# ***Friend's Question

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

Posted by AF [AF] on November 15, 1999 at 12:09:56 {AS5l1tybL6DjRmAxB/kMdaOt1gg/Zk}:

In Reply to: **Friend's Question posted by AP on November 14, 1999 at 17:36:52:

:: So when one finds that extremely bad errors were made in a basic doctrine like the 1914 chronology, and finds that explanations were given that turn out not to be explanations at all (one JW told me that the 1943-44 material was like a shell game), and finds that the Society is unwilling to deal with the errors today and set matters straight, one can only conclude -- like a jury determining a murderer's motivation -- that some of the errors were deliberate and certainly that the covering up of them was deliberate.

: No, that is NOT the "only" conclusion one can reach! THAT is the point I have been trying to explain: it is ONE possible option.

You keep talking about “other possibilities” but I have yet to see you present anything substantial. Unless you do, these “possibilites” will remain only that.

: But you cannot prove that it is the ONLY option. Do you see the difference, now? On the one hand you say that it cannot be absolutely proven, but then you turn around and claim that "deliberate deception" IS the "only" conclusion one can reach.

You do seem to have difficulty comprehending the English language. My discussion about “absolute proof” clearly centered on math-style proofs where purely logical proofs occur. In real life situations we must use a different standard. That standard involves not absolute proofs but probabilities. It is in terms of these reasonable probabilities that would pass the classic “prudent man” test that I said “one can only conclude …”

Really, though, you do understand English quite well. Your problem, as most everyone else on this forum can see, appears to be that you just don’t want to admit of anything that could taint your view of the Society. By pretending to misunderstand arguments you can try to deflect the problems into a side path where they’ll never have to be examined – especially by you.

: Also, previously when you were explaining the situation about your "two witnesses" you claimed that this was not a courtroom,

Right, because it obviously is not.

: and now you wish to have legal principles, as used in a court of law, applied.

Once again you pretend not to understand. My reference was not to a courtroom per se, and certainly not to a slavish application of legal principles, but to the general methods employed not only in a courtroom but in most other real life situations to determine someone’s motives.

: I will have more to say about this, if the discussion continues.

Again you claim you have more to say. If you do, just say it and be done with it. I just can’t stand the suspense.

: So, take your pick: Proceed with your reply, and I will reply after it has been given, and in the meantime I will offer further posts for consideration, with respect to your appeal to the two unknown witnesses, the "Schroeder claims," and other, related issues.

I’m in the middle of responding to your last big one, if that’s what you’re talking about. Since I can only work on it from home and it’s huge, it’s going to take awhile. As for the Schroeder business, post what you have and let’s run with it.

: If you are willing to acknowledge that while you believe that deliberate deception is the most likely motivation behind the two examples that are at the core of our debate, but that there are other possibilities, then we can move on to other issues.

Alright, I’ll acknowledge that there may be possibilities I’ve not considered. But to prove them, you’ll have to give pretty solid evidence and show why what I’ve presented is wrong, instead of merely claiming so.

: … you might consider giving a summary of main points, and I will do the same, and we can submit them to barJonah at an appointed time, to complete this present discussion.

I’m going to present the full complement of information, not a summary.

Oddly enough, in your last big post you admitted for all practical purposes that JWs are inspired. It will be interesting watching you try to get away from this admission.

AF

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: ****Friend's Question

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

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