Awake! July 2009 No one should be made to choose between their beliefs and family

by Awen 73 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • cedars

    00DAD - No PM as yet. Just a word in advance, I have little appetite for explaining to people how a contradiction is a contradiction. The absolute "No one should...." in the 2009 quote renders any context about Sikhs, Hindus, Mickey Mouse entirely irrelevant.

    I'll check my PMs. I do think the thing with the pictures is exaggerated, but that's just my opinion. You can do what you like with it!


  • 00DAD

    Cedars, try looking again. It should be there.

    BTW, you seem confused. I clearly think the two quotes are contradictory, if not in their explicit wording then definitely in the contrary religious positions they represent. I have always said that.

    We're on the same side here.


  • King Solomon
    King Solomon

    00Dad, come now: you know something of the semantics of word choices used in the English language, and you understand the different meanings of 'should' versus 'may', 'shall' or 'must'? You understand what "required to execute the predicate", vs "suggested to execute the predicate" means? Modal imperatives? Or will you kow-tow?

    Cedars, do you really need someone like Leolaia or an English teacher to explain the difference to you? Have you NOT heard of 'weasel words' before (I'm assuming you've not taken a course in logic, as it USUALLY is mentioned in contemporary rhetoric courses)?

    Or do you expect the entire educated World to adopt to YOUR misunderstanding to suit your personal agenda?

    Let me check: are we back in a cult here, one called "Cedars Witnesses", lol?

  • 00DAD

    ding: Everyone should become a JW and agree wholeheartedly with whatever the WTS prints. That will solve all the world's problems...

    Exactly! ... lol

  • cedars

    KS - do us all a favor and find another forum on which to provoke, harass, insult and intimidate people. You'll get no joy with me. A contradiction is a contradiction. Your "weasel words" argument is a "weasel way" to defend the Watchtower and imply there is no contradiction, when there clearly is - as any reasonable person can see. Your patronizing remarks about me needing someone to explain English to me go in one ear and out the other. Now move along, you strange man. Find another religion that you were never a member of to obsess over.

    00DAD - Thanks for the PM. Expect an email.


  • 00DAD

    Cedars: Find another religion that you were never a member of to obsess over.

    That made me laugh out loud! I nearly spilled my coffee all over my keyboard!!!

    Looking forward to your email.


  • 00DAD

    The world’s religions teach conflicting ideas. - g 7/09 pp. 28-29

    And guess what? So does the WTBTS.

  • mamochan13

    Just wanted to add, OoDad, that your comments about the subtle way the WT demonizes the young man are right on. The young man could be leaving because he no longer wants to practice the religion, but they imply that he is an unrepentant practicer of sin - which most of us who have been DFd know is not necessarily true.

    JWs are taught to believe that of anyone who leaves, even if they continue to live good, moral lives and do not break any of the JW rules.

    When it comes to interpretation of these articles, JWs have been trained to "read into" them a certain way. Those of us who have been part of the religion know exactly how most JWs will understand the points being made.

    As you say, Oodad, the situations are exactly parallel. I married into a family from another faith and culture (not Sikhs but Middle Eastern) and I saw firsthand how they reacted to a family member who chose to follow a different set of beliefs. The crying parents in the picture could very easily be mourning a son who has gone off to join JWs.

    It's clearly hypocritical, Orwellian doublespeak. Their duplicity is shameful and needs to be exposed, albeit in a clearly articulated way.

    Agree 100%

  • Ding

    In WTland, the greatest sin of all is not submitting to the authority of the GB...

  • King Solomon
    King Solomon

    Well, for anyone NOT demandng we redefine words in the English language to serve their personal agenda (ironic, since that's EXACTLY what Orwell's 1984 was all about: the gov't redefining words to serve their agenda), here's something that all literate adults should understand: the difference between the word SHOULD and a more imperative form (eg MUST):

    From website: MY HAPPY ENGLISH

    English Lesson: Should Vs Must

    I like coffee, maybe a little too much. I think I should cut down on coffee. My dad used to say that for a healthy life, you should eat and drink in moderation. In other words, you shouldn’t have too much of any one thing. I should have listened to his advice. What do you think I should do? Do you think I must follow my doctor’s advice?

    Today we will look at how to use should and must. Do you know how to use these words? Take a look at the paragraph above and then check out today’s lesson:

    Should is an auxiliary verb and usually comes before the main verb in the sentence. Should is used to show obligation.Must is also an auxiliary verb, but it is much stronger than should and is often used for orders.

    Compare the following sentences:

    • My doctor said that I should cut down on coffee. My doctor gave me a strong suggestion.
    • My doctor said that I must cut down on coffee. My doctor gave me an order.
    • You shouldn’t use a cell phone on the train. This shows your obligation not to use the phone.
    • You mustn’t use a cell phone on the train. Maybe there is a regulation prohibiting cell phone use.
    • You shouldn’t smoke in public places in New York. Not smoking in public is a social obligation
    • You mustn’t smoke in public places in New York. Smoking in public is prohibited by law.

    Should is used to show probability, but must is not used this way:

    • The meeting should be finished by 2:00. Not, the meeting must be finished
    • The flight should arrive on time. Not, the flight must arrive

    Must is used to show something is sure or certain.

    • The train must be running late. I’m sure the train is running late
    • You worked until 10 last night! You must be tired. I’m sure you are tired.

    Should is used with the past participle (pp) to show what was supposed to happen, but it didn’t:

    • The meeting should have finished by 2:00. But, the meeting didn’t finish by 2:00.
    • I should have called before I left the house. But I didn’t call before I left the house.

    Must is also used with the past participle (pp) when we want to show certainty about the past

    • The meeting must have finished by 2:00. I’m sure it finished by 2:00.
    • I must have left my wallet at home. I’m sure I left my wallet at home.

    Well, I should stop for today. You must be tired from studying so hard. I hope you enjoyed today’s lesson…see you next time!

    And for extra credit, it's good to understand what a "weasel word" is, which is EXACTLY what the WTBTS IS guilty of using repeatedly (as above Awake shows), but would improperly labelled as 'contradictory' or 'hypocritical' (or if you DO label it as much, it means you've clearly missed their duplicitous use of "weasel words"):


    A weasel word (also, anonymous authority) may be an informal term [1] for equivocating words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim, or even a refutation has been communicated.

    For example, an advertisement may use a weasel phrase such as "up to 50% off on all products". This is misleading because the audience is invited to imagine many items reduced by the proclaimed 50%, but the words taken literally mean only that no discount will exceed 50%, and in extreme misrepresentation, the advertiser need not reduce any prices, which would still be consistent with the wording of the advertisement, since "up to 50" most literally means "any number from 0 to 50 inclusive". [citation needed]

    Another example is a letter of recommendation where the letter writer states "I cannot recommend this person highly enough", which would ordinarily be taken to mean that an amount of recommendation is sufficient to communicate the high stature of recommendation, while at the same time it could literally mean that there is no recommendation at all.

    In other cases, words with a particular subjective effect are chosen. For example, one person may speak of "resistance fighters" or "freedom fighters", while another may call the same subjects "terrorists". The underlying facts are the same, but a quite different impression is given.

    The use of weasel words to avoid making an outright assertion is a synonym to tergiversate. [2] Weasel words can imply meaning far beyond the claim actually being made. [3] Some weasel words may also have the effect of softening the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement through some form of understatement, for example using detensifiers such as "somewhat" or "in most respects". [4]

    The WT's use of "should" is a PERFECT example of such a use.

Share this