# *Concerns about AF, Part 1

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by WorldlyWitness [WW] on November 17, 1999 at 19:33:25 {xx2d.1sWpQTmM4Bt2duQm1EPSMpKF.}:

In Reply to: Concerns about AF, Part 1 posted by AP on November 17, 1999 at 08:26:06:

Hi Greggy,
>I will receive, review and respond to his forthcoming reply to my six-part reply, but that is all, unless he apologizes for lying and
for spreading lies. I realize AF has a lot of pride and that this will be practically impossible for him to do, but that is his problem.
The facts are clear, and he has not only shown his one-sidedness in his discussion with me, but with others, also (see below).

>So, after this three-part post I will respond to AF’s forthcoming reply, and that will be that, unless he
apologizes. I am not going to go any further with a dishonest person who only gives out bad arguments, anyway. Why should I

> Still, I also wanted to focus in on your attempt to get out of this one, and your deceit is quite obvious, I believe, even to your
supporters.

You love to cloud the issue with attacks, a typical JW tactic....

>Since neither AF nor myself can know for sure what motivated the Society to write certain things at certain times, particularly as
it relates to those books that are part of the subject of our debate, his attempt to prove anything is merely his asserting of his
opinion as fact. I have several times acknowledged the possibility of his conclusion, but that was NEVER an issue. The issue
was what he thought he could prove, but cannot. The fact is, even though he would not allow momentary incompetence on the
part of the writer(s), he acknowledged it as one of the possibilities. But having a momentary lapse into incompetence, or just
making a terrible mistake, is not in line with AF’s intent to pound the Society. Such momentary incompetence or the potential
for a severe error made in relation to a rather complicated situation involving material in what was then a new book, are just as
possible as AF’s preferred conclusion, and AF cannot prove anything otherwise. But if you disagree with AF, JH and others of
their ilk, then you might as well prepare for the insults and labels of dishonesty.

Do you understand the term, 'preponderance of evidence'? When one views the WTS paper trail, it is amazing that you can even attempt to defend the assertion that the org is God's Channell! I came into this with the idea the JWs had the ONLY CORRECT VIEW OF THE SCRIPTURES and it took only one month of research and prayer to realize that the OPPOSITE IS TRUE.

>I find it very interesting that you here invoke that which is used in a court of law when 1) we are not in a court of law, and 2)
you yourself said:

This is the issue, Greg, which you refuse to acknowledge. The evidence shows that the Society has no business claiming to be 'God's sole channell'. Their reasoning is actually much WORSE than most of the Christian commentary that I have read. You keep weaseling out of this by not answering the question, another JW tactic.
WW

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: **Concerns about AF, Part 1

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]