Keep developing your "bull-sh-t" detection skills. Look up "fallacies" on the internet. There are a lot of good web-sites that list the common ones. Memorize the fallacies like you would scriptures. The rest will take care of itself. In fact going to the meetings will give you an endless source of material to hone your skills. One day you won't be able to take it anymore.
Convince me
by Liza 116 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Mad
Jgnat wrote:"You know, right there sets the JW's apart, and not for the better. To say that ALL OTHERS are following a false god is to condemn them all to death. Other churches preach salvation, but they don't tell converts that going to the church down the street means certain death.
Mad, you've shown yourself blatantly ignorant of what regular Christians believe. Don't pretend to have searched it out, because I know you haven't."
Mad replies: I'm starting to think (SERIOUSLY) that you don't KNOW anything, Jgnat. What a childish thing to say. Too bad for you it is not true at ALL- otherwise I would COWER at you 'powerful' reasonings!
Grow up, my 'friend'....
Agape,
Mad
-
M.J.
going along with what proplog2 said, here's a great online book to read on common logical fallacies.
It will help in every case.
http://www.axiosinstitute.org/assets_original/pdfs/nonsense/nonsense_complete.pdf
-
aligot ripounsous
Liza,
Your looking for different opinions before a possible commitment to JW's religion tells the seriousness of your approach. You are very fortunate to have the internet at hand, I'm sure there are many here who wish they had gotten it when they started association with JWs.
Much is said to you on this board about various aspects of your life as a would-be JW, so I limit my contribution to the topic of free speech. I am, still, a JW and I like to confront various points of view too. Unfortunately, the very fact I visit this site shows that I've not been able to find such exchanges within the congregation. Actually, it was acceptable so long as I was not baptized, as I found for a while an open minded elder (who left the organization later) to speak to freely about the questions which were bumping in my mind as it happens with any newcomer. The way many JWs do, I told myself that I could leave unanswered questions aside and in time, with personal study, reflection and association with the congregation, I would get satisfactory answers.
However as time was passing I had to fully realize that after baptism the lid on the pressure cooker, where questions were still in turmoil, was tightly sealed by the organization, and also by a measure of self-censorship, which wouldn't let the steam out because my new status as a JW would impel me to responsibly "build up the brothers' faith" and it was no time to question anymore.
You must have noticed that quite a few posters on this board have been JWs for 20, 30 or more years before eventually breaking off, which shows that you don't put yourself into question overnight after you have joined this organization. The internet makes it easier now, though, as it lets you know that many other JWs are or once were in the same uncomfortable position.
The sad reality is that there is no freedom of speech within the WTS. A few months ago, some elders complained that I was constantly airing deviant comments at the book and WT study meetings. A talk was given from the platform, in general terms, about the matter, and the circuit overseer thought he, too, had to straighten things up in a talk, saying plainly that you have a right not to agree with the F&DS teaching so long as you keep silent. In doing so, he de facto recognized the totalitarian nature of this organization, since faithfulness to Jehovah is measured to the standard of your mute adhesion to the WTS. This conclusion is in line with what other posters have already written to you here.
In the end, the decision is yours but, at least, you have here on this board abundant material to ponder over.
-
zack
I was born in the religion, raised in it, pioneered, and served as an elder. If you are looking for a highly structured group that believes legalism is the
way to salvation, then JW's are for you. But beware, and many prior have said this more eloquently, you must leave your rational mind at the door because
never again will you be allowed to "think". Every lapse in logic, every contradiction, every intrusion into your life, every foray into speculation on the part
of the FDS will be off limits to your mind, and more importantly, your conscience. You will be asked to behave in a way which at times will shame you inwardly, as
well it should, because you will be told to obey on pain of everlasting destruction the dictates of men you will never know, even if it means treating your fellowman with comtempt.
And just as an aside, the Divine Name was given to the Jews and they were told in no uncertain terms to NEVER take the name of their God in a worthless way. Their
reluctance over time to pronounce the Divine name did not stem from "superstition" but from a very real fear of being struck dead by YHWH. After all, the keeping
of the Sabbath was also part of the 10 Commandments and a man found to be picking up sticks for firewood on a Sabbath Day was put to death early in the
history of the nation. Picking up sticks for kindling---- the 10 Commandments were pretty absolute. So who was to say what was "a worthless way" when it came
to using the "Name"? I think most Jews did not want to risk finding out. Ergo, they slowly quit using it.
Do you want to be a Jew or a Christian? Could not Christ pronounce the Divine name? Sure. Yet it is not recorded in Scipture. JW's place way too much emphasis on the use of the
mispronounced name of YHWH, villify others for not using it, and yet they follow not the example of Christ who simply called Him "Father."
Want to be a JW? Go ahead. But take the advice they are always so free in giving and "count the cost" first.
-
cultswatter
To be a JW, you have to take in accurate knowledge. The problem is trying to sort out the acccurate knowledge from the inaccurate knowledge.
Be it known that the WTS is continually changing what the accurate knowledge is or isn't
http://www.filesend.net/download.php?f=67f4c69daca0105ade4e351d59aaba28
-
zagor
Interesting post Liza, I've just read your "doubts" and just wonder how long you would last as a JW before some of that stuff really start hitting hard, not to mention the fact that there would be NOT A SINGLE person in a congregation whom you will be able to fully trust and tell all of that or even ONE of these things you listed here. I fear you would eventually come back to forums such as this to freely and openly discuss these things.
During a convention when I was about eight years old, I heard about a brother whose mother was sick in the hospital. He and his wife prayed to Jehovah God, and later on his mother got better. Is this a miracle? If so then the congregation has stated before that miracles would no longer happen and any such "miracles" are works of demons and Satan to misguide people from the truth. But Jehovah may have just given his mother the strength to get better
If I was a member of a GB I would never have allowed this to be publicly acknowledged as a miracle, not because of conflicting doctrine but because of so many people who were in similar situation and didn't have such a "miraculous" deliverance. What does that tell to them? They are not faithful or not worthy enough?!? Think about that for a moment!
-
zagor
So what if C.T Russel was a freemason and dabbled in the occult?
Just to fill this in, Russel was never a member of Freemason fraternity. Just the fact that he used some of their terminology doesn't make him a freemason. Thomas Jefferson used their terminology too because freemasonic ideas were fresh new way of looking at things and and words they used helped the cause. Though that doesn't stop conspiracy theorist from making Jefferson a mason either.
But I have to tell you otherwise I'm impressed by your questions.
---------------
zagor of the class "Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers."~ Voltaire -
jgnat
Mad, your criticism would hold more weight if you would back it up with examples. I can. Will you?
-
M.J.
Hi Liza,
I seem to remember you mentioned something about doubting some of the creation timelines put out by the Society. Here's a bit of my personal research related to that topic. I find it disingenuous that the society doesn't bring up all the various positions on the subject of creation along with the pros/cons of each view. But of course that's not their style.
Here you go...
First of all, people who believe that God created everything in a literal 6 days, as directly stated in Genesis must also take the position that prehistoric creatures such as dinosaurs were created by God not very long before man--at the most only one day before! Therefore man and dinosaurs were living at the same time. It is usually concluded that dinosaurs were wiped out in the flood of Noah's time. If you were to ignore the fossil and geologic records, a bible inerrantist would have no reason to believe that creation took any more time than a literal six days. The bible itself gives no indication to the contrary. But of course if you DO take scientific evidence into account, it is pretty much impossible (the way I see it) to come to the conclusion that the earth was created so quickly and recently (unless God intentionally made it look old, which is the position of some), and of course it's hard to accept that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time! Those that advocate six day creation really try and demonstrate scientific support for it though, but I have not personally looked into their arguments.
Then there is the position called the "Day-Age Theory", also called Progressive Creationism. The Watchtower Society is among those who advocate this view. This of course is the teaching that each of the six days weren't literal days, but that they represent much longer periods, possibly millions of years [the WT stated in the 1970s that each day represents 7,000 years, but more recently has been less specific]. So therefore, dinosaurs could have existed for a time, even becoming extinct before humans were created at the close of the 6th "day" or age. The WT, for example, explains that the Hebrew word for "great sea monsters" in Genesis 1:21 could have included dinosaurs, so therefore dinosaurs were created by God on the 5th day. Challenges to the day-age view, however, include the fact that in Genesis a "day" is defined as a period of light, separated by a period of darkness called "night", which must be explained as meaning something different or more complex than simply day and night. Another challenge is the fact that the order of creation (seed-bearing plants, animals, sea creatures, etc.) described in Genesis doesn't harmonize with the actual order things appear in the fossil/geologic record. Another key challenge is that it would mean that death, disease, bloodshed, natural disasters, etc. occurred on earth (among the animals at least) before Adam sinned against God in the garden, since many argue that the Bible suggests these things are all a result of man's sin. For example, fossilized remains of dinosaurs show that they had cancerous tumors, nearly always died young, brutally killed each other, suffered from many forms of disease, etc. In fact at one medical school there is a program where people study diseases among dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals to better understand disease today in humans. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=38655
Another theory is called the "gap theory". This view says that Genesis 1:1 describes the original creation of the universe by God out of nothing. THEN, there could have been a period of time that occurred between verses 1 and 2 that could have accounted for millions, if not billions of years. Verse 2, where the earth was covered with water, could possibly then be describing the result of a judgment and wiping out of this original creation by God. Then the rest of verse 2 describes the beginning of God's RE-creation of the earth in six literal days. So it would mean that we're living in God's 2nd creation upon earth. The advantages of this explanation are that they allow for an old earth, and also allow for dinosaurs and other ancient creatures to have lived during the previous creation. This RE-creation could still have been described as "Good" and ideal, without death, disease, etc., until Adam came on the scene. Disadvantages to this position is that it seems to be reading a whole lot "between the lines", where from the text at least there is no justification for doing so.
Another position is called theistic evolution, or the proposal that evolutionary processes were a means by which God created everything. There are several variations to this and explanations on how this could have worked. The Genesis explanation is taken to be all symbolic and not literal, sort of like Revelation. [up until the 1920s the Watchtower taught a form of Theistic Evolution so this teaching apparently couldn't be so bad as to disqualify acceptance by God, according to WTS 1919 dogma]
While there are various explanations out there, many feel that it is not as critical to know the exact answer on how it all happened as much as to recognize that it was God who supernaturally created everything in the first place.