I’m looking forward to probing them.
Was the preceding an attempt to illustrate how not to engage in dialogue regarding religious issues? 
One thing to keep in mind is that those who are committed to a belief do so for reasons that go far beyond rational reasoning. We all do that, but most people are open to the idea that they may be wrong. When someone sees a binary world (right/wrong, sacred/profane, saved/condemned, me/the rest of the world), it is difficult to the point of impossibility to get them to see things any differently. In some cases, the best you can hope for is a sudden stop in the conversation as they encounter an argument or situation that they can’t resolve.
My son was recently diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome, and one of the aspects of Apergers is rigid, inflexible thinking. We endure frequent meltdowns over the smallest things because he can’t resolve the difference between his perception of reality and what is really going on. As an example, he will dig in and absolutely refuse to acknowledge the presence of an object he previously thought was not present. Note that I am not suggesting that all fundimentalists have Aspergers, but that kind of rigid thinking lends itself to insistence on one’s own view of reality and resistance to any other view of reality. The best you can do is get on with life and give them the choice of participating in the life you are leading.
Given the strong binary view of the world, it may not be possible, depending on how committed or dependent a person is to such beliefs. Again, the best thing to do is to give them a choice of being part of your life. If they choose not to participate, I would argue that in the long run your life will be better than if you always feel like your acceptance is solely out of civil courtesy, your presence tolerated simply because you’re “family” and nothing more. You are in full control of your life and beliefs, and that is where you will be most productive, rather than trying to convince a boulder that it is fact water.
Aaargh. Hit submit too soon.
Ok, so you don’t know how to resolve differing interpretations. The JWs have done an admirable job of interpreting scripture in the Protestant tradition ushered in by Martin Luther. They have read scripture and spread the news of what it has said to them. But what does it say to you? What do you hear in the stillness of the night? What have you read that stays with you?
The foundation of Protestantism on which JW theology is built is that they are able to recieve God’s word personally though scripture and act on it as believers. What makes sense to you as a unique individual is going to be different from another unique individual because of personal reception and interpretation. Scripture is a fixed set of words that can be read simultaneously by any group of people, but it is also a dynamic conduit though which each can receive divine guidance and grace that differs from person to person even as they read it in unison. JWs enforce uniformity of that experienced guidance or grace. Other denominations allow more diversity and freedom.
Personal interpretation is not validated by belief, rather it is validated by what it accomplishes in your life, how it moves you in your spiritual journey, how it resolves a crisis, what it means to you. You have as much right to your beliefs and interpretations as anyone else does, through the same right of access to God through scripture that you both claim. You also have the right to demand the same respect for the Word in your life that they demand from you for theirs.
Vlad/Igor
raindog
In this thread and the other I have come to a better understanding about your position. I can appreciate the fact that Biblical knowledge certainly lends credibility to any discussion with someone who regards the Bible as holy. That would include a knowledge of the scriptures themselves as well as historical information about the scripture and their sources.
In a previous thread you rather summarily dismissed some ideas of mine as being an inaccurate interpretation of biblical passages. I gather that you also considered this a product of bible ignorance and cherry picking verses to interpret rather than trying to develop a broader understanding of the bible as a whole. That is certainly not my intention. I clearly see that the Bible is much more than select verses and it requires some effort to try and understand the big picture.
My questions to you is,
-
Do you dismiss anyone who says they haven’t read the Bible all the way through? My own interest is in what Jesus taught and what was taught because of him so I have spent most of my time in the NT reading in context and studying specific subjects. Does that mean I have no foundation from which to offer an informed opinion or discussion in your opinion?
-
What about interpretation? I certainly agree that a more complete understanding of the Bible gives one a more solid foundation from which to interpret the scripture but well educated theologians don’t always agree. I’ve read and listened to people who have studied the Bible for decades and are touted as very accomplished theologians and seen that many interpret from a position of assuming certain things to be true. Each interpretation that follows is skewed in a way to support their assumed truth. Not in keeping with logic and reason IMHO. What do you think of my statement that true spiritual insight springs from within and is not contained in an academic knowledge of the Bible?
cosmosdan
it’s funny that you would post, as I was thinking about your posts this morning.
I, too, have come to a better understanding of you and your thoughts recently, including more appreciation for you and your positions.
I will post a reply today. (or likely tomorrow) You bring up some good questions that I have been thinking about, and I think are worth discussing. (vs hotly debating; a trap I sometimes set for myself)
Give me a little time to collect my thoughts, ok?
4:19 pm…ahem…