Geez is it hard to get an answer out of Scholar or what!
He can't answer our questions because it proves him a liar like the cult he is in.
Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?
by Little Bo Peep 763 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Alwayshere
-
toreador
When is he ever going to wake up from the dreamland he is in?
-
-
Alleymom
Question for the board ---
I worry about Scholar. He's got to be experiencing a lot of cognitive dissonance, even though he keeps up a brave front.
For instance, he won't give me a direct answer to my question about whether the statements in the January 1, 1965 WT are completely accurate.
If he believes the information is wrong, then he has already crossed over the line and begun to sit in judgment of the Society in his own heart ... in which case, how he is really any different than those who are more public in their "apostasy"? His critcism may be unvoiced, but it is real.
If he believes the information is correct, then why won't he say so? Probably because he knows that to do so would be to admit that the Society's published information on the kings' reigns does NOT support the 607 date.
It seems to me that he's stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one.
Anyway, my question is this: Supposing he does come to the point where he's ready to face the fatal flaws in the Society's chronology. Is he going to feel welcome here?
Let me confess that I regret the tone of some of my own posts to Scholar in the past, especially in the old Furuli thread. Even though I quite agree with all those who have shown the un-scholarliness of Scholar's statements and positions, it does bother me when the disagreement is expressed in a belittling way.
I realize that when an argument is truly silly, a "reductio ad absurdum" response may be exactly what is called for, in order that others who are reading the thread will realize that the assertion has absolutely no merit whatsoever. So, from that perspective, I can see the reason why some might feel it's necessary to thoroughly expose all the flaws in Scholar's posts using a kind of no-holds-barred rhetoric.
But, still, I worry about him when I see all the messages making fun of him. :-( I wouldn't like it if people made fun of me that way.
Just my two cents ...
Tender-hearted Marjorie
-
GetBusyLiving
Marjorie this guy bangs around on this site with the only purpose of disuading lurking witnesses who have doubts from finding out the truth about the 'truth'. If there was even an ounce of honesty or even sincerity with this guy he wouldnt be getting the hard time he does.. there have been plenty of witnesses with doubts who come on here and get treated very kind and with patience. I've been following these posts for months now.. this guy is a liar and he knows it.
Not to sound at all condecending considering your intimdating knowledge of what you talk about but when you've been a part of all those lies, when you've been a Witness and you've waded in the hypocracy.. we know what he's up to and we take it personally.
GBL
-
toreador
I know what you mean Marjorie. Sometimes things get a little rough but Scholar does have a way of rubbing a person the wrong way when he will not answer direct questions when asked and keeps coming back with points discussed many times before and answered. He is a master at evading questions and making ad hominem attacks instead of dealing with the facts.
Tor
-
AlanF
Alleymom, scholar pretendus has been at this for years. He's been told over and over and over again the same things. He continues to set forth arguments that were long ago blasted to dust. He's a bald-faced liar. He uses despicable ad hominems, and whines like a baby when the tables are turned on him. His admitted purpose on this board is to try to defend the Watchtower Society's lunacy so that other JWs who read material on chronology might be persuaded to continue believing the nonsense. He's been between a rock and hard place many, many times, but he's so pathologically dishonest that he refuses to admit it. No one is that stupid, but plenty of JWs are that stubborn, and that dishonest -- and that kind of dishonesty is something I will not tolerate. I will give no quarter to such people.
I refuse to give in to such disgusting dishonesty for many reasons. I call a spade a spade with people after they've been shown time after time to be deliberately and blatantly dishonest. I will call claimed Christians like scholar pretendus hypocrites when they repeatedly display gross dishonesty. This is not so much for their own good, but for that of onlookers who can see what's true and what's not. If this idiot changes his mind and begins showing honesty, then of course people on this board will welcome him. Sometimes it takes a mighty slap or series of slaps upside the head to wake up a cult member. A number of JWs I've dealt with over the years were much like scholar pretendus, defending the indefensible and refusing to admit even the tiniest problem with Watchtower teaching. They eventually saw the truth, and told me that my sometimes harsh words contributed much to waking them up. Some of them are now my friends.
I consider this sort of dishonesty to be in the same league with the dishonesty that allows the Watchtower organization to put its own interests above that of victims in pedophile cases. Deny, deny, deny facts and responsibility is how JW leaders and minions handle that. Scholar pretendus' conduct is the same. It is that sort of attitude that has led the JW organization to become the disgusting, destructive cult it is today. If you'd seen the horrible things that this cult has done to people -- including many in my own family -- you'd understand why I take the stand I do.
AlanF
-
Narkissos
Marjorie,
I understand your concern. Here's how I feel about it.
Any of our social commitments in "real life" implies some role playing. Perhaps posting on a db involves just a little more of it.
The character presently known as scholar strikes me as exceedingly disingenuous. As a result, I have no ambition to convince "him" of anything, and I would not even try to pursue a long argument with "him". When "he" happens to write some nonsense on a subject I happen to know a little about (e.g. Bible translation), I just pick it up and try to make my point. That's all. I'm not bothered that scholar goes unconvinced, because this is part of "his" character.
Now if the person who hides behind "scholar" gets tired of this lousy character someday and comes out with a different (I mean, just intellectually honest) character, I'm sure he'll be fully welcome. He would not be the first one here switching from apologist to honest (even if that should mean apostate). If he doesn't want to take the risk he can close his "scholar" account and register under another alias (the administrators would know but I'm sure they would not "out" him).
But while he wants to play the "scholar" role he must expect either indifference or strong rebuttal. Along with some scorn corresponding to the silly pretentions of his "character". Jmo.
-
Alleymom
GBL, Toreador, Alan, and Narkissos ---
Many thanks for your thoughtful responses. And also, many thanks for not jumping all over me <wry grin>.
Right after I posted my message, my husband and I went out to dinner, and I told him I wasn't sure if I was out of line to say what I did. But I'm glad I did speak up, because your replies gave me a lot to think about.
One of the things I appreciate about this board is the honesty and straightforwardness so many of you bring to the discussions.
Alan: I will call claimed Christians like scholar pretendus hypocrites when they repeatedly display gross dishonesty. This is not so much for their own good, but for that of onlookers who can see what's true and what's not. If this idiot changes his mind and begins showing honesty, then of course people on this board will welcome him. Sometimes it takes a mighty slap or series of slaps upside the head to wake up a cult member. A number of JWs I've dealt with over the years were much like scholar pretendus, defending the indefensible and refusing to admit even the tiniest problem with Watchtower teaching. They eventually saw the truth, and told me that my sometimes harsh words contributed much to waking them up. Some of them are now my friends.
Gross dishonesty, especially in the use of scholarly references, is one of my own pet peeves, and I've called people on that in my discussions in my regular forum. In my post I talked about using rhetoric such as reduction ad absurdum to make a point, and I can see, from what you said, that you sometimes use "harsh words" deliberately in order to make your point. And the fact that you have had people tell you that your "sometimes harsh words" helped wake them up is a telling point.
Narkissos: The character presently known as scholar strikes me as exceedingly disingenuous. As a result, I have no ambition to convince "him" of anything, and I would not even try to pursue a long argument with "him". When "he" happens to write some nonsense on a subject I happen to know a little about (e.g. Bible translation), I just pick it up and try to make my point. That's all. I'm not bothered that scholar goes unconvinced, because this is part of "his" character.
Now if the person who hides behind "scholar" gets tired of this lousy character someday and comes out with a different (I mean, just intellectually honest) character, I'm sure he'll be fully welcome. He would not be the first one here switching from apologist to honest (even if that should mean apostate). If he doesn't want to take the risk he can close his "scholar" account and register under another alias (the administrators would know but I'm sure they would not "out" him).Very interesting. This idea of the role playing makes a lot of sense to me. And I feel that I understand you better now --- you are not trying to convince "scholar," you're just responding to points. Actually, it helps me understand something about myself, too: I have always felt very uncomfortable addressing Scholar as"Scholar"; I would prefer to call him Neil. I guess I think of the real "him" as Neil. The character known as "scholar" really is just a persona.
Toreador: Scholar does have a way of rubbing a person the wrong way when he will not answer direct questions when asked and keeps coming back with points discussed many times before and answered. He is a master at evading questions and making ad hominem attacks instead of dealing with the facts.
Yep, he sure does <s>. I've been around the mulberry bush a few times with him in the past, and the evasions do get tiresome.
GBL: Not to sound at all condecending considering your intimdating knowledge of what you talk about but when you've been a part of all those lies, when you've been a Witness and you've waded in the hypocracy.. we know what he's up to and we take it personally.
<nodding my head> That's one of the things I said to my husband at dinner. Even though I've been involved in talking to JW's for about 15 years now, I'm still an outsider looking in, so, for me, it's still sort of academic. OTOH, I've become close to some of you and have heard enough of the horror stories, that I can really understand why you take it personally. That makes a lot of sense to me.
What I'm getting from all of your responses is that, from your firsthand knowledge, you see this guy as dangerous, and your first concern is to address the falsehood.
Thanks for your patience in explaining.
Marjorie
-
Alwayshere
this guy is a liar and he knows it
Exactly the truth! He is a true Apostate. And I know of at least 6 other elders, [who go to the same Kingdon Hall I used to go] who are Apostates. Their main purpose is to cover for the WTS and get rid of the ones who know the truth, so they lable us the Apostates so others won't have anything to do with us. I know there are elders who are sincere, but most of them know what they are doing and they like their job. Scholar could answer our questions but he will avoid them or continue to lie because he can't agree with the truth and be a JW.