bah! The only thing missing from this forum is dancing girls.
What's missing from this forum is ....
by Spectrum 30 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
SixofNine
oh, yeah, and a search function.
Also a reasonable number of topics available to start per poster.
-
Leolaia
I for one would enjoy talking biblical topics with someone like Greg Stafford. Also, with respect to discussing biblical topics, a few of the conservative-minded folks here have held their own pretty well (I'm not thinking of people who merely post material from other websites, but those who try to think through some of the relevant issues). I would love to see more representation of the pro-JW side and I do think that some ppl here can be unduly harsh to the "apologists", but I tend to agree with Alan. I am continually surprised at the trolling manner of many of the apologists, which makes me wonder sometimes about their sincerity. Most JWs I knew were not that dumb, and that many JW beliefs -- while in the end logically inconsistent or indefensible as "biblical" -- could be more ably defended than the way they are here.
-
peacefulpete
Theological debates are like arguing the proverbial "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin". sadly people actually debated this in the MiddleAges.
-
AuldSoul
I think any debate has value if only in training the mind in the forms of valid as opposed to invalid argumentation. Theological discussion is incredibly valuable to those recently exited or remaining in. Those who have left off theological discussion seem to hold themselves as superior for having "figured it out" forgetting that they did not do so entirely alone, even if they dug through tomes to accomplish the task they were influenced by the thinking of others.
For such ones, I ask so what if some need more help than you did? Does that make them less or you more? I believe if threads started by newbie JWs wasn't immediately assaulted with atheistic and Christian-bashing sentiment we would engender more long-term interaction.
I get the feeling the more vocal atheists on the forum are so tickled with themselves that they left JWism, they no longer have any regard whatsoever for any who are currently trapped as they were at one time. These seem bent on ostracizing any who breathe a word of spirituality as uncouth, provincial know-nothings. A more tolerant initiation would tend to create an environment where Spectrum's recommendation could be met.
That is, an environment that is less ridiculing and scornful of other humans but rather accords them respect for no reason other than the fact that they are a human (if you must).
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
Spectrum
I think some of you have missed the point I was trying to make.
It isn't about the inability of some JWs to make convincing sensical arguments but the lack of them on this site which leads to one sided debate, everybody agreeing with everybody else and slapping each other on the back on a debate well done. To me this is like inbreeding, the end results aren't good, even freakish.
I noticed that the main point raised here is JWs can't argue cos they are brainwashed. Well this fact being exposed is good enough for me to want more of them on this site. The brainwashed arguments they come up with need to be refuted and exposed as such, it's a better debate than:
John, you know JWs are brainwashed?
I believe you are right Pete.
In my opening post I also included non ex-JWs ( never have been JWs) who can lend themselves to good debate. Shazard is a good example. -
AuldSoul
I agree, Spectrum. Woops! There I go, proving your point.
To rationally refute an argument presented by a JW is helpful to lurkers. To throw up hands, express anger or resentment, question their presence here because of the hypocrisy, etc. helps the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.
Even if the argument has already been refuted 100 times, new vistors hit this site every month. They aren't going to read all the old posts. If they are JWs, they probably aren't going to start by reading the Best Of section. The argument needs to be patiently refuted for the 101st time. Anyone who doesn't feel up to doing so can always refrain from posting to the thread.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
peacefulpete
Those who have left off theological discussion seem to hold themselves as superior for having "figured it out" forgetting that they did not do so entirely alone, even if they dug through tomes to accomplish the task they were influenced by the thinking of others.
For such ones, I ask so what if some need more help than you did? Does that make them less or you more? I believe if threads started by newbie JWs wasn't immediately assaulted with atheistic and Christian-bashing sentiment we would engender more long-term interaction.
If you were including me in that comment I have to say that "superior" never enters my mind nor does Christian bashing. I have a strong clear opinion that those exiting a Bible literalist sect need to first reexamine the premises that support such a sect. First among these premises is that the Bible is inerrant. That is a big pill and tact is needed, but very often a simple straightforward presentation of critical views of whatever Bible passage is in discussion will be the first time an exiting JW will have been exposed to modern scholarship. They will then either totally ignore it, attempt to refute it, or accept it as a rational answer to thorny Bible interpretation questions and begin a new life with a more sober view of the book. If they do the latter they are much less likely to be haunted by self doubt about whether they made a terrible mistake by leaving the Bible literalist sect.
I get the feeling the more vocal atheists on the forum are so tickled with themselves that they left JWism, they no longer have any regard whatsoever for any who are currently trapped as they were at one time. These seem bent on ostracizing any who breathe a word of spirituality as uncouth, provincial know-nothings. A more tolerant initiation would tend to create an environment where Spectrum's recommendation could be met.
That is, an environment that is less ridiculing and scornful of other humans but rather accords them respect for no reason other than the fact that they are a human (if you must).
I don't know what site you've been at but this is certainly not the typical response I've observed. Can you offer a recent thread that illustrates this?
-
AuldSoul
peacefulpete,
I think JW was a good example of one who got undeservedly rough treatment early on. Also, LeftBehind, who has now left the org, was treated badly by a lot of posters on her first thread.
Something I want to tell you apostates
Fortunately, she recognized that it was a wide mix of responses and a lot of the people who reamed her early on had softer posts later. But many subjects that start out specifying believers only or where the questioner is obviously lookig for the viewpoints of those who credit the Bible as having some merit wind up being reduced to protracted arguments over the validity of belief in the actuality of anything beyond tangible reality, or with the Bible being slandered up one side and down the other. I haven't made a note of a lot of the occurrences, but it isn't a rarity.
Some of those people don't come back. People's beliefs don't change in an instant just because we say a magic phrase at them, any more than that would have worked as a JW in the door-to-door work. If we appear unreasonable (whether we are or not is immaterial) we "prove" the WTS correct.
Everyone here is free to post however they want to within the guidelines Simon has set out. Beyond that, it is up to us individually. We can either make it a more welcoming place for lurkers to come out of hiding, or we can make it so scary they never leave their shell.
I wasn't pointing a finger at anyone, peacefulpete. And I won't, on this issue.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
bob1999
" An argument should have a counter argument'
Isn't the counter argument published in the awake and watchtower all the time?