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

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

Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 17, 1999 at 16:44:11 {xx2d.1sWpQePXjHnUl.IOgnjR4Br/g}:

In Reply to: *********AP and AF posted by Gedanken on November 17, 1999 at 16:03:54:

Gedanken

> Also, I think you will admit that, in the past, I have presented a lot of argumentation to make a case, much of which is ignored. So to make what amounts to an accusation, i.e., "Are you content to remain stuck in the sandbox of “I am right and you are wrong!”? is, I think wide of the mark.

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. Doing so is stupid, ignorant or some of both. In that case I disagree with your comment otherwise. If you want to pursue the accusation feel free.

> Some things are so obvious as to require little or no discussion. It has to be that way otherwise we could not communicate at all. If your point is that AF cannot prove absolutely that the Society has deliberately lied then you are correct.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

> As I have said before it is the Society's teachings which are at issue not your or my beliefs. When JWs defend the Society's teachings it is fair to assume they are defending their own beliefs is it not? Or are we to assume that these days JWs are disinterested in what is written in the Watchtower?

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 best information 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.

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

Friend

Follow Ups:

- ***********AP and AF Gedanken 17:28:50 11/17/99 (7)
  - ************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 ]