jwfacts or jwinterpretations?

by slimboyfat 118 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  BackseatDevil

  (1) Nietzsche said a lot of brilliant things, and a lot of stupid things. Either way, his philosophy is limited to the time in which he lived.

  (2) Quoting him, or any other philosophical thought process as a measure in which to lead modern life is no different then those that quote the bible and use that as a measure in which to lead modern life.

  (3) Making "profound" conclusions out of statements not originating in the English language is not only a discredit to the one who originally made the statement, but also ignores the 'color' in which it which the language at the time would have painted such statements. With this, basing a current "new understanding" of something simply based on word definition is not only lacking in depth and structure, but also pointless in one's pursuit to be intellectually relevant.

  It is my opinion that this thread is neither, although the fact remains that this thread does actually exist.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Like "Justin Martyr called Jesus a created angel" for example? These sorts of things are subject to endless debate. From what I gather he called Jesus an angel, and he classed him along with creation. So "created angel"? Maybe not those exact words, but the idea is there it could be argued.
• 

  The Quiet One

  SBF: You started a thread titled 'jwfacts or jwinterpretations' so that people would react and defend the site.. whereas you could have mentioned that you think it's a great site AND are not criticising the name or suggesting it should be changed, in your OP. Thats why I used the term 'inflammatory', you could have just used a different title, something like 'witnesses are wrong: fact or interpretation?', as I have already said. You use the name to get attention and then you admitted its a good site with a good name. What claim are you making exactly? At best you seem to be attempting some kind of pseudo-intellectual discussion along the lines of 'do absolute facts exist?'.. In which case my reply would be no, but.. in a court case the evidence is built up until the 'facts' are established, as far as it is possible, from the available evidence. Doctors treat patients from the available evidence. If you would like to assert that there are no such thing as facts, then there can be no medical science or legal justice system that protect people/save lives on many occasions. When an organisation makes absolute claims of being 'gods only mouthpiece, have always spoken the Truth etc.' and there are many articles of their own that contradict such claims.. The facts can be established quite clearly and the reader can make their own conclusion. Let's move this forward: A fact is something known to be true.. Which statements on Jwfacts are false in your view?
• 

  slimboyfat

  I don't know any. I am talking about ways of looking at things. One way of looking at JWs is that they are a religion that makes false claims on many subjects and that has practices that harm its members. That's roughly how I interpret the meaning of the "facts" conveyed by jwfacts. But are there not other ways of looking at the situation? Such as from the point of view of the JW who is happy in his beliefs, and finds them agreeable in shaping his life? Are not those the "facts" of JWs to him?
• 

  The Quiet One

  Your OP said:"should the website be renamed jwinterpretations instead?" On page 3 you said: "I think it's a good name too, and I'm not suggesting Paul change it." --Putting these posts together would have made your point a little clearer early on. Though I fail to see why you targeted a site which is made up almost entirely of quotes and statistics. On which part of the site does he make a statement that is clearly open to interpretation, meaning a viewpoint without solid facts (or evidence) to back it up?
• 

  slimboyfat

  There are no facts in isolation form interpretation, that's the point .
• 

  The Quiet One

  " Such as from the point of view of the JW who is happy in his beliefs, and finds them agreeable in shaping his life? Are not those the 'facts' of JWs to him? " -- That is his view, which he has the right to hold, and his view of the facts (of the Watchtowers printed teachings) may be that Jw's are correct. To Paul Grundy and many who view his site, the facts of what has been said by the Watchtower and its contradicting of itself, undeniably point to a different conclusion. If, today, I say that my full birth name was Zod and tomorrow I claim my full birth name was Kal-el, and I claim to be the only person on earth who tells the absolute and undeniable truth.. What do these facts indicate? (remember Millions now Living Will Never Die) I have to go now, have a good evening.
• 

  jookbeard

  SBF still believing that The WTS is the fastest growing religion on the planet!
• 

  The Quiet One

  "There are no facts in isolation from interpretation, that's the point ." -- Is it a fact that you exist, or merely an interpretation on the part of the members of this forum and anyone who reads this? Or maybe we're all just butterflies dreaming we are human.. *heads off to find straight jacket*
• 

  slimboyfat

  Here is a longer argument I made some time ago on similar lines. I find that I made more sense back then that I do now.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/157734/1/If-you-believe-in-nothing-then-how-do-you-know-JWs-are-wrong