3, 7, 12 and 40

Originally posted by FMF
Startreader is no more responsible for the sex abuse in the Catholic church than you are responsible for the sex abuse in the JW organisation, right? Indeed, neither of you deserve any blame for it, right?

strawman no one has claimed we are.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes but you believe nothing but your on propaganda anyway, thats just par for the course.

If someone leaves the JW organisation and becomes a Catholic or an Anglican, do you not receive him into your house, and not give him a greeting for fear that if you who give him a greeting, you are doing an evil deed?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
strawman no one has claimed we are.

With your last post on page 19 you seemed pretty clearly to be holding sex abuse of Catholic children against him. And yet he does not defend it or endorse it.

Originally posted by FMF
If someone leaves the JW organisation and becomes a Catholic or an Anglican, do you not receive him into your house, and not give him a greeting for fear that if you who give him a greeting, you are doing an evil deed?

It depends whether they have deviated from the teaching of Christ. It also depends upon whether they were a baptized witness.

Originally posted by FMF
With your last post on page 19 you seemed pretty clearly to be holding sex abuse of Catholic children against him. And yet he does not defend it or endorse it.

no again thats nothing but your own propaganda and an assumption. I have not stated what i consider to be their hypocrisy, you simply assumed you know what it is because thats what you are a self assuming windbag. If you read the text carefull you will discern that i consider it to be hypocritical to attack the religion of another without having substantiated claims that have been made with regard to ones own a clear reference to startreaders unwillingness to tell us about the trinity, but then again your self assuming windbaggery knows no bounds, thank you for once again bringing it to our attention.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It depends whether they have deviated from the teaching of Christ. It also depends upon whether they were a baptized witness.

Can you give some examples of 'deviations' by an ordinary Catholic or Anglican that would make you fear having them in your house lest you be participating in "evil"?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no again thats nothing but your own propaganda and an assumption. I have not stated what i consider to be their hypocrisy, you simply assumed you know what it is because thats what you are a self assuming windbag.

But surely on page 9 you railed against "the rampant sexual abuse among the clergy of Catholicism which has wrecked the lives of thousands, possibly tens of thousands of young people" and also the "Inquisition" and then accused Startreader of "rampant hypocrisy"? It's there on page 9.

Originally posted by FMF
Can you give some examples of 'deviations' by an ordinary Catholic or Anglican that would make you fear having them in your house lest you be participating in "evil"?

a rather stupid loaded question and a further indication of your self assumption, no one has stated they are fearful. why you must assume values is known only to you. I suspect its simply the only way you know how to communicate on these forums by fabricating values that you can attack them. Its rather pathetic in the original sense of the word if I am honest.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie

If you read the text carefull you will discern that i consider it to be hypocritical to attack the religion of another without having substantiated claims that have been made with regard to ones own a clear reference to startreaders unwillingness to tell us about the trinity

Wait a minute. You mean you accused her of "rank hypocrisy" over child sex abuse because she doesn't want to discuss the "Trinity" with you?

Originally posted by FMF
But surely on page 9 you railed against "the rampant sexual abuse among the clergy of Catholicism which has wrecked the lives of thousands, possibly tens of thousands of young people" and also the "Inquisition" and then accused Startreader of "rampant hypocrisy"? It's there on page 9.

Its your assumption you substantiate it i have told you what i consider to be hypocritical.

Originally posted by FMF
[b] If you read the text carefull you will discern that i consider it to be hypocritical to attack the religion of another without having substantiated claims that have been made with regard to ones own a clear reference to startreaders unwillingness to tell us about the trinity

Wait a minute. You mean you accused him of "rank hypocrisy" over child sex abuse because he doesn't want to discuss the "Trinity" with you?[/b]

I did not accuse him of rank hypocrisy over sexual abuse you assumed that i did because you are self assuming.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
a rather stupid loaded question and a further indication of your self assumption, no one has stated they are fearful. why you must assume values is known only to you. I suspect its simply the only way you know how to communicate on these forums by fabricating values that you can attack them. Its rather pathetic in the original sense of the word if I am honest.

You said "It depends whether they have deviated from the teaching of Christ." So I asked for examples of an ex-JW-now-Catholic having "deviated" so much so that you'd fear having them in your house. It's not a loaded question; it's a point blank response to what you posted.

Originally posted by FMF
You said "It depends whether they have deviated from the teaching of Christ." So I asked for examples of an ex-JW-now-Catholic having "deviated" so much so that you'd fear having them in your house. It's not a loaded question; it's a point blank response to what you posted.

another assumption, no one fears anything, you are slobbering and were caught loading your questions.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
We do not automatically disfellowship someone who commits a serious sin. If, however, a baptized Witness makes a practice of breaking the Bible’s moral code and does not repent, he or she will be shunned or disfellowshipped. The Bible clearly states: “"Remove the wicked man from among yourselves."”—1 Corinthians 5:13.

This is an area I know something about, and you, Robbie, though you tell me you are not and never have been an elder, are coming up with the standard responses approved by the Watchtower.

Predictable as it was, your inevitable casting of accusations at the Catholic Church was out of date and wide of the mark. Anyone who bothers to inform themselves knows very well how assiduously the Church is now addressing this issue and that Pope Francis has been making it a high priority.

I'm not going to address child abuse in the Watchtower right now. Others who know much more than I do may.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
We wont talk of course about the rampant sexual abuse among the clergy of Catholicism which has wrecked the lives of thousands, possibly tens of thousands of young people...

Why don't you start a thread about sexual abuse of children within religious organisations and see how many Catholics choose to defend - in principle - covering up the rape of children by members of their religious organisation?

Like I said, Startreader is surely no more responsible for the sex abuse uncovered in the Catholic church than you are for the sexual abuse that goes non in your church.

However, while you have argued in favour of covering up child sex abuse in the JW organisation, I don't think Startreader is likely to defend - in principle - covering up the abuse of children by members of her Catholic church~ or do you think she is likely to do that?