User talk:DannyMuse

JW Discussion Posts Here

Welcome! Please post any comments you may have related to current development of the JW page or related issues. --DannyMuse 07:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Danny, sorry it's taken me so long to respond. Real life got unexpectedly busy for a couple of days.

Regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses introduction, I see that you rearranged all the comments about using or not using the word "nontrinitarian" in the intro, so I presume you've read them. The summary of course is that for those of us who don't think the Jehovah's Witnesses can properly be called "Christians" at all, inserting the word "nontrinitarian" is an attempt at compromise that makes calling them "Christian" at all considerably more palatable. I remain puzzled as to why this would be objectionable, since as far as I know, JW's firmly reject trinitarianism as a later deviation from the Gospel. Can you explain, either here or on the JW discussion page, why you think the word shouldn't be used? Wesley 02:52, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Danny, I really appreciate the approach you are taking to this article; slow and careful. Tom - Talk 22:40, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Danny, I too think that it is important to change the article slowly. Concerning the current change of the introduction, I do not see how the readability improved. And I also think that one thing is missing now: my version made clear that it was _their_ decision not to be named Christian. Now it states that their name differentiates them (by the way: is that the right word? I am not a native speaker, but to me it sounds strange). But it no longer contains the message that it was their explicit choice to separate themselves through the name. One other thing: I am thinking about writing a whole paragraph about the relations between JW and non-JW and the quetion of mutual non-acceptance. In that case we would not have to press to much information about this controversy into the introduction. Kind regards Heiko Evermann 16:42, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Other Messages

Danny, Thanks for the good attempt at clarifying the Jesus article. It still needs some work to describe all sides fairly. I'm a newbie and what you modified was my first attempt at a modification. I hadn't read the NPOV. It just seemed that it was describing as fact something that wasn't accepted by many, myself in particular. Thanks, Lyle

JW Discussion Posts Here

Other Messages

References & Useful Links