Originally posted by FMFI am just trying to seek the truth in my redneck way. But I think you might enjoy being a lawyer and cross examining testimonies in a court. However, you may have to learn to refine your questions to get past the objections from the lawyer on the other side. 😏
Make of it what you want.
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsMy personal "perceived truths" - which I do not attempt to use to proselytize others - are subject to a constant and ongoing contemplation and evaluation. I am an ex-religionist. One way of seeking "truths" is to strip away things that, under scrutiny, appear not to be valid, or inapplicable, or mistaken.
The original poster wants to know are we making an effort to reveal truth? Do we even seek truth? Or do we have pent up frustrations and just come here to destroy others, score "points," and make ourselves look better or perhaps feel better about ourselves?
Religionists tend to make particular kinds if assertions about the truth that involve taking - at face value - their sincerity and certainty, and their appeal to their own particular literature, as some sort of evidence in and of itself. Personally, I find there to be numerous inconsistencies, contradictions and even hypocrisies in play as these religionist pronouncements about moral matters are made.
So getting to the bottom of these matters is an integral part of my personal search for the truth. If my arguments and questions serve to make religionists ever more sure of their own "truths" and their own search for understanding, having 'tested' their beliefs against the doubts implicit in my questions and points, then so be it. Good luck to them. If I am dismissed by others, then so be it.
However, people trying to dismiss those who disagree with them - or dismiss those who question them because they think stuff is just not adding up, or dismiss those who have different spiritual mind maps to them - with rhetorical put downs such as insisting that dissenters are merely "arguing for the sake of arguing" or such like, are not among the more interesting members of this community. Nor does their form of combativeness offer much in the way of resources for others who use this forum for a wee bit of stimulating discourse and little increments of personal development.
Originally posted by RJHindsI am perhaps one of the clearest and most concise posters here. The "objections" from "the other side", in fact, often point to an actual truth that they're dodging or seeking to obscure by deflecting. The "objections" from "the other side" are not usually about whether or not I need to "refine" something. These "objections", and so often the ad hominems that follow, can be a sign that I am getting closer and closer to the truth of the matter.
However, you may have to learn to refine your questions to get past the objections from the lawyer on the other side.
Originally posted by FMFYou and others did a good job with your questioning of the JWs on their no blood transfusion issue. However, none of it seems to have made them realize the fallacy of their belief and their misinterpretation of the scriptures. But you also seemed to be repeating the same question and I think it becomes annoying to nearly anyone after a time. Like the lawyer, you might do well to try to refine your question to avoid objections of irrelevance and that the question has already been asked and answered. 😏
My personal "perceived truths" - which I do not attempt to use to proselytize others - are subject to a constant and ongoing contemplation and evaluation. I am an ex-religionist. One way of seeking "truths" is to strip away things that, under scrutiny, appear not to be valid, or inapplicable, or mistaken.
Religionists tend to make particular kinds if asserti ...[text shortened]... for a wee bit of stimulating discourse and little increments of personal development.
Originally posted by RJHindsRJ is now giving advice on effective argumentation? Wonders never cease.
You and others did a good job with your questioning of the JWs on their no blood transfusion issue. However, none of it seems to have made them realize the fallacy of their belief and their misinterpretation of the scriptures. But you also seemed to be repeating the same question and I think it becomes annoying to nearly anyone after a time. Like the lawy ...[text shortened]... o avoid objections of irrelevance and that the question has already been asked and answered. 😏
Originally posted by RJHindsYou have already made your pronouncement about me on page 8 of this thread: "You can forget about FMF for he has made no important contributions." So, you will understand - I hope - that I am not trying to satisfy you, or to avoid "annoying" you. Nor is my personal pursuit of truth dependent on getting anyone in particular to agree with me or approve of my posts. Indeed, if you don't like my posts, perhaps you should just ignore them.
However, none of it seems to have made them realize the fallacy of their belief and their misinterpretation of the scriptures. But you also seemed to be repeating the same question and I think it becomes annoying to nearly anyone after a time.
Originally posted by RJHindsjaywill had the little bit of common decency necessary to suggest that I ask "difficult" questions and and I cannot remember him seeking to dismiss them or dodge them by saying over and over and over again that they are "annoying", as you are at the moment. If you find them "annoying", then so be it. You will have noticed that I scarcely bother to reply to your posts, and certainly not as often as I did in the past. As I said, if you don't like my posts, you should just ignore them. 😵
That's annoying questioning only! 😏
Originally posted by FMFI think it would be good of you to ask important questions that others fail to ask. However, make sure it is important and not just annoying the one being questioned. It did not take long for the JW to become antagonistic toward you for repeating the same question, and I can't say I blame him. 😏
You have already made your pronouncement about me on page 8 of this thread: [b]"You can forget about FMF for he has made no important contributions." So, you will understand - I hope - that I am not trying to satisfy you, or to avoid "annoying" you. Nor is my personal pursuit of truth dependent on getting anyone in particular to agree with me or approve of my posts. Indeed, if you don't like my posts, perhaps you should just ignore them.[/b]
Originally posted by RJHindsIf you find my posts "annoying", then that is a matter for you.
I think it would be good of you to ask important questions that others fail to ask. However, make sure it is important and not just annoying the one being questioned. It did not take long for the JW to become antagonistic toward you for repeating the same question, and I can't say I blame him. 😏
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFI admit that you have not directly been annoying to me as you were in the past. I appreciate that and recognize we all need improvement as the original poster pointed out. However, I don't entirely agree with his solution to this problem under the circumstances. 😏
jaywill had the little bit of common decency necessary to suggest that I ask "difficult" questions and and I cannot remember him seeking to dismiss them or dodge them by saying over and over and over again that they are "annoying", as you are at the moment. If you find them "annoying", then so be it. You will have noticed that I scarcely bother to reply to your ...[text shortened]... I did in the past. As I said, if you don't like my posts, you should just ignore them. 😵