Mr. Shilmer was kind enough to comment on my first response—I will reciprocate by responding to his response. Comments given by myself from the first article will be in indented green, comments given by Mr. Shilmer in response to the first article will be in indented red, and my most current rebuttals will be in un-indented black.
Tears of Oberon wrote:
The comments I am about to respond to, given by Mr. Shilmer, have nothing to do with the article on which they were posted whatsoever.
Marvin replied:
That is your opinion, and you are entitled to hold it. But that does not make your sweeping statement true.
It is true to anyone with more than a 4th grade reading level. My original article (that YOU commented on) was clearly and repeatedly stated to be about the motives of opposers, i.e., those who have never been Witnesses but who fight against them anyways. Your comments were nothing but a rant against current Witnesses and the WBTS.
Tears of Oberon wrote:
And he was really expecting me to approve all of that for the comments?
Marvin replied:
I did not know what to expect. My hope was you would read my remarks for whatever they are worth. If you decided to share them with everyone else, you had my blessing to do so. This is why I offered them in your comment section rather than in a private email.
I was not worried about content or source—I was worried about length. Many of my articles are already long and drawn out enough as it is (the Arch-Angel article is over 50 pages long). What I prefer are brief, on topic and to the point comments, not books or full essays. But if you do wish to write a full response, then simply send it by email and request that I post it. It follows that if I take the time to give a full answer back, then I would naturally want to put it on the blog, as I have done with others. But if you request that I do not make it public, then I will respect that decision as well.
Marvin wrote:
What you write above is tilling the soil for either an irrelevant red herring to come or else a response to a strawman.
I was doing nothing of the sort. All I was doing was making observations and analysis based on past history of the author and perceived motive. Knowing the underlying motive and purpose are far more useful to me in understanding a work than even the words written in the work itself. For example: An author may decide to write what he himself describes as a “fair and unbiased” biography of former President George W. Bush; however, if I look into that author’s past history and see a long record of blatant attacks and loathing towards the president, then I would naturally become very skeptical as to the whole “fair and unbiased” claim. And truthfully, ill motives and hatred are extremely difficult to cover over completely even in written works—those feelings tend to seep though to the surface in the tone and choice of diction far more often than not. This is exactly what I noticed and pointed out about Mr. Shilmer’s comments to my blog article, and I stand by my doing so.
Marvin wrote:
“What of individuals whose primary concern is that the society they love and are an intimate part of is being dangerously misled and abused in the face of unanswered questions of positions or teachings?”
If you are unaware that such persons exist, then fine; it is outside your personal experience or knowledge. In that case you should just admit your lack if knowledge and/or experience and then respond the question in theory, and as a Christian your response in theory should be based on biblical principles…Every remark said after my opening question to you is said in relation to that question. So are you going to respond to what I have presented as something other than what I presented, or are you going to respond to what I presented for what it presents?...
*sigh* Yes, I admit that there are Witnesses who have become “concerned” with the Society and the state of the Witnesses in general, e.g., you. However, I disagree with the later part—more often than not it is the individual Witness himself who is being dangerously misled and abused due to deceptive tactics, emotional manipulation, outright lies and “gap attacks” by apostates and opposers. So their “concern” is actually an artificial concern, manufactured and implanted by the Anti-Cult Movement for the sake of furthering their goals and “bringing down” the Society. THAT was the point I brought out in my original article Mr. Shilmer, and it is backed up by both my own personal experience, my first hand observation of the process in others, and by numerous psychologists and sociologists.
Marvin wrote:
Regardless, what I wrote you about is not me, as you suggest. It is about our brothers in the Witness community.
Forgive me if I do not take your word for it Mr. Shilmer.
Marvin wrote:
I said refusal to answer questions prompts suspicion and stirs further searching. I did not say that normal people would assume they are being lied to. This part of your response is toward your own strawman.
Hmm…so Mr. Shilmer claims that he didn’t including anything about simply not knowing the answers? Well since I have posted the full comments, we should be able to examine that claim shouldn’t we?
Marvin Shilmer wrote in the original comments to Tears of Oberon:
“When questions are legitimate and important and there is REPEATED FAILURE TO ANSWER OR refusal to answer, then what is a person supposed to think and feel? An honest person will be DISAPPOINTED. This is made worse if the disappointment at the hand of an intimate associate. If the individual has a deep spiritual bond with the ONE FAILING OR refusing to answer, then a deeper DISILLUSIONMENT is likely. Deep disillusionment inflicts SEVERE PAIN and leads to FEELINGS OF BETRAYAL, which will manifest itself one way or another…The healthy way of dealing with FEELINGS OF BETRAYAL is to…”—Marvin Shilmer
Let’s summarize what is said by Mr. Shilmer. Failure to answer questions (which includes simply not knowing the answer) leads directly to disappointment, disillusionment, severe pain, and feelings of betrayal. Contrast this with his denial:
Marvin wrote:
“I said nothing about how a person would or would not respond to a reply of “We do not know the answer.” This part of your response is toward a strawman.”
Is it really a strawman on my part, or is it simply Mr. Shilmer talking out both sides of his mouth again?
Marvin wrote:
When a teaching is asserted as sound then proving that teaching true is essential to moving on. If a current teaching cannot be proved true then it is unsound. If a current teaching is unsound then there is no honest way to move on as though it is sound. What then?
First of all, this harkens back to what I mentioned about knowing the limits of logical constructions and proofs. Logic is nice, but often times it cannot “prove” anything conclusively—the world is not as black and white as Mr. Shilmer may like to believe. This limitation of logic becomes even more apparent when discussing things such as God, religion and the Bible. That is why many have felt the need to add another field to the realm of logic: abductive reasoning, or argument to the best explanation, for when we have multiple non-conclusive possibilities. Which is also why, it is important to distinguish between essential and non-essential teachings, as ThirdWitness has often done. For example
1. God is not a Trinity. Proved to sufficiency.
2. Hellfire is a lie. Proved to sufficiency.
3. God's name Jehovah is of the utmost importance and should be proclaimed far and wide and sanctified. Proved to sufficiency.
4. God's kingdom in the hands of Jesus will restore earth to a paradise. Proved to sufficiency.
5. Jesus gave his life as a ransom as a perfect man not a god/man. Proved to sufficiency.
6. This good news of the Kingdom and all of the above must unitedly be preached worldwide. JWs teach and preach these Biblical truths unitedly worldwide. Proved to sufficiency.
7. Jesus said a faithful and discreet slave would provide the food at the proper time. Proved to sufficiency.
None of the above can anyone either prove or disprove conclusively—as if we can really know conclusively and empirically whether or not God is made up of 1 or 3 or 652 persons unless we were able to meet him personally and count. But they can be what I call “proved to sufficiency” in the minds of believers though interpretation of accepted sacred texts. For instance, if the accepted sacred texts specifically states, “Jehovah your God is one Jehovah,” then it is fairly well established in the minds of believers that Jehovah really is only one God and not 3 or 6 or 234.
But if what if we are talking about something obscure and vague, such as whether or not the inhabitants of ancient Sodom will be resurrected? This is more of a second level inference, i.e., it is not explicitly stated anywhere, but is arrived at through exegesis. There is evidence going either way on this teaching, and the positions of the Society have reflected this; however, should a person really not be able to “move on” as Mr. Shilmer says because of something vague and insignificant such as this? If you were blinded and obsessed with proving everything in life either true or false through logical constructions, then yes you probably would get hung up and disappointed and angry. But normal people aren’t like that, and generally understand the uncertainty principles which I have discussed above.
But then the question arises, “why should we accept the Society’s interpretation if it is not 100% proven with all alternatives eliminated?” Because of the need for Christian unity of course. I myself do not agree 100% with the Society’s interpretations on say, the Great Flood, but I also acknowledge that my interpretations cannot be very much more conclusive than theirs—and so I defer for the sake of Christian unity as a whole.
Marvin wrote:
Of course an honest person will have humility. That is beside the point.
No it is not “beside the point,” as I have already explained in the previous paragraphs.
Marvin wrote:
The point is that when our brothers are left in the lurch of an unanswered question the answer to which is essential to establishing soundness of an enforced teaching, then no matter how much humility a person has that person will be disappointed at the very least and should be helped as a result. He is, after all, a brother!
First of all, Mr. Shilmer fails to distinguish between significant teachings, insignificant teachings, more definite teachings, less definite teachings, ect. The distinction matters.
Second, teachings are not “enforced.” Believe whatever you want, as I do, but just don’t go around causing divisions and sects within the congregation.
“But shun foolish QUESTIONINGS and genealogies and strife and fights over the Law, for they are unprofitable and FUTILE. 10 As for a man that promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition; 11 knowing that such a man has been turned out of the way and is sinning, he being self-condemned.” (Titus 3:9-11)
Questions directly to Mr. Shilmer (and I expect an answer):
What is your interpretation of the verse from Titus that I just quoted? Was Paul really telling the congregation to “refuse” to answer certain questions? Would the brothers have felt disappointed, disillusioned, betrayed, suicidal? What is your definition of “promoting a sect” Mr. Shilmer? And how exactly do you think that the congregation Paul wrote to was supposed to prevent “promotion of sects” hmm?
Did I mention that I expect answers to these questions? And make those conclusive answers please—any that are not 100% sound and proven will be rejected.
Marvin wrote:
Wow! Just mark through what you want to ignore. How convenient! Is this how your conscience works?
The words I marked through had already been addressed and refuted. I did not feel like re-refuting them over and over again throughout the entire response.
Marvin wrote:
Watchtower has refused to answer questions coming from a lot of our bothers by telling them to “wait on Jehovah.”
And here we go again with the whole “not knowing an answer is equivalent to refusing to answer” strawman again. That is a load of baloney and Mr. Shilmer knows it. I will state it plainly: SIMPLY NOT KNOWING THE ANSWER TO A QUESTION (WAIT ON JEHOVAH) DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ANSWER IS BEING INTENTIONALLY WITHHELD. That clear enough? Good, then we will move on.
Marvin wrote:
How is a brother supposed to “wait on Jehovah” for an answer [=teaching] he is already expected to assert as true?
All teachings of significance have been proved to sufficiency (see ThirdWitness’ above list of major teachings for an example), so your point is rather moot.
Marvin Wrote:
As for your personal experience, fine. I am glad you have never experienced the harmful despair of being told that you will have to “wait on Jehovah” to verify that something you are asked to teach today is valid.
If one of those things you asked about happened to be the blood issue, then you only damage your case further. It is not that you don’t get plenty of answers Marvin (you got tons from ThirdWitness and myself), it is simply that you don’t LISTEN. You already have your own ideas and your own opinions and by God they are right, everyone else is wrong and you are gonna fight tooth and nail right down to the death until they admit as much! (need I mention the perch again?)
Tears of Oberon wrote:
The statement also becomes a giant load of horse hockey without the “refusal” bit tacked on. Mr. Shilmer is seriously trying to convince us that we should feel betrayed, disillusioned and hurt just because one of our friends doesn’t know the answer to a question?
Marvin replied:
No. I do not suggest as you assert. My question presumed sources had been exhausted. Perhaps that part of my question was unclear. I was attempting to be succinct.
This is truly a fascinating statement. Marvin admits that:
If a person or friend does not know the answer to a question and is unable to give the answer as a consequence, then there is no reason for feelings of betrayal, disillusionment or hurt on the asker’s part.
I myself agree with the proposition that:
If a person or friend knows the answer to a question but intentionally refuses to give the answer where the asker has a right to know, then there is reason for feelings of betrayal, disillusionment or hurt.
This is the distinction that Mr. Shilmer has been obfuscating all along, and that I have been trying to drive home. Tell me Mr. Shilmer, will you accept the second proposition as true as along with the first?
Tears of Oberon wrote:
“Watchtower’s repeated failure to answer questions” is an unproven, unsupported and all around untrue assumption on Mr. Shilmer’s part.
Marvin replied
Would providing examples suffice for you?
Doesn’t matter much now does it, because in addition to simply finding an instance where the “Watchtower” is not able to answer a question, Mr. Shilmer must now PROVE that “Watchtower” knew the real answer to the question, that he had a right to the answer, and that the answer was intentionally withheld from him. Unless he proves as much, then his entire argument falls flat, because his “sufferer” would no longer have any reason to suffer without all those negative feelings.
Tears of Oberon wrote:
If the person has a question that cannot be answered, that still does not change the fact that the Witnesses are in harmony with Jehovah’s will, standards and purposes now does it?
Marvin replied:
If Watchtower has a current teaching that it enforces as valid yet over and over again fails to verify that teaching is valid or else refuses to do so, then it DOES CHANGE the land in terms of whether Watchtower is “in fact” in harmony with Jehovah’s will.
So if “Watchtower” is unable to answer the question about the resurrection of the Sodomites to YOUR contentment, then that means that they have somehow fallen out of line with Jehovah’s will? Is the variable known as “significance” involved here? How about whether or not the inability to answer leads to any change in attitude or action or worship? The answers are yes, no, no and no, respectively.
Marvin wrote:
Your remark presumes God has a single contemporary organization of men that he uses. Watchtower admits that historically that is not the case. Only with the advent of the Watchtower Society did there begin a notion that the Watchtower Society was God’s organization.
Well duh. That is like making the statement: “Only with the advent of the “Christian Cogregation” did there begin a notion that the Christians were God’s organization. How exactly is something that doesn’t exist yet supposed to realize its own significance hmm? You also fail to take into consideration the onset of the predicted and prophesied Great Apostasy, along with the future restoration to true worship. I know that you accept the concept of the Great Apostasy Marvin, or else you would be a practicing Catholic now wouldn’t you!
Additionally, I would like to point out that long as Mr. Shilmer stays broad and vague, he is fine. But it is when he gets all specific like this that he gets himself damaged (which is why he has been avoided it up until now). I have already been working on this all day and am short on time, so I will reference you out. Please see:
“Is Organization Necessary for True Believers?” Article number 127 found at http://www.quotedstatements.com/library.pdf
Marvin wrote
That God can and has accepted worship from Christians affiliated with various Christian communities is admitted by Watchtower, is expressed biblically in Revelation and today we see individuals who behave as Christians in a wide range of Christian communities around the world. The Christian Church is not defined by Watchtower’s corporate or theological boundaries. Watchtower is man-made. The Christian Church is God-made.
That is an ignorant statement if I’ve ever seen one.
1. You use the congregations of Revelation as “proof” that God accepts worship from “all different types of Christian communities.” Question: Why wasn’t the sect of Nicolaus accepted by God, even though having a Christian foundation? Did the Nicolaitans not count as a “Christian Community” in Marvin’s eyes? Or could it be that *gasp* they were rejected because of their incorrect teachings?
“Now I exhort YOU, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that YOU should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among YOU, but that YOU may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought. 11 For the disclosure was made to me about YOU, my brothers, by those of [the house of] Chlo′e, that dissensions exist among YOU.” 1 Corinthians 1:10-11
Could it be that Paul here was actually *gasp* defending theological boundaries within the Christian congregation?? Could it be that Adam Clarke was correct when he stated about this verse, "On every ESSENTIAL doctrine of the Gospel all genuine Christians agree."? What on earth could Paul have meant in Galatians 1:6-9 when he mentioned having “different gospels”? Could this be yet another *double gasp* defense of theological boundaries?! Could Tears of Oberon go on for pages and pages with examples of theological boundaries being defended throughout the Bible? Most likely he could!
2. If the Christian Church is not defined by any theological boundaries, then why is Marvin Shilmer here day in and day out debating and arguing over various teachings and doctrines?
Tears of Oberon wrote:
Fact: Jesus said a faithful and discreet slave would provide the food at the proper time. Only JWs are providing that food as shown above worldwide.
Marvin replied:
Fact according to who?
Because it was a quote from ThirdWitness, you will just have to read the full article to find out what “above” references now won’t you? (http://tearsofoberon.blogspot.com/2009/09/collected-writings-of-thirdwitness.html)
Tears of Oberon wrote:
Mr. Shilmer confuses emotional pain and depression with theological and doctrinal confusion (perhaps or perhaps not deliberately).
Marvin replied:
No. No confusion. My remark you are replying to was said of our brothers who experience real emotional and psychological pain as a result of Watchtower failing to verify teachings as sound
And yet, just a couple sentences earlier we had Marvin admit that:
“If a person or friend does not know the answer to a question and is unable to give the answer as a consequence, then there is no reason for feelings of betrayal, disillusionment or hurt on the asker’s part.”
This is just him talking out of both sides of his mouth again folks, no need to be alarmed.
Tears of Oberon wrote:
It only becomes easy to spot the difference [between a sufferer and opposer] through raw experience.
Marvin replied:
False. Training in logical construction and refutation is an objective means of sorting sufferers from opposers. If you had this training you would know this.
False. Logic gives no advantage when it comes to matters of the heart—insight into suffering and the human heart comes only from experience and suffering in kind. Perhaps if you would step out of your perfectly logical, black and white world you would know this.
Marvin wrote:
What I asserted has no two-edges as you assert. I asserted learning and using accepted conventions of logical construction. I did not assert partial learning and use of accepted conventions of logical construction. Learning the limitations of logical construction is learning the accepted conventions of logical construction.
And yet, through your absolute trust in and overuse of logical constructions on everything from God to matters of the heart, you demonstrate to me that you really don’t understand the limitations.
Marvin wrote:
If you believe it is a material fact then you have not a single ounce of formal training in the subject of logical construction. The only answer for that deficiency is education. What you write on this point leaves me speechless.
And yet this untrained and uneducated boy can still rip your “formal” arguments to pieces like they were tissue paper. That must be even more embarrassing.
Marvin wrote:
The comments I offered for your public review were offered in good faith as a reminder to neither confuse or mistake sufferers with opposers, and how to help sufferers out of love.
And the comments I offered in response for your public review were given to show that your original comments were indeed not made out of warm Christian love, but were made rather solely for the purpose of bashing Witnesses and the WBTS, as we all know you love to do.
Marvin wrote:
Any questions?
I have included several. I also noticed that you never bothered to address my extracts from: Melton, Gordon J., Brainwashing and the Cults: The Rise and Fall of a Theory, 1999. Would you still like to take a shot at it?
Tears of Oberon
No comments:
Post a Comment