The fact is, it was neither Elizabeth 1 nor Elizabeth I who originally posted what you claim to be quoting, was it, DOC? And the wording of the quote has been altered from the original too, hasn't it DOC?
You should fix it up in case someone thinks you're being dishonest. You know how important appearances are to some people.
I actually have read this thread all the way through, over the many months it's been active, slowly catching up to the recent pages... and one of the things DOC constantly refers too is his claimed course in "Logic" that he got A grades in. However, he's never had the honesty or courage to answer his critics as to where and when he took that course... this is because, I am pretty sure, it's a Jehovah's Witness logic course he originally took. I've come across this tactic of using words out of context, and warped towards your own meaning a number of times from Witnesses before, and one even admitted he'd been taught to do it during a Witness theological session. The debate went something like this;
Him: *starts handing out copies of "Life: How Did It Get Here" to various elderly clients of the day care centre I volunteer at*
Me: I'm sorry, you know that's not appropriate. Many of the people here suffer from dementia or other frailties, and the building may be Church of England, but both they and the City Council require we have no religious preaching; you may worship privately however.
Him: But my religion is everything to me. Will you at least read the book?!
Me: I will discuss it with you, but only in the same context as I would as private individual, which means I'll argue against you as honestly as I would there.
Him: Well, let's start with the first pages... Darwin didn't even believe in his own theory, he talks about the human eye....
Me: Darwin didn't believe his own theory? That's ridiculous. Why would he say that?
Him: It's there, on Page Whatever.
Me: And yet I can also say that on the Last Page, he's going to say his ideas are likely to be correct. That's why he wrote the entire book, to discuss the Origin Of The Species. Why should I listen to that quote, even if it's true, over the rest of the book?
Him: Because every word is true to itself. He must have meant exactly that when he wrote exactly that.
Me: But if I say "I heard you say 'I must be a complete idiot...' " and don't include "... if I believed Darwins ideas" which you said immediately afterwards, and told everyone you admitted you were an idiot, is that honest?
Him: *struggling* I can see what you are getting at, but when we go to our seminars, we're taught that if it's written down, it's never a lie to repeat what is written down. You wouldn't be lying if you said that.
Me: Even if it's truncated to change the meaning?
Him: It's not changing the meaning, it's just pausing the flow of meaning at a certain point. Darwin really did say the Eye seemed incredibly complex... and it's never a lie to argue for God, even atheists believe in Him, even if only for a split second when they refer to him. And logically that moment is as true as any other.
Me: Even when it's only a Rhetorical comment, to make a different point? How can you say someone is an Atheist but they also believe in God on smaller scales? Do I believe you're an idiot when I gave you my example above, if only for a second?
Him: No... but... when we're at the Kingdom Halls, we are taught we aren't lying, the words really, really are there. We are told never to say anything that isn't true. And you're asking me to believe that everyone at the Hall is lying...
Me: You know I'm here to care for anyone and everyone what ever their faith. But if I was to say "You said you were an idiot" I wouldn't be respectful to
you, would I? And all I'll say is that if it were my words you weren't repeating in full, likewise you wouldn't be respectful to me would you? You may believe what this book writes there, but it's not being respectful to Darwin is it?
....
He ended up leaving our care in the end, to go live at a JW retirement home, because he got increasingly unable to deal with relating to the world as it operated outside of his cloistered community... he was close to being asked to leave any way, as he was less and less able to keep his beliefs private. After the exchange above, he went back to his Kingdom Hall and asked them to help him with that question; He was told again that chapter must have accepted Intelligent Design because the "I freely confess" passage was in it, and that others just couldn't see the "logic". He the proceeded to bother the other clients by preaching that everything they understood was wrong...
Now personally, with the professional hat off I think in many ways, the Witnesses as a theology is a pretty evil thing; We've often had to intervene when they've discovered a former member is now close to death and suffering from dementia, and have tried to constantly arrange visits with the aim of getting them to "re-enter" the Church. Their attitudes alienates people from objective reality, the door-knocking being an example of that (you do not have your own private space they need to respect) and in particular doesn't apply allow any other perspective except one which supports Jehovah... someone can be completely unable to understand what it is you are asking them to say (or control their own bodily functions) and that's ok, as long as they say "ok I am a witness".
And it leads to people like DOC, who misattributes and truncates quotes, as he did there, as long as it seems to justify his own argument. And sends people Private Ministering, trying to avoid scrutiny of his claims, whilst putting on Ignore anyone who can effectively critique them. Basic truth, respect, decency are missing from such an absolutist theology.
But I'd wager dollars to doughnuts that was the core element in the "Logic" course DOC claims to have taken...
