27 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobI have always preached that humans are imperfect and prone to aberration. I don't know why you are so surprised.
So what has happened in the last 60 mins for you to suddenly concede that you make mistakes and now you may be wrong? You've been a Witness for 15 years and now you suddeny fess up that you could be wrong?! This doesn't add up.
27 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBecause in the past you have claimed this -
I have always known it. I still remain adamant, but simply admit that i may be wrong. Why are you puzzled?
where is the quotation, you have been asked by the Gman and me to produce it for even if the Gman has made the mistake of claiming inspiration for the watchtower, he will retract it, for the watchtower magazine and the publishers themselves have never claimed either infallibility
You even produced these quotes to back up your statement -
1. The Watchtower, the official journal of Jehovah’s Witnesses, has said: “We have
not the gift of prophecy.” (January 1883, page 425)
2. “Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible.” (December
15, 1896, page 306)
3.The Watchtower has also said that the fact that some have Jehovah’s spirit “does
not mean those now serving as Jehovah’s witnesses are inspired. It does not mean
that the writings in this magazine The Watchtower are inspired and infallible and
without mistakes.” (May 15, 1947, page 157)
4.“The Watchtower does not claim to be inspired in its utterances, nor is it dogmatic.”
(August 15, 1950, page 263)
5.“The brothers preparing these publications are not infallible. Their writings are not
inspired as are those of Paul and the other Bible writers. (2 Tim. 3:16) And so, at
times, it has been necessary, as understanding became clearer, to correct views.
(Prov. 4:18)”—February 15, 1981, page 19.
Now you're claiming you could be wrong? Sorry Rob, this just doesn't add up.
I'm off to bed, pistols at dawn tomorrow.
27 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou also said this -
last call before I turn back into a handsome pumpkin?
My concern is dealing with facts and empirical evidence. It has been asserted that we claim inspiration, to date there has not been a single citation which has substantiated that claim. I have produced numerous references, printed from the very beginning of Jehovahs witnesses throughout its modern history in the pages of the watchtower proving that we have never claimed inspiration, proving that we have never spoken in the name of God, proving that we are not infallible and have never claimed to be infallible, proving that we have never claimed the gift of prophecy, proving that even if someone claims they have Gods spirit, doesn't mean that their writings as printed in the watchtower are inspired.
That doesn't sound like someone who thinks they could be wrong.
28 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe statement is not erroneous, and is Scripturally supported. Obviously there is an infinite distance between proclaiming one self to be Christian and actually being a Christian. But please, let us discuss the more important things. Out of all I said in my post, you plucked out that little piece and now want to debate with a fellow believer about secondary doctrine. More importantly, we have a guy here that claims to have been a believer and up and decided one day that it iss all hogwash. Are you saying you believe this to be a distinct possibility?
Once a Christian, always a Christian
this statement is utterly erroneous and not scripturally supported. He who is standing
beware that he does not fall, I believe the apostles words are.
28 Sep 12
Originally posted by FMFThat is a fallacious argument. You never knew the Son of God, because you are sitting here telling us you don't believe there is a God, or therefore a Son, in the first place. It's like saying you once knew and had a relationship with Zeus.
But I am telling you that I did know him. So you've got it wrong. And the fact that you've got it wrong is "on you" and not 'on me'.
Kelly is trying to argue a logical truth; one cannot logically argue to have known something they claim never was.
28 Sep 12
Originally posted by sumydidYou think it's a question of my logic being flawed? That's an interesting assertion.
I won't go as far as to say you are lying; rather I believe your logic is flawed, and you may not understand what a believer actually means when he/she talks about knowing Christ.
Of course I understand what a believer actually means when he/she talks about knowing Christ. I was a believer.
28 Sep 12
Originally posted by sumydidWe are talking about me losing my Christian beliefs. I used to "know" Jesus etc. and used to believe in him. But I still consider myself to be a theist. I don't see how you can assert that I "never knew the Son of God".
You never knew the Son of God, because you are sitting here telling us you don't believe there is a God, or therefore a Son, in the first place.
28 Sep 12
Originally posted by sumydidyou're on to something there, you just need to take it to its logical conclusion:
That is a fallacious argument. You never knew the Son of God, because you are sitting here telling us you don't believe there is a God, or therefore a Son, in the first place. It's like saying you once knew and had a relationship with Zeus.
Kelly is trying to argue a logical truth; one cannot logically argue to have known something they claim never was.
claiming to have a relationship with jesus is the same as claiming to have a relationship with zeus.