No Man's Opinion is Expressed in The Watchtower

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have detailed our stance, providing reference where necessary in a clear and explicit
manner, you continue to squabble, my work is done here.

You claimed that galveston75 would retract any suggestion he might have made about JW literature being divinely inspired. And now you've seen the verbatim quotes from galveston75 on this page. It's no surprise to find you trying to distract from this stark difference of stance between you, that galveston75's remarks have revealed, with your use of the word "squabble" over and over and over and over again. And yet you are not asking him to retract. Perhaps you agree with what he said? People will have to decide for themselves because you have steadfastly sidestepped to comment upon his statements ever since they were posted.

Originally posted by FMF
You claimed that galveston75 would retract any suggestion he might have made about JW literature being divinely inspired. And now you've seen the verbatim quotes from galveston75 on this page. It's no surprise to find you trying to distract from this stark difference of stance between you, that galveston75's remarks have revealed, with your use of the word "squa ou have steadfastly sidestepped to comment upon his statements ever since they were posted.

more petty squabbling, if this is really is the zenith of your spirituality and your
understanding, then please spare me in future. indeed I am reminded of Pauls words,

(1 Timothy 6:5)  violent disputes about trifles on the part of men corrupted in mind. . .

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
more petty squabbling, if this is really is the zenith of your spirituality and your
understanding, then please spare me in future. indeed I am reminded of Pauls words,

(1 Timothy 6:5)  violent disputes about trifles on the part of men corrupted in mind. . .

Still trying to pass off pointing out your contradictory and disingenuous statements about whether JW literature is "God inspired" as "petty squabbling"? Hey, maybe it will work for you, who knows.

Originally posted by FMF
Still trying to pass off pointing out your contradictory and disingenuous statements about whether JW literature is "God inspired" as "petty squabbling"? Hey, maybe it will work for you, who knows.

disputes about trifles.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
disputes about trifles.

Whether ordinary JWs believe JW literature is "God inspired" is not a "trifle".

Originally posted by FMF
Whether ordinary JWs believe JW literature is "God inspired" is not a "trifle".

your concern for our welfare is truly touching.

Originally posted by galveston75
What? Are you serious? Where in the world have I ever claimed to be "perfect'? I guess you don't read many of my postings here to make that statement.

Well, I asked "Don't you consider yourself free of error on the subject of which writings are free of error? Is this opinion of yours inspired? If not, is it not possibly in error?"


So I will take your reply to mean, "My opinion on what writings are free of error is not inspired, and my opinion on what writings are free of error, may be in error." This clears up the issue as far as I am concerned.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
more petty squabbling, if this is really is the zenith of your spirituality and your
understanding, then please spare me in future. indeed I am reminded of Pauls words,

(1 Timothy 6:5)  violent disputes about trifles on the part of men corrupted in mind. . .

Why don't you just respond to FMF's questions instead of childishly foot-stamping and insisting he is somehow "squabling" with you?

Originally posted by JS357
My discomfort with what you say comes from two sources:

1. You specify "true" buddhists. We all know, or should know, the uses of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
2. I am not by any means very knowledgeable about this, but the treatment by JW's, under the auspices of its organization, of JW's who fall away from faith, does not have a reputation that I like. M reasons that I am not comfortable with cutting them slack for the reasons you state.

Yeah, like I said ,"carry on" , meaning I'm pretty much in agreement with the op here. I was just adding , for those who are unaware, that the JW's express a very strong non-violence policy, which is to be commended and which also puts them at odds with many other christian denominations.

As far as "true buddhists" go, I know what you mean, but before we get into word tangle, lets just say I take your point and , if you care to get into the spirit of my post then you would pretty much get mine. After all, we are not discussing buddhism here 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
on a par with true Buddhists, awesome, recognition at last!

On a par with a stance on "no violence" as I understand it, and in a general and non-specific way, yes.
I think this is noteworthy as I think all organizations and people that promote non-violence (for solving problems,etc.). However there is always that huge budget that seems to revolve around most countries (with a bit of clout) that gets sent for military spending. There are going to be people that want to keep their jobs, their funding and the right for their sons and daughters to go off and die in war 😛

Originally posted by galveston75
(((((( In addition to the letters included in the Bible canon, there were doubtless many other letters written by the apostles and older men to the numerous congregations during the course of the years. While the writers were spirit-guided men, still God did not place his seal of guarantee distinguishing any such additional writings as part of the inerra ...[text shortened]... rfect I guess that's actually a compliment as they are holding us in high reguard. Awesome!!!!!

Many contemporary spiritual movements, including the JW's, have been belittled and swept usunder.

I see many people who believe in god (so called christians), who believe that people were inspired by god back in biblical times, but when presented with something from, say, the last 100 years are automatically dismissive and reprehensive straight away going for the "it's the work of Satan " line, without even checking it out most of the time to see if the claim or writing had any merit,(see RJ's behaviour as an immediate example).

Of course the JWs are near the top of the list of organizations that display such counter intuitive thinking.

Originally posted by divegeester
Why don't you just respond to FMF's questions instead of childishly foot-stamping and insisting he is somehow "squabling" with you?

His tactics become see- through and tedious very quickly, dont they, hmmmmm

(vewy,vewy interesting would you say Robbie Carrobie)

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Many contemporary spiritual movements, including the JW's, have been belittled and swept usunder.

I see many people who believe in god (so called christians), who believe that people were inspired by god back in biblical times, but when presented with something from, say, the last 100 years are automatically dismissive and reprehensive straight away ...[text shortened]... re near the top of the list of organizations that display such counter intuitive thinking.

You make me laugh. Ha ha 😀

Originally posted by RJHinds
You make me laugh. Ha ha 😀

laughing at yourself or the JW's or something else?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Yeah, like I said ,"carry on" , meaning I'm pretty much in agreement with the op here. I was just adding , for those who are unaware, that the JW's express a very strong non-violence policy, which is to be commended and which also puts them at odds with many other christian denominations.

As far as "true buddhists" go, I know what you mean, but befo ...[text shortened]... ost then you would pretty much get mine. After all, we are not discussing buddhism here 🙂

OK, you have a point. I too, see some traits and behaviors that JWs have, that I admire. A commitment to non-violence is one of them, and I have posted here to that effect. Of course admiring a trait or commitment in a person does not mean we will approve of the person overall, or approve of other individual traits and behaviors in that person.

A position can be taken that a person who prefers to live in the US, for example, while refusing to serve in a military role that might require him to use violence, is getting a free ride on that score, from others who are willing to serve. There are counters to THAT position but I don't think this discussion belongs in this thread.

At any rate, I concur with your point about commitment to nonviolence as a desirable trait to have.