This Week In Sophistry
(Footnote, Definition and Legend, Comments You Will Not Hear...)
This week, the spotlight of scrutiny shines on the April 1, 2005 Watchtower article entitled Parents, Protect Your Precious Inheritance, scheduled for consideration during the week of May 9-15, 2005.
Bear in mind, the following sophistic message was approved by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, the Masters Over Your Faith:
Paragraph 10:
In order for you to fulfill your desire to bring your child up properly, however, your efforts need to prompted by love. An important factor is good communication. Find out what is happening in your youngster's life and what his or her views are. In a comfortable setting, tactfully draw out your child. At times, you may be shocked by what he says. Be very careful not to overreact. Rather, listen with sympathetic concern.
The first ridiculous back-handed assertion is that the efforts of a normal parent would be prompted by something other than love. Why would any normal parent need to be told this? Any normal parent would be highly insulted by this statement. So the obvious conclusion the public can come to is that Jehovah's Witness parents are not normal, they apparently need to be told that their efforts should be motivated by love.
That is not actually the case. Most JW parents sincerely love their children. So, why is this paragraph worded this way? The effect is a subtle ego-stroking or a subtle guilt trip, depending entirely on the self-image of the reader. The sophist knows that a reader swollen with pride will more readily accept any condition presented that would allow this compliment to be true. Those who feel they do not love their children enough are encouraged to accept any condition that would demonstrate their love more fully in the future. In this case, the condition is accepting that "effective deceit with the best of intentions" equates to "good communication."
That is another ridiculous assertion, that good communication equates to effective devious sleuthing. Why do I say "devious?" Because communication that is candid, is straightforward and honest. Anything less is devious, to some degree or other. In this paragraph, the parent is encouraged to act out behaviors they do not genuinely feel inclined to express. Is this an example of parent's being taught how to truly feel love and genuine concern for their child? Hardly!
There is a specific end in sight and that must be remembered at all times. What end? Molding the child's thinking to agree with the teachings of the Governing Body (ghostwriter for the imaginary Faithful and Discreet Slave), in the name of Jehovah. That there is an ulterior motive that should stay the shocked reaction of parents is obvious from the next paragraph.
Sly, gradual introduction of an argument, initially built on a ridiculous notion used to emotionally garner support for another ridiculous notion, is another tool of a sophist. This type of reasoning is the opposite of candidly honest communication.
Paragraph 11:
True, you may have read to your child from the Bible about God's laws prohibiting sexual immorality, even doing so a number of times. (1 Corinthians 6:18; Ephesians 5:5) This may have impressed upon your young ones what is pleasing and not pleasing to Jehovah. However, putting his mind in a child requires more. Children need help to reason on the value of Jehovah's laws. They need to be convinced that his laws are right and good and that obeying them is the proper and loving thing to do. Only if you reason with your children from the Scriptures so that they accept God's viewpoint can it be said that you have put his mind in them.
1 Corinthians 6:15-20 Do YOU not know that YOUR bodies are members of Christ? Shall I, then, take the members of the Christ away and make them members of a harlot? Never may that happen! What! Do YOU not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body? For, "The two," says he, "will be one flesh." But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit. Flee from fornication. Every other sin that a man may commit is outside his body, but he that practices fornication is sinning against his own body. What! Do YOU not know that the body of YOU people is [the] temple of the holy spirit within YOU, which YOU have from God? Also, YOU do not belong to yourselves, for YOU were bought with a price. By all means, glorify God in the body of YOU people.
Ephesians 5:3-5 Let fornication and uncleanness of every sort or greediness not even be mentioned among YOU, just as it befits holy people; neither shameful conduct nor foolish talking nor obscene jesting, things which are not becoming, but rather the giving of thanks. For YOU know this, recognizing it for yourselves, that no fornicator or unclean person or greedy person--which means being an idolater--has any inheritance in the kingdom of the Christ and of God.
According to this paragraph, you may have made it perfectly clear to your child that the Scriptures prohibit sexual immorality. If you leave it at that you are falling far short of your role as a parent. Your child may choose to do something contrary to Scriptures, if you let them decide for themselves. Jehovah doesn't want robots to worship him, but the Governing Body does. While your child may be fully convinced of what is pleasing and not pleasing to Jehovah, their invisible friend, that is not enough. They need to be convinced, before they are even capable of formulating the ideas for themselves, that the way the Governing Body sees things is the only correct way to see things.
A truly loving parent will use any means necessary, including deceit, to make sure this point is well inculcated. The Governing Body is using sophistic reasoning to trying and make sophists of Jehovah's Witness parents. They are very effective in this campaign. The message they infer is, "Deceit is alright as long as there is pure motive." This is a lie. They say they follow the example of Christ, that they are brothers of Christ? Then, why do they not imitate him in this respect?
1 Peter 2:21-25 In fact, to this [course] YOU were called, because even Christ suffered for YOU, leaving YOU a model for YOU to follow his steps closely. He committed no sin, nor was deception found in his mouth. When he was being reviled, he did not go reviling in return. When he was suffering, he did not go threatening, but kept on committing himself to the one who judges righteously. He himself bore our sins in his own body upon the stake, in order that we might be done with sins and live to righteousness. And "by his stripes YOU were healed." For YOU were like sheep, going astray; but now YOU have returned to the shepherd and overseer of YOUR souls.
The question was rhetorical. They do not imitate him in this respect because a sophist cannot do what they do without deceit. It comes with the territory. All manner of amoral justification and specious reasoning has been used over the years to explain why it is okay to deceive, but never is the scripture above quoted during those arguments.
Continuing with the paragraph, the interpretation given of the original Greek translated "mentally regulating" in paragraph 9 is "putting mind in". That is why there is continued reference to putting God's mind in the child in the succeeding paragraphs. It reinforces the truthfulness of this translation. I find it interesting that the meaning of "mental regulating" in English is vastly different from the meaning of "putting mind in" in English. Is the Governing Body admitting that this Greek term was mistranslated in the New World Translation? Oddly, there is no indication where their insight on the meaning of this word came from. Let us examine it a bit more closely:
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance w/ Hebrew and Greek LexiconFrom whence did this different understanding arise? One need look no further than The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures. The Greek word "nouthesia" is correctly translated "putting mind in" as its strictly literal meaning. However, its figurative application in this article intentionally goes far afield of the usage of the word in the Greek language. It basically means "to remind by way of mild rebuke or admonition," not "to put one mind into someone else's mind." Such an assertion is absurd and contradictory with the rest of Scripture.
G3559 - νουθεσια
nouthesia, noo-thes-ee'-ah
From G3563 and a derivative of G5087; calling attention to, that is, (by implication) mild rebuke or warning: - admonition.
1 Corinthians 2:14-16 But a physical man does not receive the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know [them], because they are examined spiritually. However, the spiritual man examines indeed all things, but he himself is not examined by any man. For "who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, that he may instruct him?" But we do have the mind of Christ.
Is it possible, then, to instill a mind, that you have not yet acquired and can never acquire, into someone else? Of course not. This blatant misapplication of Scripture is devious, sophistic, and sharply disharmonious with the rest of Scripture. Only a student would catch this unethical misimpression. The Governing Body is pretty safe writing this sort of thing to Jehovah's Witnesses even though, by doing so, they attribute deceit to God by assoicating his name to their filth.
Paragraph 12:
When talking about sex, you might ask, "Do you think that obeying Jehovah's law not to have sexual relations before marriage will rob a person of happiness?" Encourage your child to explain his answer. After reviewing God's marvelous provision for producing a child, you might ask: "Do you think our loving God would make laws to rob us of enjoyment of life? Or do you think his laws are there to make us happy and to protect us?" (Psalm 119:1, 2; Isaiah 48:17) Get your child's thinking on this matter. Then you might draw attention to examples of how sexual immorality has led to heartache and trouble. (2 Samuel 13:1-33) By reasoning with your child so that he undeerstands and accepts God's view, you will have gone a long way toward putting God's mind in him. However, there is something else you can do.
Paragraph 13:
Wisely, you will not only teach your child the consequences of disobeying Jehovah but also explain how Jehovah is personally affected by the way we live. Show your child from the Bible thaht we can cause Jehovah pain when we fail to do his will. (Psalm 78:41) You might ask, "Why do you not want to hurt Jehovah?" and explain: "God's enemy Satan claims that we serve Jehovah for selfish reasons and not because we love him." Then explain that by keeping integrity, Job made God's heart rejoice, thus providing an answer to Satan's lying charge. (Job 1:9-11; 27:5) Your child needs to understand that depending on how he behaves, he can make Jehovah either sad or happy. (Proverbs 27:11) This and many other vital lessons can be taught to children by using the book Learn From the Great Teacher.
Armed with the tools given above, these are too obvious to break down for you. I would feel I was insulting your intelligence.
Suffice to say that you can safely replace any reference to God's will with the Governing Body's will. You can read the context of Proverbs 27:11 (Proverbs 10:1 superscription) to discover that these words were not attributed to Jehovah anywhere in the Bible. More specifically, they certainly were not attributed to Jehovah talking to little children anywhere in the Bible. They were attributed to Solomon (a flesh-and-blood human) talking to his flesh-and-blood son, sons, or grandchildren. Children should desire to make their parent's hearts rejoice. What a delight that would be for parents. But parent's are here encouraged to make their children focus only on Jehovah the Governing Body and making him them happy.
This type of sophistry is present throughout the publications of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Once you understand how they do it, you find it everywhere. The Governing Body equates beating the Faithful Slave with candidly bringing to light their outright attempts to toy with the emotions and thought processes of Jehovah's Witnesses. Is truth abusive? Only to those who fear exposure as deceivers who appear as angels of light.
2 Corinthians 11:12-15 Now what I am doing I will still do, that I may cut off the pretext from those who are wanting a pretext for being found equal to us in the office of which they boast. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of light. It is therefore nothing great if his ministers also keep transforming themselves into ministers of righteousness. But their end shall be according to their works.
1 John 4:1 Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
Blondie undertakes the task of bringing us the Watchtower article for the week and invites comments that no "faithful" JW would dare voice in the Kingdom Hall. This thread is not designed to detract from Comments You Will Not Hear ....
This Week In Sophistry is designed to complement Blondie's Sisyphean labors. This is a critical analysis of selected paragraph(s) in the Watchtower article being considered for the week. The primary purpose is to demonstrate the mechanics of sophistic reasoning and expose the intended effects on the reader. While text produced by nearly any high-control group could be examined similarly, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has more years of experience at it than any other I am aware of.
Main Entry: soph·ism
Pronunciation: 'sä-"fi-z&m
Function: noun
1 : an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid; especially : such an argument used to deceive
2 : SOPHISTRY
I will post scriptures in at least paragraph context wherever scriptures are cited. The portion directly cited will be highlighted in dark blue with white letters, to allow convenient comparison to the conext. Portions of "partially quoted" scriptures that were omitted will be highlighted in yellow, showing plainly which words were deemed irrelevant to the point made.