As i'm sure there are many who have never had an extended discussion with Jehovah's Witnesses, I wanted to share a very interesting encounter. The point in posting this is not to get into a debate about the theology that was discussed. Instead, I want you to think about the attitude of the JW's. Clearly, the non-JW was using this as an opportunity to share his beliefs. And as the video demonstrated, he was also willing to hear what that JW's had to say.
For the first video, it seemed that the JW had a similar attitude. When Bill (the non-JW) would ask questions, the JW would look at the Scriptures and come up with an answer. So far, the discussion was profitable.
However, during the second video (its hard to say how long they had been talking up to this point), the wheels fall off the truck. Can you believe that someone would have this kind of pride? "I'm not here to learn anything, i'm here to teach." or "I'm not going to look at anymore Scriptures about Jesus." Who do they think they are? Who, in their right mind, thinks that they are so smart or enlightened that they can plug their ears when an opposing viewpoint is being presented? This is not an exception to the rule. Unless you are a sheep-like "seeker," most JW's will ignore when you are deliberately trying to show them where they are unscriptural. Though my past study conductors were not so blatant in their pride, their motives were loud and clear.
Was Bill ever rude or disrespectful? Who was the one dodging questions and not dealing with the text? Who was being more humble? This is yet another reason why I will never be associated with this religion (as i'm sure most JW's will commend the JW's behavior here, which is sad). Again, when you watch these videos, set your theological views aside for a second and focus on the attitudes displayed:
***UPDATE****
The youtube user took down the videos for legal reasons (he personally called me). But I figured i'd leave this post up for the sake of the comments and discussions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
Yeah, I have witnessed this attitude time and time again. Very prideful.
One thing that resonated with me in this video was that the Watchtower outright lies in Should You Believe in the Trinity? in its discussion of the Church Fathers. As I prove at my blog, the Watchtower bears false witness against Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Origen.
Frankly--and forgive the harsh language, Mike, I feel strongly about this--this very evil deception alone is reason enough for me to reject the Watchtower as having anything to offer.
The WT Society is a human originating, men-run, high controlling religious cult-like institution, rather than what they tell people they are (God's appointed Channel/Organization/People etc etc).
The facts prove without a doubt that God was never behind any of this:
http://home.tiscali.nl/t661020/wtcitaten/part2.htm
ALL FROM THEIR OWN LITERATURE WITH DATES AND PAGES TO SEE FOR YOURSELVES!
We got false predictions all over the place, medical disasterous policies - FORCED on JW's.
We got flip flops, blinking lights, wacky science, historical failures, arrogance, judging and loads of WT Society embarrassments and humiliations throughout their entire 100+ year history!
God had nothing to do with all that nonsense that was called, "Food from God" by all JW's.
It was WRONG when it first came off the presses!
This is unfortunate all the way around. The attitude by this man is very bad, the argument used is also bad, but then so is the guy's response.
The ol' John 2:19 argument yet again.... There are a few very legitimate interpretation's of this text, include the one this guy would argue for, but it is far from the only possiblity.
Btw, that music is really annoying. :)
Hello once again, I am the original Anonymous poster from a few months back. I want to make this clear due to the fact that the new Anonymous lacks both my wit and wisdom.
First off, where is Mark Hunter?
Second, is Chris the new Mark Hunter? Seems like he appears everywhere now on the ApologeticFront.
Chris, when you used the words "evil deception" the first thing that came to my mind is the trinity. That whole concept is from the very start a bogus doctrine and certainly part of an apostate method to mislead the true sheep.
I listened to your little discussion of Jesus as "god man" and it was full of arguments to prove your points, which you did well. Of coarse, you mostly used the words of early church philosophers who had an agenda and long after the truth of Jesus had been tainted.
I always find it interesting that greek speaking trinity defenders avoid using John 1:1 because in the ancient language it does not help their theory. Yet American ones want to argue original language wording as 'proof'.
P.S. Mike, I've tried calling you but it always just rings and rings. Can't wait to speak to you, someday.
@Anonymous
I don't know how the call didn't go through. I called the number a few minutes ago and it worked fine. Maybe you got the number wrong? Its 678-208-9153.
If, for some reason, you still can't get through, shoot me an email and i'll give you my personal number. I'd like to speak to you as well!
To be clear, the reason I quoted the Church Fathers--beginning with the first century, by the way--was to prove the evil deception exhibited by the Watchtower, who lie about what the earliest Church taught. I went on to test their statements in light of Scripture.
To be clear, you either deny the trinity, or you deny the ransom. Your choice. Either Jesus died and was dead, in the grave for three days or he's co-eternal with the Father. In light of scripture, what do you believe? (Luke 24:26, 1 Tim 2:5,6)
I affirm both, just as the authors of the New Testament did, and the Church has from the first century onward.
How can you? Is Jesus co-eternal with the Father or not? Kinda can't be both. He has to have died to pay the ransom. But with the trinity doctrine, God, or even part of God, can't die.
Maybe you don't understand what the word eternal means? Hmmm...kinda twisted like being someone and being with someone. Can't wrap your mind around it.
The argument used is bad in this video. I thought Mike had more integrity than that. Posting a long winded explanation on how maybe a scripture possibly applies to one person but fulfilled by another.
Quick note, not worth watching video two. Watch one and you'll understand.
@anonymous, if you think this blog had anything to do with the arguments presented in the video, then you completely and totally missed my point in posting this. This was about the prideful attitude of the JW's, not whether the non-JW's arguments were sound.
@Anonymous, your argument commits the strawman fallacy; you tear apart a paper tiger. You either do not understand the doctrines of the Trinity and the hypostatic union, or you are intentionally misrepresenting it. Are you genuinely interested in my answer to your challenge?
How did I know you'd use the old "strawman fallacy" complaint?!
Not only do I not understand the hypostatic union, neither do you. Neither do all christians. It can't be explained or understood. Simply put, it is illogical.
You say I tear apart a paper tiger, which is fine, but it's your central doctrine that makes clear that the three are equal, which implies that they are not the same in person, but different persons. So, not one God.
Since even your detailed definitions identify this doctrine as being too great for the human mind to understand, how is it you try to explain and defend it?
Perhaps worst of all is making the holy spirit, or God's spirit, a person.
Mike, you talked about irrational abortion logic, how about irrational trinitarian logic.
The ransom was an equal exchange of lives. Had Jesus been fully man and God, it would certainly not be equal to Adam.
Just take the Bible for what it teaches and quit trying to read things into it like the 3rd and 4th Century christians. (Luke 10:21)
@anonymous, i'll leave the Trinity discussion between you and Chris, since I never brought it up. And furthermore, I have no interest in defending a 4th century man-made formulation that I don't subscribe to. This does not mean that I think the Trinity is illogical or contradicts Scripture. I just choose to defend my views on Christ in a different manner.
I'm more interested in your thoughts on this blog, since you've yet to mention anything with regards to the issues i've raised. So i'll ask again:
Do you agree with the attitude displayed by the JW in these videos?
I can't answer that because I didn't watch video 2. However, when I am speaking with someone, and they invite me in and then procede to take over the convo, I would feel inclined to make a comment like, "if you want to preach to me, come to my door" or "come find me in the door to door work".
Seems to me if you have a message to save lives, you would go find people.
I personally don't mind discussing other views, but when someone tries to take over the convo, that bothers me.
@anonymous I think that in any conversation, if someone is "taking it over" then I would say something like, "Do you want this to be a two way conversation or do you just want to preach to me?"
Maybe you should watch the second video. It will show that the non-JW was being very civil and was certainly not taking over the conversation. If anything, the JW was trying to take it over.
And you are right, if you have a message, tell it to others. And if someone comes to my door i'll be happy to listen to what they have to say. But if they are unwilling to have their views challenged and also hear what I have to say, then i'd have no interest in discussing with such a prideful person.
And it has been my experience that JW's have been extremely prideful, as this video aptly demonstrates.
Again, @Anonymous, are you actually interested in my response to your bald assertions? If not, that's fine. If you are, I'll share it. I'm just asking you to be honest with yourself and with us.
No thanks Chris. You can't explain something as silly as the trinity.
Post a Comment