Posts by Friend

Like so many, these days, you are willing to offer a negative opinion of another’s conclusions without dealing with details leading to that conclusion. That may be part of the price everyone pays for freedom of expression, but it doesn’t add anything to a discussion or resolve anything, that is with the exception of evidencing the capacity of the one doing it.

Some, like you apparently, feel that validity (or not) of any argument is based upon some kind of vote, as if the majority decides. Well, I hate to break it to you, but that is not how it works. In fact, such a notion is a fallacy in itself. Validity (or not) of an argument is more akin to resolving a math equation. Either premises support an argument or they do not. Either premises are evidenced as true or they are not. You have not taken the time to explain why my argument fails in those regards, and neither has anyone else on the subject at hand.

As for Frenchy, (s)he did counter premises that have no bearing whatsoever on our discussion here. Also, those premises had not been offered in support of the argument addressed. Such actions are the epitome of a red herring.

As for point number three (3); Frenchy did blow it off as being inapplicable. If you missed that then reading comprehension is the problem. Otherwise Frenchy’s assertion that the subject sentence applies only between Jehovah’s Witnesses has been thoroughly debunked.

I suggest you go and learn about what makes a sound argument. Perhaps thereafter you can shed the bad habit of speaking empty words.

Friend

67

PROOF from the WT

by Scorpion in

jw
friends

that the organization means salvation

Friend

RedhorseWoman

This is one of the things that has bothered me for some time.....the disparity of belief....the politically correct view vs the narrow view.
We have all at one time or another been very adept at coordinating these disparate views. But should we?

I feel that our literature should more directly and more often address issues as we have been talking about on this thread. The apparent reluctance to do so leads some to conclude just as some here have, that the Society is saying contradictory things between the two sides of their mouth. While on our subject at hand I do not believe that is the case, I do believe their published comments can leave people with that suspicion, which is a legitimate one based upon my reasons stated here.

Perhaps some questions are just not too easy to explain when talking about massive killing, which in all probability would leave suspicion on occasion that political correctness might be at work though it is really not. Perhaps on subjects like this the quandary you describe is unavoidable.

Friend

44

-WORDS-

by Frenchy in

jw
friends

the views expressed here are my own and i state them as such.

perhaps some will agree with me, for a certainty others will not.

i invite comment and discussion regardless of your viewpoint.

Friend

Ouch! I cannot believe some of the things asserted on this forum.

“Jesus was saying that we should not be judging one another…(Matt. 7:1-5)”
No Witness applies [that statement above] to worldly people.

Well, here are three short references disputing that claim (all emphasis added):

Further, Jesus counseled his followers, not to complain about “the straw” of faults observed in our fellow humans, but to be well aware of the larger “rafter” of shortcomings that we ourselves have. (Matthew 7:1-5)—Is All Complaining Bad?, The Watchtower, 1997 21/1: 30

He tells us as disciples that if we, as imperfect, sinful creatures, do not want to be judged and condemned ourselves, then we should not take it upon ourselves arbitrarily to judge and condemn our neighbor. (Matt. 7:1-5; Luke 6:37; compare Romans 2:1-3.)—Wrong Desires Destructive, Commentary on James, 1979: 4

The way to life is that of abiding by Jesus’ teachings. But this is not easy to do. The Pharisees, for example, tend to judge others harshly, and likely many imitate them. So as Jesus continues his Sermon on the Mount, he gives this admonition: “Stop judging that you may not be judged; for with what judgment you are judging, you will be judged.”….
This does not mean that Jesus’ disciples are to use no discernment in connection with other people,….—The Most Famous Sermon Ever Given, Greatest Man, 1991: Chapter 35

Busying ourselves trying to read between the lines is a bad habit until we first read what is actually on the lines.

Friend

67

PROOF from the WT

by Scorpion in

jw
friends

that the organization means salvation

Friend

SC

I am sure you see these two things meaning the same by what you have posted so far.

SC, go back and read what I actually have said and show me one sentence where I said the two “things” we have been discussing are meaning the same. All this time you have completely failed to grasp what I have been saying! It is no wonder that your responses and conclusions have so confused this discussion.

I see a major contradiction in what the WT is saying.

The thought never occurred to me.(?!)

Seriously, from an analytical perspective your conclusion is skewed by one thing. You presume that one teaching is genuine and that the other teaching is not genuine. With that initial prejudice you will never be able to reconcile the two, at least not logically. The problem with that prejudice is that, admittedly, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that others beside themselves will survive Armageddon. While that common belief has been yielded by both sides of this debate only one of our two explanations provides a reason for that commonality between people that tend to swallow what the Society says hook, line and sinker. So, the problem with your prejudice on this subject is that it actually goes contrary to what is typically held in common. On the other hand, as I have said repeatedly, my conclusion is in harmony with that commonality.

You—and others agreeing with your slant—must explain then away two things that are solid; written statements contrary to your conclusions and the common idea held by Jehovah’s Witnesses that others besides themselves will survive Armageddon.

As for me ignoring anything, I have not. I have kept to the issue at hand. I find it amusing that someone who from the beginning has so misunderstood essential elements of this discussion asserts that anyone else has ignored information.

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 12 June 2000 8:45:46

20

A Request

by Friend in

jw
friends

lately i have spent some time responding to various subjects on this forum.

at this time it seems a bit necessary that i address something about myself in the hopes that it will clear up some misunderstandings.

first of all, i am not a defender of the watch tower bible & tract society.

Friend

carmel

It may be possible through hypothetical polemic to accommodate them, but to do so is comparable to placing ones head firmly beneath the sand by ignoring the vast "common understanding" prevalent amongst the body of Witnesses. Again, the apologetics do not wash when the weight of evidence contradicts them.

If you will please note, I have offered no hypotheticals. If you feel otherwise then please evidence your assertion.

The issue you address is really quite simple; do those two different ideas oppose or accommodate each other. From evidence presented so far, those who accept both ideas as genuine expressions see the accommodation. Those who feel one idea is suspect see only contradiction, that is opposition.

The different between the two perspectives boils down to this. 1) Those seeing the accommodation are not giving any more or less credence to one idea than the other. They are not working off preconceived ideas as if one statement is believable and other unbelievable. 2) Conclusions from both camps admittedly are that the rank and file JWs believe that others besides Jehovah’s Witnesses will survive Armageddon. That latter point has been yielded already—which is one of your concerns raised, that is common understanding. (See quotes below) Well, they all got that conclusion from somewhere. Has anyone else offered any legitimate source of such a belief for a group of people so kowtowed to the Society? The only explanation on the table is the one I have offered.

Xandit said:

Just to throw an extraneous comment in here on the basic subject. I've made it a point to ask a considerable number of Witnesses if they thought only Witnesses would survive Armageddon, so far not one has said yes. It's certainly not a scientific survey but I've asked old, young, male, female, zealot, hangers on, pioneers, publishers, elders, etc. and gotten essentially the same answer from all of them. If that's what's being taught I don't think it's taking.

Frenchy agreed with Xandit’s informal poll:

You mentioned in another thread that of all the Witnesses that you had questioned on this subject told you they were not under that impression. I believe you completely in this regard. Most Witnesses do not believe this nonsense but the fact remains that this is what the Society teaches. Your C.O. knows about that article and he knows what the Society is, and has been, pushing for decades on the matter. Ask him.

Interestingly, in Frenchy’s confirmation he neglected to explain where those JWs learned what they believe, that others besides JWs would survive Armageddon. Though he agreed that that was a fairly common believe, without so much as a shred of evidence shrugs off that that belief could come from their impression of the Society’s teachings.

Friend

44

-WORDS-

by Frenchy in

jw
friends

the views expressed here are my own and i state them as such.

perhaps some will agree with me, for a certainty others will not.

i invite comment and discussion regardless of your viewpoint.

Friend

waiting

My apologies for neglecting to address a most important part of your request.

You said:

"I do not want to be one on Jehovah's Witnesses anymore - I do not agree with the Governing Body's teachings. I want to exercise my freedom of speech and tell others my conclusions based upon my personal study of the Bible. I am not lying, cheating, stealing, committing fornication, etc. I love God and Jesus."
If Armageddon arrives next week and I still feel in my heart this way, according to the Bible, will God kill me? According to the WTBTS's published teachings, implied wording or direct, will God kill me?

The Society’s view is that you will be okay as long as you remain solidly and honestly in your faith and devotion to Jehovah; always putting that first. The kicker is that they view anyone leaving the confines of "the organization" as stepping outside a protected atmosphere, on prone to severely endanger a persons faith. The Society offers little hope for persons leaving that protective element, but neither do they absolutely rule out their success. In fact, the Society has often related experiences of persons who remained solid in the faith despite being somewhat isolated. (Compare the experience related of Cyril Lucaris in the February 15, 2000 issue of The Watchtower.)

Friend

20

A Request

by Friend in

jw
friends

lately i have spent some time responding to various subjects on this forum.

at this time it seems a bit necessary that i address something about myself in the hopes that it will clear up some misunderstandings.

first of all, i am not a defender of the watch tower bible & tract society.

Friend

SC

When you spoke of (others) encouraging the spreading of the good news of the Kingdom, what (others) where you referring to besides Jehovah's Witnesses?

Anyone doing what I described. (Is that concise enough?)

I am not sure, but it appears you are expecting that I should name some group or groups of people, perhaps naming religions or something. I think people can exhibit the Christian behavior I described and act in concert (or not) with a multitude of Christian religions. For example, there are undoubtedly persons in the Catholic faith that are genuinely concerned about following Jesus. Along the way whenever they encourage other persons to consider the Bible then they are helping to spread the good news of God’s Kingdom. That may be a very raw form of doing so, but it is still a contribution to that end.

Friend

3

A Good Read

by Friend in

jw
friends

below is a link to infidels.org for their web page entitled logic & fallacies.

it provides some good reading about sound reasoning and good arguments.

the main page (which is not the provided link) is an introduction to atheism.

Friend

waiting

I agree that learning to spot a fallacious argument can sometimes be tedious. It does take time to digest. I will also add that resolving issues by means of logic is not always the best method. For instance, most married people know that logic is often not even a consideration when feelings are at issue between mates. In such instances being able to yield emotionally is the way to gain resolution. However, when it comes to resolving correctness of teaching there is no substitute for sound argument.

You mentioned the straw man fallacy. That occurs when someone has presented an argument based upon certain premises and the counter-argument consists of discrediting a similar though weaker premise other than the specific one offered. I think the link provided will help you with that one. As an aside, that is one fallacy that is repeatedly committed by the Society in addressing various counter arguments opposed to its views.

Friend

44

-WORDS-

by Frenchy in

jw
friends

the views expressed here are my own and i state them as such.

perhaps some will agree with me, for a certainty others will not.

i invite comment and discussion regardless of your viewpoint.

Friend

SC

Reword and and [sic] change a few words that Frenchy originally posted so as to make the meaning of what Frenchy said, mean something different.

You will note, SC, that I quote other persons comments prior to addressing them. Unless they have made some obvious error in spelling or grammar then I quote them verbatim (with this one exception above in your case). Usually that indicates that the expositor wants to deal honestly with what was actually said—otherwise why quote directly when you can more easily divert by paraphrasing! Are you inferring here that I have reworded Frenchy’s statements? If so, then please show me where I have misquoted.

If you assert that my commentary does not address what Frenchy actually said, that I divert, then please show me that with an explanation. Just saying that I divert does not make it so.

What I don’t understand around here is why people are more interested in attacking a person rather than an argument. If you disagree with an argument then you must dissect its structure and show were it is wrong. Most often that can be done one of two ways. You can 1) evidence that one or more supporting premises are false or you can 2) show how a certain conclusion does not follow based upon premises offered. You have done none of that, and neither have most others here. Instead many have decided they will just ignore or attack the person. Well, that is all well and good, but it does not resolve anything. Resolution is, I think, a thing most appealing to participants here.

Friend