I’ve just completed the reading of Greg Stafford’s latest book, "The Three Dissertations on the Teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses." Although I appreciate his point-of-view overall, I find that his writing is often difficult to follow and at worst, not forthright on doctrinal issues. Basically, I find his writings rather anemic, he’s just not forthright; he evidently doesn’t want to be DF’d! Consequently, he doesn’t approach certain issues the same way Ray Franz did in his books! Anyway, I thought I’d give his latest book a try, given the wide coverage on this board. But other that his treatise on the blood issue, he avoids making "too many waves" but strikes only several cords of controversy on certain dates and issues! Why write a book where you don’t really state how you feel! I don’t get it! If you’re not going to fight against the Watchtower, then just do it! I suspect he’s confused at the moment and just doesn’t want to be DF’d!
Gred Stafford Not committed--too afraid of being DFd!
by cyberguy 18 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
cyberguy
Here’s a corrected paragraph from above! I tried to edit the prior one, but Simon on some kind of quest and has some bugs in the system, whereby I can’t edit my prior post (which was written in haste and stimulated with a few cocktails late last night!).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ve just completed the reading of Greg Stafford’s latest book, "The Three Dissertations on the Teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses." Although I appreciate his overall points-of-view, I find that his line-of-reasoning is sometimes difficult to follow and at worst, not forthright on certain doctrinal issues. For example, he insinuates that there’s a problem with the Watchtower’s "faithful and discreet slave" interpretation, gives one alternate interpretation, but then proceeds to conclude with a synopsis of current teaching.
Basically, I find his writings interesting on the one hand, but rather anemic on the other. I get the general idea that he doesn’t want to be DF’d! He obviously isn’t approaching doctrinal issues the same way Ray Franz has! Anyway, I thought I’d give his latest book a try. But other that his treatise on the blood issue, he avoids making "too many waves!" His basic conclusion to almost every matter is sort-of-like a plea to a "kinder, gentler organization," (i.e., "let’s got back to the days of Russel"). However, why write a book where you don’t really state how you feel! I don’t get it! On the other hand, I suspect he’s confused at the moment and just doesn’t want to be DF’d! Chances are he’ll get DF’d anyway, so why not just go out with a BANG!
Just my crazy thoughts!
Cyberguy
-
Pork Chop
Maybe what he wrote is how he feels! Did you think of that possibility? Give the guy a break, I think he's doing the best he can.
-
Grunt
After seeing him on this board in two personalities, one bragging on what a good job the other was doing, I haven't haven't had much use for the guy. He lied and got caught in it. He was more or less chased off the board by another Witness who was threatening to turn him in. Didn't show much class in either his dealings with those he was debating or his accuser and blackmailer. I would never want him to get a penny of my money. Grunt
-
Farkel
: Why write a book where you don’t really state how you feel! I don’t get it!
As has been stated already on this thread, he may have written exactly what he feels. And as also has been stated on this board (and I was an eyewitness to this one), he has been caught playing another role and using that other role to pat himself on the back and give himself high-fives.
So, what does this prove? I don't know. All dubs are liars, so Greg cannot be singled out for just that. Perhaps he is in a conundrum and is trying to play the game softly. Perhaps he is sucking up to the Watchtower and hoping he might get invited to join the Writing staff. Perhaps he is just confused. Perhaps he a a shameless charlatan.
Do you see what I'm saying, folks? Greg cannot be personally judged on why he wrote what he wrote. We never walked in his shoes and we cannot know what he is thinking and feeling.
Yes, we can attack the arguments Greg uses, but NO, we should not attack his motives. Only he knows his motives.
Short version: stick with the substance of his book. THAT is fair game. Leave Greg himself alone. That is NOT fair game.
Farkel
-
Sherwood
After seeing him on this board in two personalities, one bragging on what a good job the other was doing, I haven't haven't had much use for the guy. He lied and got caught in it. He was more or less chased off the board by another Witness who was threatening to turn him in. Didn't show much class in either his dealings with those he was debating or his accuser and blackmailer. I would never want him to get a penny of my money. Grunt ******************************** Hey, can you show me the links to these two names on this board where he congratulates himself. I would like to know the two names at least if you can't find the links. TIA ;-) Sherwood
-
Stephanus
Sherwood, the incident referred to occurred on the old H2O board - now defunct. The incident was, however, witnessed by many who still post here. Perhaps someone thought to save those posts...
-
Sherwood
Thanks, then I've read Greg's explanation of that incident on usenet.
Sherwood
-
Pork Chop
So I guess by the standard we use here, everyone that said he posted under two names on this board is a liar?
-
TheOldHippie
Greg Stafford has embarked on one hell of a journey, and I think his publications are such that he deserves loads upon loads of credit and that we hold him in high esteem. His motives should not be questioned. While people here may find it hard or impossible to believe that one can take such a standpoint or view as he does, he so far is the prime spokesman for - what should we call it - a "middle solution", reform, humanization, back to the Bible basics, whatever. Pointing to the problems and malpractices of the human / man-made organization while sticking to the main principles of the theology is a delicate balancing work, and he is mastering it bautifully so far. You may like or dislike what he feels about the theology, but a person should be allowed to believe like the WBTS that there is no soul, no Trinity, no hell etc. without being ridiculed or have one's motives questions by those posting here.
I'm a Staffordian, and I think he is brave like hell.