Is the Watchtower really wrong according to your standards?

hamilcarr

'We all have a priori knowledge, so we can't claim objective knowledge. By the way, our senses only observe part of reality. Then, how do you dare asserting that you're right? Show me reality. Show me truth. Show me absolute knowledge. I guess you don't lease one of these things. So please think about that before you presume to challenge my stand.'

This line of reasoning has become an inherent part of this board, certainly when posters try to defend the indefensible or when confronted with real experts of the matter under debate. Now, if you embrace this kind of relativism, I'd like to ask you if it's possible to determine if the Watchtower is really wrong. If so, which standards can be used, and can they be applied to other issues? If you claim that even experts and scholars don't possess objective knowledge, is it still possible to distinguish between ~~facts~~ things that are almost certain, probable, possible, less possible, less probable, almost uncertain etc.

To put it briefly, is the Watchtower really wrong according to your own standards?

All input welcome.

Awakened at Gilead

I would agree that the WTS does not have a monopoly on truth... but it goes farther than that:

While there are many things that could be said to show the falsehood of the WTS, I'll mention:

1. Faulty chronology: The 7 Gentile times is a leap of faith in itself. Add to that the extensive proof that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE, and you can see that both 1914 (Jesus start to reign) and 1919 (the FDS supposed appointment) go out the window.

2. Deceitful quoting practices. There are plenty of posts about this, no need to rehash.

I repeat that I do not claim to know the truth, but the WTS teaches enough falsehood to cast doubt on all that they teach.

A@G

StAnn

I think the real question here is, Could the Watchtower possibly be right according to any rational standards?

Personally, given that they teach "facts" and then get new light and change those "facts" and then get new light and change those "facts" back to a previous interpretation of the "facts" is reason enough to believe they are wrong. It's one thing to start out learning about a topic and learn more as you go. If the JWs had continued to expound upon Russell's teachings, I could think they were at least sincere. However, the constant flip-flopping isn't a sign of learning more as time goes by. Their teachings don't become more and more cohesive and clear over time. If anything, they become sillier. If a belief is discarded, it should be discarded for a good reason; the fact that the WTS keeps returning to its previously discarded teachings, readopting them and then discarding them again, ad nauseum, shows they have no real intellectual integrity in how they develop their beliefs.

Farkel

: I'd like to ask you if it's possible to determine if the Watchtower is really wrong.

Yes. It's not only possible, it's incredibly easy. Unless one is insane of course, and that makes me wonder about the mental state of a person who would even see the need to ask such a question!

Farkel

hamilcarr

: I'd like to ask you if it's possible to determine if the Watchtower is really wrong.
Yes. It's not only possible, it's incredibly easy. Unless one is insane of course, and that makes me wonder about the mental state of a person who would even see the need to ask such a question!

That's why you should read the entire conditional phrase

if you embrace this kind of relativism, I'd like to ask you if it's possible to determine if the Watchtower is really wrong

If you don't, it's quite easy I guess.

SirNose586

This is the kind of test I apply to any religion: there's no empirical way to find out of there's heaven, hell, angels, demons, holy spirit, or anything supernatural. It does not fall into the realm of the scientific. These questions remain: is this religion at least historically accurate? Does it believe in fables or myths, and try to pass them off as reality? When trying to establish credibility in the present, does it accurately quote experts in the field?

The WTS fails on all three of those tests. It has proven that it has no qualms about falsifying historical record, either external (607) or internal (old light). They don't even care about being right, they just care about being unified (Fred Franz). Because they believe the Bible to be collection of 100% fact, they are obligated to believe in tall tales (the Flood). And to make these fables and other things seem true, they'll dishonestly quote experts to make their case (see Gail Bethea-Jackson, Julius Mantey, et al.).

If the WTS has so much trouble with tangible fact, how reliable could they be in promoting the spiritual? How can a corporation this dishonest get the future correct if they aren't correct about the past or the present?

yknot

I have no problem applying the things they say about 'christendom' to them too

Sure there is some 'biblical truths and principles" mixed in but it is still essentially Satan's spirit-directed organization.

They have the mark of the beast....which they received when they rode it like a power hungry, money gurbbing drunken whore.

YOU: 'We all have a priori knowledge,

That is all I could read of this post or thread....I am not an idiot, but c'mon....talk common language please.....oompa

Is the Watchtower really wrong according to your standards?

hamilcarr

Awakened at Gilead

StAnn

Farkel

hamilcarr

SirNose586

yknot

inthepink3355

veen

oompa

Share this