Actually i do agree with you. The man does side step many issues. Yet he accurately points out that many scholars are being misrepresented. Regardless of what the scholar may believe or not, it is dishonest to quote whats convenient to a religious group whilst avoiding the rest of the context. The Watch Tower Society is known for Misrepresenting Scholars. Even many Christian Scholars have been misrepresented by this group of individuals so it doesn't surprise me that liberals and unitarian scholars are also being misrepresented. Dr. Julius R. Mantey is one of those Scholars that was misrepresented and if I'm not mistaken he was the one that wrote a letter to the Watch Tower threatening that he was going to sue them if they didn't quote what he said in context. What a shameful group of individuals these leaders of the Jehovah's Witness Society are. Anyways, i did not mean to attack you by saying that the Watch Tower has been dishonest in taking these people out of context. If I've offended you in anyway please forgive me! If you want to retain that against me it is your discretion.
Quoting something out of context doesn't necessarily mean that the quote misrepresents anything, although it can. If I say,
"all men are sinners which is why we need a savior"
and someone quotes me as saying "all men are sinners" and uses that to prove that we don't need a savior somehow, he hasn't misrepresented me, IMO. I didn't find anything that the guy in the video read from the JW publication to be a misquote or quoting out of Context. perhaps you could point out one, but I didn't see one. what I have noticed is that there seems to be this idea floating around CF that if one quotes something someone said, then that person has to believe everything that person ever said about anything. The guy in the video resorted to this, I have seen some people in here take it t o unbelievable extremes, and you seem to be subscribing to it to some extent here. No offense, just an observation. If I have to believe everything someone says in order to quote them , even in a sentence, or a paragaraph or a book chapter or a book or anyting they have ever said, in order to quote them, then I can quote no one for I don't agree with anyone 100 percent. even myself for some things I am unsure of and somethings I hcange my mind on back and forth cause I can't make up my mind on some things.
You can find Manteys letter of objection to JW's here
http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Mantey.htm
What he calls misquoting him is actually just the JW's conclusions from reading what Mantey said. They didn't misquote him, he just got all upset cause they came to a different conclusion than he. He is the one being dishonest not the JW's if you ask me, at least on this subject. someone having a conclusion isn't misquoting. Also Mantey gets upset cause the JW publication only quotes part of what someone said and not their entire works ( ok that's a bit hyperbolic) . Who quotes everything everyone ever said?????????????
ON another subject, if one has a totally illogical nonsensical contradictory doctrine, that any investigation of will reveal, how can one defend it? Confuse um, attack um personally, and condemn um to hell for not believeing it, and totally ignore explaining any and all confusing statements made in it's defence.. That is the only defence of such a doctrine, and the only one used by everyone in here defending such a doctrine. It's what we have to expect, for there is no other defence. Otherwise, they would have to give up their doctrine. It's not that they are incapable of explaining logically, sensibly, and without confusion their statements, it's that the doctrine is incapable of being defended logically, sensibly and without confusion. Trinitarians are as smart as anyone, they just have a doctrine that can't be defended in the logical, sensible, non confusing realm. So say something is distinct but not seperate, and refuse to explain how something is distinct but not seperate because you have to leave the explanation in the confusing realm and to go into the non confusing realm would mean the demise of the confusing explanation, which is the bread and butter defence of trinity. To defend a contradictory, nonsensical, illogical, and confusiing doctrine, one cannot offer non confusing explanations. period.
THat's how I see it, and I guess I'm kind of an idiot for expecting it to be otherwise.
It's also the reason, IMO, that most trinitarian christians don't debate the doctrine with non trinitarians, cause they don't want to attack people personally, and say that people are bound for hell for nonbiblical reasons, and also don't want to have to go into the illogical realm to defend their beliefs. It rubs against the teachings of our Lord.
