Posts by cognisonance

107

Billions of dead, possibly killed by divine radiation, all of whom will need to be buried... Gerrit Losch predicts the future!

by cedars in

i've finally turned my attentions away from anthony morris iii (just for the time being!

) and done a video about another governing body member... gerrit losch.. in this video, taken from a 2008 talk (given in sydney, australia), gerrit gives us his grim predictions for the future.... .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4bl_hzhjzm.

cognisonance

Wow! That is the first time I've heard that "new light." Is there a watchtower article (or other written publication) about it being very possible for God to use "divine radiation" and that JWs will need to bury billions of dead? I've tried searching on wol.jw.org but couldn't find anything about this (perhaps this has been stated before as I don't have the CD with me, so please correct me if I'm wrong).

Question(s): If this is "new light" as it comes from a member of "God's Sole Channel TM " why is it not in a written publicaton, but rather just given as conjecture in a talk? Also, him being a member of "God's Sole Channel TM ," was what he said approved by the rest of the leaders with 2/3 majority vote? If not then it's just speculation (and could explain why it's not in our publications). Perhaps this is why the leaders of JWs don't want members to record and the distribute/discuss such talks.

15

Demons in the house (from yardsales to even digital purchases)

by cognisonance in

consider the popular jw myth: be careful what you bring home from a yard sale, it might have come from someone who has ties with witchcraft, magic, satan, etc.

said item thus would be an instrument the demons can use to get into your home and harass you.

so be careful of that teacup, tennis racket, or shirt you just purchased!.

cognisonance

Blondie: All types of people touch the new products we buy. Reasoning this way would mean we could only buy new things made by other jws....

I like that. Certainly helps with buying innocent items at garage sales, ebay, etc. But what about buying, recording, watching digital content (think downloading to computer, game system, streaming via netfix, DVR, etc). The item need not be about magic or occult. It can simply have violence or sex in it. What about these situations, where the demonized myth morphs to include them?

What it boils down to is: You are letting this house become demonized because you allow yourself to be entertained by things the Watchtower says are the products of Satan. Those things thus are letting the demons in and harass me. If you loved me you wouldn't allow this type of entertainment in our house. Don't you want to protect me?

What do I say to that?

15

Demons in the house (from yardsales to even digital purchases)

by cognisonance in

consider the popular jw myth: be careful what you bring home from a yard sale, it might have come from someone who has ties with witchcraft, magic, satan, etc.

said item thus would be an instrument the demons can use to get into your home and harass you.

so be careful of that teacup, tennis racket, or shirt you just purchased!.

cognisonance

What medications is he taking? Have any of his medications changed recently?

No changes in medications. The ones he is taking wouldn't cause that type of side effects. He has had these fears all his life, back to when he was a kid. While he was growing up, some relatives were into the occult and he would talk about how erie and creepy it was to spend time over those family members' homes. So the JW myth was one he could easily embrace.

Just trust me, this isn't a medical/health problem. It's a long-term ingrained superstitous fear coupled with JW conscientious avoidance of anything that is implied to be satanic by the Watchtower.

15

Demons in the house (from yardsales to even digital purchases)

by cognisonance in

consider the popular jw myth: be careful what you bring home from a yard sale, it might have come from someone who has ties with witchcraft, magic, satan, etc.

said item thus would be an instrument the demons can use to get into your home and harass you.

so be careful of that teacup, tennis racket, or shirt you just purchased!.

cognisonance

out4good: From what I can tell, this isn't just a tactic to impose one's conscious on another. He rely believes this happens. In the past he threw out items he bought at a yardsale becuase he had a bad dream the following night.

VM44: Agreed, but how do you reason with someone that "no fititious demons need be involved?" As regards medical condition, every thing checks out okay, so that can't be a factor.

FinallyAwake: The problem with the "demon blocker" answer is that it would be lying. I would have been better off, just saying, no I didn't watch, buy, or download a movie like what you are asking about. I respect my father, I don't want to lie to him.

15

Demons in the house (from yardsales to even digital purchases)

by cognisonance in

consider the popular jw myth: be careful what you bring home from a yard sale, it might have come from someone who has ties with witchcraft, magic, satan, etc.

said item thus would be an instrument the demons can use to get into your home and harass you.

so be careful of that teacup, tennis racket, or shirt you just purchased!.

cognisonance

Consider the popular JW myth: Be careful what you bring home from a yard sale, it might have come from someone who has ties with witchcraft, magic, satan, etc. Said item thus would be an instrument the demons can use to get into your home and harass you. So be careful of that teacup, tennis racket, or shirt you just purchased!

I've heard this many times, among my family and friends in the group. According to the myth, such can cause people to have nightmares, to hear voices, and perhaps have other weird things happen. Recently, I've heard this myth linked to one buying or bringing any book, movie, game, toy, music, etc. into one’s house that would be inappropriate for Christians. Not just spiritistic items (or items that came from spiritistic people), but even entertainment that features say violence or sex.

In short, I don’t really think demons exist. I am an agnostic atheist. Thus, I’m more than skeptical of religious, spiritual, metaphysical, and supernatural claims. I believe the “heebie jeebies” one experiences from nightmares, for example, can be chalked up to materialistic and naturalistic causes (same for all other situations).

I recently experienced a situation where this myth has caused me a bit of trouble. For the sake of anonymity, the following situation is made up and has been changed from the situation I’m experiencing, but nonetheless has similarities:

Suppose you have your elderly JW father living with you, an “unbeliever.” You are taking care of him as he can’t live on his own anymore. As your father you respect him and enjoy having a good relationship with him. When you were younger your relationship with him was damaged by lies and dishonesty on your part. This relationship has since been repaired. Now you yourself value honesty and have resolved not to lie or to deceive others.

Now your dad has a couple bad dreams recently and asks you if you have brought anything in the house that could be bringing the demons into the home. As an atheist you don’t believe this can even happen, so you reassure your Dad by simply answering No. A few days later while taking an afternoon nap, he awakens from a terrifying nightmare. Feeling more afraid, and knowing you don’t believe the way he does, he asked you a pointed question that he thinks might be likely to be true. He asks, “did you download or stream a bad movie that has violence, sex, or magic in it?” You don’t reply because you did download such a movie before he asked you the first time. This nonresponse causes him to assume you are pleading the fifth.

He feels betrayed and deceived. He begins to panic thinking demons are indeed in the house. He then goes outside and sits on the porch for the rest of the afternoon and evening so as to not be in a house under the influence of the demons. Despite his age, his mind is still sharp. It’s his religious beliefs as a JW that makes him feel such action is necessary.

You can image what might happen next. It would be easy to see him demand you not watch such movies in your own home and to destroy any you do have.

What would be some ways to handle this situation? You want him to stay with you so you can take care of him. You also don’t think your entertainment is any of his business, it’s not like you are having him watch the movies with you.

37

Did God Invent Swords? - Logic Fallacies and Anachronisms

by cognisonance in

we need not conclude that our loving creator was the first one to make what we know as swords.

adam and eve saw turning in front of the angels something that was blazing.

by the time moses wrote the book of genesis, swords were well-known and used in warfare.

cognisonance

Cold Steel: I can't believe the Watchtower is talking about who came up with the idea of swords! Talk about stoopidity (duh!)…..

As others have answered, it's because some who don't believe the bible is the infallible word of God point to such accounts as examples that it is the product of human storytelling, not of holy spirit.

The QFR article attempts to refute the main anachronism (in the question), and then ironically uses two more anachronisms in a way to show that the first one is not a problem. In reality, all three anachronisms seem to be the focus of the article and the infallibility of the Bible is defended, albeit with logic fallacies as mentioned (too bad the writers didn't just stick to exposing the distinction without a difference fallacy (DwaD), as TR explained, to point out one problem with the logic used by those that attack the bible based on the flaming sword account, as that would have been somewhat more convincing).

All that would be needed regarding the flaming sword account would be to drop the "We need not conclude that our loving Creator..." argument and stick to the idea that God did employ a divine "weapon" of sorts; that any distinction is without a difference between that flaming "sword" and swords that man created (both are instruments for killing).

So in a way they are exposing DwaD fallacy, but then obfuscate their argument with the red herring of appealing to consequences of a belief, and by doing so the DwaD point (sword vs. some lethal "thing") being made contridicts the red herring used (a loving God would not be the first to create a weapon).

37

Did God Invent Swords? - Logic Fallacies and Anachronisms

by cognisonance in

we need not conclude that our loving creator was the first one to make what we know as swords.

adam and eve saw turning in front of the angels something that was blazing.

by the time moses wrote the book of genesis, swords were well-known and used in warfare.

cognisonance

TD, thanks for the distinction without a difference fallacy.

This one does, however,"help" with the overall explaination the Watchtower provides against the claim that God didn't write the bible becuase it speaks of swords in a time when there shouldn't have been any. As you are likely aware there is a "fallacy fallacy". Just becuase one is making logic fallicies in an argument, doesn't mean their overall position is automatically wrong. (I'm Not saying I accept God wrote the bible)

37

Did God Invent Swords? - Logic Fallacies and Anachronisms

by cognisonance in

we need not conclude that our loving creator was the first one to make what we know as swords.

adam and eve saw turning in front of the angels something that was blazing.

by the time moses wrote the book of genesis, swords were well-known and used in warfare.

cognisonance

A bigger problem is with what this explaination is trying to refute (that Genesis has anachronisms [A thing belonging or appropriate to a period other than that in which it exists ], and thus suggests that Genesis was not divinely inspired, but rather the product of man's imagination) . The full Questions from Readers article:

God warned Cain that ‘sin was crouching at the entrance and for him was its craving,’ which seems to allude to a wild beast and its prey. (Genesis 4:7) Why would that language be used if before the Flood, animals ate only vegetation?

In the books written by Moses, we find a number of verses that reflect facts or historical developments that might seem strangely out of place in their historical setting.

For example, the account at Genesis 2:10-14 gives geographical details about the garden of Eden. Moses wrote that one river was “the one going to the east of Assyria.” But the land of Assyria derived its name from Asshur, Shem’s son born after the Flood. (Genesis 10:8-11, 22; Ezekiel 27:23; Micah 5:6) Evidently, in his accurate, inspired account, Moses simply used the term “Assyria” to refer to a region that was familiar to his readers.

Consider another example from the early chapters of Genesis. After Adam and Eve sinned and were expelled from the garden, Jehovah prevented them from returning. How? Genesis 3:24 says: “He drove the man out and posted at the east of the garden of Eden the cherubs and the flaming blade of a sword that was turning itself continually to guard the way to the tree of life.” Notice, “the flaming blade of a sword.” Did God invent swords?

We need not conclude that our loving Creator was the first one to make what we know as swords. Adam and Eve saw turning in front of the angels something that was blazing. What exactly was it? By the time Moses wrote the book of Genesis, swords were well-known and used in warfare. (Genesis 31:26; 34:26; 48:22; Exodus 5:21; 17:13) So Moses’ words “the flaming blade of a sword” enabled his readers to visualize to a degree what existed at the entrance of Eden. The information known in Moses’ day contributed to the understanding of such matters. And the language Moses employed must have been accurate, for Jehovah had it included in the Bible.—2 Timothy 3:16.

Now what about Genesis 4:7? There God warned Cain: “If you turn to doing good, will there not be an exaltation? But if you do not turn to doing good, there is sin crouching at the entrance, and for you is its craving; and will you, for your part, get the mastery over it?” As noted, the language seems to portray the image of a hungry wild beast crouched to pounce on and devour prey.

Nonetheless, evidence in the Bible points to Adam and Eve’s having been at peace with all animals. Some of the creatures may have been quite comfortable around humans, even benefiting from the nearness. Others were wild beasts, animals that naturally sought habitat away from humans. (Genesis 1:25, 30; 2:19) Yet, the Bible does not suggest that any of the animals preyed upon other animals or upon humans. Originally, God specifically assigned vegetation as the diet for both animals and humans. (Genesis 1:29, 30; 7:14-16) That did not change until after the Flood, as Genesis 9:2-5 indicates.

What, then, of God’s warning to Cain, as we read at Genesis 4:7? Certainly the image of a savage beast crouched and ready to spring on prey would have been easily understood in Moses’ day, and we understand it too. So, again, Moses might have been using language adapted to readers familiar with the post-Flood world. And even if Cain had never seen such a creature, he would have been able to get the point of a warning that likened the sinful desire in him to a hungry, ravenous beast.

The primary aspects that should have greater impact on us are these: God’s kindness in warning Cain, the value of humbly accepting counsel, how easily jealousy can corrupt one, and how seriously we should take other divine warnings that God put in the Scriptures for us.—Exodus 18:20; Ecclesiastes 12:12; Ezekiel 3:17-21; 1 Corinthians 10:11; Hebrews 12:11; James 1:14, 15; Jude 7, 11.

37

Did God Invent Swords? - Logic Fallacies and Anachronisms

by cognisonance in

we need not conclude that our loving creator was the first one to make what we know as swords.

adam and eve saw turning in front of the angels something that was blazing.

by the time moses wrote the book of genesis, swords were well-known and used in warfare.

cognisonance

We need not conclude that our loving Creator was the first one to make what we know as swords. Adam and Eve saw turning in front of the angels something that was blazing. What exactly was it? By the time Moses wrote the book of Genesis, swords were well-known and used in warfare. (Genesis 31:26; 34:26; 48:22; Exodus 5:21; 17:13) So Moses’ words "the flaming blade of a sword" enabled his readers to visualize to a degree what existed at the entrance of Eden. The information known in Moses’ day contributed to the understanding of such matters. And the language Moses employed must have been accurate, for Jehovah had it included in the Bible.—2 Timothy 3:16. (“Questions from Readers.” Watchtower 1 Feb. 1994: 31)

We need not conclude that our loving Creator was the first one to make what we know as swords.

Appeal to Consequences of a Belief, a form of a Red Herring. This appeal is being made because God couldn’t have invented the sword because that would make him seem unloving somehow. In other words, God inventing a weapon that is associated with killing would imply bad consequences, such as man imitating that invention and using it to kill each other in war. Alternatively, if God was the first to make such a weapon, that means he is the inventor of weaponry. Why would a loving God invent weapons, one thus argues. Rather it feels better to believe that war and weapons came about only from Satan and sinful men, not from a loving God.

By the time Moses wrote the book of Genesis, swords were well-known and used in warfare. So Moses’ words "the flaming blade of a sword" enabled his readers to visualize to a degree what existed at the entrance of Eden. The information known in Moses’ day contributed to the understanding of such matters. And the language Moses employed must have been accurate, for Jehovah had it included in the Bible.

Affirming the Consequent, a form of Circular reasoning. The bible says that God used a flaming sword. Thus, the description can be considered accurate because God had it included in the Bible.

Now there might be more, and I'd love to hear about them as I'm trying to sharpen my critical thinking skills. Nonetheless, right here I think we have a problem, and a contradiction. One on had the author is saying it would have been unloving for God to create the sword, a weapon. I ask why this would be unloving. To which I can only think of the negative implications associated with him being the inventor of the sword. Next the author says that while God didn’t technically create the first sword, what he did have placed at the entrance of the Garden of Eden could be visualized to a degree of accuracy as being a sword. So wouldn’t the first statement about it being unloving for God to create the sword still be an issue? How is this any different? He didn’t create the sword per se, just something that resembled it. I think this shows why the first sentence is a Red Herring as it is irrelevant.

12

Critical Thinking: Identifying False Logic

by Amazing1914 in

jw
friends

we understand how the watchtower society openly discouraged critical thinking.

they certainly used fallacious reasoning in their theological meanderings.

however, when we leave the jws, learning that we were duped, we can continue to fail to use good constructive critical thinking.

cognisonance

Great list (and application). I also like the following Rhetological Fallacy list:

Rhetological Fallacies