by biometrics 56 Replies latest watchtower bible
Evidently...
Reasonably...
Happify...
Jehovah's organization...
Jehovah's theocratic organization...
Organization...
Circuit / District overseer/assembly
Writing / Service Department
Governing Body
Go where the need is greatest
Theocratic Ministry School
Magazines
Present truth
>Jehovah loves everyone<
YHWH, bible, kingdom hall, governing body, service meeting, local needs, Daily Text, spiritual food, meeting.
jehovah's witness
theocracy
. . . suit. Where does it say about wearing suits... and ties (Of early Christendom orig) for males.
"Skimpy attire." As seen in KH on sisters in hot weather when males are dripping in suits.
Millions now living will never die.
God's channel of communication
God's heavenly organisation
God's earthly organisation
Brooklyn Bethel
Song number
Watchtower study
RBC
HLC
Kingdom Activity
Spritual feeding programme
1914
Convention
Judicial Comittee
Foreign Field
Wholesome recreation
Disfellowship
Public reproof
Private reproof
Watchtower study
Magazine placements
Circuit assembly.
Bangalore
So we used to use the argument that the word "Trinity" doesn't appear in the Bible to refute that doctrine.
Not that that is the strongest argument for or against any particular belief, but we used it nonetheless. So then why does the WTBTS invent so many ideas/doctrines that are NOT in the Bible?
JWs are taught certain "reasoning" skills for use in the field ministry. In reality, these "skills" are really more like debating tactics or techniques, short scripts of verbal jiu-jitsu designed to throw the uninitiated off balance and attempt to force them into a position of mental submission.
When you consider the fact that, as JWs, we got up early, had our coffee, thought about what we were going to say and how we were going to say it--sometimes practicing these scripts for years--it's no surprise that we could often walk away from a door "victorious" over the poor, unsuspecting householder that was still in their pajamas, probably only 1/2 way through their first cup o' joe and still wondering whether or not they should venture outside to get the morning paper! Not exactly a fair fight, eh?
The fact is, there is really no actual critical thinking or logic going on here, no careful and thoughtful deductive or analytical reasoning. It's just some clever wordplay masquerading as high rhetoric and it could just as easily be turned around against them. Let's look at a couple of hypothetical dialogues and see how that might work.
#1 The Trinity: For starters, let's examine this Ol' Chestnut approach to "disproving" the Trinity doctrine :
JW: [Somewhat condescendingly] You DO know that the word "Trinity" never appears in the Bible?
Trinitarian: Um, yes. But the concept is there!
JW: That's what you say. But don't you think that if Jesus really wanted us to believe in the Trinity that he would have taught us about it and the word would actually be in the Bible?
Trinitarian: Well, yeah ... I guess, maybe. I dunno'.
#2 - The Governing Body: Now let's turn things around a bit, shall we :
FreeThinker: You DO know that the word "Governing Body" never appears in the Bible?
JW: Um, yes. But the concept is there!
FT: That's what you say. But don't you think that if Jesus really wanted us to believe in the "Governing Body" that he would have taught us about it and the word would actually be in the Bible?
JW: Well, yeah ... I guess, maybe. I dunno'.
Or how about ...
#3 - Disfellowshipping and Shunning: Let's keep 'em turning:
FT: You DO know that the word "Disfellowship" never appears in the Bible?
JW: Um, yes. But the concept is there!
FT: That's what you say. But don't you think that if Jesus really wanted us to believe in "Disfellowshipping and shunning" that he would have taught us about it and the words would actually be in the Bible?
JW: Well, yeah ... I guess, maybe. I dunno'.
We could keep this up for days inserting whatever false, unscriptural doctrine we want to expose, but I'm sure you get the point.
In reality, whether a particular word does or does not appear in Bible is really not a very conclusive argument either for or against a particular belief, as the fact that this so-called method of "Reasoning from the Scriptures tm " so easily swings both ways readily proves.
It also demonstrates the general lack of rigorous thinking of the part of the majority Jehovah's Witnesses when it comes to accepting and/or rejecting doctrines and beliefs.
Certainly we could use that line of reasoning (if we wanted) to refute whatever WT teaching we find unscriptural!
