by Ethos 103 Replies latest jw friends
In one statement you proclaim the liberty of 'free thought' and 'critical thinking' imposed by higher education; yet later in stark contrast say you refuse to change your mind abiut anything and use stereotypes and a spiteful prejudice to denounce all JWs.
RayPublisher -thanks! :D
Checking out jwfacts and older life stories at the moment. Anxious to start my thread though.
You will not change my mind. My gut provoked me to leave. Since my gut dicated that I run for dear life (and in Witness land, it is not an exaggeration that your very life is at stake.) I don't need support from people. People pleasing is not a good trait. Believe what you want because, frankly, I don't give a damn, (Imagine Clark Gable). This religion is not a normal religion. It is very dangerous an d wrecks utter havoc, esp. within families.
No where does it state in the rules that I must warmly welcome someone who has the balls to state that he will correct me.
He is not supposed to be here and not because of my views, or Simon's rules, but from his own GB and elders.
I find it much more likely that he will be transformed by the experience than any regular members.
In the future, if you want to shame me, don't waste your time. I am not interested in your views. This is not a popularity contest. My views are as valid as anyone who posts here. Let me state it more clearly: I never sought your approval and never will.
I have no vote on whether Witnessses, spoiling for a fight, are welcome here. I do note that we cannot post on JW.org. It would be interesting to hear the spiritual conversation he had with the elders that gave him permission to post here.
6112 posts and let me assure you, nobody is trying to shame you. A selfcentrist viewpoint is yours for the taking my friend. Let me know how that works out.
There are no rules regarding civility, warm welcomes, or hygene. You are free to be as you please. Most people however say hi, try not to contradict themselves and their reason for contributing so much to a community as you have here, and shower.
Nothing Ethos has said I felt was disrespectful, itching for a fight, or stating that he would correct you. So why the hostility?
Welcome. You mentioned enjoying some of the discussions with JWs over the last 6 months. What was your opinion of the discussions?
Hi jwfacts, your website is quite *interesting* and not a typical approach on the 'truth about the truth'. It's more straight to the point and I like that. In the past six months I observed threads involving Recovery, and the older threads with Thirdwitness and Scholar. I believe Recovery at times had a reasonable objection, but wasn't compotent in arguing his side COHERENTLY and STRONGLY. He was very nit-picky and allowed his insistence on attacking jwfacts to damage his ability to argue reasonably. Hes very simtilar to Thirdwitness, but I think Thirdwitness is worse. He also cant argue cohesively and is worse at arguing his point and his arguments were easily refuted as they were rather bias and elementary. Scholar was by far the worst of the three though.
I would like more of your insight and presentation though JwFacts. You don't strike me as the "debating" type, but many times those who do not have that affinity, turn out to present the best arguments.
Ethos
I don't see any rebuttal to the scriptural truths presented to you here !!??
Shalom
Scriptural truths....such as? Just a heads up, I'm going to post a reply to the 607 thread.
I would like more of your insight and presentation though JwFacts. You don't strike me as the "debating" type, but many times those who do not have that affinity, turn out to present the best arguments.
You are correct that I don't particularly like debating online. I find it frustrating, as things that seem so clear to me do not get through to a JW, due to the affects of cognitive dissonance, or lack of reasoning skills, adherence to rhetorical fallacies and black and white thinking.
For instance, the debate with Recovery on Sparlock was frustrating as his stance was firm, and absolutely black and white. His stance was that the Bible says Jehovah hates magic, so magic is wrong, so therefore Sparlock is against Jehovah. He used a carefully selected quote from a Theasarus to show magic is from the occult. My response was to the affect that the Bible passage was referring to summoning demons as wrong. Magic by definition can be from God as magic is of supernatural origins. Further, Sparlock is a fairy tale, and in the same category as many other beloved Disney cartoons which use fantasy and magic that some JWs watch, and not equivalent to summoning a demon. Therefore on a scale of grey, Sparlock is not in the same category as the magic Recovery was trying to compare it to.
Also, the axioms that a person bases their beliefs on change the way they see things, and whilst a person has not identified that axiom, or is unable to accept it may be wrong, the debate will be of little point.
As a JW, your axiom in that the GB are chosen and directed by God. Therefore you can end any debate and claim yourself the winner with the simple statement, "we should not run ahead of Jehovah." For instance,:
I do not see the point debating with people with that mindset. When a person wants to know the truth about the Watchtower religion, my site has everything they need to realise it is wrong. Until they want to be honest with themselves, debating achieves little, except for onlookers.
Once you have left, you will look back and wonder how on earth you ever believed almost any of it. My suggestion. Really examine how you know that Jehovah chose the GB as his only earthly representatives in 1919.
With the obvious want of participating, existent, actual JW's, I felt it necessary to become a member as that intellectual stimulation for which I so yearned had thus dissipated almost completely (from a lurking perspective). So my intention for joining this forum is to revivify, by participation, such discussions...
This part appears to be a succinct summation of why you are here. From your diction and vocabularly, its obvious you're bright and eager for "intellectual stimulation." You don't get that from Jehovah's Witnesses. There's is a dull and static world. You seem sincere, so it probably took a lot of mental juggling to cobble together a "proof"/rationalization for your beliefs. But now what? I think its time to unravel it all. So, a warm welcome. I urge you to stay rational and fair, ignore the people who are clearly just flaming you for having the audacity to still accept JW doctrine. I'll probably be arguing for and against you in various threads since I enjoy playing devil's advocate as much as I enjoy defending a viewpoint. But, no matter how hard I tried on either end, the result when debating religion and JW doctrine with myself and others was always the same in the end: it doesn't hold water. So with that, a respectful and anticipatory welcome for the debates ahead :)
