revip2000 - I would agree with you there. No logical argumentation is used at all, only baseless assertions. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks it's getting worse.
Cedars
Latest WT: "Refusing to appear before a JC is like refusing medical treatment"
by cedars 99 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Band on the Run
OMG, I just finished rereading Kafka's The Trial, which is titled The Process in the original. A man is charged with he knows not what, irregular judges, etc. No matter what he does, he never finds out any info. Spoiler alert. The unfinished novel ends with his irregular execution.
Presently, I am reading Hitler's book, Mein Kampf, that he wrote while imprisoned for what were termed criminal offenses but he felt they were highly political. The book starts very rational. I wondered if I were ill b/c I agreed with Hitler. All of sudden he changess\ tone and every crazy idea he had is loudly broadcast to the world. His strong arms tactics and scorn of democratic processes are so evident. Starting wth a rational tone and writing nothing so objectionable reminded me of the Witnesses. His assertion, without any argument, that strong men are needed to impose their will also reminds me of the Society.
Political Science offers a way to construe judicial hearings. It is a kangaroo court with NO regular process. The most basic rights accepted in Western Society are denied. They have a single agenda. Protect the Mother Religion at Bethel. The KH and your life are not considered. You inately possess all your rights. They can only be compromised if you participate in the charade. The mere act of attendance gives them extraordinary power. They have the power of the Bethel Legal Department. Can you bring any advocate to make your case? No.
Attending a JC is similar to Jesus' being forced to carry his crosss to Calvary. Stay home, lock the doors.
-
00DAD
revip2000: But more interesting, is the decreasing quality of the convincing arguments that the WT society uses as we move ahead in time. I'm not sure if i'm the only one noticing this, but as of late, the quality of the written pieces especially when it comes to logic and argument leaves a lot of be desired.
It's understandable since most of the writers probably don't have any formal education to do this job, but IMHO the quality of the written content in the publications was much better years ago.
Agreed.
JWs are taught certain "reasoning" skills for use in the field ministry. In reality, these "skills" are really more like debating tactics or techniques, short scripts of verbal jiu-jitsu designed to throw the uninitiated off balance and attempt to force them into a position of mental submission.
When you consider the fact that, as JWs, we got up early, had our coffee, thought about what we were going to say and how we were going to say it--sometimes practicing these scripts for years--it's no surprise that we could often walk away from a door "victorious" over the poor, unsuspecting householder that was still in their pajamas, probably only 1/2 way through their first cup o' joe and still wondering whether or not they should venture outside to get the morning paper! Not exactly a fair fight, eh?
The fact is, there is really no actual critical thinking or logic going on here, no careful and thoughtful deductive or analytical reasoning. It's just some clever wordplay masquerading as high rhetoric and it could just as easily be turned around against them. Let's look at a couple of hypothetical dialogues and see how that might work.
#1 The Trinity: For starters, let's examine this Ol' Chestnut approach to "disproving" the Trinity doctrine:
JW: [Somewhat condescendingly] You DO know that the word "Trinity" never appears in the Bible?
Trinitarian: Um, yes. But the concept is there!
JW: That's what you say. But don't you think that if Jesus really wanted us to believe in the Trinity that he would have taught us about it and the word would actually be in the Bible?
Trinitarian: Well, yeah ... I guess, maybe. I dunno'.
#2 - The Governing Body: Now let's turn things around a bit, shall we:
FreeThinker: You DO know that the word "Governing Body" never appears in the Bible?
JW: Um, yes. But the concept is there!
FT: That's what you say. But don't you think that if Jesus really wanted us to believe in the "Governing Body" that he would have taught us about it and the word would actually be in the Bible?
JW: Well, yeah ... I guess, maybe. I dunno'.
Or how about ...
#3 - Disfellowshipping and Shunning: Now let's turn things around a bit, shall we:
FT: You DO know that the word "Disfellowship" never appears in the Bible?
JW: Um, yes. But the concept is there!
FT: That's what you say. But don't you think that if Jesus really wanted us to believe in "Disfellowshipping and shunning" that he would have taught us about it and the words would actually be in the Bible?
JW: Well, yeah ... I guess, maybe. I dunno'.
We could keep this up for days, but I'm sure you get the point.
In reality, whether a particular word does or does not appear in Bible is really not a very conclusive argument either for or against a particular belief, as the fact that this so-called method of "Reasoning from the Scriptures tm " so easily swings both ways readily proves.
It also demonstrates the general lack of rigorous thinking of the part of the majority Jehovah's Witnesses when it comes to accepting and/or rejecting doctrines and beliefs.
-
sabastious
00Dad, in regards to your disfellowshipping example I have experienced rebuttal to the "it isn't in the Bible" argument. They point to a scripture like 1 Cor 5:11
But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
The Watchtower teaches that anyone who is deemed unrepentant by a Judicial Committee is considered a sinner instead of just somoene who had sinned. Then they also use 2 John 1:11,12
10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. 11 Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work.
They say that what "this teaching" means is the accepted JW doctrine and therefore if somone who was born in starts talking about something against the JW doctrine then they would be suspect to be "teaching." If they are indeed deemed to be teaching then total shunning would be in order. When I decided to leave the religion my mother in law had a crisis of conscience because it appeared as if I was teaching things contrary to the organization. She had mixed feelings about it and when that's the case the JW's lean towards the elder's decision. Never do they question the organization as a whole. When I had a meeting with the elders after three hours of me talking they decided to not turn it into a judicial thing. If they would have I'd have been DF'ed and my MiL who was defaulting to the elder's decision would have shunned me. I was put off by this because she was not thinking for herself in the least bit. When I approached her about it she simply quoted 2 John 1:10,11 and said that if the elders deem me a false teacher than I was to be shunned. They believe that the JW judicial structure is the real authority on this planet. They believe that structure to be a highly biblical doctrine with ultimate authority. It's the cornerstone of their entire religion. Their pride and joy is their Kangaroo Court which they believe it to be the best system of justice on the planet. Truly delusional.
-Sab
-
Yan Bibiyan
00DAD, in your first point above:
"Because of what they perceive as defects in the elders ..."
I find the leverage point in this statement to be the word "perceive". So it is not that there is any defects in the elders, it is just your peception of such....
-
mynameislame
LOL like there are no doctors you should avoid. I have seen a couple doctors I would think twice about using again even in an emergency.
Why go to a therapist when a good old JC will do.
-
00DAD
Sab, I get your point, but you seem to have missed mine: THE WORD is not in the Bible.
JWs use that as proof AGAINST the Trinity doctrine but fail to recognize that it could just as easily be turned against them for several of their own doctrines.
-
sabastious
Sab, I get your point, but you seem to have missed mine: THE WORD is not in the Bible.
Yes I do see that I kind of sped past your point there, thanks for the clearification. The word disfellowshiping is their own concoction, yes, but it's derived from their assertion that the Bible says not to "eat or greet" with people of wrongdoing which would be fellowshipping. The fact is that the New Testament advocates moral segregation and the Watchtower is hung up on it. Jesus did not segregate, but for whatever reason the man that emerged in his name (Saul of Tarsus) decided to insist that the segregation take place anyway.
-Sab
-
Quendi
There has been a downward spiral in the quality of the written publications since the death of Fred Franz in December 1992. Whatever else can be said about Franz, the man did have some education and his writing was of good quality. Others in the Writing Department also had some skill and command of language that gave cogency to their work. But since Franz's death, a huge leadership vacuum has opened in the WTS. It certainly has not helped that men like Ted Jaracz and Gerrit Lösch assumed the reins of power and drove the organization in the direction of deeper ignorance.
But even before Franz died, there was a movement away from real scholarship and research. Some of that can be traced to the purge that led to the ouster of Raymond Franz, Ed Dunlap and others in 1980 who were not only free thinkers but quite intelligent. Barbara Anderson was also part of that group of workers at Bethel whose contributions were very important. Their departures were bad enough, but the situation was made worse by the organization's refusal to recruit and train replacements.
The WTS never in its darkest dreams imagined that the twenty-first century would see "this old system" still going strong. We were supposed to be well along in the first century of the Millennium by now and the Kingdom would take care of any needs for teachers, trainers, mentors, writers, etc. Because the organization failed to prepare for a future in this world, it now finds itself preparing to fail. It cannot meet the need for adequate reading and training materials let alone produce deep works on prophecy, exegesis and hermeneutics. Matters will only get worse as time goes on.
Quendi
-
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
If I were a patient in need of a doctor's treatment, first thing I'd do is ask everyone I know about the doctor. I'd check him out on the Internet, also researching the treatment and hospital. I'd try to find others that have been through the procedure... someone other than who the doctor might recommend for me to talk to. When I go see the doctor, I'd bring along a friend or relative, ask questions, and take notes. Afterward, I'd consider a second opinion.
Jumping on the operating table just because some 'doctor' said you need his particular medical treatment is dangerous and stupid. How much more important it is that we should carefully consider who we allow to give us spiritual 'treatment'!
Would it be wise to only go to dudes 'assigned' to 'treat' you? Have they ever successfully helped anyone? Are they truly qualified? Are their own personal lives a total mess? Do they tell you that you cannot record the conversation or take notes? Can you bring along a friend or relative to listen to the conversation? The answers to these questions are very important. These are questions that a JW judicial committee will fail.
When discussing things with a doctor, confidentiality is important. We like to know that our privacy is respected. However, the confidentiality is at the patient's discretion. If the patient sees fit to discuss it with family, friends, neighbors, other doctors, or a lawyer, he is entitled to do so. It is the doctor and hospital that are expected to maintain confidentiality. Conversely, in JW judicial committees, the 'patient' is expected to keep his mouth shut and not discuss the situation with friends, family, or anyone... because he's supposed to be ashamed of what he did. However, the elders aren't so careful about confidentiality as details get discussed with other elders, the CO, and the story leaks to MSs, the wives, kids, other friends throughout the circuit and district... if the story is juicy enough. When asked why JCs don't handle matters publicly, like in Ancient Israel city gate, they will say it's because they want confidentiality to protect the person from embarrassment. No, that's not the REAL reason they demand 'confidentiality', it's to protect the JC from embarrassment, and mostly it's about control. Judicial committees are just another level of JW cult tactics.