Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 17, 1999 at 20:48:44 {xx2d.1sWpQhxaL3hj3H2OgnjR4Br/g}:
In Reply to: ***********AP and AF posted by Gedanken on November 17, 1999 at 17:28:50:
Gedanken
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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 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. Especially when the Society half-heartedly apologized for statements that Greg himself maintains were proper.
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.
My purpose on this thread is not that of defending Greg. He must do that for himself. This thread is only about my take on the discussion between him and AF.
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 errancy, 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.
Friend