Saename

Joined

• started 39 topics
• posted 656 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Saename

• 
  3

  Great Theramin Trees video! "Becoming Fools" (JW focus)

  by stuckinarut2 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  becoming fools... enjoy!.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewehb4qm1hg&app=desktop.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saename

  Seen that twice or thrice by now. It's old but extremely good and explanatory. I'd recommend this video to everybody for sure.
• 
  26

  Disfellowshipped Brother Gives Public Talk in Kingdom Hall

  by The Searcher in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  absolutely beautiful!.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vbmfx4isku.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saename

  Wait... Doesn't Jehovah control the spiritual food that the congregation is fed at the Kingdom Hall? Did Jehovah fail to protect his sheep from Satan's apostate?

  
  
• 
  12

  How do you feel when people quote an inspirational or lovely passage from the bible?

  by stuckinarut2 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  a thought occurred to us today about how christians, including witnesses love to quote some lovely passage of the bible as proof of god's love, or the value of the bible.. but just because a small passage or sentence is quoted doesn't mean the whole book is to be valued.. for instance, there may be a nice sentence or comment expressed in the passage of mein kampf, but would that make the book or it's author worthy of quoting or following?

  the entire book and its message needs to taken into consideration!

  (obviously that author had genocidal tendencies and disturbing ideas).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saename

  The problem with this kind of argumentation is that the second you admit that the good proves the value, you also have to admit the opposite—namely that the bad disproves the value. This is the principle we follow when we judge literary works. The good proves the value; the bad disproves the value. If Mein Kampf is found to contain more bad than good, its value is disproven.

  Similarly, as soon as you admit that the good passages of the Bible prove it is divinely inspired, you also have to acknowledge the opposite. You have to acknowledge that the bad passages of the Bible disprove the assumption that it's divinely inspired. Then, you have to see how much good vs. bad there is in the Bible while also remembering that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and hence, if the Bible is divinely inspired, there should be an infinitesimal amount of bad found therein. However, we know for a fact that this isn't the case.
• 
  38

  Talk to my Dad about beards.

  by LovingLifeNow in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so i spoke to my elder dad the other day, and he asked if i still am sporting a beard.

  i said yes, then i said, "i thought the society said its ok to have a neat trimmed beard now?

  " he said "no, no, no..if you read the article , it says in countries where it is accepted" so my response was "ummm, its pretty accepted here in america"..which he says "it reflects your spirituality" "if another wittness saw you, they would know you are weak"...i was like, "ok, i don't get it, and i follow christ/god, not men..." then he said in his hall" if a brother came in with a beard , he would not have privelages" then i just gave up, and tried to change the subject..ugggggggggg if these people would just listen to themselves , they would see the sillyness of there teachings...

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saename

  That's the basic example of the fallacy of moving the goalposts.

  JW: not-p because x.

  non-JW: not-x; therefore, p.

  JW: not-p because y.

  non-JW: not-y; therefore, p.

  JW: not-p because z.

  non-JW: not-z; therefore, p.

  No matter what you say, your opponent will think of another (unreasonable) objection. Eventually, it will end with this argument:

  JW: not-p because Governing Body said so in one of the publications.

  On the other hand, here is what I can say, and this is a syllogism which by definition necessarily leads to the true conclusion:

  1) Beards are appropriate for Jehovah's Witnesses in countries where they are accepted by the general population.

  2) Beards are accepted in both the USA and Canada by the general population of those countries.

  3) Beards are appropriate for Jehovah's Witnesses in both the USA and Canada.

  The above is an example of deductive reasoning. You cannot deny the conclusion unless you can challenge one of the premises. Jehovah's Witnesses have to accept both premises (premise #1 is even printed in their magazines) because they are true, but they still refuse to acknowledge that the conclusion is true. This is wrong, irrational and illogical.

  So... how do you debate someone who doesn't want to obey the rules of logic? You don't. You let them win and think they're smarter. Having that said, I myself will have to work on listening to my own advice...
• 
  30

  Bret Weinstein: Evergreen State College Racism Controversy

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  great discussion, well worth watching.

  covers racism, the bubble that some people live in vs the reality that resulted in trumps election and more (and jws get a mention too).. the rubin report (and many of the guests he has on) repeatedly knock it out of the park with sensible, calm and important analysis and commentary on important issues to our society.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-feapcgxnyy.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saename

  I heard about this when watching the Philip DeFranco show. Regrettably, I didn't follow the issue, so I wonder what has happened since then. I also didn't know Weinstein was on the Rubin Report to discuss this. I have to watch it right away!
• 
  15

  Elder "D": Catholics No Longer Believe in a Trinity

  by Saename in

  1. social
  2. current

  so in this topic, i mentioned i had a conversation with an elder "d." this elder said that the catholic church admitted the trinity is unscriptural.

  i'm pretty sure this is not true.

  the doctrine of trinity is the most fundamental belief in the catholic church.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saename

  As I said, I'm pretty sure that's not true. I've had conversations with Catholics not so long ago (debating philosophy), and they definitely believed in the Trinity. I'm just wondering how this elder got his information.
• 
  15

  Elder "D": Catholics No Longer Believe in a Trinity

  by Saename in

  1. social
  2. current

  so in this topic, i mentioned i had a conversation with an elder "d." this elder said that the catholic church admitted the trinity is unscriptural.

  i'm pretty sure this is not true.

  the doctrine of trinity is the most fundamental belief in the catholic church.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saename

  So in this topic, I mentioned I had a conversation with an elder "D." This elder said that the Catholic church admitted the Trinity is unscriptural. I'm pretty sure this is not true. The doctrine of Trinity is the most fundamental belief in the Catholic church. It doesn't seem plausible to me that they would denounce this doctrine. So I think that either someone (some JW) made this up and then spread the false news, or someone (some JW) misquoted, either intentionally or not, a Catholic source to prove that the Trinity doesn't exist. It seems to me like someone misquoted some Catholic source to show that the Catholic church no longer believes in the Trinity. If that's the case, does anyone know how that happened? Was it published in some publication or something? I'm really confused...
• 
  32

  If Jesus had to choose his earthly organisation NOW, who would win?

  by stuckinarut2 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  we all know that the society claims that jesus invisibly chose the bible students (forerunners of jw) in 1919 to be his organization here on earth.. yet, as we know, so much of what they then taught and did was wrong according to current teaching and practice.. the reply witnesses will give is something like "they were the most sincere seekers of truth blah blah...and jesus could see their potential".

  so, pretend for a moment that the current organization and the 1919 organization were both in concurrent existence at the time he invisibly came to choose.... which would he choose?

  the current or former?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saename

  If there is a god who cares about people who actually want to do good, he'd choose the secular community. We at least want to do moral things even if there is no god. Religious people who interpret their holy books literally? They do things because they are told to do them. They're told to shun? They shun. They're told to hate? They hate. They're told to love? They love.
• 
  12

  An apostate's Public Talk at KH (video!), harrassing JWs, ARC update, new light on footnotes and Q&A time

  by darkspilver in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it's tuesday morning 16 may 2017!.....

  australia: royal commission has led to more than 100 child abuse prosecutions.

  the guardian, 15 may 2017. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saename

  The most important three points the speaker made are these:

  1) Thomas and his need for proof.

  2) Apostasy in the organisation + hidden reference to Ray Franz.

  3) No need for an organization, for anyone who believes in Jesus will be saved: "[...] because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. [...] For, 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved'" (Rom. 10.9, 13).

  After he mentioned these three things, it was no surprise the elders realised what was going on.
• 
  17

  Let me get this straight according to today's wt a person can make his own decisions

  by poopie in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  on whether or not she chooses to shun?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saename

  Straight from the article:

  It is up to each of us to make decisions, and the wise, right choices are based on sound Scriptural knowledge [emphasis added].
  

  This quote means that even though we have to make our own decisions, those decisions should be based on the Bible. According to [the Governing Body's interpretation of] the Bible, we must shun those who are disfellowshipped or disassociated. Therefore, this is actually exactly like NewYork44M said:

  Of course, as long as the decision is to shun.
  

  You have the right to make your own decision as long as the decision is based on the Bible—namely, as long as you decide to shun. If you decide not to shun under the premise that we have to make our own decisions, and if you cite this article in support of your position when questioned by the elders, the elders will simply tell you that your decision is not the right choice because it is not based "on sound Scriptural knowledge." As the quote says, "right choices are based on sound Scriptural knowledge."

  To summarise, this article is just doublespeak and evasion. Its purpose is to make it look to the public as if Jehovah's Witnesses could make their own decisions when in reality their decisions must be based on the Bible the Governing Body's interpretation of the Bible. Don't fall for it.