Yeah, I've taken on more than one apologist here and then had new posters join afterwards, commenting on the thread. Though the apologist seems impenetrably dense, other readers can spot the difference.
The Gentile Times Reconsidered (607 B.C.E.) -Part A1 - Jeremiah 25:10-12 Reviewed
by FaceTheFacts 259 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Jeffro
I'm saying there are BETTER TARGETS which are provable while this target is NOT provable and not disprovable because, in the final analysis you are dealing with emotional belief in Authority.
Why not set about undermining the entire structure of Jehovah's Witnesses by tackling their claim that THE BIBLE is the source of God's plan for mankind.
That one has tons of disproof that will topple everything built upon it.
...
Don't we want to NOT FURTHER DAMAGE these people and at least allow them to consider that Ex-JW's actually care about them as people?You realise this is a false dichotomy don't you? Trying to destroy their entire belief system all at once about something unprovable and entirely subjective is hardly better than dealing with tangible facts about actual events.
In actuality, there is a place for both kinds of discussion. If you don't like this one, no one's forcing you.
-
AnnOMaly
Do we want to skin them or help them find their way out to a neutral corner?
It depends on the character. If they are snotty and conceited, they need bringing down a few pegs.
I've actually never seen any such person admit they lost an argument because some bright soul had more facts and a better explanation.
Have you? If so, I'd love to read about it!
From what I've observed over the years, it is extremely rare for it to happen there and then. Generally, a person is not going to admit defeat but will try to save face in front of everyone. Or s/he just needs time to think it over.
However, despite any online bravado or stubborn resistance to the arguments, you never know what effect the discussion is having on a person underneath. Some time ago, an apologist on another forum reluctantly conceded an important point we'd been hammering out for ages (it was like pulling teeth, however!). Another apologist, who at times, had been pretty disparaging of me, emailed me several months after some lively exchanges to say he had revised his views on something we'd discussed and wanted my input (I nearly fell over with the shock). In addition, I myself have had my own views reshaped, or been prompted to find out more, after reading or participating in online debates over the years, e.g. when I was only just beginning to 'wake up,' reading exchanges between hard-core JW apologists and their opponents on the blood doctrine helped me to reevaluate the issue.
Not a waste.
Thanks for everybody's kind words, btw :-)
-
PSacramento
It is a very important point to note, like it was mentioned before, that many times it isn't about convincing the other side but showing the "neutral" observe that they other sides point is wrong.
Apologetics isn't really about conversion, its about defense of a doctrine or view point.
I doubt that Augustine convinced any of the dontatists or those that took Genesis as literal and concrete of his views on those matters, BUT what his apologetics did do was show the "neutrals" a different view point, a counter -argument, a defense against those views.
Much like arguing evolution won't convince a die-hard creationalist BUT may clear up the confusion and doubts their views may create on others.
-
Terry
You realise this is a false dichotomy don't you? Trying to destroy their entire belief system all at once about something unprovable and entirely subjective is hardly better than dealing with tangible facts about actual events
Not at all.
The JW's place their entire framework on explication (by divine assist) upon the BIBLE.
It is demonstrably falsifiable as a credible source of coherent, historically sound transmission of any original divine transmission.
It all rests on the integrity of claims about the bible itself.
That is where the drilling should commence.
Doctrine is a structure not any different from any actual physical building.
The foundation supports it all.
The bible is the foundation of JW theology and doctrine. All the rest is hyper-bullshit ornamentation.
-
jgnat
More than one way to skin a cat, Terry. I don't ascribe to your all-or-nothing approach. People come in different shapes and sizes. This site is good evidence of this. Not all ex-JW's give up on the bible or Christianity altogether.
-
Terry
"......he had revised his views on something we'd discussed and wanted my input (I nearly fell over with the shock). "
Not a waste.
We are told by physicists that matter and energy are equivalent by some measure. (E=MC2)
Remarkably indefatigable mathematicians, engineers, physicists and such found a way to demonstrate this by successfully creating atomic explosions.
Theoretically, the equvalency of matter=energy/energy=matter could be demonstrated as well.
However, harnessing the amount of energy it would take to produce a teeny, tiny speck of matter has hardly seemed worth the effort.
Not until now.
You have produced such a speck:)
I congratulate you.
-
AnnOMaly
Another observation (in line with jgnat's 'more than one way to skin a cat' and 'not all ex-JWs give up Bible/Christianity' points). People can often only take one paradigm shift at a time. They don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. I'm the same - a slow-burner. To suggest to a JW that the Bible is a crock will just bring all the mental shutters down. End of dialogue. End of thought. I like that AlanF, in ancient threads, has argued within those parameters even though he is an atheist. I class myself as a Christian - albeit a questioning one who still has a heckuva lot to figure out ... when I'm good and ready, that is. You have to work within the Bible/Christian paradigm to get anywhere at all with a JW apologist IMHO - whatever one's own belief system is.
-
Terry
People can often only take one paradigm shift at a time. They don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. I'm the same - a slow-burner. To suggest to a JW that the Bible is a crock will just bring all the mental shutters down.
Sampson used two methods to deal with philistines: the jawbone of an ass and pushing down the support pillars so that the roof caves in.
In my view, there is way too much jackass jawboning and too little undermining of support!
I use just one question and one question only which puts the burden on them: Where are the original autograph manuscripts of the bible kept? Museums, the Vatican, Smithsonian Institute? Where?
Not one JW ever knows the answer to that one. When they find out they are usually quite shaken---as I was!
Step 2: If Jehovah actually wanted to intervene to preserve the integrity of scripture why did it have to be assembled from dumpgrounds, broken vases full of rotting hides, confetti size shreds and thousands of mismatched copies of copies of copies INSTEAD OF simply PRESERVING the originals?
Step 3: The bible canon was demonstrably a reaction to Marcion's version of Paul's christianity sans Old Testament. If the voted upon selected books (canonical by fiat) were Divinely Approved--why were several books removed by Martin Luther** and others in the Protestant Reformation?
And so forth....
Baby steps to enlightened epiphany: there is no THERE there.
It is impossible to PROVE a point of theology without original autograph comparison! At best it is speculative assertion without provenance.
**Luther is often mentioned in the line of witnesses as a continuum from the apostolic times. Luther wanted to REMOVE Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation
-
Jeffro
Terry... you don't think there's merit in discussions about 607. We heard you. And it's fine that you don't find any merit in it. Others do. Back away from the dead horse.