11,141
edits
Red Herring Arguments: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
= | =The use of red herring arguments by message followers= | ||
Message believers have to reconcile what they believe (that William Branham was a prophet) with historic facts (that William Branham's prophecies did not all come to pass). The easiest way to do this is to trivialize the importance of facts until the person feels comfortable ignoring them. This is required because of a psychological condition which is common in people involved in cults that is referred to as [[Cognitive Dissonance]]. | Message believers have to reconcile what they believe (that William Branham was a prophet) with historic facts (that William Branham's prophecies did not all come to pass). The easiest way to do this is to trivialize the importance of facts until the person feels comfortable ignoring them. This is required because of a psychological condition which is common in people involved in cults that is referred to as [[Cognitive Dissonance]]. | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
Voice of God Recordings explanation of why William Branham's failed prophecies are not important relies totally on the use of red herring arguments. | Voice of God Recordings explanation of why William Branham's failed prophecies are not important relies totally on the use of red herring arguments. | ||
== | ==Voice of God Recording's basic argument== | ||
'''Voice of God Recordings''' ("VoGR"), is an entity led by William Branham's sons and dedicated to sharing his sermons. In a publication called '''Catch the Vision'''(2012, Volume 2), they explain away the failures in William Branham's prophecies without discussing the facts. Their argument flows as follows: | '''Voice of God Recordings''' ("VoGR"), is an entity led by William Branham's sons and dedicated to sharing his sermons. In a publication called '''Catch the Vision'''(2012, Volume 2), they explain away the failures in William Branham's prophecies without discussing the facts. Their argument flows as follows: | ||