by Oubliette 57 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
In a footnote to paragraph four, the article defines “Apostasy” as “a standing away from true worship, a falling away, defection, rebellion, abandonment.” This of course begs the question of whether or not WT/JW teachings really are “true worship.”
Not sure if the footnote includes the definition safe for public consumption, or the definition used by elders. The one used by elders includes:
"Deliberately spreading teachings contrary to Bible truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses."
I've started dissecting a random article to illustrate how to spot fallacies and loaded language. It's not done yet. I ran out of steam.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x59Nk357NsM5tpxE-OKrAAsIdR2XwaTOvg5jOjdBpPE/edit?usp=sharing
lost, look at it this way. Sometimes you will see an advertisement or an outrageous claim that you just know by instinct isn't right. How can you spot the falsehood? By understanding logical fallacies, you can more easily spot is something is off, and why.
Terry...great reasoning...Good thread...by orginal poster...Oubliette.
"SW
Jgnat ..I started reading your article dissection. It will take me a bit to read but looked good...Thanks this keeps my mind sharp.
SW
marked
marked
A quick logical fallacy example of a "Loaded Question" from last Sunday's study Watchtower.
Jan 15 p 28 para 5 :
"Recently a group of zealous brothers and sisters living in different parts of the world were invited to respond to the question 'what words and deeds of an elder have added to your joy?' As we now consider the observations made by that group of fellow believers, see how their comments compare with how might have responded"
Loaded indeed! A fair question, if they wanted real feedback, would have been more like "Have your elders been a help or hindrance to your joy in service?"
I know a good many dubs who would have bristled at that paragraph!
This is one that sometimes slips past us if we are not looking for it:
Amphiboly: (syntactical ambiguity) a fallacy of deliberately misusing implications. We see this used a lot in TV advertizing. Example: "9 out of 10 medical professionals recommend our pain reliever." This assumes that all medical people are experts on pain relief, and that 90% of all of them make such recommendations. The Watchtower falls victim to (or uses) this type fallacy. What the consumer is not told is that the "9 of 10" could be in-house medical sponsors, and the total number could be 10, but that it bears no relevance to the entire community of doctors.
I like this example too :
Two Wrongs make a Right: (Similar in style to Ad Hominem) This fallacy is committed when we attempt to justify a wrong action by charges of a similar wrong. The assumption is that if others do it, then why can't we do it too. In the Ad Hominem style, we attack the person to justify our actions, as if to say, if you have done bad things, then who are you to point out my weaknesses.) Example: Supporters of apartheid in one country will justify their system by pointing to past practices of slavery in the United States. Another Example: "How can you charge the Watchtower Society with bad child abuse policies when it is far worse in Christendom, especially the Catholic Church.
Powerfully written Oubliette.
"...those leaders view the religion not as a robust man of truth able to take on all comers, but rather a sickly little boy who can’t be allowed on the playground because his brittle bones would be dashed to pieces."
You're quite a word-smith!
