I seem to have more time on my hands today. Thanks for your response Spider. Today I listened to something very interesting. There was some guy on the Apologetic christain station doing an interview with Greg Stafford, a Jehovah's Witness. They were discussing the deity of Jesus. I will leave it to you to find out who that is, if you dont know. (hint: he has his own websites) What I found was that the interviewer was not really interested in producing his logic and then moving on, as was Stafford. He kept going back to the same simplistic logic that Stafford had disproven, and moreover, his sole intention was not enlightenment into the beliefs of others as he said in the introduction of his show, but to put Witnesses in a bad light. That pretty much spoke everything for me. So I hope that is not your intention as well. You might have noticed I ignored the mudslinging of Six o nine (?) and picked out the true issue, as I will do with you should you resort to such. Ok then. What I"ve been focusing on lately is a lot of CORE technical doctrinal issues, not so much social accusations like "the brooklyn people are bad" or "some witnesses are hypocrites". (About hollywood and movies, yeah like that ER episode, well, thats pretty easy material, you know thats what TV and HOllywood look for. The more drama the better.) What I believe more than anything is that there is a God and he cares about me. We probably agree on that. What we don't agree on is the nature of God, have I spoken correctly? Now lets say that sometime in the future in my studies I will have found that the New World Translation is grammatically, contextually, and linguistically unsound, and that therefore defeats our doctrinal use of it. Well, as a side point, this reminds of the fact that the NWT was not published until about the mid-20th century, and C.T. Russell and his associates started publishing the watchtower in the late 19th century. Before, during, and after the making of the NWT, our viewpoints were refined. But, carrying on. I would have to investigate my finding further and make an appropriate decision. NOw, on the flip side, lets say I were to find the NWT correct grammatically, linguistically and in context, but found that the organizatoin of Jehovah's Witnesses did not represent it accordingly. Well, again, I would have to do the same thing. So far, I have done neither, and don't expect to. Does that answer your question? In fact, spider, yes, I have thought several times, "what if this istn' the truth?" Well, my thought process didn't stop right there. I remembered my past experiences and discussions, and knowledge I had taken in. ANd moreover, my answer to that question, was not in effect an "answer" (I mean, a piece of meaningful language) but rather a course of action. I read again our literature and talked with others with a critical searching eye. When a questoin comes in my head, as they occasionally do, I dig myself into books. ONe day, in the library, i wanted to look up the cross. So, i looked it up in an encyclopedia on religion and found many things about the origin and use of the cross, and different types of crosses. It therefore occured to me that it was not unlikely that 2cd and 3rd century "christians" adapted a widespread symbol to their faith so as to make it acceptable to surrounding nations. Spider, about reading apostate stuff, I would rather consult neutral academic sources that don't have a chip on their shoulder. Did you know though, that in the library of hte research and writing center at the world headquarters in New York, they have an entire section of apostate literature for reference? ok i'm dead tired.
Ps. Everything that isn't dead fact is a point of view..anti-semitism is a point of view...Al Queda propoghanda is a point of view...Osama bin laden HAS a point of view..not to be offensive but just because something is a "point of view" does not mean it should be consulted as a credible source.