Hey Marvin Shilmer, about your blog...

Hey Marvin Shilmer, about your blog...

Posted in the Jehovah's Witness Forum

Since: Jul 10

Milwaukee, WI

#1 Sep 2, 2012
How come you don't have any links to sites defending JWs anymore? You used to have my blog and another site too.

I have links to sites like Topix, JWN, and your own blog embedded in many of my posts.

I have links to the other side. Why don't you anymore?

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#2 Sep 2, 2012
StandFirm wrote:
How come you don't have any links to sites defending JWs anymore? You used to have my blog and another site too.
I have links to sites like Topix, JWN, and your own blog embedded in many of my posts.
I have links to the other side. Why don't you anymore?
I took the pro and con links down. No one was using them. But there are links embedded within my blogs by myself and others (such as yourself) and those remain.

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com

Since: Jul 10

Milwaukee, WI

#3 Sep 2, 2012
Marvin Shilmer wrote:
I took the pro and con links down. No one was using them.
According to my blog stats, I have nearly 1,900 referrals from your blog.

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/7267/4402086...

Also, I use blogger too. They have no function to see how much traffic goes OUT of your site via a link.

Therefore, you have no basis in fact for your claimed reason for removing the links; in fact, your reason is demonstrably false.

So once again, I ask why you took down the links to sites critical of your views.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#4 Sep 3, 2012
-
StandFirm wrote:
According to my blog stats, I have nearly 1,900 referrals from your blog.


Glad to have sent you the traffic. That’s about what I was told.
StandFirm wrote:
Also, I use blogger too. They have no function to see how much traffic goes OUT of your site via a link.
I don’t know how the data was achieved. Someone else researched it for me.
StandFirm wrote:
So once again, I ask why you took down the links to sites critical of your views.
In case it’s gone unnoticed it, I’ve been cleaning up and simplifying my blog page. I removed links critical of and supportive of views expressed on my blog.

Right now there are several resources (including many of my own articles) that have no provided links on my blog. I plan on providing a section for critical review resources on a page of its own just like I have for some of my more prominent content.

If you provide me ready-to-load text-copy that is formatted to suit my blog’s style maybe I’ll use it. At least I’ll have your recommendations for critical resources.

Any more questions?

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com

Since: Jul 10

Genesee Depot, WI

#5 Sep 3, 2012
Marvin Shilmer wrote:
Right now there are several resources (including many of my own articles) that have no provided links on my blog. I plan on providing a section for critical review resources on a page of its own just like I have for some of my more prominent content.
If you provide me ready-to-load text-copy that is formatted to suit my blog’s style maybe I’ll use it. At least I’ll have your recommendations for critical resources.
Sure, I will try to provide that based on what you had in mind. Did you wish to have one link per site, or an array of links for each article as I did for http://stayawake-standfirm.blogspot.com/2010/... ?

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#6 Sep 4, 2012
-
StandFirm wrote:
Sure, I will try to provide that based on what you had in mind. Did you wish to have one link per site, or an array of links for each article as I did for http://stayawake-standfirm.blogspot.com/2010/... ?
I’d be interested in your recommendations for web sites overall and not specifically for certain topics. The two pro-Watchtower sites I have in mind at the moment are your blog (as a general source of Watchtower preferential opinion) and onlyturgog.org (as a general source for Watchtower apologia). I might include the jw.org site too so folks can see what the Watchtower organization wants readers to think of itself.

My intention is not to have a blog role. I just feel an honest portrayal of information is to provide readers with sources for counterviews; hence the need for some resources accordingly. But if a list is too long it confuses the reader. So whatever list I end up with it’ll be short. When I started revamping my blog my outside resource section provided links to 3 sites. Two pro-Watchtower and one contra-Watchtower. I might amp that up to 5 sites, but probably not more than 5. We’ll see.

I look forward to reviewing your recommendations.

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com

Since: Jul 10

Milwaukee, WI

#7 Sep 4, 2012
I think those 3 you mentioned are good. I'm assuming you mean http://onlytruegod.org/jwstrs/ as onlytruegod.org just ends in a coming soon notice. The only other one I might suggest is tearsofoberon.blogspot.com . My blog also links to both tearsofoberon and onlytruegod/jwstrs.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#8 Sep 4, 2012
-
StandFirm wrote:
I think those 3 you mentioned are good. I'm assuming you mean http://onlytruegod.org/jwstrs/ as onlytruegod.org just ends in a coming soon notice. The only other one I might suggest is tearsofoberon.blogspot.com . My blog also links to both tearsofoberon and onlytruegod/jwstrs.
I have no intention of linking to other blogs like yours. The stuff you write is something serious readers should take a look at because when I express the sort of apologetics you assert it is so unbelievable that readers have to see it to believe it. But I have no reason to link to multiple blogs like yours.

It is clear you do not understand the many and overlapping fallacies presented in your work, but it’s there in spades for trained readers to see for what it is. TearsofOberson’s blog is nearly identical in this respect.

Unfortunately, though I think you a nice enough guy/gal, it has grown on me that you care little about finding sound conclusions with a probability above “possible”. You may not believe me when I say this saddens me tremendously, but it is true. I’m a man who has asked lots of questions in his life, and have asked those questions in an honest effort to find whatever is sound. Over and over again people like you have responded with apologetics bordering on idolatry if not outright idolatry. I hate to see it.

The many brothers who’ve worked in the writing correspondence section of Watchtower’s Service Department do the same thing by suggesting a teaching should be acceded to because the Governing Body says so. That would be fine except for one thing. The Governing Body within the Watchtower organization does not have benefit of direct inspiration for dispensation of standards as did the prototypical Governing Body depicted at Acts 15. Hence to follow what they say as though the voice of God would be a following of men when the Master teaches us not to be followers of men. God warns against leaning on a trust of men (no matter their position, even if from God Himself!) as a basis for accepting what those men say. That’s another reason why acceding to Watchtower’s Governing Body because they say so is no more than idolatry.

At the same time those men within Watchtower suggesting acceding to a teaching because their Governing Body says so do this in tandem with a failure to actually answer important questions asked of them on the same subject. There is no explanation for such conduct that I can see, except for idolatry.

Hence, and getting back to the main point, do not expect that I would send readers to an additional blog that contains such blatantly false argumentation as does yours. The one called onlytruegod is one I’ve referenced because it’s fairly well formatted and sticks to a given subject better than most. But in the end its argumentation is very much like yours and TearsofOberon’s.

None of the above is said to be ugly, and for your own reason you probably feel similarly. At least that is my best guess. But here is a big, big difference between us:

- I’d happily stand (and have happily stood!) in front of a room packed with well-trained experts and share my views on, for instance, transfusion of donor blood and why I hold the views I do. I’d so this (and have done so) on biblical grounds, and scientific grounds too if asked.

- In my wildest imagination I cannot see you being willing to stand up in a room packed with well-trained experts and sharing your views on, for instance, transfusion of donor blood and why you hold those.

You hold beliefs about the science involved on this subject despite a horrible ignorance of the science involved, which would be very telling. Moreover the forms of argumentation you assert on biblical premises are over and over again laden with fallacy and/or omission of counter evidence. Trained men and women would be stunned by your presentation, and not a good sort of way.

Cont’d

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#9 Sep 4, 2012
Cont’d

But you are not alone. Leadership within Watchtower has for years declined to address specific logical fallacies of their own making in front of trained professionals. Gene Smalley, for example, has for years steered listeners away from these issues by asserting religious people’s right of choice, and then he avoids answering the issue presented by saying religious choice is the important thing no matter what others think. In short, Smalley will not stand in front of trained experts and engage specific issues of logical validity regarding important details within Watchtower’s blood doctrine. He will not because he knows he cannot. At the end of the day, that’s the same reason why you’d never stand in front of trained listeners and present things as you do on your blog. That’s why your blog is worth reading. But readers have no need to be sent to multiple of such sites.

Thanks for your recommendations.

Best regards,

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com

Since: Jul 10

Racine, WI

#10 Oct 3, 2012
Still not seeing any "critical review resources" on your blog.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Just IMAGINE- if you CAN! 2 min red blood relative 41
YES-Jesus WAS once known as Michael (Sep '14) 6 min lovewithin 3,825
Does "One" REALLY mean THREE? Seriously! 8 min ihveit 905
News What If Jesus Is not God? 11 min Anonymous Brother 25
Irrefutable reason why Jesus is Michael? 12 min ihveit 146
A Warning to ALL Jehovah's Witnesses 14 min imagoodboy 6
Did God send...HIMSELF? 21 min red blood relative 314
Candace Conti settled 36 min red blood relative 390
What is the trinity? (Apr '13) 46 min Anonymous Brother 19,399
shunning goes against Gods comandments of love 1 hr BetheljudgmentDan... 56
More from around the web