28 May 12
Originally posted by divegeesterThe Bible says to test the scriptures which we all should do. If one has a doubt or does not understand something, do as the Bible says and test it with the Bible. I have done that all my life and I am very satified with my beliefs.
[b]"Only slightly."
I'll take this comment to the "doubt" thread where you denied ever having any.
😉[/b]
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121583
28 May 12
2 edits
Originally posted by galveston75I'm sure you are satisfied with your beliefs, as I am with mine.
The Bible says to test the scriptures which we all should do. If one has a doubt or does not understand something, do as the Bible says and test it with the Bible. I have done that all my life and I am very satified with my beliefs.
Recent threads debating (amongst other things) the nature of "doubt" and "fallibility" are of course linked. You have stated in another thread that you never doubt your beliefs, in fact robbie called me out on my doubt using scripture to back himself up - clearly doubt is not allowed in the JWs.
And yet here you admit that "occasionally" (and briefly) it has crossed your mind that any infallibility the JW's admit to, could extend from interpretation of prophecy to the actualisation of being the "sole bearers of god's truth on Earth".
I also wonder what Rank Outsider will make of this.
28 May 12
Originally posted by galveston75Are you willing to make an unequivocal statement about whether your assertion that your organisation is the only organisation being "used by God" is fallible or infallible?
The Bible says to test the scriptures which we all should do. If one has a doubt or does not understand something, do as the Bible says and test it with the Bible. I have done that all my life and I am very satified with my beliefs.
28 May 12
Originally posted by galveston75Your claim that the JW organisation is the only organisation being "used by God" is clearly not one of "the smallest things". In fact, I'd venture to say that it is one of the very biggest things in your spiritual life.
Lol...You really push the smallest things on an on and on. Good night.
28 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFAh, my mistake.
What "distinction" is it you're going to make this time? Between "infallible" and "divinely inspired"? How so? At one point you said [b]"Should this not be 'Have there been some mistakes in the Awake publication'? And did not Robbie accept this was the case to me on page 5? And galveston75 appeared to concur by accepting that no man or organisation was infallibl h ways, and you - as is your right, I suppose - are only hearing one side of it. 😀
When I asked where I had told you that Robbie or galveston75 had assured me Awake was not divinely inspired, I was expecting to be directed to a post where I had told you that Robbie or galveston75 had assured me Awake was not divinely inspired.
I will post a little later why I think there may be a distinction. You may want to consult a thesaurus for more words like sophistry. 😉
But the fact remains that I didn't say, or intend to say, what you have claimed.
Edit : I don't know why this is in bold!
28 May 12
Originally posted by Rajk999I am almost blushing. I take back everything I have said about you.
Typical of a defense attorney.
The right of everyone to defence counsel is one of the hallmarks of civilised democracy, one we take far too much for granted. Individuals who put aside their personal feelings for their clients to provide them with their inalienable right of a fair trail to the best of their ability. At times, they are part of a system that is the last line of defence between the individual and a state that would deny them the very rights that we should all cherish.
To be considered worthy of being counted amongst their ranks is praise indeed.
I thought you would prefer a system where we just bang people up based on the fact that we don't like them all that much, with no standards of evidence.
Just shows how wrong you can be.
28 May 12
Originally posted by galveston75So are you saying that the Watchtower can not be wrong on any of their interpretation of the Holy Bible other than when it comes to predicting dates?
Nope. The Bible completly supports those beliefs. That is completely different then trying to figure out times and dates with prophicies that Jesus gave, not us, if you can grasp that.
28 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Rank outsiderBut the fact remains that I didn't say, or intend to say, what you have claimed - Rank outsider
Ah, my mistake.
When I asked where I had told you that Robbie or galveston75 had assured me Awake was not divinely inspired, I was expecting to be directed to a post where I had told you that Robbie or galveston75 had assured me Awake was not divinely inspired.
I will post a little later why I think there may be a distinction. You may want to co ...[text shortened]... dn't say, or intend to say, what you have claimed.
Edit : I don't know why this is in bold!
LOL, thats a perfect summation of this type of discussion, sure they can ignore all the
references that one provides, sure they can make unfounded and unsubstantiated
assertions on the basis of nothing more than their own insinuations and expect people
to accept it, sure they can display a bias bordering of prejudice fuelled by gross
negligence of the facts, but dont ever ask them to produce empirical data to
substantiate their claims, its a foreign currency and will be met with more
unsubstantiated claims masquerading as truth.
28 May 12
Originally posted by Rank outsiderThe system can work very well if both the defense attorney and the prosecuting attorney do an honest job and the the Judge and jury are all fair in their decision. If one of these breaks down, then no telling what can happen.
I am almost blushing. I take back everything I have said about you.
The right of everyone to defence counsel is one of the hallmarks of civilised democracy, one we take far too much for granted. Individuals who put aside their personal feelings for their clients to provide them with their inalienable right of a fair trail to the best of their abil ...[text shortened]... n't like them all that much, with no standards of evidence.
Just shows how wrong you can be.
28 May 12
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsit has been demonstrated with reference that the writers of the watchtower articles are
So are you saying that the Watchtower can not be wrong on any of their interpretation of the Holy Bible other than when it comes to predicting dates?
not nor have ever claimed to be infallible, why does this demonstrable fact evade you.
If i got a stamp made up and stamped it upon your forehead in large red letters would
it penetrate past the bone, percolate to your consciousness and register there? I
repeat , the writers of the watchtower articles are not nor have ever claimed to be
infallible. Do you understand the meaning of infallible? It means that one cannot make
a mistake. Have we ever claimed that the writers of watchtower articles cannot make
mistakes, no, then clearly your question either fails to acknowledge this fact or its
based upon ignorance of the meaning of the term infallible.
28 May 12
Originally posted by galveston75Only one answer so far? Lets get your answers on this please..............
So apparently only a PERFECT person or organization that never makes any mistakes can be used by God and make the claim that they are being used by God? Is that the consenses here by most?
As you guys always do to us, a simple yes or no will do just fine.
28 May 12
4 edits
Originally posted by galveston75didn't Jesus disciples make mistakes, perhaps they weren't real Christians, perhaps all
Only one answer so far? Lets get your answers on this please..............
the things they written in the Bible is also erroneous. Perhaps they should have been
perfect as evidence that God was using them to fulfil his will. Perhaps Peter should never have said,
(Matthew 16:22-23) . . .“Be kind to yourself, Lord; you will not have this [destiny] at
all.” But, turning his back, he said to Peter: “Get behind me, Satan! You are a
stumbling block to me, because you think, not God’s thoughts, but those of men.”