# *For Friend

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

Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 22, 1999 at 12:39:52 {k/.KBikg62ePXjHnUl.IOgnjR4Br/g}:

In Reply to: For Friend posted by CPiolo on November 18, 1999 at 18:46:51:

CPiolo

> I don't feel you've successfully countered my above argument. The above example of abortion still holds true.

The issue of abortion is as simple as this: If the majority did not like it they would do something about it. That is remains tells us something about the majority. That is societal acceptance/tolerance.

> This also holds true of JWs. Their existence is tolerated while some of their practices and beliefs are found to be unacceptable and opposed by the surrounding community at large.

Until the majority opposes there is societal acceptance/tolerance. Communities tend to weigh the positive versus the negative. If the there is an acceptable relationship then they tolerate, just as they do the larger community.

> I must disagree. They may admit that individuals may hold divergent views, but from their own literature (quoted below), they do not accept or tolerate even the formation of such views:

> Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock, 1991 Edition
> Persons who deliberately spread (stubbornly hold to and speak about) teachings contrary to Bible truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses are apostates.

Your own citation(s) disputes your statement.

At this point I see no need in continuing. When you better formulate your views then I will be more than willing to continue.

Your
Friend

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: **For Friend

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

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