Truth .. JW Style

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
As I pointed out earlier, there is often a wide gap between what is righteous and an individual's conscience. You wrote the following in another post:
[quote]But if someone builds up a belief that is not Biblical that twists the intent of the Word making it say something it doesn't and have that mold their conscience they are doing themselves double dama ...[text shortened]... righteous and tells them to do evil, shouldn't that individual go against their conscience?

I think people use and abuse their consciences, they can sear it to the point where
they can no longer hear it. I also believe we can and do create our own standards
of righteousness, but like our laws we have some that are greater than others. So
with righteousness, God's laws are above ours, and even with that God will not
have to go there to judge us! Since we create for ourselves our own laws we will
stand before God with those too! I do not believe any of us will stand before God
and claim we are righteous. Where we allow actions for ourselves and condemn
another for those same actions shows both God and man we knew better, where
we allow those we like to get away with things we condemn those we dislike will
put us on display that we knew better.


I'm not sure how anyone whose conscience is telling them to not do something
or do something could tell if what they want to do is evil. Conscience basically only
points to the good, (the should have), (the this way is better), and so on. That is why
I'm very concern about anyone who twists scripture to justify themselves to the
point of doing something evil, those that have set themselves up like that are
very dangerous to the exstreme! I'm sure those who blow themselves up and kill
people who have done them no harm are in some warped manner thinking they
are doing good, but what they are doing are acts of evil. The poor fools will find
themselves standing before God with blood on their hands murdering in God's
name, while God has sent His Son to us that we might have life and become
brothers and sisters in God's family. I pity them and monsters that have gone
about twisting their lives into such evil, Satan must be laughing his a$$ off as
men, women, and children are murdered in God's name, at least for now since
his time is short.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Murder is legal term we can make it mean whatever we want, but I see it as a
willful act of ending another's life either through direct or indirect actions. I would
point out to you that killing the unborn is an ending of a life each time that is
pulled off, screwing up an abortion can result in a live birth.

Since not every BT means that a life is go because they don’t want to look fat, or they want a boy not a girl it doesn’t
matter!
Kelly

This does not directly address YOUR logical inconsistencies. Even if others may have logical inconsistencies of their own, they have nothing to do with yours. Furthermore, as I believe was pointed out to you by another poster, not everyone agrees with your views on abortion. Therefore it does not make sense for you to project your views onto them and then pronounce their views as logically inconsistent.

Also, it seems you don't understand the premise of the argument:

if a "doctor told you that a [whole] blood transfusion was essential to save your child's life" would you give your consent? To be clear, no other alternatives are viable. It's a whole blood transfusion or certain death.

Denying consent for the BT WOULD be a willful act that would result in the death of their child.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
This does not directly address YOUR logical inconsistencies. Even if others may have logical inconsistencies of their own, they have nothing to do with yours. Furthermore, as I believe was pointed out to you by another poster, not everyone agrees with your views on abortion. Therefore it does not make sense for you to project your views onto them and then ...[text shortened]... ng consent for the BT WOULD be a willful act that would result in the death of their child.

Really it does not make sense for me to project my views upon others, you mean
like you’re doing with BT and JW? Please if you are going to discuss inconsistencies
at least be consistent yourself. I've given you my reasons for points of view over
and over, and you are right I'm giving you my views, they are my views and those
are the only ones you are going to get from me!

Not everyone agrees with your views on BT either, which is why there is a discussion
right now as everyone expresses their views on the topic. Mine views on the topic
fall into it is not something you can justify through scripture without twisting scripture
to make it say something it does not. Beyond that, I find it very inconsistent of those
posters here I've debated on the death of the unborn here that they are okay bad
mouthing a choice that may not result in a death, but they support a practice that
does every time it is successful. You want to claim I'm not consistent, we disagree and
taking this topic beyond this will produce nothing but our restating out positions. So
we would be better off just acknowledging we disagree.
Kelly

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
This does not directly address YOUR logical inconsistencies. Even if others may have logical inconsistencies of their own, they have nothing to do with yours. Furthermore, as I believe was pointed out to you by another poster, not everyone agrees with your views on abortion. Therefore it does not make sense for you to project your views onto them and then ...[text shortened]... ng consent for the BT WOULD be a willful act that would result in the death of their child.

I have had a child die, I'm quite aware of the pressures there are on families when
life is on the line. I am quite okay with Blood transfusions, it isn't a practice that
I am against.

So, do you support the killing of the unborn for any reason if that is woman's
choice?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Really it does not make sense for me to project my views upon others, you mean
like you’re doing with BT and JW? Please if you are going to discuss inconsistencies
at least be consistent yourself. I've given you my reasons for points of view over
and over, and you are right I'm giving you my views, they are my views and those
are the only ones you are g ...[text shortened]... r restating out positions. So
we would be better off just acknowledging we disagree.
Kelly

No, not "like [I'm] doing with BT and JW". While I'd like to explain it to you, it doesn't seem likely that you would comprehend what I was saying. Don't know if anyone has told you this, but you seem to have difficulty grasping concepts that are not wholly concrete or require you to keep track of context shifts which lead you to misunderstand what others are saying.

But I will say this. From what I can tell, those who are trying to get the JW's to alter their beliefs are doing so as a product of their conscience. They seem to sincerely believe that to deny a child a blood transfusion that is essential to the child's life is tantamount to murder. They are acting as advocates for all children whose parents would endanger the welfare of their children in this manner because of an erroneous belief. That you are speaking against such advocation is misguided.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
No, not "like [I'm] doing with BT and JW". While I'd like to explain it to you, it doesn't seem likely that you would comprehend what I was saying. Don't know if anyone has told you this, but you seem to have difficulty grasping concepts that are not wholly concrete or require you to keep track of context shifts which lead you to misunderstand what others ause of an erroneous belief. That you are speaking against such advocation is misguided.

perhaps if you expressed yourself with greater clarity, but then again, you wouldn't have recourse to fallacious and condescending arguments, like, 'it doesn't seem likely you will understand what i am saying', 'you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer', etc etc

If someone is misunderstanding what you are saying, it is you that is at fault for being unable to express yourself in a manner that is clear and readily understood by the recipient, it is a sign of a very poor teacher, indeed.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
perhaps if you expressed yourself with greater clarity, but then again, you wouldn't have recourse to fallacious and condescending arguments, like, 'it doesn't seem likely you will understand what i am saying', 'you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer', etc etc

If someone is misunderstanding what you are saying, it is you that is at fault for ...[text shortened]... ear and readily understood by the recipient, it is a sign of a very poor teacher, indeed.

Not surprising that the king of "fallacious and condescending arguments", would make such a "fallacious and condescending argument".

If someone is misunderstanding what you are saying, it is you that is at fault for being unable to express yourself in a manner that is clear and readily understood by the recipient, it is a sign of a very poor teacher, indeed.

This isn't necessarily true. Sometimes individuals do not comprehend what is being said for any number of reasons which have little to do with how well the "teacher" expressed himself. For example: the reader draws illogical conclusions, the reader doesn't take the time to understand what was written, the reader is blinded by preconceived notions, etc. Seems that more than a few had difficulty understanding Jesus including his disciples. Do you consider Him a "very poor teacher, indeed"?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Not surprising that the king of "fallacious and condescending arguments", would make such a "fallacious and condescending argument".

If someone is misunderstanding what you are saying, it is you that is at fault for being unable to express yourself in a manner that is clear and readily understood by the recipient, it is a sign of a very poor teache had difficulty understanding Jesus. Do you consider Him a "very poor teacher, indeed"?[/b]

Christ used simple illustrations from everyday life almost exclusively in order to teach profound truths. When his listeners were unable to grasp the significance, he explained to them the meaning, not once can i recall him using ambiguous, verbose or extensive terminology. He was the greatest teacher that has ever lived. I consider anyone who is unable to communicate their thoughts so that others can grasp them to be a very poor teacher.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Not surprising that the king of "fallacious and condescending arguments", would make such a "fallacious and condescending argument".

[b]If someone is misunderstanding what you are saying, it is you that is at fault for being unable to express yourself in a manner that is clear and readily understood by the recipient, it is a sign of a very poor teache had difficulty understanding Jesus. Do you consider Him a "very poor teacher, indeed"?

[/b]Or another possible reason, I understand your point and still reject it!
I get it that people who are attempting to push their view about BT on JW are
doing so because they think what they are saying is best, I agree with them on
the points; however, I've been stressing another point to you which you have
avoided. I'm not calling you names, not attacking how smart you are as you have
been doing with me. I get that you can understand my point and disagree with
me, you; however, do not seem to grasp that I can get what your saying and still
not agree with you, instead you attack me personally.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Really it does not make sense for me to project my views upon others, you mean
like you’re doing with BT and JW? Please if you are going to discuss inconsistencies
at least be consistent yourself. I've given you my reasons for points of view over
and over, and you are right I'm giving you my views, they are my views and those
are the only ones you are g r restating out positions. So
we would be better off just acknowledging we disagree.
Kelly

I think ThinkOfOne has quite satisfactorily argued his case here. To you, there is a logical inconsistency between moral approval of abortion and condemnation of blood transfusions resulting in child death. But to others who evaluate the morality of these scenarios by different criteria (such as the age, mental acuity and agency of the child), there is no inconsistency. What they would say is that there are different moral values for a fetus and, say, a child of five years who is conscious and sentient and possesses volition and agency.

Obviously you don't have to agree with that view. You are free to argue that the fetus ought to have the same moral value. You cannot, however, accuse others of logical inconsistencies. Considered in itself, this view is completely consistent. It is only because you project your values that you think that some logical inconsistency exists.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Christ used simple illustrations from everyday life almost exclusively in order to teach profound truths. When his listeners were unable to grasp the significance, he explained to them the meaning, not once can i recall him using ambiguous, verbose or extensive terminology. He was the greatest teacher that has ever lived. I consider anyone who is unable to communicate their thoughts so that others can grasp them to be a very poor teacher.

When his listeners were unable to grasp the significance, he explained to them the meaning, not once can i recall him using ambiguous, verbose or extensive terminology.

And yet, many did not truly comprehend what He was saying.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]When his listeners were unable to grasp the significance, he explained to them the meaning, not once can i recall him using ambiguous, verbose or extensive terminology.

And yet, many did not truly comprehend what He was saying.[/b]

for example?

Originally posted by Conrau K
I think ThinkOfOne has quite satisfactorily argued his case here. To you, there is a logical inconsistency between moral approval of abortion and condemnation of blood transfusions resulting in child death. But to others who evaluate the morality of these scenarios by different criteria (such as the age, mental acuity and agency of the child), ...[text shortened]... is only because you project your values that you think that some logical inconsistency exists.

Why can't I argue there is a logical inconsistency? Values, that is the only
difference between how we view one age or state of development over another,
you do not value, you do not care. If you not do value life at all stages than
without a doubt your point is sound, only because we are comparing unborn life
which you don't care as much about to that life with a little time outside. Going
back to parents who do care about that life, it matters a great deal!

You have a sliding scale of values on human life so you reject the argument I have
presented, that is fine I can accept you and I don't agree, but you cannot claim it
is logic that causes my view to fall apart, it is your value system we do not share
which makes it seem inconsistent to you.
Kelly

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
No, not "like [I'm] doing with BT and JW". While I'd like to explain it to you, it doesn't seem likely that you would comprehend what I was saying. Don't know if anyone has told you this, but you seem to have difficulty grasping concepts that are not wholly concrete or require you to keep track of context shifts which lead you to misunderstand what others ...[text shortened]... ause of an erroneous belief. That you are speaking against such advocation is misguided.

I know you are big on demanding questions get answered, so where the answer
to this question from you?

"So, do you support the killing of the unborn for any reason if that is woman's
choice? "

I've made every attempt to answer your questions, you may not have liked
my answers but I gave them to you. So please answer mine!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why can't I argue there is a logical inconsistency? Values, that is the only
difference between how we view one age or state of development over another,
you do not value, you do not care. If you not do value life at all stages than
without a doubt your point is sound, only because we are comparing unborn life
which you don't care as much about to that ...[text shortened]... art, it is your value system we do not share
which makes it seem inconsistent to you.
Kelly

Why can't I argue there is a logical inconsistency?

I haven't denied your right to argue a logical inconsistency; I simply have denied that you have done so. What you need to do is show how those supporting abortion but condemning the refusal of blood transfusions somehow hold contradictory beliefs. All you have done at the moment is how their beliefs contradict yours (i.e. that you evaluate the morality of these actions on different grounds.) It is quite a trivial project.

Values, that is the only
difference between how we view one age or state of development over another,
you do not value, you do not care. If you not do value life at all stages than
without a doubt your point is sound, only because we are comparing unborn life
which you don't care as much about to that life with a little time outside. Going
back to parents who do care about that life, it matters a great deal!

I am really not sure what your point is. Of course parents would value the life of their child, probably at all stages. I also hope that the 'you' here is not aimed at me. I have already explained my opposition of abortion.

You have a sliding scale of values on human life so you reject the argument I have
presented, that is fine I can accept you and I don't agree, but you cannot claim it
is logic that causes my view to fall apart, it is your value system we do not share
which makes it seem inconsistent to you.

I haven't claimed that your view falls apart. Certainly if you value life at all stages, at the same time rejecting abortion and permitting blood transfusions to children, then you have a perfectly consistent view. What you cannot say, however, is that others have inconsistent views.