Can this logic be refuted?

by notsurewheretogo 90 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Vidiot

    What he said. ^

  • NeverKnew

    Shouldn't these scenerios be where the WTS savvy non jws could really help?

  • Terry

    Step one: make up a silly game.

    Step two: make up silly rules for your silly game.

    Step three: Every now and then, change the rules on a whim.

    Step four: When a player complains, point out it is YOUR game and you can change anything any time.

    Step five: the only way to win the game IS TO NOT PLAY.

  • jws

    I've been on this board for a while and have read many such stories. Logic does not matter. Irrefutable proof they are wrong does not matter. So many people have tried so many different angles to show them as wrong and none of them have been a success at least not to an official elder visit. They may or may not listen to it. They may or may not consider it. They may even agree that it does look odd. But in the end, it won't matter.

    They don't care.

    The things you are talking about are ancient history to them. As is all of the "old light". Your evidence would carry little or no weight.

    Like another poster said, it really doesn't matter whether they are right or wrong. They believe the JWs are God's earthly channel, you have to be obedient to them, right or wrong, and God will correct any mistakes made by his org in the new world.

    I was a fader. If you want to keep your family ties, just nod and agree with the party line. In subtle ways, you can maybe hope to turn your family. If they leave too, and you have no more emotional investment, feel free to go head to head with the elders. They'll DF you, but maybe you'll plant some seeds if you play it right.

  • OnTheWayOut

    Something is going on with the thread (or JWN). I don't see post numbers at this time.

    Anyway, I read up to notsurewheretogo's posts on page 2 of this thread. Play Devil's advocate if you want. It sounds like you are so sure you can make this presentation of logic work with your elders.

    Splash said it best:

    If you don't want to get DF'd then don't try to discredit the doctrines, even if the WT has already discredited the doctrines themselves.

    You will fit the Apostate template. You will be DF'd.

    There is no logic, reasoning, scriptural proof, MIRACLE that you could do to prove your point.

    Also remember that the elders are in fear of each other. If one was to agree with you he would jeapordise himself.


    Elders may not have "ALL the answers" but here is what they think all the answers to problems and doubts are:

    Pray more, attend meetings more, study and research Watchtower publications more, recruit more, trust the Governing Body more.

    So here's how a typical elder body would address your questions:

    On organ transplant, did they idea of cannibalism have Holy Spirit approval?

    The Governing Body is made up of Spirit DIRECTED men. DIRECTED. They are not inspired, they are sinful, mistake-making humans.
    We can see how the issue of blood is so important to Jehovah and our GB may have taken caution to an extreme to be faithful to Jehovah. Anyone who ran ahead of Jehovah's organization then, showed a rebellious spirit. Anyone who died loyal to the directive to abstain from organ donations would be grateful to have died faithfully and would be remembered and resurrected.

    While your facts may seem correct, you spin like Satan did with Eve.
    We don't have to refute your logic.

    • What would they come back at me with?

    A JC and DF.

  • sd-7
  • Are my facts correct? (I don't have the WT references on hand but will do)
  • Pretty much. The organ transplant ban was in 1967, then discontinued in 1980. Ironically the same reasoning could be used to make blood transfusions a conscience matter, if you read the 1980 QFR on this issue.

  • Can any JW or the elders refute my logic so as to continue the lie that the Governing Body are the Channel of God?
  • Absolutely, though not so much with logic in return, but with the weight of their authority, a full weight to be brought to bear against you should you bring this issue up with them. I went through this discussion myself, and one elder on my committee even went so far as to say he could care less about 1914. He lived through the 1975 thing and felt that it simply shouldn't stop him from 'serving God'. Apparently he felt no need to ask a lot of questions about it. They won't care about refuting your logic. They will want to pin you down to saying something that will allow them to DF you. That's what the entire framework of the discussion will be maneuvered towards. They are bound by duty to only engage you up to a certain point, and then ask the loyalty question. An excerpt from my own committee, posted on a thread here:

    They asked one final time, "Do you recognize the faithful and discreet slave, and that there is an organization that God is using today?" "No," I said.
    One of them said [behind closed doors, yelling at his fellow elders], "I can't be dealing with no apostates in the congregation!"
    It was maybe 10-15 minutes before they called me back in to tell me I was to be disfellowshipped.

  • What would they come back at me with?
  • "Have you been talking to apostates? This sounds like apostate reasoning." This would be asked, of course, in a judicial hearing if you present a question like the above to them. If you manage to ask that question in front of two of them, it's possible that will count as proof warranting a judicial hearing. So if you're trying to stay on the inside, you would do well not to ask that question at all.


  • AndDontCallMeShirley
    "Do you recognize the faithful and discreet slave, and that there is an organization that God is using today?"


    This really is the ONLY end-goal of any JC meeting with someone regarding "apostasy".

    No matter how logical the arguments presented are or irrefutable the evidence presented is, the answer to only one question is all that matters: "Do you believe the WT and its Governing Body is god's organization?"

  • notsurewheretogo

    They couldn't charge with me apostasy if you go by their own definition of apostasy...I am not a bitter person hellbent on getting people to leave Jehovah...nor have I sourced any material outside the WT...of course if I answered "no" to their question "Do you believe the WT and its Governing Body is god's organization?" then you are DF immediatley...

    Ray Franz' answer to that question was good...

  • sd-7
    They couldn't charge with me apostasy if you go by their own definition of apostasy...I am not a bitter person hellbent on getting people to leave Jehovah...nor have I sourced any material outside the WT...

    It doesn't matter whether you actually want people to 'leave Jehovah' or source material outside the WT. Even quoting WT literature in a non-conventional way indicates you have had contact with apostate material. But as you said, the answer to the loyalty question is the difference between success and failure at the end, and I guess if you've got that figured out, why am I talking to you? You can just do whatever you feel like, 'cause you've got it covered.


  • AndDontCallMeShirley


    I know I have the quote somewhere in my archives, but a letter went out several years ago to Circuit and District Overseers which stated this regarding apostasy:

    'a person is an apostate for merely THINKING thoughts that are different than WT teachings. The person does not need to be talking to others about their questions or actively promoting new thinking to be considered an apostate.'

    Thought crime.

    So, if WT has this kind if attitude toward someone who simply THINKS things that differ from WT doctrine, how will it treat someone who presents evidence, even if it's from WT's own literature?

    Just an observation.

    If someone knows the quote I'm referring to it would be great if you'd post it.

  • Share this