Posts by vienne

1

E. C. Gruss

by vienne in

is gruss still alive?

he claimed a thd and a history degree.

do we know the name of the university or universities from which he graduated?

vienne

Is Gruss still alive? He claimed a ThD and a history degree. Do we know the name of the university or universities from which he graduated?

2

Rough draft - partial to Preface Separate Identity vol. 2

by vienne in

some of you may find this interesting.

feel free to comment, but remember this is a history only blog.

we do not discuss anything but history.. http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2017/10/temporary-post-for-comments.html.

vienne

As I said, it's a very rough draft. But certainly, your observations are welcome. You can leave them here or as a comment on the blog post.

2

Rough draft - partial to Preface Separate Identity vol. 2

by vienne in

some of you may find this interesting.

feel free to comment, but remember this is a history only blog.

we do not discuss anything but history.. http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2017/10/temporary-post-for-comments.html.

vienne

Some of you may find this interesting. Feel free to comment, but remember this is a history only blog. We do not discuss anything but history.

http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2017/10/temporary-post-for-comments.html

32

Counter-Watchtower / Answers-in-Watchtower First Draft Issue 1

by Counter-Watchtower in

please proof read the draft and comment any edits, corrects or changes of any kind needed.

also i need help with the cover page, what the title should be and plain text or whatnot, whatever would be more appealing to a jw to get them to open and read.. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0b2s6sigyikwhmglhqk5fcmxwzwc/view?usp=sharing.

vienne

It does not take years. I cannot engage in polemical writing. It would taint what I hope is an honest and even handed approach to history.

Thinking is physically painful. Truly. It swells your brain cells. Ever hear someone say, "This is giving me a headache"? But ... you can do this. My suggestion is that you watch some of the youtube videos on formal logic and logic flaws. They will teach you how to reason. Good writing comes from sound reasoning. It's not hard to learn but it does take persistence.

I did not answer a previous comment. You suggested that if they were wrong in the past, might they not be now. Yes, of course. But that's the course of human reasoning, of human learning. So the issue is: are they wrong now? If so, prove it. One of the great flaws of opposition writing is that much of it simply restates 'orthodox' belief. Because it is 'orthodox', then every view in conflict must be wrong. This is one of the major logic flaws. And historically we find Jesus and the passage of time correcting the apostles' false views. Merely changing what we believe is not a sign of flawed belief; it's a sign of intellectual activity.

You do realize that every major religion, those often seen as orthodox had a doctrinal development that included changed views, what some here call 'flip flops.' So get down to a single point. Do you object to Witness anti-Trinitarianism? Is Jesus God? Are they wrong about John 1:1? If so, say so and prove it. But be prepared for a response you may not be able to handle without solid research. For instance, Why does John say Jesus was God instead of is God? How does this connect with a later verse that says Jesus became flesh? Does the Greek word for 'flesh' identify him as a person or does it identify his nature? Witnesses will ask you these questions and rightly so because if flesh identifies his nature then so does the anarthrous theos. There ARE Witnesses competent enough to present you with this argument.

Right now you simply believe Witness theology is wrong. Next you must prove it to yourself. Belief is not proof. Tracts such as you envision work best if they are narrowly focused. Pick an issue, explore it fully. Ask yourself if your 'proofs' could convince you. Try it out on a Witness friend, especially one well versed in their belief system.

Do you object to the Witness concept of a Governing Body and the application of the Faithful Servant parable to it? There are a multitude of differing conclusions about the Faithful Servant parable. In the 18th and 19th Centuries, Clergy saw that as fulfilled in themselves. That's not much different than the Witness view. There are three approaches to church governance that find a home within Christian churches. Do you know what they are? Are any of them similar to Witness belief?Are any of them scriptural?

You can learn grammar and spelling on the fly. But research is hard work. You must do your research if you wish to succeed. Volume 1 of our current book was written between 2007 and 2014. It required a huge amount of research. You're not writing anything like that. Not if you pick a single subject and write a pithy, well-researched rebuttal of Watchtower belief.

32

Counter-Watchtower / Answers-in-Watchtower First Draft Issue 1

by Counter-Watchtower in

please proof read the draft and comment any edits, corrects or changes of any kind needed.

also i need help with the cover page, what the title should be and plain text or whatnot, whatever would be more appealing to a jw to get them to open and read.. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0b2s6sigyikwhmglhqk5fcmxwzwc/view?usp=sharing.

vienne

I'll ignore the snide tone of your post, Counter. I write history, not polemics. And you can read my last book. https://www.amazon.com/Separate-Identity-Organizational-Readers-1870-1887/dp/1304969401

or visit my history blog

https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/

You really should inform yourself.

32

Counter-Watchtower / Answers-in-Watchtower First Draft Issue 1

by Counter-Watchtower in

please proof read the draft and comment any edits, corrects or changes of any kind needed.

also i need help with the cover page, what the title should be and plain text or whatnot, whatever would be more appealing to a jw to get them to open and read.. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0b2s6sigyikwhmglhqk5fcmxwzwc/view?usp=sharing.

vienne

Not really, jaydee. The focus should be on current belief. Countering past belief is unproductive. Watch Tower adherents believe in a progressive revelation. So they're okay with changing and vacillating belief. If the idea is to persuade Witnesses that they're wrong, then one must refute current belief. They don't care that they once believed differently.

32

Counter-Watchtower / Answers-in-Watchtower First Draft Issue 1

by Counter-Watchtower in

please proof read the draft and comment any edits, corrects or changes of any kind needed.

also i need help with the cover page, what the title should be and plain text or whatnot, whatever would be more appealing to a jw to get them to open and read.. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0b2s6sigyikwhmglhqk5fcmxwzwc/view?usp=sharing.

vienne

Best you can do? Probably not nearly. Learning to write is hard work. Learning to write well is even harder. Never give up with the first draft. Ever. Or the tenth.

Once upon a time, a long time ago, I wrote a novel. It saw publication and was on three best seller lists for about six weeks, much of that time as number 2 behind Terry Pratchet. A friend, the now diseased A. C. [Ann] Crispin, a SF and Fantasy writer, made me re-write portions over and over. I rewrote the first chapter eleven times. I swore off writing dozens of times. When I started submitting it, I got nice comments from publishers, sometimes with biting criticism as well. But criticism is a learning experience. So it was finally published, went to audio book, sold well, but is now long out of print. The publication process involves working with an editor. Mind you, they bought your book. right? But they turn it over to an editor who reads it maybe 25 times making notes. My editor sent me ten pages single spaced with suggestions for changes. Pay attention to the suggestions; they know what sells. It is okay, however, to say, "I want to keep that as is." This was enlightening and frustrating.

My trade is historian and educator. [I'm semi-retired due to health issues.] Writing and revising that novel informs my history writing. I learned from the experience. The writing process is painful. Expository writing is especially hard. We're not supposed to 'make things up,' though many polemicists do. We're supposed to respect the rules of logic. Most writers can't identify a logic flaw, not even their own. Learning the process isn't fun. At least not initially.

Learning respect for the intellect of others is also a 'writing issue.' Disagreement with our position does not mean the other person is stupid, deluded or any such thing. I have serious issues with writers such as Zydeck who created out of his imagination parts of his biography of Russell. Never make claims that are nothing more than supposition. When Dr. Schulz and I wrote volume 1 of Separate Identity, we encountered that repeatedly. Even in the works of academics we otherwise respected. Do that one time, and your entire premise is undermined.

Should you stop? Well ... what you have does not work. But that does not mean that with serious effort you cannot remedy the problems. The decision is up to you.

32

Counter-Watchtower / Answers-in-Watchtower First Draft Issue 1

by Counter-Watchtower in

please proof read the draft and comment any edits, corrects or changes of any kind needed.

also i need help with the cover page, what the title should be and plain text or whatnot, whatever would be more appealing to a jw to get them to open and read.. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0b2s6sigyikwhmglhqk5fcmxwzwc/view?usp=sharing.

vienne

No, as I said narrow your focus to ONE issue. State your case simply and clearly. Not fifty pages. You're not writing a book. It's hard to write well, especially what is essentially expository writing. Pick one issue, develop it. Post it here for comments. What you have does not work.

32

Counter-Watchtower / Answers-in-Watchtower First Draft Issue 1

by Counter-Watchtower in

please proof read the draft and comment any edits, corrects or changes of any kind needed.

also i need help with the cover page, what the title should be and plain text or whatnot, whatever would be more appealing to a jw to get them to open and read.. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0b2s6sigyikwhmglhqk5fcmxwzwc/view?usp=sharing.

vienne

1. Narrow your focus to one issue.

2. Clearly and honestly state the Watchtower position. [You fail in this as it is.]

3. Explain why we should reject the Watchtower position. This is more than saying you don't believe it.

4. Present clearly stated scriptural proof. Analyze the verses in question. Often a focus on the verb forms is helpful.

5. Not that you have done it here, but as a precaution, never present yourself as a Greek or Hebrew language expert.

6. If you quote an authority to support your opinion, ensure you understand their bias. If you do not, it will come back and bite your butt.

7. Write clear, simple sentences. Never write beyond your vocabulary. Everything, even the most complex issues, can be stated simply.

32

Counter-Watchtower / Answers-in-Watchtower First Draft Issue 1

by Counter-Watchtower in

please proof read the draft and comment any edits, corrects or changes of any kind needed.

also i need help with the cover page, what the title should be and plain text or whatnot, whatever would be more appealing to a jw to get them to open and read.. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0b2s6sigyikwhmglhqk5fcmxwzwc/view?usp=sharing.

vienne

You have no real refutation of Watchtower teaching. You quote scriptures without meaningful comments or application. What are you refuting? Exactly. I reject Witness teaching, and you would not have convinced me.

If you were one of my students, you'd get an F and I'd give you one chance to remedy the problems. Clearly state the doctrine you're refuting. Tell us how the verse you cite in refutation accomplishes your purpose. Do you know what the Watchtower says about those verses? Address their comments in advance.

Some of the verses you cite do not address your issues. New Witnesses may be scripturally illiterate, but older ones often know the Bible remarkably well. If you wish to convince them of anything, you must make your application of the verses clear. Even then, you chose verses that do not make your point. Example is how God views those 'outside the organization.' Witnesses use the verses you chose as a reason for their ministry. To them God is earnestly seeking those in need of his word. So your use of those verses returns a Witness to his default thought. "We preach because God loves the world of mankind; to bring salvation to them."

You cite a Watchtower claiming that it shows the Watchtower to teach that Russell and Rutherford are anointed prophets. The quotation does no such thing. This calls into question either your honesty or reading comprehension. Witnesses may be mistaken in some beliefs, but most of them are not stupid. They will notice your inability to apply a verse and your false claim. Simply quoting a scripture and in effect saying, 'there! see!' is not convincing. It is what a totally inexperienced person does. And it is never effective. Explain why you find the verse to support your opinion.

Also ... your work is boring as heck. It does not engage the mind. It's old ground, covered before to little effect. You should also note that Theology is not simply quoting scripture. Theology is the in-depth analysis of Bible doctrine and content. [I suggest you read Strong's Systematic Theology.]

Some Witnesses consult Bible translations other than their NWT, but most of them rely on the Watchtower's translation. Use it. It won't bite. And it puts you on their ground. If you want to use the American Standard Version, use the original. The Watchtower published it for years under license from Thomas Nelson. But Witnesses see the NASB as a step backward in translation, and they're not alone in seeing it that way.

Before you go forward [And I'm not trying to make you give up, only to do better], read a good guide to thesis writing. To refute Witnesses you must develop some intellectual tools. You must learn to write to a standard higher than the average Watchtower article. You aren't even close.