The dishonesty of a JW poster

by Seeker 11 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Seeker

  In the "What's wrong w/JW's" thread, GodRules is trying to defend the WTS. When GodRules asked for "facts" that show JWs are wrong, among the respondants was AlanF. AlanF linked to his essay showing the dishonest way the Creation book quotes evolutionists. A mere ten minutes later, GodRules replied:

  "AlanF: Your opinions on the book "Creation" is just that, you opinions. "

  GodRules could not have read AlanF's essay in ten minutes. Either it was skimmed, or it was ignored and responded to in ignorance. Either way, we see that GodRules is not interested in facts at all. What AlanF wrote has nothing to do with opinions, but facts that you or I can look up in a library (I know, I did just that to verify what AlanF wrote). The WTS has misquoted sources, and you can prove it to yourself by checking the original quotes. It is dishonest, and they have been told it is dishonest, and people in the field who have seen this book have said it is dishonest.

  GodRules doesn't care, preferring to hand-wave it all away by pretending it's a matter of opinion. The WTS doesn't care either, preferring to use even dishonest methods in order to fight evolution. JWs hide behind dishonesty.

  They cannot be the right religion, for the right religion does not tell lies nor shows a disregard for truth.
• 

  philo

  :disregard for truth

  The only org.ites who still have any of this regard are probably just starting their bible studies with JWs; they will soon forget it. The organisation long ago redefined the meaning of truth as

  "obedience"

  .

  philo
• 

  GodRules

  Seeker:

  Once again, this is just your opinion. You assume that I did not read Alan's essay. You are incorrect. I received an email with that url about a week ago and read it. Again, to me, it was only a his review of the book. The "Creation" book is succesful in proving one thing, everything around us proves that there is an intelligent creator behind it.

  Sir, you should learn not to accuse someone of not caring. I do care and I am investigating my own religion. If you are pissed because I do not see things as Alan does, well tough! I have the right to disagree and give my own review of the book.
• 

  Winston

  GodRules,

  I'm glad your checking things out.
  I'm curious where do you stand on the issue of:
  The WT is God's organization.

  The Never Ending Search For Truth
• 

  reagan_oconnor

  GodRules, you sed

  I have the right to disagree and give my own review of the book.

  Tsk, tsk... you're breaking your own rules! Remember, you weren't interested in opinions, only "facts."

  Just thought I'd set that straight.

  Reagan

  
  I am the master of my fate/I am the captain of my soul.
• 

  Maximus

  Have you checked the JEMIMAH post where you really showed your true colors for everyone to see?

  I'm waiting for your reply over there, ready to hand your head back to you.

  Maximus
• 

  Seeker

  Once again, this is just your opinion. You assume that I did not read Alan's essay. You are incorrect. I received an email with that url about a week ago and read it.

  Excellent. That did occur to me and I should have listed it as a possibility. I am glad to hear you actually read it.

  Again, to me, it was only a his review of the book.

  Not, it wasn't a review. It was an examination of misquotations, which is dishonesty. Go ahead, take one of those quote examples from the essay, and show us how it is merely AlanF's opinion. You won't be able to, for this is a black-and-white issue. The WTS lied.

  The "Creation" book is succesful in proving one thing, everything around us proves that there is an intelligent creator behind it.

  It fails spectacularly at that. Anyone who knows anything about what evolution actually teaches, will see what is in that book as laughable. Therefore, the book is only useful in those who already believe evolution and know nothing about it.
• 

  Theo Cratz

  Hi Seeker: you're definitely correct about the WT not quoting right. But this next example goes one better.
  In the July 15th 1997 issue of the Watchtower it contains an article entitled "The Investigative Judgement A Bible Based Doctrine?"
  The article is basically a refutation of a key doctrine held by the Seventh Day Adventist Church, based on Daniel 8:14, which teaches that upon Christ's ascension to heaven, He entered the holy part of the Heavenly Sanctuary.
  But, in the year AD 1844 He entered the Most Holy compartment where He cleansed the sanctuary by His blood (as depicted by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement) and began a judgement work on all professed Christians (living and dead) to see if they were worthy or not to be written in the Lamb's Book of Life.
  Now while the above WT article, in the main, does a fairly good job in refuting this teaching, in usual fashion the WT Society shoots a big hole in its own foot during the process.
  For example, on page 26 as part of its arsenal against the S.D.A.s, the WT Society quotes Professor Anthony A. Hoekema to back up its article, but fails to say where the quote comes from.
  The simple reason for this oversight is that Anthony Hoekema made his statement on page 146 of his major work "Four Major Cults". A book in which Jehovah's Witnesses also have their own boat blown clear out of the water.
  So while the WT article quotes and documents other statements from different sources, it wants rank and file JWs to be kept in ignorance of their quote from Professor Hoekema's work.
  For while the Governing Body may read opposition literature, it doesn't want rank and file JWs to do the same (information control is a cult hallmark).
  So, in this brief treatment of the WT article we have to reach our own investigative judgement which can be none other than that of our Lord Jesus Christ in His stern words of Matthew 7:1-5.
  The WT Society attempts to remove a splinter from the eye of Seventh Day Adventism, while a huge plank lies in its own eye.
  In the words of Jesus Christ we offer the only verdict possible "Thou Hypocrite!"

  This just goes to show that the Society will even quote people who don't agree with them in order to try to win an argument.
• 

  MacHislopp

  Hello Seeker and Theo Cratz,

  excellent post and excellent aguments.

  In any debate we wish to have substantial evidence of
  error to prove a point and in mho, this is what Alan F.
  has provided in his comments on the book " Creation"!

  We are still waiting for the answer.

  Greetings, J.C.MacHislopp
• 

  troubled

  Yes, the misquoting, or lack of references with quotes, bothers me alot. I've just started noticing it. I wonder what the Society would say if someone wrote a letter to them, with evidence of the misquotes, and respectfully asked for an explanation for this? And also asked why they are reading and quoting from information they tell us is dangerous wisdom of this world? I just don't understand this at all. I'd like to write and ask them this. I wonder what would happen.