Which Awake was that from 5/22 but which year?
I Wonder How They Had the Cheek To Print this ?
by BluesBrother 22 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
blondie
*** g90 5/22 p. 12 Five Common Fallacies—Don’t Be Fooled by Them! *** (5/22/90)
The article on propaganda is also similiar as to the gall the WTS had to print it...even on their website (6/22/90)
http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2000/6/22/article_03.htm
http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2000/6/22/article_01.htm
http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2000/6/22/article_02.htm
http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2000/6/22/diagram_01.htm
-
M.J.
Thanks for the tip! That is simply incredible. There has got to be someone in the writing department with a sense of humor!
Here's another one for you:
FALLACY NUMBER 1Attacking the Person This type of fallacy attempts to disprove or discredit a perfectly valid argument or statement by making an irrelevant attack on the person presenting it.
*** w86 3/15 p. 19 par. 14 Allow No Place for the Devil! ***
14
Finally, we might consider what the Society has published in the past on chronology. Some opposers claim that Jehovah’s Witnesses are false prophets. These opponents say that dates have been set, but nothing has happened. Again we ask, What is the motive of these critics? Are they encouraging wakefulness on the part of God’s people, or are they, rather, trying to justify themselves for falling back into sleepy inactivity? -
M.J.
FALLACY NUMBER 2Appealing to Authority This form of verbal intimidation is accomplished by invoking the testimonials of so-called experts or famous people. Of course, for advice it is only natural to look to people who know more about something than we do. But not all appeals to authority are based on sound reasoning.
...Interestingly, clergymen today are known to resort to similar tactics when unable to prove from the Bible such teachings as the Trinity, the immortality of the soul, and hellfire.
Invalid appeals to authority also abound in advertising, where celebrities commonly give testimonials in fields far removed from their area of expertise. A successful golfer encourages you to buy a photocopying machine. A professional football player promotes refrigerators. An Olympic gymnast recommends a certain breakfast cereal. Many do not stop and think that such "authorities" probably know little or nothing about the products they peddle.
Realize, too, that even legitimate experts—like everyone else—may be biased. A highly credentialed researcher may claim that smoking tobacco is harmless. But if he or she is employed by the tobacco industry, is not such "expert" testimony suspect?
*** w67 10/1 p. 587 par. 9 Finding Freedom with Jehovah’s Visible Organization ***
Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization, not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret the Bible. For this reason the Bible cannot be properly understood without Jehovah’s visible organization in mind. *** w83 1/15 p. 27 pars. 19-20 Armed for the Fight Against Wicked Spirits ***
Yet there are some who point out that the organization has had to make adjustments before, and so they argue: "This shows that we have to make up our own mind on what to believe." This is independent thinking. Why is it so dangerous?
Such thinking is an evidence of pride. And the Bible says: "Pride is before a crash, and a haughty spirit before stumbling." (Proverbs 16:18) If we get to thinking that we know better than the organization, we should ask ourselves: "Where did we learn Bible truth in the first place? Would we know the way of the truth if it had not been for guidance from the organization? Really, can we get along without the direction of God’s organization?" No, we cannot! -
heathen
the Bible cannot be properly understood without Jehovah’s visible organization in mind.
Gee I guess that's their very own expert opinion? I don't think it's the idependant thinking that causes people to give up the religion, it's the lack of tollerance for it . The apostle John encouraged people to test out the inspired exspressions to see which ones originated with God . 1st John 4:1 exactly how to find out who the false prophet is . I love the way they comment that false predictions served the purpose of keeping the flock awake ..........boy I tell ya that just takes the academy award for gall . These type of predictions is what caused many to sell all their belongings and be totally dependant on an organization that ignored their needs . BOOOOO to you WTBTS
-
restrangled
It's not just one cheek, its two and they're sitting on them.
amy
-
NewYork44M
I am so excited. I learned a new word today - cheek; cheeky
Adj. 1. cheeky - offensively bold; "a brash newcomer disputed the age-old rules for admission to the club"; "a nervy thing to say"
brash, nervy
-
rebel8
That was a fantastic analysis. Thanks!
-
nicolaou
Nice to see this one pop up again BB.
-
Disillusioned JW
Excellent comments were made on this topic thread in the year 2006 (or so), but I disagree with the some of the points.
The first post in this topic said "We may agree with John Glenn, but he is an astronought [sic], not a scientist", but many of NASA's astronauts on the International Space Station conduct scientific experiments and are thus scientists. Regarding John Glenn specifically, I don't know if he performed science experiences in space, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Glenn says he '... lacked a science-based degree,[65] but had taken more classes since leaving college than needed for graduation. ... A portion of the astronauts' training was in the classroom, where they learned space science. ... Glenn was considered an expert in matters of science and technology due to his background. ... Glenn was an ordained elder of the Presbyterian Church.[227] His religious faith began before he became an astronaut, and was reinforced after he traveled in space. "To look out at this kind of creation and not believe in God is to me impossible," said Glenn after his second (and final) space voyage.[228] He saw no contradiction between belief in God and the knowledge that evolution is "a fact" and believed evolution should be taught in schools:[229] "I don't see that I'm any less religious that I can appreciate the fact that science just records that we change with evolution and time, and that's a fact. It doesn't mean it's less wondrous and it doesn't mean that there can't be some power greater than any of us that has been behind and is behind whatever is going on."[230] ' John Glenn thus could be considered an authority on space science.
Regarding Francis Hitching, though he definitely believed in the paranormal, including psychic powers, in my reading of his book called The Neck Of Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong and of "Section two: The Emergence of man" in his The Mysterious World: An Atlas of the Unexplained book I see no attribution by him of evolution being directed by psychic power or by a cosmic force. I ask those who claim that Hitching believes evolution was directed by a cosmic force or by psychic power to provide a reference to where Hitching said such - until then I will disbelieve that claim. Hitching does however appear to believe "psychic evolution" in the sense of appearing to claim that psychic powers in humans have evolved; regarding that see his The Mysterious World: An Atlas of the Unexplained book.
As to whether of not Hitching was a scientist as a career he was apparently was not, but I wonder if he was an amateur scientist in regards to the topic of megalithic stone structures, since I think he might have done in-person archaeological study onsite at such structures. His book about such, called Earth Magic, received a positive review by Stuart Fleming in the "New Scientist" magazine. [See https://books.google.com/books?id=Rb9V2QSbnecC&pg=PA659&dq=francis+hitching&hl=en&ei=tpesTuLgMYuu8QOBlPygCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-preview-link&safe=active&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=francis%20hitching&f=false .] Though the reviewer was skeptical of a number of Hitching's claims, he says "Earth Magic is well worth the money as a balanced introduction to the subject."
The hardcover first USA edition published in 1982 by Ticknor & Fields of Hitching's book called The Neck Of Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong on the back side of book's dust jacket says "Francis Hitching is our perfect guide through the tumult of scientific and nonscientific debate that is spotlighted by the Darwin centennial. If Darwin's theory is not valid, is there a better one? The Neck Of Giraffe suggests that there might be one--any day now." Notice that the publisher says that Hitching is the "perfect guide" regarding the debate about Darwin's theory of natural selection being the prime mechanism of evolution. That might be part of the reason that the WT literally called Hitching an authority, in regards to evolution, on page 108 of the WT's book from 1989 called THE BIBLE: God's Word or Mans?. Another reason why the WT might have called Hitching an authority on the topic is due to some of the reviews quoted in the edition of Hitching's book published by "Meridian": "New American Library" in June 1987 (with the subtitle of Darwin, Evolution, and the New Biology). That edition (on the first page of the paperback edition) says ' "The only account I know that conveys to the non-specialist reader crucial arguments as capable of affecting our understanding of ourselves as Darwin's account changed the entire late Victorian world." --BOSTON GLOBE' The outside back cover of that paperback edition says the following.
' "Excellent writing about science for lay readers... Lively, far-ranging, provocative." --WALL STREET JOURNAL
"Of particular importance today... Should stir quite a brew." --KIRTUS REVIEWS
"For its contribution to the understanding of an important issue, this book merits wide readership by both general readers and specialists." --LIBRARY JOURNAL'
In my reading of The Neck Of Giraffe, though I notice some inaccurate statements, I also notice much in the book that agrees with various pro-evolution books written by various scientists. To me, Hitching's book is very informative - including in pointing out both some strengths and some weaknesses in evolution theory (and the evidence pertaining to such).