R
Richard_Feynman
Guest
Funny enough, one time I half convinced an evangelical that Catholics are right. At the end of the conversation I told them to become Lutheran because at the moment, the person was talking like one!
- Status
W
Waynec
Guest
The bible says that the bible is inspired. See 2 Tim 3:16
C
CutlerB
Guest
No, Saint Paul says that the Old Testament is inspired.
W
Waynec
Guest
They will tell you that everything they need is between the 2 covers of the bible. If it is not there they don’t need it for salvation.
R
Razanir
Guest
What about the second part of my idea / my other idea. Show them various writings, have challenge them to defend their status as Biblical or apocryphal. I suggest:
*Genesis, to represent the Pentateuch
*Judges, to represent the historical books
*Psalms, to represent the wisdom books
*Isaiah, to represent the prophets
*(Greek) Esther, to represent partially deuterocanonical books
*Wisdom, to represent purely deuterocanonical books
*Luke, to represent the synoptic gospels
*John, as the non-synoptic gospel (which, for extra fun, contains John 1:1 and the Bread of Life discourse)
*1 Corinthians, to represent the undisputed epistles
*James, to represent the epistles Luther tried to remove
*Revelation, as the odd book out in the NT
*The Protoevangelium of James, as a popular apocryphal gospel (and IIRC the source of Anne and Joachim’s names)
*The Didache, as a book that, IIRC, really only didn’t make it in because it was too young
*The Gospel of Thomas, as a gnostic gospel
*Enoch, as an OT apocryphal book, with the added bonus of being referenced in the epistles
*1 Esdras, to represent that books of the capital-A Apocrypha that aren’t in deuterocanon.
Yeah, quite the list. 16 books. But I think it covers all the bases for debating what is and isn’t in the Bible.
W
Waynec
Guest
Sorry but I am not getting the point you are making here
The JW believe that the entire bible is inspired as we do but use the same verse that I did that and I think it was CoulterB{?} that said that St. Paul said that it was the OT that was inspired.
I guess then it was the councils that decided which books were inspired and should be included in the bible.
As has been mentioned before they will not listen and when they do they don’t let you finish thought. They interrupt and put you constantly on the defensive. They really don’t care what you have to say as long as they make their point.
D
DelsonJacobs
Guest
Debate (and sometimes even the most brief of discussions) with Jehovah’s Witnesses is highly ineffective because it is not a situation which revolves around theology—it is a situation of psychology.
Don’t get me wrong. You might get through once in a while—more likely, rarely if ever—but you may trigger a response in which they will only become further resolved to remain where they are as a Witness.
We are not talking about discussion with Evangelicals or Protestants here. Jehovah’s Witnesses, Latter-Day Saints, members of the World Mission Society Church of God, and the like share a common psychological profile:
For instance, Jehovah’s Witnesses have changed their doctrines regarding when the end of the world is supposed to happen every 10 to 20 years—like clockwork. They have always set dates and they have always ended up being miserably wrong and still the members hold on strong. Why?
Because it is not about WHAT they believe, it is about WHO they believe they are. They believe they are in the one true religion and are special for finding it and joining it when the majority of the population refuses. Doctrines will come and go, and they expect this. But WHO they are must remain at a constant. As long as their leadership pats their ego on the back with the teaching that they are in the “one right religion,” the doctrine is meaningless.
In other words they don’t join for the doctrine. They join to fill their desire for being right.
There are two other facets to their personality traits you will be dealing with:
Don’t get me wrong. You might get through once in a while—more likely, rarely if ever—but you may trigger a response in which they will only become further resolved to remain where they are as a Witness.
We are not talking about discussion with Evangelicals or Protestants here. Jehovah’s Witnesses, Latter-Day Saints, members of the World Mission Society Church of God, and the like share a common psychological profile:
- Truth is encoded in holy writ and requires decoding by God’s select few
- No religion can be true that has not been restored
- The world and all in it are out to get them
- Everyone they meet is under Satan’s control
- Doubt, even momentary, only happens if one is being unfaithful
- Unity is defined as uniformity
For instance, Jehovah’s Witnesses have changed their doctrines regarding when the end of the world is supposed to happen every 10 to 20 years—like clockwork. They have always set dates and they have always ended up being miserably wrong and still the members hold on strong. Why?
Because it is not about WHAT they believe, it is about WHO they believe they are. They believe they are in the one true religion and are special for finding it and joining it when the majority of the population refuses. Doctrines will come and go, and they expect this. But WHO they are must remain at a constant. As long as their leadership pats their ego on the back with the teaching that they are in the “one right religion,” the doctrine is meaningless.
In other words they don’t join for the doctrine. They join to fill their desire for being right.
There are two other facets to their personality traits you will be dealing with:
- Ambiguity intolerance
- Demonization of all sources that induce cognitive dissonance
The fact that you argue with them and can bring up good points will induce what is known as cognitive dissonance or a crisis of conscience. When this occurs they are taught to hate and demonize the source of the dissonance. Your attempt to introduce logic won’t work if it induces this important step to leaving their religion.
Does this mean you can’t win them over? No. But the regular type of debate and proof text discussions you see here won’t work by themselves. You have to be prepared to do or say something that will induce the crisis of conscience that also cuts them off from being able to demonize you in response (or deal with the demonization in such a way that you disarm this response).
The points being brought up here are very good, but you are NOT dealing with your average non-Catholic and are thus often wasted techniques on Jehovah’s Witnesses.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Hello DelsonJacobs.
I always enjoy reading your JW insights.
In post 27 you said what WOULDN’T work when confronting a JW (as far as inducing them to openly challenge the false beliefs they are taught).
I want to know what line of questioning, mannerisms, etc.In your estimation, that WOULD work in getting these dedicated people to reconsider the false teachings they are “fed”.
Thank you.
God bless.
Cathoholic
I always enjoy reading your JW insights.
In post 27 you said what WOULDN’T work when confronting a JW (as far as inducing them to openly challenge the false beliefs they are taught).
I want to know what line of questioning, mannerisms, etc.In your estimation, that WOULD work in getting these dedicated people to reconsider the false teachings they are “fed”.
Thank you.
God bless.
Cathoholic
D
DelsonJacobs
Guest
This is a point where the Jehovah’s Witness has something in common with the rest of us, namely we don’t go around thinking we are wrong about much (if anything at all).Sorry but I am not getting the point you are making here
The JW believe that the entire bible is inspired as we do but use the same verse that I did that and I think it was CoulterB{?} that said that St. Paul said that it was the OT that was inspired.
I guess then it was the councils that decided which books were inspired and should be included in the bible.
As has been mentioned before they will not listen and when they do they don’t let you finish thought. They interrupt and put you constantly on the defensive. They really don’t care what you have to say as long as they make their point.
This is why most of us get into arguments and debates with one another because we know only one thing—to trust ourselves. It’s instinctive. We have to trust the conclusions and convictions we have adopted, otherwise if we spend the day second-guessing ourselves all the time we would never get anything done.
The problem is that none of us knows when we are wrong. Having a wrong understanding about something doesn’t feel any different from being correct.
Go back and think about a time you were very wrong about something that you had to admit to and change your mind about. When you had this wrong belief, did you recognize it or did you feel as correct as ever? If you are like me (and everyone else) you likely felt good about your conviction–even though later you learned it was flawed.
You, like me, probably held on to your wrong view so strongly that when all the evidence came in pointing to the contrary you were left feeling quite sheepish in the end. It’s not a good a feeling to be proven wrong, but we eat our humble pie and get over it and move on.
The reason a forum like this works for most of us is that most people are open to critical analysis, that is a methodology where we step back from our arguments and look at the data and try to come to conclusions independent of our feelings and investment. We then rely on those around us to verify the conclusions so we come away not with self opinion but with reliable facts (or at least as close as we can get to them).
This doesn’t happen with the Jehovah’s Witness. As I mentioned in my previous post regarding “cognitive dissonance”—that instance when we get confronted with two opposing sets of “facts,” namely what we believe is true and what data demonstrates to be true, is distressing enough. We often go through a series of stages such as denial, anger, bargaining, etc. before we admit we are wrong and adopt the new conclusion. Now…Imagine if you are taught that “cognitive dissonance” and any healthy amount of doubt or skepticism is an evil spirit trying to take control of you. What would you do?
Would you go through the normal steps of coming to admit you are wrong, or will you “fight off” the “evil spirit” in attempt to ward off its “attack”? If you don’t try to resist then you are giving yourself over to Satan—or so they say. They interpret the “dissonance” or mental stress that comes with this as “proof” of the battle for their soul, so to speak, when in reality it’s the first step to correcting a mistaken conviction.
So don’t feel bad if you can’t seem to get your points across. The JW just cannot allow themselves to believe what you offer because it will destroy their self-identity, their view of themselves and the universe and their place in it. We are all the sum of our unique convictions as well, so we can’t expect that they are going to let their guard down. It is seen by them as an attack on the psyche, not their doctrine—so they will even reject their own minds as “fooling themselves” if something you present sounds more logical.
You are up against self-preservation with them, not defense of a god or a creed.
D
DelsonJacobs
Guest
It’s something we cannot induce ourselves. So you can’t MAKE it happen or trigger what needs to occur to get the process rolling.
Imagine, for the sake of this discussion, that I came to you with inarguable evidence that your current beliefs about God, the Bible, and your religion were false–and your belief that you were a faithful member of your religion was incorrect. Would you be willing to believe me? Of course not! You would at least try to defend yourself and position, no?
Now we don’t go to JWs trying to convince them of all this in one swoop, but it is like that to them in their eyes.
For the Jehovah’s Witnesses, their world is a house of cards. If one card is not dependable then none of them are. Prove one as false and the whole house comes crumbling down–and they with it.
So even if you are just trying to disprove one point they hold dear, that single facet being false would mean everything about their religion would be false. For them it is one or the other.
Either they are drinking water or poison. There is NO in between.
Either every doctrine of theirs is truth or it is false.
Either they are in the true religion and serving the one true God or they are in a false religion and servants of the evil one.
You can actually have inarguable evidence and they will NOT accept it because they are not supposed to.
Since the truth of the matter is that you can’t force them to change, then what?.
Whatever the situation is on an individual basis, you need to keep this in mind:
- You are dealing with a behavior not a conviction
- They may be unwilling to agree with you
- Many are often too frightened to allow doubts to be thought through
- Emotional ties that will be severed upon accepting your argument are often too high a cost to accept the truth
Witnesses believe what they do because they want to believe they are right, period–not that what they believe is right. There is a difference. They accept their doctrines are true even when there are updates or changes to them because they are in the true religion to being with. There is an emotional payoff that comes with this, like a high, in believing you can’t be wrong even when your doctrines needs correction.
So try the following:
- Be prepared to concisely explain your convictions Scripturally, preparing and even memorizing such a testimony for when they come to the door
- Make the presentation short
- Be prepared to stop and not get into further discussions after your testimony
- Better to live your testimony than give your testimony
- If you must get into a discussion, learn to accept that JWs won’t give you a graceful way to win with them (be prepared for the JWs to insult you and make you angry and leave when you are winning the argument)
- Pray and offer yourself along with the Sacrifice of the Mass for their conversion
- Be prepared to help them if and when they do come around
- Don’t be afraid to recognize your limitations and direct them to more capable ones
R
Razanir
Guest
So to you or I, we could easily point to councils in the 400s? to say what’s in the Bible. More reasonable Protestants could do the same, but argue the Hebrew Bible is a better authority than the LXX.Sorry but I am not getting the point you are making here
The JW believe that the entire bible is inspired as we do but use the same verse that I did that and I think it was CoulterB{?} that said that St. Paul said that it was the OT that was inspired.
I guess then it was the councils that decided which books were inspired and should be included in the bible.
As has been mentioned before they will not listen and when they do they don’t let you finish thought. They interrupt and put you constantly on the defensive. They really don’t care what you have to say as long as they make their point.
Indeed, as CutlerB is saying, his JW discussion partner is open to talking about just that- the development of canon. They even have an article about the NT to use as a starting point. So if they’re already going to debate Biblical canon and how the average layperson can determine it, I figured it would be nice to have a list of books to discuss.
And if said JW really is willing to play a game of “Bible or Apocrypha” (lowercase-A, by the way), I think I came up with a fairly exhaustive list of books. It covers every subdivision in the OT, the synoptic gospels, John, the epistles, Revelation, OT apocrypha, apocryphal (non-gnostic) gospels, gnostic gospels, the books Luther tried (but failed) to remove, and that small subset of the Apocrypha that’s not deuterocanon.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
W
Waynec
Guest
.
Hypothetically, the same thing could be said with any religion. I am sure that all religions and sects think they have all the truth. I know that Catholics hold the entire truth but if some one could PROVE one facet of Catholicism was false which would be impossible] our religion would come down like a house of cards also…
W
Waynec
Guest
So to you or I, we could easily point to councils in the 400s? to say what’s in the Bible. More reasonable Protestants could do the same, but argue the Hebrew Bible is a better authority than the LXX.
Indeed, as CutlerB is saying, his JW discussion partner is open to talking about just that- the development of canon. They even have an article about the NT to use as a starting point. So if they’re already going to debate Biblical canon and how the average layperson can determine it, I figured it would be nice to have a list of books to discuss.
And if said JW really is willing to play a game of “Bible or Apocrypha” (lowercase-A, by the way), I think I came up with a fairly exhaustive list of books. It covers every subdivision in the OT, the synoptic gospels, John, the epistles, Revelation, OT apocrypha, apocryphal (non-gnostic) gospels, gnostic gospels, the books Luther tried (but failed) to remove, and that small subset of the Apocrypha that’s not deuterocanon./QUOTE
Gotcha ya! I think they would be overwhelmed
The JW I speak does not question the cannon or anything about the bible. She also hangs on every word spoken at the Hall.
S
ShanPO
Guest
I don’t mean this question to sound insulting, but is your typical JW fairly uneducated? In my experience, educated people are sometimes more open minded to and willing to accept they might be wrong.
My FIL recently became full-fledged JW, and he has only a HS education, that he got in the 60’s in back-woods Arkansas, so I can only imagine the quality of that education. He is also the kind of person that is never wrong, about anything, ever, so when I read Delson’s posts, it’s literally like reading a book about my FIL.
D
DelsonJacobs
Guest
That’s not true.
For example, prior to World War II the Catholic Church held views of the Jewish people that have been totally viewed as incompatible with the Gospel by the time of Vatican II.
Prior to the genocide of the Holocaust, the Church felt quite correct about its apathetic approach toward the Jews and their suffering. Since then and the development of a Jewish state in Israel things are different.
The Church has done an official turn-about, declaring its views on the Jews (and many of the subsequent historical events that took place as a result) as incorrect and in need of revision. Pope Benedict XVI, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, asked in the introduction to the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s official study on what meaning and connection the Jews really have to Christians: “The shock of the Shoah [the Jewish word for the ‘Holocaust’] has put the whole question under a new light.”
A review of the testimony of the Scriptures and the Gospel message itself led the commission under then-Cardinal Ratzinger to conclude:
In the past, the break between the Jewish people and the Church of Christ Jesus could sometimes, in certain times and places, give the impression of being complete. In the light of the Scriptures, this should never have occurred. For a complete break between Church and Synagogue contradicts Sacred Scripture.–“The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible,” sec. IV, A.
This was not Catholic teaching prior to the Shoah, but neither did this correction of previous views bring the Catholic faith crumbling down, did it?
Plus, I think you misunderstood my comment. What I was discussing was an example of ambiguity intolerance–a trait NOT exclusive to Jehovah’s Witnesses (some Catholics have it too). For a person with ambiguity intolerance, their need to compartmentalize things as ALL IN or ALL OUT makes their belief system a “house of cards.”
To them, from their point of view, if one card is bad then the house is also doomed to failure. I was not saying that their religion itself was a house of cards from our stand point. We can always prove things wrong, but they don’t abandon it when we attempt to do so.
D
DelsonJacobs
Guest
You are correct.
The Governing Body recommends that members seek no more than the basic of education necessary to get a job to sustain themselves until the war of Armageddon breaks out (which can be at any second). They speak against pursuing an education that involves college or university training, often claiming that it will lead persons to open their minds to Satanic reasoning.
So uneducated is the rank-and-file membership that each study article of the Watchtower has to be published twice: first, in a regular English version and then second, in a simplified-English version.
Thus JWs have no knowledge of critical or analytic thinking as that is generally reserved for higher education. Instead of using doubt or skepticism as a tool they fear it.
W
Waynec
Guest
Maybe I did misunderstand but I was talking about the Dogma of the church that is unchangeable ie transubstantiation, resurrection of the dead, virgin birth etc.
To me views are different than dogma.
W
Waynec
Guest
I read DJ response and it is true they do not encourage higher education but my friend is college educated and she is not open minded . I would think that there are a few but not many higher educated JW. They do have their own lawyers.
D
DelsonJacobs
Guest
Doctrine and dogma are two different things, yes. But the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not have such framework in their theology—and we are beginning to mix the two here, and this will cause confusion if we do that.
The Church’s doctrines are all true, even those that are not dogma, but her understanding of them and her practice in relation to them can sometimes be incomplete and once in a while have proved incorrect. So a teaching from the Church based on such a misunderstanding can be in need of correction or even dismissed without invalidating the doctrine or dogma it was based on.
This is not the same with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. All doctrines are the same. They are all dogmatic. Therefore if one dogma is false then the source of the dogma is false and therefore all is false. It is this that lead to my statement regarding the “house of cards” illustration.
- Status