Please reccommend older Watchtower publciations for stumbling purposes

by TheStumbler 49 Replies latest jw friends

  • ablebodiedman

    Try sharing this 1955 Watchtower:

    A Christian, therefore, cannot be baptized in the name of the one actually doing the immersing or in the name of any man, nor in the name of any organization, but in the name of the Father, the Son and the holy spirit.
  • ablebodiedman

    A Christian, therefore, cannot be baptized in the name of the one actually doing the immersing or in the name of any man, nor in the name of any organization, but in the name of the Father, the Son and the holy spirit.

  • TheStumbler

    It's been a while since I posted. I hope everyone had a good Christmas/holidays

    Thought I'd give you a little update. I printed of some these links and gave them to my Dad. He said, as an Elder, he might not have time to read all of them. We were chatting today and it appeared he has read none. I've also aroused his suspicions because he said he will be no longer willing to read the research I have written up into the blue creation book. He said he thinks that I have been talking with apostates. True I suppose.

    We got into a bit of a chat. I found it a very frustrating experience but I managed to pin him down on one issue and I thought I'd share it with you.

    Several times before he has stated: 'science confirms the Bible's accuracy' or 'science and the Bible are in perfect harmony'. I wondered how he accounted for the fact that science quite clearly contradicts the Bible on several points. I sneakily asked 'according to the Bible, how long have humans be around for' he answered as I hoped he would '6,000 years'. The trap was set so my follow comment: 'It is a fact that current scientific understanding puts the age of the human species as at least hundreds of thousands of years old. Whether you agree with the science is another matter but this fact means the statement 'the Bible and science are in harmony' is not true'

    Somehow, through some mental gymnastics, he would not accept this. Even though he agreed that the current scientific consensus was that humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years he, bizarrely (for reasons he could not explain), still maintained that the Bible and science are in harmony....

    his defence seemed to be the following:

    Science has been wrong in the past

    scientists are humans and imperfect, only the Bible can be trusted

    scientists have egos and are out to disprove the Bible

    Of course, none of these address the logical impossibility of science being both simultaneously contradictory and in harmony with the Bible. Reasoning with such illogicality is so frustrating. I just couldn’t get through to him.

  • freydo

    (But you have to keep digging)

  • TheStumbler

    Our exchange did however include these gems:

    me: 'So you will not read any scientific evidence which is contrary to the Bible. So, you cannot claim to have an open mind'

    Dad: 'I do have an open mind but I already KNOW the bible is true so there is no point looking at contrary scientific evidence' (no hint of irony)

    And this....

    Dad: 'human knowledge and wisdom cannot be trusted, only the Bible can be trusted'

    Me 'If human knowledge cannot be trusted, how can you trust your own (human) judgement that the Bible can be trusted?'.


    this one is a cracker.....

    Dad: 'I will only accept evolution when scientists are able to create life'

    Me 'that is like saying you will only accept astrophysics once scientsts are able to create a star'

    Dad 'They don't know how stars work'

    Me 'you are showing your ignorance with that comment

    Dad 'how can they understand how the sun works, they can never get close enough to test it – they can only theorise'

    Me 'I don't think you understand what theorise means. Can you explain to me how scientists theorise the sun works?'

    Dad 'no'

    Me 'so you do not understand the science behind stars yet you know it is wrong'

    Dad 'yes'

    me 'uh...........can you not see any problems with that?'

    This is honestly, word for word, how it went. It's almost as bad as the time he tried telling me the earth rotates on three axis...

  • TheStumbler

    Promisingly, I think I got through to my step mum on a few things. Her and my Dad were laughing at how foolish evolution was and asked me 'you don't really believe we evolved from monkeys do you? Where are the missing links?'

    I corrected them that no evolutionists claim we evolved from monkeys but rather share a common ancestor with them. I then explained the rarity of fossilisation but that still many transitional species have been found: Homo Erectucus, Homo Hibillis, Australopithicus Aferenis (off the top of my head). They seemed genuinely surprised by this and the fact that I could actually name them. They even asked 'how come this has not been on the news' I said because evolution has been considered a scientific fact for many years now.

    They, of course, brought up 'scientific creationists'. I explained they were a minority fringe movement, almost unanimously religiously motivated, and had produced no scientific research. I also told them how even 'creationists' like Michael Behe (frequently reference by Watchtower) in fact accept common descent (but this is not mentioned by the Watchtower)

    I explained how molecular genetics has corroborated the 'tree of life' and gave ERVs and mitochondrial DNA as examples. They seemed genuinely interested in this so I explained it to them in full and how only common descent can adequately explain these seperate lines of evidence. I also told them how 'Is there a Creator who cares about you' misrepresented mitochondrial Eve by not mentioning the same line of evidence proves humans have existed for hundred of thousands of years, Y-Chromosonal Adam lived thousands of years apart, and that they are merely the oldest humans that all humans share common ancestry with – they were not the first ever humans to exist.

    I asked why the Watchtower does not cover these lines of evidence or misrepresents them?

    I gave several examples in Watchtower literature where scientists have been misqouted (including the new Origin of Life pamphlet and the Blue Creation book)

    They seemed genuinely interested by all of this and actually seemed to accept that the Watchtower has been intellectually dishonest on this matter

    I told my step mum 'whenever I open the Watchtower, whenever it writes about evolution, I see mistakes and falsehoods all over the place – how can I trust an organisation so intellectually dishonest and biased' – she actually agreed that she 'saw where I was coming from'

    They asked 'if the Watchtower has misqouted all these scientists, why don't you write them a letter' so I said 'because they don't do anything about it, many scientists, unhappy with how they (or their work) have been treated by the Watchtower have written to the society but retractions are never made and the society continues to print scientific half truths and quotes out of context'.

    I think I might be getting through on this point. They even commented that I appeared well researched. I am quite well read on this subject due to my research into the blue creation book which I really do intend to post on here soon (don't worry my writing is to a higher standard in that)

  • TheStumbler

    Thanks Freydo, great resource. I've book marked it.

    sorry for ranting. I'm a bit frustrated by it all. I shouldnt let it get to me.

  • leavingwt

    Have you read either of Hassan's books?

  • TheStumbler

    No, but I have ordered it. It should be waiting for me when I return home overseas.

    I know I have not been taking the right approach with this. My Dad thinks I have been talking to apostates (I think I gave away a little too much a few times on matters of 'new light' and such).

    My step mum laughed at one point in genuine good humour. My Dad was going on about how scientists cannot be trusted because they are imperfect, selfish and ego-driven etc. I asked if the same applied to religious leaders and he agreed that it did so I said 'what about the Governing Body?'. didn't get an answer on that one.

    In fact I find it so hard to ask him a question, he never answers but jumps around so much on such a wide range of subjects and asks a load of, what he considers, 'stumper' questions back at me. They are normally not stumper questions at all when you are given more than a moment to think about them but before I get a chance he is onto the next 'stumper' question. I find I have to try and really take control of the conversation and pin him down on a particular issue. He doesnt always allow me the chance.

    I find myself turning into Jeremy Paxman sometimes repeating the same question (avoiding the temptation to let the conversation get side tracked)

  • TheStumbler

    on another matter I asked him some questions about who will die at Armageddon a few weeks ago and I can tell it got to him (I asked if certain family members, including myself, deserved to die) because he brought it today with some obviously well rehearsed answers/deflections.

    I think I got the upper hand on this one because the murder of 6 billions people is pretty hard to defend no matter which way you spin it.

Share this