# *******Discussion summaries

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by AF [AF] on November 01, 1999 at 14:33:16 {2gTL9dbN6kDjRmAxB/kMdaOt1gg/Zk}:

In Reply to: ******Discussion summaries posted by Friend on November 01, 1999 at 11:21:38:

:: That's way too ambiguous because "has application" can mean just about anything.

: I don’t believe you gave me an honest and straightforward answer.

I certainly did. The point of my last post was that with the hindsight of knowing that the Society changed its teaching in 1995, one can latch onto the ambiguities in the book’s statement and claim that the Society allowed for a wider application than it actually did. The fact is that virtually all JWs in 1984 would have understood the Society to mean exactly what I said, and would have disagreed with your claim. Thus, I gave the understanding that JWs back then would have had.

Your phrasing of the question is akin to asking, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” It’s the fallacy of allowing for only two alternatives when more than two exist.

: The paragraph in question uses the phrase “could not apply”. The positive expression is “has application.” For sake of our conversation I will rephrase the question. I would really like a straightforward answer this time.

: In context of the Survival book, is the following your contention or not:

: Teaching that the Sheep/goat/judgment applies after today (today: right now not next year) is the supposed “serious mistake.”

: Is that your contention, yes or no?

This is where your fallacy is evident, and therefore I cannot answer with a straight yes or no – I must qualify it. If you equate “applies” with “could begin” or “might begin”, then my answer is Yes.

: Please note that the “serious mistake” does not address when the application begins but rather the issue of after which its application would be in error. Please stop mudding the water.

The entire point of the Society’s statement was that the parable was being fulfilled right then and there, and therefore could not be fulfilled at a later time, whether that be 11 years later, when the “great tribulation” begins or during the Millennium.

Do you disagree with this statement? If so, why?

Don’t forget that you have a lot of stuff to address from my last big post on this topic.

AF

Follow Ups:

- ********Discussion summaries Friend 16:01:14 11/01/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: ********Discussion summaries

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]