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

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

Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on November 18, 1999 at 14:42:16 {KEdmzBXaT6HdgEG/iekYGxDfYXLgH2}:

In Reply to: ************AP and AF posted by Friend on November 17, 1999 at 20:48:44:

Friend

::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.

:If you give me a link back to those posts of yours I will be glad to take a look and offer my comments.

Here it us but I don't necessarily want to reopen the discussion itself unless you do. This is just for illustration.

::What matters is whether the Society lied or not. Is that a point of agreement?

:Again, yes, that matters. But demonstrating deception to the exclusion of mistakes, mistaken ideas or incompetence is what must be proven. Admittedly proving intent (as in deception) is difficult if not impossible.

So you argue, in effect, that deliberate deception can only rarely be proven. What if, after the error has been pointed out, nothing is done to correct earlier misstatements? That is intellectual dishonesty. Why has the Society not corrected actual errors in the Creation book? I shake my head in disbelief that an organization that considers itself to be "The Truth" will publish wrong and misleading information and then, when this is pointed out, refuse to correct it or admit that mistakes were made. Here I concur fully with Seeker.

:There is a lot of evidence that [the Society lied]. Certainly enough to expect that the Society should provide some response.

::The main problem with that statement is that some feel the by virtue of changing teachings the Society has admitted that former ideas were
errant.

They can feel however they like. Who are these ones anyway. Do you know what they think? The truth is that changing teachings is not an admission of error. If I teach today that electrons are positively charged and tomorrow I do not admit error but just say they are negativel charged, have I admitted error? Your argument is merely an apology for lies.

:For some that is response enough, for some it apparently is not. Those who feel it is enough likely hold a very different perspective
than those who do not feel it is enough. Who is right? Amidst Jehovah’s Witnesses there is an acceptance that change is enough of an
admission.

The main problem really that it puts the Society in a bad light. When you talk of "changing teachings" do you include teachings that are just not mentioned anymore so that the "brothers" will not notice that the teachings have been changed. An example is what has been done with Creative Days. What would happen if a publisher started regularly telling everyone that a Creative Day is 7000 years long? Is it that long or not? What do you think the Society's teaching is on that?

How can you say "there is an acceptance amongst JWs. How do you know that? You do not and cannot make such broad and unsubstantiated assertions. Most JWs I know are so hornswaddled they don't even know that errors were made at all.

::So, how about you present this evidence to the Society and ask it to clear the issue up once and for all.

:The Society will maintain that its efforts have always been genuine without any intent to deceive. They will admit that former teachings
were errant and that presently we do not pretend to be infallible. In that case they will attribute genuineness to their efforts though some
errancy is likely. In cases where secular evidence disagrees with their own teachings they will contend that they are correct for various
reasons (whether they make sense or not) while at the same time admitting their teachings are at odds with that secular evidence. They will
maintain that that is just what they believe. In some cases they will base that presumption upon perceived blessings.

How do you know what it will maintain? Again you preseume too much. Are you the Society's or JWs spokesman? You talk as though you are the authority on these matters and we must all bow to your superior insights. Besides, we need not focus on teachings; we can look at indisputable errors and misquotes that the Society refuses to correct. That is dishonest. Anyone who does not see that is either blind or dishonest themselves. It is the post facto refusal to correct actual errors (let's forget for now errant teachings) that make it dishonest. You have not seen fit to comment on my analogy with tobacco companies. But your arguments would, short of a federal judge demanding to see their internal memos, excuse their behavior as being possibly mistaken as opposed to dishonest. In law that might be fine but what a terrific religion yours is! As trustworthy as a tobacco company!

::If the Society will offer an acceptable explanation then I for one would be willing to accept it.

:As I explained above, that is precisely where people differ on this issue, whether it has to do with incompetence, mistakes, mistaken
notions or dishonesty.

Again you state the obvious. I defined what acceptable meant. It is a very simple concept. If you publish something that is wrong then you must correct it in print later in order be considered honest. It is almost embarrassing to have to explain in such detail what honest conduct entails. It is a pity that more JWs do not get some form of higher education. Then they would know what appropriate standards of intellectual honesty are. It might help the Society meet them, even when those misquoted are only "evolutionists" who will go down the toilet at Armageddon in any case. Ignorance combined with arrogance is a deadly mix and most JWs have both qualities in full measure.

::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.

:Again, that is an issue of what you consider correction or ignoring of past mistakes. Some do consider that the Society has made correction
once they were convinced of them.

Apologists perhaps. Tell me where the actual errors and deceptions in the Creation book have been corrected. Besides, should not the Society go the extra mile when it comes to honesty? Discussing things with you is like talking to a trial lawyer. That in itself should put anyone off wanting to belong to this religion which is so slippery as to require such a defense. Your arguments would be worthy of a tobacco company lawyer.

::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.

:Ignoring facts is different from holding a different interpretation of facts or from minimizing certain facts to the detriment of other more
highly regarded facts. Considering that we are talking about spiritual values in many instances it is difficult to apply strictly intellectual
rules to the equation. If someone wants to believe what they believe is that dishonest as long as they admit to counter views and
arguments? I think that may be foolish but is it dishonest? Does it become dishonesty because they share those beliefs?

Here you deftly change the subject. We are not talking about "spiritual values" but documented errors. In these cases it is easy to apply strict intellectual standards which is why AF chose the examples he did.

:Times where I quarrel the idea of absolute proof has to do with absolute statements. If someone wants to make a categorical claim then
they must substantiate that absolutely. Otherwise they must admit the extent to which their claims are valid. If they feel, as does AF, that
certain conclusions are proven to a degree of preponderance then let that be the contention rather than that of absolute (not that that is what
AF has done). If their view is just their opinion then let that be so stated. If they are called upon to present absolute proof when their
contention is not such as that, then let them simply explain more clearly that their contention is less than absolute. It is that simple.

Nice prose. The errors are absolute errors and so where are the corrections?

::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.

:Absurd because of demanding absolute proof? Pleas, show me where I have applied that notion on this thread. Even in our past discussion
about direct inspiration I did not contend that you had to prove absolutely. I only argued that you must prove up to and beyond the level of
explicit comments contrary to your claims. That is not requiring absolute proof but rather a preponderance. In my opinion you did not
come close to meeting your burden of evidence.

You may not say you demand it but you act as if you do because nothing will convince you or Greg of certain things. Even when the Society admits error Greg will decide that such an admission does not belong in his book because it spoils his case. Is this honesty? No amount of evidence can convince most JWs about anything because they have already has their minds made up for them by Jehovah God. Sure JWs may disagree with some of the Society's teachings but to think that the Society can actually lie is an anathema to them. Still, it is in your own interests to find out if the Society did or did not lie is it not? I no longer belong to this religion while you apparently still do.

::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?

:As I have already said, when you talk about preponderance of evidence the question will always be subject to the listener.
Some will accept your evidence as a preponderance and others will not. I contend that that acceptance (or not) is not the real issue. The real issue is the discussion which gets the information out there along with available perspectives. If you have done that you have done a great deal. If some
agree with your conclusions, fine, some agree. The main thing is that people can make the most informed choice possible, whether they
happen to agree with you or me.

I do agree with your last point. But should not this self-proclaimed sole bastion of truth on the planet, The Watchtower Society, not be pleased to tell the truth about itself? Why does it need us? The basic difficulty is that most JWs will accept no evidence that the Society lied no matter what that evidence is. That is what they are taught. It is a tenet of their faith. That is the problem which you fail to address. In other words, nothing at all would convince most JWs that the Society is not only capable of lying but has lied many times.

:Then you should understand that my arguments favoring the Society’s views on some issues is not necessarily about my beliefs but rather
about getting good information out there for sake of decision making and understanding.

It doesn't really matter to me what your beliefs are. How many times do I have to say that?

::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.

:In my case that is a bad assumption. When I address issues it is done for purpose of clarifying misconceptions or errors, or perhaps to add
to that already known. I am not seeking to defend the Society. They must do that for themselves. If I defend anyone it is the people making
up Jehovah’s Witnesses. I find them to be fine persons (not unlike many others) and the condescending ridicule that is placed upon them I
find appalling. Those doing it reflect inferior learnedness, at least.

This is yet another side issue. I don't understand why you get so caught up in so many tangential issues (such as Greg's "stepping down"). It deflects discussion. I will repeat; I don't really care what you believe. But just because you think you are clarifying misconceptions does not mean that you are not yourself misconceived. Whatever your motivations are, when you defend the Society then that is what you are doing; defending it, whether justly or unjustly. When you say you defend JWs maybe you are doing what the Society wants; protecting them from themselves. You may think JWs are nice people but I can't see much merit in people who will delude themselves, lie and support lies in order to convince themselves that they have the truth. How ironic that really is.

Gedanken

Follow Ups:

- **************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 ]