She told me that particular book has been lent to her, that they aren't distributing it any more... wonder why?
Yeah I saw that line too.
She has written a whole heap of notes about the jehovah thing for me to read- but she gave me the pamphlets about creation and seemed particularly proud of them, since seem on the surface to be based on science, and since they have bibliographies.
I'm letting the name issue rest for now, because I think that these pamphlets could be a great way to let her see the dishonesty of the WTS.
I already pointed out in the origin of life booklet the way that they try to pit evolution against creation, and do it by talking about how cells first formed, which is actually abiogenisis, a seperate field- using the weighted pdf, helps me make sure I don't miss any bullshit.
Her response was that since many people are poorly educated, they think that evolution is an explanation for the origin of life, so it's talking to them on their terms- she doesn't seem to think it's deceitful in any way...
Going to have to start bringing up the misquotes in conversation...
Posts by Tuber
-
98New here
by Tuber inhey all.. .
thought i'd introduce myself.. .
first, a disclaimer: i'm an athiest.. .
-
-
Tuber
-
98
New here
by Tuber inhey all.. .
thought i'd introduce myself.. .
first, a disclaimer: i'm an athiest.. .
-
-
Tuber
@Interested One: Shall do, but since I'm back in my home country, with my family (including stepmum etc), I shan't have much time to get online, so I'll use this thread until I leave and head back to the country in which I live and work.
@ Anyone and Everyone: Bombshell was dropped, turns out she has been baptised nearly a year. This changes things significantly. One small upside is that she has bible teach, reasoning scriptures etc, a decent amount of the books lying around the house, which saves me being seen as getting too much info from apostate sources.
She has given me two books to look through; bible teach, god's word or man's, and then two more recent pamphlets, both published in 2010- was life created? and the origin of life five questions worth asking. If anyone is familiar with those two pamphlets, and knows of any particularly horrible logic, or of any misquotes in them, please let me know- am going to look through them tonight, and will probably be consulting some of Richard Dawkin's works...
She seems to be trying to convince me by making me doubt evolution and natural selection, big bang etc, use the gap created by that date to slip in creationism, and go from there.
@Djeggnog- I only see my family two weeks out of a year- I am trying to make the most of the time I have with them, and that includes talking with my stepmother about where she is religously etc. I don't have the time to give you a response right now, and I apologise. -
98
New here
by Tuber inhey all.. .
thought i'd introduce myself.. .
first, a disclaimer: i'm an athiest.. .
-
-
Tuber
Wow, this thread has been going nuts while I've been away from my computer.
@Tuber:
I never said I want to stop my stepmother being a theist, I want to stop her being a Jehovah's Witness.@djeggnog:
I see. How do you imagine that you will be able to accomplish this? By taking a crash course in theology a la ex-Jehovah's Witnesses? I've read some of the "advice" that others have been given you here and someone advised you to become an undercover Bible student so that you will learn in stealth at least some of the major teachings of the Bible, teachings that some here have suggested are in reality the major teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses that are not based on Bible at all.You seem to assume that my being an athiest means that I am unfamiliar with the bible. I spent 5 years (the entirity of my high school education) at a christian school (baptist, if it matters). I chose my own high school, and I chose the school because a number of my friends were going there, and also for the very reason that those same friends were choosing it, because of the quality of education it offered.
I spent 5 years undertaking religous education (RE) twice a week, an hour each time- and consistently earnt A and A+ grades. I got higher grades than many of my christian peers. I would often ask questions that required my RE teachers (over the course of the 5 years I had 3 teachers for this class) to reply "I'll get back to you on that", then make me wait a week or two while they researched, consulted with other teachers etc before finally giving me an answer or explanation. Two of my three RE teachers had degrees in theology (I believe one was a masters, the other a Phd). The one without an academic degree was an ordained minister.
I have not read the bible from cover to cover, although incidentally I am currently doing just that (checking my main translation against two others- as you can imagine, this is going to take a considerable amount of time).
As for my own education, I currently hold a bachelor's degree in Advanced (Certain Asian Language) Studies. Sorry for not specifying the language, but I am somewhat paranoid about internet detectives. As you can imagine this makes me familiar with the basics of translation, the difference between translating text "word for word" and "thought for thought", and the tendency most translators have, which must be avoided, especially in the "thought for thought" method, to assume they know what the original writer was trying to say, and adding nuances and words into the translation that have no support in the source text.
I am quite familiar with the bible and christianity, as well as with a number of other religions. The more I learn about any particular religion and what it teaches, the less able I find myself able to believe it.
I approach any religion with an open mind, but none stand up to scientific/ rational scrutiny.
As for atheists, they usually fall into one of two categories "soft" or "hard". It's a subtle but important distinction. Soft atheists simply do not believe there is a god. Hard atheists believe there is no god. I hope I explained that in a way that makes sense. I used to be a soft athiest, but as time passes I find myself "hardening". Having said that however, my ultimate measuring stick is the scientific method. Some say atheism requires faith, and they are wrong. Faith is believing something without evidence, or in spite of evidence to the contrary. I don't have "faith" in the non existence of god, because I don't exercise faith, I rely on evidence. Were someone to come to me with evidence that God existed, and were this evidence to stand up to scientific scrutiny, I would change my stance.
@Tuber:
Watchtower publications teach that all other religions, to the extent of all other [denominations] of Christianity even, are being used by Satan to lead people away from the "one true religion".@Djeggnog:
This is what the Bible teaches. I won't quote the Bible texts here since I'm not sure that you have the same appreciation that I do as to the infallibility of God's word and its truthfulness. The Bible teaches, for example, that God raised Jesus, a man that was put to death, from the dead on the third day after his execution. Because Christians believe what things the Bible teaches, they accept this teaching on faith in the Bible, which they believe to have been written under divine inspiration, but you couldn't be expected to believe that a dead man came back to life after having been dead for parts of three days rose from the dead.Although the earth may have been existence for many thousands of years, perhaps aeons, the Bible provides a history of mankind that only dates back to a little over 6,000 years, and because Christians hold the Bible to be inerrant, they would have no difficulty rejecting the idea that man evolved from primates as a result of evolution (based on the Darwinian premise of natural selection) or rejecting as absurd the notion that man has been walking around on this planet for 10,000, 50,000 even 100,000 years or longer, believing as we do that the human race began as the result of the direct creation of Adam and Eve by God. If you should decide to accept a Bible study with one of Jehovah's Witnesses, this point will be made using the Bible and you will, of course, be free to reject what you read in the Bible as incredible.
You're right, I don't hold the bible to be infallible, nor do I hold any other holy book to be infallible. Even science is not infallible, but the strength of science is that it admits its own fallibility, and says simply "this is the evidence we currently have, and experiments we have performed show... this is currently the most accurate explanation we have, but should new evidence come to light, should the results of our experiments prove faulty, we will have to admit we were wrong, and come to a new understanding".I do reject the bible as incredible. That is not because I don't understand it, but rather, it is because I do.
However, infallible or not, the bible teaches that any religions other than christianity are false and used by satan, that's true.
But nowhere does the bible state that Jehovah's Witnesses are the only true christians, and that every other sect of christianity is apostate. Nowhere does the bible expand on Jesus's parable about the faithful and discrete slave, nowhere does it say that this slave is an organization, that this organization is the WTS (or JWs, take your pick, amounts to the same thing ultimately) that this organization is approved by god, nor that disobeying or disagreeing with the organisation is paramount to rebellion against god.
I can't be bothered quoting everything, so I'm just leaving a few lines between each topic if I don't start it with a quote, like I have done above.
@InterestedOne has provided you with quotes about the blood topic, I don't feel the need to rehash. Sorry if I offend, but I have to agree with @Sizemik that you have a tendency to get caught up in semantics. Perhaps there is quote where WTS literature uses the exact phrase I did, but they teach that JWs are the only true christians, and accepting a blood transfusion is a disfellowshipping offence.
Also, your crude oil analogy was well written, but @Sizemik provided a quote from WTS that condemns fractions, or to use your term, byproducts. In recent years WTS literature may be saying that fractions are a "conscience issue", but the implicit disapproval is still there.
Furthermore, the crude oil analogy is particularly potent because it takes the same route as blood: main product -> byproduct. However, please let me give me give you an analogy that will sum up how I see it, which takes a different route: ingredients -> final product.
WTS literature has in recent years loosened its stance towards fractions, like I mentioned above. But now see my analogy: blood fractions are the ingredients, the building blocks if you will, of blood. The WTS allowing fractions but banning whole blood is no different to saying "you may eat bread, you may eat butter, or margarine, you may eat ham, you may eat cheese, you may eat any ingredient or filling one would normally find in a ham sandwich, but you must not combine them into an actual ham sandwich. You may have all the ingredients without the ham, because that's just a sandwich. Or you may have all the ingredients without the bread, because then it's just ham and salad with a few condiments".
As for the risk argument, it is a nothing more than a convenient argument. All medical procedures carry risks. In fact, even eating contains risks- the first time one eats a new foodstuff, they may be risking a life threatening allergy.
But it's not so much an issue of the level of risk, to my mind, as it is to the level of consequence. Consider a hypothetical situation where a patient will die without a blood transfusion (and please don't ask me to cite an example of such a situation, there is WTS literature about children dying instead of accepting blood). Should the worst happen, and the patient be adversely affected by a blood transfusion, what are the consequences? An infection, even perhaps one as serious as HIV. But even with such an infection, the length of the patient's life is extended, and depending on treatment, even HIV can be managed, albeit not cured, with today's medical science. Now what are the consequences of refusing the blood transfusion? Death. If I was faced with certain death, or life, but with the risk of an infection, I know which I would choose.
Disfellowshipping and shunning... you kind of made my point for me. Jehovah's witnesses associate as little as possible with disfellowshipped individuals. WTS literature instructs JWs to avoid all contact with disfellowshipped individuals. This is JW doctrine. This I strongly disagree with, especially considering some of the offences that carry the disfellowshipping penalty.
As for misquoting scientists, see this link, which documents the amount of misquotes in just one WTS publication:
http://www.tj-encyclopedie.org/Blatant_misquotes_in_the_Origin_of_Life_booklet
In regards to the end of the world, like @Sizemik said, not saying something a certain way is not the same as not saying it. The same goes for your saying that the JWs have never officially predicted the end of the world, only talked in "what ifs". I've read of JWs selling their homes to support "kingdom work" before the end etc. I cannot recall where I read this particular piece of information, but I'm sure some of the others in this thread know what I am talking about, and will more than likely clarify for me (and if anyone does, thanks in advance). I also am not in possession of the full WT library, and since the WTS likes to bury the evidence of its changed doctrines and other failures, it would take me quite a lot of work for me to hunt down a quote for me to support myself. Hopefully someone with a more exstensive collection of resources will be able to furnish you with a citation.
And again, you are attacking me for being an athiest, telling me I'm not qualified to draw attention to what the bible says about false prophets?
I guess that means I have to be a doctor to draw attention to what the medical community says about blood transfusion - I doubt whoever wrote "how can blood save your life" brochure was a doctor, but they use quotes from medical journals liberally.
Because I don't believe the bible, I can't draw attention to a passage or a piece of scripture? If you want to extend this logic, I guess it means I can't tell you which of the three little pigs built their house out of bricks, since not believing the story apparently makes me unqualified to discuss it. -
98
New here
by Tuber inhey all.. .
thought i'd introduce myself.. .
first, a disclaimer: i'm an athiest.. .
-
-
Tuber
@Interested: Yeah, this forum seems to have a few quirks, can't seem to get it to work, so thanks a lot for the huge post, will have a read through.
-
98
New here
by Tuber inhey all.. .
thought i'd introduce myself.. .
first, a disclaimer: i'm an athiest.. .
-
-
Tuber
@Interested One: I get
Sorry, an error occurred while processing your request.
When I try to access the message :(
@djeggnog: My problems are many.
I never said I want to stop my stepmother being a theist, I want to stop her being a Jehovah's Witness.
Watchtower publications teach that all other religions, to the extent of all other demoninations of Christianity even, are being used by Satan to lead people away from the "one true religion".
Watchtower publications teach that "true christians" don't accept blood transfusions. I worry about what would happen if my step mother or one of my little sisters were to be put in a situation where a blood transfusion was necessary to save their life.
Watchtower publications label those who disagree with their teachings as apostates, and state they must be disfellowshipped and shunned.
Watchtower publications teach that only with the help of watchtower material can one understand the bible.
Watchtower publications quote scientists and other sources out of context, making it seem like they support watchtower teachings when they do not- this is nothing short of deception.
The WTS has foretold the end of the world numerous times, each time this has proven false. So they are the very definition of the false prophets the bible tells of... the bible they supplant with their own teachings.
"As an atheist, I would think reading anything that relates to religion would be rather difficult to comprehend, but you cannot learn about the religion to whom your stepmother belongs by reading the viewpoints of folks like Raymond Franz, the author of Crisis of Conscience or Don Cameron, the author of Captives of a Concept (Anatomy of an Illusion), since these men are opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses and cannot be trusted to provide an unbiased explanation to you of the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses as someone like myself who is actively one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I invite you to put your questions and concerns to me."
You say these men are biased against the Jehovah's Witnesses, but from everything I see, they have good reason to be. And I think it is fair to say they are no more biased against the WTS than the JWs are for the WTS. The JWs and WTS change their stance on doctrine, then try to cover up the changes... at this point in the discussion, the JWs/ WTS do not come across to me as particularly trustworthy.
Also, please don't say things like "as an athiest I would think reading anything that relates to religion would be rather difficult to comprehend".
You may not have meant to come across this way, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but it makes you sound... well, since I am trying to be civil, let's say it makes you sound rather rude. -
98
New here
by Tuber inhey all.. .
thought i'd introduce myself.. .
first, a disclaimer: i'm an athiest.. .
-
-
Tuber
Hmmm, my browser seems to be bugging out, your post has been replaced with "endif" and some random punctuation, and the bottom of the page refuse to load even on refresh, had to use the "post reply" button at the top just to post this... wonder what's going on.
-
98
New here
by Tuber inhey all.. .
thought i'd introduce myself.. .
first, a disclaimer: i'm an athiest.. .
-
-
Tuber
@ Interested, thanks for that huge post, reading through it now.
-
98
New here
by Tuber inhey all.. .
thought i'd introduce myself.. .
first, a disclaimer: i'm an athiest.. .
-
-
Tuber
@Interested: Ah- sorry, I read your post with blinding speed (haha), and thought you were talking about her response to the name issue, since she also pulled that straight from the site/ a book. Didn't realise the whole bible teach book was online, that will be a very good resource, thanks for the link.
-
98
New here
by Tuber inhey all.. .
thought i'd introduce myself.. .
first, a disclaimer: i'm an athiest.. .
-
-
Tuber
@Interested: I guess you are referring to Black Sheep's comment about not changing the subject unless it leads towards her shooting herself in the foot?
Also, Yeah, I saw something very similar to that response she gave- on the watchtower website, so I know she was just parroting JW literature.
As for going through that book for me, thanks a lot. I need to get round to obtaining a copy of the watchtower library, scans of the literature they no longer like to circulate etc... -
98
New here
by Tuber inhey all.. .
thought i'd introduce myself.. .
first, a disclaimer: i'm an athiest.. .
-
-
Tuber
Interested one, since both her and I were all over the place, we decided to stick to one subject.
We chose, for the time being, to "study together" about whether or not Jehovah should be used to refer to God, as opposed to Yahweh, or LORD etc, and if that has any bearing on the accuracy of bible translations.
This will probably not be a topic that will lead to her doubting the WTS, or help to get her out, but hopefully it will help me further strengthen the impression I am trying to put across, that I am curious and want to learn.
At best I might be able to get her to realise the NWT is biased translation. Taking baby steps, like I said at the start of this thread, she knows I'm an atheist, so I am trying to make it seem like I'm slowly giving into curiousity.
If anyone has any particularly interesting info on this particular topic, I'm all ears.