# ***********AP and AF

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

Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on November 17, 1999 at 17:28:50 {xx2d.1sWpQHdgEG/iekYGxDfYXLgH2}:

In Reply to: **********AP and AF posted by Friend on November 17, 1999 at 16:44:11:

Friend

:I do not believe I have ignored your arguments from our former encounters. I may not have agreed that each was valid or relevant; I may have cut to the point on an argument and not replied word for word to what you said. But I have never intentionally ignored an argument.

Who said intentionally? For example, I presented you recently with a number of direct quotations in which the WTS stated clearly that angels were manipulating the preaching work and, as I recall, you never addressed that issue at all.

:Doing so is stupid, ignorant or some of both.

Or perhaps simply an oversight.

:In that case I disagree with your comment otherwise. If you want to pursue the accusation feel free.

I just gave an example.

:I agree that some things must be obvious (at least assumed so) for the sake of discussion. But when an assumption is the issue then you
cannot just say because it is obvious (assumed so by you) that it is as you assume. Doing so is circular to the question needing resolution.

If that were the case. But it isn't. The evidence has been presented fully and the essence of Greg's answer is that AF has not absolutely proven that the Society lied. He is right only because it is impossible to absolutely prove anything except for purely logical issues (like theorems). So the discussion has deteriorated into a long drawn out debate over the meanings of words.

What matters is whether the Society lied or not. Is that a point of agreement? There is a lot of evidence that it did. Certainly enough to expect that the Society should provide some response. So, how about you present this evidence to the Society and ask it to clear the issue up once and for all. After all, don't we want to discover the truth instead of wasting time on intrinsically unwinnable debates? If the Society will offer an acceptable explanation then I for one would be willing to accept it. Acceptable would mean that they publish an article that fully and frankly acknowledged, e.g., that their conclusions were incompetently drawn. If they refuse is that dishonesty or incompetence or what would it be?

:As for AF’s contentions, I agree with him that preponderance of evidence is the issue. The question is what makes the evidence
preponderant toward the question needing resolution. Is it that more people agree with him than Greg? Is it that who writes the most
words? Is it who cites the most reference material? It is who draws what conclusions? My AP and AF post went to what would address the
question of preponderance. For reasons already expressed my view is that preponderance in this case must be something which excludes
incompetence and/or mistake. Frankly, rather than exclude those reasonable possibilities I think in part AF’s information has somewhat
affirmed them.

Part of AF's contention is that when the Society is made aware of past errors, it refuses to correct those errors, or ignores them. Thus, what perhaps started out as incompetence becomes deliberate dishonesty. Surely you can see that. I'm talking about factual errors that cannot be debated. Tobacco companies at one time did not know that smoking caused cancer. At what point did their ignorance turn into deliberate deception? Or would you argue that they were just misinformed?

:Please remember when issues are being discussed responsible people will concentrate more on presented facts and perspectives rather than
conclusions drawn from those facts and perspectives. Responsible people will not ignore conclusions offered they just should not be
overly swayed by them. Doing so would amount to self-indulgent ad verecundiam. Considering other’s conclusions is not always irrelevant (or fallacious) but we should be cautious about whose conclusions we depend upon.

Ignoring the facts is not considering different perspectives. Also, time and again the only defense presented by JW apologists is that "absent absolute proof" we cannot condemn the Society. Well, if that argument were generally accepted then the tobacco companies would be home free since no one can prove that smoking caused any particular person to die of lung cancer. It is only statistically true that smoking causes cancer.

::As for [Friend’s] beliefs, I really don't know what they are.

:Then you certainly have no business accusing that I resort to absurdities to defend them.

Ok. You resort to absurdities to defend viewpoints which may or may not be personally held by you. Absurd because demanding absolute proof is the same as saying that nothing can be proved. You talk of preponderance of evidence but all you have to do is to say that whatever evidence is presented is not preponderant. In this case, why not simply ask the Society to tell us why it did what it did?

:Yes, on this forum it is the Society’s teachings that are of paramount importance for discussion.

:When I counter views regarding certain of the Society’s teachings of practices I do not consider that I am defending my own beliefs. Sometimes I am simply countering an errant view of what the Society does teach. In so doing my purpose is to give readers the bestinformation possible for making their own choices regarding them. An example of that is my clarifications of what the Society means by the phrase “God’s organization.” Surely you remember that run around discussion between you, AF and myself. I wanted people to see
that, whether you agreed with it or not, the Society teaches that “God’s organization” is an “arrangement” used by God, one that has
changed over time. My only purpose in presenting that information was to lay out what the Society actually teaches on the subject, not
defend my personal beliefs. Another such view had to do with application of 2 Timothy 2:18 by the Society and toward the Society. I was
not defending my personal beliefs but rather clarifying what the Society actually has taught (and the Bible in that case) on the scripture.

I understand that and I do the same on occasion. However, when someone like Greg attempts to reinterpret what is written in fairly plain english in WTS publications ahead of accepting what the Society actually said it is a fair assumption that he is letting his own personal beliefs get in the way. Especialy when the Society half-heartedly apologized for statements that Greg himself maintains were proper.

:Your assumption that otherwise JWs are disinterested in what is written in the Watchtower is no more than a false dichotomy.

My point was that when JWs defend JW beliefs here, unless they say otherwise, it is reasonable to assume that they are defending their own beliefs.

Gedanken

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: ***********AP and AF

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

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

Follow Ups:

- ************AP and AF Friend 20:48:44 11/17/99 (6)
  - *************AP and AF Gedanken 14:42:16 11/18/99 (5)
    - **************AP and AF Friend 16:29:36 11/18/99 (4)
      - ***************AP and AF Gedanken 16:58:43 11/18/99 (3)
        - ****************AP and AF Friend 12:48:32 11/22/99 (2)
          - *****************AP and AF Gedanken 16:06:36 11/22/99 (1)
            - ******************AP and AF Friend 16:18:31 11/22/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: ************AP and AF

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

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