactly why it was wrong. I did not have a rebuttal to their arguments and did not fair well in my discussions. While I doubt that having better understanding of why they are wrong on this issue would have changed the outcome of the conversations I had in the past, I still think it is advantageous to know why their reasonings on this are totally bogus.
  
  There are usually two ways that most will try and argue with a Jehovah's Witness on this point (at least from what I have noticed). Usually arguments against them center on either interpretation of Bible texts, or talking about other religions who do not support war. In my personal opinion both of these arguments can be rather weak and more importantly are not complete. So let us forget about whether or not their interpretation is correct. As you will see that is not very important to the point that needs to be made. Let us also forget about other religions that do not "go to war". If you ever tell the JWs they aren't the only ones that do this they will simply turn it around on you and say that those churches are still in "error" because of other things they are doing. Because the Watchtower is always playing a game of process by elimination such arguments mean very little. Without focusing on these two common arguments, how exactly is the Watchtower wrong on this issue.
  
  An error of faulty comparisons
  
  Any two things can be compared with each other, but that does not mean that such a comparison leads us to a realistic conclusion. One of the biggest problems the Watchtower faces with it's position that Christians should not participate in war is based upon what is essentially a faulty comparison. Let us follow a basic outline of Watchtowers line of reasoning:
  
  1. The Bible says Christians should not participate in war.
  2. Most Christian religions (christendom) and their members have participated or supported many wars.
  3. Jehovah's Witnesses do not participate or support any wars.
  4. Jehovah's Witnesses are better than Christendom religions because they follow the bible in this regard.
  
  In looking at the above line of reasoning you see that much of the Watchtowers argument rests upon comparing their own practices verses the practices of Christendom. They reason that are morally superior to Christendom (and people in general) because they do not do what Christendom does.
  
  I believe this to be a totally bogus argument based upon faulty comparisons.
  
  The key phrase that totally destroys the Watchtowers argument is: "geographical majority". JWs are not nor will ever be the majority in any society!. They depend upon never being the majority in a geographical area. If the Jehovah's Witnesses ever became a majority in a particular country or geographical area their arguments would be proven totally wrong. Let us see how.
  
  Let us say that for whatever reason the Jehovah's Witnesses made huge converts in one specific country (absurd discussions about uptopian socities are pointless because no real society has ever been the majority on the enitre planet!). Key questions to ask are: How would that country function? Would there be a government? Would there be a rule of law? Would there be currency? Who would develop the infrastructure of the country? Would there be an Army do defend and protect the citizens from outside threats?
  
  None of the above questions are assesed in the Watchtowers reasonings. They don't have to! Because they are a minority (and are betting they always will be) they can simply avoid the issue of self governance altogeather. If the Jehovah's Witnesses ever became the majority in a geographical region they would be faced with more problems then they ever could possibly handle. How can the Watchtower say that they are better when they have never actually faced the same sorts of situations those they criticize have? Unless the Watchtower ever would become a majority that deals with issues of self governance any comparison they make in this area falls short.
  
  BUT WAIT! A Jehovah's Witness may cry out. The road to life is narrow. Jesus knew his followers would never have to govern themselves.
  
  Rubbish!
  
  A group can still be a minority while at the same time be a majority in a geographical region. Was Jesus Christ really talking about his followers being the minority not only in the world, but also in all geographical regions?. The only reason we see something different today as opposed to centuries ago is because of modern technology that allows religious minorities to sprout up all over the world very rapidly. In the old days it was all about geographical distribution. Religions developed slowly around the regions where they started. Eventually highly concentrated areas of "believers" became the majority in a geographical area. Only modern technology (newspapers, books, magazines, phone, internet, ect.) makes it possible for minorities to sprout up globally.
  
  Thus the Watchtowers argument for not going to war is based on a very bad comparison. They have never faced the same challenges. How can they say that they are so much better when they don't even have policies in place that say what they would do in such a situation (of course they are betting on the fact that it will enver actually happen).
  
  No Jehovah's Witness goes to War
  
  The above statement is one that JWs will use from time to time. I personally believe it to be a complete misrepresentation of the facts. Is there really any such thing as a Jehovah's Witness that can go to war???
  
  Watchtower policy states that once a JW joins the military the religion the person has decided to "disassociate" themselves. In effect, they are saying that by joining the military a JW is making the choice to leave the church.
  
  I know personally two or three people that where Jehovah's Witnesses that joined military. They made the decision to join the military while they where JWs. I would even say that there is a good chance that they still believe the things the Watchtower teaches and even still consider themselves JWs. In talking with other JWs and ex-JWs I have yet to find somebody that doesn't know of a person who doesn't know of at least one person who was JW that joined the military.
  
  The Watchtower has a slick way kicking out members who join the military. By saying that it is the members "choice" to leave they then can give themselves the ability to say that "no Jehovah's witness goes to war". In reality though, it is an illusion. There are JWs who have chosen to go for war, but they have been punished by their religion for it.
  
  A much more accurate statement would be that "Jehovah's Witnesses cannot keep their membership in the Church if they go to war". Of course this does not sound nearly as nice as making it seem that every single Jehovah's Witness on the planet has come to the same moral conclusion.
  
  -----
  
  So there you have it. As a recap here are two reasons why the JWs "no war" argument is bogus:
  
  1. They are a minority that has never been faced with the issue self governance that other religions and socities have had to deal with.
  2. There actually are Jehovah's Witnesses that choose to join the military ("go to war") but they are removed from membership and unfairly discounted.
  
  To be clear, I hate war. This argumentation is by no means a slam on the anti-war message. The major problem with the Watchtowers argument in my opinion isn't that they see war as something bad, but that they look at it way to simplistically. Their arguments are generic and show a very low level of reasoning.
• 
  19

  Got the new WT Video last night....so we edited it :) ENJOY

  by iblowmynoseatyou in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the new video "pursue goals that honor god" was given to me last night at the hall.

  it encourages young people to pursue spiritual goals, and not waste their time on foolish endeavors such as riches or education.

  well, at least it used to have that message, until we had our way with it :) .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  drew sagan

  Funny. The originial video looks like it would be pretty terrible.
• 
  20

  Hillary Takes New Hampshire...........

  by AK - Jeff in

  1. social
  2. current

  if she gains enough momentum, would you consider voting that way?

  i want to see the national health care ideas debated and brought to forefront in the us.

  so if obama loses steam i actually [gulp] might.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  drew sagan

  Obama - McCain '08

  ?
  
  It does seem like the Democratic establishment may eventually start pulling for clinton. With around 700+ superdelegates it seems like a good possiblity. Unless Obama really starts to make some huge advancements Hillary the nominee.
  
  While a Clinton nomination may be the most likely, she still has the problem that she is not what a majority of her party wants. Obama is behind mainly because of the many voters turning to candidates that are most likely not going to win (Edwards, Richardson). So while a majority are not voting for Clinton, they arn't unified in their decision and thus may hand of the nomination to Clinton.
  
  So not only will she have the problem that people in her own party are not excited about her, but Republicians really dislike her. She is the weakest choice for the democrats. More than any of the other democrats out there she has the biggest chance of loosing what could possibly be a democratic landslide.
• 
  32

  March 15th 2008 Watchtower Study Edition pdf here

  by fokyc in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  here is the link to the latest study edition of the watchtower:.

  http://www.sendspace.com/file/hwp3du.

  it is ocr'd and ready for searching,.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  drew sagan

  thanks!
• 
  13

  Something new on LULU.com

  by Nathan Natas in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  please note that at this time it is possible to post a review without buying a copy of the book.

  how long will it be before this is turned off?.

  note, for example that the "happy child" is outside the kingdom hall.... go here: http://www.lulu.com/content/1752441.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  drew sagan

  Whoever made that is a total flake.
  
  I actually think it's shows how totally warped the JWs view children. A little young child talking about how she used to have trouble sitting still in the meetings. I'm sure it goes into how she appreciates it more now.
  
  How about a kid not wanting to sit still for two hours because it's just plain friggin boring!!! "They don't appreciate it", what morons.
  
  Great parenting advice. How about sitting you child down three times a week and read him the Wall Street Journal until he begins to appreciate it.
• 
  18

  The "bodily reserrection of Christ" doctrine again falls apart under Bible.

  by booker-t in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i had once posted on this board that i have been talking to a born-again christian co-worker of mine on the subject of the bodily reserrection of christ doctrine.

  i just cannot believe how satan has totally blinded the minds of people with regards to this doctrine.

  i have tried just about everything and showed my co-worker every verse that totally destroys the bodily reserrection of christ doctrine (sometimes called the bodily reserrection doctrine) i know the problem is that born-again christians have to hold onto this doctrine because of another false doctrine they teach the "trinity" to explain away scriptures that clearly show jesus is not and has never been equal to jehovah.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  drew sagan

  booker-t
  
  Learn to use paragraphs!
  
  If you want people to take you seriously stop throwing out nonsense such as "satan has blinded people' when discussing those who disagree with you. Just state your points, in an organized manner and then we can talk about what you are interested in.
  
  You ramble on so badly that you are hard to follow and confusing. Slow down and post your thoughts in a better way, then you will begin to get good discussion.