Exactly. Just like your imaginary man in India doesn’t prove anything. You say he’s not imaginary? Until you come up with some documentary evidence -with a better source than a Witness’s Yearbook - he’s imaginary. My claim that I read about him in an evangelical magazine and that he’s a drug addict is just exactly as valid as your claim that you read about him in the Yearbook and he’s reformed.
Your word against mine, eh?
Very well; now present me with evidence that anyone named George Washington existed.
To what purpose?
Why, to waste your time and further derail the thread.
He has no other purpose in mind, nor point.
His anecdotes make him, and other followers, feel good, but he, and other followers, lack the critical thinking skills needed to understand the points being raised above.
The JW org teaches that everything that the org teaches is to be taken as if it is uttered from Gods mouth directly - and questioning/challenging said teachings is verboten.
You’re both wrong.
The George Washington question was posted to make a point.
The matter of the reformed Indian drunkard ( drugs were not mentioned in the yearbook) was questioned in such a way that I understood the poster to question anything printed in a book, as well as my acceptance thereof. The existence of George Washington is well documented in countless volumes.
(In fact, I came by that item in an unusual fashion. I was quoting the Guinness Book of World Records to my high-school government teacher–this was years before I came upon any religious convictions. One of these was the longest - lived human, and I said the record holder was a Canadian named Pierre Joubert, who died at 113 years. He questioned that and mentioned Methuselah, from the Bible, at 969 years.
I questioned that, saying, in essence, How do we know that? He replied, How do we know there was a George Washington?
That has stuck in my mind ever since.
That said, and to sum it up, I am not one to dismiss another book (the Blible) as irrational, out of hand.
You’re both wrong.
The George Washington question was posted to make a point.
The matter of the reformed Indian drunkard ( drugs were not mentioned in the yearbook) was questioned in such a way that I understood the poster to question anything printed in a book, as well as my acceptance thereof. The existence of George Washington is well documented in countless volumes.
(In fact, I came by that item in an unusual fashion. I was quoting the Guinness Book of World Records to my high-school government teacher–this was years before I came upon any religious convictions. One of these was the longest - lived human, and I said the record holder was a Canadian named Pierre Joubert, who died at 113 years. He questioned that and mentioned Methuselah, from the Bible, at 969 years.
I questioned that, saying, in essence, How do we know that? He replied, How do we know there was a George Washington?
That has stuck in my mind ever since.
That said, and to sum it up, I am not one to dismiss another book (the Bible) as irrational, out of hand.
I am shocked…shocked to hear **dougie_monty ** repeating himself on the subject of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Ah, I see: you completely misunderstood Slow Moving Vehicle’s post, and for some weird reason you are trying to demonstrate that all books are equivalent with regard to potential accuracy, while failing to take the obvious next step.
Hint: there are actually well-known ways in which to assess the reliability of information, whether contained in books or found on the internet. Usually it does not involve uncritical acceptance of any one particular source.
:Sigh: I use that which I have. Remember, the issue of George Washington is well documented. If I knew of another source concerning the reformed alcoholic in India I would use it. And I don’t mean the facetious source --the “evangelical Protestant magazine”–which Slow Moving Vehicle used in a post yesterday.
I will concede that books are not ipso facto 100% reliable, but, given the heckling attitude I am treated to I have to wonder, Are such tactics a red herring, to distract me from a plainly dishonorable, ulterior motive? All of you who post in opposition to me on threads such as this, display a frequent and glaring tactlessness that spoils your argument. I am trying to defend myself.
For the record, I do not have anything against you personally. The people I am angry with are the leadership of the JW organization. I feel that many innocent people have been harmed by the JW organization because of the way the leaders have chosen to direct this organization.
I see… your beef is with the “powers that be,” so to speak, but you may consider it futile to direct your grievances directly to them, so you speak your mind to me. That’s probably no more effective…
I have made other choices for myself that have been not been popular. Up thread I mentioned a lack of social inclination, and have done plenty of things I know were opposite of what most others would do.
Nicely said. And again, for those outside, it is probably very hard to believe that this sort of organization can exist if it’s like lavenderviolet and I describe.
How could I reach the leaders of the organization in a way that they would listen? I cannot. I can’t save the victims, either. All I can do is be vigilant and warn people who might otherwise be seduced by the friendly exterior.
[Shrug] Suit yourself. Be prepared to to meet plenty of The People Who Are From Missouri.
You miss the subtlety and point to his reply - for as much as he has either.
He sees any attack on the organization as an attack on himself - one that he must defend.
This is one of the core pointers that it is a cult.
You’ll also note that he states that he questions the motives of those who call into question the organizations teachings - yet he cannot - for even a moment - fathom questioning the teaching or the motivations of the organization.
This is yet another sign that it is a cult.
I want to see examples of what you claim in the second and fourth lines of your last reply. I don’t think you have been fair in your criticisms, and talk about me behind my back isn’t particularly praiseworthy either.
I’ve done that , in prior conversations that you have been part of - in other threads on this board.
Other than this response - I have no intention of engaging you directly in this or any other thread on this topic, as I have long since tired of your games.
It’s hardly “behind your back” when the conversation is between myself and another poster that you can see quite plainly.
My last encounter with a JW happened more than 10 years ago. I was standing at a bus stop, awaiting the bus that would deliver me to my job, and I was reading a paperback novel while I waited.
A little black Honda Accord came flying down the street toward me, and came to an almost-screeching halt a few yards past me. The passenger door opened, and out stepped a gorgeous brunette in a snug black top, a scandalously-short black skirt, black hose, and black pumps.
She marched right up to me and said, “Hey, I noticed that you like to read. Would you be interested in some more reading material?” I glanced down at what she was holding, and saw a copy of The Watchtower.
“Nah,” I said. “I’m good.”
She thanked me anyway, got back into the car, and was gone.
No, I’m not making this up. I posted about it here, the same day it happened, but I can’t be arsed to search for it at this point.
It’s WORST than “behind my back” when you do it as you described. It’s as if you’re talking about me as if I am not there—and I AM there.
As for your first statement–well, I’ll just have to cull things from my posts in this vein over the last two years (admittedly an arbitrary demarcation) and see if THAT answers my question.
Nope nope nope nope nope. That’s not how it works. I didn’t cite George Washington, or anyone else, in making a point. You cited your imaginary Indian man. I pointed out that your recollection of an unverified anecdote from a biased source is not a very compelling argument. The burden of proof is on you, not me. Statements asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
But let’s say, just for shits and giggles, that your JW yearbook was absolutely true, and that this Indian man does exist, is an alcoholic, and is now in recovery thanks to the JWs who studied with him. Even if this was all the Gospel truth (pun intentional), that still wouldn’t change the fact that your story is completely irrelevant to the question of the JW’s attitudes to education. Which is what lavenderviolet was criticizing in post that started off this discussion.
And by the way, dougie_monty, kudos to you on challenging your high school teacher with the obvious question when he cited the Bible. The answer to the question that he asked in reply is “There are multiple independent documentary sources for the life of George Washington. We can compare them with each other, and thus figure out what is real and what - like the cherry tree nonsense - is later mythmaking. The only evidence for the prolonged life of Methulselah is the Bible; an assertion that only has one source is simply not as credible.” That’s why scientists perform multiple experiments before announcing their results. Sounds like your math teacher could have used some pointers on critical thinking that day. Good for you for calling him or her on it.
You don’t have the power to change the Watchtower policies, but you do have the power to stop supporting their harmful policies as they currently exist or trying to persuade others to join an organization that has harmed people.
Besides, I feel that it is only fair to warn people who have invested their whole lives in the JW organization that the organization is not what it makes itself appear to be.