Posts by TheStumbler

56

JWs: not creationists but believe in creation...

by TheStumbler in

i've been having a bit of an email exchange with elder dad and i need some advice.

i thought i was getting through to him but i think my criticism and tone became a bit too strident in my last email and now he thinks that i am attacking him personally.

i think he has dismissed everything i said because he perceived me as 'overally critical, and rude.. .

TheStumbler

That's interesting. I am sometimes tempted to think there is sone combination of words, or some argument so water tight, that upon hearing it any Witness will say 'oh yeah, the Truth must be wrong about that'. I know it doesn't work like that but it is still tempting to think.

I hope on some level I caused him to at least consider that the watchtoower might be wrong about something. JWs make a big thing about making mistakee in the past and not being infallible, right? They should at least be open to the Watchtowrt being wrong on some things. It seems they only accept changes that are directed internally.

56

JWs: not creationists but believe in creation...

by TheStumbler in

i've been having a bit of an email exchange with elder dad and i need some advice.

i thought i was getting through to him but i think my criticism and tone became a bit too strident in my last email and now he thinks that i am attacking him personally.

i think he has dismissed everything i said because he perceived me as 'overally critical, and rude.. .

TheStumbler

That's interesting. I am sometimes tempted to think there is sone combination of words, or some argument so water tight, that upon hearing it any Witness will say 'oh yeah, the Truth must be wrong about that'. I know it doesn't work like that but it is still tempting to think.

I hope on some level I caused him to at least consider that the watchtoower might be wrong about something. JWs make a big thing about making mistakee in the past and not being infallible, right? They should at least be open to the Watchtowrt being wrong on some things. It seems they only accept changes that are directed internally.

56

JWs: not creationists but believe in creation...

by TheStumbler in

i've been having a bit of an email exchange with elder dad and i need some advice.

i thought i was getting through to him but i think my criticism and tone became a bit too strident in my last email and now he thinks that i am attacking him personally.

i think he has dismissed everything i said because he perceived me as 'overally critical, and rude.. .

TheStumbler

That's interesting. I am sometimes tempted to think there is sone combination of words, or some argument so water tight, that upon hearing it any Witness will say 'oh yeah, the Truth must be wrong about that'. I know it doesn't work like that but it is still tempting to think.

I hope on some level I caused him to at least consider that the watchtoower might be wrong about something. JWs make a big thing about making mistakee in the past and not being infallible, right? They should at least be open to the Watchtowrt being wrong on some things. It seems they only accept changes that are directed internally.

56

JWs: not creationists but believe in creation...

by TheStumbler in

i've been having a bit of an email exchange with elder dad and i need some advice.

i thought i was getting through to him but i think my criticism and tone became a bit too strident in my last email and now he thinks that i am attacking him personally.

i think he has dismissed everything i said because he perceived me as 'overally critical, and rude.. .

TheStumbler

You are probably right. Like I said I thought it might be a good way to show him that the Watchtower is not always accurate. I didn't think he'd automatically defend the Watchtower over something so insignificant Then I got frustrated that he was dismissing everything I said. It's really like talking to a brick wall.

56

JWs: not creationists but believe in creation...

by TheStumbler in

i've been having a bit of an email exchange with elder dad and i need some advice.

i thought i was getting through to him but i think my criticism and tone became a bit too strident in my last email and now he thinks that i am attacking him personally.

i think he has dismissed everything i said because he perceived me as 'overally critical, and rude.. .

TheStumbler

so do you guys think I was rude? If I was I think I need to hear it from you guys.

i think part of the problem is culture. He lives in a world where nothing can be questioned and obedience is a virtue. I believe in questioning everything even ones own beliefs. I believe in a free and frank exchange of ideas. Only ideas that are close to the truth withstand criticism and scrutiny. Criticism is essential to getting closer to the truth. The exact opposite to how The Truth operates (funny that). So my dad takes criticism as personal attacks whereas I value reasonable criticism - it's how I sharper my own ideas.

56

JWs: not creationists but believe in creation...

by TheStumbler in

i've been having a bit of an email exchange with elder dad and i need some advice.

i thought i was getting through to him but i think my criticism and tone became a bit too strident in my last email and now he thinks that i am attacking him personally.

i think he has dismissed everything i said because he perceived me as 'overally critical, and rude.. .

TheStumbler

Yeah, I know it's not a successful tactic but thought it might work about something so non-contraversial. I mean how can he disagree with the definition of a word. And yeah I know i need to work on my word count to communicate my ideas better. I no sometimes meaning can lost in so many words but I can't help myself - theres always some other point or argunenr that I think is too good to leave out. Sometimes more is better.

56

JWs: not creationists but believe in creation...

by TheStumbler in

i've been having a bit of an email exchange with elder dad and i need some advice.

i thought i was getting through to him but i think my criticism and tone became a bit too strident in my last email and now he thinks that i am attacking him personally.

i think he has dismissed everything i said because he perceived me as 'overally critical, and rude.. .

TheStumbler

Sorry, imeant the reason I focused on it because it was 'unimportant'.

thanks Captain obvious, you might be right. Maybe even....stating the obvious? :)

56

JWs: not creationists but believe in creation...

by TheStumbler in

i've been having a bit of an email exchange with elder dad and i need some advice.

i thought i was getting through to him but i think my criticism and tone became a bit too strident in my last email and now he thinks that i am attacking him personally.

i think he has dismissed everything i said because he perceived me as 'overally critical, and rude.. .

TheStumbler

the reason I focused on it so much was becaude it is so important. He'd never accept any contrary evidence about 607 or the cross but I thought maybe I could get through to him about such a trivial issue. I thought he'd have less invested in the Watchtower being right about something so trivial.

do you think I got through to him at all? I think he knew ge couldn't defend the Watchtower so he exaggerated my rudeness as it gave hik an 'out'. How did you guys react as JWa when you couldn't defend a Watchtower doctrine from criticism? Did it ever get through?

Also so the bit he really got hung up on was my claim that was 'clutching at semantic straws'. i didnt think it was that rude...

56

JWs: not creationists but believe in creation...

by TheStumbler in

i've been having a bit of an email exchange with elder dad and i need some advice.

i thought i was getting through to him but i think my criticism and tone became a bit too strident in my last email and now he thinks that i am attacking him personally.

i think he has dismissed everything i said because he perceived me as 'overally critical, and rude.. .

TheStumbler

So, where did I go wrong? Was I rude? I was certainly blunt but I didn't mean to be rude.

he told me that he will no longer talk to me about the topic and asked me to read the conversation between Jesus and Pontius Pilot to learn about the principles he holds which means he can no longer talk to me - what does this mean?

What at should I do differently next time?

I think my point about jws being creationists was unasaillable so I thought I was finally getting through. I thought finally I found an example of the Watcgtowers dishonesty that is undeniable. But he would not accept any fault on the part of the Watchtower. It's like the Watchtower could claim black is white and he'd swollow it.

56

JWs: not creationists but believe in creation...

by TheStumbler in

i've been having a bit of an email exchange with elder dad and i need some advice.

i thought i was getting through to him but i think my criticism and tone became a bit too strident in my last email and now he thinks that i am attacking him personally.

i think he has dismissed everything i said because he perceived me as 'overally critical, and rude.. .

TheStumbler

His response was 'just because a word has a generally accepted meaning it doesnt mean its right'. This is where it went down hill. I replied:

How can the generally accepted meaning of a word be wrong? You are really clutching at semantic straws now.

words don't have objectively correct meanings. The meaning of a word is arbitrary and determined by its popular usage. sometimes the generally accepted meaning of a word changes over time and that word acquires a new meaning. One is not more or less correct than the other.

Creationism is currently generally accepted as meaning a belief in creation. Therefore creationism, as it is currently defined, is a belief in a creation.

This means that you are a creationist. Using semantics to claim you are not a creationist is intellectually disingenuous.

This is really like talking to someone insists 2 + 2 equals 5 and that 5 really means 4 and everyone else's understanding of 5 is wrong.

Regarding your claim that a true (Christian) couldn't be a creationist because it doesn't fit the theme of the Bible, this is a very vague claim. If creationism only means a belief in creationism (which it does) then creationism is entirely consistent with the Bible.

I think you are alluding to the fact that some creationists are politically active which is at odds with your understandibg of the Bible. But your conclusion is wrong because it is based on an incorrect definition of creationism. creationism is not defined by political activism. This is your own criteria that you have applied to creationism to exclude your own creationist beliefs from being considered creationism.

Creationism is a belief in creation. How exactly is belief in creation contrary to the the theme of the Bible?

Lastly, You have still have not addressed the fact that JW.orgimplies that creationism is a broad term:

'some creationists believe that the six days of creation were literal 24-hour days' (http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/creationism-belief/)

If only 'some' creationists believe this then ‘some’ creationists do not which means creationism is not restricted to 'Young-Earth Creationism'. How do you explain this?