Lance: An example:
You are a forensic investigator. You arrive at the scene of a crime, and there are 2 spots of blood. You run the DNA for one spot, and assume that this must be the perpretrator. However, while there is another spot of blood, you don't run DNA from that sample to see if it is diferent. If you were to bring such evidence into a court of law, the defense could always point out that you failed to analyze all the evidence, and if you had, you might have come to another conclusion, or worse, the conclusion may have been amibiguous. Additionally, as an investigator, whether you personally believe that the accused is guilty or not, is totally irrelevant. You are there to present the evidence.
This is what I am doing in my videos. I make it clear that I am not advocating any particular religion or belief ssytem. I merely point out that the WTS only presents one side of the argument that supports their views, without considering all of the evidence. Whether I still believe in the Bible or not is irrelevant. I am in a unique position as a Gilead Grad (along with other Gilead grads such as AllTimeJeff) to show viewers that something is wrong with their belief system. What they do with that knowledge is up to them.
With that example a forensic investigator is attempting to come to a conclusion, whereas what i have felt you are doing is presenting one argument against another for argument sake, when the reality is you believe they are both wrong.
LWT:I'm very perplexed after reading that paragraph. Why wouldn't an ex-JW use the Bible to argue against JW teachings?
It depends on the reasons for presenting the alternative argument, as i have mentioned.
Lance:I agree, LWT, his comment threw me for a loop, as if he were Reniaa, LOL!
Hmmm...don't know where that one has come from.
Paul
