29 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75I'm merely repeating what one former poster here said, if you don't like it i suggest you take it up with him.
You seriously, seriously have not one ounce of a clue do you? When and where was the last assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses you attended to see what we look like? Have you ever attended one of our International assemblies to see the dress of all the representatives from the Brothers and Sisters from such countries as Africa to see the beautiful and colorfu ...[text shortened]... while you were there and let us see the borg look alike people you say we are??????????????????
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121636
29 May 12
And so the story continues, chapter after endless chapter as the "the sole holders of god's truth on earth" continue to defend this position whist attempting to cover prophetic errors and accusations of being a cult with counter-intuitive claims of being 'fallible' and 'making mistakes'; meanwhile some are clinging ferociously to their literature being 'inspired' of Jehovah but explaining inspired as something else...
Can anyone here figure it out? Rank Outsider, surely you know what's going on...?
29 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterHere's something that hasn't be clear to me. Is this, from the OP:
Can anyone here figure it out? Rank Outsider, surely you know what's going on...?
"Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure new world before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away."
...a prediction that has been held to be true? Or is it a prediction that is held to have been a mistake? I don't think there has been an unequivocal answer. Or did I miss it? Is it a correct prediction or mistaken prediction?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
29 May 12
2 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterI have somewhat of a general theory which should be equally unsatisfying or off-putting to all.
And so the story continues, chapter after endless chapter as the "the sole holders of god's truth on earth" continue to defend this position whist attempting to cover prophetic errors and accusations of being a cult with counter-intuitive claims of being 'fallible' and 'making mistakes'; meanwhile some are clinging ferociously to their literature being '
Can anyone here figure it out? Rank Outsider, surely you know what's going on...?
Put in a few words, the JW phenomenon can be looked at as one of many belief systems of a particular kind that exist in the world. These systems are the kind that offer a narrative for what life is all about. They offer more than a narrative to their hosts (followers), they offer the truth -- just ask them -- and this is essential to their attraction. The different systems vary in their narrative offerings, and in the ways they gain and hold on to adherents. Some or all of them fall under the general heading of religion or theism, but non-theistic belief systems can be adhered to with religious fervor.
In the case of the Witnesses, the narrative is quite dramatic and heroic, and all-encompassing. It both attracts a following, and defines an enemy. This exclusionary feature limits its growth, but also tends to keep its orthodoxy pure.
The reason my theory might not be welcomed is that it suggests to non-JWs that they, or we, might also be the hosts of such a belief system; whereas, their, or our, narrative is of course, the truth. 😉
29 May 12
Originally posted by divegeesterI agree that the claim of being 'the sole holders of gods truth on earth' and claims of being 'fallible' are counter-intuitive. They are just not necessarily contradictory.
And so the story continues, chapter after endless chapter as the "the sole holders of god's truth on earth" continue to defend this position whist attempting to cover prophetic errors and accusations of being a cult with counter-intuitive claims of being 'fallible' and 'making mistakes'; meanwhile some are clinging ferociously to their literature being ' ...[text shortened]...
Can anyone here figure it out? Rank Outsider, surely you know what's going on...?
Just like claiming that removing traffic signs, or narrowing roads, can result in fewer accidents. Counter-intuitive, but it does not stop them being true in some cases.
I did the 'inspired' explanation to death, to be honest. Robbie approved of my explanation. You can accept it or reject it. I will believe Robbie until it is shown that he was lying to me. I would rather be a sucker than constantly disbelieve everything someone tells me.
Out of interest, do you have a contemporaneous source of where JWs claim they are the sole holders of gods truth on earth? I am not questioning the validity of this, as I haven't see robbie or galveston75 object to this description, but it would be interesting for me to read in context.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
29 May 12
2 edits
Originally posted by Rank outsiderI don't think what you ask in your last paragraph above is going to be useful.
I agree that the claim of being 'the sole holders of gods truth on earth' and claims of being 'fallible' are counter-intuitive. They are just not necessarily contradictory.
Just like claiming that removing traffic signs, or narrowing roads, can result in fewer accidents. Counter-intuitive, but it does not stop them being true in some cases.
I d ston75 object to this description, but it would be interesting for me to read in context.
The phrase 'the sole holders of gods truth on earth' could a metaphor. George Lakoff would call it a container or carrier metaphor.
http://theliterarylink.com/metaphors.html
A tape recorder or illiterate person can be a "holder" of truth. A person waving a sign on the street corner can be a holder or carrier of a truth without even knowing what is on the sign and without affecting the truth or falsity of what is on it.
On the other hand, to hold can be to agree or side with. For a JW to say "I agree (or side) with statement P" is to report on an attitude toward P, and any fallacy would concern not whether P was true, but whether JW really holds that P. (dictionary.com, hold.)
So a JW can "hold" a truth, or can "hold" that it is a truth, while admitting his own fallibility at the same time, without there being a contradiction. That's your main conclusion, and I hold that it is true. 🙂
29 May 12
Originally posted by FMFI said:
Here's something that hasn't be clear to me. Is this, from the OP:
[b]"Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure new world before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away."
...a prediction that has been held to be true? Or is it a prediction that is held to have been a mistake? I don ...[text shortened]... n unequivocal answer. Or did I miss it? Is it a correct prediction or mistaken prediction?[/b]
So, if I understand you correctly, the original quote from Awake was an imperfect understanding of the Bible.
Robbie said:
yes this is a fair reflection, many of our beliefs and doctrines have undergone revision and amendents when something came to light which we previously understood but has been proven upon further inspection to have been inaccurate.
Looks pretty unequivocal to me.
Just don't use this to make the claim that Robbie has admitted that the prophecy as set out in the Bible has been proved inaccurate. That would be incorrect and no JW will ever admit that, so there's no point asking them to. The Bible does not contain the phrase 'before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away' though, as Robbie has set out, JWs believe that 1914 is signposted as an important date in the prophecy.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121636
29 May 12
Originally posted by Rank outsider"It is God's sole collective channel for the flow of Biblical truth to men on earth"
I agree that the claim of being 'the sole holders of gods truth on earth' and claims of being 'fallible' are counter-intuitive. They are just not necessarily contradictory.
Just like claiming that removing traffic signs, or narrowing roads, can result in fewer accidents. Counter-intuitive, but it does not stop them being true in some cases.
I d ...[text shortened]... ston75 object to this description, but it would be interesting for me to read in context.
(The Watchtower, July 15, 1960, p. 439).
Btw: robbie new of this claim when he (earlier in this thread) said he used the quote "half jokingly" in faked ignorance.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121636
29 May 12
1 edit
Here's another one for you Ranky:
"If the six volumes of "Scripture Studies" are practically the Bible, topically arranged with Bible proof texts given, we might not improperly name the volumes "the Bible in an arranged form," that is to say, they are not mere comments on the Bible, but they are practically the Bible itself. "
(Charles Taze Russell, The Watchtower, September 15, 1910, p. 298).
29 May 12
Originally posted by JS357Indeed. It could have a variety of meanings, which is why seeing it in some form of explanatory context might help.
I don't think what you ask in your last paragraph above is going to be useful.
The phrase 'the sole holders of gods truth on earth' could a metaphor. George Lakoff would call it a container or carrier metaphor.
http://theliterarylink.com/metaphors.html
A tape recorder or illiterate person can be a "holder" of truth. A person waving a sign on the stre ...[text shortened]... e being a contradiction. That's your main conclusion, and I hold that it is true. 🙂
I doubt JWs see themselves as a pure vessel, though. The sole 'holder' of gods truth on earth in this context would surely by the Bible. I suspect it implies some claim over understanding the truth of the Bible which no other body has.
But I agree with you that even this does not indicate infallibility.