Posts by the pharmer

137

Is this not an easy question?

by the pharmer in

i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

if i read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the wt's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e.

who is correct)?

the pharmer

(sorry about the musical tangent, it's a weakness of mine...or is it a strength?) :)

137

Is this not an easy question?

by the pharmer in

i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

if i read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the wt's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e.

who is correct)?

the pharmer

djeggnog, I haven't read your entire post (but I will later). Just got to the part where you couldn't follow my Minor vs. Major explanation, so I will simplify it.

Using "chords" to clarify...an "A" chord consisting of a triad (3 notes) has an A, C, and E in it. The A-major triad (chord) consists of A (natural), C# (sharp), and E (natural); whereas an A minor triad consists of A (natural), C (natural...not sharp), and an E (natural). If you know a piece of music is in the key of "A", but you have C-naturals all over the place, it is going to sound as a Minor tonality. Play C#'s in place of all the C-naturals, and it will sound as a Major tonality.

Simplified further...find a piano and play A-natural, C-natural, and E-natural all at the same time...hear the minor quality. Then raise the C-natural by a half step to a C-sharp but leave the A and E where they are (as naturals)...hear the major quality.

A Major has three sharps, so if I were to play (or sing) A Major with a C-natural, as you suggest, then how could my doing this error alone be mistaken for an A Minor, which also has the F# and the G#? Both a Natural A Minor and a Harmonic A Minor do have a C-natural in them, but both of these differ from A Major in that the sixth note in both are lowered a half step, whereas the seventh note in the Natural A Minor (G#) is lowered a half step (to G) as well. It might require me to think about what it is I am playing because it isn't natural to include a C-natural when playing something in A Major, but I don't think anyone would think that the piece was being played in A minor at all, but you.

I never said this piece of music consisted of any F's or G's of any type...so you can't assume. Want more music theory? There's also a melodic minor you missed, lol, j/k...anyway, you might know that all minor scales have the 3rd lowered 1/2 step when compared to their major form. You mention the F# and the G#, which is true, but I never said it was a given that this piece of music had those notes in it. So, to help keep you on track, assume this piece of music I speak of only consists of the first 5 notes of an A scale -- i.e. A, B, C, D, and E. Based on these first 5 notes of the A scale, how could you know if it is minor or major??? :) It all depends on the type of "C". If it is a C# it sounds as a Major progression, if it is a C-natural it sounds as a Minor progression. Besides, if you think the fact that a key signature has 3 sharps in it (F#, C#, and G#) automatically makes it A-major, you would be mistaken, it could be it's relative minor key of f# minor (same 3 sharps present). We digress :)

Try not to read into things any further than what my point is, which I thought was clear, but maybe not. As applied to your higher powers example, the point was, in the key of "A", I was playing C# (the way it was written) and it sounded as a Major key. The WT (in your example of higher powers) was playing a C-natural, making it sound as a Minor key....when in fact, the composer who wrote the piece of music wrote it as A-Major. Now the WT/JWs are playing a C#, just as was intended by the composer (apparently).

Got it??

Let me know if you need that cleared up further.

I will pick up from what follows when I have more time.

I had said:

I'm sorry to say this, but djeggnog, these statements contradict what you're saying I would have had to do as a JW in the context of this discussion.

To which you said:

I don't think so, but ok.

This is where I will begin later. I am quite certain that my statement above is correct, but I will review and make sure before I say more.

Thanks Djeggnog, I look forward to reading the rest of your post when I can devote more attention to it.

Until then.

137

Is this not an easy question?

by the pharmer in

i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

if i read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the wt's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e.

who is correct)?

the pharmer

djeggnog,

In your mind I would have had a mistaken view that needed to be adjusted back then, right?

Yes.

...who was it that was mistaken (given the evidence which you provided) and who was it that had their mistaken view adjusted...

The majority of those folks whose viewpoint turned out to be incorrect would need to adjust their viewpoint...When we are wrong, we abandon our wrong viewpoint as a body and embrace the right viewpoint as a body...We are all one body in connection with Christ Jesus and no member of the body is greater than another member of the body, for we are all "harmoniously joined together."

So you've essentially said to me:

As a non-JW, your correct view which opposed the JW incorrect view would have had to be thought of and taught as being an incorrect view (on the basis that it opposed the JW view) until the JWs, as a body, were allowed to embrace your correct view. That way, when we are wrong, we are all wrong together -- yet we are in harmony with each other.

If this was music, and it was written in the key of "A", and you insisted on singing/playing every "C" as a C-natural, it would sound like the piece is in a Minor key -- i.e. A-Minor. If everyone sang/played "C" as a natural, it might sound correct -- i.e. in harmony with each other -- but if the composer (Jesus Christ) intended it to be in the key of A-Major (not minor), every "C" should actually be sung/played as a C-sharp instead of C-natural, thus making it a Major key. Huge difference! The ensemble, by playing C-natural, are in harmony with each other, but they are deceiving themselves if they think they are in connection with the composer. On the other hand, if there were musicians that insist on playing a C-sharp as it was intended (even if only a minority of them), sure they might sound wrong compared to the rest of the ensemble, but they would be the only ones following the composer's instructions, and the conductor of the ensemble would be forced into having to make a decision. If the conductor insists on the ensemble playing pieces in the wrong key, perhaps the conductor ought to be fired.

You see, djeggnog, I had asked you to show me just how and why conflicting statements of yours don't conflict. You weren't actually able to show me how they don't conflict -- in fact, everything you said kept reinforcing just how they doconflict -- but, you were able to show mewhy you are alright with them conflicting. I do appreciate your explanations.

Unfortunately, you have created more harmonizing problems by having made the following comments as well:

The truth is going to be the truth no matter who has it, so the question is, how sincere is your search for truth?

You see, no one that is interested in pursuing the truth about a matter is going to want to hold a viewpoint, an opinion, that turns out to be incorrect

…you could, of course, decide to hold onto what you believe and keep travelling south, or you can make an adjustment in your viewpoint…

I'm sorry to say this, but djeggnog, these statements contradict what you're saying I would have had to do as a JW in the context of this discussion.

What you've told me, djeggnog, is that as a JW, I would have had to reject an actual truth...and worse, knowingly teach a falsehood...all for the sake of harmonizing with 'the body', even though 'the body' had detached itself from 'the head'. I thought the idea was to follow the head -- the truth -- no matter who had it. Conflict!

You've told me that, even if I would want to pursue and hold onto the truth, as a JW I would have had to hold a viewpoint that was incorrect -- a non-truth -- in order to sound in harmony...even though it would be in the wrong key. Yet at the same time you said that no one who is interested in pursuing the truth about a matter is going to want to hold a viewpoint that is incorrect. Conflict!

You've told me that, as a JW I would have to keep following 'the body' south, even though I see 'the head' is in a different dirrection...all for the sake of harmonizing with 'the body' (not the head). Conflict!

In your last statement, you said:

Anyone that should be unwilling for any reason to abandon a wrong viewpoint along with the body cannot be one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

But what you've also said in all of this is, anyone unwilling for any reason to accept a wrong view pointalong with 'the body' of JWs, cannot be one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

All of this creates a lot of conflict.

In this discussion, djeggnog, your information clearly supports what jgnat has stated -- uniformity is valued over accuracy.

137

Is this not an easy question?

by the pharmer in

i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

if i read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the wt's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e.

who is correct)?

the pharmer

So djeggnog,

You essentially are saying:

If you were to draw a conclusion that differs from the one reached by me as one of Jehovah's Witness, your conclusion could be correct since Jehovah's Witnesses are not always correct , but I'm going to have to conclude that your conclusion is incorrect…

For the scope of this discussion, it doesn’t matter what the actual conclusion is or even what evidence is available to support those conclusions, because the fact is, within your conflicting statements you have stated that I could hold a correct view that opposes a JW’s incorrect view…period. We can even use your example to help illustrate this point.

If we use your example about higher powers and say that I concluded “A” about that scripture before the 1960’s, whereas JWs concluded “B” about it, according to your statements, you would have had to conclude that my conclusion was incorrect back then, not on the basis of any available evidence, but purely on the basis that it opposed your view. In your mind I would have had a mistaken view that needed to be adjusted back then, right?

However, I did not adjust my view and I currently still conclude “A” about that same scripture, and now you say JWs also conclude “A” about it, which I assume you believe is the correct view.

Djeggnog, in reality, if you think JW’s current view is correct, who was it that was mistaken (given the evidence which you provided) and who was it that had their mistaken view adjusted, given the JW’s current view of that scripture?

Thanks for being willing to clear this up.

137

Is this not an easy question?

by the pharmer in

i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

if i read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the wt's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e.

who is correct)?

the pharmer

I wonder if djeggnog (or anyone else for that matter) could actually reconcile this conflict completely within the realm of reality.

I have to admit, dgp, the weight of the evidence is in your favor.

Thanks for you input!

172

re-enforcing the shunning of immediate family - WT 7-15-11

by undercover in

july 15th wt study edition (regular dumb edition, not the dumber one).

god's rest - have you entered into it?.

subheading, when someone we love leaves jehovah.

the pharmer

(marking)

137

Is this not an easy question?

by the pharmer in

i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

if i read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the wt's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e.

who is correct)?

the pharmer

Thanks dgp.

So essentially, you're saying his contradictory statements would read as the following single explanation:

If you were to read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes my view as one of JWs as to the meaning of this same passage, in reality you could have the correct view, but in my mind you have a mistaken view...

137

Is this not an easy question?

by the pharmer in

i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

if i read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the wt's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e.

who is correct)?

the pharmer

djeggnog,

Show me how these two conflicting statements of yours can be reconciled.

If you were to read a passage of Scripture and were to draw a conclusion that is a different from the one reached by Jehovah's Witnesses, this would not necessarily mean that your conclusion was incorrect.

…

If you were to read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes my view as one of Jehovah's Witnesses as to the meaning of this same passage, in my mind you have a mistaken view that needs to be adjusted to the Scriptures.

These are your words, djeggnog, not mine. This isn't a matter of opinion; it is fact. It is disingenuous of you to walk away from this in this manner -- suggesting that I ask someone else to clear it up.

If these two statements of yours don'tconflict in your mind, I am confident you have the ability to show me just how and why they don't. All I ask is that you stay on task -- don't hand me a suppository and expect me to swallow it.

Thanks.

137

Is this not an easy question?

by the pharmer in

i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

if i read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the wt's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e.

who is correct)?

the pharmer

Thanks dgp. Definitely some points to consider.

137

Is this not an easy question?

by the pharmer in

i wanted my jw friend's perspective on something, so i asked them this question:.

if i read a passage of scripture and conclude about it something that opposes the wt's view of the same passage, in your mind who has the truth about that passage (i.e.

who is correct)?

the pharmer

Thanks dgp. Definitely some points to consider.

(oops, sorry for the duplicate)