GETTING SUCKED IN? Ask the right questions to get the right answers.

by Terry 145 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Terry

    Too bad Perry had to leave the building on this thread. I would have like to seen his response.

    Oh, dear Perry will pop up somewhere on somebody's thread and they can politely post the question again as a friendly nudge.

    He is probably doing what I did: researching the history of the GRACE doctrine in all its Ad Hoc glory.

  • Farkel
  • Terry

    Soooooo, Farkel.....let me see if I have this straight...

    You read my Post Heading, jumped into your time machine and one-upped me by coming up with the same idea waaay earlier?!!


    I should sue for Timeflux plagarism!

    But, you're a nice, I'll let it slide this time. Let ya off with a warning.

  • freydo


    Anybody remember a company called General Motors? Back in the 1970's Japan was producing small cars that were eating into GM's market share.

    GM decided to do some marketing research having to do with the question of what people wanted. Their surveys concluded that what Americans wanted were small cheap cars. So GM provided the Vega. And copycat Ford came up with the Pinto. Of course they weren't asking the right questions, because what Americans really wanted were small luxurious cars. But they had a preconceived idea so the questions of their surveys were designed to reinforce those preconceived notions. It's been that way forever. If you want the truth, you have to ask the right questions.

  • Perry


    Here's what I hear you saying over and over with different approaches:

    I asked you clearly: Is this not logical?

    You and I did this very same routine a couple of years ago. You are still stuck in the same place as you were then. Your main complaint then, as is now... is the LOGIC OF GRACE.

    Let's try to thread that needle together. I know that you understand the effect of a premise on logic because you cautioned a poster here thusly:

    My point is the question about "which is the true religion" already assumes there is such a thing as a true religion! You can't start with that premise and get anywhere.

    Just to point out a side fallacy of yours in this particular instance; you are already conceding the existence of God for the purposes of this discussion are you not?

    Fact #1 You assume God exists

    Fact # 2 Religion is innate to man since there has never been a society found that did not have one. EVER.

    God has the authority to decide which religion is acceptable by virture of the commonly accepted definition of the word God, which you have already conceded..... even if you have a problem with Fact # 2. If you are going to chastise someone for assuming a correct way to approach God, then you must deny that God exists! (at least in the Judeo/Christian form)

    Here's your basic circle of darkness:

    There is no right religion. How do I know this? Because there is no God. How do I know this? Because there is no right religion.

    This is total darkness.

    So, notwithstanding the error....premise is the entire argument as you point out, and determines a whole chain of reasoning and questioning. You know this. Yet you pull this here:

    On what basis could a Just God abandon Justice without self-repudiating every previous judgement against mankind from the destruction of Noah's day to the holocaust against Sodom and Gomorrah? That's the question worth asking.

    Here you offfer two premises that are already at conflict before you even start to judge God.

    1. God is Just

    2. God Abandons Justice

    Do you see a problem with your two premises here? First, on what possible basis could you assume God's Justice? Could it be perhaps your own sense of Justice that is at times arbitrary and subjective in areas of influence that are lawful for you? Think about that for a while ...will you?

    Secondly, please explain further exactly how God abandoned Justice?

    If you say his mercy abandons justice, then you are forced to deny the cross where Christ died, took the believers' punishment and paid their debt. If you say God isn't just in his methods, then you deny your first precept above in this instance where you declare "God is Just". In that case, your reasoning is simply circular unfalsifiable tautology.

    Here's the deal for the common guy on the street. Justice is what ever God says it is....or else you are forced to deny God's existence.

    Yet, that Justice will not be so foreign to us, so as to vilolate our own subjective experience, else we would display a total disconnect from being in God's image (though fallen) . Now I ask, do we have experience with the kind of Justice that God purports to offer in the NT? You decide.

    If a theif stands before a judge and his relative stands up on his behalf and asks the Judge for mercy stating that he will pay the offended party 10 times the amount stolen if he will release the thief into his custody.... the Judge is NOW faced with TWO POSSIBLE REMEDIES.

    (1) He can accept the payment. In that case, the offended party pockets the cash and ALL go home satisfied.

    (2) He can reject the offer & pass prison sentence. In this case only the offended party goes home somewhat satisfied.

    In either case, Justice is served no? It is the Judges' call.

    There was no relative with a ten time payment for Sodom and Gomorrah, hence the Judgment was just then as it is now.

    Is it hypocritical to critize God for showing mercy when we enjoy receiving it and at times enjoy giving it?

    Well, is it?

  • designs

    An Angel dropped three coins in the Fountain and all was well.

  • AllTimeJeff

    Just as a commentary on this latest exchange:

    Perry, your answer was pure drivel. Not only did you not answer a basic yes or no question, you purposely dodged it.

    For the sake of discussion, one has to assume the existence of god to debate the issue with a theist. Can I get a big "DUH WEE" from the congregation? Amen.

    Perry, the logical weakness in your argument is your total lack of willingness to think critically about "Gods" "justice". You are the one who assumes that humans can't question it. And that is your fallback position.

    Without the ability to measure the morality of "Gods" "justice" in pragmatic terms, there is no basis to go forward. Why would I plead for mercy before a despot? Why assume that this "justice" is best when one can merely look at history and find very compelling reasons to reject this despotic god and his version of "mercy".

    It is clear to me that your preferred method for debating with those who disagree with god is to consistently change the subject to a basic "You don't believe in god, so why are you arguing as if god exists? If you are assuming god exists for the sake of argument, who are we to question him?"

    Anyone can read Perry's posts and see that is his fallback position. It is a blackhole filled with the dodging of reasonable questions.

    This is just a guess, but my guess is Perry, you have been able to answer Terry's direct simple question to you days ago, but as a tactic, you wait for a few days to come back to it, and then ignore it anyway to change the subject.

    I respect so many Christians on this board for their reasonableness and ability to answer questions, as well as their ability to recognize the limitations of their beliefs. You evidentally, do not want to concede an inch.

    You are the walking living example of what Terry originally started as a premise for this thread. You only answer questions that you believe support you, and dodge ones that you basically can't answer, because a good answer doesn't exist.

    Now if you will excuse me, I am going to pray for gods mercy and justice on me for treating you, Perry, gods representative to us all, with disrespect. (sarcasm implied)

  • Mall Cop
    Mall Cop

    Perry. Respectfully, you base all of your discussions on your belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God. That has already been shown that the Bible is not the inspired word of God.

    You quote scripture to prove your belief system is true, when the very scripture you quote is not the original writings and not preserved by God. Misquoting, mistakes, changes, recreating texts,corrupting texts, etc..etc.. by scholars and Bible translators who cannot possibly represent the meaning of the original text is what you rely on.

    Remember you once relied on the new world translation. Do you still rely on that Bible text printed by the watchtower society as the true interpretation of what God has originally said to write down?


  • Quillsky

    Wait a moment.

    I think it's ironic that in the topic of logic one basic false premise is being overlooked. Let's go back to the beginning, shall we?

    When is a religion a false religion?

    I propose that the concepts of "false religion" and "true religion" were created by various religions, sects and cults. And the phrase "false religion" is today pretty much Jehovah's Witness jargon. It peppers their publications, and I have never heard any non-JW or non-EXJW person use that expression.

    Religion is religion. Worship is worship. It is what it is.

    Saying "false religion" is as insane as saying "He's wearing false clothes", "She's eating false food", "That big city banker is practising a false profession", "A Tibetan shepherd is living a false lifestyle".

    One cannot compare the complex and beautiful polytheist Hinduism with the traditional practise and ritual of Christianity, and yet Hinduism is still a religion, neither provably "true" nor "false" but it IS a religion happily practised by millions of people.

    And I propose that arguing about "true religion" versus "false religion" is a throwback to Jehovah's Witness training, indoctrination.

  • Perry

    Aww Jeffy,

    You're so cute when you get all red in the face like that .

    Now go pick up the pieces of your Jihad against Christians and play outside.

Share this