Questions to ask the Dub at your door

by ozziepost 33 Replies latest jw friends

  • patio34

    Hi OzziePost,

    Good questions. I would ask:

    Q. Why is there so much violence in nature?
    Their Ans.: Because of Adam's sin and it brought imperfection into the world.

    Q. Then why were the dinosaurs predatory and violent?
    Their Ans.: ? If they answer the same, then that's wrong because dinosaurs lived 65 million years before humans.

    Their answer: The dating method is wrong.

    My response: There's an Awake from the 80s that emphatically states there have never been found any dinosaur bones in the same strata of humans and that dinosaurs never lived at the same time as humans. So, why were dinosaurs violent? Did God create and design that violence in nature? Or does it better fit an evolution model?

  • Nathan Natas
    Nathan Natas

    Hi ozziepost,

    I think Troubled was only playing DEVIL'S ADVOCATE here rather than being a WTS apologist. I think he just wanted to respond the way an experienced Dub might respond.

    Kinda like an inverted Kingdom Minsitry School skit.

    I think he was only playing UKE to your TORI.

    I suppose I could be wrong.

  • c5

    My question would be this:

    In the entire book of Revelation, why do JW's only believe that 144,000 is literal? JW's supposedly believe Revelation is presented in signs, so why is 144,000 basically the only thing they take literally?

    My point would be to show how unreasonable it would be to pick and choose what is literal and what is not, especially only ONE instance in an entire book, with the exception of the advice to the congregations in the beginning.

    If I fail or if I suceed, at least I'll live as I believe.~~W.Houston

  • Outaservice

    Since I've been 'out', I've never had a JW call on my house. As a matter of fact, my neighbors thanked me, because since I moved into the neighborhood, even they have not been called on!

    If they did call, I would tell them I'm not interested, but if they have a little time themselves, I would like to introduce them to Amway! Ha.

    Outaservice (but still countin my time!)

  • troubled


    You said:

    "I assume you are a WTS apologist, so I will respond this time only"

    Assume what you want to. Respond or not as you see fit.

    You said:

    "Which Bible prophecies? I notice you use the word "point" rather than "state". A typical WTS device. Which teaching of Jesus could you show?"

    Ozzie, I had in mind the prophecy of the 69 weeks of years. But you asked for a teaching from Jesus. So I'll add this: the incidents in Matthew chapter 24.

    Yes, I used the word "point." I'm sure you'll agree that not everything in the Bible is explicitly stated. Jesus used illustrations, object lessons, etc. He also said at Matthew 6, we would have to dig and search as for hid treasures to understand the knowledge of God.

    Are you implying that if something isn't clearly stated (1914), it must not be true? This isn't logical. A person may be a thief and never "state" that to anyone. Does that mean he is isn't a thief?

    You said:

    "Then what is the point of his statement of reassurance found at Matthew 28:20 "And, look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things" ?"

    Jesus would be with them in the sense that he would be aware of their activites on earth and bless their sincere efforts to follow in his footsteps. He didn't say he'd have a faithful slave from 33-1914 to do that.

    You said:

    "Straight out of the publications! But where does it state that in scripture?"

    It says in Psalms that Jesus would begin ruling in the midst of his enemies. So his "return" as king in 1914 would have to be separate from his later "return" as executioner at Armageddon. (Because his return as executioner would mean the end of his enemies.)

    p.s. I am not a troll or "planted" by the Society. I'm a JW sister with concerns, who is trying to find out if there are logical, biblical answers to the objections made on this forum. Frankly, it's getting a little tiring explaining myself over and over.

    Ask Larc if it will make you feel better. He knows. However, you have a right to believe whatever you want to about me. And I have a right to post on this board without having to justify myself every 5 minutes.

    And THAT, Ozzie, is the TRUTH.

  • butalbee

    Found this on a website:

    What's a good way to steer a conversation with Jehovah's Witnesses who come to my door?
    Focus on John 6. This seems to do it every time--or, more properly, it seems to do something every time, and the something can be one of two things.

    If you're fortunate, your discussion of that chapter--it's the one in which Jesus promises the Eucharist and states emphatically that what appears to be bread and wine really will be his body and blood--will throw the Jehovah's Witnesses for a loop. Focus on Jesus' repetition; over and over he said we're to eat his flesh and drink his blood, and over and over he failed to tell his listeners he was speaking only metaphorically--for the simple reason that he wasn't. He was speaking literally, and his listeners knew it.

    First the Jews walked away, shaking their heads in disbelief. Then even some of Jesus' disciples left him, unable to accept the doctrine of the Real Presence. One particular person fell away here: Judas (see verse 64). It was here, in his disbelief in the Real Presence, that Judas first betrayed Christ. Yes, later he would be a thief and a traitor, but this is where his tragedy began.

    If you go through John 6 slowly, emphasizing what's really going on, the Jehovah's Witnesses will find themselves in a pickle. You'll show them how all the people mentioned in that chapter took Jesus literally--so why shouldn't we?

    If you bring the missionaries this far, end your exchange with an exhortation. Use the lingo they (and you) have heard elsewhere; they'll identify with it. Tell them they need to read the Bible. Say they should ask "Jehovah God" to give them the light to understand what John 6 really means. Tell them they have to "get right with God," and let them know that means going wherever the truth leads them. Tell them they have to trust God and follow him wherever he may lead them, even if that is somewhere they think they'd rather not go.

    All the above explains what happens if you're fortunate in you discussion with the Witnesses. Of course, things may go wrong--not drastically, not dangerously, but annoyingly. You may find that your consideration of John 6 produces no impression at all on the missionaries. If so, wait for their return and try again.

    [Reprinted with permission from the April 1992 issue of This Rock magazine.]

    In your three-tape set, "I Escaped from the Watchtower," the former Jehovah's Witness being interviewed recommended a book entitled The Finished Mystery. What is the book about, who wrote it, and why is it important?
    Leonard Chretien, an ex-witness who spent 22 years as as official in the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (the Jehovah's Witnesses), recommended The Finished Mystery because it is an example of the bizarre metamorphosis of Watchtower theology over the last hundred years and is useful in showing Witnesses the problems and contradictions in their religion.

    The Finished Mystery was the seventh and final volume in Studies in the Scriptures, a series of books written by the sect's founder, Charles Taze Russell. It is a hodgepodge of false prophecies, rambling discourses on the interpretation of Scripture, and the obligatory rantings against the Catholic Church. The Finished Mystery was printed posthumously in 1917 and was touted as an unanswerable critique of "Christendom."

    As the years passed, and as elements of its theology changed, the Watchtower trumpeted a series of bogus prophecies concerning the date of Christ's return. To its embarrassment, the Watchtower was unable to reconcile either its new theology or its more recent spate of failed prophecies with Russell's book. In an understandable act of damage control, the Jehovah's Witness leadership withdrew from circulation all volumes of Studies in the Scriptures.

    Most Witnesses are unaware of the existence of Russell's books, and for obvious reasons the Watchtower is careful not to allow the rank and file access to them. But you can get a photographically reproduced copy of the book from Witness Inc., an Evangelical apologetics group that focuses on refuting the errors of the Watchtower (P.O. Box 597, Clayton, CA 94517, [415] 584-3838).

    As with all Evangelical apologetics organizations, however competent they may be in their particular field, there is always the problem of faulty Protestant theology being offered as the "solution" to the errors of the "cults." You need to read around this Protestant bias. The organization's research is still helpful because of their expertise in documenting the errors and contradictions in Watchtower publications such as Awake! and the Watchtower, as well as in many out-of-print works.

    [Reprinted with permission from the May 1993 issue of This Rock magazine.]

    My wife is studying with Jehovah's Witnesses, and they have convinced her that celebrating birthdays is a pagan custom and not something Christians should do. She refuses to allow our children to celebrate their birthdays. What should I do?
    Birthday celebrations are mentioned only a few times in Scripture, and nowhere are they condemned. Witnesses wrongly assume that celebrating birthdays is evil because the only two explicit biblical mentions of birthday celebrations are those in honor of a pagan, Pharaoh (Gen. 40:20-22), and a wicked man, Herod Antipas (Mark 6:21; cf. Matt. 14:1-12). To compound the issue, King Herod's birthday festivities were the occasion of sexual immorality involving the daughter of his brother's wife, Herodias, and led to the murder of John the Baptist. Witnesses wrongly reason that, because these biblical occurrences depict the celebrations of the births of wicked men, celebrating anyone's birthday is in itself sinful. You can demonstrate that this does not logically follow by showing that the Bible says that the birthday of John the Baptist would be the cause of "joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth for he will be great in the sight of the Lord" (Luke 1:14-15). While this passage does not explicitly mention an annual celebration of John the Baptist's birth, it certainly allows for such an interpretation and at the very least demonstrates that it is good to celebrate the birth of a holy person.

    [Reprinted with permission from the March 1994 issue of This Rock magazine.]

    Why won't Jehovah's Witnesses accept blood transfusions, even when their lives are in jeopardy?
    Mainly because their founder, Charles Taze Russell, scrambled to come up with a unique set of doctrines that would stand out from the pack. He didn't seem to care which biblical teachings he embraced and which he rejected, so long as the resulting doctrinal pastiche would be exotic. Rejecting blood transfusions on "biblical" grounds is one of the odd tenets that make the Watchtower a truly odd organization. Witnesses cite two verses as bases for their position: "You shall eat no blood whatever, whether of fowl or of animal, in any of your dwellings. Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people" (Lev. 7:26-27); "For the life of every creature is the blood of it; therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off" (Lev. 17:14).

    Besides being inconsistent by retaining this particular Old Covenant prohibition while ignoring others, such as circumcision (cf. Gen. 17:2-14) and kosher dietary laws (cf. Deut. 14:3-21), Witnesses misunderstand what these passages are talking about. In both Leviticus 7 and 17 the prohibition is against the eating of blood, not reception of blood through transfusions (a medical procedure which was developed only within the last century). Witnesses ignore the fact that in a single passage in Leviticus the Lord prohibits the eating of both blood and fat: "It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood" (3:17). Yet the Watchtower does not condemn the eating of fat, and no Jehovah's Witness would feel any moral compunction against eating a bag of fried pork rinds or enjoying a nice, fatty cut of prime rib. This is a good example of the Watchtower's selective "theology."

    [Reprinted with permission from the March 1994 issue of This Rock magazine.]

  • butalbee

    Personally, I now have an attack pitbull, trained to attack salesmen and anybody holding a watchtower magazine.

  • ozziepost

    G'day troubled,

    I'm sorry that you seem to be offended by my post. I've looked through it and can only see me referring to you as a Watchtower apologist and it seems from your own comments that I was quite close to the mark. I don't know why this offends you; it's viewed as a compliment by some. Perhaps you should check out its meaning. I certainly don't believe you are a Watchtower plant. Frankly you seem a little touchy but I can't see how the matter of you having to continually justify your statements is warranted by this thread. Especially as your post could have served to have hijacked the thread and taken it elsewhere, which it does seem to have done.

    We could argue scripture texts back and forth ad infinitum with you reading into texts whatever the WTS have led you to believe e.g. Matthew 24 does not necessarily support the date 1914. It might, but then, it might not.

    Regarding the parable of the faithful and discreet slave, notice there was also an evil slave. Perhaps you have some thoughts as to who this identifies? Furthermore the account in Luke 12 indicates that this contains a hypothetical aspect. Note verse 45 "But if ever that slave should say in his heart, 'My Master delays coming', and should start to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink and get drunk." If you are to explain this the WTS way, allegorically, you will need to identify who this is referring to, and when that happened. There also seems to be another slave, if you understand this allegorically, in verses 47 and 48.

    One thing the WTS does not make clear is that a parable is different to an allegory. An allegorical story would mean that every detail represents something or someone, whereas a parable is told to make a point and not to be seen as having hidden meanings i.e. this represents that, and so on. Furthermore parables are not prophecies, yet the WTS insists that the parable of the faithful slave is both a parable (to be interpreted allegorically), and a prophecy. Remember to be interpreted allegorically you would need to give equal 'weight' in the interpretation to the evil slave.

    For myself, during my time serving at Bethel I was troubled by the WTS claims that it had been appointed as the F&DS. I could never find concrete evidence that Jesus had done such an appointing. The only 'evidence' is found in WTS publications which basically runs something like this "The WTS is the F&DS because it has been appointed. How do we know? Because it says so in the publications."

    BTW you are in error with your explanation of the appointment of the F&DS.

    He didn't say he'd have a faithful slave from 33-1914 to do that.
    The WTS have stated that there always has been a F&DS, ever since Jesus' earthly ministry. Please check this Watchtower:
    In this regard, the book God’s Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached stated: “As to just how the ‘faithful and discreet slave’ class existed and served down through the centuries after the death of the apostles of the Master Jesus Christ, we do not have a distinct historical picture. Apparently one generation of the ‘slave’ class fed the next succeeding generation thereof. May 15, 1995 page 16

    "If our hopes for peace are placed in the hands of imperfect people, they are bound to evaporate."

    - Ron Hutchcraft Surviving the Storms of Stress

  • troubled


    Yes, I was a little touchy. I've been called a troll several times and thought your reference to an apologist might be hinting at the same thing.

    Considering the dictionary's definition of an apologist as one who "defends" a faith or belief system, I guess I am, although I am open minded enough to search, as the Boreans did, to make sure the things taught are "really so."

    p.s. I will check out the 1975 WT.

  • Elsewhere
    3. If Jesus came in 1914, why do you still have the Memorial, because the Bible tells us to do it "until he arrives" ? (1 Cor 11:26)

    I usually disregard treads like this because the person starts splitting hairs with doctrine. But number three made my jaw hit the floor! That is a GREAT point!

    They say that Jesus has been "present" since 1914, and therefore arrived, yet they continue their memorial.

    "As every one knows, there are mistakes in the Bible" - The Watchtower, April 15, 1928, p. 126
    Believe in yourself, not mythology.
    <x ><

Share this