[Questioninginla]

I'm interested to understand and know more about this group.  From what I do know, "God Bless You" takes the place of "hello" and "goodbye".  Why does this or any other word change matter?  Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.

IF, there comes a day when someone questions "is there something suspect going on here?  how could there be?  these people are so nice.  we greet each other with 'God Bless You'".  While not indicative (of bigger problems) in and of itself, it certainly could be said at such a point in time that the meaning has now changed to become greater than just hello and goodbye, correct?  In other words, what was once a simple salutation now has more than one meaning – how does this affect my thinking?

I have also heard "soft food/hard food".  To the converted member, it makes so much sense for the end to justify the means.  Surely we want to lead someone to eternal salvation!  Who wants to err in this process?  No one!  Therefore, give the prospect only what they can handle, correct?  Or, is it just an excuse to manipulate?  If not the latter, then why not just say that God allows us to manipulate….just a little bit?

What are more words that have multiple meanings, ex-members?  Does changing words matter?  (provide examples if you can please)

[Simon]

[Simon]

questioninginla is accusing me of a causality fallacy for no reason despite me providing evidence for my standpoint doing while s/he does the online equivalent of putting fingers in the ears going lalalalala

[Love'n Honey]

Imagine that.. LALALALALA!! lol.. Sooo funny.

[Questioninginla]

Simon wrote:

questioninginla is accusing me of a causality fallacy for no reason despite me providing evidence for my standpoint doing while s/he does the online equivalent of putting fingers in the ears going lalalalala

 You keep backfilling your hypothesis in order to prove a point, and I thank you because you keep proving mine.

[Simon]

What are you talking about backfilling my hypothesis

[Simon]

and I am not sure why you are calling it post hoc reasoning seeing as we aren't disucssing causality

[Love'n Honey]

What's post hoc reasoning?

[Simon]

Post hoc reasoning, short for post hoc ergo procter hoc, is the fallacy where we believe that because one event follows another, the first must have been a cause of the second.

[Love'n Honey]

Ok.. Like When you tell a joke and I laugh. I must have laughed because you told the joke?

[Questioninginla]

Simon wrote:

Post hoc reasoning, short for post hoc ergo procter hoc, is the fallacy where we believe that because one event follows another, the first must have been a cause of the second.

I'll agree with that.

Simon wrote:

and I am not sure why you are calling it post hoc reasoning seeing as we aren't disucssing causality

Because I've witnessed teachers (various groups) present a hypothesis and then go to the bible to "prove" it.  I'm wondering if that happens with this particular group. 

The chronology is incorrect in doing so and people are usually amazed rather than skeptical.  Original context is lost and subsequently changed.  The last chapter of the Bible warns against altering scripture; people rarely realize it has ever happened right in front of them. 

Simon, I'm just a thick-skinned auditor and I can come across abrasively.

[Simon]

yep

[Simon]

or like when a WMSCOG member keeps the passover then later survives a car crash

[Love'n Honey]

Oyg! Just like those videos you posted!!! Ok, I'm not so lost anymore. =)

[Love'n Honey]

renita.payno wrote:

Oyg! Just like those videos you posted!!! Ok, I'm not so lost anymore. =)

 This is in response to Questioningla.. about not realizing the change.

[Simon]

ugh I misspelled propter…

 

still not sure how going into the Bible to prove it is somehow always "back filling" , I haveheard  it all my life people in my bible facebook groups use it (and none of them have been suckered in)

[Love'n Honey]

There's nothing wrong with proving things with the bible. Isn't that what we're doing here?

[Questioninginla]

Simon wrote:

still not sure how going into the Bible to prove it is somehow always "back filling" , I haveheard  it all my life people in my bible facebook groups use it (and none of them have been suckered in)

I have not been absolute in my comments – or at least have attempted to refrain from doing so.  However, Simon, I must tell you that the language in which you post is rich with all-or-nothing type words.  There is a good chance that this thought paradigm has been learned.

Nothing can be proved by saying that a doctrine that looks backwards is indeed of ill intent.  Failure to take notice is the problem I try to address.

[Love'n Honey]

I used to have an all-or-nothing mind set. Now it's mostly all-or-nothing. =)

[Simon]

your not really saying anything.

[Simon]

and I am pretty sure I am the least black and white person on this forum.

[Questioninginla]

I read in another thread…am I to understand that "water" is "people"?

 

Here is something interesting – not at all related to religion, by the way – relative to language use:

"Furthermore, all correspondence referring to the matter was subject to rigid "language rules", and, except in the reports the Einsatzgruppen, it is rare to find documents in which such bald words as "extermination, " "liquidation," or "killing" occur.  The prescribed code names for killing were "final solution," "evacuation", and "special treatment" [footnote 1]

"Moreover, the very term "language rule" was itself a code name; it meant what in ordinary language would be called a lie." [footnote 1]

"The net effect of this language system was not to keep these people ignorant of what they were doing, but to prevent them from equating it with their old, "normal" knowledge of murder and lies." [footnote 2]

1)Eichmann in Jerusalem, A Report on the Banality of Evil, by Hannah Arendt, pg 85

2)Eichmann in Jerusalem, A Report on the Banality of Evil, by Hannah Arendt, pg 86

This exercise is not to compare genocide in any way with religious beliefs.  It is an exercise in understanding the germane affects and effects of altering the words one or a group of people use in the context of a hypothesis in which the argument persists that psychological and physiological affects/effects are present.