Re: Frenchy’s dissertation
Not that it matters, but I happen to agree with a goodly part of it. Nevertheless, there are some difficulties that are apparent. As follows:
Debating is merely the arguing of one's position, it's totally one way.
That statement assumes that the debate has no purpose. The purpose of debate is to analyze for sake of choice, an informed choice. Just because someone argues a position does not mean they are not listening to counter-argument. Indeed, honest debaters are more interested in improving their understanding of things via debate than they are in prevailing. I.e., they are more interested in accuracy then winning.
He means, by that expression, you and I, doesn't he? Do you and I, as individuals, have to belong to the Jehovah's Witness faith to gain salvation?…Any and all references to anything other than that is obfuscation of the real question. What the Society teaches about people who have either died before being reached or are incapable of understanding is not germane to the question. They are completely irrelevant to the topic and therefore serve no purpose for the clarification of the issue but rather are a tool of the debater to take the heat off of the real question.
I agree with the above entirely, yet the following citation—which has been totally dismissed by Frenchy—does offer more than the above. Let’s see how Frenchy blows off the germane comments therein. The citation:
Do they believe that they are the only ones who will be saved?
No.
(1)Many millions that have lived in centuries past and who were not Jehovah’s Witnesses will come back in a resurrection and have an opportunity for life.
(2)Many now living may yet take a stand for truth and righteousness before the "great tribulation," and they will gain salvation.
(3)Moreover, Jesus said that we should not be judging one another. We look at the outward appearance; God looks at the heart. He sees accurately and judges mercifully. He has committed judgment into Jesus’ hands, not ours.—Matthew 7:1-5; 24:21.—
Questions Often Asked by Interested Persons, Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Twentieth Century, 1989:29. [Parenthetical numbers added]
Note that Frenchy said very little about the number three (3) response contained above. Regarding those final four (4) sentences Frenchy said,
Looking closely at the remaining sentences do we see the question answered there? Personally, I see general statements that can be construed in different ways.
WOW! Remember SC’s question. As Frenchy put it, "Do you and I, as individuals, have to belong to the Jehovah's Witness faith to gain salvation?" Since the question involves you and I, as individuals, then why did Frenchy blow off the very comments that dealt with that question? I have no clue. I can only see that he dismissed it, apparently because dealing with it would wreck his otherwise nice little flow. Details tend to do that when they disagree with some preconceived notion.
As for those final sentences, they explain just what has been postulated all along, that though Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that they have the true religion and that association with it is critical to insure salvation they still yield that God does the judging, which means they cannot say that they will be the only ones saved. What is so hard about that to understand? It is what every one of Jehovah’s Witnesses teaches practically everyday.
Frenchy, whether you respond to me directly or not, that is the teaching that you must address. All the other stuff you harped on about "people who have either died before being reached or are incapable of understanding" is a no less than a red herring. No one here has argued the point based upon those ideas. You are the only one bringing them up, and by your own admission they have nothing whatsoever to do with answering the question at hand—which is perhaps why no one else has argued based upon them. Again, the real answer to SC’s question is found in the final four (4) sentences cited above, the sentences you just dismissed outright. Those are the words wherein SC’s answer is found. They are plain spoken and unequivocal; they have no double meanings.
At this point I will repost something that I now think was place on a defunct thread. I think it speaks volumes.
The Tale of Two Statements
Does the following two statements represent a dichotomy or not?
"Does that mean then that because they are 'rare' we are to pretend that they don't exist? "Abtain from blood" is a rare statement in the Greek Scriptures. Is it ignored? Nope. Does the Society feel that just 'seining' this out of the 'vast body of material' is insufficient to make it a doctrine? Is it discounted just because it's 'rare'? How about the phrase "faithful and discreet slave"? Another 'rare' jewel 'seined' out of the 'vast body of material' that appears thousands of times in what has become the Society's 'vast body of material'."
"For every sentence even mildly suggesting that we do not hold the view that we are the only ones that are going to make it, there are volumes of statements telling us just the opposite. Those few statements suggesting that we don't have that view are strictly for PR reasons and for ammunition (though it's very weak) to argue with those who point that out."
Assuming the instances are rare where the Society indicates that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not the only ones who will be saved, I propose the following question:
Does that mean then that because they are 'rare' we are to pretend that they don't exist?
Pretending such statements do not exist by dismissing their merit outright is exactly the problem with some of the conclusions on this and other threads. In so doing sometimes direct statements are totally dismissed. If we look carefully at those dismissals we will often find that they are based upon a preconceived conclusion, which would make them circular.
Friend
Edited by - Friend on 11 June 2000 19:21:8
