Jehovah's-Witness . com forum discussions

Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ A kind response to Jim Penton & Ros of Channel C
/  





 

A kind response to Jim Penton & Ros of Channel C
by Amazing 8 years ago 83 Replies latest 8 years ago   watchtower beliefs
«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 »
 5
10
20
Amazing
Amazing 8 years ago

The following are transports of postings on http://www.channelc.org/ made by Jim Penton and Ros regarding myself and James Caputo respectively. The reason that I did not post directly on Channel C is that Ros and many of her board participants do not like to see anything that resembles Catholic discussion, even if the responses are done respectfully and in a spirit of clarifying a false claim or misunderstanding. I too do not like "Catholic" discussions on Channel C, and have not posted there for 9 months until I recently posted an announcement about Tom Cabeen's interviews on EWTN and with Randy Watters. I did post a brief reply to illustrate one important issue.
I have posted a note on Channel C with a link to this posting on JWD. Again, my goal here is not to preach Catholicism, because I am out of the preaching business, and I have a strong distaste for trying to sell anything, especially religion. Rather, the goal here is to simply and respectfully address a few misunderstandings:
Opening Statement: Jim P. and Ros, I care for you both deeply, and consider you Christian bretheran. I have no intention or illusions of trying to preach anything to you about anthing ... my goal here is to reflect on some of your comments respectfully, outside the Channel C forum, and hopefully improve our relationship. I have included James Caputo's respectful responses because I felt that he makes a good case for a balanced view. He is also my friend and Christian brother.
May 14th Jim Penton stated: "I am sick and tired to the point of vomiting over exchanges on Catholicism. Many of the things written and said about Catholicism are extreme and are nothing but unfair propaganda."
Jim W. Thank you for recognizing the unfair propaganda. This is very balanced position for you to take. This issues also highlights the problem which has created a double standard in any discussions on Channel C. Many are permitted to push anti-Catholic propaganda with no check and balance. Then if someone who is sympathetic to Catholic teaching, and desires to set the record straight makes a reply, such persons are accused of preaching and proselytizing. That is the exact and precise cause of the tension. Using the same standards, one could be as easily offended by the constant drumbeat of proselytizing for Free Bible Student doctrine, or other systems of thought and faith presented on Channel C.
Jim Penton: "There is, however, enough wrong with Catholicism that is not propaganda to make me reject it. I think also that we have been over this road before and I am not anxious to go there again. What happens here is that one or two persons come on trying to proselytize for Catholicism or at least defend it, and others start attacking it. The result is that we have something close to flame wars and are diverted from discussing other, more positive issues."
Jim W: The most recent exchanges have not been between attackers and defenders. Rather, they have been between regular board members and their general concensus of disliking anything Catholic. In my case, I simply posted the reference to Tom Cabeen's upcoming interviews with EWTN and Randy Watters. I did so precisely because many of you are long time friends with Tom, as I am. I made one post to link some who are interested in my commentary on JWD, out of respect for Channel C policy. I made one response to Flatlander to illustrate that the blog he used was using inaccurate quotes. I could have done so with all of the quotes he used, but I wanted to be brief, and make a small point about doing more homework. Rud Perrson supported my one point as far as it went. I made no defense of Catholicism. I do not need or want to defend Catholicism ... I prefer to simply live it in a quiet life.
Jim Penton: "Tom Cabeen has been in contact with me and many others through private contacts. He is willing to express his point of view in a kindly manner, and when I am feeling better I will exchange those views with him in a kindly manner. But I simply refuse to get into discussions on Catholicism here on Channel C. This is not the place for them and is a diversion as Ros has rightly pointed out."
Jim W.: Tom Cabeen makes a very positive presentation of the topic of the Catholic faith. I applaud your willingness to listen to him and do so away from Channel C.
Jim Penton: "Of course it is not up to me to tell people what they should write. I believe too strongly in the principle of freedom of speech and communication to attempt to do that. But if the business of dealing with Catholicism pro and con continues as it has in the past, I will be forced to go somewhere else. It has been and can become a pain in a part of the body that doesn't need to be mentioned here."
Jim W.: This is why I left Channel C last August, as the responses to me were less than respectful, and at times intellectually dishonest, blaming me for some of my sarcasm, but conveniently ignoring the sarcasm and unkind comments to which I was responding in fairness. I decided that the discussions were not reasonable or productive, but rather little more than pent up frustrations and attacks. So, I left, as I do not like to been seen as preaching something I do not intend to preach. I only returned to announce Tom's interviews ... and I think you will agree if you take an honest review of my recent postings.
On May 15th Jim Penton stated to Researcher on Channel C: "I do not remember who all were here, especially whether you were here or not when things became tense in the past. But some time ago, James Caputo and a few others carried on what amounted to a proselytizing campaign for Catholicism on Channel C."
Jim W.: This is the rub Jim P, as James Caputo was not in any way proselytizing. He is a highly skilled debater, and quite intelligent, and well informed on religious history. As such, he frustrated the arguments many presented, and so the "proselytizing" charge became too convenient. The response to Ros below by James Caputo illustrates the problem better than I can, and hopefully will make you feel much better.
Jim Penton: "Eventually, Ros had to step in to put a stop to it because it was disrupting everything. She then asked if we should concentrate on things relating to JWs and ex-JWs, to which we agreed. I do not think she wanted to give a narrow interpretation of that, but she can speak for herself on that matter if she wants to."
Jim W: As board owner, she has the right to eliminate any topic from the board's menu ... as she did with discussions on politics, Democrats, Republicans, Communists, the United States, etc. However, time and again, she permits you to make social commentary on those topics ... which is her perogative, but does invite debate from those who may not agree with the positions you take. Time and again, when someone attacks Catholicism, she lets those posts stand ... and when anyone tries to clarify the points presented, such individuals are accused of proselytizing ... much as the Watchtower Society labels some JWs as Apostates when they disagree on a point. If she has a policy to not discuss certain topics, then she needs to enforce it across the board, and everyone needs to respect that policy.
Jim Penton: "Nonetheless, some of our former JW brethren who have become Catholics seemed bound and determined to continue proselytizing in much the same way that they did when they were Witnesses, and I get more than a few posts off line telling me how distressed some are by this. Evidently, now instead of counting time to report to the Society, it may be that our former JW Catholic Brethren are doing so in order to gain indulgences to cut short their time in purgatory. But whether or not, I do not like to see the topic of Catholicism brought back as a major topic here. Personally, I think it is time to accentuate the positive and stop dealing with what we don’t believe."
Jim W.: This is absolutely untrue Jim. The positive feelings some have in discussing Catholicism is no different than the positive feelings some have about discussing Free Bible Student topics. One lesson learned on Internet discussion boards is that if one does not like a topic, or a poster of said topics, then one can simply ignore them. I can only imagine if Simon on this board attempted to limit topics that people do not like, he would have to ban so many issues, that the board would be a blank page. Your comment about Catholics counting time may have been intended as some kind of humor conective to JWs, but it falls flat because Catholics do no such thing. Catholics by and large do not preach their faith, they live it. There is no cutting short purgatory time or indulgences granted in any manner you might think, and your comment reflects unfamiliarity with Catholic teaching on an intimate level. The discussion of these two topics needs more treatment than I can give here and now. As for your remark about positivity, any topic can be positive if the people behind those discussions exhibit positivity ... to paraphrase a popular slogan, "it is not the topics that kill people, it is people who kill people."
Jim Penton: Jim Whitney, when he was last here, said he was still not a Catholic, but he was certainly defending the Roman Church. Now it seems he must have returned to that organization. If so, I wish him well, but please, please, I simply don’t want to deal with that subject or that church here. So I reaffirm what I said in my earlier post. However, you and others are free do as you choose.
Jim W.: First, I never got the chance to defend the Roman Catholic Church. And you cannot find any example of such defense. Also, as I told Ros, I have no interest in defending the Catholic Church, as she can defend herself ... there are far better people like G.K. Chesterton, Tom Cabeen, and others who do a much better job than I could. What did happen is that Researcher begged with Ros for the chance to have at me, and she granted it against her own policy. He attacked me with issues regarding Constantine. He attacked the doctrine to worship on Sunday as being created by Constantine ... this is a typical Adventist argument ... and I simply pointed out historical fact from 200 years earlier that Christians were already worshipping on Sunday. He responded with more quotes about Constantine, and used large bold red letters as though that helps prove his point. I then left the board.
As for my faith, what I stated on Channel C back in August 2007 is that I had "reconciled" with the Catholic Church in June 2006 just as Tom Cabeen became Catholic. However, I have yet to join any Cahtolic Church. Catholics can be Catholic without joining a Catholic Church. Ros suggested that I did it this way to avoid the possibility of excommunication ... but this is where she, and many, fail to understand Catholic teaching. Excommunication is not done by the Church ... rather when a Catholic commits a mortal sin, such as adultery, then one does not take "communion, (the Eucharist)" until one has reconciled with God ... and thus is ex-communion-ized only by one's own private reflection and respect for Christ ... there is no shunning, no public shame, no kicking one out of the Church, and one can rectify this and take communion again right away after one has reconciled with God for the sin of adultery, or murder, or theft, or lying, or drunkeness, or the other works of the flesh mentioned by St. Paul to the Galatians.
The reason that I have not formally joined my local Parish where I attend Mass is a mystery to me, but it is simply not on my urgent list.
If you read this Jim P. thank you, and may God bless you.
The following is James Caputo's response to Ros' comments made to Jim Penton on Channel C on May 15th. The reason that James does not post them on Channel C is that Ros deleted his account ... Though banned from her board, she chose to present an old email by James C. without his being able to defend himself ... I am posting this as a favoir to my friend James as he deserves to be heard in a sense of fairness. I will "try" to limit my own comments to simple narrative. I consider Ros a friend and have known her for about 15 years. She was there on the phone when I ordered my first copy of "In Search of Christian Freedom" ... The quotes Ros made of James Caputo in her post to Jim Penton on the 15th of May were taken from an email she says occured about 5 years ago ... James says the email had to happen before 8 years ago when he bacame a Cantor in the Catholic Church. However, this is not critical.
James C: I would love to be able to speak to Ros's publication of my email in that I believe she and the others labor under a misconception of my present beliefs.
Ros: "I don't normally do this, but back in the early turn of the millenium, I hosted an email list called "Beacon Room". Some of you here participated in that forum. Like Channel C, I questered people about their religious perspective before I brought them into our discussion group. At that time, there was a website called "Disfellowshipped.com" that impressed me. It was hosted by an exWitness fellow named James Caputo. I emailed him and asked about his Christian perspective with the idea of inviting him to partipate in the "Beacon Room". He replied:"
Ros quoting James C older email: "I'm glad to hear that shunning is your big issue with the Watchtower in that I would define that issue as the raison d'etre of disfellowshipped.com. The idea that one's divergent theology merits an absolute barring of that individual from general association or worse yet the withholding of natural affection or familial affection disturbs me greatly.<<
James C today: I have not changed my view on this matter.
Ros quoting James C older email: "It seems to me that historically such a notion was absent in Christianity until about the 4th century when the Nicene debate started to rage."
James C today: My understanding of how the Church established her doctrines and praxis (including that of the New Testament corpus) was limited at the time. As such, I had not even come to grips yet with how to justify my faith in the New Testament short of having some faith in the Church and believing her to have a binding authority.
Ros quoting James C older email: "My religious view since leaving the Watchtower Society is Christian. I believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that his death is a propitiatory sacrifice. Studying the history of Christianity and scripture has led me to the conclusion that the body of Christ is found interspersed throughout the world field of Christian fellowships."
James C. today: This is still my view and the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Ros quoting James C older email: "Therefore, I'm not particularly fastidious about "where" I worship as much as I'm concerned with the "spirit" of the group of Christians with whom I worship."
James C. today: This view has changed given the distinctions mentioned above in re: of scripture itself and the ecclesial dimension of the Church's epistemology.
Ros quoting James C older email: "I would echo and concur with the words of a young Charles Taze Russell when he said the following: "We are in fellowship with all Christians in whom we can recognize the spirit of Christ, and especially those who recognize the Bible as the only standard." (WT 1882, Q&A)"
James C. today: See above. The bible cannot logically be the "only standard" I came to learn, given that the Church preceeds her and determines her canon via her Sacred Tradition.
Ros quoting James C older email: "I've noticed a disconcerting similarity to JWs in some ex-JWs – one which insists on their view of doctrine as the only possible right understanding. This is something for which I have little patience or heart."
James C. today: And yes, I was an inconsistent relativist after leaving the Watchtower. This is not something about which I'm proud. I attribute it to the spirit of the age. When I came of age philosophically, however, I abandoned that sophomoric and limp-wristed approach to divine truth.
Ros quoting James C older email: "I guess I would define my understanding of Christianity in much simpler terms than many Christians. I see it as accepting that there is a God whose character is upright and good. And that this God can be known best through his Son, Jesus."
Ros' comment about James email: How he changed over the next 5 years or so.
James C. today: Indeed! But it's been much longer than five years ago. I've been a baptized Catholic for four years. And yes I thank God that it has changed from a barebones relativistic mode of faith ensconced in some amorphous/fictitious and invisible Church to a philosophically and historically grounded faith that is the shared patrimony of Christians for 2,000 years. I've left my philosophical playpen and rejected the solipsistic world of ex-JWs and have instead been incorporated into the Church founded by Christ. Of this I'm not ashamed. Others greater than me have followed the same course.
I agree that Ros' publishing my private correspondence on a forum from which I'm banned is in poor taste. It doesn't irk me so much, however, in that I see it as a sign of weakness. I've invited her and Penton to dialogue on several occasions and they have always refused. That is not the behavior of people who are cock-sure of their beliefs.
What would have made for an interesting post is if Ros had posed questions regarding what made me change my mind on certain views, how my paradigm had changed.
The fact that I changed my mind in certain respects shouldn't stun anyone. I'm human, after all - a thinking human similar to St. Paul, Augustine, John Henry Newman, Chesterton and many other more and less noble men than myself.
What I find disconcertingly absent in Ros is the desire to learn the reasons that acted as a catalyst to my conversion and the willingness to let me express them without fear that my spiritual journey will be deleterious to her forum and the spiritual health of its participants. Such a discussion is off limits, though. It's considered preaching and outside the purpose of the Channel C mission statement.
Furthermore, I could not have possibly written that email just five years ago given that on her own board a search under "apostolic succession" demonstrates that I was preaching the Catholic faith in July of 2003.
Ros once did engage me in a very hesitant fashion. Here are a few links of an exchange between Ros and me and decide for themselves in which direction the evidence points as it relates to the topics treated in that brief dialogue. Comboxes will permit viewers to comment should they feel the need to do so.
http://studiositas.blogspot.com/2007/02/channel-c-forum-invisible-tower-of.html
http://studiositas.blogspot.com/2007/02/null-ecclesia-other-stumbling-blocks.html
http://studiositas.blogspot.com/2007/02/international-forum-on-square-circles.html
http://studiositas.blogspot.com/2007/02/absence-of-qualification-leads-to.html
To close this post off, I tought the following exchange between Ros and James ... undated ... demonstrates the point:
Ros - "That is why I made it a rule that preaching and proselytizing should not be permitted on my forum."
James C. - "I'm not sure I understand your terms. When you argue that you know for a certainty that there is no hell, how is that not preaching? What if I wrote multiple posts on my certainty of the existence of purgatory and furnished support of my belief via the scriptures and the patristic evidence? Would I be preaching? I believe that you honestly have a blind spot to this glaring double standard. That is to say, when you advance your views, you don't see that as preaching. But when a Catholic follows the same apologetic course in re: of his beliefs, that smacks of preaching in your eyes. Furthermore, how is the perpetual advancement (or unquestioned assumption) of a null ecclesia Christianity not proselytizing? I'd argue that Raymond Franz has preached this form of Christianity via his book _ In Search of Christian Freedom _ and that he has infected an entire generation of former Jehovah's Witnesses as a result. Null ecclesia or an invisible Church theory is every bit as much an ecclesiological position as apostolic succession. It's just that one is visible and historical and the other is solely conceptual. Again, when you advance this ecclesiology, you see it as neutral. But when I wax historical on apostolic succession of the ancient Church, that rubs you as being peculiarly denominational. This is a double standard to which you are sincerely blinded." END QUOTE
James C reflecting on this exchnage: I trust one need not be Plato to see the veracity of my argument and the double standard she unwittingly holds.
Jim W.: James made it clear that he still accepts Christians dispersed throughout the world in various denominations and situations ... Catholics in this regard are most accepting of non-Catholic bretheran ... hence the name Catholic meaning Universal. Pope Benedict in his recent visit to the USA made nearly the same point. So, Catholics like James Caputo, Tom Cabeen, Jeff Schwehm, and many others see Ros, and Jim Penton as Christians and do not expect them to necessarily change ... but somehow Ros and Jim Penton and others on Channel C seem to believe that ex-JWs turned Catholic are tyring to subvert them and preach to them and proselytize them. This is where it stands and shall stay for the forseeable future ... yet, I think James C. made a kind and fair response to Ros, and I hope that I did likewise with Jim Penton.
Ros to suggest that you have a blind spot is not meant to be mean ... it is a point of view. I and others have blind spots ... but, I would hope that as Christians we would look past the straws and rafters in one another's eyes and see a fellow believer.
Pax Vobiscum,
Jim W.
 
Nathan Natas
Nathan Natas 8 years ago

I knew Channel C was exclusive, but I didn't know Ros was a bigot.


big·ot
 (bigÆÃt), n.

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Looks like the shoe fits, though.
 
NanaR
NanaR 8 years ago

Jim:
Thank you for posting this.
I have been following the conversations on Channel C and have been very puzzled by the uproar over the "Catholic" discussion when the people complaining were the very same as the people who were discussing.
The fact that Ros chose to post contents of a private email from James Caputo to a board from which she is denying him participation is inexcusable.
I suggest the Ros should either delete the post which includes the "quotes" from James Caputo or she should post the reply you have given here on the Channel C board in its entirety.
But then, I am not a member of her board, so I doubt she will listen to me.
In Christ,
Ruth
 
vinoverita
vinoverita 8 years ago

Dear Nathan,
I don't believe Ros is a bigot. That is to say, I'm sure she's quite tolerant of the views of others in everyday life and respects the right of others to believe as they choose.
The praxis of her forum, however, has led to intolerance and inconsistency owing largely from a set of fuzzy starting points and parameters in relation to the forum's stated purpose - at least at the time of my participation. That purpose was, in part, as follows:
"Its purpose is to consider the Bible and interpretation of its teachings in the light of study and modern scholarship...that lends to Christian faith independent of church affiliation or popular denominational doctrines...Channel C is not a platform for preaching alternative religious doctrine"
The problem is that she does not clarify what specifically constitutes a "popular denominational doctrine" or "preaching," much less the nature of an "alternative religious doctrine." I and others have attempted to correspond with her on these matters, but to little success.
http://studiositas.blogspot.com/2007/02/international-forum-on-square-circles.html
A cursory glance at her forum will show that, as of late, various participants are liberally expressing their support for Christian conferences associated with the The Free Bible Students - even furnishing dates, costs, etc. If I, however, as a Catholic did likewise, I'd be proselytizing according to her lights of reason. The double standard is lost on her because she has not grappled with the inconsistency and imprecision of her own terms and first principles.
Peace,
James:smile:
 
Satanus
Satanus 8 years ago

I'm glad that jim penton, at least, recognizes catholics as his christian brothers. The intolerance of catholic discussion that you describe is, imo, a sad residue of jwism.
S
 
binadub
binadub 8 years ago

Ros is very good at deleting posts from her board when she doesn't like their content. I suggest she should either delete the post which includes the "quotes" from James Caputo or she should post the reply you have given here on the Channel C board in its entirety.
Dear Ruth:
What are some posts that Ros deleted from Channel C?
What were they about?
Bin
 
Mulan
Mulan 8 years ago

this makes me remember why I am SOOOO over religion of any kind.
 
besty
besty 8 years ago

IMHO ChannelC business should stay there.
JWD is not the headmasters office, if you want an analogy from the playground.
 
Amazing
Amazing 8 years ago

Besty,
Ros is a member of JWD, as I believe Jim Penton is, along with James Caputo ... so since CC will not permit a reply which may involve any mention of Catholicism, and James is banned therefrom, then JWD is a fair and reasonable compromise. It is JWD board members commenting and replying between one another ... so I fail to see any issue.
Jim W.
 
NanaR
NanaR 8 years ago

What are some posts that Ros deleted from Channel C?
What were they about?
Bin:
You would have to ask Ros what they were about, as they are no longer accessible. However, as she is the Administrator of that board, it is her responsibility and privilege to do what she wants. And as Besty points out, JWD is not the "headmaster's office" for message board etiquette.
If I was in correspondence by private email with someone, and ten years later that person chose to cut and paste from my private email on a public board without my permission or without allowing me to answer on the same board, I would cry foul. James Caputo is being more charitable than I would be.
Pax,
Ruth
 
binadub
binadub 8 years ago

Ruth:
But you are the one saying that posts are deleted from the board at will, so I assume you must know this to be he case.
What has been deleted? Discussion of Catholicism?
Amazing says no mention of Catholicism is allowed.
Are posts deleted that mention Catholicism?
Bin
 
besty
besty 8 years ago

It is JWD board members commenting and replying between one another ... so I fail to see any issue.
I might suggest a new thread in the appropriate category and we can all chip in. Otherwise email or blog would be a good solution?
 
NanaR
NanaR 8 years ago

Bin:
You have a pm.
Ruth
 
binadub
binadub 8 years ago

Ruth:
So do I understand that the deletions were across the board and not just Catholics or Catholic threads?
Bin
 
NanaR
NanaR 8 years ago

bin:
I suggested that the Administrator delete a post that contained information contained in a private email. I do not question that Ms. CCAdmin has the right to run her forum however she chooses. I stated that I did not agree with the posting of a private email on a public board. That the email has been posted and that it was a private communication has not been contested by CCAdmin. That is my entire point.
Ruth
ps: In the interest of peace, I have edited my original post to remove the language you seem to find so contentious. In the interest of justice, I still cry "foul" on the use of private communication on a public board.
 
Junction-Guy
Junction-Guy 8 years ago

What exactly is Channel C and what is their agenda?
 
Amazing
Amazing 8 years ago

Besty,
I might suggest a new thread in the appropriate category and we can all chip in. Otherwise email or blog would be a good solution?
Well, I have been on the JWD forum for years ... and a moderator for a couple of years untl about a year ago or so ... I just cannot think of any particular category for this one outside of the "Friends" which I used. You all can "chip in" any time and any category you wish. I need not start a new thread. Email will not do as the comments started in public and deserve to be responded in public. I do not have any blog ... and the solution I chose is the best.
Thanks though for your thoughts,
Jim W.
Junction Guy: Channel C was started by Ros for "scholarly" discussions of Christian issues among JWs and former JWs. Unlike the open registration of JWD, Ros invites people she knows and trusts to participate on her forum. It has worked fairl well ... until tension grew over discussions that involved Catholicism. While some scholarly individuals are there, some have gone, and some are not careful academics ... but it still functions somewhat in line with its original mission.
Jim W.
 
Junction-Guy
Junction-Guy 8 years ago

So is this group made up of religiously diverse people? Is it mainly a born again group? Or is it a JW knockoff? Sorry, just a few more questions.
 
binadub
binadub 8 years ago

Ruth:
Not to keep beating a dead horse, but if the private post would have to be deleted on the other forum, then this wouldn't this whole thread have to be deleted by a moderator too?
Off hand, I didn't see anything in the email of an extreme privacy nature.
Was the writer really super offended about it?
It seems like there is some kind of a competition going on.
Bin
 
toreador
toreador 8 years ago

Hello Vinoverita (James Caputo)
Its really nice to see you joined the forum! ChannelC seems to be an exclusive forum for a group of people with similar mindsets and was never intended, from what I gather from the array of regular forum participants, to be open to everyone who pops in off the street such as JWD is. Hell, JWD even let me apply and receive membership.
I seem to remember when the board was almost shut down and in all fairness to the ChannelC forum administrator, you (there were others, but you seemed to be the ringleader and seemed to have 24 hrs a day to devote to promoting Catholicism), literally took the board over, posting veritable reams of material in each post, quoting extensively from the church fathers and Catholic literature, and this with multiple posts a day, everyday.
So much so, that nothing else was even discussed. From what I remember, you were given ample time to make your point and kindly asked to refrain from insisting everyone acqueisce to your way of thinking. In other words, you insisted on it being your way or the highway. You were asked several times to tone down the diatribes and you simply put up a blind eye to the repeated requests, even poking fun at the admins attempts to quell the runaway Catholicism freight train. You seemed to be like a JW elder on a roll in a judicial committee meeting, so cocksure of himself that the party under interrogation was guilty, and that by God you were going to beat it out of them till they folded. At least that was my impression from reading "some'"of your material. (Noone could have possibly read it all) :wink:

Of course that was some time ago and I have slept since then. I bet you never took no for an answer at the door back in your JW field service days either.
Tor
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
Brainfloss
Thanks to member The Searcher
by Brainfloss a year ago
objectivetruth
Biblical Black & White Proof that The Watchtower is Apostate
by objectivetruth 2 years ago
biblexaminer
PEACE AND SECURITY!
by biblexaminer 16 days ago
FusionTheism
Carefully Examine the Scriptures like the Beroean
by FusionTheism 10 months ago
Listener
The Case of Randy M - WTBTS & Legal Liability
by Listener 4 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/158558/kind-response-jim-penton-ros-channel-c






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ A kind response to Jim Penton & Ros of Channel C
/  





 

A kind response to Jim Penton & Ros of Channel C
by Amazing 8 years ago 83 Replies latest 8 years ago   watchtower beliefs
«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 »
 5
10
20
NanaR
NanaR 8 years ago

Bin:
You have a point. I was offended by the action for personal reasons that I will not discuss here.
And also, as a result of this discussion, I have discovered through research that at least some posts by now-banned posters are still available in the archives at Channel C through the "search" function. So, my apologies to Ros.
James Caputo's ID there was "vinoverita" (he signed his real name to his posts).
Pax,
Ruth
 
Amazing
Amazing 8 years ago

Hi Junction Guy,
So is this group made up of religiously diverse people? Is it mainly a born again group? Or is it a JW knockoff? Sorry, just a few more questions.
The group is somewhat diverse ... Free Bible Students, a few traditional Protestant denominations, some loner Christians, and perhaps an agnostic or two. I am still registered as is Tom Cabeen, and we are Catholic as is Kid Zero, but we are the exception. Kid posts more than we do. Jim Penton, a former JW and history professor (ret.) from the University of Toronto, and book author of Apocalypse Delayed, and JWs and the Third Reich is there along with a few other academic types. Carol Olaf Jonnson, author of The Gentile Times Reconsidered is also there on ocassion, as well as some other lesser known ex-JW authors. There is a strong contingent of anti-Catholic types who as Jim Penton admitted, push false propaganda that is unfair and hurtful. But, even the regular types like Penton have little use for discussions of Catholicism. Toreador, I was there when James Caputo was publishing his discussions on CC. He was not proselytizing as charged. He is simply a skilled and strong debator who frustrated those with lesser skills and weak arguments. James is to the Catholic debate as is my good friend Alan Feuerbacher is to the evolution-science-athiest debate. They are formidable to anyone who locks horns with them ... and those who were not about to handle the debates went crying foul. I stepped in to defend James and after a series of go arounds in public and private, my account was deleted. It was restored later after Ros and I talked at BRCI. A point in your favor is that at times, James would have better served his arguments by quoting salient points, and citing the source or link so one could read the full context if time permitted ... or perhaps he could have used bold font or yellow highlight to allow readers to quickly get to the specific sentences supporting his points ... however, in his favor, he both had the historical support on his side, and he at least provided the material ... and he is academically honest. My defense of James came before I started considering the notion of studying early Church history again, or entertaining the possibility of reconciling with the Catholic Church. So, of anyone, I was not bias in favor of Catholicism, and I feel I was in a fair position to be fair. Those who recall otherwise have yet to produce even one single example of how James Caputo was proselytizing or preaching or being disruptive. I have asked for evidence a number of times, and was given a lot of jibber-jabber ... but not one shred of evidence to support the charges against James. So until such is produced, I abide by the principle of innocent until proven guilty. And knowning James as I do, I stand by him now as a dear friend. Jim W.
 
vinoverita
vinoverita 8 years ago

Hi Tor,
I didn't take the Channel C board over by any means. Discussion of the early Church fathers caught the interest of many of the discussants. When I posted my citations and commentary, they freely interacted with them.
The beauty of a forum of that nature is that a lack of interest in a topic can cause the topic to stop dead after the initial posting, thus precluding the possibility for one to commandeer the forum. Put another way, if discussion of the ante-nicene Church did not interest the group, the group would have expressed as much by simply ignorning any submissions dealing with said topic. There was no reason to shut down the forum or threaten such a shut-down. The forum very much enjoyed the discussions - with the exception of two or three folks - as evidenced by the vigorous participation of many of the members.
Furthermore, I do not ask that anyone acquiesce to my way of thinking. I simply wish to express my views - views which were shared by other members of the forum. Why should Jim Penton be allowed to constantly express his view of scripture, history and the nature of the Church and not I? Why isn't he told to keep his views about the malignity of organized religion to himself? If he can fulminate against the Churches of Christendom with impunity, why can't I say beautiful things about one of them? Isn't that what free conversation is all about, Tor?
I never insisted on my way, either. I simply responded to questions and posts of other forum members. If they had no interest in what I had to say, they could have expressed that much by their silence. But, alas, silence came by imposition not by the general consensus of the board's participants.
>>You were asked several times to tone down the diatribes and you simply put up a blind eye to the repeated requests, even poking fun at the admins attempts to quell the runaway Catholicism freight train.>>
Again, on what basis are some diatribes permitted and others forbidden? Moreover, I poked fun at the admins ridiculous attempt to control the content of the discussants' posts by jury-rigging the site so that Catholic sounding words appeared in a form more in line with her own theology. (i.e. if one typed the word "priest" it showed up as "elder." If one typed the word "Church" it showed up as "congregation").
>>You seemed to be like a JW elder on a roll in a judicial committee meeting, so cocksure of himself that the party under interrogation was guilty, and that by God you were going to beat it out of them till they folded.>>
Others like Tom Cabeen, Jeff Schwehm, Jim Whitney and others would testify contrarily.
>>Of course that was some time ago and I have slept since then. I bet you never took no for an answer at the door back in your JW field service days either>>
I was a Jehovah's Witness for all of a year and a half. And during that time I was traveling with my job and didn't do much door to door ministry at all. So, I can't say I can relate to the whole Jehovah's Witness culture, much less mindset.
>>At least that was my impression from reading "some'"of your material. (Noone could have possibly read it all) ;-) >>
What's your name, Tor? Perhaps I'll remember you from the good old days of Channel C:>)
With affection,
James:smile:
 
a Christian
a Christian 8 years ago

Junction Guy, You aren't missing much at Channel C. Ros rules that discussion board like the Governing Body rules Jehovah's Witnesses. With an iron hand and with no consideration for either the opinions or the feelings of anyone else. I know from experience. I used to participate in discussions on her board regularly. Too regularly in fact. I found myself spending way too much time there, time that I realized could be spent more productively. When I mentioned my feelings on this matter in one of my last posts there Ros decided to try to make me look foolish by posting the contents of one of my private E mails to her which she characterized as me having previously "begged" her to be allowed to participate. Why, she asked quite sarcastically, had I done so if I didn't think posting on her board was time well spent. I posted a reply telling her that she was wrong to post the contents of a private E mail and to belittle me publicly. I told her since she had done both publicly that she owed me a public apology, But instead of providing one she chose to simply delete her offensive post along with my posting privileges. I have heard from several others that over the years Ros has treated many other people in the same rude manner, often without explanation, deleting the accounts of people with whom she has had either doctrinal or personal disagreements. So often so, in fact, that her board has now turned into a virtual spiritual ghost town with sometimes days passing without a single post being added. Some of the few people she has allowed to remain are now so afraid of offending its "sheriff" that their posts are, for the most part, lacking any interesting ("controversial") content. Political discussions are banned. Discussions of the war in Iraq are banned. Discussions of Catholicism are banned. Defenses of religious doctrines which Ros personally disagrees with, such as the Trinity, are banned. And the list goes on. All I can figure is that Ros is now making up big time for all those years when she, as JW woman, was not allowed to hold any position of "power."
 
jeanV
jeanV 8 years ago

I fear fjtoth might have got the point
another look at the book "mistakes were made, but not by me" will not do any harm to any of us.
as to Ros, I have been on channelC just for a short while but have not noticed any of the behaviours that are highlighted here by some posters. but of course I have to admit that I also have my "blind spots" and therefore could be wrong
 
besty
besty 8 years ago

mistakes were made (but not by me) - great book - recommended.
 
Junction-Guy
Junction-Guy 8 years ago

Why would anyone want to be on that board then?
 
yesidid
yesidid 8 years ago

Fjtoth<
Have I told you lately that you're brilliant?
As one who has been reading Chanel C for years, I must say your posts accurately sum up the situation.

yesidid
 
fjtoth
fjtoth 8 years ago

Yesidid,
Thanks. But of course I don't deserve any credit, really. As you've observed, it's pretty obvious what's going on in this thread.
It is deceptive to claim that the thread is "a kind response." What is so "kind" about making the biased claim that Channel C won't listen to anything that is "respectful" and "balanced"? What is "kind" in claiming that contributors to that forum are intellectually dishonest, sarcastic, unkind, unfair and unreasonable, that they "offer little more than pent up frustrations and attacks," that they employ "a double standard," etc., etc.???
Frank
 
quietlyleaving
quietlyleaving 8 years ago



 
vinoverita
vinoverita 8 years ago

Hi Tor,
>>ChannelC seems to be an exclusive forum for a group of people with similar mindsets<<
I'm not sure what you mean by "similar mindsets" given that the participants therein can't seem to agree on much of anything.
>>and was never intended, from what I gather from the array of regular forum participants, to be open to everyone who pops in off the street such as JWD is. Hell, JWD even let me apply and receive membership.<<
That's true. Membership was by invitation only. I was an invited guest.
>>I seem to remember when the board was almost shut down and in all fairness to the ChannelC forum administrator, you (there were others, but you seemed to be the ringleader and seemed to have 24 hrs a day to devote to promoting Catholicism)<<
Fairness has to be extended to all, not only the administrator, Tor. I respectfully responded to questions put to me and engaged others in discussion on the early Church. The hysteria to shut down the forum was unilateral and something not shared by most of the discussants.
>>literally took the board over, posting veritable reams of material in each post, quoting extensively from the church fathers and Catholic literature, and this with multiple posts a day, everyday.<<
The beauty of that kind of forum is that one cannot take the board over given the thread format found therein. If a topic is broached that is of little interest to the members, the topic ends there. (see, for example, Ros' latest installment entitled "A Christian History Lesson") For a discussion to take the board over would require the interest and contribution of other members.
>>So much so, that nothing else was even discussed.<<
That's an exageration.
>>From what I remember, you were given ample time to make your point and kindly asked to refrain from insisting everyone acqueisce to your way of thinking.<<
I don't expect that anyone acqueisce to my thinking, Tor. I simply asked for the right to present my views so long as there was interest in them - which there clearly was.
>>In other words, you insisted on it being your way or the highway. You were asked several times to tone down the diatribes and you simply put up a blind eye to the repeated requests,<<
Mine were not "diatribes" by any stretch of the imagination (unless you consider discussions on Christian epistemology a diatribe). Others on the site freely condemn the Churches of Christendom as blood-stained, whore-like entities. Still others express their views of Evangelicalism as fundamentalism, as steeped in patriotism and benighted. I, however, did no such thing. I focused on historic Christianity, the tradition of the Church from which we derive the New Testament canon and Christian epistemology - that is, how Christians know what they know about the faith. Do a search under "Apostolic Succession" and you can see the nature and spirit of my posts.
>>even poking fun at the admins attempts to quell the runaway Catholicism freight train<<
I poked fun at the admins pathetic rigging of the site so that certain Catholic words appeared more in line with her own theology. For example, if one typed in "priest" the word - after submitting the post - would appear as elder. Heck, she made it so that even the mention of my faith (i.e. Catholicism) would read as "denominationalism." So, the only one who wished to control the views of others was the admin who would simply not brook dissent to the point of actually tampering with people's words. This is hardly ethical, much less respectful of another's faith.
>>You seemed to be like a JW elder on a roll in a judicial committee meeting, so cocksure of himself that the party under interrogation was guilty, and that by God you were going to beat it out of them till they folded.<<
Did you and I ever share thoughts while I was a participant on Channel C?
>>At least that was my impression from reading "some'"of your material. (Noone could have possibly read it all) ;-)<<
That's the point, Tor. You need not have read any of it, much less all of it. That's the beauty of a forum.
>>Of course that was some time ago and I have slept since then. I bet you never took no for an answer at the door back in your JW field service days either.<<
I was only a Jehovah's Witness for all of a year and a half - during which time I traveled with my work. Hence, I have virtually no door-to-door experience.
James
 
vinoverita
vinoverita 8 years ago

Hi Tor,
>>ChannelC seems to be an exclusive forum for a group of people with similar mindsets<<
I'm not sure what you mean by "similar mindsets" given that the participants therein can't seem to agree on much of anything.
>>and was never intended, from what I gather from the array of regular forum participants, to be open to everyone who pops in off the street such as JWD is. Hell, JWD even let me apply and receive membership.<<
That's true. Membership was by invitation only. I was an invited guest.
>>I seem to remember when the board was almost shut down and in all fairness to the ChannelC forum administrator, you (there were others, but you seemed to be the ringleader and seemed to have 24 hrs a day to devote to promoting Catholicism)<<
Fairness has to be extended to all, not only the administrator, Tor. I respectfully responded to questions put to me and engaged others in discussion on the early Church. The hysteria to shut down the forum was unilateral and something not shared by most of the discussants.
>>literally took the board over, posting veritable reams of material in each post, quoting extensively from the church fathers and Catholic literature, and this with multiple posts a day, everyday.<<
The beauty of that kind of forum is that one cannot take the board over given the thread format found therein. If a topic is broached that is of little interest to the members, the topic ends there. (see, for example, Ros' latest installment entitled "A Christian History Lesson") For a discussion to take the board over would require the interest and contribution of other members.
>>So much so, that nothing else was even discussed.<<
That's an exageration.
>>From what I remember, you were given ample time to make your point and kindly asked to refrain from insisting everyone acqueisce to your way of thinking.<<
I don't expect that anyone acqueisce to my thinking, Tor. I simply asked for the right to present my views so long as there was interest in them - which there clearly was.
>>In other words, you insisted on it being your way or the highway. You were asked several times to tone down the diatribes and you simply put up a blind eye to the repeated requests,<<
Mine were not "diatribes" by any stretch of the imagination (unless you consider discussions on Christian epistemology a diatribe). Others on the site freely condemn the Churches of Christendom as blood-stained, whore-like entities. Still others express their views of Evangelicalism as fundamentalism, as steeped in patriotism and benighted. I, however, did no such thing. I focused on historic Christianity, the tradition of the Church from which we derive the New Testament canon and Christian epistemology - that is, how Christians know what they know about the faith. Do a search under "Apostolic Succession" and you can see the nature and spirit of my posts.
>>even poking fun at the admins attempts to quell the runaway Catholicism freight train<<
I poked fun at the admins pathetic rigging of the site so that certain Catholic words appeared more in line with her own theology. For example, if one typed in "priest" the word - after submitting the post - would appear as elder. Heck, she made it so that even the mention of my faith (i.e. Catholicism) would read as "denominationalism." So, the only one who wished to control the views of others was the admin who would simply not brook dissent to the point of actually tampering with people's words. This is hardly ethical, much less respectful of another's faith.
>>You seemed to be like a JW elder on a roll in a judicial committee meeting, so cocksure of himself that the party under interrogation was guilty, and that by God you were going to beat it out of them till they folded.<<
Did you and I ever share thoughts while I was a participant on Channel C?
>>At least that was my impression from reading "some'"of your material. (Noone could have possibly read it all) ;-)<<
That's the point, Tor. You need not have read any of it, much less all of it. That's the beauty of a forum.
>>Of course that was some time ago and I have slept since then. I bet you never took no for an answer at the door back in your JW field service days either.<<
I was only a Jehovah's Witness for all of a year and a half - during which time I traveled with my work. Hence, I have virtually no door-to-door experience.
James
 
vinoverita
vinoverita 8 years ago

Hi Tor,
>>ChannelC seems to be an exclusive forum for a group of people with similar mindsets<<
I'm not sure what you mean by "similar mindsets" given that the participants therein can't seem to agree on much of anything.
>>and was never intended, from what I gather from the array of regular forum participants, to be open to everyone who pops in off the street such as JWD is. Hell, JWD even let me apply and receive membership.<<
That's true. Membership was by invitation only. I was an invited guest.
>>I seem to remember when the board was almost shut down and in all fairness to the ChannelC forum administrator, you (there were others, but you seemed to be the ringleader and seemed to have 24 hrs a day to devote to promoting Catholicism)<<
Fairness has to be extended to all, not only the administrator, Tor. I respectfully responded to questions put to me and engaged others in discussion on the early Church. The hysteria to shut down the forum was unilateral and something not shared by most of the discussants.
>>literally took the board over, posting veritable reams of material in each post, quoting extensively from the church fathers and Catholic literature, and this with multiple posts a day, everyday.<<
The beauty of that kind of forum is that one cannot take the board over given the thread format found therein. If a topic is broached that is of little interest to the members, the topic ends there. (see, for example, Ros' latest installment entitled "A Christian History Lesson") For a discussion to take the board over would require the interest and contribution of other members.
>>So much so, that nothing else was even discussed.<<
That's an exageration.
>>From what I remember, you were given ample time to make your point and kindly asked to refrain from insisting everyone acqueisce to your way of thinking.<<
I don't expect that anyone acqueisce to my thinking, Tor. I simply asked for the right to present my views so long as there was interest in them - which there clearly was.
>>In other words, you insisted on it being your way or the highway. You were asked several times to tone down the diatribes and you simply put up a blind eye to the repeated requests,<<
Mine were not "diatribes" by any stretch of the imagination (unless you consider discussions on Christian epistemology a diatribe). Others on the site freely condemn the Churches of Christendom as blood-stained, whore-like entities. Still others express their views of Evangelicalism as fundamentalism, as steeped in patriotism and benighted. I, however, did no such thing. I focused on historic Christianity, the tradition of the Church from which we derive the New Testament canon and Christian epistemology - that is, how Christians know what they know about the faith. Do a search under "Apostolic Succession" and you can see the nature and spirit of my posts.
>>even poking fun at the admins attempts to quell the runaway Catholicism freight train<<
I poked fun at the admins pathetic rigging of the site so that certain Catholic words appeared more in line with her own theology. For example, if one typed in "priest" the word - after submitting the post - would appear as elder. Heck, she made it so that even the mention of my faith (i.e. Catholicism) would read as "denominationalism." So, the only one who wished to control the views of others was the admin who would simply not brook dissent to the point of actually tampering with people's words. This is hardly ethical, much less respectful of another's faith.
>>You seemed to be like a JW elder on a roll in a judicial committee meeting, so cocksure of himself that the party under interrogation was guilty, and that by God you were going to beat it out of them till they folded.<<
Did you and I ever share thoughts while I was a participant on Channel C?
>>At least that was my impression from reading "some'"of your material. (Noone could have possibly read it all) ;-)<<
That's the point, Tor. You need not have read any of it, much less all of it. That's the beauty of a forum.
>>Of course that was some time ago and I have slept since then. I bet you never took no for an answer at the door back in your JW field service days either.<<
I was only a Jehovah's Witness for all of a year and a half - during which time I traveled with my work. Hence, I have virtually no door-to-door experience.
James
 
vinoverita
vinoverita 8 years ago

Hi Tor,
>>ChannelC seems to be an exclusive forum for a group of people with similar mindsets<<
I'm not sure what you mean by "similar mindsets" given that the participants therein can't seem to agree on much of anything.
>>and was never intended, from what I gather from the array of regular forum participants, to be open to everyone who pops in off the street such as JWD is. Hell, JWD even let me apply and receive membership.<<
That's true. Membership was by invitation only. I was an invited guest.
>>I seem to remember when the board was almost shut down and in all fairness to the ChannelC forum administrator, you (there were others, but you seemed to be the ringleader and seemed to have 24 hrs a day to devote to promoting Catholicism)<<
Fairness has to be extended to all, not only the administrator, Tor. I respectfully responded to questions put to me and engaged others in discussion on the early Church. The hysteria to shut down the forum was unilateral and something not shared by most of the discussants.
>>literally took the board over, posting veritable reams of material in each post, quoting extensively from the church fathers and Catholic literature, and this with multiple posts a day, everyday.<<
The beauty of that kind of forum is that one cannot take the board over given the thread format found therein. If a topic is broached that is of little interest to the members, the topic ends there. (see, for example, Ros' latest installment entitled "A Christian History Lesson") For a discussion to take the board over would require the interest and contribution of other members.
>>So much so, that nothing else was even discussed.<<
That's an exageration.
>>From what I remember, you were given ample time to make your point and kindly asked to refrain from insisting everyone acqueisce to your way of thinking.<<
I don't expect that anyone acqueisce to my thinking, Tor. I simply asked for the right to present my views so long as there was interest in them - which there clearly was.
>>In other words, you insisted on it being your way or the highway. You were asked several times to tone down the diatribes and you simply put up a blind eye to the repeated requests,<<
Mine were not "diatribes" by any stretch of the imagination (unless you consider discussions on Christian epistemology a diatribe). Others on the site freely condemn the Churches of Christendom as blood-stained, whore-like entities. Still others express their views of Evangelicalism as fundamentalism, as steeped in patriotism and benighted. I, however, did no such thing. I focused on historic Christianity, the tradition of the Church from which we derive the New Testament canon and Christian epistemology - that is, how Christians know what they know about the faith. Do a search under "Apostolic Succession" and you can see the nature and spirit of my posts.
>>even poking fun at the admins attempts to quell the runaway Catholicism freight train<<
I poked fun at the admins pathetic rigging of the site so that certain Catholic words appeared more in line with her own theology. For example, if one typed in "priest" the word - after submitting the post - would appear as elder. Heck, she made it so that even the mention of my faith (i.e. Catholicism) would read as "denominationalism." So, the only one who wished to control the views of others was the admin who would simply not brook dissent to the point of actually tampering with people's words. This is hardly ethical, much less respectful of another's faith.
>>You seemed to be like a JW elder on a roll in a judicial committee meeting, so cocksure of himself that the party under interrogation was guilty, and that by God you were going to beat it out of them till they folded.<<
Did you and I ever share thoughts while I was a participant on Channel C?
>>At least that was my impression from reading "some'"of your material. (Noone could have possibly read it all) ;-)<<
That's the point, Tor. You need not have read any of it, much less all of it. That's the beauty of a forum.
>>Of course that was some time ago and I have slept since then. I bet you never took no for an answer at the door back in your JW field service days either.<<
I was only a Jehovah's Witness for all of a year and a half - during which time I traveled with my work. Hence, I have virtually no door-to-door experience.
James
 
Amazing
Amazing 8 years ago

fjtoth, besty, and JeanV,
Humor only works if there is a grain of truth in it ... there is no truth in your attempt at humor. This thread is not intended to bring CC issues here ... it is to two specific people who do not want any discussion on that forum that vehemently hate the use of the word "Catholic" or Catholic thoughts. Yet they both chose to invoke my name and James Caputo's name while he is banned and cannot defend himself on that board. They did so in public. Since they are members of this board, then it is fair game to ask them to step off of their board and talk on this one so as to avoid the problem rules.
fjtoth:
It is deceptive to claim that the thread is "a kind response." What is so "kind" about making the biased claim that Channel C won't listen to anything that is "respectful" and "balanced"? What is "kind" in claiming that contributors to that forum are intellectually dishonest, sarcastic, unkind, unfair and unreasonable, that they "offer little more than pent up frustrations and attacks," that they employ "a double standard," etc., etc.???
The truth is always kind ... and I expressed it respectfully. Your claims of deception exhibit a poor understanding of the dynamics of what is going on, and an obvious bias on your part. Jim Penton himself admitted intellectual dishonesty on the part of those who attack Catholicism. The real problem is not the sarcasm, or unreasonable remarks, it is the fact that I am respecting their board policy by not discussing anything Catholic. I have not choice to find another avenue to deal with the issue.
If you do not like it, then stay off of this thread. I see countless topics on JWD that hold no interest for me ... so I simply move on. I don't visit those threads and whine and cry and belly-ache about how I don't like those threads. So move on, and go read and comment on something that is better suited to your needs.
Jim W.
 
vinoverita
vinoverita 8 years ago

Hi A Christian,
>>Ros rules that discussion board like the Governing Body rules Jehovah's Witnesses. With an iron hand and with no consideration for either the opinions or the feelings of anyone else>>
I have to agree. She did, after all, even go so far as to disfellowship many of us from the site. The double standards in terms of the board's praxis are legion and derive, as I've outlined, from imprecise terms and fuzzy first principles. Hence, I honestly don't think she realizes what she's doing. I can't, therefore, impute bad motives to her.
>>I have heard from several others that over the years Ros has treated many other people in the same rude manner, often without explanation, deleting the accounts of people with whom she has had either doctrinal or personal disagreements. So often so, in fact, that her board has now turned into a virtual spiritual ghost town with sometimes days passing without a single post being added. Some of the few people she has allowed to remain are now so afraid of offending its "sheriff" that their posts are, for the most part, lacking any interesting ("controversial") content.>>
Supression of free discourse tends to vitiate intellectual dynamism. We've seen the same take place in the Watchtower Organization. Where freedom of speech and thought are blocked, so is creativity and genuine learning.
>>Discussions of Catholicism are banned. Defenses of religious doctrines which Ros personally disagrees with, such as the Trinity, are banned. And the list goes on. All I can figure is that Ros is now making up big time for all those years when she, as JW woman, was not allowed to hold any position of "power." >>
Interesting theory:>)
James:smile:
 
quietlyleaving
quietlyleaving 8 years ago

imo it is better to have no discussion, sometimes if one set of views persistently and powerfully dominating the debate.
I remember visiting channel C on a number of occasions and to be fair I remember Roz saying that the trinty doctirne (for example) had been debated to death and that she did not want any more discussions about it. I think she made a fair point. In no way does that even remotely sound like the sort of tactics the WTS uses even if she did lock persistant evangelizers off of the board. IMO that is an over the top opinion and seems to denigrate roz unfairly. After all roz is entitled to define what she sees as fit for discussion on her board.
my 2 cents
 
Carlos_Helms
Carlos_Helms 8 years ago

I agree, Jim. Apparently there is now some disagreement on what is meant by "kind." I would guess that the very mention of "disagreement" is perceived unkind by someone.
I have been to sites where everyone agrees with everyone else (some may recall "Al's" board, "Jehovah's Judgment," dedicated entirely to hate-filled attacks by Witness "faithfuls" on members of other boards..and those - needless to say - were never permitted to respond in their own defense). That site was (is?) nothing but a back-slapping, good ol' boy orgy of hate where the circumstances, intentions and motives of others is thrown out the window in favor of an uncivil and mutually-agreed upon hyper-critical (and often obscene) judgment of others. It is a logical extension of unreasonable censorship.
There is a fair amount of "I may not always be right...but I am NEVER wrong" present on all discussion boards; but public response to public criticism is almost always considered fair-play. Not to compare Caputo to Jesus; but as I recall, Jesus was quite disagreeable at times. Some no doubt felt his (rather long) criticisms were "unkind." I've seen nothing in the Caputo posts that even comes close to Jesus' animadversions. To the contrary, I see them as engaging attempts to respond to criticisms of Catholicism in a media with self-imposed limitations. Ya gotta do what ya gotta do!
Peace!
Carlos
 
vinoverita
vinoverita 8 years ago

Hi Quietly Leaving,
>>imo it is better to have no discussion, sometimes if one set of views persistently and powerfully dominating the debate>>
A debate cannot go on endlessly with uninterested parties. The worst that can happen is that both camps will better understand each other and grow intellectually in their understanding of the issue under discussion.
While Ros may feel that she gave me more than ample opportunity to express myself and how I came to embrace what I hold to be true, I would argue contrarily in light of a post of one of her participants, which reads:
>>I do wonder what prompted his fanatical conversion. I have never met, spoken to, or had a conversation in any fashion with a person of any denomination who to such an extent fanatically sticks to every papal, Catholic official statement that there is. The guy is a psycholigical enigma to me. Totally.>>
I would contend that most of the discussants didn't even give the Catholic faith a fair assessment. Nor do they know from whence I speak. Tom Cabeen, Jim Whitney and Jeff Schewhm would say as much.
Even Ros fallaciously writes:
>>Incidentally, the 5 years I mentioned was from the date of that email in the mid 90s to when he became a Catholic again, not to the present.>>
The problem, though, is that I never "became a Catholic again." I was reared as a Jehovah's Witness, baptized at the age of 25, left the organization at the age of 26 1/2, spent half a decade or so in Protestant Churches and home Churches to then become acquainted with Catholicism via historical study and an opportunity to sing in the Church and see her from within.
Hence, not even Ros knows my story accurately, much less the members of her forum. And most of the presentations of the faith on that forum are a gross perversion. That's a disservice to searching Jehovah's Witnesses and a black eye on the intellectual community found among former Jehovah's Witnesses.
>>I remember visiting channel C on a number of occasions and to be fair I remember Roz saying that the trinty doctirne (for example) had been debated to death and that she did not want any more discussions about it. I think she made a fair point. In no way does that even remotely sound like the sort of tactics the WTS uses even if she did lock persistant evangelizers off of the board.>>
This is fuzzy and inconsistent thinking, Quietly leaving. Why does one's discussing the Trinity (or defending it for that matter) constitute him a "persistent evangelizer" whereas one embracing a unitarian view of the nature of God (and freely expressing as much) doesn't? You don't see a double standard in that?
<<IMO that is an over the top opinion and seems to denigrate roz unfairly. After all roz is entitled to define what she sees as fit for discussion on her board.<<
Then she should specify what her creed is and prohibit from the forum those who do not hold to it. The imprecison in her charter makes such a creed elusive, though. She very clumsily refers to non-sensical terms such as "popular denominational beliefs" or "alternative religions" without ever defining them. It is from this unreflective starting point that tension arises.
Furthermore, a group that can't - by their own admission - agree on much of anything (so much so that any kind of a post-JW fellowship is deemed impossible) has no right to ban others for disagreeing with their views. Especially when there is no such concrete thing as "their views."
Peace to you,
James:smile:



 
AGuest
AGuest 8 years ago

I don't believe Ros is a bigot. That is to say, I'm sure she's quite tolerant of the views of others in everyday life and respects the right of others to believe as they choose.
While I am not sure I'd use the word "bigot"... I have to say that, unfortunately, I did not find "tolerance" to be Ros' strong suit in my interchanges with her. Downright mean, she was, at times. It was long ago and I've held no grudge, but, as I stated on another thread, people don't change. Some of them just take their "balls" and go "play" [the same games] elsewhere.
May you all have peace!
A slave of Christ,
SA
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
the following are transports of postings on http://www.channelc.org/ made by jim penton and ros regarding myself and james caputo respectively.
the reason that i did not post directly on channel c is that ros and many of her board participants do not like to see anything that resembles catholic discussion, even if the responses are done respectfully and in a spirit of clarifying a false claim or misunderstanding.
i too do not like "catholic" discussions on channel c, and have not posted there for 9 months until i recently posted an announcement about tom cabeen's interviews on ewtn and with randy watters.



Related Topics
Brainfloss
Thanks to member The Searcher
by Brainfloss a year ago
objectivetruth
Biblical Black & White Proof that The Watchtower is Apostate
by objectivetruth 2 years ago
biblexaminer
PEACE AND SECURITY!
by biblexaminer 16 days ago
FusionTheism
Carefully Examine the Scriptures like the Beroean
by FusionTheism 10 months ago
Listener
The Case of Randy M - WTBTS & Legal Liability
by Listener 4 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/158558/kind-response-jim-penton-ros-channel-c?page=2&size=20






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ A kind response to Jim Penton & Ros of Channel C
/  





 

A kind response to Jim Penton & Ros of Channel C
by Amazing 8 years ago 83 Replies latest 8 years ago   watchtower beliefs
«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 »
 5
10
20
fjtoth
fjtoth 8 years ago

Jim W.:
Apparently the humor is working since it's found a response. Some agree with it and you yourself have paid attention to it enough to comment on it. No matter how much you deny it, you wittingly brought CC issues here so you could vent your dissatisfaction before many. Though your complaints are admittedly with only "two specific people," you chose to place them before the hundreds and thousands who might visit this thread, many of whom have never heard of CC. That seems quite childish to me.
You fool only those who hold to your viewpoint. To say you are being "kind" while accusing your opponents of being "unreasonable" and 'vehemently hateful' is highly insincere, to say the least.
Additionally, your claim that I don't know what's going on fails to take into account that I've paid attention to CC for years and that I nearly prayed for the day when your long, long, long rambling verbiage would come to an end. I prefer to be your friend rather than your enemy, but as you yourself have said: "The truth is always kind." Consider the truthfulness of what I'm telling you here a kindness on my part.
Frank
 
NanaR
NanaR 8 years ago

Bin:
Perhaps you and the other posters here would like to review some posts from a few years ago that I found in the JWD archives:
Channel C Decides to Stay Open!
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/95228/1.ashx

Pax,

Ruth
ps: The "dust up" that this thread talks about was on political issues, not Catholicism. I believe it happened after the "Catholic Wars".

 
Amazing
Amazing 8 years ago

fjtoth,
Apparently the humor is working since it's found a response. Some agree with it and you yourself have paid attention to it enough to comment on it.
Calling it humor did not make it humor. A response is irrelevant to it working as humor ... but I responded to try and clarify ... which you seem to hold little interest.
No matter how much you deny it, you wittingly brought CC issues here so you could vent your dissatisfaction before many. Though your complaints are admittedly with only "two specific people," you chose to place them before the hundreds and thousands who might visit this thread, many of whom have never heard of CC. That seems quite childish to me.
Your allegations are without merit. Employment of the "deny" label is just that, a label, without providing one scintilla of support for your claim. I have already sufficiently clarified why I opened up a public thread. False statements were made on a public forum which does not tolerate certain topics ... so, I opened up a thread in public and invited the two people addressed to view and/or dialogue out of respect for their policy. I never stated I disagreed with their policy, but rather that I was respecting it. There is nothing childish about putting a problem before hundreds of thousands of readers ... otherwise what you suggest means that JWD and all Internet forums should shut down and go away for fear of being childish ... well, that is not going to happen.


You fool only those who hold to your viewpoint. To say you are being "kind" while accusing your opponents of being "unreasonable" and 'vehemently hateful' is highly insincere, to say the least.
I never used the words you suggest. You demonstrate how weak and pathetic your point is that you have to employ falsehood.
Additionally, your claim that I don't know what's going on fails to take into account that I've paid attention to CC for years and that I nearly prayed for the day when your long, long, long rambling verbiage would come to an end.
Well then, go pay more attention to CC. Again your claim about long, long rambling verbiage is again false and not supported by one single bit of evidence. Further, when those I respond to like Jim Penton employes long long verbiage, then one cannot be faulted for useing a lot of words to respond to a lot of words. So go pray for Jim Penton.
I prefer to be your friend rather than your enemy, but as you yourself have said: "The truth is always kind." Consider the truthfulness of what I'm telling you here a kindness on my part.
No, you do not prefer to be my friend. If you had told truth, I would agree with you ... but you chose unwisely to employ falsehood in an effort to prove your point. I have no use for such tactics, and I have no interest in conversing with you until you change your tactics.
Jim W.

 
GMahler
GMahler 8 years ago

I must confess that I am more of a "lurker" in this forum than a poster. I do, however, have some knowledge of the events that transpired in this case and I would like to add my two cents. It was when I first began my journey from the Watchtower Society some six years ago that I became acquainted with the Channel C forum. Looking for an alternative to my JW upbringing, I had hoped to find a place where close-minded dogmatism was replaced with open-minded dialogue. At first I thought I had found such a place. Over time, however, it became apparent that Channel C was not the kind of forum I had imagined. I know Jim Caputo personally. He and Tom Cabeen were the first ex-JW's I came into contact with as I began my exit from the WTS. I've known Jim Caputo for six years and during that time have had many conversations with him. At no time during our exchanges did Jim proselytize or attempt to convince me that I would be any lesser of a person if I did not join the Catholic Church. I can say in all honesty that you will never meet a person more open-minded than Jim Caputo. That doesn't mean that he doesn't have an opinion to express. But he always leaves the option open to you as to whether or not to accept it. I will never forget the time Jim said to me, "If you were to call me tomorrow and tell me that you accept the Faithful and Discreet Slave as God's authority, I would still accept you as a friend". I was a witness to many of the exchanges between Jim P. and Jim C. when they first took place. I felt that it amounted to nothing more than a smear campaign by Jim P. I have read many of the posts of Jim P. that do not pertain to the Catholic faith, but to his distaste for the WTS. I have always been amazed at the irony of this. Jim P. has no problem criticizing the WTS for it's close-mindedness and intolerance to divergent beliefs, but has not problem taking the same approach to those who disagree with him, especially when it comes to matters of doctrine. While I respect the education Jim P. has received in Church History, he has displayed by his comments that he has some bias, or even ignorance, when it comes to certain features of this field. Even if after all his research and education he has come to have a different view that Jim C., he should at least allow him the courtesy of having an opinion. I saw on Channel C how while any diatribes against Catholicism were not only tolerated, but encouraged. On the other hand, any defense against such criticisms were automatically labeled as "proselytizing". Even an attempt to correct simple misunderstandings of the Catholic faith were met with the most severe condemnation. The truth is, there are many on Channel C who have sincere questions and who are not looking for debate. Perhaps they will join the Catholic faith, perhaps they will not. Whatever decision they make, it must be a balanced and informed decision. It is for this reason that they should here both sides, not simply restricted to hearing only what those against the Catholic faith have to say. I am not an apologist for the Catholic faith. At this point in my life I do not affiliate myself with any religious faith. I am, however, opposed to intolerance, which I believe the Channel C forum is guilty of. To those who are not familiar with it, it may seem like a place for those who have questions about their faith to find open-minded dialogue. Many who come to such forums are a different places in their life. Some have begun their exit from the WTS. Others are just considering it. Or perhaps they have no desire to exit, but just want to have an outlet for their doubts. It is important, therefore, that in whatever forum they find themselves, they are able to find others who will be tolerant of their beliefs. When I left the WTS I wanted to escape intolerance, not simply find another environment conducive to intolerance. And this is what I feel Channel C has created. It feels like they've created their own online version of the WTS. It is for this reason that I no longer have any interest with Channel C.
 
fjtoth
fjtoth 8 years ago

GMahler:
No one is claiming that mistakes were made on only one side at CC. Neither is anyone here condemning the Catholic Church. What I find offensive is Jim W's obvious attempt to smear another forum simply because he hasn't been able to get control of it to promote his own personal agenda.
Frank
 
quietlyleaving
quietlyleaving 8 years ago

James

>>I remember visiting channel C on a number of occasions and to be fair I remember Roz saying that the trinty doctirne (for example) had been debated to death and that she did not want any more discussions about it. I think she made a fair point. In no way does that even remotely sound like the sort of tactics the WTS uses even if she did lock persistant evangelizers off of the board.>>
This is fuzzy and inconsistent thinking, Quietly leaving. Why does one's discussing the Trinity (or defending it for that matter) constitute him a "persistent evangelizer" whereas one embracing a unitarian view of the nature of God (and freely expressing as much) doesn't? You don't see a double standard in that?
may I suggest that it is "fuzzy and inconsistent thinking" to you because you are taking it out of context.
 
mouthy
mouthy 8 years ago

GOD the "kids" are at it again
 
Justitia Themis
Justitia Themis 8 years ago

Amazing, if it is so awful at Channel C, you should be glad to be gone. Who would want to waste his or her time as a site such as you described. Perhaps a more emotionally balanced response is to "quietly" leave Channel C, without looking for another forum in which to air your anger towards them.
Recommendation: move on, get over it.
 
fjtoth
fjtoth 8 years ago

Justitia Themis:


Recommendation: move on, get over it.

You hit the nail on the head. Jim's problem is that he just doesn't seem able to "get over it."
Frank
 
a Christian
a Christian 8 years ago

As I recall, Jim W started this thread in order to respond publicly to criticism which had been publicly leveled against him and others of like mind on the Channel C discussion board.
As I understand it, Jim W did so here only because he was not allowed to do so there. (Jim W is not allowed to defend his Catholic beliefs on that discussion board and Jim C is not allowed to post anything there at all.) But those who are still allowed to post at Channel C, along with the owner of that board herself, are perfectly free to there criticize Catholic beliefs and to even there criticize individual Catholics who are no longer allowed to post there, like Jim C. (And, judging from the conduct of that board's owner, they are even free to post the contents of private E mails while they criticize people who are not allowed to there publicly respond to their criticism.) With these things in mind (and kowing that many Channel C readers read the posts on this board and that many JWD readers read the posts on Channel C) it seems perfectly reasonable to me that Jim W, Jim C, and others who are not allowed to publicly defend themselves on Channel C against personal attacks that are there publicly posted, would choose to utilize this board in order to publicly respond to such attacks.
 
Blueblades
Blueblades 8 years ago

Hi Jim! How is your health, your heart? It's been awhile since we exchanged topic responses.
I don't wish to get involved on either side of the discussion boards concerning your present topic here. It can become very taxing on my health, as I have aortic stenosis of the valve.
I hope that you are taking good care of yourself and not stressing out your heart with these responses.
I remember the days when I use to follow all your topics here on JWD before you had to stop posting because of your involvement with judicial matters.
How is your family doing? We are getting older, in our sixties now. Where has the time gone? It was just yesterday in 1969 when that first knock came at our door. When is your book coming out?
Take good care of yourself
Blueblades
 
Amazing
Amazing 8 years ago

Justitia,

Amazing, if it is so awful at Channel C, you should be glad to be gone. Who would want to waste his or her time as a site such as you described. Perhaps a more emotionally balanced response is to "quietly" leave Channel C, without looking for another forum in which to air your anger towards them. ... Recommendation: move on, get over it.
Your point, like Fjtoth, is irrelevant and untruthful. I never stated it was so aweful at CC. I did state that I agreed with and respected the forum policy, and that is why I posted here. Evidently, it would help you to read and understand a thread. And I am not smearing CC as falsely suggested by Fjtoth. I rather liked it at CC and I care about the people on CC. I left because the Catholic dicusssions were unproductive and very negative as acknowledged by Jim Penton. The purpose of this post on JWD was made clear at the outset ... there is nothing to move on to ... there is nothing to get over. Public claims were falsely made about James Caputo and myself by two people, not an entire discussion board. Both James and I respectfully addressed those claims. Ros read our responses, and did not challenge them here, or on her forum, but she did acknowledge them. Therefore, as far as I am concerned this thread did its job ... the subject is closed. It is immature cry-babies who have nothing better to do than then to attempt to chide and bate me into an arguement that I will not engage.
Adios, Jim W.
-------------------------------
A Christian,
Thanks for your comments above. Your concise paragraph captured the point wuite well. And at times I will continue to post on CC. I will simply respect that board's policy and refrain from discussions of Catholic teaching and doctrine. It is refreshing to read your fair comments that demonstrate rational thinking ability. - Jim W.
Blueblades,
Good to see you too. My heart is doing very well. I had another close call in August of 2006, but my heart over all is doing well. Thanks, - Jim W.
 
fjtoth
fjtoth 8 years ago

Jim W.:
Therefore, as far as I am concerned this thread did its job ... the subject is closed.
At last! It's so good that you've been able to reach this stage! Now those of us who have chosen to remain non-Catholic may feel comfortable in knowing we will no longer feel chided as though we possess inferior knowledge of what Catholicism is all about. Congratulations!
Frank
 
whereami
whereami 8 years ago

fjtoth if this thread bothers you so much, why comment? I don't get all the sarcasim with your cartoons. It's funny how some responding to this thread will tell Jim to practicly shut up & stop crying and move on, but they can't do the same if they themselves don't like the tread. Weird.
 
Carlos_Helms
Carlos_Helms 8 years ago

Good for you, Frank!
You got in your "last word." That's like a 2-point conversion at the end of a 4 touchdown spanking.
Were you ever threatened by "those Catholics"? You act as if this whole thing was directed at you.

Carlos
 
fjtoth
fjtoth 8 years ago

Whereami:
Isn't it just as weird that you felt it necessary to comment on my comments? It seems you're doing the same thing you feel I shouldn't do. Additionally, I know none of us can please everybody. If you didn't get the point of my cartoons, others did, and some said they appreciated them. I have no idea where you and Jim got the idea that somebody is "crying" over this topic. I never told Jim to "shut up" but there were times on CC when I wished he did. He claims he wasn't trying to convert anybody, but the majority felt that was his only intention. There are scholarly and other brilliant persons on CC who felt Jim frequently went too far with his proseletyzing. His frequent denials never appeared to convince anybody but those few who share his Roman Catholic beliefs.
Frank
 
fjtoth
fjtoth 8 years ago

Hi Carlos :
My mother's side of the family is Roman Catholic with two uncles and two cousins in the Mafia. I have another cousin who sends me Catholic stuff in postal mail and email just about every month. And once they get on your case, they can't seem to take no for an answer. About as bad as JWs.
It amuses me when a recent convert to Catholicism insinuates that the rest of us have no idea what the religion really is.
Frank
 
alanmarais
alanmarais 8 years ago

Fjtoth has made fun of lots of us and used hurtful words in emails like so much fire on people. Jim W is a gentleman who has defended silentlambs in the courtroom. I stand with Jim. Why else?
For one thing, Penton is indeed very brusque and in the opinion of many he is a know-it-all who really isn't. True, he's good even superb at research and writing but quite lacking in social skills. I have nothing against him being a Bible Student as he can believe whatever he wants. But he definitely does like to jump down people's throats and seems a bit paranoid, definitely anti-Catholic but also anti- a lot of Protestant groups too.
As for Ros, she also started and has Christian Quest. It has pretended since 1999 to provide an alternative to the Watchtower Society. In fact it is a phoney which deadends would-be starter-uppers of any independent non-Watchtower group. Like choking infants in the crib. She pretends to be lady-like but that's a sham too.
I'm not Catholic. I'm an independent Christian. When growing up I heard it said (falsely) that Catholics worship idols. They pray before statues but do not worship them. Those have been used from the earliest Christian times for helping focus their thoughts, meditations, prayer, not recipients of worship.
Bible Students and their sympathizers like Ros and Jim Penton are also like Watchtower in misteaching another concept. Both Protestants and Catholics most all agree there are three persons in one godship or highest degree of holiness, the trinity, the supreme sphere for worship or God, though it is acknowledged Christ said the Father is greater.
The BS's are anti-this teaching, hence sadly separating themselves along with Watchtower from most all Christian Protestants and Catholics alike. They misteach that other Christians worship a three-headed God instead of three persons in what Romans 1:20 says is godship. I'd add that Fjtoth also misunderstands and misteaches on this. He's had a house-church around Toronto. I doubt it exists anymore or will much longer if it does since he is so dogmatic and supercilious about this, too.
 
toreador
toreador 8 years ago

fjtoth,
Your cartoons were spot on. I think Caputo did far more proselytizing than JimW ever did though in all fairness. From what I remember of the times when i would drop in, it was Caputo who could not and would not listen to repeated requests. He did the same thing on CC to many of the participants that he did here, i.e. he would double and triple respond to each and every post as if posting mere volumes of information would weigh someone over to the his way of thinking. He was asked to take it elsewhere repeatedly by several members of the board including the board owner. He admits to repeatedly making fun of the administrator; what did he expect would happen. If one repeatedly made fun of Simon, the owner of this board, what do you suppose would happen. It doesnt surprise me that he would whine and complain about it here as he loves whatever audience he can get. How much do you want to bet he will post several more paragraphs. One would only have to check the archives, if they are still up on CC to show that his claims are false for anyone who is really THAT interested. I don't think its worth the time and effort IMHO. Time to let it drop by the wayside.
 
fjtoth
fjtoth 8 years ago

Alanmarais,
You seem to have problems of your own that need attention. Who are the "lots of us" I've made fun of? Who received emails from me that were "so much fire on people"? Either you're making up stories or you've listened to gossipers who don't know what they're talking about. You pretend to know so much about me, yet you have no idea where I attend church or if I even do. You have no idea whether the group is large or small, but you pretend to know.
I agree Jim W is a gentleman and has done good deeds within the courtroom. But you have no idea what I've done or not done in courtrooms, or how often. I'm glad you stand with Jim. There are others who stand with me. So???
I have no idea what your relationship has been with Jim Penton, but it's mere malicious gossip when I read what you say against him behind his back. Instead of judging people, in this thread you should be judging what has been stated at Channel C. To call someone a know-it-all is to attack a person's character without being specific. You're merely spreading wicked rumors with all the other things you've written about Jim and Ros as persons.
You say you're not Catholic, yet you pretend to know more about them than some of us who grew up with them in our families. Before you start spreading negative stories about the Bible Students and others, it would do you good to study more about them as well as about Catholicism. A little learning never hurt anybody.
Frank
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
the following are transports of postings on http://www.channelc.org/ made by jim penton and ros regarding myself and james caputo respectively.
the reason that i did not post directly on channel c is that ros and many of her board participants do not like to see anything that resembles catholic discussion, even if the responses are done respectfully and in a spirit of clarifying a false claim or misunderstanding.
i too do not like "catholic" discussions on channel c, and have not posted there for 9 months until i recently posted an announcement about tom cabeen's interviews on ewtn and with randy watters.



Related Topics
Brainfloss
Thanks to member The Searcher
by Brainfloss a year ago
objectivetruth
Biblical Black & White Proof that The Watchtower is Apostate
by objectivetruth 2 years ago
biblexaminer
PEACE AND SECURITY!
by biblexaminer 16 days ago
FusionTheism
Carefully Examine the Scriptures like the Beroean
by FusionTheism 10 months ago
Listener
The Case of Randy M - WTBTS & Legal Liability
by Listener 4 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/158558/kind-response-jim-penton-ros-channel-c?page=3&size=20






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ A kind response to Jim Penton & Ros of Channel C
/  





 

A kind response to Jim Penton & Ros of Channel C
by Amazing 8 years ago 83 Replies latest 8 years ago   watchtower beliefs
«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 »
 5
10
20
fjtoth
fjtoth 8 years ago

Hi Toreador,
I'm glad you liked the cartoons. Apparently the administrator or an assistant didn't because they've all been taken down. But I don't mind. They were up long enough that some folks got to see them.
I agree that Caputo was more notorious as a proselytizer. It would be a sad thing if his old campaign underwent a revival on CC. I'm with you in hoping that this episode is dropped by the wayside.
Frank
 
Uzzah
Uzzah 8 years ago

I am going to stay out of the whole Catholism matter,except to say that for some proselytizing is in their nature and pro or con it is hard to go against one's own nature.
I will say however that the polarization and camp building is disgusting in my opinion. Jim Penton has done much to free many from the BORG and is well respected amongst the intellectual crowds and courts.
FToth has done much to free other and has freely given of himself while a Witness and post JDubdom. He is a true Christian in the fullest meaning of the term.
Amazing has done much in support towards Silent Lambs and against the Society.
However Amazing's bringing this issue here and continuing to try to bolster people to "his side" somewhat pisses me off and is disruptive and divisive in the battle against the BORG.
I heard a speaker recently who was the lead RCMP investigator for the Swiss Air crash about a decade ago in Peggy's Cove, Nova Scotia. He commented that E+E+A=catastophe
Emergencies +egos+ agendas....
I put forward that this whole thread has much to do with the latter parts of the equation which only can result in a more complicated matter that benefits no-one.
In other words Jim, Jim. Ros, Frank and everyone else inserting themselves, check your egos and agendas at the door and then see where the conversation goes.
 
fjtoth
fjtoth 8 years ago

Uzzah,
Thanks. Good advice. I agree this hasn't been the best kind of discussion. I tend to wish it hadn't happened. Sometimes it's hard to know where to draw the line in defending friends and pounding away at what we believe are distortions. Good motives can soon be bent out of shape and unfold into a shoddy defense of one's ego and agenda. E+E+A=C states it well.
I won't say nothing good came from this sometimes raucos exchange, but very likely the passing of time and other experiences in each of our lives would have brought about an equal or even better outcome. Uzzah, I always respect your opinion.
Frank
 
quietlyleaving
quietlyleaving 8 years ago

My last word on the subject
Catholicism is such a huge religion and in its time has ground many individuals into the dust by its might.
I don't know any of you but it does seem to me that Ros is sharing her own particular faith and that she is "one woman doing so on her own" , one tiny person against the might of catholocism in this example. You guys may be scholars but if you are scholars defending your own particular beliefs then you are biased, thats fine but Ros has the right to lock you guys out if she thinks your clout carrying presence is dominating the discussion.
 
vinoverita
vinoverita 8 years ago

Hi Tor,
>>may I suggest that it is "fuzzy and inconsistent thinking" to you because you are taking it out of context.>>
My apologies.
Kindly explain what you specifically mean my "persistent evangelizer?" What about my defending the divintiy of Christ (or apostolic succession) makes me a "persistent evangelizer" and Jim Penton's advocation of a Unitarian understanding of God (and an invisible Church ecclesiology) not make him so?
And feel free to go to the archives to see how I conducted myself. Simply do a search under "apstolic succession" and read the tenor of my posts. They speak for themselves.
James:smile:
 
vinoverita
vinoverita 8 years ago

Hi Quietly Leaving,
>>I don't know any of you but it does seem to me that Ros is sharing her own particular faith and that she is "one woman doing so on her own" , one tiny person against the might of catholocism in this example.>>
I see it precisely the opposite way. "One woman doing her own thing" has the onus to openly discuss why that "one thing" is more important than a great religion such as Catholicism. The kudos and preference should not automatically go to her by default.
>>You guys may be scholars but if you are scholars defending your own particular beliefs then you are biased, thats fine but Ros has the right to lock you guys out if she thinks your clout carrying presence is dominating the discussion.>>
Why is it biased to defend one's particular beliefs. Isn't that what you say Ros is doing so valiantly? And Ros locking us out just shows the weakness of her own "her own thing," imho.
James:smile:
 
quietlyleaving
quietlyleaving 8 years ago

James - I've gotta tell you, you are sounding like a pathetic bully, putting words in my mouth and twisting what I'm saying - I can cetainly see why Ros is taking action against you.
 
vinoverita
vinoverita 8 years ago

Hi Quietly Leaving,
<<James - I've gotta tell you, you are sounding like a pathetic bully<<
I'm simply putting sincere questions to you. And I trust those who follow this exchange would agree that no bullying is going on.
>>putting words in my mouth and twisting what I'm saying<<
Far from putting words into your mouth, I'm actually quoting and speaking directly to your thoughts. And if I have misunderstood you I've made sure to offer my apologies and to ask you to expatiate on what you mean. I can't do better than that, Quietly leaving.
God's peace,
James:smile:
PS. The multiple posts I've written are duplicates. That is, I accidentally reposted them time and again because I didn't see them appear on my screen. I then learned that I had to click to the next page to see them.
 
vinoverita
vinoverita 8 years ago

Hi Uzzuh,
<<I am going to stay out of the whole Catholism matter,except to say that for some proselytizing is in their nature and pro or con it is hard to go against one's own nature.<<
What specifically constitutes "proselytizing" in your view?
>>Jim Penton has done much to free many from the BORG and is well respected amongst the intellectual crowds and courts.<<
I agree. But tell me, what about Jim Penton's way of presenting his views on Channel C precludes one from accusing him of "proselytizing?"
James:smile:
 
quietlyleaving
quietlyleaving 8 years ago

James (btw which james are you, we seem to have 2 James and sounds like a coupla Jims as well )
hers what I mean about you twistng and obfuscating

>>I don't know any of you but it does seem to me that Ros is sharing her own particular faith and that she is "one woman doing so on her own" , one tiny person against the might of catholocism in this example.>>
I see it precisely the opposite way. "One woman doing her own thing" has the onus to openly discuss why that "one thing" is more important than a great religion such as Catholicism. The kudos and preference should not automatically go to her by default.
Ros' board, as I previously said, and as you very well know, is not an open discussion board .

>>You guys may be scholars but if you are scholars defending your own particular beliefs then you are biased, thats fine but Ros has the right to lock you guys out if she thinks your clout carrying presence is dominating the discussion.>>
Why is it biased to defend one's particular beliefs. Isn't that what you say Ros is doing so valiantly? And Ros locking us out just shows the weakness of her own "her own thing," imho.
James:smile:
If you are a scholar and defending your own particular beliefs then obviously your position is biased - you misrepresented what I said in my previous post and I did say that was fine with me but at the same time it needs to be acknowledged. I must say I thought you were James Penton, I realise now that you probably arn't (or are you). My apologies to James Penton if you are somebody else.
 
quietlyleaving
quietlyleaving 8 years ago

V V

>>putting words in my mouth and twisting what I'm saying<<
Far from putting words into your mouth, I'm actually quoting and speaking directly to your thoughts. And if I have misunderstood you I've made sure to offer my apologies and to ask you to expatiate on what you mean. I can't do better than that, Quietly leaving.
yes you can do better than that - you can
 
vinoverita
vinoverita 8 years ago

Hi Quietly Leaving,
>>yes you can do better than that - you can >>
That's the end of this conversation seeing that you don't engage arguments but express monologues. Your cast of mind makes dialogue impossible. It's precisely what I encountered in many on the Channel C forum. An intellectual vestige of the Watchtower mentality, no doubt.
Peace be with you,
James:smile:
 
quietlyleaving
quietlyleaving 8 years ago

V V

It's precisely what I encountered in many on the Channel C forum.

I'll take as a compliment

Peace be with you,
and you
ql
 
vinoverita
vinoverita 8 years ago

Hi Quietly Leaving,
Since you're engaging my thoughts, I deem it worth continuing our exchange in a spirit of mutual respect.
>>Ros' board, as I previously said, and as you very well know, is not an open discussion board>
Correct. It's by invitation only. And I was invited.
The debate turns on what that means in terms of what is deemed licit or illicit to discuss on an invitation-only discussion board. My gripe with Ros's charter is that there are no actual criteria to be met or content parameters in which one must remain. Hence, my discussing the validity of apostolic succession is viewed as "preaching" whereas Jim Penton's endless fulminations against the atrocities of Christendom is viewed as a perfectly neutral stance.
http://studiositas.blogspot.com/2007/02/international-forum-on-square-circles.html
>>If you are a scholar and defending your own particular beliefs then obviously your position is biased >>
It does not *necessarily* follow that the position of a scholar (who defends what he believes to be true) is "obviously" biased. It could mean that he just believes the evidence points in the direction of that particular position.
premise # 1 - Joe Sixpack is a Scholar
premise # - 2 - Joe Sixpack holds to position x
Conclusion - Position x is Obviously biased because Joe Sickpack is a Scholar who holds to it
The conclusion does not follow from the premises.
Peace,
James P. Caputo
 
binadub
binadub 8 years ago

Uzzah:
In other words Jim, Jim. Ros, Frank and everyone else inserting themselves, check your egos and agendas at the door and then see where the conversation goes.
Where were Ros' and Penton's egos/agendas in this thread?
Just curious.
~Bin
 
vinoverita
vinoverita 8 years ago

Hi Alan Marais
>>As for Ros, she also started and has Christian Quest. It has pretended since 1999 to provide an alternative to the Watchtower Society.<<
And I share your gripe. Besides the fact that the group's anti-Trinitarian position more or less distances people (or freezes them in their tracks) from *actual* Churches (be them Catholic or Protestant), it doesn't actually offer any flesh and blood alternative. Put simply, it's a cyber board wherein everything and its opposite is argued to be the truth - and many times in less than a spirit of fraternal charity.
The searching JW or ex-JW is thus left scratching his head and feeling as if the entire task of truth discernment is futile given that the putative intellectual giants of the Watchtower World can't much agree on anything save the fact that Christendom is to be treated like a dirty harlot.
It's for that reason that I have referred to the forum time and again as a halfway house to solipsism, indifferentism and atheism.
Enjoyed your post very much!
James P. Caputo
 
vinoverita
vinoverita 8 years ago

Hi Binadub,
>>Where were Ros' and Penton's egos/agendas in this thread?<<
They are hiding and stonewalling as they did even while I was on Channel C. Penton never went more than two rounds with me. Same with Perrson. And the most Ros and I ever interacted is in private email, which can be read in the first post of this thread by clicking on the links.
By the way, are you Ros?
James P. Caputo
 
quietlyleaving
quietlyleaving 8 years ago

James Caputo - nice to meet you

premise # 1 - Joe Sixpack is a Scholar
premise # - 2 - Joe Sixpack holds to position x
Conclusion - Position x is Obviously biased because Joe Sickpack is a Scholar who holds to it
The conclusion does not follow from the premises.


as far as I can see you have set it out as a valid argument so why do you say that the conclusion does not follow from the premises
On a different note I think Thomas Merton (a catholic) has lots of insightful stuff to say that imo is very useful for exiting JWs. Also If Catholicism is headed in that direction then that is a very good thing and I am prepared to go and pray in front of the virgin Mary and beg that she inspires the pope to change his views on contraception.
 
vinoverita
vinoverita 8 years ago

Hi Quietly Leaving,
The argument is not valid. I simply scetched it out to highlight that the conclusion did not follow from the premises.
If the positions of scholars were *necessarily* biased, then there would be no utility in repairing to scholars to deepen our knowledge of a given field. A scholar's position can be conditioned by his biases, no doubt. But it isn't *necessarily* conditioned by them to the point that it is *necessarily* biased.
And I adore Thomas Merton!! Reading his books has helped me grow immensely. I'm happy to meet you too
With affection,
James P. Caputo
 
quietlyleaving
quietlyleaving 8 years ago

James

If the positions of scholars were *necessarily* biased, then there would be no utility in repairing to scholars to deepen our knowledge of a given field. A scholar's position can be conditioned by his biases, no doubt. But it isn't *necessarily* conditioned by them to the point that it is *necessarily* biased.
I have to disagree with you - all scholarly works must be approached with skepticism and doubt and their works taken with a pinch of salt. Bias and assumptions creeps in unintentionally and sometimes intentionally. Religion more so than other fields because of the emotions involved.
Scholars can verify one another but still all scholarly fields have their controversies. There is no one universal truth regarding the past. We can deepen our knowledge of a given field but we would need to consider what those who disagree have to say about the topic too. That would be the honest thing to do.
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
the following are transports of postings on http://www.channelc.org/ made by jim penton and ros regarding myself and james caputo respectively.
the reason that i did not post directly on channel c is that ros and many of her board participants do not like to see anything that resembles catholic discussion, even if the responses are done respectfully and in a spirit of clarifying a false claim or misunderstanding.
i too do not like "catholic" discussions on channel c, and have not posted there for 9 months until i recently posted an announcement about tom cabeen's interviews on ewtn and with randy watters.



Related Topics
Brainfloss
Thanks to member The Searcher
by Brainfloss a year ago
objectivetruth
Biblical Black & White Proof that The Watchtower is Apostate
by objectivetruth 2 years ago
biblexaminer
PEACE AND SECURITY!
by biblexaminer 16 days ago
FusionTheism
Carefully Examine the Scriptures like the Beroean
by FusionTheism 10 months ago
Listener
The Case of Randy M - WTBTS & Legal Liability
by Listener 4 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/158558/kind-response-jim-penton-ros-channel-c?page=4&size=20





Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ A kind response to Jim Penton & Ros of Channel C
/  





 

A kind response to Jim Penton & Ros of Channel C
by Amazing 8 years ago 83 Replies latest 8 years ago   watchtower beliefs
«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 »
5
10
20
vinoverita
vinoverita 8 years ago

Hi Quietly Leaving,
>>I have to disagree with you - all scholarly works must be approached with skepticism and doubt and their works taken with a pinch of salt. Bias and assumptions creeps in unintentionally and sometimes intentionally. Religion more so than other fields because of the emotions involved>>
I don't disagree with you. My only distinction is that it's not *necessarily* the case that a scholar's position be biased. It *can* reflect that which is true, that which aligns with reality otherewise the search for objective truth would be a matter of total subjectivity.
<<Scholars can verify one another but still all scholarly fields have their controversies. There is no one universal truth regarding the past. We can deepen our knowledge of a given field but we would need to consider what those who disagree have to say about the topic too. That would be the honest thing to do.<<
I agree.
James
 
a Christian
a Christian 8 years ago

James C,
Concerning the subject of scholarly bias. I can't help but think that the conclusions you have reached, regarding the Roman Catholic Church's highly questionable doctrine of "apostolic succession" and its related claims to divine authority, may have been biased by your being regularly paid by Catholic churches for performing in them and by the praise that is, no doubt, regularly heaped upon you therein by members of both the RCC's clergy and laity.
 
vinoverita
vinoverita 8 years ago

Hi A Christian,
>>Concerning the subject of scholarly bias. I can't help but think that the conclusions you have reached, regarding the Roman Catholic Church's highly questionable doctrine of "apostolic succession" and its related claims to divine authority>>
The belief of apostolic succession is not a distinctly Roman one. The Orthodox as well as the Anglicans hold to it. In point of fact, so did just about all of the gnostics. That is to say, it was the universal teaching of the Church. One cannot find anyone seriously questioning it for the first 3/4 of Christian history.
To believe in it, therefore, does not require a bias. Contrarily, to disbelieve in it requires a conspiracy theory of Watchtower proportions since all of the evidence (i.e the Universal testimony and praxis of the Church) militates against it. I'm not that cynical of the Church or historic data to fly in the face of evidence or to impute imbecility or infidelity to the entire body of Christ.
When Eusebius sets out to write the first classic history of the Church (outside that of the Acts of the apostles found in holy writ) he starts his work with the words:
"The cheif matters to be dealt with in this work are the following: a)The lines of succession from the holy apostles, and the periods that have elapsed from our savior's time to our own."
 >>may have been biased by your being regularly paid by Catholic churches for performing in them and by the praise that is, no doubt, regularly heaped upon you therein by members of both the RCC's clergy and laity>>
The Catholic Church does not necessitate that those in her employ be Catholic. I sang as a cantor in the Church for five years before I was baptized a Catholic. During those years I had many obstacles that I worked out in my faith through study and prayer. Sad to say, almost no one (and that includes priests) encouraged me to become Catholic. I did so on my own.
I have many other cantor friends who sing in the Catholic Church and are Evangelicals. Plus, I very rarely get anything close to praise heaped on me. The liturgy is geared toward praising the Father, through the Son in the Holy Spirit. Most of the music I sing is highly subdued and even chant-like. Besides a few altar boys and girls, the priests and the organist, I don't so much as exchange a word with parishioners after mass, much less receive their praise. Singing in Evangelical Churches, however, was a different story.
http://www.catholicxjw.com/jamescaputo.html
Peace,
James P. Caputo
 
Scully
Scully 8 years ago

I tend to agree with the people who say that JWD is not the place for airing disagreements that have erupted on another forum, regardless of whether the people involved are members of JWD or not.
This thread is locked for the time being while the moderators clarify the situation.
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 »
5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
the following are transports of postings on http://www.channelc.org/ made by jim penton and ros regarding myself and james caputo respectively.
the reason that i did not post directly on channel c is that ros and many of her board participants do not like to see anything that resembles catholic discussion, even if the responses are done respectfully and in a spirit of clarifying a false claim or misunderstanding.
i too do not like "catholic" discussions on channel c, and have not posted there for 9 months until i recently posted an announcement about tom cabeen's interviews on ewtn and with randy watters.



Related Topics
Brainfloss
Thanks to member The Searcher
by Brainfloss a year ago
objectivetruth
Biblical Black & White Proof that The Watchtower is Apostate
by objectivetruth 2 years ago
biblexaminer
PEACE AND SECURITY!
by biblexaminer 16 days ago
FusionTheism
Carefully Examine the Scriptures like the Beroean
by FusionTheism 10 months ago
Listener
The Case of Randy M - WTBTS & Legal Liability
by Listener 4 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/158558/kind-response-jim-penton-ros-channel-c?page=5&size=20






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Rutherford Era Anti-Catholicism
/  





 

Rutherford Era Anti-Catholicism
by cabasilas 8 years ago 9 Replies latest 8 years ago   watchtower beliefs
5
10
20
cabasilas
cabasilas 8 years ago

First Installment:
In July 1940 the Watchtower Society published answers to a series of questions put to them by a reporter from the New York Post. These were put into a booklet entitled Judge Rutherford Uncovers the Fifth Column. A PDF of scans of the booklet (about 4.8 MB) can be downloaded from this filesharing site:
http://www.filesend.net/download.php?f=f3bf750e63c9cc0067f0f8e121ea41bc
An HTML version of the booklet (formatted) can be found on this JW site:
http://www.strictlygenteel.co.uk/booklets/fifthcolumn.html
The virulent anti-Catholicism of the Judge's rants is startling to read. His answer to the first question sets the tone.
(pp.5-6)
(1) Why, in your opinion, has there been a sudden recent outburst of violence against Jehovah's witnesses in widely separated parts of the country?
ANSWER: Because the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, operating what they call "Catholic Action", are carrying out a well-laid scheme to destroy everything in this world that publishes the truth, and this the Hierarchy are doing in order to camouflage their own wicked action in attempting to grab control of the nations of the earth.
The "Fifth Column" is this ploy by the Catholic Hierarchy to take control of all the nations of the earth, including the USA. Another example later on pp. 15-16:
The Roman Catholic Hierarchy have planted their men in every big newspaper office in America, and their men in every department of the government of the United States. Their purpose is to seize the government of the United States, as Holland and other countries have been seized....You may expect totalitarian dictators, acting with the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, to overrun the earth, seize control of almost all the nations, if not all, and rule them for a short season, and then will follow the worst trouble that this earth has ever known. Based upon divine prophecy, briefly, this will be the result: The big religious institution, the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, acting with dictators, will say: "We have accomplished our purpose. We are now at peace, and we are safe." Then the Lord will take a hand. Christ Jesus will lead the forces invisible to human eyes, and there shall result the battle of Armageddon, "the battle of that great day of God Almighty," which will completely clean up the earth of wickedness and destroy everybody that willfully practices wickedness.
Towards the end of this booklet, Rutherford claims that rifles are being hidden in the basements of Catholic church buildings in preparation for this takeover of the USA! He suggests the Dies Commission (a congressional commission at that time which investigated "un-American activities" ---see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Dies,_Jr. ) instigate a search and investigate this.
Here's Rutherford's challenge that Congress investigate the crypts in Catholic churches for rifles and ammunition (pp. 21-23):

The Hierarchy have builded tremendous and expensive structures throughout the United States. They are a military organization. In their cellars or crypts are stored a great number of guns and ammunition ready to act against all opponents in due season, their opponents being classed as those who publish the truth about them, and also all who stand for freedom in America.
Why not let the public press demand of Congress an investigation of the cellars and crypts of the Catholic cathedrals in the United States and prove to the public whether or not they have stored away a great amount of arms and ammunition to use against the government?
Why not the Dies Committee go after the Hierarchy and the Nazis? If the Hierarchy deny that they have a large amount of guns and ammunition stored, then they should not object to being investigated. If they do vigorously deny it, that is the best reason why an investigation should be had. There are many persons in the United States who have worked in building these crypts or cellars, and others who have helped unload what appeared to be piano boxes, which were filled with rifles and are stored in these crypts. I am not interested in carrying out such an investigation, because my time and energy must be used to advertising God's Kingdom, the only means of blessing of humankind.
If the public press is so interested in getting at the facts, then INSTITUTE A SEARCH AND INVESTIGATION DISCLOSING WHO ARE THE REAL ENEMIES OF AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS. The time will come in the very near future when the Lord himself will pull the shroud completely off those hiding behind the "refuge of lies" and disclose a great and hypocritical religious institution that has defamed His name and devoted its power to unrighteousness.
Mind you, this was not some speculations from some internal document. This was what Rutherford sent to the press!
 
Kenneson
Kenneson 8 years ago

I would say that his thesis is Ratherflawed.
 
VM44
VM44 8 years ago

Thanks Cabasilas for making this booklet available.
As you indicated, it was published in 1940, war was raging in Europe, and Americans were uneasy about the thought of spies being present on US soil.
More than one copy of "Judge Rutherford Uncovers the Fifth Column" ended up in the files of the FBI. Some people, who probably never even read the booklet, became concerned when they saw "Fifth Column" in the title and so sent the booklet off to the FBI for investigation!
--VM44
 
VM44
VM44 8 years ago

"In their cellars or crypts are stored a great number of guns and ammunition ready to act against all opponents in due season,..."
Did Rutherford read this somewhere? Or did he make it up using his fertile imagination?
One wonders if there ever were a stockpile of guns and ammunition stored at Bethel in order to protect the Organization from attack! Who knows what could have gone on during Rutherford's reign there? Anything is possible.
--VM44
 
Leolaia
Leolaia 8 years ago

There are loads of stuff on this in the "Golden Age Goodies" thread:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/11/115448/1.ashx
Example:

*** g38 11/16 p. 17-19 Counsel by J. F. RUTHERFORD ***
In opposition to the Kingdom the Devil has brought forth the corporate state or totalitarian government ruled by visible and arbitrary men with the Roman Catholic Hierarchy as its spiritual overlord working hand in glove with such men as Mussolini and Hitler. The ambition of this crowd is to rule the world. As I stated in London on September the 11th, this combine will get possession of England. Since then the facts show that it is already an almost accomplished thing.
There is a determined effort on the part of the same crowd to grab control of America and rule it, change the Constitution or abolish it entirely, and take away all the liberties of the people. The ROMAN CATHOLIC HIERARCHY, therefore, is in fact a political institution bent on taking away the liberties of the people and ruling arbitrarily. This operation they are carrying on under the cloak of religion because the people have been led to believe all these years that religion and Christianity are one and the same.... Knowing the facts which I do and failing to speak of them, I would be a traitor to the American people and an unfaithful servant of the Lord. My purpose in calling attention to the derelictions of the Catholic organization is this: that the people may get their eyes open to the fact that their liberties are at stake, and not only that, but, following in the course that the Hierarchy is leading them, they are headed for certain destruction.... I deem it my duty both to man and God to do this thing because I know every interest of the human race is at stake and the fundamental principles of the American government which have been held dear to the American citizens so long are in jeopardy and it now seems a certainty that the people are going to lose their liberties.
Spoken like a real patriot, huh?
They were so at home in their anti-Catholicism that they had no problem printing an endorsement by the KKK (Golden Age, 11 October 1933, p. 4). The same issue, BTW, claimed that Catholics who listen to sermons have "moron or infantile mind" (p. 26), expressed the hope that Jehovah would soon destroy the Catholic press so that one may "rejoice that they no longer cumber the earth which they have disgraced" (p. 26), and the editor Clayton Woodworth complained of being punched in the face during field service because of the bigotry that he was circulating (p. 5). Woodworth denied the magazines contained bigotry and claimed that the Catholics were the real bigots, "whole training is that of the bigot and persecutor" (p. 5).
 
cabasilas
cabasilas 8 years ago

VM44:
I'm thinking Rutherford was not the originator of the "guns in the basements of Catholic churches" rumor as I've heard it expressed in other venues also. I also don't think Rutherford was alone in saying:
The Roman Catholic Hierarchy are the chief instrument on earth of the Devil.
(From page 10 of Judge Rutherford Uncovers the Fifth Column.) There's been a segment of Protestantism that has held that view through the centuries. I think Rutherford was echoing some of the worst anti-Catholic literature of his era.
Not to say that this excuses any persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses or exonerates any involvement of clerics against Witnesses at that time. But, it does help explain why some reacted the way they did. We can thank the Witnesses for the principle of free speech even if the message is outlandish and offensive.
 
Witness 007
Witness 007 8 years ago

Thanks Cabalis!!! This was published July 1940 one month after an angry mob attacked the Gilead farm with the intension of destroying it...thanks for both qoutes, the puzzle fits together nicely.
 
cabasilas
cabasilas 8 years ago

You're welcome. And, thanks, Leolaia, for linking the "Golden Age Goodies" thread which shows much more similar crazy statements from that period.
Second Installment.
The book Enemies (published in 1937) discusses Jehovah's enemies. The chief enemy is named on page 296:
From all the evidence the conclusion is irresistible that the Roman Catholic Hierarchy organization serves the Devil and is therefore the enemy of God, the enemy of man, and the very personification of unrighteousness.
An html version of Rutherford's book Enemies can be found at this JW site:
http://www.strictlygenteel.co.uk/enemies/enemiestitles.html
The book contains several quotes demonstrating Rutherford's anti-Catholicism. It's the type of stuff you'd never see in Witness' literature today.
For example, according to Rutherford, the goal of Catholic hierarchy is to "rule the people with dictators." And taking over the US is next!
pg 165-166
A person would have to be mentally blind who does not now see that the purpose of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy is to gain control of the political affairs of the world and rule the people with dictators. The papacy has made an alliance with the political rulers of Japan, who make no pretense of being Christians, and she there prosecutes a campaign to silence everybody that speaks the truth against Catholicism. The Roman Catholic Hierarchy is vigorously pushing its campaign to gain control of the offices and political affairs of the British Commonwealth of Nations, but her greatest effort is now put forth to gain control of the United States of America.
Great Britain and the British Commonwealth will also be dominated by the Roman Catholic Hierarchy:
pg 170
From the subordinate parts of the Commonwealth pressure is being brought to bear, on England in particular, and it is only a question of time, and that a short time, until the British Commonwealth of Nations will be dominated and controlled by the Roman Catholic Hierarchy. Such a course of action is wholly inconsistent with that of true followers of Christ, and these facts are cited here to prove that the Roman Catholic organization does not represent God and Christ but represents the Devil.
Protestantism and the "Yiddish clergy" are in league with the Roman Catholic Hierachy and are "simpletons" in following them:
Pg 212
Today Protestantism is dead so far as the protest against the practitioners of Catholicism is concerned, and the Protestant clergy, together with the rabbis of the Jewish religious organization, follow the lead of the Roman Catholic organization and act in harmony therewith. All such practice religion, of which the Devil is the author.
Pg 222-223:
Today the so-called "Protestants" and the Yiddish clergy openly co-operate with and play into the hands of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy like foolish simpletons and thereby aid the Hierarchy to carry on her commercial, religious traffic and increase her revenue. Commercial religion is the stock in trade of all such merchants. The Hierarchy takes the lead, and the simpletons follow. The Hierarchy is now taking the lead in compulsory flag-saluting, and in building images or monuments, such as what is now widely advertised to be built at Washington, D. C.; and the clergy of the so-called "Protestant" and Yiddish organizations fall in line and do what they are told, and when the "sackbut" sounds they fall down and worship. (Daniel 3:5) Poor simpletons!
Among the Roman Catholic Hiearchy's "instruments" are "ultra-selfish men called 'Jews'":
Pg 281
Amongst her instruments that she uses are ultraselfish men called "Jews", who look only for personal gain, and who therefore readily yield to and join with the Hierarchy in any unrighteous schemes.
The United States is asleep to the danger of the Roman Catholic Hiearchy's goal to "gain control of the nations":
Pg 279
Will the United States yield to the harlot's blandishments and fall? It so appears. The old "harlot" has her instruments everywhere in the land working overtime to get control of the United States and every branch of the government, and the politicians are falling to her enticements, and many of the people who are dupes and easily deceived are likewise yielding. Fascists and Nazis are one and the same crowd and are instruments employed with great effect by the Roman Catholic Hierarchy to gain control of the nations. Each day the strength of that organization grows in the United States. The people in general appear to be asleep to the danger.
The Scriptures indicate that Great Britain and America will become Fascist under the control of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy:
Pg 291
No one on earth can tell exactly what will come to pass; but those devoted to the Lord, and according to the divine rule of applying the well-known facts to God's prophecy now in course of fulfillment, can well reach a reasonable conclusion as to what shall come to pass. The question is, Will Great Britain and America become Fascist under the dominating control of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy? The Scriptures and the facts appear to fully support that conclusion.
Pg 301-302

The prophecy seems clearly to indicate that the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, operating its organization of Fascism, together with other religious allies, will gain control of the leading nations of the earth, including Britain and the United States, and then that hypocritical religious organization will cry out, as prophetically written, "Peace and safety." This part of the prophecy is set forth in Isaiah 23:15-18.
When the Hierarchy has reached her zenith of glory and is supposed to be in absolute security, then God, through Christ Jesus, completely wrecks the old-harlot organization, and that marks the beginning of Armageddon. This great "burden" or woe coming to the religionist element of Satan's organization strikes terror into every one of her supporters, and these, by the prophecy, are shown as wailing and howling, because they clearly see that they are next in line for the expression of God's wrath against them. This part of the prophecy appears in verses 1-14 of Isaiah 23, and shows that the woe comes upon the religious organizations at the end of her very short period of seeming triumph.
 
SirNose586
SirNose586 8 years ago

It's a foolproof plan. Pick on a bigger, more powerful, more established foe. When he says nothing, you're free to continue your rants. When he lashes out at you, you're vindicated. There is not much the Catholics can do in that situation to look good. And it got Rutherfraud attention.
 
VM44
VM44 8 years ago

This was published July 1940 one month after an angry mob attacked the Gilead farm with the intension of destroying it
That is very interesting. Were was this reported? I would like to read more about it.
--VM44
 

5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
blondie
Blondie's Highlights from 11-15-2015 WT (FAITH)
by blondie 4 months ago
AndersonsInfo
Brownstoner: How the Jehovah’s Witnesses Acquired Some of Brooklyn’s Most Insanely Valuable Properties
by AndersonsInfo a month ago
Saved_JW
Discussion with a Pioneer: CONCLUSION
by Saved_JW 4 months ago
Saved_JW
Jehovah's Witnesses - People of Integrity
by Saved_JW 5 months ago
Terry
A POP QUIZ about the origin of "NEW LIGHT"
by Terry a month ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/142255/rutherford-era-anti-catholicism







Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Latest conversion with a jw
/  





 

Latest conversion with a jw
by badboy 11 years ago 3 Replies latest 11 years ago   jw friends
5
10
20
badboy
badboy 11 years ago

`the ungodly men of Roman Catholicism' because of child molesters,they are obviously not of god.
Obviously Catholicism because of child molesters is not of God,therefore jws are of God.
Matheticans(sp?) have calcaluted that someone like Noah is the ancestors of everyone alive today!
IT'S GOOD TO HEAR THE IDEAS FROM JWS!
 
kaykay_mp
kaykay_mp 11 years ago

Obviously Catholicism because of child molesters is not of God,therefore jws are of God.
all righty then. I won't even get started on this one.
laters
kaykay_mp
 
ColdRedRain
ColdRedRain 11 years ago

As JW's like to say "You will know the true religion by it's fruits." And to paraphrase, I always like to say "You will know the true religion by seeing it's fruits and nuts."
Any religion whose main membership regularly spouts off such fallacies and absurdities such as that is one to stay away from unless you have an excess of money and have little knowledge of charities.
 
badboy
badboy 11 years ago

i ALSO MENTIONED BECAUSE HE GAVE ME A MAGAZINE ABOUT AIDS,that in Africa that a certain haplotype was increasing because it is restisant(sp?) to AIDS.
(Mentioned tha L group was in Africa,M in India)
He thought I was referring to Hepititis!
 

5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
TTWSYF
What's up with the HEBREWS translation?
by TTWSYF 3 months ago
Wonderment
John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2
by Wonderment 3 months ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT critiques? A look at Allin's evaluation of Jn 8:58.
by Wonderment a month ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)
by Wonderment a month ago
AndersonsInfo
Trey Bundy: One Year of Reporting JW Child Abuse - Your comments please!
by AndersonsInfo a month ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/80755/latest-conversion-jw







Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ What is the Truth? How do you Define it?
/  





 

What is the Truth? How do you Define it?
by Amazing 7 years ago 68 Replies latest 7 years ago   jw friends
«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 »
 5
10
20
Amazing
Amazing 7 years ago

JWs teach that 'accurate knowledge' is the definition of truth. They add to this by saying that the 'conduct' of average church goers also identifies them as not being in the 'truth.' And, they define their 'organization' as being the Truth, because they are a clean people who are doing right works, and teaching accurately. They define what they consider correct doctrine, no trinity, no hell, no soul, no heaven for most people, no birthday cake, no voting, no politics, no war, no blood, no association outside the religion, no sassing the Elders, no sports, no school dances, and no smoking.
Ex-JWs sometimes impose variations of this definition upon other religions ... especially Catholicism ... where one can enjoy a piece of B-day cake, have a drink, and enjoy a fine cigar ... and those funny dressed Bishops, and the Catholic Church does this or that or whatever ... and don't forget the Inquisition ... and there you have it ... Catholics do not have the truth either.
Some Christians define Jesus as the Truth (according to Jesus own words - good) and thus reject all Churches. They in effect become their own Pope of a Church of One Person. What does Jesus being the truth mean about truth? How is Jesus the Truth?
Catholics define truth as Jesus - he is the way, the truth and the life ... and what that means to a Catholic is that all Jesus did and said that he taught orally, and passed on to the Apostles, who in turn passed on the same oral teaching and tradition to the disciples. Jesus gave the Apostles authority (not to rule or lord it over) but to pass on the sacraments and his teachings. Catholics make mistakes, sin, and do both good and some do harm ... Catholics do not claim to be more than human sinners, and the Church is where most fine healing.
Aside from Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, no other churches can trace their tradition back to the early Church (The Apostles) in this way. Most non-Catholic Churches simply refer to the Bible as their sole and central foundation. We see how the Catholic and Orthodox faiths have remain essentially unchanged and united ... whereas the 'Bible" oriented Churches and Individuals, have all gone off in all sorts of directions ... and we see the extremes found in groups like the JWs.
Catholics do accept that elements of the Christian faith is found in the various non-Catholic churches ... and that the salvation of individual Christians in various Churches, including the JWs, and Mormons, Adventists, and others, is dependant upon God and the individual's faith in Christ ... notwithstanding, the liturgy, sacramental validity, and teaching of non-Catholic churches is not complete ... not necessarily false, just incomplete.
What say you? What is truth to you ... how do you define truth ... does it even matter to you?
 
ex-nj-jw
ex-nj-jw 7 years ago

IMO, truth and religion should not be in the same sentance.
nj
 
garybuss
garybuss 7 years ago

What is the Truth? How do you Define it?
Reality.

 
drwtsn32
drwtsn32 7 years ago

Reality.
Exactly.
 
Amazing
Amazing 7 years ago

Define "reality" ... what is it? And why should it be considered 'truth?' ... Are we possibly mixing science and religion? Can we not have faith-based, or religious-based 'truth' as something different than say, scientific 'truth' or courtroom 'truth' ... are we confusing 'truth' with 'facts.'
Facts gives us information ... interpretation of facts leads to scientific theory ... or courtroom proof of the truth ... or philosophical truth.
If truth is 'reality' than is not Jesus Christ, God the ultimate reality?
What say you?
 
journey-on
journey-on 7 years ago

My definition is that truth is that which can only be found in bits and pieces. The whole Truth cannot be known because there is always something else unseen and indefinable within our current framework of knowledge. Truth is something that is revealed in increments like pieces of a huge puzzle that is constantly being formed anew. That which you can see, taste, touch, hear, or smell is just a very small part of what is real. Science has found bits and pieces that were once unknown and incomprehensible and did not fit into humanity's description of reality. So, both Truth and Reality are constantly being refined and redefined.
 
mouthy
mouthy 7 years ago

Out for an argument Amazing??? Truth in MY opinion is Jesus Christ.
I believe he is the Creator. He is a GOD of LOVE!
I dont believe all in the Bible. I believe MEN!!!! Like your self
wanted followers & added a few things to make it "sound" as if we were
following Jesus.
Tell me a religion that hasnt caused problems. ANY RELIGION!!!??
I realize I am a very poor excuse for a Christian.
That is why HE died for me. Because HE knew I couldnt do it alone &
needed HIM!!!! I do ! I have to ask forgiveness morning, noon ,& night
Cos I am a great sinner. But he LOVES me.
 
compound complex
compound complex 7 years ago

A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom
Thomas Jefferson
[...] truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error,
 and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons,
 free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

Not a definition of Truth per se but an acknowledgement that error [propaganda contrary to established fact?] must be contradicted.
CoCo's Still Learning
 
Amazing
Amazing 7 years ago

Mouthy ... the only difference between what you and I are saying is that your are a Christian, but have no particular affiliation with a denomination ... and I affiliate with the Catholic Church ... I have no disagreement with what you said ... no argument here.
CoCO ... very good indeed! I like the quote ... and it is very appropriate here. Thanks!
 
quietlyleaving
quietlyleaving 7 years ago


My definition is that truth is that which can only be found in bits and pieces. The whole Truth cannot be known because there is always something else unseen and indefinable within our current framework of knowledge. Truth is something that is revealed in increments like pieces of a huge puzzle that is constantly being formed anew. That which you can see, taste, touch, hear, or smell is just a very small part of what is real. Science has found bits and pieces that were once unknown and incomprehensible and did not fit into humanity's description of reality. So, both Truth and Reality are constantly being refined and redefined.
 
journey-on I really like your definition
 
BurnTheShips
BurnTheShips 7 years ago

God is Truth. Truth is infinite. We will always be learning more Truth even if we live forever.
BTS
 
Amazing
Amazing 7 years ago

Journey-on ... a good definition for science and philosophy ... and perhaps Christianity.
BTS ... very good indeed! I like it ... succinct ... to the point ... and deals with faith.
 
drwtsn32
drwtsn32 7 years ago

Well done, journey-on...
 
OUTLAW
OUTLAW 7 years ago

Reality is hitting black ice with your truck on a mountain highway..Losing control and pin-balling across both lanes of a highway,busy with 18 wheel trucks traveling at 100kmh.....Then landing a deap ditch backwards,with your truck laying on it`s side.....And..Waiting 3 hours in sub zero weather for a tow truck........Thats reality!..................................LOL!!...OUTLAW
 
BurnTheShips
BurnTheShips 7 years ago

I liked Journey-On's definition. I think we are both saying the same thing.
BTS
 
Amazing
Amazing 7 years ago

I attribute 'truth' in different ways to different things:
The Court Room: As a juror I want facts (truthful information) so I and other jurors can determine innocence or guilt.
Science: I want truthful facts and working theory ... but let the truth emerge like an unfolding flower that never stops revealing new surprises.
Philosophy: Truth is too elusive for me ... I generally fall on my face when trying to find any truthful frame of reference.
Human relationships: Truth is honesty with one another.
Relationship with God: Truth (Christ) is that on which I can firmly rely, like a foundation stone, knowing my faith will not shipwreck ... and have an eternal future with God and all my brothers and sisters in heaven ... whatever that may mean ... however it unfolds ...
The Father: In truth is the ultimate object of worship ... the one who I can call Papa.
The Son: In truth is the rock of my salvation, of whom I owe eternal gratitude and loyalty.
The Holy Spirit: In truth is my advocate, teacher, counselor, guide, comforter, and friend.
The Saints: In truth, the Holy Ones are there as friends and brothers and sisters living in divinity with whom I can commune.
The Holy Catholic Church:  In truth, the place of reconciliation, healing, and sacramental connection between humanity and divinity.
All people on earth: In truth, my brothers and sisters, who, like me, are sinners in need of Christ, of whom I hope will not let their Watchtower experience, or other negative religious or life experiences, kill the faith in Christ they once had, or may have in the future. (Edited to clarify more than just the JWs)
Amen!
 
drwtsn32
drwtsn32 7 years ago

Good point, Amazing. Truth means different things in different contexts.
 
poppers
poppers 7 years ago

What is truth? That which "is" before it gets defined, labeled, compared, or judged by mind. Mind takes "what is" and tries to define it somehow, to fit some philosophy or religious concept, and that's when "truth" gets obscured. Is it any wonder, then, there are so many religions and philosophies?
 
Amazing
Amazing 7 years ago

Poppers:
Very interesting, indeed! So what is that pure, undefined, unlabeled, un-minded truth of which you speak? Don't define it now ... don't mangle it with 'mind' ... don't philosophize it ... just tell me what it is.
 
garybuss
garybuss 7 years ago

When superstition, religion, opinion, philosophy, psychology, and politics are removed . . . reality is what's left. Truth to me, is not needing explanation, not debatable, and not reducible. Proof of untruth is explanation, debate, and reduction. Planet earth is round = truth.
OUTLAW's truck story is not reality . . . that's just plain old bad luck.


 

«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
OrphanCrow
The Jehovah's Witnesses, the Royal Commission and the Catholic Church
by OrphanCrow 7 months ago
KiddingMe
Police: Teen killed in N.Y. church assault wanted out
by KiddingMe 5 months ago
The Searcher
A First Stepping-Stone For Bethelites & Lurkers?
by The Searcher 5 months ago
Olivia Wilde
badly handled from Elders
by Olivia Wilde 7 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Highlights from 11-15-2015 WT (FAITH)
by blondie 4 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/174499/what-truth-how-do-you-define






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ What is the Truth? How do you Define it?
/  





 

What is the Truth? How do you Define it?
by Amazing 7 years ago 68 Replies latest 7 years ago   jw friends
«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 »
 5
10
20
Amazing
Amazing 7 years ago

Garybuss,
You make an interesting argument ... but ...
Planet earth is round = truth.
The earth is actually a slightly an egg-shaped sphere ... it is not really 'round.' The shape of the earth is a fact and is not about truth, though a truth could be involved. It appears or gives the impression of roundness, because from the human perspective it is so damn big ... and the same is true for the other planets, the Sun, and other stars.
Fact may be a component or sub-set of truth ... but truth, depending on the discreet topic, has much broader and more meaningful implications.
 
Scarred for life
Scarred for life 7 years ago

I don't know the answers to your questions but I know the WBTS doesn 't have it.
 
donny
donny 7 years ago

I decided to ask my co-office dweller, Carlos.
Me: Define reality
Carlos: It's when you are selling a house or land.
Me: (Silence)
 
Narkissos
Narkissos 7 years ago

"Truth" is the guilty conscience of language, desperately trying to bow before something it hasn't made up so as to be justified in return.
A lack of creative will, of poetical courage. A lack of faith.
 
garybuss
garybuss 7 years ago

Amazing, Truth is the earth is really whatever shape it is after you and I are gone.


 
poppers
poppers 7 years ago


So what is that pure, undefined, unlabeled, un-minded truth of which you speak? Don't define it now ... don't mangle it with 'mind' ... don't philosophize it ... just tell me what it is.

That's just it - when you attempt to put words to it you've limited it, you've "mangled it with mind". That's the paradox that comes with truth, it can be "known" but it cannot be expressed "truthfully"; you can only point to it with words. Words are just more concepts, and truth cannot be grasped conceptually. Even so, I'll say this: That which is true is that which never changes. See/realize that for yourself. See/realize what is present in this very moment, and do that without attempting to "grasp" it or define it in any way. Find that which never changes amidst all of that which does change and you've found truth.
 
OUTLAW
OUTLAW 7 years ago

"Thats not Reality".....LOL@GaryBuss.....It scared the shit out of me!.....All we have in these mountains is cliff`s and 15-20 seconds of air time if you leave the road.....Falling is a breeze..It`s the sudden stop that will kill you..It seemed pretty real to me!..LOL!!.......................OUTLAW
 
AllTimeJeff
AllTimeJeff 7 years ago

With all respect, this sounds like an attempt to justify faith, not truth. In a religious context (such as found in the bible) truth was evident. Whether it was the Israelites who (allegedly) had the 10 plagues, the parting of the Red Sea, the 10 commandments, etc, they had physical evidence supplied by god. Faith was not necessary, as the truth was apparent, if you buy that these events happened as described.
Similarly, Jesus raised the dead, fed thousands, etc. No faith necessary. Evidence (allegedly) was there, faith was not needed. It appears that for several thousand years, god/Jesus has seen fit to not do anything. This frankly gives credence to viewing the accounts of the bible as stories, not factual. Hardly the kind of thing to call true. (truth)
Is there value in having a faith, perhaps basing it on these accounts? I would think so, but it has to be a rather selective reading of what to take seriously, and what to put aside.
I also think that we have to respect what words mean. To call stories and legends a basis for faith is one thing. I can respect that. To call it truth? I have a problem with that.
If I am missing your point, I apologize, but my impression for you is that truth seems to be for you, religious faith. Whereas the people in the bible (allegedly) had evidence so as to believe (if you take the bible that seriously, I don't) there has been no evidence since the alleged resurrection of Jesus.
Truth will certainly mean different things to different people, and I further myself from worrying about that these days. If you have your truth, you certainly don't need anyones permission here. But to express it as a universal truth, or to suggest that there is a definitive truth based on the available evidence to me is a bit disingenuous, whether you mean it to be that way or not.
Faith is what we are talking about here. If it were truth, we would have worldwide evidence, and worldwide agreement. Since this is in the realm of the meta physical, and what one chooses to put faith in, I must be persuaded to call this what it is, an argument for faith in a higher being.
 
Amazing
Amazing 7 years ago

All time Jeff,
Many people/posters equate 'truth' with faith ... others, as you can see from many postings, do not equate truth with faith, but simply reality. There is no justification of anything ... this post is exactly as intended ... a sharing of what people see as truth, be it faith, facts, reality, science, atheism, or religion.
Poppers:

Find that which never changes amidst all of that which does change and you've found truth.
You have just described the Catholic Church! ... LOl ... just messing with ya ... that which does not change ... so after exhorting to not use words, you use words and generate the last sentence. The devil have not changed ... is he truth? Or simply truthfully the devil? Fascinating, indeed!
 
joelingeorgia
joelingeorgia 7 years ago

i think the only real truth's are natural laws.
 
garybuss
garybuss 7 years ago

OUTLAW, when I come out to visit, remind me to drive.

 
AllTimeJeff
AllTimeJeff 7 years ago

I appreciate your intent Amazing, and I respect it.
I noted in your starting post on this thread that it was in a strictly religious context, which is what I spoke to. I know your last sentence gave questions as to each individuals definition of truth, esp "Does it even matter to you?" And of course it does.
A brief history as to our backgrounds as JW's should give all of us, whether people of faith or not, pause as to the power of the word "truth", especially in a religious context.
You see, while we were JW's, we had the TRUTH! And we talked/argued at people's doors to those who were convinced that they had the TRUTH! Whether they be Catholic, Orthodox, or other Christians, we all can quickly recall just how powerful it was to "know" that we were "right" they were "wrong", because we had the "truth".
My post JW existence has been one with coming to grips on how faith affects people positively. I not only allow for that in others, I allow it for myself in my own way. But I would never once call it true, or truth. It simply is what it is for the individual. The fact that a person has a faith, and calls it truth, neither makes it true or truth.
I am adamant on this one point, only because there are real inherent dangers in the power behind the word truth, which I hope I don't need to quantify. (but I will if you need)
Now faith, that is something different. A personal truth SHOULD be just that, personal. There is no universal truth in the religious context that you started this thread with.
And just for the record, I say this not to argue, (as always, I apologize in advance for my directness) but to make what I think is a very important point that should not be swept under the rug in a discussion about religious truth.
 
OUTLAW
OUTLAW 7 years ago

LOL@GaryBuss!!................................OUTLAW
 
Amazing
Amazing 7 years ago

All time Jeff,
My post JW existence has been one with coming to grips on how faith affects people positively. I not only allow for that in others, I allow it for myself in my own way. But I would never once call it true, or truth. It simply is what it is for the individual. The fact that a person has a faith, and calls it truth, neither makes it true or truth.
Amen ... agreed.
I am adamant on this one point, only because there are real inherent dangers in the power behind the word truth, which I hope I don't need to quantify. (but I will if you need)
Agreed again ... good point.
Now faith, that is something different. A personal truth SHOULD be just that, personal. There is no universal truth in the religious context that you started this thread with.
I will have to think about this one ... because I believe that 'truth' is independent of humans ... we do not control it ... but it exist. I see truth as Jesus put it, that he is the truth. Truth in that case does involve faith ... not an institution ...but faith. And that faith has to be, by definition, universal.
And just for the record, I say this not to argue, (as always, I apologize in advance for my directness) but to make what I think is a very important point that should not be swept under the rug in a discussion about religious truth.
No need to apologize ... you make some good and interesting points ... and I enjoy the exchange.
 
AllTimeJeff
AllTimeJeff 7 years ago

and I enjoy the exchange.
Me too, and I appreciate your points as well.
I will have to think about this one ... because I believe that 'truth' is independent of humans ... we do not control it ... but it exist. I see truth as Jesus put it, that he is the truth. Truth in that case does involve faith ... not an institution ...but faith. And that faith has to be, by definition, universal.
I can agree with some of this. Out of respect for your faith, I do not wish to discuss why you believe that Jesus is the "truth" for you. It doesn't have to be a topic for conversation. I would take exception if you thought that Jesus is the truth for me. He isn't. Also, I don't agree with your statement that such a faith must be universal. It starts, not on what is true, but what is believed, by definition, an article of faith. Again, I don't begrudge you this, but cannot in any way call it truth. It isn't true, nor universal. It's not even totally terrestrial, as evidenced by the other religions on the earth.
 
jwfacts
jwfacts 7 years ago

THE TRUTH is such a cult term. It is no different to the Hitchhikers guide the to galaxy question " what is the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything".  Any answer to the question "what is truth?" makes no more sense than the answer 42.
What does the question mean? What is God's name? What is the truth regarding how long to boil an egg? The Question is so broad it is meaningless.
For a JW to say they have "the truth" is absurb. The body of information they believe barely touches on any of life's questions. Of course, the fact that "the truth" changes every year makes it even more unbelieveable.
 
poppers
poppers 7 years ago

so after exhorting to not use words, you use words and generate the last sentence.
I'm just pointing with words - no words are "it". That's why I said, "Even so..." It's the condundrum one faces while trying to communicate or describe it.
The devil have not changed ... is he truth? Or simply truthfully the devil?
There you go again, getting lost in more concepts/ideas . You continue to think you'll find it in them, and you won't. (Now watch how your mind will generate another question, another set of ideas to chase after in the hope that further questioning will bring you truth. You are doomed to a futile search that way.)
 
nicolaou
nicolaou 7 years ago

1+1=2 That is truth.
A few loaves and fishes feeding thousands of people with the remaining scraps totalling more than the original whole. That is not the truth.
 
jgnat
jgnat 7 years ago

Hi, everybody. I wandered in looking for blondie. I thought this might be a discussion she would add to, but maybe that's projection on my part. This is the sort of discussion I jump in to.
Narkissos, you offer a fascinating alternative, as usual. If I may interpret in my own way, do you suggest that the search for an objective, external truth can be an "easy out" and hinder people from fully living, sensing, being?
Besides our best understanding of facts, like the periodic table and the shape of the earth (truth), I believe there are a few hard moral truths on how people should treat each other. My gut reaction to the original question is that truth must be tested against experience. If it doesn't hold up, the "truth" must be re-examined.
 
Priest73
Priest73 7 years ago

1+1=2 That is truth.

Except for very large values of 1. (sorry dumb math major joke)
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
jws teach that 'accurate knowledge' is the definition of truth.
they add to this by saying that the 'conduct' of average church goers also identifies them as not being in the 'truth.
' and, they define their 'organization' as being the truth, because they are a clean people who are doing right works, and teaching accurately.



Related Topics
OrphanCrow
The Jehovah's Witnesses, the Royal Commission and the Catholic Church
by OrphanCrow 7 months ago
KiddingMe
Police: Teen killed in N.Y. church assault wanted out
by KiddingMe 5 months ago
The Searcher
A First Stepping-Stone For Bethelites & Lurkers?
by The Searcher 5 months ago
Olivia Wilde
badly handled from Elders
by Olivia Wilde 7 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Highlights from 11-15-2015 WT (FAITH)
by blondie 4 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/174499/what-truth-how-do-you-define?page=2&size=20







Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ What is the Truth? How do you Define it?
/  





 

What is the Truth? How do you Define it?
by Amazing 7 years ago 68 Replies latest 7 years ago   jw friends
«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 »
 5
10
20
AllTimeJeff
AllTimeJeff 7 years ago

My gut reaction to the original question is that truth must be tested against experience. If it doesn't hold up, the "truth" must be re-examined.
Existentialism is an enemy of religious truth. Not necessarily metaphysical truth, which cannot be quantified anyhow.
Morals and ethics can be tested. We know that to be honest and loving is a more healthier way of living then its opposites. Why that is so is another issue entirely.
Religion/theists/Christians claim that moral/ethics are their sole territory. This is a claim that is getting less credence by the evidence of atheists and agnostics being shown to have morals and ethics too.
Again, personal truth is different from truth. And it is clear that personal truth = faith. Real truth has nothing to do with personal truth. It is important though that we each individually have our own personal truth. But you can't push that or promote that to anyone else.
 
Amazing
Amazing 7 years ago

AllTimeJeff,
I can agree with some of this. Out of respect for your faith, I do not wish to discuss why you believe that Jesus is the "truth" for you. It doesn't have to be a topic for conversation. I would take exception if you thought that Jesus is the truth for me. He isn't. Also, I don't agree with your statement that such a faith must be universal. It starts, not on what is true, but what is believed, by definition, an article of faith. Again, I don't begrudge you this, but cannot in any way call it truth. It isn't true, nor universal. It's not even totally terrestrial, as evidenced by the other religions on the earth.
Perhaps we speak from different perspectives. Having studied eastern religions, such as Daoism (Taoism), Shintoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism (more of a philosophy) I have a good handle on the fact that Catholicism, and in general Christianity, is not universally known or accepted. Although, about 25% of people on earth are either Catholic or Orthodox, and if we add in non-Catholic Christianity, it is about 33% of the earth ... spread around the globe. I have also studied the Koran, though I have not closely studied Islam. In some Islamic nations, Christianity is virtually unknown ... and not permitted to exist.
The problem in our discussion is how we use the term 'universal." To be 'universal' does not demand that a truth be 'known' or 'accepted' by anyone. A 'truth' can by completely unknown, and still be true, and be absolutely universal. I have no doubt that as humans move out into the universe more, we will discover many new truths ... new to us, that is, but timeless truths that have always existed.
At one time, all people on earth thought the earth was flat ... then they thought it was the center of the universe ... and now we know that earth is a tiny little planet on the outer 1/3 edge of one of the spiral arms of a medium size galaxy, with 100 billion stars; and it is merely one galaxy in an estimated billion or more galaxies. The truth of our existence and place in the universal was not known or accepted by anyone on earth at one time ... but the "truth" was nonetheless true and universal ... and at one time, as some begin to study and form speculation about the universe, it took "faith" using what they did know to 'believe' the universal truth of our existence ... a faith that is no longer needed today ... but the truth stands, and is good. Yet, there are still people on earth who do not know about the universe ... and the 'Flat Earth Society' still exists, and claims that the 'proofs' of a spherical earth to be a conspiratorial hoax.
Likewise, right now, what I accept as 'truth' in the person of Christ is not known by all, or accepted by those who do know. But, it can still be 'truth' and in fact 'universal' truth ... that is, God can be the same everywhere to everyone all the time. Jesus can be his only son, and our savior. Right now, however, I openly admit that this truth in my life, is a matter of faith. Time will prove whether it is a universal truth.
Existentialism is an enemy of religious truth. Not necessarily metaphysical truth, which cannot be quantified anyhow.
No, it is not. People with a certain agenda can become enemies of truth. However, existentialism is an outmoded approach to philosophy. This field is still evolving, and currently, philosophers have moved from finding grand theories to establishing mini-theories.
Morals and ethics can be tested. We know that to be honest and loving is a more healthier way of living then its opposites. Why that is so is another issue entirely.
There are time honored morals and ethics, and time-dependent morals and ethics, and situational ethics. Therefore, depending on when one lives, and where one lives, some things considered moral and ethical can be healthy or less than healthy.
Religion/theists/Christians claim that moral/ethics are their sole territory. This is a claim that is getting less credence by the evidence of atheists and agnostics being shown to have morals and ethics too.
No, they make no such claim ... this is a myth.
Again, personal truth is different from truth. And it is clear that personal truth = faith. Real truth has nothing to do with personal truth. It is important though that we each individually have our own personal truth. But you can't push that or promote that to anyone else.
Personal truth is not necessarily equal to faith. Personal truth may not involve any faith. Faith is an act that one engages in, for different reasons ... some have blind faith, some have faith based on trust and experience, other have faith as a gift. But truth is time honored, and independent of faith. Faith can move us toward truth ... but these two are in inextricably linked.
 
I quit!
I quit! 7 years ago

There are also relative truths such as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
 
Mall Cop
Mall Cop 7 years ago

Amazing is it true that we are a product of our culture?
That where we were born and what we were taught becomes our truth?
For example, suppose we born in China, that would make us Chinese.
Then we would be taught a chinese culture that would involve a religous teaching that would be the truth for us in China.
The same would go for where ever one was born and raised on earth.
Of course one could abandoned their culture and what they were taught and learn that what they were originally taught was no longer the truth that they thought it was .
Another example:In short. I was born into the Catholic faith. A knock on the door changed that for me. The Watchtower Society had a lock on what is the real truth and I accepted it over my Catholic upbringing.
Some 33 years later, I come to an awakening that they don't have the truth.
25 years a Catholic, 33 years a JW, 6 years later at the age of 64, I still cannot answer your two questions.
Blueblades
 
StAnn
StAnn 7 years ago

This is giving me a headache.
For me, truth is something I seek. In part, it is understanding. The older I get, the more insight I have into life, the clearer things are to me. I'm always learning more and more and refining my opinions based upon the new knowledge I've acquired.
I do believe there is an ultimate truth and that that truth is God. I suppose that's why Christians want to go to heaven so badly after they die and finally get to be with Jesus, face to face. Jesus is the TRUTH for me and I don't think I will fully grasp what that truth is until I'm in his presence.
And since God created everything, I think this truth will apply to everything, whether it be religion, science, what have you.
JMO.
St. Ann
 
OnTheWayOut
OnTheWayOut 7 years ago

What say you? What is truth to you ... how do you define truth ... does it even matter to you?
From my (never finished) book on the subject of truth: What is the Truth? If asked, “What is the truth?” Jehovah’s Witnesses will answer most likely like this: “The truth is that which is firm, trustworthy, stable, faithful, and established as fact. Jehovah God is truth, in that His judicial decisions, law, commandments, and word are truth.He cannot lie according to Titus 1:2.”Seeking an answer elsewhere, Webster defines “truth” as: (1) being true; specif., a) sincerity; honesty b) conformity with fact c) reality; actual existence d) correctness; accuracy (2) that which is true (3) an established fact. Wikipedia (online encyclopedia) mentions that “there is no single definition of truth about which the majority of philosophers agree.”In John chapter 18, Jesus told Pontius Pilate that he came into the world to “bear witness to the truth,” but when Pilate asked, “What is truth?” there was no answer from Jesus. There are various opinions on how to define and identify truth. Even with Webster telling us that truth is “that which is true,” I could make a statement and say that it is a true statement, but that just leads to questions such as these; What is a true statement? Is it different from a statement made truthfully? Such highly abstract discussions will get us nowhere. Some feel that truth is subjective and personal, that one man’s truth comes from his inner feelings and thinking, his viewpoint. Many add that truth is relative, only defined by its comparison to something else. This would be similar to the abstract question, “What is beauty?” In subjective truth, different persons would have different truths. Outside of philosophy, truth is not generally thought of in subjective terms.Truth is determined by existing realities, based on facts independent of the mind.Most people think that truth is objective. Some go so far as to say that only absolute truth matters. "Absolute truth" is defined as inflexible reality: fixed,
invariable, unalterable facts. Absolute truth requires an absolute standard. This is the truth of which the Watchtower organization refers. Even here, we can run into trouble.If I make the objective statement that “Earth is the third planet out from the sun,” another person could ask, “Whose definition of ‘planet’ are you using?” “Is it possible that there are other undiscovered planets between the earth and sun?” “When you say ‘out from the sun,’ do you mean in distance or a straight line?” With religious doctrine, it is no different. Whose translation are we using, and which ancient Greek or Hebrew meaning are we applying? The Watchtower claims that our perspective on truth should come from the absolute authority of the creator of all things. They teach that the creator determines what is right and what is wrong, and that the absolute truth we seek is knowledge of His will for His creation. This is “the truth” that, unlike beauty, does not lie in the eye of the beholder. It’s just a shame that we need humans to interpret what that absolute truth is, and to tell us what
they think God’s will is for us. I am still on my lifelong journey to determine what is the absolute truth. .... I will not be able to prove what is “the truth” but I intend to [learn] what is not “the truth.” Since the Watchtower teaches absolute truth, I simply have to demonstrate that it is false or not absolute. This is surprisingly easy to do. It is only difficult
for an inactive member like myself to overcome my Watchtower training and be willing to do it.
 
nicolaou
nicolaou 7 years ago

Seems to me that folks are confusing a search for 'truth' with a search for meaning . . . . .
 
Amazing
Amazing 7 years ago

Nicolou: Good observation ... I would like to see you develop it some more.
OnTheWayOut: I am reading over your post, and will comment in detail later today. You make some good points.
Mall Cop (Blueblades):
Amazing is it true that we are a product of our culture?
In the narrow context of the question ... initially, yes. I would say that as we grow, expand, get exposed to other cultures, visit other nations and get to know peoples of those nations ... and study their cultures ... experience their cultures ... then we become a product of all that we are exposed to, and a product of many cultures.
That where we were born and what we were taught becomes our truth?
Initially, yes. See my response above.
For example, suppose we born in China, that would make us Chinese.
Generally, yes. However, Chinese is both a race and culture. We could be born there of English parents and be raised as English people. We would undoubtedly take some Chinese language and culture with us.
Then we would be taught a chinese culture that would involve a religous teaching that would be the truth for us in China.
Generally, in a relative sense, your point is valid ... however, in the ancient world, it was also truth that the earth was flat, and that the sun moved around the earth. That did not make it truth ... it just seemed true to those who lived at that time and place. So what is true in China today, may seem true to them, but may not be true in reality. Many people living in Communists lands, like China, were taught that the west was evil, out to get them, and that we suffered in poverty, while they lived in the workers paradise. Most of them likely accepted the lie as the truth. That did not make it the truth.
The same would go for where ever one was born and raised on earth.
See my response above about China ... it would apply across the board.
Of course one could abandoned their culture and what they were taught and learn that what they were originally taught was no longer the truth that they thought it was .
Yes ... agreed.
Another example:In short. I was born into the Catholic faith. A knock on the door changed that for me. The Watchtower Society had a lock on what is the real truth and I accepted it over my Catholic upbringing. ... Some 33 years later, I come to an awakening that they don't have the truth.
Yes ... and I share the same history with you ... a few differences, but the same nonetheless.
25 years a Catholic, 33 years a JW, 6 years later at the age of 64, I still cannot answer your two questions.
That is OK. I am not always able to answer them for myself. What do you think of what I posted above, on page 1 I think:
I attribute 'truth' in different ways to different things:
The Court Room: As a juror I want facts (truthful information) so I and other jurors can determine innocence or guilt.
Science: I want truthful facts and working theory ... but let the truth emerge like an unfolding flower that never stops revealing new surprises.
Philosophy: Truth is too elusive for me ... I generally fall on my face when trying to find any truthful frame of reference.
Human relationships: Truth is honesty with one another.
Relationship with God: Truth (Christ) is that on which I can firmly rely, like a foundation stone, knowing my faith will not shipwreck ... and have an eternal future with God and all my brothers and sisters in heaven ... whatever that may mean ... however it unfolds ...
The Father: In truth is the ultimate object of worship ... the one who I can call Papa.
The Son: In truth is the rock of my salvation, of whom I owe eternal gratitude and loyalty.
The Holy Spirit: In truth is my advocate, teacher, counselor, guide, comforter, and friend.
The Saints: In truth, the Holy Ones are there as friends and brothers and sisters living in divinity with whom I can commune.
The Holy Catholic Church:  In truth, the place of reconciliation, healing, and sacramental connection between humanity and divinity.
All people on earth: In truth, my brothers and sisters, who, like me, are sinners in need of Christ, of whom I hope will not let their Watchtower experience, or other negative religious or life experiences, kill the faith in Christ they once had, or may have in the future. (Edited to clarify more than just the JWs)
To me, what truth is, and how one defines it, depends on how truth is being used, and in what context we use it. Do you find any agreement with the above?
 
SixofNine
SixofNine 7 years ago

Thinking over the topic headline, I realize that I still define "truth" pretty much as I've always defined truth, even when I was "in the truth". And w/o consulting a dictionary, I've always had a straightforward understanding of truth to be synonymous with "accuracy" and "reality".

So when people use "truth" in ways opposite of that, it bothers me now, just as it bothered me then. When I realized that the society was doing that, I left. And it's not like I held them to some impossible standard either; there were things I mildly (and even passionately, on a couple of topics) disagreed with the governing body on, but I still felt like if they had made a sincere effort, and "we" were right about the big things, it was, for all intents and purposes, "the truth". But turns out they don't, and it isn't.


When you put the word "my" in front of the words "reality" or "truth" you've created, in fact you are, an oxymoron.
 
beksbks
beksbks 7 years ago

Mall Cop, I was thinking about that this morning. What makes the Bible any more truth than the Koran, the Torah, the Upanishads or the Tao Te Ching?
 
beksbks
beksbks 7 years ago

So none of you bible thumpers can tell me what makes it any more true than any other holy book???
 
AllTimeJeff
AllTimeJeff 7 years ago

I think the sheer amount of opinion on what "truth" is just from this small sampling is telling enough on the reliablitilty of said truth. It simply isn't a verifiable concept.
 
Heaven
Heaven 7 years ago

I also put this in password's topic NEW BLOG - What is "the truth"?
At work, we are governed by the International Standards Organization creed as follows:
1) Do what you say.
2) Say what you do.
3) Prove it.
We cannot obtain contracts with certain large companies such as banks, insurance companies, and governments without the certification. We have to have a Quality Management System that includes change and problem management, continual improvement, and problem prevention. We must document our processes and metrics. We must adhere to the 3 principles outlined above or we lose our Certification -- and our clients. We conduct peer review audits annually. Periodic external audits are also conducted.
The WTS would NEVER acquire ISO Certification.
 
quietlyleaving
quietlyleaving 7 years ago

I like to think of the small amount of factual "truth" and "abstract truth" (that we have isolated) as co-ordinates or as reference points. Experiential truth (the more important truth in our lives imo) is to do with our relationships with ourselves and in our communities and interactions with nature and therefore is changing and often unexpected. This is the sort of truth we encounter in our day to day lives and provides significance but obviously cannot be seen as applying universally imo.
I would go so far as to say no truth is universally fixed.
 
nicolaou
nicolaou 7 years ago

I think the sheer amount of opinion on what "truth" is just from this small sampling is telling enough on the reliablitilty of said truth. It simply isn't a verifiable concept.
Far too broad a statement Jeff.  Empirical truth, by definition, is absolutely verifiable. There's just way too much woolly thinking and over complication on the nature of truth.
Something is either true, false or unknown. Rational thinkers attempt to learn the truth about the unknown through scientific research and hard work. Others try the futility of faith.
 
quietlyleaving
quietlyleaving 7 years ago

nicalaou, this is just what I mean. The "facts" that we have established by "empiricism" and the scientific method is very small compared to life as we live it.
 
jgnat
jgnat 7 years ago


I hadn't realized that existentialism had gone out of fashion. I had just discovered it a few years ago and it resonated with things I just knew. I'd felt like I'd found my missing puzzle pieces. Amazing, if you have some links to articles that support your statement, I would like to read them.
About the flat earth discussion, Amazing. It was the Christians at the time who most vehemently denied the evidence put before them. Their "truth" model at the time demanded that God - and the Sun - be the center of the universe. Observers who challenged that concept were labelled infidels. I wonder if Christians, in their fierce determination to support their current beliefs, unknowingly slay sharper observers.
You are right that, once the Christian admits to new fact, his faith must rest on something else.
Mall Cop - here's an interesting thought. Steven Pinker proposes that there are a dozen instincts that all people possess regardless of culture and upbringing. These seem to be hard-wired in to all of us. Just as a foal instinctively rises to his feet and seeks his mother's teat, every human being is born with these instincts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html
 
slimboyfat
slimboyfat 7 years ago

It's good to see you around jgnat - and that's the truth.
 
AllTimeJeff
AllTimeJeff 7 years ago

The "facts" that we have established by "empiricism" and the scientific method is very small compared to life as we live it.
You know, this is where I differ a small bit from some atheists. (I can't and won't speak for any general group wholesale) I agree with the above statement.
Science and what is available currently through testable premises should always be relevant. I take them seriously. Yet, science can't quantify certain quality of life premises.
To put it succinctly, we all want to be happy and at peace. (something that JW dogma violated in all of us to one degree or another) What causes that, including the need it seems we all possess to have a purpose in life, so that our life has meaning is not known, either in science or religion. Thus, to call any personal conclusion "truth" instead of personal faith elevates dogma over facts, what is true and false.
Suffice to say, if we don't have meaning or purpose in life, we seek it. If we don't have it, we are sad, depressed. Psychology is a medical/sociological field that directly intercedes for those who aren't happy and need help. Psychiatry is similar, with more of a reliance on medicine.....
When it comes to "the great questions" (i.e. how did we get here? "Who" put us here? etc etc etc) the answers seem to go beyond pure science. (for the time being)
However, it is in my opinion, somewhat dishonest of certain religions (not all, just some) who claim that this void is their realm, at the exclusion of science.
That is why "existentialism" is so important, because I believe it puts the onus of "truth" on the individual to discover for themselves. Even if this personal truth is nothing more then an article of personal faith, at least it comes from the conclusions of the individual, not at the insistence of a group with its dogma.
We all need to take responsibility for our journey's, and not abdicate them to the dogma of a group.
 
AllTimeJeff
AllTimeJeff 7 years ago

Amazing, my responses to your offerings
The problem in our discussion is how we use the term 'universal." To be 'universal' does not demand that a truth be 'known' or 'accepted' by anyone. A 'truth' can by completely unknown, and still be true, and be absolutely universal. I have no doubt that as humans move out into the universe more, we will discover many new truths ... new to us, that is, but timeless truths that have always existed.
I see your point, but I think in the context that you originally shared in regards to religion, this unnecessarily muddies the waters. We aren't discussing the subject of possible warp drive engines, we are discussing meta physical truth, with god and faith at its end. To imply that these future discoveries you speak of will support religious truth (i.e. higher powers exist, etc) is something I am open to, but certainly have zero reason to count on that, or to think it likely. It isn't likely at all that these new truths will reveal "god" or "truth" as you have contextualized it.
Likewise, right now, what I accept as 'truth' in the person of Christ is not known by all, or accepted by those who do know. But, it can still be 'truth' and in fact 'universal' truth ... that is, God can be the same everywhere to everyone all the time. Jesus can be his only son, and our savior. Right now, however, I openly admit that this truth in my life, is a matter of faith. Time will prove whether it is a universal truth.
I appreciate very much your honesty here. Please know in return that while I cannot agree with your truth/faith, your reasonableness leaves me open minded to your points of view. Suffice to say, whatever faith I have is not currently rooted in your beliefs. I thank you for not referring to your faith as a current universal truth though. It is refreshing.
Existentialism is an enemy of religious truth. Not necessarily metaphysical truth, which cannot be quantified anyhow.
No, it is not. People with a certain agenda can become enemies of truth. However, existentialism is an outmoded approach to philosophy. This field is still evolving, and currently, philosophers have moved from finding grand theories to establishing mini-theories.
This isn't what I was referring too. As you can reference from my previous post a few minutes ago, it is my belief that being "existential" has a lot to do with paying attention to our lives and comparing what we are told or taught with what reality is for us. I am very much a believer that each person must do this, though I readily concede many do not even try. But that will always be my encouragement for others, and that is what I mean by existentialism. (which I think works with the generally recognized meaning of "existentialism)
Agenda's ARE dangerous. It is important to recognize this, and take it into account when weighing evidence and claims of faith/truth.
Religion/theists/Christians claim that moral/ethics are their sole territory. This is a claim that is getting less credence by the evidence of atheists and agnostics being shown to have morals and ethics too.
No, they make no such claim ... this is a myth.
Actually, many do. But I apologize, as I see I made a wholesale statement, and that isn't true of all religions. Mea culpa!
Again, personal truth is different from truth. And it is clear that personal truth = faith. Real truth has nothing to do with personal truth. It is important though that we each individually have our own personal truth. But you can't push that or promote that to anyone else.
Personal truth is not necessarily equal to faith. Personal truth may not involve any faith. Faith is an act that one engages in, for different reasons ... some have blind faith, some have faith based on trust and experience, other have faith as a gift. But truth is time honored, and independent of faith. Faith can move us toward truth ... but these two are in inextricably linked.
Just for the record, while I do not begrudge you your opinion, I must disagree. Truth IS time honored (except for the dark ages, or our time in the borg as two examples) in that truth stands the test of time against the often wild claims of faith based theism. Again, this isn't an attack on faith, just the amount one invests in it while being blind to the weaknesses and holes in their claims.
Faith can move us to truth, but it can also move one away from truth.
In a theistic context therefore, truth is a misused word. Even if for you, truth is different because of your faith in Jesus, it still doesn't make it true. And at a certain point, we must defend words and their meanings to avoid phrases like the JW inspired "The TRUTH!" to trick us.
However, your faith is your own business, and I appreciate the intellectual honesty you have exhibited in discussing this and in sharing your views.
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
jws teach that 'accurate knowledge' is the definition of truth.
they add to this by saying that the 'conduct' of average church goers also identifies them as not being in the 'truth.
' and, they define their 'organization' as being the truth, because they are a clean people who are doing right works, and teaching accurately.



Related Topics
OrphanCrow
The Jehovah's Witnesses, the Royal Commission and the Catholic Church
by OrphanCrow 7 months ago
KiddingMe
Police: Teen killed in N.Y. church assault wanted out
by KiddingMe 5 months ago
The Searcher
A First Stepping-Stone For Bethelites & Lurkers?
by The Searcher 5 months ago
Olivia Wilde
badly handled from Elders
by Olivia Wilde 7 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Highlights from 11-15-2015 WT (FAITH)
by blondie 4 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/174499/what-truth-how-do-you-define?page=3&size=20






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ What is the Truth? How do you Define it?
/  





 

What is the Truth? How do you Define it?
by Amazing 7 years ago 68 Replies latest 7 years ago   jw friends
«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 »
5
10
20
quietlyleaving
quietlyleaving 7 years ago

Jeff
I'm not sure what we mean by intellectual honesty here but in the spirit of intellectual honesty I'm going to come out and say I'm probably more of an atheist than an existentialist but admit that I don't understand fully what existentialistism means in practice.
I love science - my next 2 summer courses will be to do with Darwin's thinking on natural selection and "how the universe works".  I'm very excited and looking forward to a change from cultural studies which was very challenging for me personally but worth it.
ql
 
AllTimeJeff
AllTimeJeff 7 years ago

QL
I am looking forward to that too. I hope you enjoy your studies on Darwin. This discussion on "truth" border on my views of spirituality. I do think there is an observable component to people in that many seem to work better with a belief in a higher power, or some kind of faith. It's a quality of life component that I think needs to be honored in all of us.
Here might be a good working definition of existentialism.
Existentialism is a term that has been applied to the work of a number of nineteenth and twentieth century philosophers who, despite profound doctrinal differences, [ 1 ] [ 2 ] took the human subject — not merely the thinking subject, but the acting, feeling, living human individual [ 3 ] [ 4 ] and his or her conditions of existence — as a starting point for philosophical thought. Existential philosophy is the "explicit conceptual manifestation of an existential attitude" [ 5 ] that begins with a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world. [ 6 ] [ 7 ] Many existentialists have also regarded traditional systematic or academic philosophy, in both style and content, as too abstract and remote from concrete human experience. [ 8 ] [ 9 ]  ....... Although there are some common tendencies amongst "existentialist" thinkers, there are major differences and disagreements among them (most notably the divide between atheistic existentialists like Sartre and theistic existentialists like Tillich); not all of them accept the validity of the term as applied to their own work.[ 10 ]
What I think needs to happen is that this "spiritual need" if you will (please work with me on the semantics, I don't mean that phrase in the JW/Christian way) needs to seperate from the auspices of the religions and be returned to the individual.
I personally believe that atheists and agnostics are more spiritually developed then many who go to church, for a variety of reasons. I don't think spirituality needs to have at its core the worship of "god". However, if that works for the individual, then be my guest.
As far as intellectual honesty, I was primarily praising Amazing (that rhymed!) for acknowledging the current limit of his beliefs and not insisting he had more proof then he has. That makes talking about this much easier.
 
quietlyleaving
quietlyleaving 7 years ago

thanks for explaining Jeff - in reading the excerpt it looks to me like existentialism is part of our romantic philosophical inheritance - a very significant feature of this is to value seeing cencepts as fragments in order that people be oriented towards developing their own spirituality and destiny. So it makes sense that some of the philosophers mentioned in the extract resist being categorised.
 
Narkissos
Narkissos 7 years ago

Hello jgnat,
I have been away for a couple of days and I just found your reply now -- I'm glad to see you around too! :smile:
If I may interpret in my own way, do you suggest that the search for an objective, external truth can be an "easy out" and hinder people from fully living, sensing, being?
My post above was deliberately in Nietzschean style -- partly as a provocation (waiting for you to pick it up :wink:), partly because I felt this particular approach was sorely missing in the discussion. As such it implies a reversal of values.
Nietzsche (especially in The Genealogy of Morals) was arguably the first to point out that the notion of "truth" (also, and perhaps even more clearly in the scientific field) is corollary to submission or obedience -- the ultimate expression of the ascetic ideal, hencethe opposite of creative will. Elsewhere he makes room for a parsimonious approach of relative truths (you can only deal with three or four of such truths in a lifetime), which belong to the first, "camel" stage of man -- when man bows down as the camel to be loaded with as many burdensome, heavy "truths" as he can bear (Zarathustra, Prologue). The next stages being the lion who rejects the loads in the solitude of the wilderness, and the child who starts, again, to "play," "laugh" and "dance," in blessed forgetfulness of "truth".
I for one do not buy into the notion of wordless "truth". A rock, or a mountain, aside from (or prior to) their conceptualisation as "rock" or "mountain," is not a truth, just a rock/mountain. Truth implies a correspondance, an adequation, between language and something which stands outside the reach of language. Hence an impossibility. What we really have in the search for "objective, external truth" (especially in the scientific realm, but also in the religious or philosophical ones) is a certain type of language: humble, meek, self-conscious, modest, showing an awareness of limits which is also a delusion. The use of paradox or dialectics, even self-contradiction, even the (wordy) praise of silence, is just language erasing itself -- ultimately as writing, as I have just done by writing rock/mountain. It's an artificial trick of language deluding itself.
There is an interesting expression in Johannine writings: poiein tèn alètheian, "to make the truth" (John 3:21; 1 John 1:6). It is paradoxical (hence artificial) as the truth (alètheia, lit. "unforgetfulness," an etymology very important to Heidegger among others), by all common standards, is precisely what is notmade (up). Now if the truth is to be made -- inseparably through language and action, through language as action and action as language (poiein is the etymology for our word poetry) then we open ourselves to a more positive understanding of "truth" -- which is no longer opposable to myth.
 
jgnat
jgnat 7 years ago

Nice to see you right back, Narkissos. As usual, you have given me enough to chew on for months. It would be inadequate to give a Mc-Reply in the style of McDonald's famous service. Yet here I am, responding.
I'm not so sure that the Nietzschean suggestion that truth and creativity are opposed, or that creativity is "good" and the codified truth is therefore "bad". My gut suggests that balance is needed.
Fascinating idea that we create truth through our use of the word and by deed. That will take a few months to chew over.
I'm leaning towards a few human truths that may be instinct. We see these few things as right and just because that is what we are. The implication, however, is that our truth is not universal, and might be harmful to other species.
 
AGuest
AGuest 7 years ago

May you have peace! I know this topic was posted some time ago is so may be considered "dead" by some, but I would like to respond, if I may. Thank you!
Many people associate the Truth with an abstract concept of "what is true" and so when they see the word "truth" they tend to go where many Bible scholars/translators went when defiing the Greek word ?λ?θεια (aletheia), found at John 14:6:
1) objectively
 a) what is true in any matter under consideration
 (1) truly, in truth, according to truth
 (2) of a truth, in reality, in fact, certainly
 b) what is true in things appertaining to God and the duties of man, moral and religious truth
 (1) in the greatest latitude
 (2) the true notions of God which are open to human reason without his supernatural intervention
 c) the truth as taught in the Christian religion, respecting God and the execution of his purposes through Christ, and respecting the duties of man,
opposing alike to the superstitions of the Gentiles and the inventions of the Jews, and the corrupt opinions and precepts of false teachers even among
Christians
2) subjectively
 (a)  truth as a personal excellence
 (1) that candour of mind which is free from affection, pretence, simulation, falsehood, deceit

I have learned, however that such abstracts and the Truth are not the same thing. Not at all No more than Wisdom is an abstract of concept of wise thinking/decision/judgment, or God an abstract concept of love. To the contrary TRUE Wisdom is a person, a literal being, as is TRUE Love. As is the Truth. As is Death. Truthfully. You know that I know this is not always easy for some to grasp (although I've been absent awhile I have been coming here for some time and posteing such truths and so know how many received it... or didn't). The difficulty exists for those who do not know him. As you know, I don't mean know OF him... which is what religion teaches... but actually know him. Literally. Actually. In reality. Face... to face. Truthfully. While I do rejoice for those who have come to know OF him... and so bear witness to their faith in him, it soars for those who have actually come to know him... face to face... and so bear witness not to their faith in him (for faith is the assured expectation of the thing hoped for and once that thing is realized faith is no longer necessary), but to actually knowing him. Their faith is in what he has already done for them and certain expectation of the future benefits that will bring - that particular "assured expectation."
What do I, then, define as the Truth? He is the Holy One of Israel, JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH, Son and Chosen/Anointed One (Christ) of the MOST Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies. Here's the thing: IF one can exercise enough faith (i.e., the size of a mustard seed) to HEAR him, then in time one can also come to SEE him. The latter takes a bit more time as we all exist in darkness and he is the Light, so one would have to draw close TO the Light in order to see him. One does that by following his voice, which he uses to guide anyone who wishes "into ALL truth." As you follow his voice, you come to know things such as love, faith, wisdom, truth, etc. NOT love, faith, wisdom, truth, etc., as the world knows it and teaches it (i.e., per the above interpretation and some of those posted here) but as these REALLY are: the real "reality."
See, because we are made of flesh, with its blood, physical beings, we tend to believe that all their is, all that is "real," all that is "true," etc., MUST be related to, perceived by, and understood pursuant TO the flesh, the physical body. But we are also MUCH more than that. That is one TRUTH that he, the Truth, helped me understand and know. Had I continued listening to those who only know the flesh, I would, like them, still be enslaved TO the flesh... and unable to "enter" into an entirely different realm, another "space" if you will, and see what is entirely beyond this most of perceive as the only "reality."
I say to you, however, that his words recorded at Romans 8:32, "You will know the TRUTH and the TRUTH will set you free," are some of the truest words ever spoken. Unfortunately, many stop there, however; many more even misstate his words as "Tell the truth for the truth will set you free," or some like version. If only they would read a little further, at Romans 8:36, and get the sense of the words recorded there:
"Therefore, if the SON sets you free, you will truly BE free."
What does this mean? It means that because you will be set free from the confines of your FLESH, your PHYSICAL being, you WILL be like spirit beings... truly FREE... and so able to "go in and out" between the spirit and physical realms. Flesh and blood cannot enter into the kingdom of the heavens. But SPIRIT can. Thus, when the CHRIST, the TRUTH, sets you FREE... you are SO free... that you can and will see, hear, and know the truth, the REALITY... of ALL there is, physical AND spiritual. Because I know HIM... I am no longer bound to that which is physical because HE set me free. As a result, I see things, hear things, know things that people ask about all the time. Things that seem SO mysterious and complicated to us in the flesh, but are TRULY quite simple, quite elementary. Things that, if you saw or hear them, would make you go "Duh!" over and over again!
We are not the sum total of our flesh, dear one - we are much more. MUCH more. And this life and world is NOT all there is. There is more. MUCH more. And anyone of us can see and hear it. All one has to do is know... the Truth. And half the battle of that is already won for us because he already knows each and every one of us.
Someone said earlier that truth is "what we search for" or something to that effect. The truth, however, is that what is really searched for in this context is understanding. What we understand becomes "truth" to us... and so changes as our understanding changes. And so, in this context, truth is very individual to each of us, as the responses show. The Truth, however, the REAL Truth, does not change. He is constant, always the same.
Again, I bid you peace!
A slave of Christ,
SA
 
OUTLAW
OUTLAW 7 years ago

Shelby!!..
Hey Girl!..Nice to have you home..
Where have you been?
...........................OUTLAW
 
AGuest
AGuest 7 years ago

Peace to you and thank you for the very kind welcome! I am glad to be "home" - LOLOLOLOL!
I've spent the past year overseeing the off-campus student, faculty, and staff housing program at a California State University about 2.5 hours from my home - . I lived onsite and came home on weekends. I loved the job but had to work 12-16 hour days as, unfortunately, my initial immediate supervisor did not get along with the University's Executive Director and was asked to leave right after I started, and then wasn't replaced until about 8 months later - . I resigned as of July 31st for a number of reasons including my health (diabetes got way out of control).  I am "between jobs" right now and have decided to take a couple/few months off. Kinda like a mini-sabbatical, if you will - .
I haven't come here (in case that's what you're asking about, too - ) for some time due, in most part, to not having sufficient technology - although my work computer was fast, I couldn't visit during work hours. My home computer (which I am on now) is over 10 years old, and so SOOOOoooo slow that sometimes I get frustrated, and my laptop didn't have sufficient connectivity when I was out of town. And, well, time flew by. Also, it got a bit confusing for me when the forum changes were taking place and other sites were starting up, and... and... and... I guess I just got a little overwhelmed with the changes here and in my life .
So, I took a bit of a break, which I find is always a good thing - helps me keep a proper perspective... and proper level of love... when I do visit. Sometimes things can get a bit "testy" here (or, at least, it used to) and I sometimes found myself fearful that I might allow myself to take things personally, you know, let the ridicule get to me so that I would be personally offended (which there is no need for as what I share is not mine, so) and perhaps "sin with my lips"  (i.e., hastily "return evil for evil" or "call down evil" on someome )... or even blaspheme  (i.e., take credit for, forget to give credit to, or try to fool the Holy Spirit)). As you and many others here know, I am just as imperfect as anyone else and so could get caught up in any of such things as easy as the next person if I let myself.  So, since my occupation was requiring so much attention, I just put a bit more energy into that and have been letting my Lord continue teaching me what TRUE love is. Of course, I have not mastered it (who has), but I am leaps and bounds beyond where I was.
Anyway, that's "where" I've been. What's up with you, and how the heck are you and yours, dear one? Perhaps you should respond in a different thread (or via a PM), though, so that Amazing's thread can stay on topic? Dear Amazing, please forgive me for "hijacking" your thread. It was not my intention, truly! Perhaps since it is an older thread you can overlook it. If so, thank you! If not, please feel free to ask a moderator to delete it. Either way, I apologize for the intrustion.
The greatest of love and peace to you both!
Your servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
 
OUTLAW
OUTLAW 7 years ago

Shelby..I`ll pm you..
That will keep "amazing`s" thread on track..
.....................OUTLAW
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 »
5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
jws teach that 'accurate knowledge' is the definition of truth.
they add to this by saying that the 'conduct' of average church goers also identifies them as not being in the 'truth.
' and, they define their 'organization' as being the truth, because they are a clean people who are doing right works, and teaching accurately.



Related Topics
OrphanCrow
The Jehovah's Witnesses, the Royal Commission and the Catholic Church
by OrphanCrow 7 months ago
KiddingMe
Police: Teen killed in N.Y. church assault wanted out
by KiddingMe 5 months ago
The Searcher
A First Stepping-Stone For Bethelites & Lurkers?
by The Searcher 5 months ago
Olivia Wilde
badly handled from Elders
by Olivia Wilde 7 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Highlights from 11-15-2015 WT (FAITH)
by blondie 4 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/174499/what-truth-how-do-you-define?page=4&size=20





Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ What Was It Like To Grow Up A Jehovah’s Witness?
/  





 

What Was It Like To Grow Up A Jehovah’s Witness?
by The wanderer 9 years ago 41 Replies latest 9 years ago   jw friends
«
 1
 2
 3
 »
 5
10
20
The wanderer
The wanderer 9 years ago

What Was It Like To Grow Up A Jehovah’s Witness?
It is fair to say, that as a convert from Roman Catholicism my understanding
 of what it was like to be raised a Jehovah’s Witness is limited because of not
 having had any family in the organization.

Can You Offer Some Insight To Those Trying To Understand?
Admittedly, I do not hold the same hatred or hostility toward the Society
 because my perspective is different. In certain respects, I am thankful for
 some of the training provided by the Society because of my coming from
 a single parent household.
Objectivity Not Negativity
Can you give the world some insight without being too negative or melodramatic
 about growing up as a Jehovah’s Witness? In particular, a real life event to ex-
 plain the conflict or misfortune about the life would be helpful.
Thank you all for your insights.
Respectfully,
The Wanderer
 
claytoncapeletti
claytoncapeletti 9 years ago

The best way i can describe growing up a JW is that you always feel different and left out. From the moment i entered grade school, I was led to beieve that it was bad for me to make friends, play organized sports or join any kind of social clus. After being told so many times that everyone but JWs are bad people looking to turn you away from god, you evenually start to believe it. Since I had a lot of friends at the hall, I did not think that I was missing out on anything. When I left and all of a sudden had no friends and had no idea how to actually make friends, thats when I realized how important it is for kids to be socially involved with each other. Looking from the outside in, I can see how harmful it is to raise a child and brainwash him into thinking that only one type of personiw worthy of friendship. It creates isolated, lonely chidlren who do not know how to cope with the real world. It wasn't missing out on holidays or having to go in service on Saturdays that makes growing up a JW kid harmful. It's being led to believe that the world is out to get you and being forced to miss out on the opportunity to connect with the rest of the world.
 
Scully
Scully 9 years ago

Although I was not "born in" to the JWs, I was basically raised a JW from before the age of 10.
It's hard to explain how you can go to school and observe Halloween in October - even wearing a costume to the class party, and then by December you aren't having Christmas. The upheaval in a child's life - going from having a normal relationship with extended family to suddenly viewing them as "dangerous" and Worldly™ - cannot be described. Emotionally, your world gets turned upside down, like a whirlwind has gone through it. You don't really understand why all of these changes are happening, except that your parents say it's important if we want to "make God happy". You trust them... you always have. You have no reason to NOT trust their judgement, because they've always done what was in your best interests.
You learn quickly the behaviour that elicits favorable attention. Answering at the Kingdom Hall. Going door-to-door and presenting the magazines. Choosing Listening To The Great Teacher instead of Dr. Seuss for bedtime stories. Memorizing the scripture that was featured in the Daily Text each morning. Eventually, you become conditioned to behave the way a JW behaves, and your beliefs have to fall in line. You have been trained with subtle positive conditioning, the way a dog gets trained with treats, except you get conditioned with smiles and the chuffed look your dad displays when you give the correct response at the Book Study - without prompting.
It can be very lonely. You are expected not to Associate™ with Worldly™ kids or relatives, and other JW kids are not always that welcoming. In the congregation, you can be kept at arm's length, simply because you don't have the same JW pedigree of two or three or four generations of JW ancestors, some who may have rubbed elbows with the movers and shakers of the old days. You don't have extended family in the JWs, and because you haven't succeeded in converting your relatives, other JWs start thinking there must be something wrong with you, that you aren't zealous enough. The truth is, the relationship with extended family is precarious because your parents have been advised to keep their religion to themselves, or the family will take measures to exclude you from their gatherings.
You get in trouble at school because you've been instructed to not stand or sing when the national anthem is played. Your teachers know that you're a JW and they find reasons to bully you - one of my teachers pulled me to my feet by the hair at the back of my neck when I was sitting quietly during the national anthem. She also screamed at me in front of the class, accusing me of being a Nazi. I had to sit in the principal's office and complete a punishment because I couldn't participate in preparations for the Christmas choir, as though I had committed a crime of the worst kind. You go through all these "persecutions for righteousness sake", while your parents don't have a clue. Your mom is at home with your siblings, your dad is at work and doesn't have to deal with anything like that. You try to tell them what's happening at school, and the best they can come up with is some consdescending comment to the effect that well Jesus was persecuted, why shouldn't you be persecuted too? Easy enough for them to say - they weren't the ones having frozen slushballs hurled in their faces at recess, or being called a "Jehovah's Shitness" on the school bus. Why not just paint a big old target on the back of my head?
What being a JW kid taught me was that I could never ever be "good enough" - not even a glimmer of hope of it no matter how hard I tried. I think maybe this was a mentality that my parents already had, but the JW mind meld allowed that concept to grow and flourish. It's taken me the last 12 years to come to the point of accepting myself and believing in myself and knowing that I actually am "good enough" the way I am.
 
5go
5go 9 years ago

Can you give the world some insight without being too negative or melodramatic
about growing up as a Jehovah’s Witness? In particular, a real life event to ex-
plain the conflict or misfortune about the life would be helpful.
How about being molested by your best friend and hiding it for tweenty years worried about the embarasment it would bring to the brotherhood ( or at least parents ) and all the while thinking that god was going to destroy you because of what you were hiding.

Really loving ways we have.
 
sass_my_frass
sass_my_frass 9 years ago

For me, quite boring, interspersed with moments of utter humiliation via preaching, or having to do something weird at school.
Three meetings a week for my entire childhood, how mad is that?
 
penny2
penny2 9 years ago

As a young child, it was quite confusing. I was never sure what I could sing and what I couldn't. So I asked my dad. He said if it had "god" or "jesus" in it, I shouldn't participate. So when our class did Sound of Music as the class play, I knew there was no way I could have any part in it. Week after week I stood silently during rehearsals. Once I stood for the playing of a national song because embarrassment and humiliation got the better of me. I felt so guilty and I hoped the JW boy in my class hadn't noticed. We never discussed it.
Later I found out that some in the congregation had been to see Sound of Music. I was angry. That was the first time I was angry.
As I got older, I mostly felt privileged. I knew that Armageddon would come by 1975. Until that time I would devote my life to telling others about it and saving their lives. I would be a missionary, perhaps in India.
 
Tyrone van leyen
Tyrone van leyen 9 years ago

Glad you asked. In my opinion there is a huge difference between someone who enters of their own free will and someone who has no choice and is effected in all the crucial areas of development in life. In a sense you can't really miss what you never had. I reckon everyone born in this scenario can have different way of veiwing there expereince based on how fanatical and obedient there parents are to the watch tower. In a lot of ways it is difficult to separate the parental dysfunction from watchtower crap. For me I never asked for much of anything ever and never got anything ever eitther. Thats cuz I learned at a very young age the answer was no. TO EVERYTHING.
If you asked me that question then,
of course I would say everything was fine and beleive it too. I'm speaking of course from hindsight.
In particular becuse of growing up in this subculture I find that all my school years were most unpleasnt. Unfortunatley brainwashed parents lack the abilty to have there hand on the pulse of there child in regards to what they are expereincing after years of exclusion from any events that normal people do without even thinking about it.
From the earliest time I can remember in Kindergarten asking my mom for a bag for an easter egg hunt at school te following day as the teacher had instructed us to do. I begged her I pleaded. She had a pantry full of bags from shopping. She outright refused and told me to use my pockets. You cant even fit a dime into the pockets of a 4 year old. Well I remember the hunt was on and the kids brought their bags and were dashing about the class. I had entered the doll house and opened a drawer and found the motherload. I just stood there as the whole class raided the stash and I got nothing. I was absolutly seething and hated my mother intensly for that. To a four year old kid that was like finding gold. From that day on I was always asking" why me"? That was my first watchtower induced injustice that I can remember. In gr. 1 was my next injustice. There happened to be a Jw kid in my class but he was a bad seed. He had beaten the shit out of me as he had failed and was from an older grade. He got a little scared when he got home,and lied to his mother about the fight. She got on the phone with my parents and they forced me to apologize to this little cocksucker for pounding the piss out of me. This strange dichotomy happened all throughout my school years with the full support of my parents. They were young in the religion and were very concerned about there image.
I remember, sitting in my class on valentines day and seeing heaps of cards on peoples desks they had specifically liked and mine was always empty.I hated my parents for that too. They used to go specifically to the school to instruct the teachers what I was not allowed to be a part of.
When your young you roll with it. In some cases you might even take pride in the differences you show in public, but after a while they startto add up. No sex education, while everyone is in the library watching the film and asking questions. No freinds as you are considered not only boring but weird. Indeed you start to develop a chip on your shoulder. Always asking why me. but as the years progress you start to adopt it as a way of life. I think one think thats worthy of mention is that I thought way too much about death and the end of the world for a young kid. Almost obsessed with it.
When the teeen years come there is no mercy and only rules. The pressure becomes to much to bear and in my case I snapped. I lost so many opportunities and connections. I think I actually became eccntric and very shallow. You wanna know what the aswer is boy it's the only answer you'll ever need. Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah , jehovah. There was never any talk about real life matters. or phychology, ot coping strategies NOTHING! MY parents either knew nothing or they totally abdicated there minds as parents to the watchtower. Disgusting!
I see my life as having been born behind the 8 ball cuz of this. My naivity was legendary due to the isoaltion and stupid veiw of the world I was taught. I thought I was a freakin genious though. There never seenmed any means of building the self esteem either and the elders in my cong. were particularly cruela nd hateful towards me.
To sum this all up without talking about my entire childhood. It was terrble and I have no happy memories. To this day I have celebrated nothing EVER! It is a feeling of not being listened too. Not having freewill or free thought and complete hopelessness. My parents have not changed one iota in 40 years and still don't realize what they've done and continue to do. There is no bending, no flexibility, and no natural love. I was a talented good looking fellow and they flushed down the toilet with no regrets. To this day they would not care if I was the God dam president. All they ever cared about and still do is the witnesses and will die defending it no matter how much damage and human toll it takes on them. They are both retired and still knocking on doors. That is why I am so bitter and filled with hate even after 20 years of telling them to what they can do with there load of shit. They wern't raised in it and will never understand. Thats why I'm glad you asked.
 
needproof
needproof 9 years ago

Shit
 
Tyrone van leyen
Tyrone van leyen 9 years ago

Almost forgot, It's amazing I even have a sense of ownershp to anything. Most anything I ever liked too much was thrown out cuz it was demon possesed. I think this religion in many cases, has a way of turning people into born losers. Everyone except for you, always has some kind of advantage. It is like you are a punching bag for the world and you are supposed to proud of it. What stupid parents! What a stupid religion!
 
Tyrone van leyen
Tyrone van leyen 9 years ago

After all the sacrifices, isolation and emptiness, in my darkest hour everyone of these bastards turned their backs on me. I was a really good kid too. I did something wrong but hey forced my hand and created that scenario. It is a complete waste of life. Of course to my parents this was satan. I spent the next 20 years lost confused on the streeets and at the Y very troubled indeed. I don't want to go around angry with regrets hateful etc. but it has turned me hateful towards God as well. I know my parents will never relent but guess what. I have good news! Neither will I !
 
DJK
DJK 9 years ago

Deprived of childhood. The most crucial part of a human life. It was a waste. It was also a crime to have religion forced down your throat and it got worse when I learned about human rights and the constitution. I can't think of anything good that came out of it. I may have a life now, but it's not really living. It's an empty existance. I live the White Knight syndrone just to conceal my inner feeling's of anger and hate. Always question myself about love, do I feel it or do I act it?
 
penny2
penny2 9 years ago

To this day I have celebrated nothing EVER!
(((Tyrone))) I hope you get to the point one day, that you want to celebrate.
in my darkest hour everyone of these bastards turned their backs on me
This is so cruel, when young people are abandoned by their families and the congregation. It's hard enough to know how to fend for yourself when being a JW is all you've ever known.
penny2
 
The wanderer
The wanderer 9 years ago

Dear Tyrone:
Your personal story was very moving it touched me
in a way that most stories would never have.
Now, I see the difference between a "convert" and
someone "born" a witness.
I apologize to the board and to you Tyrone if at
times I may seem to be "pro" witness.
My experience was the opposite in that once abandon-
ed being a witness helped me.
Tyrone, my friend thank you for sharing. I am not
sure if there are that many stories that I have
read here that are as compelling as yours.
Your friend,
Richard
(The Wanderer)
 
Nowman
Nowman 9 years ago

I felt that my life was normal up until a certain point. It was normal to have a very difficult time at school, it was normal to feel humiliated, it was normal for my parents to beat me until I was 16 years of age, it was normal for me to walk around on pins and needles, it was normal that I would have goals of regular pioneering, it was normal to date and marry someone at 18, it was normal for young person to not truly understand what religion they were apart of, it was normal for me to sit between my parents at the KH watching me constantly, it was normal for me to get in trouble if my parents felt that I did not study hard enough and I wasn't prepared enough in their minds, it was normal for my parents make everyone around me feel uncomfortable because they were so strict (people were afraid of my dad), normal, normal, normal.
I really thought that I was suppose to have this kind of childhood, I really did not know any better. Yet, when I got to highschool, and things were happending at home that were not right, the "worldly" people told me that my life was not right. But, it was normal to think that they were the ignorant ones, not me. The last straw was when I was 16 and had taken clothes that they bought me and changed into them at school, they did not allow me to wear some clothes purchased by them, they found out some how, I got home, I got beat, and then afterwards, my mom cut 8 inches of my hair. I knew something was wrong, why did my parents go insane for changing clothes at school that they bought me? I guess because I went behind their back, this I realize. I felt my parents "snapped" with me all the time. Anyway, too depressing.
Anyway, left at 18 on a Monday night, after I had been out in service all day with my mom, I was a regular pioneer, and never went home.
A JW childhood can make or break you depending how much you can handle as a person, I tend to be a very positive person, and because of this, it helped me get through it, especially the aftermath and how it effects you after you leave! Its been 15 years (almost)! Ya Hoo eeee.
Nikki
 
OUTLAW
OUTLAW 9 years ago

Wanderer..So my post shouldn`t be too negative or melodramatic..???..By now,you should know with me..You get what you get..LOL!!.....Life as a Dub Kid is Hell..Endless meetings..Constantly tired from being kept up past your bedtime..Forced to join the ministry school and forced to give talks you didn`t understand..Forced to go out in the service..No friends in the nieghbourhood..No friends at school..Constantly singling yourself out at school..Not allowed to join in on sports or any other activities outside of school..Being harrassed for being a JW at school..Being harrassed for not being a good enough JW when you got home....And..I can Identify with all the Dub Kids that have posted to you....We were raised in an Insane Asylum by Retarted Parents..It was not a good start in life...OUTLAW
 
TheCoolerKing
TheCoolerKing 9 years ago

What Was It Like To Grow Up A Jehovah’s Witness?
Just one word: MISERY!
Besides the loneliness and the isolation, it was a dreadful feeling of being an outcast. Not to mention the emptiness of a lost childhood that can never be returned.
Here's just one example. One time I wanted to try out for my high school baseball team. I ran home with my permission slip and eagerly waited for my mother to sign it. Unforunately all she did was fold it in half, give it back to me and say: "Tell them you can't join. You are a Jehovah's Witness."
Couldn't even try out for a freaking baseball team! What a twisted way to grow up.
 
Crumpet
Crumpet 9 years ago

The wanderer - its not really fair to ask victims of religious abuse and imprisonment to be objective - we'd have to cultivate a dissassociative disorder to do that.
Anyway at best it was painfully boring - I live with a constant fear of boredom as a result and avoid seeing people in case they are boring and I cannot escape them. Sounds ridiculous but I promise you it is true.
At worst it was full of guilt and discipline and no joy.
 
happy1975
happy1975 9 years ago

Basically, it was boring. I realize now that it's an intensely controlling org that doesn't allow you to "find yourself".
I missed out on- Organized sports, dating, higher education.
IT SUCKS.
 
The wanderer
The wanderer 9 years ago

Dear Crumpet:
I see your point "The wanderer - its not really fair to ask victims of religious abuse and imprisonment to be objective - we'd have to cultivate a dissassociative disorder to do that."-Crumpet
I just wanted to keep things in proper perspective
and for the thread not to become a contest of
negative comments and remarks.
Scully, Tyrone and Outlaw provided some pretty
good material.
Anyway, Crumpet your point was well taken.
Respectfully,
The Wanderer
 
Brigid
Brigid 9 years ago

So glad you asked, because really, many of us here still need to talk about it. And oh it was loads and loads of fun!!
Born to be 40-somethings, as a sister friend of mine would say. No sense of true Self, instead sublimate your inner nature and model yourSelf after a 1940's mysogonystic, joyless bible salesman turned "Judge".
No real closeness to God--your god is a huge corporate, mean-spirited (jes lookin' for something to smite you over) god who is ever filtered and communicating to you through the Faithful and Discreet Slave.
The same stuff mentioned before. No love. No true friendships. Disconnection with the world around you. No celebrations
Aaaah good times, good times. But it makes you appreciate the world around you so much more once you are out. I liken myself to an immigrant to a new country. Everything seems wonderful and terrifying and new.
~Brigid
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
Watchtower-Free
Are Jehovah’s Witnesses losing the War on Apostates
by Watchtower-Free 9 months ago
Doug Mason
An earlier date when the "great multitude/crowd" was first named: "Jehovah's witnesses"
by Doug Mason a year ago
flipper
Attitudes of WT Society Leaders Towards " Rights " of Child Abuse Victims and Elders
by flipper a year ago
AndersonsInfo
Article: Reveal News-California court guts child abuse ruling against Jehovah's Witnesses
by AndersonsInfo a year ago
ILoveTTATT2
Analysis of Brooklyn Eagle Articles related to Miracle Wheat
by ILoveTTATT2 19 days ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/133218/what-like-grow-up-jehovahs-witness





Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ What Was It Like To Grow Up A Jehovah’s Witness?
/  





 

What Was It Like To Grow Up A Jehovah’s Witness?
by The wanderer 9 years ago 41 Replies latest 9 years ago   jw friends
«
 1
 2
 3
 »
 5
10
20
Amber Rose
Amber Rose 9 years ago

I can echo the statements of the other posters on this thread and can really relate to their feelings and experiences as a child. I do have positive things to say. Being a JW kid, an outsider, always left out taught me empathy for the other weird kids, who smelled funny or came from bad homes or were poor and dressed funny. I knew how it felt to be ignored - awful - so I reached out to those kids and tried to be thier friend, tried to spare them some pain of lonliness. Being the only kid who didn't get a birthday cupcake and valentines day cards hurt and I became known as the weird kid. Being the weird kid gave me freedom though. I could do anything that I wanted. I didn't have to worry that people would think that I was weird because they already did. Looking back, I think I developed some kind of resistance to JW mind control. (If anyone ever saw the Simpsons episode when they join a cult and Homer doesn't get it - that was me.) I was kind of oblivious to it until I got out of school and mostly associated with JW.
 
AK - Jeff
AK - Jeff 9 years ago

Richard -
I was one of the 'oddball' Jw kids, I guess. Mom got baptised, and I got the religion. I tried to [starting at age 6 or 7] pull the rest of the family 'in', since Mom and Dad 'knew the truth' and did nothing with it. That effort was massively inneffective of course. Many years of my childhood were then spent in a state of 'limbo' of sorts. I wanted to be a Jw [not because I liked the restrictive lifestyle, but because I became early on convinced that it was the 'truth'], and I could not move anyone else in the family to follow it.
A few more balanced things might have come out of that for me than others. I once joined a summer baseball team. I was in a school play one time. But most other things, were just as stated. Holidays, celebrations of any kind, friendships of any depth, all were out. To me, it kind of felt like I was the citizen of another country, one with very strange customs. And the duplicity of my situation is ironic to me now. Mom was a Jw in name only, yet insisted that her kids live the Jw life in school and socially. If anything - I was more a Jw kid than those with solid Witness parents - since mine was self-imposed and self-controlled. My mom was in the background, giving me the 'reasons', but I was self-enforced, and as a result became more deeply committed to the religion than most of my Jw peers. Yet, as mentioned by other posters, because I was from a non-witness family, I was not included in all the Jw cliques when I finally became involved and began attending all the meetings, in my middle teen years.
Even now the effects are tramautic and deep for me. The regrets are painful. Not being 'different' as such, but 'being different' with no reason, as I am now aware. Kinda like spending your life heading up the committee to 'save the dodo birds', except no one ever told you that it was a lost cause before you got the job. The dodo was extict long ago. Likewise the 'truth' never was, and yet I donated my youth for it. And in my case, it was a personal donation. My parents likely would have not objected if I had begun to move in circles of 'worldly friends', but I restricted myself. Later in life, I angered my parents when I did not attend college. Yet I was convinced that it was not proper to do so, by the religion they had accepted [though they never acted on it]. It was a confusing enigma in many ways. I spent many years afterwards trying to actually move them to action and become the Jw's they always thought themselves to be anyway. That too was a fruitless effort. For that I thank God.
I saw a movie once, in which American soldiers were in a Japanese prison camp on a pacific isle. The Japanese deserted the prison. The soldiers expected that if they dared leave, the Japanese would ambush them and kill them as escapees. If they stayed the Japanese might return and do the same. I felt like that. I was captive to a the concept that Jw's had the 'truth', yet feared that due to the parental failure to act on the same concept themselves, I would likely fall to the sword at Armageddon due to that failure. If I escaped, I was dead. Likely if I tried to stay as a minor, I would die for my parents bloodguilt. This forced me to act quickly when the opportunity arose later to become a full-blown Jw. And I did just that.
When you don't know anything else - it took on a relatively acceptable feeling at times. But looking back - I see how much damage it did to my ability to see the world in realistic terms. I am still making that adjustment.
Jeff
 
The wanderer
The wanderer 9 years ago

Dear Brigid:
This was an exceptional comment and so very true.
"But it makes you appreciate the world around you so much more once you are out. I liken myself to an immigrant to a new country. Everything seems wonderful and terrifying and new." ~Brigid
Thank you for your thoughts and personal commentary.
Respectfully,
The Wanderer
 
minimus
minimus 9 years ago

You don't KNOW anything REALLY, outside of the JW world.
 
Tuesday
Tuesday 9 years ago

I may have a bit of a unique expirience because only one of my parents was a witness, but I'll try to comment as best I can about the witness part of growing up.
When they say on the platform "you must be no part of the world" I think as a kid it's the only time you can really feel that way. As a grown up you go to work and associate with your work friends, then go home and you can associate with your witness friends. Not many people hang out with people from work outside of work. Not everyone decorates stuff for holidays. There are corperate rules about holidays. It seems that everything you do seperates you from something.
I always felt like I was walking a tight rope. I had to be friendly with the kids in school so that school wasn't completely miserable for me, but I couldn't be too friendly with them or the people in the hall would label me a bad associate. I had to be friendly with people at the hall, but I couldn't be completely truthful with them because then once again I'd be labeled as a bad associate and would get in trouble. It just seems like you're bordering on being in trouble at all times. You could learn about evolution, but you couldn't believe in it. I kind of felt like an undercover agent everywhere I went. You were playing the role of a normal student while at school, then playing the role of a perfect witness when at the hall, playing the role of a child witness while at home.
It's hard to sum up a childhood as a witness, I guess surpression would be a good way to put it. You can hate going to the assemblies, but you can't say that you do. You can hate not playing sports in school, but you can't say that you do. If a witness kid is getting in trouble in school you can't tell anyone that he's a witness because it might put the wrong light on the orginization. You can't do badly in school because it might put the orginization in a bad light. You can't make the wrong kind of jokes for the same reason, you can't be the class clown, you can't be too smart, you can't be too preachy because then people will associate that with witnesses, you can't be anything. All the problems you have as a child growing up you just have no where to turn to.
It really was like being undercover, you're trying to live in two different worlds and not let those two worlds meet and neither world can know about the other world. I think most kids who are raised witnesses will eventually choose which side to go to, either the witness side or the school side, or they'll suffer a complete indentity crisis. Hell it's only been 10 years for me and I'm still trying to figure out who I am, and still trying to make sense of my childhood. Maybe in another 10 years I'll be able to explain it better
 
done4good
done4good 9 years ago


It's hard to explain how you can go to school and observe Halloween in October - even wearing a costume to the class party, and then by December you aren't having Christmas. The upheaval in a child's life - going from having a normal relationship with extended family to suddenly viewing them as "dangerous" and Worldly™ - cannot be described. Emotionally, your world gets turned upside down, like a whirlwind has gone through it. You don't really understand why all of these changes are happening, except that your parents say it's important if we want to "make God happy". You trust them... you always have. You have no reason to NOT trust their judgement, because they've always done what was in your best interests.
Ouch, Scully! That just hit way too close to home. I could not have said it better, myself!
j
 
done4good
done4good 9 years ago


Glad you asked. In my opinion there is a huge difference between someone who enters of their own free will and someone who has no choice and is effected in all the crucial areas of development in life. In a sense you can't really miss what you never had. I reckon everyone born in this scenario can have different way of veiwing there expereince based on how fanatical and obedient there parents are to the watch tower. In a lot of ways it is difficult to separate the parental dysfunction from watchtower crap. For me I never asked for much of anything ever and never got anything ever eitther. Thats cuz I learned at a very young age the answer was no. TO EVERYTHING.
If you asked me that question then,
of course I would say everything was fine and beleive it too. I'm speaking of course from hindsight.
In particular becuse of growing up in this subculture I find that all my school years were most unpleasnt. Unfortunatley brainwashed parents lack the abilty to have there hand on the pulse of there child in regards to what they are expereincing after years of exclusion from any events that normal people do without even thinking about it.
From the earliest time I can remember in Kindergarten asking my mom for a bag for an easter egg hunt at school te following day as the teacher had instructed us to do. I begged her I pleaded. She had a pantry full of bags from shopping. She outright refused and told me to use my pockets. You cant even fit a dime into the pockets of a 4 year old. Well I remember the hunt was on and the kids brought their bags and were dashing about the class. I had entered the doll house and opened a drawer and found the motherload. I just stood there as the whole class raided the stash and I got nothing. I was absolutly seething and hated my mother intensly for that. To a four year old kid that was like finding gold. From that day on I was always asking" why me"? That was my first watchtower induced injustice that I can remember. In gr. 1 was my next injustice. There happened to be a Jw kid in my class but he was a bad seed. He had beaten the shit out of me as he had failed and was from an older grade. He got a little scared when he got home,and lied to his mother about the fight. She got on the phone with my parents and they forced me to apologize to this little cocksucker for pounding the piss out of me. This strange dichotomy happened all throughout my school years with the full support of my parents. They were young in the religion and were very concerned about there image.
I remember, sitting in my class on valentines day and seeing heaps of cards on peoples desks they had specifically liked and mine was always empty.I hated my parents for that too. They used to go specifically to the school to instruct the teachers what I was not allowed to be a part of.
When your young you roll with it. In some cases you might even take pride in the differences you show in public, but after a while they startto add up. No sex education, while everyone is in the library watching the film and asking questions. No freinds as you are considered not only boring but weird. Indeed you start to develop a chip on your shoulder. Always asking why me. but as the years progress you start to adopt it as a way of life. I think one think thats worthy of mention is that I thought way too much about death and the end of the world for a young kid. Almost obsessed with it.
When the teeen years come there is no mercy and only rules. The pressure becomes to much to bear and in my case I snapped. I lost so many opportunities and connections. I think I actually became eccntric and very shallow. You wanna know what the aswer is boy it's the only answer you'll ever need. Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah , jehovah. There was never any talk about real life matters. or phychology, ot coping strategies NOTHING! MY parents either knew nothing or they totally abdicated there minds as parents to the watchtower. Disgusting!
I see my life as having been born behind the 8 ball cuz of this. My naivity was legendary due to the isoaltion and stupid veiw of the world I was taught. I thought I was a freakin genious though. There never seenmed any means of building the self esteem either and the elders in my cong. were particularly cruela nd hateful towards me.
To sum this all up without talking about my entire childhood. It was terrble and I have no happy memories. To this day I have celebrated nothing EVER! It is a feeling of not being listened too. Not having freewill or free thought and complete hopelessness. My parents have not changed one iota in 40 years and still don't realize what they've done and continue to do. There is no bending, no flexibility, and no natural love. I was a talented good looking fellow and they flushed down the toilet with no regrets. To this day they would not care if I was the God dam president. All they ever cared about and still do is the witnesses and will die defending it no matter how much damage and human toll it takes on them. They are both retired and still knocking on doors. That is why I am so bitter and filled with hate even after 20 years of telling them to what they can do with there load of shit. They wern't raised in it and will never understand. Thats why I'm glad you asked.
Tyrone, most excellent post! Very sad, unfortunately. It reminded me of my buddy Jared growing up. Almost too hard to read. Jared, if your on here bud, look me up...
j
 
pratt1
pratt1 9 years ago

I felt so much of the feelings that has already been said, I'll just add this little tidbit.
You are told as a child:
Worldly people are evil.
Worldly people are out to hurt you.
Worldly people will lie to you.
Worldly people are materialistic and only care about money.
Worldly people will msot likely cause you physical harm
Worldly people drink too much.
Worldly people take illegal drugs.
As a child this makes you fearful of worldly people and afraid to even question worldly people about their beliefs, habits, culture.
If you removed the word "worldly" and substituted it with Black, Spanish, White, Women, Gays etc... this would be considered discrimination.
Isn't this one of the ways bigots are created?

Also, Tyrone - I sent you a PM
 
done4good
done4good 9 years ago

Jeff,
Your childhood was quite similar to mine. Father not in, and mother in, but very weak. I felt as if I never fit on either side. Eventually, I just gave in because I believed it was the truth. Not because I enjoyed the rules. The whole chidhood thing is still really too difficult to talk about, even today, at 34. Bastards!
Jason
 
XJW4EVR
XJW4EVR 9 years ago

What was it like to be raised a JW? Well, it was not the pure hell that many describe, at least not for me. I had an Elder/Presiding Overseer/Watchtower Study Conductor/Organization Man father, and a regular mom. I never saluted the flag, participated in birthdays or holidays. People often asked me if I missed them. The truth is no, I never did. You don't miss what you never had. While most of the worldly kids I grew up with had to wait for birthdays or Christmas for toys, and non-clothing gifts, I got gifts pretty much year round. So that was cool. My dad always tried to replce what was lost with something else. So we had huge get-to-togethers on the day after Thanksgiving. Some on this board would call that hypocritical, and that's fine. I think it was something that the Society should have done from the outset. The only thing that was never replaced was competitive sports. I never understood the ban on sports.
The only bad thing that happened during my High School years, was the ban on attending the local high school sporting events. I bugged my dad about it, and even researched the publications for anything that supported this local ban, and showed him that he and the other Elders were acting on their own. No other congregation that I was aware of had such a ban. Eventually, they relented, but only after I had graduated form High School.
The other negative about growing up J-Dub, and being an Elder's kid, was the fact that I simply could not do anything, including hanging out with friends, or ride my bike to the library, or just sit on the grass in the park without someone informing on me. For instance, I had a Doctor's appointment that I left school early for. I was walking from the high school to the Doctor's office, and some self-righteous J-Dub called my dad to report that I was ditching school! Did the Dub ever think that if I was ditching, which I did my fair share of, I would not be walking down the main street in the town?! I asked my dad who informed on me, and he refused. It just so happened that I was giving the Bible reading in James where James talks about demonstrating your faith by your works. I mentioned in my introduction and conclusion, that too many times Christians see something, and rather than assist, they gossip. I mentioned that if a person sees a teen walking on the street, does not pick them up , and calls their parent rather than talking to the teen, and offering a ride, then they are not applying James' inspired writings, but their own desire to gossip. Needless to say, my dad told me that I was way out of line. However, based on the reaction of one person in the audience, I got the information I wanted, and used it to my advantage subsequently. I know, not the Christian thing to do, but then again I was not a Christian at the time.
Back on topic. I had a very stable upbringing. My parents had their ups and downs, but they loved each other. My dad was not abusive to either of us, but I would say that he was neglectful. The Borg always came first with him, and everything else was second. That was cool, because he was never inconsistent. My mom was never a busy body. She never badgered my dad about Elder business. If she did ask, his answer was always, "I can't talk about that. It's Congregation business." I never saw my dad use his position as P.O. to give himself perks. When the Hotel/Motel lists came out for the District Assemblies, he always made reservations after the convention was announced to the Congregation. I never saw him manipulate the system, even to protect me. He trotted me out in front of three Judicial Committees during my teen years. I have learned alot about leadership and handling power from my dad. He is a very good guy, though still a misguided person within the Borg.
 
fleaman uk
fleaman uk 9 years ago

It was fucking horrible.I really cannot add to that
 
limbogirl
limbogirl 9 years ago

Growing up JW can be described for me in two words: LONELY and AFRAID. Lonely because I had no friends in the org and lonely because I wasn't allowed to make friends outside of the org. Afraid because my conscience had been so hypertuned that everything made me feel bad and made me feel as though I was letting down jehovah. Afraid also because all we talked about were the "last days" and how any minute it would be armageddon and role playing how we would hold up under the persecution that was sure to come. Afraid because even if praying to jehovah to say thank you for your dinner the prayer generally ended with pleadings of bringing on armageddon and killing everyone in the world (that would include your non-believing grandparents, etc). Afraid because of the constant talk about the devil and demons -- I was terrified of demons being in my bedroom. When I was about 6 my parents took me to an amusement park in the midwest called Silver Dollar City. There was a ride called The Old Mine Train which replicated going into an old mine back in the 1800's -- it was very dark and a bit scary. Thinking about it now it really was fairly benign but because of the dark and the scary noises I screamed through the entire ride for jehovah to save us from the demons. I can only imagine what the other people on the ride thought. I have a four year old son and if he ever did something like that I would probably take him to a mental health counselor ASAP! can you imagine training a little child to react like this? My parents told this story for years and thought it was a cute manifestation of my belief and faith. Sick.
 
startingover
startingover 9 years ago

WOW! Alot of those comments sure hit home. I was raised by a prominent man in the congregation, back in the days when the elder arrangement didn't exist and my dad was the head honcho. In a small town that made me a preacher's son. I can't help but feel that scarred me.
I will never forget going to a high school basketball game with my dad, I might have been 12 years old and when they started the Star Spangled Banner we realized we were sitting right under the flag and everyone in the place stood there looking at us sitting down. How could something like that not damage a young person trying to fit in?
One thing that sticks out in my mind is the idea that everyone hates you because you are a JW. I didn't make that up in my own mind, and I don't remember ever being hated, but hearing that at the meetings so much made it a fact. If you have any self esteem problems, they are only exagerated by always being told you are never good enough.
 
Anti-Christ
Anti-Christ 9 years ago

Well I share a lot with most people here, I think school was the hardest. I was a English speaking, strawberry blond, JW kid in a french catholic school, it was not a boring life. Even wen your a child you accept reality the way it is presented to you, I always felt something was wrong. I knew it was not normal for my dad to beat me and always feeling guilty for just being my self but now I like to think that I have a very different out look on life. Like it was mention, I see the world in a new way.
 
Hecklerboy
Hecklerboy 9 years ago

I can echo just about everything everyone has said. However I was raised by a single mother (father died when I was 8) so I think she was a little more relax on some of the rules. I was allow to have "worldly" friends and join in on some school function. I do remember being very interested in polictics in high school and wasn't able to pursue my interest in the field. I also remember being a senior in high school in 1988 during an election year. People came to my high school to register us to vote. So I ended up skipping class so I didn't have to go through the embarassment of it all.
One positive thing that has come from my upbringing as a witness. My children will be allow to follow whatever interests the like. They will get to celebrate all holidays and be involved in any school activities they want. I will make sure they have the opportunity of a higher education and I will pay for it all. I want them to have a happy and stress-free childhood. They will have everything I was denied as a child.
 
Paralipomenon
Paralipomenon 9 years ago

For me it seemed normal.
I felt like a little prince. When I went the the meetings I would get so much attention from playing the part of a good witness. I would comment as much as I could so the older sisters would come over after the meeting and gush over how smart and cute I was.
While others found their self esteem plummeting from being raised a witness I had no problem with it. I listened to the parts and tried to think like a grown up. I would ask genuine questions and for the most part would get answers. This challenged me to learn more.
I was prepped for going for school and warned of all the bullying and abuse that I would get. At school I immediately set out to befriend everyone. As I figured, if everyone was my friend they wouldn't bully me. In this I was always very firm about my beliefs. I would exit the class for the national anthem and not participate in holiday activities. In grade 2, for easter the class was making bunnies out of soup cans to hold their candies. I was given a can and told I could make another animal. I made a fox, the natural predator of rabbits. All the kids laughed and I thought I was pretty clever. Though at the end of the day, all the kids were bringing home their bunnies full of chocolate eggs and I had an empty fox in my schoolbag.
Even though I knew what my parents told me about holidays it's very tough to reconcile that. All my friends believed in Santa and they got gifts, maybe it was their belief that made it true. I prayed to Jehovah and asked for presents and didn't get anything. A couple times I stayed up on Christmas eve looking out the window to see if I could spot Santa and his sleigh visiting the other kids. I thought to myself that if I saw him I would sneak outside and tell him that I believed in him even if my parents didn't. I brought my boots and jacket into my room and hid them under the bed.
I didn't last all night and woke up in the morning trying to explain to my parents where my boots were. I was very bitter. When the neighbor kids were playing outside telling me all the stuff Santa bought them I broke the family rule and told them there was no Santa Clause. It was their parents and I knew because I stayed up all night watching. They were in tears and I got in big trouble. I felt guilty but smug at the same time. At least I had ruined Christmas for someone else.
As I got older I was no longer the cute little kid getting tons of praise for commenting so I tried harder and harder for the attention that I used to get. I would volunteer for every part, have my hand up for every paragraph, look up all the scriptures faster than everyone else. When people asked what I planned to do when I grew up I found that saying pioneering or bethel would get the same amount of praise. I didn't really want to, I didn't enjoy service. I loved the winter time because if it was really snowy we could stay home and watch cartoons on Saturday morning. Service itself was boring. The grown ups would talk about work, gardening, cars, grown up stuff as I sat in the back seat between two oversized grownups reading the magazines for what seemed to be the umpteenth time.
The meetings weren't fun, service wasn't fun but it was just the way of life. We didn't know any different. I knew my friends went to church so I thought it was the same.
Getting into the teen years was very difficult. I had requested the baptism questions the same time as my oldest brother did when I was 9. They humored me and started going through them. I knew all the answers. The brother giving the questions cut the session short and went to talk to my parents. I listened from my room as he talked. My mother was absolutely thrilled that her son could get baptized at such a young age. My father and the elder were trying to explain to her that while I knew the answers, I didn't have the understanding of the meaning. Eventually she conceded and I was told that I'd have to wait until I was at least 12 before going over the questions again.
I was really angry.
Into the teen years is when the child starts to look at the organization with open eyes. We can start to see the cracks. At that point you can either ignore the cracks or start to check them out closer. While my friends saw the cracks as an excuse to misbehave I was disturbed by them. They started sleeping around, drinking, smoking, doing drugs and going to bars. For some reason I was always invited along but never succumbed to peer pressure. To date most of them are disfellowshipped and I would suspect several are in jail or dead given the direction their lives were taking.
Their stories would be much different than mine.
 
Country Girl
Country Girl 9 years ago

Well...
Just imagine yourself in a foreign country, as an enemy spy. That's what it was like.
Sorry for the subjectivity.
CG
 
RubaDub
RubaDub 9 years ago

It was ... well ... different. Very hard to explain.
You sort of look at life from a different perspective. Sort of like looking at the world through binoculars, backwards.
Rub a Dub
 
limbogirl
limbogirl 9 years ago

you grow up an observer -- never a participant in life. this is what works for the dubs...they don't have to (actually are forbidden from it) participate in anything and can therefore condemn things they've never done or tried. they don't have to achieve anything because participating in life is the wrong thing to do. so, instead of feeling like a "loser" they feel like they are doing the right thing and simply being persecuted for it. that's where I differed --- I did feel like a loser and once I was able to break away I started participating, learning, competing and living.
 
Liberty
Liberty 9 years ago

Hi Wanderer,
You've got some great responses but I haven't had time to read them all so I hope I'm not just repeating some one else's point.
Even if I try to be objective my observation would be that Watchtoerism is/was most damaging to me and other children because it never allows you to naturally develope a sense of time found in other normal non-JW kids. By this I mean that since we were brain washed into believing we would never become adults (let alone grow old and die) before the big "A" we are forever crippled by not having the same sense of reality that regular folks have including an adult convert to JWism.
We (JW children) never come to grips with issues such as needing an education, a real life sustaining career, retirement planning, old age health issues and instititionalizment, and most fun of all...death. There seems to be a crucial developmental stage that, thanks to the Society's propaganda, is skipped by the true believer. I think there is a natural tendancy to avoid thinking about the harsh realities of life but the Watch Tower Society cult uses this to help self limit the believer into more dependancy upon the cult. Most JWs are miserable because they are not equipped to deal with the realities of life outside the JW fantasy of big"A" soon. That is why JWs are always so anxious for the End to come and hold on so tightly to the cult when reason and logic says let go.
The Society may have modified some of their hardline BS about how it is "spiritually weak" to have worldly thoughts about preparing for the future in "this old world" since I left but for kids in my generation (1960's, 70's) and older I would say it is a major impediment to living a full life. I went to my last meeting sometime in 1980 but I have been slow to resolve my own sense of a realistic lack of life's urgency. This is a disaster and my never-been-a-JW-wife points this out to me nearly every day. She literally doesn't understand how I go through life without great concern about some kind of plan for the inevitable realities we all must face. Due to her urgings I now do have some kind of career, retirement planning, extra life insurance, savings, etc. but I go about it with a strange sense that it won't matter hoping that winning the lottery or some other outside event will intervien and solve my problems for me. I think this has to be the old big "A" solution hiding under different names.
I want to clarify that I don't believe this rationally but rather emotionally but this still has an effect on some of the choices I have made/still make. Just another in a long line of crippling side effects from being brought up a JW.
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
<!-- .style1 { font-family: arial; font-size: 18px; color: #000099; } .style3 { font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; } .style5 {font-family: arial; font-size: 16px; color: #000099; } --> what was it like to grow up a jehovahs witness?it is fair to say, that as a convert from roman catholicism my understanding .
of what it was like to be raised a jehovahs witness is limited because of not.
having had any family in the organization.



Related Topics
Watchtower-Free
Are Jehovah’s Witnesses losing the War on Apostates
by Watchtower-Free 9 months ago
Doug Mason
An earlier date when the "great multitude/crowd" was first named: "Jehovah's witnesses"
by Doug Mason a year ago
flipper
Attitudes of WT Society Leaders Towards " Rights " of Child Abuse Victims and Elders
by flipper a year ago
AndersonsInfo
Article: Reveal News-California court guts child abuse ruling against Jehovah's Witnesses
by AndersonsInfo a year ago
ILoveTTATT2
Analysis of Brooklyn Eagle Articles related to Miracle Wheat
by ILoveTTATT2 19 days ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/133218/what-like-grow-up-jehovahs-witness?page=2&size=20






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ What Was It Like To Grow Up A Jehovah’s Witness?
/  





 

What Was It Like To Grow Up A Jehovah’s Witness?
by The wanderer 9 years ago 41 Replies latest 9 years ago   jw friends
«
 1
 2
 3
 »
5
10
20
crazyblondeb
crazyblondeb 9 years ago

Like it as already been mentioned, it was worse than hell. It was like looking thru a window, wanting that scoop of ice cream, that another child had.
For me, I had to go from being a child to acting like an adult in 3.2 seconds. My mom was unable to handle the burden of coping with 5 kids. So from when I can remember, I had to step in and play mom to 4 younger siblings.
 
BFD
BFD 9 years ago

It was a difficult way to grow up. I remember being embarrased to admit I was a JW. Of course, going to public school and being prohibited from participating in any holiday activities/celebrations and standing out NOT saying the pledge, etc. It was hard. Also, I was so unnerved that my schoolmates would see me out in service on Saturdays if I happened to be working in their nieghborhood.
I did not feel very "normal" growing up and I did not feel "special" either. I hated my mom's split personality. All smiles at the KH and a real witch at home. Not very spiritual at all. But we're all imperfect, right?
BFD
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 »
5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
<!-- .style1 { font-family: arial; font-size: 18px; color: #000099; } .style3 { font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; } .style5 {font-family: arial; font-size: 16px; color: #000099; } --> what was it like to grow up a jehovahs witness?it is fair to say, that as a convert from roman catholicism my understanding .
of what it was like to be raised a jehovahs witness is limited because of not.
having had any family in the organization.



Related Topics
Watchtower-Free
Are Jehovah’s Witnesses losing the War on Apostates
by Watchtower-Free 9 months ago
Doug Mason
An earlier date when the "great multitude/crowd" was first named: "Jehovah's witnesses"
by Doug Mason a year ago
flipper
Attitudes of WT Society Leaders Towards " Rights " of Child Abuse Victims and Elders
by flipper a year ago
AndersonsInfo
Article: Reveal News-California court guts child abuse ruling against Jehovah's Witnesses
by AndersonsInfo a year ago
ILoveTTATT2
Analysis of Brooklyn Eagle Articles related to Miracle Wheat
by ILoveTTATT2 19 days ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/133218/what-like-grow-up-jehovahs-witness?page=3&size=20





Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ The Difference between being a Convert and being raised a Witness
/  





 

The Difference between being a Convert and being raised a Witness
by The wanderer 9 years ago 31 Replies latest 9 years ago   jw friends
«
 1
 2
 »
 5
10
20
The wanderer
The wanderer 9 years ago

The Difference between being a Convert and being raised a Witness
Having come from a single parent family, I realized the need
 for some sort of structured and organized way of life. Roman
 Catholicism did not really satisfy my need because my view
 of the Catholic Church was that is was more ritualistic.
The Watchtower's attraction
Admittedly, the Watchtower attracted me because it seemed
 to offer certain things that were missing from my own life. As
 already mentioned, the structure and organization. In addition,
 the hopes and promises were an added bonus.
Comparing apples with oranges
I was not raised a Witness, however, I accepted the full
 indoctrination and ideologies of being a Jehovah's Witness.
 It would seem reasonable to me that the differences between
 being raised a Witness and being a convert carries its shares
 of differences.
Questions to Consider

1.If you were raised a Witness and you knew someone that was
 not, what differences did you find between yourselves?

2.If you were a Witness convert, how do you think your life
 differed to someone born and raised in the "truth."


Please add your commentary and
 perspective on the matter so that
 all can learn.
Respectfully,
The Wanderer
 
AuldSoul
AuldSoul 9 years ago

I always felt like people who weren't raised in the truth had less expectation to live up to than I had. I have a huge extended family (maternally and paternally) and almost all of them are JWs. "Successful" JWs, in JW terms. Pioneers, elders, "need greaters", Kingdom Construction Workers, Circuit Overseer, Bethelites...
...I sometimes envied my best friend who only had two grandparents who were JWs, and they weren't stellar JWs. He had no expectations except those he put on himself.
Now I am kind of glad for the pressure of my "rich spiritual heritage."  If not for that pressure I might not have been as studious and may have never left.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
 
blondie
blondie 9 years ago

I had a non-JW father and a JW mother, so I walked in both worlds.
Non-JWs remember celebrating holidays and birthdays, don't have memories of being made fun of in school for not saluting the flag or saying the pledge. Converts were adults making the decision to become a JW and had lived for some time in the adult world; not so those raised in a JW family.
Blondie
 
fullofdoubtnow
fullofdoubtnow 9 years ago

I was a convert, at the age of 21, and I always thought that youngsters raised in the religion were under pressure, from the age of 9 or 10, to make their decision regarding baptism. It almost amounted to blackmail at times. I didn't have to endure that, so I don't know how I'd have reacted, but these kids had never known any other life, nor were taught to expect any, whereas I had known what "the world" was like before I joined.
 
The wanderer
The wanderer 9 years ago

Dear Brandon (Auldsoul):
Thank you for sharing your perspective
regarding this matter. You said things
that I never even thought about.
Respectfully,
Richard
(The Wanderer)
 
proplog2
proplog2 9 years ago

I am a third generation JW. The biggest difference for me and my family is that we are broke-ass poor. My parents and grandparents (immigrants) thought the end was coming and never accumulated money. The non-witness part of my family all have good education, great jobs, nice houses. And they aren't the brightest bulbs on the lamp. There never was money for down payment for a house - the one investment that most people have. Now my parents are dead and they left nothing to their kids. My contemporaries who became JW's on their own have all inherited money from their parents. None of them are millionaires but they got 200-500 thousand bonus from their parent's death.
The biggest difference is that serious JW's don't accumulate wealth. For the average family this needs to be done over a couple generations. I have known JW's who didn't take the religion serious who got their coins.
Add to that the problems with leaving. You need your families for help. (Usually baby-sitting and transportation emergencies.) You have no friends outside. No network. Bad health because self-employment (carpet laying, window washing, janitorial work) puts you out of range of good insurance.
My Grandparents came from Eastern Europe to live the good life. Then they became JW's oooooops. That's it for a couple of generations.
 
Finally-Free
Finally-Free 9 years ago

I converted to JWism in my mid twenties. Prior to being a JW I had many friends and a very active social life. When I joined the cult I wrongly assumed I would easily make friends, as that had been the case my entire life. The reality was that I was always viewed with suspicion by the JWs. I had a "worldly" past, and I suppose that I was destined to be considered "bad association" for the rest of my life because I used to smoke, drink, and fuck before I was a JW.  No matter how hard I tried, I was never really accepted by them. I was also considered rebellious because I refused to shave off my moustache until the elders could provide me with scriptural proof that it was necessary to do so. For the next 20 years the only time my phone ever rang was when someone wanted food, money, a ride, help moving, or free computer assistance. I was there to be used, abused, and discarded at will. The only reason I remained a JW as long as I did was because I was married to one. Though still a believer, I had no desire to live in a "paradise earth" filled with such shit people as the JWs, and I had decided long ago that if I had the misfortune of surviving armageddon I would promptly take my own life.
W
 
Fe2O3Girl
Fe2O3Girl 9 years ago

First of all, I would like to highlight something you said that I think we consistently overlook:
the Watchtower attracted me because it seemed to offer certain things that were missing from my own life
That isn't big enough - this is important!
the Watchtower attracted me because it seemed to offer certain things that were missing from my own life
How many times do we answer someone worried about a friend or relative becoming involved with the Watchtower with pages of quotes, references to decades old literature, clever questions to ask.....this is not the key. The key is: what is missing in their life that the WT is offering? There has to be an alternative.
If you were raised a Witness and you knew someone that was
not, what differences did you find between yourselves?
I never found any more difference between myself as a born-in and a convert than I did between myself and another born-in JW. I never viewed the converts as different and I don't think I treated them differently. That said, I was surprised to learn after I left that some adult converts did think that they were viewed as second class.
 
reneeisorym
reneeisorym 9 years ago

I felt as a raised up JW that at least they could say they made the decision to be a JW.
I felt like since I was raised up one, I couldn't tell people at the door, "I've been where you are and I found this to be the right religion" (funny I used to think there even was a right religion).
Its funny now because I can say "Yeah I was raised by strict Jehovah's Witness parents, but I found that they never taught me how to have a relationship with God. Now, I have the joy of knowing God and being one of His children."

Renee
 
XJW4EVR
XJW4EVR 9 years ago

I had expectations, great expectations, that were thrust upon me. I was expected to get baptized at an early age. I was expected to vacation pioneer, I was expected to give No. 2 talks, I was expected to be on the platfrom at Circuit Assemblies & District Conventions, I was expected to be an example of "Jehovah's little boy." I was expected to take my spot in the panethon of elders that was my father and uncle. But the pressures of all those expectations crushed me, and I became a classic underachiever. It was a hard, self-imposed mold to break. It took the patience and understanding of a Pastor and some few key men to bring out the real me. I have never looked back since.
Yes, it is different. Even my own WT experience was different form the picture that most paint about Elder's kids. I was thrown in front of Judicial Committees by my father. Something I am both thankful for & disappointed in. I am thankful, because my dad was not the hypocritical Elder that so many of you describe. He showed me that if you truly believe something then you live it out in your life. I am dissappointed in the actions of my dad, because there was never a time where I could feel confident to tell him that I was having issues, in teachings or in life, without that fear of having to go through another Committee meeting.
Converts have no clue about the amount of pressure on JW kids. That is why I think so many of us that were "raised in the Truth" go hog wild at one time or another. Just my two cents, and I would love to discuss this further with former converts and 2nd or more generation people.
XJW
 
lonelysheep
lonelysheep 9 years ago

If you were a Witness convert, how do you think your life
differed to someone born and raised in the "truth."
I started w/jw's at 21. During that time, though with guilt, I felt that those raised in the "truth" were not able to have compassion for those who were not (me) and hold the understanding of what life's challenges were really like.
I felt like since they grew up with only the jw program, that they were looked at as better then me since "they were raised in it".
There were a lot of times when I felt such bitter resentment to those raised in it because they were not intentionally away from their family get togethers on holidays & birthdays like I was in order to serve jehovah.
My life differed from those I knew who were brought up in it by the fact that I was able to enjoy holidays, birthdays, Saturday mornings, weeknights and even those things religious.
 
reneeisorym
reneeisorym 9 years ago

I have noticed that most of the converts never felt good enough. As a born-in I felt like I was missing out from not having been converted. I think the truth is that no matter who you were, you never felt good enough when you were a JW.
 
AuldSoul
AuldSoul 9 years ago

Following in FerrousOxideGirl's footsteps:
reneeisorym: no matter who you were, you never felt good enough when you were a JW.
Needs to be bigger / is important.
...no matter who you were, you never felt good enough when you were a JW.
 
The wanderer
The wanderer 9 years ago

Dear Board:
I need to say this:
Thank you for all your perspectives regarding this
matter. There is no way, I would be able to under-
stand what a "born and raised" Witness experienced
because I was a convert.
Very moving and touching experiences.
Thank you, again.
The Wanderer
 
lonelysheep
lonelysheep 9 years ago

Converts have no clue about the amount of pressure on JW kids.
I agree. I had NO idea until I started reading all of your experiences here!!!!! I was going to make the choice to put that type of pressure on my kids.
 
jaguarbass
jaguarbass 9 years ago

Questions to Consider

1.If you were raised a Witness and you knew someone that was
not, what differences did you find between yourselves?

2.If you were a Witness convert, how do you think your life
differed to someone born and raised in the "truth."

Being raised a witness, the society was all I knew, they had a tremendous amount of influence and control of my life. I didnt care to be a jw ,it was a burden. I was always trying to find loop holes to break my bondage from the borg. The borg gave me my freedom when they misfired on 1975. They'll never catch me again. I would think anyone who was not raised as a witness came into the organization on their own free will. They would have been there voluntarily, they would have had freedom to compare their enslavement too. Sooner or latter no matter how one enters the borg, the jw's will misfire on false phrophecy or change direction and the thinking person will be free. As god does not change, or make mistakes or phrophecy falsely.
 
LongHairGal
LongHairGal 9 years ago

Finally Free:
I agree and relate to everything you said even though I'm female. I was not born a JW and came in when I was in my 20s. So, I was in the wicked world and had my taste. You are absolutely right when you say that they look differently at you than if you were born there or had family there.
You are right about how the phone only rang when somebody wanted a favor and I am sorry you were so exploited. I saw the handwriting on the wall early on and I was determined NEVER to do favors except in rare instances and only for people I liked. The nerve of them! I felt that they thought they would exploit the single ones there (especially the women). I am sure I was criticized for this but TOO BAD! Maybe they thought they had an endless supply of drudges to do favors. And to add insult to the injury, they didn't believe in higher education and looked down on secular work unless it was "housecleaning" and I heard my share of stupid remarks which I disregarded.

LHG
 
AK - Jeff
AK - Jeff 9 years ago

Though my extended family was not involved, other than my Mother, who began to study when I was four, I was powerfully 'imprinted' at a young age.
When one is told that certain ideologies are 'truths' from such a young age, the effect is momentous IMO. It has the effect of a bird in a cage, with no view outside. The doctrines and foolish thinking patterns become 'normallized' in a closed environ and impede the ability to really think clearly. Those raised to adulthood, and later becoming witnesses, have a differing point of reference in that regard.
Jeff
 
TheSilence
TheSilence 9 years ago

When I'm trying to explain to someone who was never a witness and doesn't understand I use the following analogy:
Remember when you were a kid and absolutely terrified of the monster in the dark... and you would be so immobilized with fright you called out for daddy to come make sure the monster wasn't there? My dad told me my monster really was.
Jackie
 
XJW4EVR
XJW4EVR 9 years ago


Remember when you were a kid and absolutely terrified of the monster in the dark... and you would be so immobilized with fright you called out for daddy to come make sure the monster wasn't there? My dad told me my monster really was.
That is the clearest anology of the JW fear based mindset I have ever heard.
 

«
 1
 2
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
Saved_JW
Watchtower Paralells Mormonism
by Saved_JW 4 months ago
KiddingMe
Police: Teen killed in N.Y. church assault wanted out
by KiddingMe 5 months ago
Saved_JW
Jehovah's Witnesses - People of Integrity
by Saved_JW 5 months ago
AndersonsInfo
Brownstoner: How the Jehovah’s Witnesses Acquired Some of Brooklyn’s Most Insanely Valuable Properties
by AndersonsInfo a month ago
Esse quam videri
Is the Watchtower Society following in the footsteps of the Catholic Church?
by Esse quam videri a month ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/124079/difference-between-being-convert-being-raised-witness






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ The Difference between being a Convert and being raised a Witness
/  





 

The Difference between being a Convert and being raised a Witness
by The wanderer 9 years ago 31 Replies latest 9 years ago   jw friends
«
 1
 2
 »
5
10
20
TheSilence
TheSilence 9 years ago

:::smile::: thank you :wink:
Jackie
 
daystar
daystar 9 years ago

Do you recall the emphasis placed upon reshaping yourself, your personality, on Bible-based (read WBTS dogma based) doctrine?
Well, imagine this being inculcated from a very young age. Our personalities were to some varying degree created by the WBTS. Contrast that with someone whose personality was developed prior to being converted.
Imagine being an adult, raised in, and coming to the realization that you are not who you are, or would be, otherwise. In some ways, who we are inside shines through, but there are these walls built within the psyche causing all sorts of psychological challenges.
If you were a convert, you at least have the perspective of a "before" the indoctrination began. Those of us raised in having nothing like that. We have to create ourselves anew.
What might be interesting is to see how many "raised ins" stayed Christian vs. eventually following alternatives and compare that with converts. If they were Christian before, did they go back to the religion they came from (more or less), or did they also tend to lean towards alternatives (atheism, paganism, etc.)
 
Honesty
Honesty 9 years ago

If you were a Witness convert, how do you think your life differed to someone born and raised in the "truth."

My ex always told me that since she was a 3rd generation witness and I was a convert she was more 'spiritually minded' than I ever could be.
My ex also told me that she never saw any changes in converts like she saw in those 'raised in the truth.'
My ex said that it was a 'miracle' that I was 'appointed' so soon after baptism.
My ex said she always thought that I would leave the 'truth' since I wasn't raised in it.
She was right.
 
OnTheWayOut
OnTheWayOut 9 years ago


If you were a Witness convert, how do you think your life
differed to someone born and raised in the "truth."
Those raised as JW's did not seem as happy with the religion as those that joined as adults.
We converts were celebrating holidays in our youth, we dated and had pre-marital sex, we smoked, got drunk, the normal things that young adults did.
We allowed the mind-control cult to be a part of our lives, those raised as JW's had no choice.
I found that many young "raised-JW" ones got in more trouble (drinking and sex). Or else they got married at age 17 or 18 (rather than sin), suffered for years as immature sheltered people thrust into adult life. Most converts already knew how to live independent of their parents, and we already had sex, so we got married when we were ready to do so.
 
choosing life
choosing life 9 years ago

I came in when I was barely an adult. The lure was paradise and never having to die, along with an answer for every question. I was very idealistic and wanted to protect my children from the wicked world. BIG MISTAKE!!!
One difference was having no family in the congregation. So, on holidays, when all the JWs were getting together with their JW family (because they had a day off work) I was expected to stay away from my family. They would cook turkey dinners on Thanksgiving and party on the other holidays and those without family were often left out.
I am glad I wasn't raised in it, because I got to experience the world and normal life. I am ashamed I put my children under the pressure that being different caused them. It's funny, when I decided to leave the Witnesses, I felt very similar to when I had decided to stop using drugs. I felt that it was all just a waste of time and I wanted to see the world through clear eyes.
 
sammielee24
sammielee24 9 years ago

I see the difference glaringly in the one aspect of self-awareness. A JW child is raised to place the Watchtower first always - he understands that he is of little importance thus he gives up following any dreams, he gives up getting involved, he quells any desire for knowledge, he sets no goals, he finds his hope not in anything but a kingdom hall and his faith in nobody or nothing except the Society. sammieswife.
 
kid-A
kid-A 9 years ago

Being raised a JW from birth makes you a member of a very special minority. Its impossible to describe, with a few paragraphs, the sheer misery that comes from being raised with the Watchtower corporation as your "real" parents. Perhaps a few highlights:
1) From the moment you begin school, you live in constant humiliation. You are forced to be the class 'freak' by having to physically leave the room while the national anthem is played. You are forced to leave the room during any normal holiday activities related to the "evil, pagan holidays". Your friends, if you have any, either pity you or mock you behind your back. This continues from Kindergarten until the end of high school, by which time the psychological damage is so ingrained and intrinsic, it is difficult to form normal relationships with anyone outside the cult, which is, of course, the entire purpose of this lifelong humiliation: make the JW kid hate being in school so much, they are desperate to leave and naturally, avoid university.
2) You live in constant envy of your "worldly" friends as they enjoy holidays, trick-or-treating, parties, school dances, the Prom, all the normal events that make adolescence tolerable.
3) From the moment you take your first breath, you suckle at the tit of the Watchtower propaganda machine. The endless boredom and psychological torture having to endure hour after hour of mind-numbing Watchtower studies and "talks" at the Kingdumb hall or even worse....the dreaded ASSemblies which cut into your few precious weeks of summer holidays.
4) Also from the moment of birth, you learn to fear the wrath of the big Watchtower (tm) bogey-man in the sky, Lord Jehoobie, watching every move you make, monitoring every thought you have, ready to strike you dead on a whim for questioning the wisdom of the senile old fart-knockers in Brooklyn.....
Hmmm, 4 little points, that barely have even scratched the surface in terms of describing the experience of being raised a dub.....
 
OUTLAW
OUTLAW 9 years ago

Wanderer..I was raised in the JW cult..Your told what you believe,and you better believe it,or you`ll pay the price..Kid-A echoes the experiences of thousands of DubKids..Get DubKids together and you`ll hear the same storys practically word for word..Life as a DubKid is Hell!!..JW parents don`t realize the trama they put us through.They tell us we have wonderfull lives.Any problems it causes us dosen`t exist,the WBT$ says so.....Leaving Hell is alot harder for DubKids.You don`t know life outside the cult..Everbody you know will turn on you.You better be ready to re-write your world all by yourself,because theres nobody there to help you..If your strong enough you can do it..If not,you can always go back to Hell...OUTLAW
 
restrangled
restrangled 9 years ago

Wanderer..I was raised in the JW cult..Your told what you believe,and you better believe it,or you`ll pay the price..Kid-A echoes the experiences of thousands of DubKids..Get DubKids together and you`ll hear the same storys practically word for word..Life as a DubKid is Hell!!..JW parents don`t realize the trama they put us through.They tell us we have wonderfull lives.Any problems it causes us dosen`t exist,the WBT$ says so.....Leaving Hell is alot harder for DubKids.You don`t know life outside the cult..Everbody you know will turn on you.You better be ready to re-write your world all by yourself,because theres nobody there to help you..If your strong enough you can do it..If not,you can always go back to Hell...OUTLAW
DITTO! The only thing I will add is that if your family stayed in, the Hell doesn't stop. Everytime you see relatives (if you are allowed) there is constant nagging about how you have gone wrong, how could you leave Jeh., why don't you just come to one meeting, have a bible study, what about your own kids, the end is almost here, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH ad nauseam. r.
 
Mulan
Mulan 9 years ago

I was raised in it, and I saw some differences.
Those who were converts brought some of their "churchy" ideas with them..............and some of the lingo. They would always say things like "if Jehovah wills". That sounded so odd to me. Our family never said things like that. Our large extended family were all JW's (almost all) so we never dealt with any negative family things for being JW's.
We were more laid back about our faith than the new ones. (maybe it was the times too.............converts after about 1970 dealt with a stricter organization than I grew up in) Maybe because it was all we knew, it was just our life. Because I was in school in the 50's and early 60's, I had no problems being a JW, at school. There simply were not the restrictions on school kids that came later. For holiday things, I would go to the library, which I loved to do, or stay home.
Can't think of any others...........just got up.
 
Nellie
Nellie 9 years ago

I was raised in the truth - but I raised MYSELF in it. I was introduced to the witnesses by my adult sister (who was later DF'd), but I began studying at 8 - neither my mom or dad (divorced) were witnesses, and my father only offered mild resistance to it. My mother was so distraught over their breakup, that I think she welcomed the idea that I was getting involved in something that occupied so much time. (Plus how much harm is there in studying the bible, right?) Actually, I gloried in the fact that there was an adult paying so much attention to me at the time. Since the sister studying with me wasn't my mother, she couldn't impose things on me, she offered me choices, but of course encouraged me to do things the society's way. I got baptized at 13 - in 1976.
While I feel the fool for being duped, I can't have any anger towards my family, because I self-imposed the restrictions. I never had my parents telling the teacher "she can't participate" - I did it myself. I told them, "no thank you - I don't eat birthday cake." "Thank you for the invitation, but I don't go to birthday parties, celebrate christmas, etc."
The regrets I have are regrets of things that I gave up. But it is what it is. Interestingly though, I feel like this doesn't qualify me for either of the two listed categories. I wasn't really raised in the truth (i.e. there was nobody MAKING me go out in service, study, etc.), although I was there from childhood. And I was also looked at as a second-class witness, because I didn't have any family in the congregation either. When guest lists were being drawn up, not many remembered me. I constantly slipped through the cracks. I remember complaining about this to an elder when I was @ 16. He said he and his wife had always "meant to have me over." My response was, "and in four years you haven't managed to issue an invitation yet." Funny thing, they never did have me over.
Ohh well, that's the past - I'm free now!
 
sammielee24
sammielee24 9 years ago

Your question might also have included the question of wether being raised in that organization was considered weak or zealous. I think this has a tremendous amount of influence on wether or not a person remains a JW, gets baptized and what age, has those life experiences most have to give up and the course it sets for their life. Mulan, came from a less restrictive JW family environment whereas our family were zealots so as a child there was no sitting at home. Even as a young child you were expected to go out in service and spend your summer vacations that way except for the family vacations which were conventions. Free time was spent studying or else working part time at a job of some sort. Take it to the extreme and add into the mix, all those kids that were then home schooled so they would not be in 'bad' association with the worldly kids - mix in a rural residence and you can see the isolationist that perfects brainwashing has been achieved.
 

«
 1
 2
 »
5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
<!-- .style1 {font-family: arial, sans-serif} .style2 {font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; } .style3 {font-size: 14px} .style4 {color: #fe403f} .style5 {color: #ffa02d} --> the difference between being a convert and being raised a witness having come from a single parent family, i realized the need.
for some sort of structured and organized way of life.
roman.



Related Topics
Saved_JW
Watchtower Paralells Mormonism
by Saved_JW 4 months ago
KiddingMe
Police: Teen killed in N.Y. church assault wanted out
by KiddingMe 5 months ago
Saved_JW
Jehovah's Witnesses - People of Integrity
by Saved_JW 5 months ago
AndersonsInfo
Brownstoner: How the Jehovah’s Witnesses Acquired Some of Brooklyn’s Most Insanely Valuable Properties
by AndersonsInfo a month ago
Esse quam videri
Is the Watchtower Society following in the footsteps of the Catholic Church?
by Esse quam videri a month ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/124079/difference-between-being-convert-being-raised-witness?page=2&size=20





Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Barbara Grizzuti Harrison dies at 67
/  





 

Barbara Grizzuti Harrison dies at 67
by Dogpatch 14 years ago 22 Replies latest 14 years ago   jw friends
«
 1
 2
 »
 5
10
20
Dogpatch
Dogpatch 14 years ago


from:http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/26/obituaries/26HARR.html
Barbara Grizzuti Harrison, who emerged as a popular, prolific writer of keenly observed nonfiction with a 1978 book about the dozen years she spent as a Jehovah's Witness, died on Wednesday at a hospice in Manhattan. She was 67 and lived in the Park Slope neighborhood of Brooklyn.
The cause was chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, said her daughter, Anna Harrison. She once wrote that for years she smoked six packs of cigarettes a day.
The turning point in her life and career was her decision, at 22, to leave the Jehovah's Witnesses, which forbade a college education. What followed was a successful self-education and a blossoming into a multifaceted writer of literate travel books, many essays and reviews, and a novel.
With "Visions of Glory: A History and a Memory of Jehovah's Witnesses" (Simon & Schuster), she became nationally known; her later work, mostly nonfiction, usually received excellent reviews.
In The New York Times Book Review, Vivian Gornick said "Visions of Glory" was "quite well written, contains a mass of absorbing information, and the personality of its author is extremely appealing."
Ms. Harrison was converted to the Jehovah's Witnesses faith by her mother when she was 9; she went door to door carrying its message. At 19, she went to live and work at its world headquarters, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in Brooklyn Heights.
After three years there, she renounced the faith and left.
"Visions of Glory" mixes her autobiography with detailed historical research. She portrays the religion as racist, sexist and totalitarian, but also details members' kindness to one another, their care for the elderly and their courage in the face of persecution.
Barbara Grizzuti was born in Jamaica, Queens, on Sept. 14, 1934. She grew up in various Brooklyn neighborhoods, mainly Bensonhurst. Her father, a printer, and her brother, Richard, did not become Jehovah's Witnesses, creating a deep fault line in the household. She wrote of an extremely disorganized family, and of a father who sexually abused her and once tried to kill her.
As a young teenager, Barbara already knew she wanted to be a writer. When asked in an interview in "Contemporary Authors" how she could reconcile this ambition with the tenets of the Jehovah's Witnesses, she suggested that the religion's images of the watery creation of the world and its imminent bloody destruction stimulated her imagination.
"I think the two things were going on simultaneously: the religion encouraged something it was bound to squash," she said.
In her autobiography, "An Accidental Autobiography" (Houghton Mifflin, 1996), she wrote, "I read Sartre in my late teens and made the mistake of taking him seriously."
After leaving the Jehovah's Witnesses, she moved to the East Village and worked as a secretary at a publishing house and at the American Committee on Africa. There she met W. Dale Harrison, whom she married. He took a job with CARE, and they lived in Libya, India and Guatemala.
They returned to Brooklyn with their two children, and she wrote that she thought of herself as "one of those furtive, silly housewives with a novel under her apron."
Her first book, "Unlearning the Lie: Sexism in School" (Liveright, 1969), grew out of the children's experiences with efforts to quell sexism at what was then the Woodward Park School in Brooklyn.
The Harrisons divorced in 1968 after eight years of marriage.
Ms. Harrison was an early writer for Ms. Magazine. Often described as a gifted interviewer, she contributed to many other national magazines and newspapers. She was noted for her humor and her strong opinions; she once called the highly regarded novelist Joan Didion a "neurasthenic Cher."
Her other books included "Italian Days" (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1989), an impressionistic and literary travel book about Italy that won the American Book Award, and a novel, "Foreign Bodies" (Doubleday, 1984).
Ms. Harrison is survived by her daughter, who lives in Bethlehem, Conn., and her son, Josh Harrison of Manhattan.
Her daughter said her mother returned to the religion of her early childhood, Roman Catholicism, in her 40's, partly as a result of interviewing Dorothy Day of the Catholic Worker movement and partly because she hoped to meet in heaven the high school English teacher who had first appreciated her writing.
______________________
I will miss you Barbara. (sob)
Barbara's writings:http://www.exjws.net/visionsmain.htm
 
Pete2
Pete2 14 years ago


I just read it in the NY Times (hardcopy). They gave her prominent space: above the fold with a pull quote and photo. What an amazing woman.
Pete
 
anewperson
anewperson 14 years ago

I will inform Troy at once. He will be heartbroken. Several times he spoke of how impressed he was with her sincerity and the impact of her works for providing greater Christian freedom. She was not only part of our jahchristians egroup and a part of our hearts.
 
Billygoat
Billygoat 14 years ago

 How sad.
 
hillary_step
hillary_step 14 years ago


JW issues aside, the world has lost a little brightness today.
Ms. Harrison was an exceptionally gifted writer. Her style was rich and sensitive and soaked with passion and color.
Her books are worth the read, not because she was once wrote as an XJW on JW issues, but because she was a great writer of our age.
Everything comes and goes.....
HS
 
mouthy
mouthy 14 years ago

Thanks dogpatch I will pick up some of her works to read
Sounds like I missed someone.
hope she & her teacher will have lots to discuss when they meet again. as I believe she will.
 
Sam Beli
Sam Beli 14 years ago


Thanks for the notification Randy. We are all touched by a little sadness today.
Sam Beli
"...religion opposes the commandments of Almighty God." Violence by J. F. Rutherford 1938
 
worf
worf 14 years ago


I am sorry to hear that she has died.
Her book was one of the books that helped me to see the real truth about the wt when I read it a couple of years ago.
worf
 
AlanF
AlanF 14 years ago


Bummer!
AlanF
 
RunningMan
RunningMan 14 years ago


I would just like to throw my own tribute in.
In the early 90's, before internet days, I became ravenously hungry for any outside info on JW's. So, I went to the local library and picked up any books I could find on the subject. There weren't very many, and I didn't have the nerve to request them from other branches.
One of the few books I could get was hers. It was very influential for me, and helped to establish a more objective viewpoint of an organization that I had only seen from the inside.
One of my great, early acts of rebellion was to attend a Sunday meeting at the Kingdom Hall with her book on the seat of the car, face up. Wow, I was really living on the edge.
So, Barbara, good bye and thanks.
 
somebody
somebody 14 years ago


dogpatch,
Thank you for informing us. I remember reading her book, Visions Of Glory, way back when. I believe it was in the mid 80's.
My thoughts and prayers are with her family,and friends She'll be remembered by many, many people.
peace,
somebody
 
sf
sf 14 years ago




A great loss.
sKally
 
dungbeetle
dungbeetle 14 years ago


All my love to her family.
And much peace and happiness to Barbara and Arnold...finally.
 
Farkel
Farkel 14 years ago


I'm deeply saddened to hear this, Randy. Barbara gave an insight of the inner-workings of the Watchtower's headquarters from a female's point-of-view that was ground-breaking.
I would like to publicly thank you for providing me with her telephone number so I could have the opportunity to spend an hour or so speaking with her a few weeks ago. Although I could tell she was seriously sick, she was still articulate, witty, extremely modest and very much a lady. She invited me to stay with her should I ever visit New York again. I very much regret losing that opportunity.
Farkel
 
Seeker4
Seeker4 14 years ago


Thank you Randy. Last year I was able to get her email address, and we corresponded for a while, though I think her health was really fading at that time. Her mother's closest friend, and one of Barbara's best friends as a young Witness, are still Witnesses and in the congregation I was an elder in for many years. So we had a few things - including writing - in common.
By a strange coincidence I found a copy of her "An Accidental Autobiography" in a used bookstore within a day or so of when we first began emailing. I was again astonished at what a wonderful narrative touch she had. I have read her "Visions of Glory," a few times, including several years when I was still an elder. I found her work very moving and accurate. I'm glad you have it available on-line.
She was far too young to die, and my sympathy goes out to her family and friends. She was a remarkable talent.
S4
 
MegaDude
MegaDude 14 years ago

Thanks for posting this Randy. And for also letting us know how serious her condition was and that we could contact her in the short time she had left. I had a chance to correspond with her and tell how much her book meant to me. She was a fine author, and a fearless lady for sharing so much of herself in "Visions of Glory."
 
WildHorses
WildHorses 14 years ago


Randy, is there a way to get a messege to her family? I would like to send my condolences.
Lilacs

I don't want someone in my life I can live with. I want someone in my life I can't live without.
 
RunningMan
RunningMan 14 years ago

Randy: Why not send a copy of this thread to her family? Honest, sincere comments are a lot more meaningful than formal condolences.
 
TheStar
TheStar 14 years ago

Thank you for posting the news Randy.  It is truely sad to hear. Life is indeed much too short. May her family find peace through this trying time.
 
plmkrzy
plmkrzy 14 years ago


 How very sad.
Thanks Randy for posting the news.
(((((((((((((for her loved ones)))))))))))))))

http://ourworld.cs.com/pwmkwzy/home.html
http://my.cybersoup.com/wierdchit
 

«
 1
 2
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
AndersonsInfo
Brownstoner: How the Jehovah’s Witnesses Acquired Some of Brooklyn’s Most Insanely Valuable Properties
by AndersonsInfo a month ago
AndersonsInfo
Trey Bundy: One Year of Reporting JW Child Abuse - Your comments please!
by AndersonsInfo a month ago
Esse quam videri
Google.ca search bar 'royal commission'
by Esse quam videri 7 months ago
Saved_JW
Jehovah's Witnesses - People of Integrity
by Saved_JW 5 months ago
Tenacious
Has anyone noticed how in the October JW Broadcast, Losch encourages good works towards ALL people?
by Tenacious 5 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/26529/barbara-grizzuti-harrison-dies-67






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Barbara Grizzuti Harrison dies at 67
/  





 

Barbara Grizzuti Harrison dies at 67
by Dogpatch 14 years ago 22 Replies latest 14 years ago   jw friends
«
 1
 2
 »
5
10
20
Tanalyst
Tanalyst 14 years ago


Barbara had a way with words.
"Brother" Knorr told her while she was at Bethel,"the demons liked smart women."
My condolences to the family.
 
Satanus
Satanus 14 years ago


Some of the brightest flames burn more quickly. Now her light is with the others. Bless her.
SS
 
thewiz
thewiz 14 years ago


somebody
I hope you don't mind if I use your words.
Thank you for informing me. I remember reading her book, Visions Of Glory, way back when too, I think. I believe I read most it in/around 1978.
Thats when I went to CCRI (I think it was called RIeJeCect) and I picked up her book from the /lib, but at that time I read it with a more critical eye.
I thought it was very unusual for a woman to right a book like that, when most if not all that I have come across are written by men.
 

«
 1
 2
 »
5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/26/obituaries/26harr.html.
barbara grizzuti harrison, who emerged as a popular, prolific writer of keenly observed nonfiction with a 1978 book about the dozen years she spent as a jehovah's witness, died on wednesday at a hospice in manhattan.
she was 67 and lived in the park slope neighborhood of brooklyn.. the cause was chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, said her daughter, anna harrison.



Related Topics
AndersonsInfo
Brownstoner: How the Jehovah’s Witnesses Acquired Some of Brooklyn’s Most Insanely Valuable Properties
by AndersonsInfo a month ago
AndersonsInfo
Trey Bundy: One Year of Reporting JW Child Abuse - Your comments please!
by AndersonsInfo a month ago
Esse quam videri
Google.ca search bar 'royal commission'
by Esse quam videri 7 months ago
Saved_JW
Jehovah's Witnesses - People of Integrity
by Saved_JW 5 months ago
Tenacious
Has anyone noticed how in the October JW Broadcast, Losch encourages good works towards ALL people?
by Tenacious 5 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/26529/barbara-grizzuti-harrison-dies-67?page=2&size=20






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Interview with Tom Cabeen, former Jehovah's Witness, now Catholic
/  





 

Interview with Tom Cabeen, former Jehovah's Witness, now Catholic
by Dogpatch 8 years ago 1 Replies latest 8 years ago   jw friends
5
10
20
Dogpatch
Dogpatch 8 years ago

Randall Watters Tom Cabeen 2008 

Watt n' Cab
Phone Interview with Tom Cabeen 5/16/08, former Jehovah's Witness, now Roman Catholic in faith
Theme: Is Your Relationship with God about "Knowing Things"?
Part 1: Why I Became a Roman Catholic After Leaving the Watchtower (34 minutes)
mp3 format
Real Media
Part 2: Difference in Perspective with Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholicism (39 minutes)
mp3 format
Real Media
Questions reviewed:
1. After all you learned about religion and Christianity as a Jehovah's Witness, how could you make such a blind leap of faith into an ancient religion?
2. What did you find wrong with the Protestant churches and evangelicalism?
3. What does Catholicism have to offer you and your family, Tom?
4. How differently do you view Jehovah's Witnesses now?
5. What is your recommended reading list?
6. What is a CULT to you, Tom?
 
BurnTheShips
BurnTheShips 8 years ago

THANKS!
 

5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
TTWSYF
What's up with the HEBREWS translation?
by TTWSYF 3 months ago
LAWHFol
Does God Exist? / Who is God? These are Questions which Lead nowhere. What is God Like, is the Correct Question.
by LAWHFol 5 months ago
Divergent
November 22 Study Article: God is a hypocrite & is NOT impartial!
by Divergent 4 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 11-22-2015 WT Study (God Loves us?)
by blondie 4 months ago
Wonderment
John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2
by Wonderment 3 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/158507/interview-tom-cabeen-former-jehovahs-witness-now-catholic





Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Remembering The Life Of Barbara Grizzuti Harrison
/  





 

Remembering The Life Of Barbara Grizzuti Harrison
by Derrick 14 years ago 3 Replies latest 14 years ago   jw friends
5
10
20
Derrick
Derrick 14 years ago


Fri Apr 26 04:24:08 2002
--------------------------------------
April 26, 2002
Obituaries: Barbara Grizzuti Harrison, Author and Essayist, Dies at 67
NYT
By DOUGLAS MARTIN
Barbara Grizzuti Harrison, who emerged as a popular, prolific writer of keenly observed nonfiction with a book about her years as a Jehovah's Witness, died on Wednesday in Manhattan.
Full Story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/26/obituaries/26HARR.html?tntemail0
April 26, 2002
Barbara Grizzuti Harrison, Author and Essayist, Dies at 67
By DOUGLAS MARTIN
Barbara Grizzuti Harrison, who emerged as a popular, prolific writer of keenly observed nonfiction with a 1978 book about the dozen years she spent as a Jehovah's Witness, died on Wednesday at a hospice in Manhattan. She was 67 and lived in the Park Slope neighborhood of Brooklyn.
The cause was chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, said her daughter, Anna Harrison. She once wrote that for years she smoked six packs of cigarettes a day.
The turning point in her life and career was her decision, at 22, to leave the Jehovah's Witnesses, which forbade a college education. What followed was a successful self-education and a blossoming into a multifaceted writer of literate travel books, many essays and reviews, and a novel.
With "Visions of Glory: A History and a Memory of Jehovah's Witnesses" (Simon & Schuster), she became nationally known; her later work, mostly nonfiction, usually received excellent reviews.
In The New York Times Book Review, Vivian Gornick said "Visions of Glory" was "quite well written, contains a mass of absorbing information, and the personality of its author is extremely appealing."
Ms. Harrison was converted to the Jehovah's Witnesses faith by her mother when she was 9; she went door to door carrying its message. At 19, she went to live and work at its world headquarters, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in Brooklyn Heights.
After three years there, she renounced the faith and left.
"Visions of Glory" mixes her autobiography with detailed historical research. She portrays the religion as racist, sexist and totalitarian, but also details members' kindness to one another, their care for the elderly and their courage in the face of persecution.
Barbara Grizzuti was born in Jamaica, Queens, on Sept. 14, 1934. She grew up in various Brooklyn neighborhoods, mainly Bensonhurst. Her father, a printer, and her brother, Richard, did not become Jehovah's Witnesses, creating a deep fault line in the household. She wrote of an extremely disorganized family, and of a father who sexually abused her and once tried to kill her.
As a young teenager, Barbara already knew she wanted to be a writer. When asked in an interview in "Contemporary Authors" how she could reconcile this ambition with the tenets of the Jehovah's Witnesses, she suggested that the religion's images of the watery creation of the world and its imminent bloody destruction stimulated her imagination.
"I think the two things were going on simultaneously: the religion encouraged something it was bound to squash," she said.
In her autobiography, "An Accidental Autobiography" (Houghton Mifflin, 1996), she wrote, "I read Sartre in my late teens and made the mistake of taking him seriously."
After leaving the Jehovah's Witnesses, she moved to the East Village and worked as a secretary at a publishing house and at the American Committee on Africa. There she met W. Dale Harrison, whom she married. He took a job with CARE, and they lived in Libya, India and Guatemala.
They returned to Brooklyn with their two children, and she wrote that she thought of herself as "one of those furtive, silly housewives with a novel under her apron."
Her first book, "Unlearning the Lie: Sexism in School" (Liveright, 1969), grew out of the children's experiences with efforts to quell sexism at what was then the Woodward Park School in Brooklyn.
The Harrisons divorced in 1968 after eight years of marriage.
Ms. Harrison was an early writer for Ms. Magazine. Often described as a gifted interviewer, she contributed to many other national magazines and newspapers. She was noted for her humor and her strong opinions; she once called the highly regarded novelist Joan Didion a "neurasthenic Cher."
Her other books included "Italian Days" (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1989), an impressionistic and literary travel book about Italy that won the American Book Award, and a novel, "Foreign Bodies" (Doubleday, 1984).
Ms. Harrison is survived by her daughter, who lives in Bethlehem, Conn., and her son, Josh Harrison of Manhattan.
Her daughter said her mother returned to the religion of her early childhood, Roman Catholicism, in her 40's, partly as a result of interviewing Dorothy Day of the Catholic Worker movement and partly because she hoped to meet in heaven the high school English teacher who had first appreciated her writing.
 
outnfree
outnfree 14 years ago


Well, Barbara, I hope you've already checked in and had a wonderful reunion with that teacher of yours!
Sorry to hear this Derrick.
Thanks for posting this.
outnfree
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts -- John Wooden
 
Celia
Celia 14 years ago


Sad news
Visions of Glory was the first book I ever read about JWs.
I loved her writing style.
Someone posted this today :http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=26529&site=3
 
Scorpion
Scorpion 14 years ago


My mother, a 35 year Witness, read Visions of Glory in the late 80s. The book was instrumental in her exit from the WT Society.
http://www.exjws.net/vg.htm
 

5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
frankiespeakin
The United Nations A Tool Of Satan Says The Watchtower With A Human Rights Protocol
by frankiespeakin 3 years ago
Question_Mans_interpretation
Here at last, My JC letter. No response but heard thru the grapevine that I was DA'd anyways.
by Question_Mans_interpretation a year ago
cappytan
JW's use UN to condemn South Korea for imprisonment of Conscientious Objectors
by cappytan a year ago
Sol Reform
Monday and Tuesday, the United Nations Committee Against Torture will question the Vatican about its record on child sexual violence.
by Sol Reform 2 years ago
fader77
Changes in DF reporting
by fader77 2 years ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/26551/remembering-life-barbara-grizzuti-harrison





Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Phone Interview with Tom Cabeen 5/16/08 on Catholicism
/  





 

Phone Interview with Tom Cabeen 5/16/08 on Catholicism
by Dogpatch 8 years ago 12 Replies latest 8 years ago   jw friends
5
10
20
Dogpatch
Dogpatch 8 years ago

Phone Interview with Tom Cabeen 5/16/08
http://www.freeminds.org/media/cabeeninterview.htm
former Jehovah's Witness
now Roman Catholic in faith
Questions to be asked:
1. After all you learned about religion and Christianity as a Jehovah's Witness, how could you make such a blind leap of faith into an old, decaying religion?
2. What did you find wrong with the Protestant churches and evangelicalism?
3. What does Catholicism have to offer you and your family, Tom?
4. How differently do you view Jehovah's Witnesses now?
5. What is your recommended reading list?
6. What is a CULT to you, Tom?
 
BurnTheShips
BurnTheShips 8 years ago

A little tongue in cheek I hope Randy?
 
cabasilas
cabasilas 8 years ago

I missed how to listen to the phone interview. Will it be broadcast?
 
Dogpatch
Dogpatch 8 years ago

Hi y'all,
This is a serious interview.
Question: Is there more basis for faith in Catholicism or Protestantism? (assuming you start from the Bible as the Word of God).
Tom was my floor overseer at Bethel in 1977 right before the Franz Incident came down.
Find out why several families took a shine to Catholicism in spite of the harassment of others.
Randy
 
BurnTheShips
BurnTheShips 8 years ago

This is a serious interview.
Oh. O.K.
The way the first question is formulated just seems so off the wall.
 
Dogpatch
Dogpatch 8 years ago

This will be an mp3 of a phone interview, no callers.
We will do things like that soon as I ramp up technology,
I am gearing up for an exciting year at freeminds!
Randy
 
StAnn
StAnn 8 years ago




Questions to be asked:
1. After all you learned about religion and Christianity as a Jehovah's Witness, how could you make such a blind leap of faith into an old, decaying religion?
Here are my questions to you: given that the WTBTS lies to the their own members on a consistent basis and changes their so-called "bible-based" beliefs almost daily on a whim, why should anyone believe that what the WTBTS says about other faiths is true? Seems like, given their blinking "new light," they don't have an accurate grasp on what they believe, let alone what other faiths teach. Why would anyone believe that anything the JWs say about "religion and Christianity" has a modicum of truth to it, given the source? What makes you think Tom's "leap" was blind? Given that the Roman Catholic Church has grown to over 1 billion members worldwide, what gives you the notion that it's a "decaying" religion? Isn't it logical that it would be an "old" religion, since it's been almost 2,000 years since Jesus founded Christianity?
I look forward to hearing your interview.

 
NanaR
NanaR 8 years ago

Randy:
I'm looking forward to it :wink:
Thanks for the heads up!
Ruth
 
NanaR
NanaR 8 years ago

btt
 
NanaR
NanaR 8 years ago

btt
 
Confession
Confession 8 years ago

1. After all you learned about religion and Christianity as a Jehovah's Witness, how could you make such a blind leap of faith into an old, decaying religion?
I presume that Randy is not here asserting that Catholicism is "an old, decaying religion," but that (as suggested by his question) one schooled by the Watchtower Society might come to such a strong conclusion. A bit tongue-in-cheek?
 
NanaR
NanaR 8 years ago

Today!
 
NanaR
NanaR 8 years ago

It's done and up on Randy's website.
http://www.freeminds.org/media/cabeeninterview.htm
Enjoy!!
Pax,
Ruth
 

5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
Esse quam videri
Google.ca search bar 'royal commission'
by Esse quam videri 7 months ago
AndersonsInfo
Trey Bundy: One Year of Reporting JW Child Abuse - Your comments please!
by AndersonsInfo a month ago
AndersonsInfo
Brownstoner: How the Jehovah’s Witnesses Acquired Some of Brooklyn’s Most Insanely Valuable Properties
by AndersonsInfo a month ago
Tenacious
Has anyone noticed how in the October JW Broadcast, Losch encourages good works towards ALL people?
by Tenacious 5 months ago
Terry
The "Wound" may soon be healed? (The split between Orthodox and Catholic)
by Terry a month ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/158064/phone-interview-tom-cabeen-5-16-08-on-catholicism





Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Interesting discussion with a Catholic
/  





 

Interesting discussion with a Catholic
by Terry 4 years ago 0 Replies latest 4 years ago   jw friends
5
10
20
Terry
Terry 4 years ago

These are excerpts from an ongoing back and forth discussion I'm having by e-mail with a good friend who is Catholic.
I apologize for the length of it.
You can sip a little and go on about your business and come back later.

Ryan has the dark text and my responses are in the lighter texts.

... someone may be born into a Christian denomination but that doesn't mean they will stay with that particular denomination. They may move from being a Catholic to a Baptist to a Methodist until they find what they're looking for. While there are Jews who become Christian and Christians who become Muslims, etc., I don't think that's nearly as common.
 The religions with strong ethnic and historical identities are routinely found in society's where you cannot prosper if you leave that identity. For example, convert from being Muslim you will be put to death.
 And I would agree that most people make emotional, not intellectual decisions.
What we value makes us strongly respond. We are taught what to value, usually, by religious tutoring. The consequence is shame, discipline or being cast out. That creates an emotional response.
Still, the situation remains that when someone asserts a belief in something that isn't self evident -- ghosts, ufos, Nessie, the Yeti -- the burden of proof is upon those claiming their truth. Where is the self evident proof that God exists?
I think it was Carl Sagan who said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Science only really got serious when it combined Karl Popper's idea of testing through "Falsifiability". The ancient Greeks abhored "testing". It was unthinkable! You had to PROVE your assertions only through argument.QED. That is how Aristotle got away with saying a heavier object falls faster than a lighter object for so many centuries. Nobody until Galileo tested it by EXPERIMENT.
As far as God is concerned. It isn't PROOF that is asserted as the cardinal virtue. It is FAITH. If Faith can give proof through testing we stop calling it Faith and call it Science Theory.



 There are any number of religious denominations out there. Which ones might have the truth, or even a glimmer of it? I think some of the criterion you list further down for societal norms might work here. It would seem that the religions of the world that are the largest and the oldest would be the ones to look at. Because of their longevity and the size of their membership they must have something going for them. They "work" and despite some missteps and mistakes have worked for a long time.
To state this fairly, humans have not been Free Agents until fairly recently. Having a protected "right" to assert personal opinions could get you killed in older Society's. June 1, in 1660, American colonist Mary Dyer was hanged in Boston for violating Massachusetts Bay Colony law by preaching Quakerism.

 So, it seems to me that if I was approaching religion looking for answers I would look at the "successful" groups, not the johnny-come-latelys, the fringe, or the new. These older, established groups have already done a lot of the work, answered questions, and established many of the rules incorporated into our society..
If I properly frame my response, I would have to say it was only after Freedom was established through Constitutional means the critics, Johnny-come-lately types could come forward to plead their case without being stoned, hanged, or thrown into the hands of Torquemada.(during Torquemada's tenure as Inquisitor General there is a general consensus among the scholars that about 2,000 people were burned at the stake due to prosecution by the Spanish Inquisition in the whole of Spain between 1480 and 1530.)
So, historically, in 1492, one historic religion (Catholicsim) kicked the other historically older religion (Jews) out of Spain.
They did this, as you say, because they established many of the rules incorporated into society.



    
 If "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a truth, then is it any less a truth when Ted Bundy repeats it but fails to heed it? Too often people confuse the failings of the messenger with the message, deeming it a lie because a human with failings didn't live by the rules they promote. The failures of a beloved religious leader are simply proof of humankind's general state of imperfection and our need to be constantly reminded of the rules.
Ted Bundy was a nice looking guy who wore his arm in a sling and asked for assistance from females. They responded to his benign appearance and ended up brutally murdered. When it came to his own execution for these crimes he was all about: Thou shall not kill. Him, that is. As to whether he would EQUALLY apply this injunction to include his own wielding of death is a separate question. It isn't the great LAWS which make us great, but, the just application and interpretations.
The failures of a beloved religious leader such as a priest, can only be confused as failings of the messenger if the Institution of the Church quickly takes steps to oust them and turn them over to the Law to prevent further damage. By, simply forgiving them and moving them to another and another location, the implication of cover-up drowns out "it was only the failings of imperfect men" and attaches enormous stigma to the Church as a whole. Were this not true, how could the Church be sued and have to pay?
I've personally known non-believers who are amazingly charitable, kind and benevolent and I've known deeply religious people who are privately monsters in their own household. I think something MORE than belief, faith or knowledge activates the human species.
The only explanation for Love or Kindness I can fathom is this. As helpless and totally dependant infants we had nurturing, consideration of our needs and some kind of positive structure. We have this personal history to thank for our well-being. To the extent we reflect on this and mirror it we find cause to reach out to others and provide. It is that echo of "mother" in us. Norman Bates notwithstanding!
 This raises the age old question of whether we are innately good or have to learn how to be good. Very hard to say. Watch children at play. Some get along with others, share, and show compassion. Others are bossy, won't share, and are mean. ...
 We talk about learning social skills. Why would we need to learn them if we intuitively understood how to get along and treat people? Why do we need leaders and lawmakers if we all know how to act in the best interests of everyone?
We are born DEPENDANT.How we INTER-depend leads to success or failure unless we cheat and get away with it. Leaders and Lawmakers have never created better humans. They have created litmus tests for identifying and dealing with behavior.
I've known athiests who were wonderful people. J ust as I've known "Christians" or "religious" people who, at least on face value, seemed to fall short of their professed beliefs.
If my child is drowning in a Lake and I can't swim, will I prevent the Atheist from rescuing her? Will I insist on a member of my own church? Nobody would! Why? Effectiveness trumps beliefs. Actions are louder than bromides. In Retail, just one wrong word to the wrong person at the wrong time will out-shout all the perfect words before it. The customer doesn't care how perfect you were yesterday.

 Welfare programs take from the rich and give to the poor, and not in a sense of stealing, though I know at least one person who considers his money stolen against his will. We have poor who need help and Welfare is the appropriate response.
Personal charity by private organizations is the alternative. You target the recipient and can vet the effectiveness of the administration. When government does just about anything there is waste, fraud, abuse and miles of red tape. My old friend George has glaucoma. He can't work, can't drive and has to wait 3 months to appear before the VA doctor who will decide if he NEEDS treament. Then, more scheduling and waiting....
 In Oregon the state covers the medical expenses of children believing that no child should be without medical treatment. But we can't address all the ills of the Earth. More needs to be done but compare the human state of the past even within our own lifetimes.
"The State provides" means only the people who actually pay taxes and don't get it all back in a refund. With government picking who wins and who loses the private sector is pushed out by the superior resources of Government. Solyndra was a company that made Solar Panels. the U.S.Department of Energy guaranteed a loan of $535 million dollars for this "green" company. It then received a $25.1 million dollar tax break. What could competitors do to in any way FAIRLY COMPETE with this governmental one-sided favoritism? Private investors jumped at the chance to go with Solyndra with $198 million. Within a year the firm was Bankrupt, the FBI raided its offices and 1100 employees sued for loss of jobs.
Private strategy with private funding and private charity seems a better way to address the ills of the Earth. At least you are more likely to get transparent accountability than with Government.
 I have great respect for the eldest religions, the ones that have survived a thousand years or more. I don't have to agree with them, just recognize that they offer something of value to their followers else they'd never have lasted so long or have such large memberships.
To be fair, the eldest religions used the DEATH PENALTY, torture, shunning, maiming, Inquisition and banishment as inducements to remain "loyal". Is that a test of "value" or power? My kids with Leslie are considered Jews just because their mother was Jewish. Is that an indication of their choice of religion. No.
 In short, it is difficult for me to accept that a religion started last year by Reverend Joe would suddenly glom onto all the truths that the great religions of the world have missed for the past two or more thousands of years.
As I stated previously, people weren't really "free" to actively question great Truths without risking punishment until fairly modern times. The Ten Commandments were enforced, not mere suggestions! Even very recently a Danish cartoonist who pictured Mohammed was given a Fatwah death sentence by Muslim clerics! A fiction book, Satanic Verses brought a Fatwah to author Salmon Rushdie. Would Great Truths not appeal more to reason than fear of death?
 Rev. Joe would be using as his primary foundation The Bible, a document which is, first, owed to the Jews and their sources, and, later, to the Catholic Church. Rev. Joe recognizes that these institutions were good enough to compile the correct,essential information for him, but got all the interpretations wrong and have taught falsehoods lo these many years.
Each of the Great Religions is fragmented with sectarian violence among its most devout members through all of history. Jesus' greatest enemies were his own religous leadership. Wouldn't Jesus be the Rev.Joe of his day to the Pharisees?

    
 ... it's generally useless to point these people out, even the Jihadists, because they are not in community with the majority of their fellow believers.
To state this equably, the Leaders of the established religion must make a public outcry to remain innocent of the deeds of their most fanatical adherents. The Mullahs, even in the U.S.A. have not spoken out PUBLICLY denouncing the terrorists who strap bombs on and kill innocent bystanders. By remaining silent, even as the aforementioned Catholic hierarchy with pedophile priests, the taint of collusion, intrigue and CYA (cover your ass) redounds to the religion as a whole. Otherwise, how could the victims sue the Church and collect?
 But I don't go work soup lines or do Meals on Wheels or join up with charitable organizations. The proactive is much harder than the reactive. Yet, among my personal friends, I have very few who are even reactive.
Not until I started hanging out with charitable people (proactive) did I overcome my personal reluctance. And even then, it didn't come easily. I think it is a learned behavior in most of us.

 Galileo suggested that we were not at the center of God's universe. Big, radical ideas often take time to be assimiliated, whether merely assailing current science or threatening religious belief. Galileo, of course, was right and the church now agrees with him. But the core truths of the church really haven't been thrown out the window, they've been amended and enriched.
A point to consider: if ideas are treated as neutral opinions until investigated you have progress without violence. It is a matter of process and review. However, honestly, Galileo was not shown the counter-evidence of the Church. He was shown the instruments of torture! His telescope was called an instrument of Satan. His "proof" was dismissed summarily. These are not the actions of holy institutions with Truth on their side. It is the reaction of petty officials threatened with embarassment. What would embarass them so?? Simply this, the CHURCH over-reaches by claiming DIVINE TRUTH rather than centuries of accumulated trial-and-error discovery! If GOD DECLARES a Truth would it not remain a Truth beyond any disproof? Wouldn't you welcome challenges as an opportunity to demonstrate the superiority of the Divine mind?


 I see it in the light previously mentioned. Just because the faulty human minions get it wrong doesn't invalidate the correctness of the teaching. Even God's divine inspiration can be misunderstood by the imperfect human mind. But the truth remains.
I look at it like this. If I claim to be a Doctor and prescribe a medicine for your problem your confidence in my prescription will be assured. If I am Joe Blow who reads Prevention Magazine and I proscribe a cure by sucking on Walnut shells, your confidence will be different. (I hope). The CHURCH when it claims DIVINE TRUTH is like a Doctor. But, often, the TRUTH is not anything more than Joe Blow's opinion stretched to appear like DIVINE truth.
Churches don't get sued for malpractice. But, the test of Christian Science is to NOT call a doctor. Go figure.
The public needs fair labeling for food and drugs. We can read it on the lable. But, with the Great Religions, where does man's "wisdom" end and God's Divine infallible "Truth" begin? These Instituions always act AS THOUGH it is one and the same.
 I can't really consider the JW's because they fall into that Johnny-come-lately category of Christianity, trying to reinvent what went before.
What allowed the opening for Protestantism if not the failure of the Catholic institution to reign in corruption? Were God Almighty running his own house Martin Luther's protestations would be the ravings of a lunatic.
JW's took over where 2nd Adventists failed. It is the FAILURES of the older groups that create opportunity for adventure.
A better example might rest with Catholicism. The Bible calls homosexuality an abomination. This teaching has always been difficult for people to reconcile who have gay friends. Many people have wonderful, loving, caring gay friends. And the treatment of gays, the biases, bigotry, and hatred directed towards them is especially painful to their friends.
 Well, the Church now teaches tolerance and sympathy for gays. They are to be loved and treated as all of God's other creatures. Violence and bigotry towards gays is wrong and must stop. Many conservative Catholics feel that the Church is caving in to popular demand. However, the actual teaching of the Church, the divinely inspired part, the infallible part, hasn't changed a bit. Homosexuality is still considered a sin. When practiced. When acted upon. An abstaining gay person is like an unmarried heterosexual who abstains from sex. The desire to act is there but with no follow through no sin is committed.
 The fact is there was a death penalty wielded by each of the Three Great Monotheistic religions until fairly modern times. Only now, where there is a separation of Church-State no death penalty by cleric can be used. In Muslic countries, it is as it has always been.
The Romans would not allow Jews to use the death penalty. That is why the religious leaders brought trumped up charges against Jesus to Roman Authority. It was the Romans who used capital punishment against Jesus.
Does the church excuse Judaism for this or has it persecuted them through all of history?
The Catholic Church no longer practices Inquistion, torture or a reward for a basketful of Moselm noses in the same way that Jews were no longer allowed to stone Jesus to death. It was by the replacement of AUTHORITY of state over religious law.
Is this infallible law now or was it back then?
Anyway, I'd bet if a study was conducted by impartial, expert researchers it would be found that the teachings of Judaism and Catholicism, aside from those fallible, personal reflections by their leaders, haven't really changed much, if at all.
I suppose if you completely ignore the "putting you to death if you disagree" part, sure! I doubt it was by choice, however.

 Many, even Catholics, incorrectly think when the Pope makes a statement it is is infallible and must be accepted. If the Pope were to state that we need to redistribute the wealth and so we should break into other's homes and take what we want, he would be wrong though speaking from the chair because his opinion would conflict with the core teaching of the Church.
Vatican II caused a few problems!
As society changes the needs of people change socially, educationally, technologically and with their institutions. Any monolithic Authority based core of beliefs has to "breathe" or it suffocates. It seldom does so without severe external pressures to accomodate or dissolve.


 A whole new ball of wax. Just wars vs. unjust wars. Many, if not most, wars are unjustified. But when War is an act of self defense?
As a former Conscientious Objector I'll give you my old speech:
Jesus said "love your enemy" and "when struck, turn the other cheek." The craziest thing he ever said!
 Or when War serves as a police action to stop actions that amount to a crime? In that last I'm not thinking of recent Middle Eastern events but WWII when we came to the aide of our allies in defending themselves against the Nazis. Should we have stood by and let events proceed to their conclusion?
We cannot know. We are looking back to what happened WITH our participation, not without.
I know this(or think I know) the best and the brightest from every country died. Leaving behind the rascals, cowards and conscientious objectors to reap the harvest.
When to get involved or stay out is always a tough call. We don't seem to do it very well anymore, for quite a long while. I guess that's why WWII is called the last "Just War."
 Back in 1967 I sat in front of my Draft Board answering their questions. This was during the Viet Nam war, of course. One man asked me, "What would you do if somebody broke into your house and attacked your family? Would you defend them?"
I answered, "The Viet Cong have not attacked us. We have invaded their homes and are threatening them."
Another man chimed in, "What if all christians refused to go to war like you do?"
I replied, "I guess we would really be a christian nation. There would be no wars in which christians were fighting against other christians."
I now see it this way. Christians have seldom put Jesus words to the test: Love your enemy by turning the other cheek.
 That out of the way, if we accept WWII as a just war, then whose side would God have been on, I wonder? Would He have favored the Nazis in their attempts at genocide and world domination or would He have favored those trying to stop the killing, death, and destruction (despite all the killing, death, and destruction involved making that happen)? Or would he have abstained, merely shaking his head at our foolishness?
Had all christians abstained from WWII we might know. The more devout the believer the more eager to become the martyr, however.

 This brings us back to the old, established brands of religious beliefs. The ones that have been around the longest with the largest memberships. It has always been possible, and will always remain possible that religious truth will be misunderstood and declared true by those who have got it wrong. How do we know if they're right or wrong? We won't. But there have to be leaders, leaders until they prove themselves unfit to lead.
I don't know why secular Truth would have any less superiority over Divinely Revealed Truth. The test of history has certainly never demonstrated that. We spoke about Jesus saying "LOVE YOUR ENEMY".
That seems divine. Where is it actually practiced? Christians are quick to abandon it when Japan bombs Pearl Harbor or Arab Jihadists fly planes into buildings. Could it be, subconsciously, they KNOW it is crazy?
 The Catholic Church, and I suspect Judaism, has a teaching body. This is the interpretive arm of the church. The layperson is not left to simply read the Bible and figure it all our for themselves. It's not possible.
This is a Catch 22. How would anybody EVER know they had "figured it all out by themselves?" The test of orthodoxy is the Official pronouncement of some body of Authority.
The Council under pagan emperor Constantine "figured it all out".
Just because a group or person invokes prayer doesn't mean their "figuring" is True or False. If it is ratified and adopted and ENFORCED it seems real enough for the little guy.
 If the Bible could be so easily understood then everyone would have the same interpretation. And we don't. The Bible isn't as clear cut as the instructions for operating your new DVD player. If our spiritual lives are lifetime journeys why shouldn't that journey be available over a longer period time for the governing bodies? What's wrong with new knowledge and understanding altering or adjusting previous beliefs just as happens with individuals? Injustices are committed but over eons the behavior is corrected. This does not invalidate the whole kit and kaboodle.
Innovators, historically, are not welcomed. If your village has been planting crops a certain way every spring and some genius upstart proclaims a "better" way---who would dare risk it? In religious institutions innovators are Apostates who have abandoned the true faith. There is no mechanism to TEST dogma.
"It has always been this way." As mentioned, Jesus was an Apostate rabble-rouser if you were a Pharisee. Galileo was a pawn of the Devil teaching destructive lies against scripture.
And so on. Once you Authoritatively declare your teaching is GOD'S DIVINELY REVEALED TRUTH you have to DEFEND against innovation, contrary ideas and critics because YOU ARE NO LONGER INTELLECTUALLY HONEST. The test of intellectual honesty is "willingness to be proved wrong by evidence."
When the Religious Authority had the power (as clerics in Muslim countries still have) to threatened, torture and put to death critics, misfits and contrarians---it was the DARK AGES. The Renaissance, not co-incidentally arose when the human mind freed itself from dogma and peremptory censure.
I just don't know how we can eat the whole banana without cutting off the bruise. Instituions of Religion will not allow the "bruise" to be cut off or even challenged. As mentioned, the apology of the Church to Galileo came long after his bones rotted into calcium dust.
Not to pick exclusively on Catholics, mind you...The Calvinists burned Michael Servetus at the stake for daring to preach against infant baptism, etc.
 Calvin said: Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are. There is no question here of man's authority; it is God who speaks, and clear it is what law he will have kept in the church, even to the end of the world. Wherefore does he demand of us a so extreme severity, if not to show us that due honor is not paid him, so long as we set not his service above every human consideration, so that we spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory.

      Like I said, we humans can misinterpret what lays right in front of us. We're imperfect. And others can deliberately twist the truth to their own purposes. What's new?
 Since we can't always be sure we are right, should we burn Michael Servetus at the stake anyway as Calvin certainly believed? Absolute thinking has no appeal when it also carries corporal punishment behind it.
But this brings me to something I've been circling around this whole time. What are you going to believe? What are you going to use as your basis of belief? If you are an Athiest then you just use common sense, what works in reality, what seems fair and just to the greatest number of people, -the side of some belief system.
 Belief seems the easy way out. Here are your creeds in black and white. Here are our policies. Here is right and wrong (subject to change historically). It is like rooting for the Cowboys or denouncing the Liberals or refusing to buy any but American made cars. How many errors multiply when Truth is predigested into Dogma? At the end of my e-mails I have the following phrase attached: "What you believe you never think about again." Meaning, the hard work of critical thinking is no longer necessary. Unless we are able to change, free to think, not pressured to conform, allowed to question----we lapse into partisans. Merely ideologues.
I've read authors imagining how humankind, sitting by the campfire, staring into the starry night, came to the conclusion that their was something bigger out there than man. From this came the belief in a Creator, God. Well, where' the proof? If man, staring into the starry night concluded that our Earth had been created by a pink slipper would that be sufficient reason to believe?
 I dare say "proof" is seldom the issue.
You've got to admit, God creating us in His Likeness, His Omniscience, which puts Him everywhere all the time, all powerful, capable of anything you can imagine, is all pretty convenient. No matter what question you come up with they've got an answer. Maybe not an answer you accept, but they've got it covered. Doesn't it all seem to be a little too neat? And without offering one shred of tangible evidence. All you have to do is believe.
Anybody who doesn't pause to ask this question isn't an honest thinker. Just as the old saying goes, "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels"....I'd say "Faith is the last refuge of ideologues and zealots."
But these aspects of God are what you'd almost certainly expect from God. He wouldn't seem to be God if he wasn't beyond our full understanding. You mentioned that earlier. Do you really believe it is within your ability to fully understand God? It's best to admit that it's not possible. If we could understand God fully then we'd know all the answers. We see aspects, we understand pieces. Just enough to keep us interested, tantalized, intrigued.
Well, we can't have it both ways, can we? No. Either we cannot KNOW because we are so insignificant...OR....here are the reasons you should be persuaded. Why pretend BOTH are in play? If all the religious institutions admitted to what you just said above--they would be more honest and believable and humble. They don't and they aren't. Like a magician who fools us with what we can't see and don't know----religious Truth dazzles and mystifies us with whispers of Divinely Revealed to us alone......
Therefore, God is like a fairytale creature. We believe because we want to believe. Not because God appears like the head of Zardoz periodically and speaks to us. I bet we'd believe in Santa Claus if our parents didn't step forward and admit that he was they. Santa is what a lot of people want God to be, somebody they ask for stuff and who then magically delivers it.
Remember the Wicker Man with Christopher Lee? "Our religion seems strange? Doesn't your religion worship a supernatural carpenter fathered by a ghost?"
 So why do people believe? I can accept that people are born into their belief system. That's one reason. But where did that belief system originate? Regardless of how people got to thinking of God, whether independently based on their own logical conclusions, it is organized religion that has kept the ball rolling. Therefore, it's useful to climb aboard one of the ships to focus your idea of God. Do you want the Jewish God, the Christian God, the Muslim God, the Hindi Gods, or some other God? Take your pick. Choosing a team doesn't stop the musing, the reflections, the questions, or the journey. But it helps stop the aimlessness, the vagueness. And it's always possible to later hop ship.
What we KNOW we use. It works or it fails. Reboot.
What we believe we cannot test. Hope is not a test. Hope is a reason to keep on keeping on.
If what you keep on keeping on doing helps you---you suceed. Hooray!
If what you keep on keeping on doing kills you---you die "faithful". Our martyred hero.
We are born to die alone. How we LIVE is a success or failure according to our deeds--NOT our beliefs. Once we die it is the survivors who pronounce the verdict by their own standards.
Choosing a team is problematic. I did that once. I played by the rules.
Never won a game and lost all my "brothers and sisters" when disfellowshipped. No reboot.
That caused a critical analysis of the very process of HOW WE BELIEVE and WHY.
I've studied a great many books, writers, philosophers and teachers as well as what the finest scholars conclude about the bible itself. All I would declare is that I'm somewhat "informed".
I listen when people who claim to 'know' speak. I'm interested in persuasion, argument, proof, logic and colloquy. But, I'm not actually ABLE TO "choose a team". I would if I could.
I'm what Jonathan Edwards called a "sinner in the hands of an angry God".....or, I'm just a 65 year old father of 7 who loves his kids, lives a celibate life, spends time in charitable volunteer work and who doesn't have anything to prove. Subject to tomorrow's changes...Reboot.

 I don't want to sound superior. I'm a faulty human. There's a lot wrong with me and I'm often wrong and make mistakes. But I don't confuse the individuals with the institution, the failure of the human representative as a failure of the organization. But most people do just this sort of thing. They have real trouble making distinctions. Distinctions are fine points. Fine points can be grey areas. People don't like grey areas. They like black & white.
Instead of the Devil being in the details, I find, that is where the actual "truth" is discovered. Anything is true if you state it GENERALLY enough.
 This brings me back to why the public cannot be allowed to interpret The Bible on their own. This is also why we need leaders in all facets of life. When we get the right leaders they deal with the fine points. They look at the grey areas. The good ones aren't afraid of these aspects of life. They shepherd the flock.
My problem with the Bible specifically is that there isn't one. That is, the original autograph manuscripts don't exist to compare with anything for authentication. How did that happen???
There are no copies of the original, either. Decades after the death of Jesus the gospel (good story) was circulating by word-of-mouth--not writing. All those editorial flourishes (Jesus meant so and so) are much later. The writers are attributed writers to lend authority. And much after the fact. The first piece of actual manuscript is a postage stamp size piece of St.John, I believe. And that is a copy of a copy of a copy.
The Fundamentalists and Inerrantists only affirm that the Original Autograph manuscripts are uncorrupt---knowing full well there aren't any in existence to examine!!
The first christians had Judaism as a guide. Afer the destruction of the Temple in 66 A.D. the Paganized converts to christianity pretty much drove out the jewish-messianic christians. The actual "religion" of Christianity is a misnomer. It was competing, warring, disagreeable and trucculent sects all disputing one another as to TRUE TEACHING. Three hundred years after Jesus the pagan emperor Constantine, by fiat, orders a Council (Nicea) and allows a colloquy to ESTABLISH orthodoxy.
Christians could not even agree on whether Jesus was divine! After Nicea, first the Arians and then the Trinitarians gained favor with Constantine. How would he know anyway? He was a member of the cult of Sol Invictus. His mom was a christian. She collected relics (fabricated or not). Helena sought the "true cross" which was, of course, miraculously discovered! For a price.
I'm off topic....
I don't think the bible can be anything more than layers and layers of word of mouth guesswork. Certainly not actual conversations with quotation marks!
Yet, for thousands of years we argue over every jot, tiddle and nuance as though it were math equations easily proved by dividing, multiplying and inverting!
The reason no two denominations can agree on what the bible teaches is because IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY TEACH ANYTHING!
We all know there are good and bad leaders. The competent and the incompetent. Realilty tells us that we've got to keep an eye on them, watch for mistakes. But we also have to trust them initially. We can't be cynics who believe every government figure, every authority figure is tainted from the get go. Give them a chance and see what they can do. When they're wrong, stand up, call them out, make them responsible, but don't just sit back and carp about how all of them are no good.
The more authority a leader has (especially a religious leader) the more removed they are from impeachment. Look at the modern Ayatollah.
Political leaders are so ideology driven and the electorate so evenly divided--all they are good for is posturing and deadlocks.
 Well, you've given a couple of examples above where someone disagreed with the majority or where the majority was wrong. So, how do we know? There are many matters that don't fall into that category that reveal themselves by working or not working. In China, the government believes it has the right to limit how many children couples may bear. Should that ever be the government's right, even if it threatens to imperil the population? How long before concerns over the ozone layer and pollution allow the government, in the name of what's good for the people, determining when you can drive, or go outdoors? We already have water restrictions. Would the limitation and or removal of basic human rights and freedoms be okay if it were undertaken for the greater good?
There are so many people on earth now organized into blocks of leadership with law and courts---it is almost impossible to think and act with individuality without incurring the charge of "selfish" "oddball" "iconoclast" and "dangerous."
It almost doesn't matter to people what is "right" as long as they are comfortable in their ignorance. Being well-informed seldom means much of anything beyond the local news.
How can we escape "wrong" government? Activism? Occupy this and that? I doubt that! I think only REVOLUTION can bring about Reboot. And that is when the monster's faces are clearly seen as they take charge. (Are you listening Stalin? Castro? Pol Pot?) Yet some of these sanctions actually are or will be wrong. How will we know that?
Without the power to effectively protest and adopt political and local changes---it won't matter what we know or think. Effecting change is problematic under the best of circumstances. Look at a simple retail company like Sears. They are dying on the vine. Can we really believe nobody knows how to stop the bleeding?

    I find it hard to believe that this will ever happen in the U.S. because we are so conditioned by the media, movies, and television to see Big Brother all around us.  But I wouldn't rule it out entirely as most people are lemmings.  All it takes is a change of direction by the media, movies, and television to entirely reverse the trend.
Young people get their information from entertainment sources like John Stewart and the Colbert Report. Not deep thinkers. What person under 30 can honestly tell you how a bill becomes law? Who was a good president and who wasn't or why?

 I'm glad you bring up the concept of knowing. My life changed considerably when I accepted the fact that there are many things I don't know, that I will never know. I got very comfortable with the idea of not knowing. I started questioning how I know what I do know. If Missouri, the "show me state," really lived by it's state motto, it would know very little. The motto implies the need for empirical knowledge. Limited to empirical knowledge we'd know next to nothing. How do we know China exists? Have you been there? We rely on the experts, the authorities to "show us" though we're really only taking their word for it.
When I say I'm Agnostic, that's all I mean: there is a lot I can't seem to KNOW in any meaningful sense. I think that is a good honest self-appraisal.
So, in the philosophical sense, we can't trust any information that comes to us outside our own direct senses. From a practical standpoint, however, we have to accept that fact we have not directly proven are actually facts. Therefore, we are already in a "trust" mode most of our lives from early on. There's nothing wrong with trusting as long as we're also questioning.
An open mind is important as long as you have some standard of what you let inside!



    
x.
 I'll bring up Catholicism again. To a certain extent, it's a perfect example of this. Growing up, parents entrusted the Church with teaching their children about Catholicism. Parents came from the "because that's the way we do it" school of thought. You'd even got a lot of that from the Church itself. It was up to the persistent, the ones who could convince a priest or nun that they really wanted an answer and weren't just being troublesome, to get actual answers. Hence, many Catholics grew up not really understanding the underpinning of their faith. I know I was one and didn't investigate deeper until in my forties. Now, I can act as something of an apologist (hate that term) for misunderstood doctrine.
 It is almost impossible to know a different point of view or world view OTHER than what we grow up with. How can we not defend the only thing we know?  But you know what, although I blindly followed -- until I broke with the Church -- after investigating I found nothing really any different except that I now had answers, reasons, and a deeper, richer understanding that hadn't existed before, even though I consider myself a fallen Catholic.
 I think as long as you take Mass and go to confession they won't mind!



 I agree we are capable of rational thought but this brings us right back to your opening statement which I think is closer to the truth. Just as people are born into their religion, they are also frequently born into their overall belief system.
Had I not been part of a religion that predicted 1975 was going to bring Armageddon--and saw it did not---I doubt I'd have ever critically examined the actual basis of my entire world view!

    HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU!!



 Ryan
 

5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
jwfacts
New NWT deception at Genesis 8:22 to indicate earth remains forever.
by jwfacts 3 months ago
deegee
Is the WT’s Paradise Earth doctrine a delusion?
by deegee 8 days ago
hardtobeme
Astronomers Discover New Planet That Really Makes Earth Look Like Shit
by hardtobeme 8 months ago
Brother Jeramy
A difficult yet necessary decision
by Brother Jeramy 8 months ago
Dunedain
What were Satan and his demons "doing" up in heaven, before being "cast down" in 1914?
by Dunedain 4 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/220221/interesting-discussion-catholic






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Relapse of an Atheist
/  





 

Relapse of an Atheist
by rebel8 7 years ago 20 Replies latest 7 years ago   jw friends
«
 1
 2
 »
 5
10
20
rebel8
rebel8 7 years ago

I do not believe at all in the existence of the supernatural, etc.
I was a Roman Catholic in early childhood and Catholicism is deeply rooted in my culture and community. My happiest childhood memories are from that time, when life was normal and our family was not torn apart by jwism.
A few times a year, I attend Mass and enjoy it. I allow my mind to imagine what it would be like if it was true. I find it soothing, even though I know I'm not going to change what I actually believe, nor could belief change the facts. The rituals are familiar. I feel my mind and body relaxing deeply.
My friends are there, the place is familiar and comforting, and I'm reminded of happy, innocent days. Yet if I go more than ~3x a year, the positive feeling wears off.
For those of you non-theists, do you find this to be the case? A lot of people here say they find it disturbing to attend church.
 
PrimateDave
PrimateDave 7 years ago

I went to a couple of different churches in the past few years I have been out of the Org. One of them was a Catholic Church. I have been invited to a small Evangelical Church recently by some friends of mine. I can talk the Christian talk and certainly have no problems with socializing. I'm not sure I would like to be obligated into attending a Church on a regular basis. I don't foresee any changes in my non-theism in the future. I simply view this as being part of the local human community.

Dave
 
Satanus
Satanus 7 years ago

I understand this. I entered one of those perfectly balanced churches a few months ago, actually, because of the archatecture. Looking up, the art painted on the multidombed cirling, colored light beaming through the stained glass picture winows, the old wood natural and stone, the space... Undescribable feeling of something undescribable. The, back out onto the street, and on w my day. Why spoil it w a pompous priest. I believe that the concievers of thr designs also had an experience something like i did, and were trying to reproduce it in archatecture and then show it or reproduce it in others. The ceremonies may have a similar bent.
S
 
Satanus
Satanus 7 years ago

I'm pantheist, which is supposed to be one step from atheist.
S
 
AllTimeJeff
AllTimeJeff 7 years ago

I don't think that what makes you comfortable is wrong at all. Many Catholics for what this is worth get more out of the ceremonial aspects then anything.
I suppose as long as you don't buy any of the superstitious BS, then you are all good! (don't go to confession!!! :smile:
 
purplesofa
purplesofa 7 years ago

Thank-you for posting. I have been feeling nostalgic about my Catholic upbringing lately.
Although mentally I am sure I am athiest, emotionally I have not caught up yet.
A former poster that converted to Caholicism and I had a conversation once about his going
to church.
even though he did not believe in God.
He said, sometimes I just want the Magic.

purps
 
BurnTheShips
BurnTheShips 7 years ago

Lately, to believe or not has not been simply an intellectual matter for me to debate on this board. I and my wife have seen things in the last few weeks that I cannot explain. Just Friday last a dark shadow moved across the bedroom ceiling when we came home late from out of town, even our toddler screamed. Both of us have felt a bad presence around our home lately. There are other things, both good and bad, that are not natural. Someone once told me that Satan's greatest power, his only power, was to get us to believe a lie.
BTS
 
zarco
zarco 7 years ago

Purps
It seems that religion has adapted itself to meet the needs of populace throughout history. There is certainly nothing wrong for us to use religion from time to time to fill a human need for fellowship, a place to think or "magic".
It is probably only the Witnesses and a few others who assign deep meaning to attending a service. Glad that you went...... in some ways it shows that you have power over it and use it as you see fit ...
zarco
 
rebel8
rebel8 7 years ago


He said, sometimes I just want the Magic.
Aha!
I went through Ritual of Christian Initiation for Adults so I could get married in the church. I found it really healing b/c Confirmation was a normal rite of passage I missed out on as a jw, and the jws are such rabid anti-Catholics, I just wanted to kind of undo it. Strange logic on my part.....but it felt good.
I made a formal apology for calling the church b4 my jw baptism to have my name removed from membership rolls, and for being so rude about it.
I was candid with the priest about my lack of belief. He was fine with it. He did not require I say the vows aloud during Confirmation.
He did not require confession. He did not feel women leaders, birth control, or abortion were wrong and didn't agree jws are a cult. He prayed during Sunday mass that the local diocese would do more to rectify the issue of child molestation.
He invited pastors from other churches to speak during Mass and gave them communion.
 
purplesofa
purplesofa 7 years ago

I remember writing my letter to have me removed from the Catholic membership. I was not rude, but I remember saying something like they really did not help me with my problems I went through as a teenager...........lol, as if it were their fault!!!!

I do think we all need some magic and best not to build walls or put our ownselves in boxes on where and how we get it..........providing it is legal!!!

purps
 
Twitch
Twitch 7 years ago

Yea, I guess they don't call it the House of God for nothing, :wink:
Though I'd consider myself a lazy atheist leaning on the agnostic fence as it were, I too have had similar feelings in the cathedrals and churchs I've been in. It doesn't bother me to be in one. I've never actually attended a mass or service but it's safe to say I get the idea :smile: I have heard various choirs though and in the right "room", the effect is enhanced in a sense.
It is a kind of magic though, the feelings inspired by a building when you let yourself believe in the idea and the sense of security it brings, for lack of a better term. Some buildings have more of an impact of course, but your mileage may vary,...
I remember how it was when I had no doubt god existed. I just wish that he'd have more of a direct involvement with things down here where needed you know. He is a god of love after all, right? That was the message right? Seems there's a lot of injustice going on and such. In a way, I'd say thanks for getting the ball rolling and all but it sees to me we were screwed from the beginning and we all have to pay for it? Raw deal IMO. I guess he's got his reasons, his spat with satan and all. It does seem god isn't doing much for us that we aren't doing for ourselves anyways.
But he does have a nice house :wink:
 
jaguarbass
jaguarbass 7 years ago

He is a god of love after all, right?
No. Adonis is the God of Love.
Jehovah is the God of Israel.
 
parakeet
parakeet 7 years ago

Not long after I left the dubs, I attended a Catholic mass out of curiosity. Other than satisfying my curiosity, it did nothing for me.
I've been in some of the great European cathedrals and have been in awe of the art and architecture, but had no religious or spiritual experience. I guess I'm a dyed-in-the-feather atheist/Buddhist/pagan.
 
PEC
PEC 7 years ago

Religion is like hypnosis, it is mental masturbation. Subconsciously you know it is bullshit; but, you go with it; because, it feels good.
Philip
 
WTWizard
WTWizard 7 years ago

You can go to church and appreciate the building and the architecture. However, if you go to church for moral guidance, chances are you are going to be misguided. At least, if you do not like it, you can stop going and move on (or out), or go only on special occasions. (Which is more than can be said for the witlesses, which do not even have archtecture that is worth seeing).
 
Borgia
Borgia 7 years ago

I think that the appeal of the charade that is being put up in church is nice. Like going to a theatre and watching some play. Except, the theatre is more expensive.........

Cheers

Borgia
 
rebel8
rebel8 7 years ago

The comment re moral guidance is so true. I tend to do with the sermon what the church does with the Bible: Extract the parts I like and ignore the parts I don't like. (Sorry if that offends Catholics. I am not criticizing--I think it is right to disregard some of the bad things in the Bible, as long as you're not pretending to do the opposite like the dubs do.)

Some buildings have more of an impact of course, but your mileage may vary,...
It'd be interesting if the relapsing atheists here would go to those round theaters where they have the special effects (what are they called?), to see something that's fantasy.....say a trip to outer space.....then report back if the experience was similar to what we're describing in church.
I'd guess the only difference would be the absence of familiar rituals and friends (which are both comforting IMO).
 
Satanus
Satanus 7 years ago

Pec
What have you got against masturbation? Not that i'm admitting that it is that:wink:
S
 
slimboyfat
slimboyfat 7 years ago

Good topic. I quite like visiting old churches even though I am not religious. Inside Stephansdom in Vienna was an interesting experience for me, listening to the very faint sounds and watching the genuflections of believers, interspersed with tourists taking pictures. I like the idea of singing with a crowd in a traditional church. But the thought of 'charismatic' services with over-the-top singing, healing, group praying and the like does not appeal to me.
 
Twitch
Twitch 7 years ago


It'd be interesting if the relapsing atheists here would go to those round theaters where they have the special effects (what are they called?), to see something that's fantasy.....say a trip to outer space.....then report back if the experience was similar to what we're describing in church.
They're called planetariums and they're specially designed to simulate the earth's motion relative to the stars and other planets, their relative positions at any time in their ever increasing progression of movement away from each other. The projectors designed for this haven't changed since being invented, or something, lol. Interesting thing that astronomy; I was always fascinated by it and still am. Only recently understood how declination and right ascension works,....
I have a lot of respect for men of old who studied such things, "mapped" out the motions and conjured reasons and math for the things they saw. It was a quest for knowledge and the beginning of science, I would say. And science has evolved thru it's infancy, it's own dark ages in a sense where understanding grew from ignorance and generally accepted principles were challenged and eventually overturned based on new evidence and thinking. Ptolemy anyone?
The funny thing is, astronomy got mixed up with fantasy from early on, what with the meaning behind the constellations, the gods and stories they respresent and so on. Makes for an interesting Saturday afternoon matinee though :smile:
As for if a planetarium inspires a religious or spiritual experience, well that might depend on how liberal you are :wink: However, apples being apples, I'd say the effect was similar but in a different way, lol. In a cathedral, I would get more of a "communal", ritualistic sense of god, a tradition born of man's history, thought and insights, with inspirations originating from within. In a planetarium, the effect is more a glimpse of the objective real, ultimate and infinite, the beautifully syncronized dance of orbs and dust, order and chaos, precision and variance, filled with objects unreal and beautiful. Yea, I'd say it's inspiring but in a real kinda way. It is there and it is amazing.
We've travelled to the moon and sent our eyes all around the solar system. It hasn't been that long since Robert Goddard. I think we'll figure out a way to travel to the stars one day, if we don't destroy ourselves before that asteroid hits us and the sun goes nova :wink:
But neither cathedral nor planetarium convinces me there's a god. I don't believe in the conventional sense of the word. Or maybe I haven't found the label for it yet. The ultimate question is really within anyways IMO
Anyways, thanks for the thought and allowing me to digress.
PS Only five more episodes of Battlestar Galactica,.....lmao
 

«
 1
 2
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
Pattytheperfect1
First post after a year or two of lurking on this site-Sorry for the length!
by Pattytheperfect1 2 years ago
Esse quam videri
Is the Watchtower Society following in the footsteps of the Catholic Church?
by Esse quam videri a month ago
What Now?
Our Letter to Our Family
by What Now? 2 months ago
MacHislopp
Scrutinizing the teaching of Jesus Christ year 1874 vs 1914
by MacHislopp 5 months ago
Leela1
Closer/death/Funerals
by Leela1 7 days ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/171899/relapse-atheist






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Relapse of an Atheist
/  





 

Relapse of an Atheist
by rebel8 7 years ago 20 Replies latest 7 years ago   jw friends
«
 1
 2
 »
5
10
20
unclebruce
unclebruce 7 years ago


Pec
What have you got against masturbation? Not that i'm admitting that it is that:wink:
S

Reminds me of the scarey thought "all love is self love." Gawd I hate philosophers
Interesting point about the Cathederal builders satanus. They really knew how to create an awe inspiring space.
Words and religion just ruin such places for those of us in touch with our inner 'God.'
So we sneek in when the congregation isn't there.
taoist unc.
 

«
 1
 2
 »
5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
i do not believe at all in the existence of the supernatural, etc.
i was a roman catholic in early childhood and catholicism is deeply rooted in my culture and community.
my happiest childhood memories are from that time, when life was normal and our family was not torn apart by jwism.



Related Topics
Pattytheperfect1
First post after a year or two of lurking on this site-Sorry for the length!
by Pattytheperfect1 2 years ago
Esse quam videri
Is the Watchtower Society following in the footsteps of the Catholic Church?
by Esse quam videri a month ago
What Now?
Our Letter to Our Family
by What Now? 2 months ago
MacHislopp
Scrutinizing the teaching of Jesus Christ year 1874 vs 1914
by MacHislopp 5 months ago
Leela1
Closer/death/Funerals
by Leela1 7 days ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/171899/relapse-atheist?page=2&size=20





Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Debaters: Let's have It Out !
/  





 

Debaters: Let's have It Out !
by Amazing 9 years ago 124 Replies latest 9 years ago   jw friends
«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 »
 5
10
20
Amazing
Amazing 9 years ago

This thread was going to be about the True Church. But I simply changed the title. Okay ... so my experience thread set the stage for what seems to be a need to debate Catholicism ... maybe because in the minds of many, there is a comparison to the Watchtower ... a comparison which I believe is false. I purposely tried to avoid such a debate because I simply wanted to answer the big question of why I reconciled with the Church ... a questin that has loomed for almost a year.
So, Let's have it out ... let's post all the concerns, issues, claims, and even nasty remarks against the RC Church, Baptists, Presbyterisn, Angelican, Episcopal, Methodist, Non-Denominational, Pentecostal, Assembly of God, Mormon, Church of Christ, Free Bible Students, Dawn, and whomever else you want to criticize. (Please don't be nasty to me, as that would be the false argument of ad hominem ... and I am big on catching false arguments.)  I am setting this thread up for the kind of discussion that otherwise knows no boundaries. However, I will still be posting my separate thread on prayer to the Holy Spirit.
Opening Salvo: There are three main schools of thought that I will say are very generalized. I do not want to get too technical here:
Protestant Reformation (and individualistic): The Church is the whole body of believers that are found scattered in all Christian denominations as long as they hold to basic Christian beliefs. (I will leave out the belief definition as it tends to generate a whole separate debate). More recently, this definition has come to include any person who might pray on a hill without any church body. Thus Sola Scriptura is the authority, and each congregation or denomination is free to do what they think is best with respect to Church government, if any at all. Please feel free to improve upon this definition.
Catholic: There is one continuous Church that was given authority starting with the Apostle Peter, and has maintained that authority down through the centuries through her Bishops and Popes (Bishop of Rome). Whatever St. Peter or his rightful successors bound on earth would also be bound in heaven ... etc. Thus today, we have what we call the Roman Catholic Church with a Pope sitting in the Chair of St. Peter. All other denominations are schisms or protestants that have veered from the true Church.
Orthodox: There is one continuous Church that was given authority starting with the Apostles, and has maintained that authority down through the centuries through her Bishops of Holy Sees founded by variouis Apostles. Each Bishop is equal, but the Popes (Bishop of Rome) is first among equals. Whatever these collective Bishops decide, e.g. Ecumenical Councils, is bound on earth and would also be bound in heaven ... etc. Thus today, we have what we call the Orthodox Church with patriarchs (Bishops) of each Holy See. The RCC is a Holy See, but has strayed from the historic way the Church operated. Protestants are the result of what happens when a Holy See like Rome strays from the true way. If your congregation begins to practice error, you not only have the right, you have the duty to leave and go where truth is found.
My position: I agree with the Orthodox. Catholic and Orthodox are somewhat similar ... but I am sure Protestants can find more sympathy with the Orthodox as I do. I view Protestants as my brothers and sisters in the faith. I personally wish and hope that the ecumenical efforts to unite the whole Church into one will someday be accomplished. However, I hope for compromises as I believe they all have erred, and they all have some correct points. Whether I am right or wrong is another matter ... this is all very subjective anyway.
So, now, that the premise is initiated ... let's have a go at it. Bring up anything and everything, and I will not bitch about it. I will either agree or hammer back. But let's keep it fun and not make any enemies.
Amen!
Jim Whitney
 
TopHat
TopHat 9 years ago

Why are Mafia RC's blessed by the Pope? I never could understand that logic
 
Qcmbr
Qcmbr 9 years ago

To claim an unbroken line of authority from Jesus and Peter would require one to allow authority to be passed by virtue of having it rather than being worthy of it. In other words many popes have been christlike, some have not - if a convincing argument can be made that those who were less praiseworthy could still carry the authority and thus pass it on then the RC Catholics may claim some legitemacy. Without that then it is a sham of authority they pass on and thus cannot qualify to perform the sacraments (assuming they are required.) It also means that authority from God is like promethian fire - no longer controlled by the gods since it could be given to anyone else rather like a cold and they can pass it to whom they will.
 
Nosferatu
Nosferatu 9 years ago

I personally don't care enough about the Catholic religion to bring up their past. I have attended Catholic weddings and funerals in the past. I just though that the whole incense burning and singing in gibberish was kinda goofy. But then again, every religion does something goofy. The Lutherans take a piece of tree, dip it in a bowl of tap water, and flick the water at the audience. It's kinda like going to see a rock concert where they throw buckets of water at the audience (except Shannon Hoon who pissed on his audience)
My biggest question is why do you have to do goofy things to worship God?
That's probably the reason why I never joined another religion after the JWs. They all do something goofy. Today, I have my disbelief in the bible which stops me from going along with anything religious.
 
LittleToe
LittleToe 9 years ago

The "Protestant" definition is fairly correct, but you've missed a category for the sects that think they are the only right way, such as the JWs, LDS, and Exclusive Brethren, etc. These tend to be fundamentalist and have more in common with Islam.
 
LittleToe
LittleToe 9 years ago

Q:
LOL - That's rich, coming from a Mormon!
Aren't you supposed to have an unbroken chain of Prophets and Presidents from Joseph Smith less than 200 years ago? How is that any better a stance than that of a Church that claims that it has the same. but with authority passed on by Jesus when in the body 2000 years ago?
I don't beleive in apostolic succession, period, but have to smile at the pot calling the kettle black...
 
Amazing
Amazing 9 years ago

Tophat: You have stated an impression some have. Please provide credible supporting references.
QCMBR: Please then answer the following:
To claim an unbroken line of authority from Jesus and Peter would require one to allow authority to be passed by virtue of having it rather than being worthy of it.
Who is ever worthy?
In other words many popes have been christlike, some have not - if a convincing argument can be made that those who were less praiseworthy could still carry the authority and thus pass it on then the RC Catholics may claim some legitemacy.
Some Popes were found to be illigitmate and were finally removed. But again, who is worthy.
Without that then it is a sham of authority they pass on and thus cannot qualify to perform the sacraments (assuming they are required.) It also means that authority from God is like promethian fire - no longer controlled by the gods since it could be given to anyone else rather like a cold and they can pass it to whom they will.
What is the supported premise, perhaps Biblical, of your argument? Israel had some really bad Kings, like David, Solomon, Saul and others ... yet, did that eliminate their authority and right? No, not until they died. Nosferatu:
My biggest question is why do you have to do goofy things to worship God?
My son-inlaw and daughter combined a candle light at the Kingdom hall as a symbol of their unity. This is done at many Protestant and Catholic weddings. It is a simple tradition that many find meaningful. Incense, ritual etc. are useful to many in making something a little more sacred. Jesus Christ even used the symbol of the cup of wine and the bread to mark an important ritual with deep meaning. Incense was used by Israel with many meanings. The Church carried forward some of these Jewish symbols. You say why, I ask, Why not?
Jim Whitney
 
Qcmbr
Qcmbr 9 years ago

LT - not understanding - of course the LDS claim an unbroken line..I don't see your point? But this is not a debate on the LDS , its a look at the Catholics and if you see what I wrote I proposed two options (though I make no secret of the problem I have with one of them.)
 
Qcmbr
Qcmbr 9 years ago

I think we have an example of those who could claim authority from Abraham being denied by their unworthiness (whited sepulchres).
Religious authority was not passed by the kingly line as far as I'm aware - kings were chosen by prophets in certain circumstances and prophets were chosen by God.
 
LittleToe
LittleToe 9 years ago

Q:
You've exposed yourself
Are you really claiming that every one of your LDS Prophets has been pure as the driven snow and hence worthy (according to works??) to pass on his authority? If not, then on what basis is your claim of authority any superior to the RC?
Was Peter?
Even though he denied his Lord, he was still given the "keys of the kingdom". Methinks you may be looking at the wrong criteria. If you're going to believe in apostolic succession then the RC Church has far more claim on it that the LDS movement.
 
Amazing
Amazing 9 years ago

Qcmbr,
My use of Israeli Kings was intended as an example. There was the Priestly-King line of Melchezidek, of which Jesus was ... and so, perhaps in a way, the illustration works even better because both lines of authority was covered. That is, from Christ to the Apostles and so forth.
Jim Whitney
 
LittleToe
LittleToe 9 years ago

Q:
I'm certain even the "superior footnotes" of your LDS version of the KJV bible don't alter the fact that there was an Aaronic priestly line as well as a later Kingly line. There were plenty of bad High Priests (e.g. Eli), and yet that was the system that continued down to 70AD. Did God take away their authority?
 
greendawn
greendawn 9 years ago

We must also look at things from the angle that the divisions between the Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants are not strictly religious but political that are then justified by being given a religious dimension. Eg the Catholics and Orthodox split up because the former were based on the realities created by the conquest of the West by the Germanic tribes something that the Eastern Romans (Byzantines) never accepted. The emperor of the East was also the head of the West and this claim obviously created conflict. Could the Popes for example enthrone and call a Frank a Roman emperor when the real emperor, according to the Byzantines, was in Constantinople? How could the Popes overlook him?
 
Qcmbr
Qcmbr 9 years ago

LT - I think the authority was removed or do you still believe it resides in physical Israel? You're playing quite nasty so far- I'm not hiding anything to 'be exposed'. I am interested in the justification of apostolic succession based upon the act of passing it on rather than the act of God chosing one who is worthy. I think perfection is not my point (I at no stage said that was a requirement but you cannot expose me by forcing my position to an illogical end.) Please feel free to point out any examples where authority was lost and then say why it was lost assuming you think it was for reasons other than unworthiness?
Would my point be LESS valid if I were not LDS?
 
lovelylil
lovelylil 9 years ago

What is the Church? I am glad you asked Jim.
The church is the "body of believers". It is comprised of those who have been saved and redeemed by the true living God based upon the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus upon the cross. Another term for body of believers is "body of Christ" . So all those "in Christ" make up the church. Inclusion into the body of Christ or the true Church is not by membership in ANY denomination. It is not recieved by any rituals or by ceremony, or by natural birth. It is recieved by faith (Romans 5:1, Ephesians 2:8). The invisible Church is the church made up of all true believers who have been born again by the spirit of God.
The word church comes from the Greek "ekklesia" which means "assembly" or "gathering". But the church is more than a meeting place. And more than a place for believers to gather who profess faith in God or a place to attend weekly services. The Church is the "living temple" of the true God. It is not the building, meeting place, an organization or a denomination. The Church IS the totality of all true believers regardless of denominational affiliation. The entire body of believers IS the church and as such, it is the dwelling place of the Holy and Infinite God. The church is a mystery to some but understood by true believers.
The church came into its existance at Pentecost and was purchased by God with his own blood (Acts 20:28) and Jesus is the head of the Church (Ephesians 1:22,23). The church is the dwelling place of God (Ephesians 2:22). If you are "in Christ" and have God living in you (Holy Spirit), you are IN the Church as much as you ARE the church.
All the denominations that were put into place well after Pentecost by men have done nothing to unite the body of Christ and have in fact divided the body into sects, with each one following another leader. Just because the Apostles laid some foundation stones for those in the true faith did not mean they anticipated the creation of the monsters we see today in religious organizations complete with a detailed hierarchy and filled with rules, doctrines, traditions, and other commands of men for the church to follow. Anyone saying that Christ gave them authority over his body to do such a thing is just deceiving themselves. The church has been in existance since Pentacost and will continue on until the Lord arrives to gather it. And this will be done under the noses of those who claim they ARE the true church but cannot grasp the spiritual understanding of what the church really is.
Thanks Jim for this thread to discuss this issue.
For those used to the church systems, protestant, catholic, baptist, etc. it will be hard to grasp this concept for they have always been taught to look for an "outward" proof of the church (such as a building, denomination, etc.). Or a place they must go to in order to be taught about God. In contrast to the fact that Jesus himself said "the time is coming, when we will worship in spirit and truth" and Paul who stated "God does not dwell in man-made temples". The truth is God is within all true believers because we have been indwelled with his Holy Spirt. And it is that Spirit that teaches the church, not any man or organization. While the Apostles and older men have helped in setting some ground rules, we must continue learning by yielding to the Spirit of God that dwells inside of us. Again, the body of believers IS the temple of God or the Church. Peace, Lilly
 
LittleToe
LittleToe 9 years ago

Q:
I agree with your position of apostolic succession not resting with the RC Church. I go further to say that I don't believe in apostolic succession, period. I just find it amusing that you targeted this doctrine of the RC when your own religion holds the same tenet but on flimsier grounds. It reminds me of the Monty Python sketch in the Holy Grail where Arthur is arguing about his right to be King and is told that some watery tart throwing a sword at him is no grounds for a governmental system (or somesuch).
Nasty? Naw, I play hard and fair, but not nasty
 
Qcmbr
Qcmbr 9 years ago

Lovelylil - I'm puzzled - am I as an LDS member also part of the body of Christ? Do your words reject or include me? Do my beliefs exclude me or include me? I think its a nice idea but I see no correlation with the orderered God of sacraments, law and Priesthood with the all inclusive body of like thinkers co-joined by the Holy Spirit(and I've yet to meet any christian who exactly matched their beliefs with those of another - especially regarding this unifying Spirit.)
 
Qcmbr
Qcmbr 9 years ago

LT - just wondering why references to LDS footnotes and LDS leaders has anything relevant to do with the Catholic churches publicised claims to apostolic succession. I'm more than happy to debate LDS claims to succession elsewhere - I just don't see them adding to this topic. I'm still interested in whether anyone supports the idea of authority passed by right rather than by virtue, ritual rather than heavenly choice?
 
lovelylil
lovelylil 9 years ago

Q,
I am sorry I do not think I fully understand your questions. Can you be more specific?
Also the thought that every believer has to be in agreement with every interpretation of scripture is incorrect. The identifying mark of true Christians is not head knowledge of the Bible nor the ability to interpret every word "correctly" - it is LOVE. Because true Love will cover over any disagreements about.
If you as a Mormom have the Holy Spirit dwelling in you, which only you know for sure, than you are IN the church. Having Holy Spirit in you means you have been "born again". Have you? If you have, you are in Christ's body.
The problem with the religious systems is that many in them believe they are true Christians yet, do not have the spirit dwelling in them. But it is certainly not for me to say who is and is not a true Christian. When Christ arrives, he will sort that out (Matthew 7:21) Lilly
 
LittleToe
LittleToe 9 years ago

Q:
Who has virtue? Your Prophets, Apostles and Priests are just men. They have no more succession than the Pope. Or are not all Christians to be Priests and Kings, under the Older brother who is Lord of Lords and King of Kings?
In the OT the Priestly line continued, regardless of whether the High Priest was bad. As far as I can tell the office didn't stop until the temple curtain was rent in twain by the great High Priest of the order of Melchizadek.
As for your comments about unity, does God sweat the small stuff when it comes to a full range or beliefs, or is that a very human preoccupation? It seems to have been a far simpler thing in the 1st Century, as evidenced by the thief on the cross. On this ground I'm generally speaking with Lil (albeit she erroneously seems to believe that most mainstream Protestants center their worship on a Church rather than Christ).
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
KiddingMe
Police: Teen killed in N.Y. church assault wanted out
by KiddingMe 5 months ago
Defianttruth
Help to build a "Guide to Your New Faith"
by Defianttruth a month ago
JakeM2012
The extent that desperate cults will go to keep control of their youth
by JakeM2012 5 months ago
OrphanCrow
The Jehovah's Witnesses, the Royal Commission and the Catholic Church
by OrphanCrow 7 months ago
Saved_JW
Watchtower Paralells Mormonism
by Saved_JW 4 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/128300/debaters-lets-have-out






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Debaters: Let's have It Out !
/  





 

Debaters: Let's have It Out !
by Amazing 9 years ago 124 Replies latest 9 years ago   jw friends
«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 »
 5
10
20
Narkissos
Narkissos 9 years ago

The symmetrical biographies of John Henry Newman and John Nelson Darby sum up the problem of modern historical Protestantism groping for a solid foundational ground.
My opinion is that there is none -- neither institutional continuity, nor creed, nor scripture, nor experience are beyond valid criticism -- and ironically the endless struggle of the alternative "foundations" have helped in making that clear to all.
But -- still imo -- the very principle of "faith" is the opposite of the search for foundation (fundamentalism in the etymological sense). It is walking on the sea, not on solid ground.
 
Qcmbr
Qcmbr 9 years ago

I'm just used to being told a similar idea in one breath and then haiving it pointedout that being LDS means I'm not.
The Catholic church and indeed much of christianities various splinter groups gained their spiritual basis from such inclusive statements of faith formulated early on in the christian history - yet when formulated those who wrote such clearly actually meant 'as long as they accept what we believe' as history later shows. Early christians were as factional and divided as we are today and many thought all others damned.
The Catholics have longevity because they have structure (like the Jews)IMO - I don't see any evidence for the long term viability for unstructured worship - its like a play where all the actors can read the script how they like and ignore the play producer. Modern day Catholicism owes its place in history and its prevalance to its association with Rome more than for the purity of its principles (hypothesis).
 
LittleToe
LittleToe 9 years ago

Didier:
Oooh, I likey!
So does that support the Papal claim to be a modern Peter, getting out of the boat?
 
lovelylil
lovelylil 9 years ago

LT,
I did not mean to imply that most Protestants center worship on the church instead of Christ. But, I can see why my comments may seem like that is what I meant to say.
I merely meant that our being in the Church (body of Christ) is not dependant on us belonging to any one denomination. You certainly can be a Protestant or Catholic, or Baptist and be in the true Church. But it is NOT because of your religious denomination that you are in Christ's church but becuase you have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
I was an active Jehovah's Witness when God's Spirit came into my heart. So again, I just meant our religious affiliation with a certain group is not a requirement. Lilly
 
LittleToe
LittleToe 9 years ago

Q:I think you make a valid point. I also think that its a very human preoccupation to want something tangible to enhance our spirituality, in the face of "here we have no continuing city".
As Lil states, it is "love" that binds folk together - "by this they will know..."
 
LittleToe
LittleToe 9 years ago

Lil:
I agree, and I'm also perplexed to note that quite a number of nominal Christians put a lot of faith in a Sunday ritual and a little good living to get them to heaven. Like you, I was still a JW when I became a Christian, so I understand where you're coming from with those comments.
 
Qcmbr
Qcmbr 9 years ago

Assuming God called a prophet would one be justified in ignoring what they said even if listening to that voice entailed structure? In rejecing a representative do you reject the represented? If you deny that the Catholic priest brings the body of Christ down during the sacrament then are you also saying they act blasphemously? Does the bible justify the acceptance of this? When we walk away from the anointed of God and claim the indwelling of the spirit can we have indeed received that spirit? If however, they are not anointed what do they do? Is it right to stand aside or does the spirit move us to cleanse the temple? Does the spirit trump the chosen?
 
LittleToe
LittleToe 9 years ago

The anointing of the Spirit is a seal of being chosen (a la Romans 8, etc.). Each has a responsibility to prophetically forthtell the whole counsel of God. As a Christian you don't need a damp scimitar for that!
 
Narkissos
Narkissos 9 years ago

So does that support the Papal claim to be a modern Peter, getting out of the boat?
LOL. Especially as the boat is a traditional emblem of the church...
I'm inclined to think John XXIII did give it a try. But it seems to be another era.
 
RAF
RAF 9 years ago

...  ...
 
Qcmbr
Qcmbr 9 years ago

Interestingly Nark. I've always said I'm looking for the person who can walk on water rather than talk about someone else who did.
 
lovelylil
lovelylil 9 years ago

LT and Narkissos,
Don't take this the wrong way - but I am really enjoying you two guys on this thread! Lilly
 
Qcmbr
Qcmbr 9 years ago

I think I understand lil.
Night all - I'll bow out now.
 
LittleToe
LittleToe 9 years ago

Q:
That comment reminds me of the last scene in Da Vinci Code
I wonder if TV has become the modern Church
Didier:
Are you alluding to Vatican II being a sinking ship?
Lil:
Its nice to have an open debate to get our teeth stuck into, without anyone losing an eye!
 
ozziepost
ozziepost 9 years ago

Hey Jim,
Is this a freudian slip?
Angelican,


 
JeffT
JeffT 9 years ago

1) I don't think God sweats the small stuff.
2) from God's perspective its all small stuff.
I am a Christian. I believe that the sole source of authority is scripture, but the only way I can understand Scripture is through the guidence of the Holy Spirit as He speaks through my conscience. It is not up to me to decide what is right for the rest of you, I have enough work to do cleaning up my own side of the street.
 
Outaservice
Outaservice 9 years ago

There is two things I never debate, religion and politics! Whew, that got me out of a lot of work this evening!
Outaservice (Hey, how about that Hillery Clinton? Whoops, sorry )



 
RAF
RAF 9 years ago



this verse struk my mind when I read it : Matthew 24 : 15
it just told me : things will getting nasty in what you (may) think being the right place (see A)

15."Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),
all what follow (image) means to me : RUN AWAY FROM IT whatever need you think you can fullfill by staying there

16.then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.
17.Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get the things out that are in his house.
18.Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak.
19.But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days!
20.But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath.
21.For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.
(A) Jesus says he is the temple ... where is the need to have any temple/Church ... also did he ask to built any temple BTW? NO NO and NO ... all that money could have gone for the poors but NO NO and NO
The whole chapter of Matthew 24 is like the Whole revelation (it's something wich is not happening one after the other it is something happening all together viewed on different angles from the begining) Being christian is not a religion to me it's a phylosophie - you like the masters way and want to copy somehow as good as you can - water baptisme is a personnal vow - nothing more - and the real baptisme is from the holly spirit certainely not by any human organisation) the fall of Babylon is not supposed to be something obvious ... it's all about that at the end we will have enough, enough, enough with their mascarade !!! and we do more and more (religion becomes a real probleme most of us don't want that anymore in their lives)
revelation 17 - is giving the point about who is who ?we know about the abomination which happen from every human church, don't we?
Where do they lead their flock really?to get attached to them only or all together but in one of them (can't we see the harlot in their) did Christ asked to anyone to recognise Peter or being attached to him?)





 
hillary_step
hillary_step 9 years ago

Ozzie,
Angelican,
lol...Yes, that ran through my mind too.
Angelican where Popican't.
HS
 
LittleToe
LittleToe 9 years ago

Did I kill the thread?


 

«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
this thread was going to be about the true church.
but i simply changed the title.
okay ... so my experience thread set the stage for what seems to be a need to debate catholicism ... maybe because in the minds of many, there is a comparison to the watchtower ... a comparison which i believe is false.



Related Topics
KiddingMe
Police: Teen killed in N.Y. church assault wanted out
by KiddingMe 5 months ago
Defianttruth
Help to build a "Guide to Your New Faith"
by Defianttruth a month ago
JakeM2012
The extent that desperate cults will go to keep control of their youth
by JakeM2012 5 months ago
OrphanCrow
The Jehovah's Witnesses, the Royal Commission and the Catholic Church
by OrphanCrow 7 months ago
Saved_JW
Watchtower Paralells Mormonism
by Saved_JW 4 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/128300/debaters-lets-have-out?page=2&size=20






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Debaters: Let's have It Out !
/  





 

Debaters: Let's have It Out !
by Amazing 9 years ago 124 Replies latest 9 years ago   jw friends
«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 »
 5
10
20
Sad emo
Sad emo 9 years ago

I have a big problem with the RC churches sole claim to apostolic succession - the church started out with 5 patriarchs, all of whom had apostolic beginnings - and, although some staunch RC's might object, Rome wasn't really that much to the fore in doctrinal decision making - much of the doctrine came from Alexandria and Antioch, Rome, as a key administrative centre was the focal point of disseminating the Gospel to the world. The question of the Roman patriarch deciding that he was above all the other patriarchs only came through political and territorial arguments later on.
Couple this with the claim of Peter's superiority over the other's being based largely upon a couple of verses of scripture whose integrity and original inclusion are questioned by many scholars - the verses saying 'You are Peter and on this rock etc' are believed to be a later addition.
I think even Peter himself would be deeply embarrassed, possibly angered by the prominence placed upon him over history.
"On Christ, the solid rock I stand - all other ground is sinking sand."
emo - unofficially protestant reformed zen orthodox
officially Angelican (I like that!)
genuinely Christian
 
Junction-Guy
Junction-Guy 9 years ago

I only have one question for this thread, and it is for Amazing. You mentioned your Son and Daughter in law ligthing a unity candle at their Kingdom Hall wedding. I have never seen this before at a JW wedding, and assumed it would be pagan by JW standards. Is this something that is really allowed, or were they just "lucky" that the elders didnt ban it?
 
Amazing
Amazing 9 years ago

Hi Lovelylil,
There are so many posts to choose from that I have a hard time knowing where to start. I started with yours just because you raise what leads to the core of the issues.
The church is the "body of believers". It is comprised of those who have been saved and redeemed by the true living God based upon the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus upon the cross. Another term for body of believers is "body of Christ" . So all those "in Christ" make up the church. Inclusion into the body of Christ or the true Church is not by membership in ANY denomination. It is not recieved by any rituals or by ceremony, or by natural birth. It is recieved by faith (Romans 5:1, Ephesians 2:8). The invisible Church is the church made up of all true believers who have been born again by the spirit of God.
I like the principle of your definition ... except I am having a hard time finding the word "invisible" in the Bible. The RCC fundamentally accepts your definition, except they too, I suspect, would have a hard time with the word 'invisible.'
The word church comes from the Greek "ekklesia" which means "assembly" or "gathering". But the church is more than a meeting place. And more than a place for believers to gather who profess faith in God or a place to attend weekly services. The Church is the "living temple" of the true God. It is not the building, meeting place, an organization or a denomination. The Church IS the totality of all true believers regardless of denominational affiliation. The entire body of believers IS the church and as such, it is the dwelling place of the Holy and Infinite God. The church is a mystery to some but understood by true believers.
Excellent, you have perfectly described the Catholic Church ... and this definition can describe Protestants.
The church came into its existance at Pentecost and was purchased by God with his own blood (Acts 20:28) and Jesus is the head of the Church (Ephesians 1:22,23). The church is the dwelling place of God (Ephesians 2:22). If you are "in Christ" and have God living in you (Holy Spirit), you are IN the Church as much as you ARE the church.
Excellent! Agreed.
All the denominations that were put into place well after Pentecost by men have done nothing to unite the body of Christ and have in fact divided the body into sects, with each one following another leader.
So, when did this commence? With the schism in 1054 AD? Or in the 16th century with the followers of Luther? Prior to this there was no sect or denomination, there was just one Church affiliation, one body, containing all the things you describe in the preceding paragraph.
Just because the Apostles laid some foundation stones for those in the true faith did not mean they anticipated the creation of the monsters we see today in religious organizations complete with a detailed hierarchy and filled with rules, doctrines, traditions, and other commands of men for the church to follow.
Monsters? I see the body of Christ.
Heirarchy? The Apostle Paul laid out the heirarchy up to Bishop. That is all the Orthodox and Roman Catholic have. Such heirarchy is Biblical.
Rules, doctrines and traditions? Galations 5:23 give a sample of the rules, doctrines, and commands for the Church. The Bible speaks of Apostolic tradition.
Commands of men? What commands of men do you speak?
Anyone saying that Christ gave them authority over his body to do such a thing is just deceiving themselves.
Given what the Bible teaches, then are you saying that the Apostle Paul and the other Apostles and Bible writers were deceiving themselves. Perhaps some detail is warranted. As you have defined the Church and its structure, your above sentence does not make sense.
The church has been in existance since Pentacost and will continue on until the Lord arrives to gather it.
The Bible never speaks of the Church being gathered before the weeds. (Yes, I know you didn't say that, but I am making the point for JWs who are focused on gathering the wheat, but who failed to gather the weeds first.) It speaks of Christ and the angels harvesting the weeds into bundles to be burned and then what is left is the wheat to be gathered into one place. The RCC and Protestants and Orthodox have always understood that the wheat and weeds are growing up together in the Church. Your sentence infers to JWs and some ex-JWs a scenario that comes out of the playbook of Free Bible Students, the Watchtower, Mormons, and other groups that want to believe that they are the gathering place of the wheat class. The Bible teaches at Matthew 13:30:  "Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye togetherfirst the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn." So, how do we understand this illustration? The tares or weeds are first gathered into bundles for burning. The wheat is left to be gathered into Christ's barn (the church?). To help us in context, Jesus then spoke of the same exact Kingdom of Heaven in the very next verses 31 and 32: " Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof."
Could it be that the greatest tree is the Church, and all the denominations are her branches? Catholic and Orthodox being the trunk, and Protestants being the smaller branches? But, like the field of wheat, the weeds are allowed to grow and lodge in the tree until the harvest.
 And this will be done under the noses of those who claim they ARE the true church but cannot grasp the spiritual understanding of what the church really is.
What support do you have for this claim? Who is it that cannot grasp what the CHurch really is?
Thanks Jim for this thread to discuss this issue.
You're welcome ... and I hope that it proves productive.
For those used to the church systems, protestant, catholic, baptist, etc. it will be hard to grasp this concept for they have always been taught to look for an "outward" proof of the church (such as a building, denomination, etc.).
You are mistaken. No self-respecting Protestant would ever look to a church system for an outward proof of the Church or the "truth." These are foreign concepts to them. The basis for their existence is that they reject any church system as being the Chuch. After my JW years, I spent years with the Baptists, Assembly of God, Presbyterian, Christian Reform, and others. They one and all consider each other brothers and sisters in Christ. The reason for their existence is emphasis on certain Christian teachings. Roman Catholic accept that there are Christians in all places and denominations. Catholics recognize that the Church is scattered.
The real issue is whether or not there is Apostolic authority passed down through succession, or merely claimed by those who want to claim it, or that there is no such thing as Apostolic authority. Historical fact shows us that for the first 1,500-years the Church only understood that they has Apostolic authority. Such a thing you described as the "invisible" church, or the Protestant concept just did not exist.
This begs the question: Was Christ with the Church and did the Holy Spirit guide the Church as promised, or did God let the Church become totally apostate with the first disciples, and only a small remnant of true Chrustians functioned all these centuries? Of course we can see the implications. Groups like the Watchtower, Mormons, Adventists, etc. love to think of the Church in the latter way. They need it to justify their systems. Independent Christians, mostly of a Protestant style ilk also need the latter view to a degree because they reject successive Apostolic authority. Whereas Rome and Constantinople, the two great historic Churches believe that while apoastasy did infect the Church, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit protected the Church, and that Apostolic Succession is intact to this very day.
Which view is correct? That is the final question.
Or a place they must go to in order to be taught about God. In contrast to the fact that Jesus himself said "the time is coming, when we will worship in spirit and truth" and Paul who stated "God does not dwell in man-made temples". The truth is God is within all true believers because we have been indwelled with his Holy Spirt.
Your application is obviously meant toward Christian Churches, and primarily at Catholic and Orthodox. But, the context of Paul's words was aimed at Israel and its religious system. The rest of your comments are clearly as much Catholic as they are Protestant. To a Catholic, the House of God is the Church, which is the Body of Christ, which is the gathering of believers who have the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that whever two or more gather in my name, there I will also be. So, when Catholic gather, whether at home or in the Chruch, Christ is there. I likewise believe that this applies to Protestant Christians.
And it is that Spirit that teaches the church, not any man or organization.
This is where I can ask, how does the Holy Spirit teach believers? Does he teach us individually to the exclusion of others in the body? Or does he use all means, such as other members of the Body of Christ to teach us, which would include those with Apostolic authority?
If you read John 14 again, you find where Jesus taught them that the Holy Spirit would comfort and teach them and bring back to their minds all the things he taught them ... however ... the context was not specifically stated to all Christians, though one might make that inference. The context started in John 13, because teh event was the Last Supper! Jesus was speaking only to him Apostles when he made that promise, and not to the general gathering of the disciples. It is the Apostle Paul that wrote to the Hebrew Christians to get them to think beyond Judaism and how the Holy Spirit was teaching them. But how was the Holy Spirit teaching the Hebrew Christians to which Paul applied the verses from Jeremiah 31? They were being directly taught by an Apostle, namely Paul.
While the Apostles and older men have helped in setting some ground rules, we must continue learning by yielding to the Spirit of God that dwells inside of us. Again, the body of believers IS the temple of God or the Church. Peace, Lilly
The Apostles had far more to do with establishing the Church than setting some few ground rules. The Apostle Paul, for example, set the basis for how congregations would operate. When the Church had a dispute, the Apostles and Priests (Presbyters) met in Jerusalem to solve the problem. They did not leave it to each individual to wait on the Holy Spirit to lead each one independently. Rather, they wrote a collective letter saying in Acts 15, "The Holy Spirit and we ourselves ..." and thus the Apostles included themselves in what we being decided and taught to the Church.
Last but not least: The Church is a Body, thus nbot all are the eye, nor are all the feet. The whole body is joined together for a purpose. Some are Apostels, some are Prophets, some are Evangelizers, some are Teachers, some are Shepherds or Pastors, and so on. This clearly and Biblically establishes various offices and in order for there to exist offices, there must be an authority to appoint those offices. Hence, the Apostle Paul appointed Priests (Presbyters, Elders) in city after city. The Apostle Peter personally groomed and appointed St. Ignatius to be Bishop (Overseer, Epsikopoi) of Antiioch, and so on. There were women and men who were Deacons who were charged with responsibility in the Church. There were a variety of ministries as there are in Churches today. Tyhe RCC is filled with all kinds of ministries. Just look at Mother Teresa as a recent example, and the Order of Sisters she founded to serve the poor in India. There was from the very beginning both the Church as a body of believers indwelled by the Holy Spirit, and there was a Church with authority to appoint people to offices. It was all united and of one faith. This continued fairly well, albeit a level of apostasy and heresy that was fought off for centuries, but continued nonetheless.
I see both: Both the so-named "invisible" Church that is everywhere ... which is quite visible because it is made up od human beings who have the Holy Spirit ... and I see the Church functioning as a body, with all its parts joined together to carry out God's will, and I see a large tree of Christianity with many smaller branches, and the large supporting tree trunk called the Catholic Church which connects all the others to the roots grounded in the same faith.
Pax Vobiscum
Jim Whitney
 
Terry
Terry 9 years ago

You can't start a debate about what color Santa Claus's underwear is without FIRST establishing whether or not Santa exists. Then, you have to establish a valid means of obtaining information about Santa.
Same here.
No religious debate is valid without rooting out the PREsuppositions that creep in from the getgo.
You cannot merely ASSUME:
1.There are supernatural entities.
2.There is a supreme, conscious supernatural leader who is benign and wishes to communicate with humans.
3.There is a document (or documents) that conveys the desires of this supreme being.
4.That any existing document(s) are correctly translated and interpreted.
All this must be established FIRST.
 
lovelylil
lovelylil 9 years ago

emo,
I am glad you brought that point up about Peter. Here is the verse the RC points to in thier claim that Peter alone is the foundation for the church:
Matthew 16:
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" 14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20 Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
Jesus mentioning Peters name is significant here: Because Peter is Petros which means "detached stone", but the word "Rock" he used is Petra meaning "bedrock". Here Jesus is saying you Petros will build my church upon the larger Rock (Bedrock) which is the Christ. Peter had just acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus than tells him on THIS "Rock" (Christ) the church will be built. But Peter (petros) will help to lay a foundation upon the chief rock, (Christ), he is just not the Rock that supports the church, Jesus is. (Jesus is also called the "Chief Cornerstone")
Like emo said, the RC uses the one verse above to support thier views, lets look at more texts that clear up who is THE Rock and who laid the foundation upon it.
Ephesians 2:19,20
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.
The foundation on the Rock of Christ was built by all the Apostles and prophets and not just Peter. But again, Christ is the Chief Stone or Bed Rock. The others are the foundation stones. Think about building a home. You must have something other than dirt to build your foundation upon. My home's foundation is build upon bedrock. The foundation is laid over the bedrock. This scripture is saying the same thing.
The following texts show Jesus, not Peter is the is the Rock:
Matthew 7:24
Jesus says: "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock
Remember those who did not build on this rock, built there home on sand?
Romans 9:33
As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."
Peter himself identifies that rock or "stone" that the church is built on as being Jesus. 1 Peter 2;
4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says:
 "See, I lay a stone in Zion,
 a chosen and precious cornerstone,
 and the one who trusts in him
 will never be put to shame." 7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
 "The stone the builders rejected
 has become the capstone, 8 and,
 "A stone that causes men to stumble
 and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.
About the keys:
Many believe the keys of the kingdom was given to the Church itself while some say by the verse in Matthew 16, the keys were given to Peter alone. Those who believe Peter alone recieved the keys also believe he already used these "keys". They believe Peter used these keys at Pentacost when he announced that the door of the kingdom was unlocked for Jews and Proselytes and later when he announced the door was unlocked to Gentiles. (see Acts 2, Acts 10)
Matthew 16 also states that the gates of hades will never prevail against the church. And that whatever the church binds on earth will be bound in heaven. This does not mean only Peter could bind things in earth and heaven but the church. Matthew 18:15-19, clearly shows it is the church that collectively will pronounce innocent or guilt in matters and that pronouncement on earth will be bound in heaven. Since Peter did not have this sole ability, he could not have passed it along to others in a "apostolic sucession".
Also, unlike the RC Church teaches, the church could announce guilt or innocence but not determine it, nor did they execute judgement against someone. Only God executes the judgement.
Peace, Lilly
 
lovelylil
lovelylil 9 years ago

Jim,
I replied to emo and then saw your comments. Please see what I told him about the church and the apostles.
What I meant by invisible church is that being in the church does not mean you have to be "in" a church building. The spirit is in all true believers and we are "the church".
I agree that the Apostles, as well as the prophets built a foundation for the Christian church. But they built it, upon the rock mass of Jesus Christ himself and not on any one of the Apostles. I have no problem with Apostolic tradition and teachings. And the majority of Christian churches will also be in agreement with this, whether they are Catholic, Protestant, or even the little house church I attend, which is also based upon the teachings of the Apostles. But we are to be loyal to Christ first, and we should not treat the Apostles as if they are above him. By the RC Church for instance claiming they are built on Peter - this would be exalting Peter above Christ. The church which is the body of believers everywhere is built upon the Rock Mass of Christ and the foundation of the prophets and Apostles.
I think the main problem I have is that the Church Systems try to say who is/is not in the body of Christ. They will say you are only in the body if you belong to their church system. And this is not the way the Christian church is supposed to operate. All believers are all "in Christ" and are Christians, we do not need to be divided into different denominations. The denominations also set up their own traditions and doctrines unique to them that were not directly handed down by the Apostles. That is why it is important to check all things to God's word to see if it is true. However, I am not telling anyone not to belong to a particular denomination only that it is not neccesary to belong to Christ's church. Where two or three are gathered in his name, he is with them and they are a Church.
The church has been growing since Pentecost and I agree with you Christ promised to always be with them thru the Holy Spirit. I reject the JW's and Bible Students claim that the entire Church went into an Apostacy for 1900 years and there were no true Christians on the earth. Like you said very well and used scriptures, the wheat and weeds (true and false Christians) grow up together, (in the body of Christ) until the Angels are sent to seperate them out during the Harvest. The problem with the cults is they claim the harvest has already been done and they are the only true Christians left. Like you said the wheat and weeds grow up in the SAME place, which is the body of Christ. Then the tares or weeds are removed from among the true wheat. This point you made is significant because the cults have it reversed. They are claiming they are the wheat and were removed from the weeds of false religion. However, it is the weeds that are removed from the wheat - the reverse, and the wheat are left standing. (great point, Jim)
One more thing about Jesus words that we need to worship "in spirit and truth" and Paul saying "God does not dwell in man made temples", If you look at the context of both those verses, the point is that the "place" of worship does not matter. As a believer in Christ and having the spirit in me, I am in the living Church and I can feel free to worship in a house church, a Catholic one, a Protestant one, etc. and it does not matter. As long as I am worshiping in spirit and truth. The place is not the most important thing. Granted, most Christians do not elevate the Church building or system above Christ and recongnize that the Church is really the believers.
I think we really agree on more than we disagree on. Peace, Lilly
 
*jeremiah*
*jeremiah* 9 years ago

Sorry, this is very long, yet, I think it's appropriate and very good. It's worth taking the time to read.

 Has Roman Catholicism Changed?
Has Roman Catholicism Changed?
An Overview of Recent Canon Law
Thomas Schirrmacher[a] Antithesis , vol. 1, no. 2, 1990


Some observers speak of significant reforms taking place within Roman Catholicism, but an evaluation of recent official pronouncements suggests another course.


I. The Starting Point: Use of term "Tradition" in Scripture
Before discussing the new Catholic Church Law, I wish briefly to make my own presuppositions clear. I intend to examine the teachings and organizational structure of any church according to the divine revelation found in Holy Scripture. This approach can be briefly applied to the notion of "tradition." The word "tradition" (Gr. paradosis; Lat. traditio), in the New Testament, may refer to the act of "passing on" (delivery); or it may point to the content thereof -- that which was passed on (delivered). Usually, it has to do with the transmission of teachings or instructions. The Biblical use of the term does not in itself imply a valuation: the tradition can be divine or human, true or false.
A. Tradition in the OT
The OT does not have a special word for "tradition." The activity itself however is described by many concepts. Genuine tradition grounded in acts or revelation of Jahwe ought to be passed on to the next generation. False tradition, based on man's wisdom, is attacked: "Walk ye not in the statutes of your fathers, neither observe their judgments,... [but rather] walk in my statues, and keep my judgments, and do them." (Ezek.20:18-19) Holding fast to the genuine "tradition" imparts life (Prov.4:13); it does not stifle (Prov.4:12).
B. Tradition in the NT
1. Divine or Sound Tradition
In addition to using the term "tradition" in the sense of the substance delivered, the New Testament also uses the verb form "deliver," sometimes with the meaning "to surrender [something]." The passages may be divided between those pertaining to the positive transmissions, which are to be held fast, and those dealing with negative ones which are to be eschewed. Luke identifies the oral transmission of eyewitnesses as the source for his gospel account (Lk 1:2). Paul, too, expressly appeals to eyewitnesses to defend the transmitted account of the death and resurrection of Jesus which was consistent with Scripture (I Cor.15:3 ff). The Lord's Supper goes back to the divine transmission which was passed on by men (I Cor.11:23ff; cf.already v.2).
Along with the transmission of historical events is the transmission of special instructions of the Apostles, of the gospel, or of the faith as such. The resolutions of the Jerusalem counsel were transmitted to the congregations as firmly established teachings "to keep" (Acts 16:4). In 2 Thess.2:15 and 3:6 the traditions are to be held firm, which were passed on "whether by word or our epistle" (2:15). II Pet. 2:21 speaks of holy commands "delivered unto them." Defection from these commands is equated to a defection from the very faith itself. Parallel to this, Jude 3 admonishes "...that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." In the NT, then, the positive sense of tradition as transmission encompasses the Scriptures (cf. 2 Tim.3:15 ff.), the gospel, and the faith as a whole as well as the particular historical accounts and instructions of the apostles, the latter being available to us only via the Scripture.
2. Human or False Traditions in NT
To the same extent that the NT portrays the gospel itself as tradition, it opposes other traditions which lay claim to divine authority. According to I Pet. 1:18, redemption is needed from precisely that vain manner of living "received by tradition[1] from your fathers"! This judgment applies to all human traditions: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men..." (Col.2:8)
Amidst all the variety of evangelists and teachers, Paul does not want anything to go astray from that which is written (I Cor. 4:6), for that would lead to one puffing himself up against another, whereas that which was transmitted unites (4:6-7).
Paul's dispute is especially with the Jewish traditions which are added to the Old Testament. Paul explicitly rejects these "traditions of the fathers" for which he himself was so zealous prior to his conversion to Christ (Gal.1:14). The polemic is found especially in the discussions between Jesus and the Scribes and Pharisees. (The Sadducees, for the most part, rejected the oral tradition along with the Old Testament.) In Mt.15:1ff and Mk 7:1ff., traditions are set in sharp contrast to the command and Word of God. To the extent that tradition is observed, the Word of God is made void (Mk 7:13). In this connection Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13: "Well hath Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.' For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men..." (Mk.7:6-8)
In the sermon on the mount, Jesus uses particular examples to distinguish the law from the traditions of the elders (Mt.5:17-6:18). He doesn't heighten the obligations of the law, but only reminds them of it: Cursing, lusting for a woman (10th commandment), divorce except in the case of unchastity, hatred of one's enemies, etc. is already declared abhorrent in the Old Testament. The Pharasaical traditions do not clarify the Bible, but stand in direct contradiction to the Word of God whenever they lay claim to divine authority (Mk. 7). Surely there will always be certain circumstances relative to the various cultures where innovation is appropriate -- the time of the worship service, seating arrangements, etc. But these may never bind the conscience of all men, unless they are based upon the Bible. Stumbling against such innovations does not mean one stumbles against the eternal and universal doctrine of God. All opinions regarding how a Christian should live, if they lay claim to divine validity, may be tested and questioned in terms of the Bible. This also applies to the new Roman Catholic Church Law, which is the subject of the following discourse.
II. The Essence of Catholic Law
Catholic law does not simply provide legal structuring of the church in the sense in which every organization in time subjects itself.
A. Roman Catholic Church Law in General
1. Claims to be "divine"
The Catholic church law has a totally different character from that of protestants, even if the latter may be criticized in its own right. One dictionary defines church law as "law created by God and the church, for the church."[2]
2. Reflects the essence of the church
Because of its divine character, church law in the Roman church is not an arbitrary factor, but rather reflects the essence of the church; indeed, it determines the essence of the church. The German conference of Bishops explained it like this: "Jesus Christ himself established the fundamental form of this order. The church is of divine origin. Its life flows from the Word of God, the sacraments. The guarantor of its unity is the seat of Peter. Bishops lead their dioceses as followers of the apostles in unity with the Pope. Church law is thus the way of life of the church, the expression of her unity and the thing which defines how to care for souls."[3]
This perspective remains valid even in recent times as the quote shows, and has not been weakened by all the alleged reforms of the Roman Catholic Church in the last decades. In his introduction to the new church law, the chairman of the German Canon Law Translation Commission, Winfried Aymans, writes:

The church law grows, according to catholic understanding, out of the essence of the church itself. It is, according to the teaching of the second Vatican Counsel, the external side of a complex reality; it is at the same time the human expression of a manifold spiritual reality whose root is in God.[4]
3. Mediates salvation
Catholic church law, according to the Roman Catholic Church, goes back to God and the spiritual authority of the church. Thus, it has the character of mediating salvation. The above-cited lexicon says, "The salvation-mediating function of church law finds succinct expression in the old formula Extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the church there is no salvation), which in its original understanding referred to the visible, hierarchically constituted church. Its judicial ordinary[b] power plays a decisive role in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ."[5] Furthermore, "The church law is Holy Law on account of its divine origin and its function of mediating salvation; this was expressed in the early Christian terms for church law, for example jus divinum, sacrum, poli, coeli (divine, holy, heavenly justice)."[6]
The jurisdiction of Catholic ecclesiastical law extends therefore far beyond the boundaries of the Catholic Church. Certain parts apply to all men, others to all baptized persons of whatever confession. "Catholic church law is the law of the church united under the Pope as her visible head, which understands itself as the church of Jesus Christ; therefore, her judicial order applies fundamentally to all baptized persons.... Though the claim with respect to non-Catholic Christians generally cannot be enforced, yet it still has practical significance whenever the legal relation to non-Catholic Christians (e.g. the legitimacy of a marriage) is brought before the Catholic forum."[7]
B.The Distinction Between Divine and Human Justice in Church Law
Since there is now a new version of the canon law, clearly not all aspects of it are immutable. In particular, a distinction must be made between divine and human law under the rubric of ecclesiastical law. "The purely ecclesiastical law, like all human law, may change in order to adapt to changing circumstances. The divine law is unchangeable, though it should not be thought of as a fixed quantity. Just as there is progress (doctrinal development) in the course of understanding and unifying the stuff of revelation, so the church also grows in its understanding of positive divine law -- for example, the teaching regarding the papal primacy. This applies above all to the natural divine law." [8] Herman Avenarius explains the distinction more precisely:

Catholic canon law proceeds from the primacy of divine law (ius divinum). This is divided into two categories: the positive divine law (ius divinum positivum) as revealed in redemptive history, above all in the Scriptures; and natural law (ius naturale) based on God's natural revelation in the created order. The ius divinum is universal and valid at all times; it cannot be set aside by force, nor be altered. Under this category are included the 10 commandments, the ordinance of the sacraments... and the papal primacy.
Human law stands in contrast to the ius divinum, and in turn can be divided into the categories civil law (ius civile) and church law (ius humanum ecclesiasticum); it is in its essence changeable. Legislative authority for ius humanum ecclesiasticum, which is only binding for baptized persons, lies in the Pope for the church as a whole, and in the Bishop at the level of the diocese." [9]

In any new edition of the canon law, the divine law may only be reformulated, while the human law may be completely changed. Still, the former pronouncements continue to have meaning: "the old, cancelled law lives on as to substance in the CIC,[10] and continues to have significance for the ongoing interpretation of it." [11]
One should bear in mind the history of this distinction. In the words of one Catholic canonist, "the distinction between ius divinum and ius humanum was not consciously recognized until the Reformation." [12]
To the outsider, it may be difficult to distinguish between the divine and human law within the canon law. Even catholic professors of Canon Law have their disputes over this.[13] This is equally true, however, for the doctrines of the catholic church. An infallible dogma is derived from a particular teaching via a complicated ranking process. In the German edition of the most important teachings of the catholic church, the attempt was made to divide the teachings into those that are "infallible" or unchangeable, and those that may be revised. [14] This work recommends itself as a good complement to the study of canon law.
We summarize the characteristics of catholic canon law in the words of Erwin Fahlenbusch, a teacher of church symbols:

The Roman Catholic Church carries out its worship and its life in the world in disciplined fashion: its organization is judicially structured. The canon law (or Catholic church law) consists of the totality of all rules (law statements; "canon," measure, standard) governing action and institutions of the church.... The necessity for such a law is, for the Roman Catholic Church, not deduced merely from the fact of being a social corporation, and needing, like every other society, binding rules. Rather it sees its possession of discipline as given along with its constitution and mission. In other words, the discipline of the church is redemptive-historically conditioned and is logically and materially prior to the standards necessary for any societal organization. It includes the rules needed for organization and protection, but goes beyond this in that it is essentially related to the mediation of salvation. Canonical law distinguishes itself from every other jurisprudence just as the Church is distinguished from every other community. It is the reflection of the Roman Catholic Church's understanding of its own nature." [15]
III. The New Catholic Canon Law of 1983
A. Church Law as Papal Expression
The church law derives its authority ultimately from the papal office of Peter, as is clear from the quotations above. Aymans writes in the context of presenting the gradual emergence of the new laws: "the work of reform, initiated and assisted by the counsel, and its result in the form of the now promulgated[16] Codex, were only issued forth by means of the authority of the Pope." [17] This state of affairs stands forth clearly in the title of the new canon law: "Code of canon law, promulgated by the authority of Pope John Paul II" (translated from CIC 1984).

B. The Relevance of the Canon Law
The new canon law of 1983 is a superb vehicle for ascertaining the current state of development of the Catholic Church. One who would engage in polemics with the Catholic church law will not need to answer the objection that he is attacking outdated Catholic positions or trying to drag peripheral issues to the center stage. The church law of 1983 is:
◦inspired by Vatican II, and claims to take up its reforms and put them into concrete form;
◦a century-long work in our own time, and has brought about a flood of new literature commenting on the changes and suggesting practical applications;
◦published by the authority of the current Pope;
◦like all canon law, tied up with the essence of the catholic church as well as its notion of salvation.
The relevance of the new church law will be even better understood if we look at its historical development.
C. Historical Background of the New Canon Law
Church law always played a big role in the history of the Roman Catholic Church. For centuries, however, it was scattered through many documents, and parts of it were buried within other writings and often only derivable from current practices. In 1917, after many years of effort, the countless scattered laws and determinations were gathered together in the large work "Codex Iuris Canonici", and this remained in force almost without change or correction until 1983.
On Jan.25, 1959, anticipating the second Vatican Counsel (1962-65), Pope John XXIII announced a revision of the church law, which was to incorporate especially the changes of the (then) upcoming second Vatican Counsel. Numerous commissioners worked on it after the counsel. Pope John Paul II, who took office in 1978, gave the project substantial impetus. On Jan. 25, 1983, after long preparation, John Paul II released the new Catholic Law -- in Catholic terminology he "promulgated" the new law -- setting November 27, 1983 as the date it would come into force. Was it just a coincidence that Martin Luther's 500th birthday, solemnly celebrated by many protestant churches, fell in the same month?
The new catholic law applies to all Catholic Christians in the Latin church. Many of the determinations claim validity for all baptized persons; many others, to all Catholics. Many of the provisions, however, apply only to the Latin, or Roman, Catholics, that is, not to the (mostly very small) orthodox churches that are attached to the Roman Catholic church. The original intention of creating a church law applicable equally to all non-Latin churches within the fold of the Catholic Church failed. So to some extent, other provisions apply to these churches, mostly of orthodox heritage. In terms of numbers, however, these churches are insignificant.

D. Differences Between the Ecclesiastical Laws of 1917 and 1983
Both in structure and contents there are many differences between the laws as published in 1917 and 1983.
Where the church law of 1917 was strongly modeled after the juridical structure of Roman law (personae/res/actiones, i.e. persons/things/actions) the new law is oriented more toward personal questions in accordance with Vatican II. After a long introduction, Book I starts with "General Norms." Book II follows with "The People of God." It is considerably more detailed than the first book and contains rights and duties of laymen and the important section on the clerics. It is here that the Roman Catholic ecclesiology (=theory of the church) is unfolded. In contrast, Book III on the "The Teaching Office of the Church" is very short! It is striking that this section also takes up the rules for Catholic schools and universities. The detailed book IV, "Office of Sanctifying in the Church", comprises, significantly, the entire sacramental ordinances. The other sections are V. "The Temporal Goods of the Church", VI. "Sanctions in the Church", VII. "Processes"; these three describe the entire judicial structure of the church along with its court system.

E. General Remarks on the New Church Law
With the new church law, the Catholic Church reveals itself once again as a religion of law. Luther rightly spoke of the "Law of the Pope". The Mosaic law of the Old Testament had a divine origin that the new church law unjustly lays claim to. [c] It distinguishes itself from the Catholic law in that it is short, comprehensive, and simple; for the most part it is expressed in principles and case examples which can then be applied to concrete situations. The Catholic church law is quite different. The 1,752 Canons along with subparagraphs treat everything from the church's right to exist to processing costs, from the Catholic university to confirmation certificates, excommunication to the sale of relics. In all of this nothing is left to chance; the terms are all precisely defined.
Two examples will show the extent of attention to detail.[d]
The Bishop is instructed as follows: "Except for a serious and urgent reason he is not to be absent from his diocese on Christmas, during Holy Week, on Easter, Pentecost, or Corpus Christi." (Can 395.3)
The definition of an illegitimate child goes: "Children are presumed to be legitimate if they are born at least 180 days after the celebration of the marriage or within 300 days from the date when conjugal life was terminated" (Can 1138.2).

F. Motion Toward the Bible?
One hears promises of a departure in the direction of the Bible in the new law. Many passages do in fact have a new, evangelical ring to them. One reads of "justification by faith" (Apost. Const.15[e]), "rebirth in Christ" (Can 208) and much more. But appearances are deceptive. The words are there, but they mean something quite different. A few examples may show this.
The Bishops work together in a "collegial spirit", (Apost.Const.7,13,20) but their word has no further significance apart from approval by the Pope (ibid.,esp.13, 20). Ecumenicity is advocated (Apost.Const.22; Can 256.2; 383.3; 755.1), but attaches the condition "as this is understood by the church" (Can 383.3). They speak of "continual sanctification," (Can 210) but they mean thereby that the sanctification of believers takes place through the partaking of the sacrament (cf. Book IV "The Office of Sanctifying in the Church" on the sacraments; Can 834; 1253; & esp. 835.1). From modern missiology, they get that the laity participates in the apostolate (Can 225.1), but at the same time strengthen the sacramental precedence of the clerics. They say the "gospel" ought to be proclaimed to all peoples (Can 211; 747.1; 757; 781ff.) but understand this entirely sacramentally and add "in regard to the whole church, the task of proclaiming the gospel is principally entrusted to the Pope and college of Bishops" (Can 756.1). The task can then be delegated to the priests (Can 757).

G. Advancements in the New Church Law?
The new church law certainly contains a series of "advancements." However, they do not move in the direction of a loosening of catholic teaching in favor of a return to the Biblical foundation, but instead add yet more to the same system which has been growing through the centuries.

1.The Development of the papacy
The best example of this advancement is the position of the papacy. In the course of the centuries, the papacy was enlarged ever further. The relation of the Pope to the assembly of Bishops, the counsel, was always an essential point of contention. Finally, the changes reached the point that only the Pope could call a counsel to meet -- yet the counsel in meeting still could infallibly decide doctrinal issues and stood with equal rights vis-a-vis the Pope. After this, the next step could be taken in the 19th century: in 1870, declarations "ex cathedra" of the Pope were declared to be infallible. The Pope pushed this dogma through the counsel, using methods that were not always transparent, as catholic historian August Bernhard Hasler showed.[18]
Nevertheless, this doctrine remained largely theoretical after the initial test of strength, either because the Pope and counsel were united on the current questions, or as the case may be, no ex cathedra decisions were needed. Only after 80 years could the papacy seize hold of the next step: the application of the dogma of papal infallibility. The Pope, without a counsel meeting and without being able to refer to the slightest precedent in known church tradition, declared the dogma of the ascension of Mary.
After this "step of progress" in the empowerment of the Pope, the next step could be prepared: the juridical disempowerment of the counsel. For until now the counsel had equal rights with the Pope and could itself make infallible decisions.
2. The Disempowering of the Counsel by the Papacy
This disempowering of the counsels was silently and secretly completed by the new Catholic church law (esp. Can 749.2).
In this matter the beautiful word "collegiality" must not delude, as already remarked above. The tension is evident in Can 333.2, which develops the unlimited power of the Pope over the church as described in Can 333.1. "The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office of the supreme pastor of the church is always united with the other Bishops and with the universal church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function."
The Pope, according to this paragraph, works "collegially" only as long as he desires to do so. An appeal to a counsel against the Pope is forbidden (Can 1372). The counsel "together with its head, and never without its head, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal church" (Can 336). Thus, decrees of the counsel are only valid with the agreement of the Pope (Can 341.1)!
THE EXPANSION OF PAPAL POWER IN MODERN TIMES
◦Papal Dogma 1870: Pope is infallible like the counsel
◦Dogma on Mary 1950: Pope is infallible without the counsel
◦Church Law of 1983: Pope is lord over counsel
3. Church Law as New Papal Law?
The whole church law appeals to the authority of the Pope (Apost.Const. 13,30). Again and again his supreme authority is established. He is the highest judge, who himself cannot be brought before the court (Can 1404-1405); without him, no counsel can reach decisions or even meet (Can 336-341); he is infallible in his doctrinal decisions (Can 749.1; cf.2). Can 331 says,
The Bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the church, which he can always freely exercise.
To be sure, the title "Vicar of Christ" was used before, but is now for the first time anchored in church law. Canons 330-336 very much strengthen the papal office, it being up to him "to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function." The talk about the college of Bishops is only a formality, since both counsel and synod are disenfranchised.
The authority of the Pope, which could scarcely increase any further, is further documented in other quotes:

There is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff. (Can 333.3)
The Roman Pontiff is the supreme judge of the entire Catholic world; he tries cases either personally or through the ordinary tribunals...(Can 1442)
The students are to be so formed that, imbued with the love for the Church of Christ, they are devoted with a humble and filial love to the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and are attached to their own Bishop as his trustworthy co-workers... (Can 245.2)
Clerics are bound by a special obligation to show reverence and obedience to the Supreme Pontiff and to their own ordinary (Can 273).
As regards the universal Church the duty of proclaiming the gospel has been especially entrusted to the Roman Pontiff and to the college of Bishops (Can 756.1).

Generally, one gets the impression that the new church law is in reality a papal law. In all important chapters the absolute precedence of the Pope is stressed before anything else, whether the subject matter is the care of souls, evangelization, the property of the church, judgments, or legislation of the church. All the functions of the church are actually only carried out as commissioned by and in representation of the Pope, and from this derive their authority. (Can 204.2 leadership of the people of God; 377.1-3 appointment of Bishops; 782.1 direction of missions; 1256 authority over all goods; 1273 administration of ecclesiastical goods; etc.)

4. Catholic Criticism of the New Papal Rights
Criticism from the pens of learned Catholics also shows how much the new Catholic church law is a further expansion of papal preeminence. The paper "Diakonia" dedicated an issue (May 1986) to the theme "The Bishop." The Catholic canonist Knut Walf concluded that the post-conciliar development did not deliver what the council had promised with the term collegiality. He writes:

The new "Codex Iuris Canonici" of 1983 may present an invincible obstacle in the way of reducing tensions between the Primate and Episcopacy in the foreseeable future. It cannot too often be repeated: the new Codex does not breathe the spirit of collegiality in its legal, constitutional sections. Rather, it petrifies the papal standing of primacy in a way that is foreign even to the 1917 codex.[19]
As examples, Walf cites the following:
◦the "shift in accent to the greater position of power of the Pope" in Can 331, "in which this power of the Pope in the church, but especially also within the college of Bishops, is newly defined in a way that cannot be exceeded, in contrast to which Walf refers to the "modest formulation of the earlier codex."
◦the arrogation of the title "Vicar of Christ" in Can 333
◦taking over the title used in the Roman Empire for the emperor, "principatus" in Can 333.1 and the implied enlargement from juridical power over the entire church to "ordinary" power, which stretches out over "all particular churches and all groupings of churches" (Can 333.1).
◦the relativising of the ecumenical councils. According to Walf, "the council is systematically and by law pinned into a dead corner." While the old church law handled Pope and council, each with equal rights, in their own sections, in the new church law the differences are erased. The counsel is constituted in the section on the Pope, and the collegiality of the Bishops may be brought to order by mail and by other previously unheard-of methods, always under the leadership of the Pope.
Similar criticism of the new preeminence of the Pope with respect to the council has been published by numerous other catholic authors. The international "Concilium Foundation" devoted an entire issue of its journal "Concilium", which appears in seven languages, to the meaning of the ecumenical counsel. [20] The Italian canonist Giorgio Feliciani[21] criticizes in his contribution the commission which prepared the determinations on the college of Bishops on the grounds that the central role of the counsel was abandoned without offering any justification. American professor of Theology, Joseph Komochak,[22] showed that the new church law distorted the determinations of Second Vatican in favor of a new papal rule. He fears that the Bishops will, in the end, be relegated to "yes-men" for the Pope, no longer having any of their own authority.
Further criticisms include the Pope's string of new titles ("Vicar of Christ") while, at the same time, a list of similar titles for the counsel easily fall by the wayside. [23]
But the Foundation sees in all this a development that has been underway for a longer time, a development leading to a "neutralization of the ecumenical counsel." The counsel "is no longer defined as its own legal institution independent of the primate. On the contrary, there is now the danger that the counsel will be absorbed by the papal primate." [24]
Naturally, I do not intend to save the ecumenical counsel. All this is only to make clear the following:
If there is any sort of "progress" in the new new catholic church law, then it is "progress" in a very definite direction. No progress is to be discovered in the direction of opening up the simple Biblical truths nor toward evangelical teaching. Instead, we find a further expansion of papal power; an expansion that is falling upon sharp criticism even within the catholic church and which is seen as a break with catholic tradition.

H. Examples of the Retention of Catholic Teachings in the New Church Law
Several further examples should show that the Catholic Church in its new Church Law has kept practically all the teachings and practices which protestants criticize[25] and which cannot be reconciled to the Bible; indeed to an extent the church has sharpened them. A refutation of the specific teachings from a Biblical perspective is omitted here, since this is already done in the worthy books by Uhlmann[26] and Buhne[27] as well as other writings.

1. Veneration of Mary and the Saints
The salvation of souls is under the protection of Mary (Apost.Const. 31). Seminarians are to foster especially "devotion to Blessed Virgin Mary", the rosary and other exercises (Can 246.3), which are a means for their sanctification (Can 276.5). The people of God should "cultivate a special devotion to the Virgin Mother of God, model and protector of all consecrated life, including the Marian rosary" (Can 663.4). Relics are to be found in every fixed altar in all churches (Can 1237.2), holy images, even if in "moderate number," are to be set up (Can 1188), and should furthermore be venerated as a means of sanctification (Can 1186-1190; cf also can 663.4).

2. Baptismal Regeneration
Baptismal regeneration is firmly anchored by law. Through baptism men are born again and come into the church (Can 11, 96, 11, 112, 204, 205, 217, 787.2; 849ff). "Baptism, the gate to the sacraments, necessary for salvation in fact or at least in intention, by which men and women are freed from their sins, are reborn as children of God and, configured to Christ by an indelible character..." (Can 849).

3. Through Confirmation the Holy Ghost is Received
Receiving the Holy Spirit by means of confirmation remains intact: "The sacrament of confirmation impresses a character and by it the baptized, continuing on the path of Christian initiation, are enriched by the gift of the Holy Spirit and bound more perfectly to the Church..." (Can 879).

4. The Eucharist
Moreover, the Eucharist is the central point in the congregation of the faithful (Can 528.2) and is a literal sacrifice (Can 897, 904). The faithful should venerate the eucharistic element "worshiping it with supreme adoration" (Can 898). The Eucharist may never be celebrated with other churches (Can 908). Priests must celebrate it daily (Can 276.2; 719.2).

5. Excommunication and Schism
Even if "excommunication as punishment" is restricted to fewer cases than in 1917, they are still heavy-handed enough. Exercising physical force against the Pope (Can 1370) leads to automatic excommunication as does abortion (Can 1398), but especially "offenses against religion and the unity of the church" (Book VI, Part II, Title I). Under this rubric is included the "apostate", i.e. one who has totally repudiated the catholic faith as a whole (Can 1364, 751, 194.1, 694.1); the "heretic," who obstinately doubts certain catholic truths (Can 751, 1364); and the "schismatic" (Can 751, 1364). "Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or to communion with the members of the church subject to him" (Can 751). To be counted as a schismatic it suffices, therefore, to fail to subordinate oneself to the Pope. Whoever, in addition doubts, Catholic teachings is at the same time a heretic and will easily become an apostate, one who has fallen. So that the notion of "separated brothers" (Can 825.2) as well as other expressions in referring to other Christian churches does not really indicate a change at all.[f]

6. Marriage Issues
The rules regarding the invalidity and annulment of marriages are shocking. A marriage with an unbaptized person is plain and simple invalid (Can 1086); the same for impotence (Can 1084). An unconsummated marriage can be annulled by the Pope (Can 1142). Can 1143-1150, especially 1146 deals with the possibility of divorce from an unbaptized partner. A marriage with an unbaptized person who cannot live out the marriage due to imprisonment or persecution can be annulled even if the partner has in the meantime become baptized (Can 1149).
There is such a thing as a secret marriage (Can 1130-1133). The definition of legitimate children already cited above then presumably leaves it to guesswork whether children "born at least 180 days after the celebration of the marriage or within 300 days from the date when conjugal life was terminated" should count as legitimate!?

7. Indulgences and Penance
The subject of indulgences has an entire chapter dedicated to it. (Book IV, chapter IV; Can 992-997). "An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment for sin the guilt of which is already forgiven, which a properly disposed member of the Christian faithful obtains under certain and definite conditions with the help of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies authoritatively the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints" (Can 992).
It is clear that the subject of indulgences again divides the spirits. While the Bible only knows one single forgiveness in Jesus Christ, which cancels guilt and satisfies the sentence of eternal punishment, the Catholic Church distinguishes between the cancelling of sin through absolution after the confessional, and the remission of punishment achieved through satisfactions, indulgences, and time in purgatory. With this, the finished redemptive work of Jesus Christ is placed in question, in that it is only half-accepted. The atonement of the cross and the prayer for forgiveness does not, for the Catholic Church, also bring about the remission of punishment! Reconciliation is also tied to confession in the confessional (Can 964.2). The sacrament of penance is moreover the only way to forgiveness. "Individual and integral confession and absolution constitute the only ordinary way by which the faithful person who is aware of serious sin is reconciled with God and with the Church." (Can 960). Sin is directed not just to God, but against the church as well (Can 959,960). But this is arrogance!

I. Conclusion
One need merely read the new Catholic Church Law to realize where it has defected from the Bible. In the last pages only sections from the new church law have been presented, nothing from other writings. The Catholic Church is cast as always it has been; the writings are only friendlier and more collegial. To know the new catholic church law is enough to know that there is no possibility for ecumenical fellowship for any believer in the Biblical sense of that word. How many people who think they may remain in the Catholic Church haven't long since earned excommunication according to the canon? The protestant state Bishop Eduard Lohse should have read the church law carefully before recognizing the title of Pope and addressing the same as "brother in Christ."
The new catholic church law can therefore be a good help in discussions between Catholics and non-Catholics, to show that in its kernel the Catholic church has not changed. Having reviewed the arguments for the relevance of the church law in section III, one need only examine a copy of the church law in order to become convinced of the state of things in terms of black and white.
Particularly the paragraph on indulgences (Can 992) with its teaching that forgiveness through Christ does not provide redemption from retributive punishment, along with the paragraphs on the Pope (Can 331,333) would provide an outstanding springboard for presenting the Biblical gospel.

IV. Important Sections of the New Church Law.
The following list indicates the more important paragraphs of the new canon law with an abbreviated indication of contents. The most important issues are marked with an asterisk; naturally there is some subjectivity here. The list is designed to be a help for self-study. It can also help to prepare for conversations with Catholics. I suggest marking the key places in a copy of the canon law and also taking a copy of the list along. One might begin with passages which prove that the Catholic conversational partner has long ago defected from the position represented by the church law. In other cases, the best approach may be to start with the subject of the growing power of the Pope. Passages dealing with salvation and the forgiveness of sins are especially good for setting forth, by way of contrast, the Biblical message, perhaps using the epistle to the Romans.
204.1The faithful = those baptized204.2Pope governs the church210Sanctification*212.1Obedience to leaders as "representatives of Christ"*218Freedom of inquiry if respect for magisterium (not Bible) observed223.2Ecclesiastical authority regulates rights of faithful245.2Seminarians to be obediently devoted to Pope246.1Eucharist the center of life of the seminary246.3Devotion to Mary and rosary advocated*273Clerics obey Pope and Bishop276.3Clerics to fulfil liturgy of hours every day*276.5Devotion to Mary a means of sanctification277.1Celibacy*330Pope + Bishops = Peter + apostles*331Power of the Pope; Vicar of Christ*333.1Pope's ordinary power over all particular churches*333.2Pope leads church by himself or with Bishops334All offices carry out their tasks in name of Pope*336College of Bishops is never without Pope*341.1Decrees of ecumenical counsel only obligatory if approved by Pope337.1Bishops in place of the apostles400Bishops to venerate the tombs of Peter and Paul528.1Eucharist the center of the "assembly of faithful"*663.4Veneration of Mary and the rosary*749.1Infallibility of papal teaching office*749.2Ecumenical counsel only infallible in connection with Pope*750Scripture and tradition*751Heresy, apostasy, and schism*752Not heartfelt belief, but obedience825.1Publication of Bible only with papal approval825.1Publication of Bible only with "appropriate annotations"834.1Sanctification through holy liturgy847How to consecrate holy oils*849Baptism frees from sin*879Confirmation brings the gift of the Holy Spirit*897Eucharist contains Christ and is a sacrifice!*898Eucharist to be worshiped with supreme adoration*899.2Priests act "in the person of Christ"*901Mass for the dead*904The Eucharistic sacrifice is work of redemption932.2Sacrifice to be performed on a dedicated or blessed altar947-51Rules for accepting payments for masses*959Sacrament of penance*959Reconciliation with God and the Church*960Confession only way of reconciliation964Confession normally using confessional stall only978Father confessor is judge and healer981Acts of penance*992-6Indulgences*1084Marriage with non-baptized invalid!*1149Divorce possible if partner becomes imprisoned*1186Sanctification through veneration of Mary1187Veneration of saints1188Sacred images in moderation1190Relics1235-39Altars*1237.2Every fixed altar erected over relics1251Abstain from meat on Fridays1251Everyone to fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday*1256Supreme authority of Pope with respect to ownership of all goods1264Payments for favors and administrations of sacraments*1273Pope the ruler of all church goods1365Forbidden participation in others' services1367Automatic excommunication for misuse of eucharistic elements1370Automatic excommunication for physical force against Pope*1371Penalty for teaching contrary to any doctrine condemned by Pope or ecumenical counsel*1372No appeal to ecumenical counsel or Bishops' college against Pope1388.1Automatic excommunication for breach of confessional privacy*1398Automatic excommunication for abortion*1404Pope can be judged by no court*1442Pope the highest judge
 
Golf
Golf 9 years ago

Jeremiah, which Pope are you referring to, the one gowned in white or the Black robe?
Golf
 
drew sagan
drew sagan 9 years ago

Wow! Finally a thread I feel like getting involved in.
 I tend to be of the position that you cannot understand the 'church' without taking into account the human condition as revealed in scripture. Scripture states that "There is no one who seeks after God" (Romans 3:11) It is not by mans will that he comes to know God but instead it is by Gods will and grace we come to him (John 6:44).
 With mans selfish nature in mind it is easy to see how God would have wanted his chosen nation not to have a visible king and to sipmly rely upon him instead (1 Sam 8). It was in their weakness that they demanded such a visible sign of direction.
 The inward tendancy of men are the same. How many times have we read a Watchtower and heard the same argumentation used to assert their athority that can be read in many of the other denominations that depend upon such authority as a cornerstone to their theology? The same anti-types are used of the Kings, Moses, Elijah, Prophets, apostles, the list is endless. Eventually the most important grand revelation of such groups becomes their position in the divine plan.
 Of course when one sticks with a Christ centered model you are then no longer dependent upon one specific group to fullfill all the needs of the Church. I do not take the position of an 'invisible' Church per say. To find well balanced and humble Christians not consumed with authority is only a prayer away imo :wink:
 In order to maintain the idea of a one denominational true body of Christ the WTS had to impose a lot of nonsense upon most of us here, so it's no suprise that most of us here who have become Christians post-JW would take the more liberal view of the Church. With that said I also feel there are some who go to far with this idea and still maintain the view of the WTS in a way that all denominations are full of corruption and wickedness with only a few people here and there that are 'true' Christians. Such a view can have a hold on the mind and keep you locked up, thinking that the only real Christians are people out there you cannot see untill God reveals it in flame of fire and Glory.
 The true Church is an organism, not an organization. It's not to be simply described, it's to be expieranced.
 
lovelylil
lovelylil 9 years ago

Drew,
I loved your last line - the true church is an organism and not an organization. Agreed!
I think my using the term "invisible" was not the right term or maybe I did not explain my thoughts very well. Sometimes my brain is slower than my fingers.
I agree there are Christians in all the denominations. I was just trying to say they grow up in God's care without any real outward signs for people to notice because it is the spirit within them that determines whether they are true Christians or not. The idea that some put the church building or denomination itself up as the True Church rather than the people in the body of Christ, does not just come from the JW's. I have been to many different denominational churches in my life and while they believe it is the people who are in the body of Christ or the church, they also believe that their denomination is the only correct or right one, that was established by the Apostles. That is why I prefer house churches, and not the mega-denominational ones we have today. This is my personal preference.
The Bible does say the wheat (true Christians) and weeds(false Chrisitans) grow up together until Christ comes with his Angels to sort them out. The ones who will be disignated as wheat make up the true Church, but we do not really know who they all are at this time. That is what I meant by them growing "invisibly" to others. Christ works with these ones through the Spirit and teaches them and helps them become molded to his image. He can do this whether they are in a denominational church or a home church, or anywhere some of his body join together for worship.
Again, I am not against organized religions if the "denominations" understand that it is the people who are the Church and not the institution. Drew I think your last line said it quite well. Lilly
 
drew sagan
drew sagan 9 years ago

The Bible does say the wheat (true Christians) and weeds(false Chrisitans) grow up together until Christ comes with his Angels to sort them out.
Glad you brought that up. I was going to talk about this as well, but just didn't get to it.
 Don't worry about that 'invisible church' thing :wink: The main reason I brought it up is because I myself used it for quite some time, but eventually started looking at it from a differant perspective. I realized that I was actually using the idea of an invisible church to actually write off every group out there as not worthy of consideration. (I'm not saying you do this) So I personally like to be balanced when talking about true Christians being scattered. The main purpose is to insure that no particuliar group takes for itself the role assigned to Christ, that of being the agent of our salvation. When any group does this (JWs and all the others) they violate scripture and the main message of what it is to be Christian.
 Also, don't give me the credit for 'organism not organization', I picked that up from Barnhouse and I'm sure he got it from somebody before him. It's a great way to look at it though, isn't it?
 
mouthy
mouthy 9 years ago

LT No you did not kill the thread>>>
The church is the "body of believers". It is comprised of those who have been saved and redeemed by the true living God based upon the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus upon the cross. Another term for body of believers is "body of Christ" . So all those "in Christ" make up the church. Inclusion into the body of Christ or the true Church is not by membership in ANY denomination. It is not recieved by any rituals or by ceremony, or by natural birth. It is recieved by faith (Romans 5:1, Ephesians 2:8). The invisible Church is the church made up of all true believers who have been born again by the spirit of God.AMEN!!!! to that LIl
JeffT I agree wole heartly.....Good discussion
 
lovelylil
lovelylil 9 years ago

Drew, Thank you.
And I am going to add that "quote" to my favorites list. Peace, Lilly
 
lovelylil
lovelylil 9 years ago

Grace,
How are you? Thanks for your support on this thread. Lilly
 
5go
5go 9 years ago

My biggest question is why do you have to do goofy things to worship God?
My biggest question is why do you have to worship a Goofy God?
 
mouthy
mouthy 9 years ago

Grace,
How are you? Not bad..Will feel better when it warms up though LOL...You seem to think like I do .... Two minds one single thought...LOL(((HUG)
 
LittleToe
LittleToe 9 years ago

Terry:
On the contrary, we've determined for ourselves that we are quite happy with our own opinions of such things. We have no intention of going back to turning atoms into molecules, but would rather discuss the ways in which we can construct things with rough hewn wood. Sometimes you've just gotta let it go, bro, and enjoy the discussion for what it is...
Jeremiah:
But what do YOU think? This is a discussion, for debaters, not a "who can post the biggest article" contest.
5go:
Is that genuinely your biggest question? Are you sure it has not been superceded by "what am I going to have for dinner?"
Grace:
Maybe its the beast that was and was not but now is; and I'm not talking about Sir Tom
 
Qcmbr
Qcmbr 9 years ago

I find it interesting that many non-catholics posting here feel free to post their interpretations of scripture here as though they understood the scripture better than the catholic church or in other words that they were privy to understanding denied the RC(and yes I include myself). Surely if the real contextual meaning of the scriptures thus quoted meant that the church was structureless then the Roman Catholic church could not have claimed any legitemacy, ever and would have been foolish to allow those damning scriptures to remain in the books they had such control over.
It is groundless to preach scriptural understanding without suggesting one is able to make such a claim. To make such a claim is to assume the authority denied (i.e. that God would give authority to speak and interpret His word on His behalf.) I think that the assumption of the Spirit of God dwelling in your heart thus qualifies one to be part of the notional church is merely a self proclaimed attempt to be a prophet (and thus interpret scripture)and then declaring that all other structures claiming authority (be it splinter group through RC) are thus in error is no more than an assumption of authority based upon circular reasoning. Now if God turned up and called you as His leader/prophet/rep you'd be onto something but I'm less impressed by claims of the spirit as enough. No offense intended.
The questions regarding the RC church and any splinter group or individual are IMO:
1/ Does God's authority exist or is the very idea of authority just a human creation?
2/ If it exists does it ever pass to mankind - can anyone speak/act for God?
3/ How?
4/ How is it manifest - miracles/sacraments/judgment/prophecy/direction?
 
mouthy
mouthy 9 years ago

Grace:
Maybe its the beast that was and was not but now is; and I'm not talking about Sir Tom
LT Your bad.... get behind me. Here I was spiritually engrossed in the topic. Then to turned my eye& heart onto my idle..... Go to your room..
 
Elsewhere
Elsewhere 9 years ago

Sorry everyone... I just couldn't resist the opportunity!

 

«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
this thread was going to be about the true church.
but i simply changed the title.
okay ... so my experience thread set the stage for what seems to be a need to debate catholicism ... maybe because in the minds of many, there is a comparison to the watchtower ... a comparison which i believe is false.



Related Topics
KiddingMe
Police: Teen killed in N.Y. church assault wanted out
by KiddingMe 5 months ago
Defianttruth
Help to build a "Guide to Your New Faith"
by Defianttruth a month ago
JakeM2012
The extent that desperate cults will go to keep control of their youth
by JakeM2012 5 months ago
OrphanCrow
The Jehovah's Witnesses, the Royal Commission and the Catholic Church
by OrphanCrow 7 months ago
Saved_JW
Watchtower Paralells Mormonism
by Saved_JW 4 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/128300/debaters-lets-have-out?page=3&size=20





Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Debaters: Let's have It Out !
/  





 

Debaters: Let's have It Out !
by Amazing 9 years ago 124 Replies latest 9 years ago   jw friends
«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 »
 5
10
20
lovelylil
lovelylil 9 years ago

Q,
I don't see where anyone claimed that the RC Church or its members does not have ANY authority to teach the word of God to others. Can you point that out to me?
What I am seeing is that most here, including myself, would say that the RC Church (as an institution) does not have the SOLE authority over all of those in Christ's chuch, again church means the body of believers. (nor does any other ONE church system have sole authority over the church) True Christians are within ALL of the church denominations and institutions. While Christians can learn things from those reading the word at "church" or from those leaders in the "church", the main way they learn is through the Holy Spirit which lives in them.
When I was a member of the RC or the JW's and I knew that what was being taught WAS indeed based on God's word, the teachings of Christ or that of the Apostles, then I DID follow it. But IF they taught things that I believed were not based on God's word, the teachings of Christ or the foundation laid by the Apostles, then I DID NOT follow it. Of course we need some type of arrangment within the body, but it is up to individual Christians to check what they are taught to the Word of God to make sure it is indeed "God inspired". (1Timothy 4:1). I am not against Christians being organized at all. They are able to accomplish a lot of good by being joined together and we are told not to "forsake the gathering of ourselves". So this would show some type of organization. Again I am only saying that a huge church does not neccesarily mean that it is the only TRUE church on earth. I've know house churches that had God's blessings on them.
As far as being prophets, teachers, etc. in all the denominations where the living temple of God is; the believers who are "in Christ", the Spirit itself will appoint them as Apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelizers, etc. - according to the gift the Spirit gives them. For not everyone in Christ's body is a teacher or a leader, or an evangelizer, etc. But the Spirit within the true believer will teach them what gift they have and if they work with the Spirit, it will be obvious to them and others what gift they possess. Are you saying that these men/or women who possess these gifts must be in only ONE church system?
Not really sure if I answered your questions, they were not that clear to me, but I tried. Lilly
LT - way to go. Love the way you express things.
 
Qcmbr
Qcmbr 9 years ago

LL The point is that authority is exclusive by its definition. The RC either has authority or it does not. If the RC church has authority then the whole protestant movement have denied the giver of that authority by denying the RC church. If one then begins another movement or teaches another interpretation at odds with the authorised one then you can only be acting as the anti-christ and are the equivelant of standing 500 yards from the sermon on the mount and preaching a different version.
This all hangs on whether there is such a thing as authority. If there is not then the RC church is as insignificant in its actions and interpretations as you or I.
 
bernadette
bernadette 9 years ago

When I was a member of the RC or the JW's and I knew that what was being taught WAS indeed based on God's word, the teachings of Christ or that of the Apostles, then I DID follow it. But IF they taught things that I believed were not based on God's word, the teachings of Christ or the foundation laid by the Apostles, then I DID NOT follow it. Of course we need some type of arrangment within the body, but it is up to individual Christians to check what they are taught to the Word of God to make sure it is indeed "God inspired". (1Timothy 4:1).
I like that point lovlylil
 
Golf
Golf 9 years ago

Right on St. Elsewhere, right on! Yeah, we're still retarded even though we win.

Golf
 
LittleToe
LittleToe 9 years ago

Q:
You appear to be mistakenly attempting to assign authority to a single organisation (I'm guessing its because you think yours has it). The Holy Spirit appears to apportion gifts in men as it sees fit, including Apostles, Teachers, Pastors, etc., etc., regardless of the human boundaries of nationality, language or denomination.
Every land has its ruler, and apparently even these are set in place by God. Why not the same for each denomination that attempts to exalt His name? That having been said, I'm not so sure either Ratzinger or Hinkley can lay claim to such authority, but that's just my personal belief. Millions would disagree with me (though I'm still with the majority).
 
Qcmbr
Qcmbr 9 years ago

I know you keep poking me to start making LDS claims for authority but this isn't part of my questions or point - you just keep raising it!
My point is does such an authority exist? Do we have a Moses scenario or did Jesus leave things undefined. From the OT we find a God who does 'sweat the small stuff' but then that begs another question - was that God therefore also the God of the NT - did He just change tack and get unconcerned about the ritual and priesthood. Did Jesus basically say - believe what you will just accept me? Is that the sum of the authority? Why did Simon try and buy the apostles power - did he recognise some level of divine anointing? We quote Paul a lot but how did he feel about those who rejected what he taught? What is this priesthood that the scriptures talk about? Are the sacraments even required and if they are who administers them or is the act and good intentions itself good enough?
 
lovelylil
lovelylil 9 years ago

Q,
There is no institution or denomination today that can claim exclusive or Sole authority over ALL of the body of Christ. Each church should be automonous ( I think this is the correct term) and will be built upon the foundation already laid by Christ and the Apostles. They will use God's word to base their teachings and structure on. You are comparing apples and oranges here. The church, believers themselves, are the ones who have been given authority to preach, teach, instruct, upbuild the body, etc. and be ambassadors for Jesus. Not any particular institution or ONE particular denomination.
To impress on this point, the Apostle Paul was chosen by the Holy Spirit and did not associate with any other beleivers in Christ for 14 years. You may wonder who taught him or sent him forth to preach then? Christ did and imparted the Spirit to Paul. He did not need to belong to a group, he did not even have to "check in" with the other Christians in Jerusalem for instance. (where most believers where at the time).
I became a Christian when the Holy Spirit came into my heart about 6 years ago. And after leaving the WT, I spent almost 3 years alone, with no Christian association but I did learn about Christ using the NT alone, and the Spirit taught me what I needed to learn. Then I began to teach others about Christ, that is the truth about him and not what I learned in the WT. The Spirit in me, helped to break down all the false beliefs I had been taught by Church Institutions all my life. I did not need a particular denomination to send me out to be an ambassador for Christ. Christ himself made ME an ambassador for him when HE anointed me with Holy Spirit.
If you are looking for one church SYSTEM that contains ALL the truth and ALL the true Christians, you will not find it. People are true Christians because of the Spirit inside them and obeying Christ not because they are in a certain denomination. You are a Mormon correct? They basically make the same claims to being the only true Church like the Witnesses and the RC Church.
Unless someone has experienced the "anointing" of the Holy Spirit - they cannot understand it. And they will always rely on the church systems to instruct them. They will not be able to advance into a mature Christian "in Christ" unless they have been "anointed" or "born again" by the Spirit. Once they become "born again" they can gather in any church they want to or, not gather there and they will still be a member of Christ's body or the true Church. The scriptures do tell us though to gather together with other Christians. I am just doing that now, only in a house church.
Again, I am not necessarily against organizing into a denomination or organization. Many Christians want a place to go to be with like minded beleivers and organizations do a lot of good. But, just because you belong to a Christian denomination or organization, it does not automatically make you a Christian. You are a Christian because Christ is "in you". Peace, Lilly
btw: I need to take a break from typing today. My eyes are getting weary and my hands. Maybe some others can join in this debate.
 
LittleToe
LittleToe 9 years ago

Q:I keep mentioning the LDS because you're tackling what you see as RC issues using tenets that your own faith holds. If it's any consolation I'd be doing the same to anyone else, it's not personal.
Why were there twelve Apostles? Where were they all when Paul visited Jerusalem (given that he only saw Peter and James)? Tradition has it that they dispersed to places like India and Africa. Authority wasn't singularly vested in Peter, else by what authority could Paul rebuke him? Or are we extending the bounds of his authority to include that which it does not?
Likewise, on what basis did Joseph Smith claim renewed authority, superior to all other groups? How is it greater than that claimed by Charles Taze Russell, Sun Myung Moon or Arthur of Camelot?
 
*jeremiah*
*jeremiah* 9 years ago

LT,
As far as the articles concerned I agree with the authors viewpoint. He put it in a way more eloquent and more intelligent than I ever could. If you haven't read it,...you should.
I also agree with much of what lovelylil, Drew, and Sad Emo have said regarding what the church is.
My girlfriend of going on 8 yrs is very Catholic. Through our discussions I have learned and researched much about the RCC.
In short,...after all that I've researched and found I have many problems with the RCC. It would take pages to go into,...so I'll leave it that.
 
NanaR
NanaR 9 years ago

I have a question for all of you who contend that it is absolutely necessary for every believer to verify every teaching of the church with which they associate in their own personal copy of the Bible:
Are there true Christians now or have there been true Christians (meaning individuals who have been annointed by God's Holy Spirit to serve him) who either cannot read or have no access to the Holy Scriptures in written form?
And if there are such (and I believe there are -- both now and in the past), then how were they taught and by whom? And how would they carry on without an organized Body of Christ to worship with?

NanaR
 
Qcmbr
Qcmbr 9 years ago

LT are you honestly telling me that the only reason you think I'm asking questions about authority in the RC church is as a sly aside to smugly suggest that the LDS got it when they lost it so ya boo sucks? I'm not here arguing for LDS authority! Anyway - I'm sure that you've read enough LDS history to know the answer to your last post so I will maintain my position and focus upon the RC claim alone.
I don't think you need to be any particular religion or claim any special authority to see that the heart of the RC question is all about apostolic succession (and the authority it would entail) and nothing else. If the RC church cannot convincingly argue it, then they are not correct and what they do when they administer the sacraments is absolutely wrong (have a look at what they claim to do.) On the other hand if they are right and they do have authority then it is we as non-catholics that are found lacking as their claims regarding the sacraments are so wide reaching that we must go to them for the truth and teh administration of those sacraments - I can't see any grey with regards the RC.
LL - I'm aware of the appeal of your comments but I see no evidence of it scripturally or practically from those who wrote the words you interpret thus. You seem to embrace the notion of spiritual selection but reject the form of organisation as necessary upon little more than the fact you don't think it should be.
What does Jesus think? It's his body/church/family after all? Is He expecting to return to a kingdom or a combine?
 
lovelylil
lovelylil 9 years ago

Q,
Let me make this short. Can you answer this 3 Questions for me now, since I have answered lots of yours? (also my eyes and hands are getting tired)
Are you saying that unless ALL of Christ's believers are located in ONE religious institution or organization, he will not know who they are, and thus cannot gather them together upon his arrival?
Are you claiming that Christ or the Apostles gave ONE organization or denomination on earth the SOLE authority over all believers? If this is a yes, I would like YOU to supply me with scriptural proof of this from the New Testament.
Are you trying to say that the Christian Church (Ekklesia) is not the members of Christ's body as a collective group, but is a one physical, organizational structure? If so, please provide the NT proof of this claim also.
When you answer my questions, I will answer the rest of yours. Peace, Lilly
 
LittleToe
LittleToe 9 years ago

Q:
Your own sensitivities are getting in the way of you understanding my point. I'm not for one moment suggesting that you are promoting your own faith by cutting down the RC position. I'm just suggesting that you are cutting down a branch that is similar to your own. Since your own faith claims a similar basis for authority, what is to stop someone cutting the branch that you sit on, just as you are doing to the RC?
Using the same tokens that you use as teeth on the saw that you attack the RC branch with, what do you see as the strengths of your own faith over this that permit you to defend one but assail the other? I ask this because the alternative is to be speaking from a position of rank hypocrasy, which to my understanding was the only crime for which Jesus accused anybody.
Additionally, on whose authority did Philip go to the Ethiopian Eunuch, and from whence came the Coptic church?
Jeremiah:I still say that this is supposed to be a discussion. Why don't you start with the point that you find particularly strong...
Nana:
I would contend that its far simpler than that. The Holy Spirit teaches us that which we need to know at any given time. The main point isn't so much that every jot and tittle or belief is correct but that we are eventually transformed into an image of Christ from the inside out.
 
Qcmbr
Qcmbr 9 years ago

Ok LL
1/ Yes all believers should be in one organisation - they should be in Christ's church. Ephesians 4:5 Matthew 12:25
2/ I believe the sole authority of God is the Priesthood - the Priesthood is a sole organisation. Hebrews 5:1-4
3/ The recognition of the authority necessitates the taking of sacraments by authority. Matt 3:13-15 John 3:5 Galations 1:8
LT
LDS claim a restoration of apostolic authority for the very reason that it is vital and had been lost. Acts 3:21, Revelation 14:6
 
AllAlongTheWatchtower
AllAlongTheWatchtower 9 years ago

1) Well, having never been Catholic, I may have some wrong ideas, but as far as I know, the first actual pope was Siricius in 380-ish AD. If the pope is supposed to be an unbroken continuation from the time of Christ, I never understood why 300 some odd years went by before somebody became the first to use the title of pope.
2) Papal infallibility. Before I became atheist and still actually believed the bible, I had a problem with the Catholic faith and the doctrine of papal infallibility; the bible says no man is perfect but Jesus, how then can the pope also be perfect? (And historical, secular evidence exists that quite a few of them were very un-perfect indeed.)
3) Confession. I never quite could accept that simply doing a few hail marys or our fathers could absolve one of any wrongdoing. True story, I used to know a woman that was having an affair with a married man, she was Catholic and had been told she had to break off this affair. She was reluctant to do so however, and to avoid guilt/lectures/whatever, would travel around to different churches each week to make her confession, gradually making a circuit so as to only see each priest once in a blue moon. That way she never had to confess to the same priest twice in succession that she was still having the affair. I found it all kind of amusing and ridiculous, but to her way of thinking, she was sinless becauses she continued to go to confession each week. I often wondered if these priests didn't get together once in a while and share info, if they ever did, she'd have been so busted, lol.
 
*jeremiah*
*jeremiah* 9 years ago

I understand LT,
Well, you guys have on done a fine job discussing what is and what isn't "the church". I don't feel like reiterating what I agree with.
On another tangent tho,...one point that Amazing made in his opening post definitely caught my eye:
I personally wish and hope that the ecumenical efforts to unite the whole Church into one will someday be accomplished. However, I hope for compromises as I believe they all have erred, and they all have some correct points. Whether I am right or wrong is another matter ... this is all very subjective anyway.
In my opinion,...I think this will definitely happen. Unfortunately, I don't think that this will be directed by God. Not only do I think that many christian sects will eventually unite but many religions will unite to form a one world religion. This will be the religion of the Antichrist.
You can see these things taking shape in the news. Heck,...just watch the pope. One recent article's title was "Pope's Prayer in Mosque is a New Horizon in Interfaith".
There are a myriad of interfaith organizations who are gaining more and more ground everyday,...the following are just a few:
The UN's sister organization, the United Religions Initiative http://www.uri.org/
The World Interfaith Congress http://interfaithcongress.org/home.cfm
The World Council of Churches http://www.wcc-coe.org/
The Parliament of the World's Religions http://www.cpwr.org/2004parliament/

I'm at work and thus commentary has to stay short,....plus it's time to go home. later
 
LittleToe
LittleToe 9 years ago

Q:Is the Christian's home here or with our Lord? Given that the OT was a shadow of that to come, is the temple physical or spiritual? Is our High Priest mortal or immortal? "Here we have no continuing city..." (Heb.13:14). Thus is the crux of the Protestant argument.
This doesn't negate the need to congregate orderly and acknowledge that some have the subordinate gift to "rule" but, to those who have room for it, the "kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36) it is "within" (Luke 17:21). Perhaps in more of a JamesThomas way than most can accept.
 
lovelylil
lovelylil 9 years ago

Q,
Thanks for those scriptures. But I must tell you this, you have pulled every single one of them completely out of context to try to prove the LDS is the true church. Much in the same way JW's do with scriptures to prove their authority. Lets take them one at a time:
Hebrews 5: the whole point of this chapter is that Christ has been apointed as our (the church's) High Priest for ALL TIME. And no other priest is needed. Please read the entire chapter and not only one verse. There is no mention here of re-establishing a human priesthood. Hebrews chapter 7 shows that Jesus is the high priest in the order of Melchizadek and not aaron. Why? Because the Aaronic Priesthood was imperfect but the Melchizadek Priesthood was perfect. Yes, Christ is our perfect High Priest in the heavens, so no earthly priest is ever needed again. Hebrews 7:17 declares Jesus is our Priest forever. Hebrews chapter 8 continues on that Jesus is the High Priest of the New Covenant. The convenant all Christians are in.
Nowhere in any of these chapters of Hebrews does it say that God has established a new earthly priesthood for the Church. Christ is THE High Priest for all Christians. No others are needed to make sacrifices on our behalf.
Chapter 9 of Hebrews explains that unlike the old human priesthood that had to offer up sacrifices for God's people continually, Christ as our Holy High Priest has made ONE offering for our sins thru his blood. Chapter 10 reiterates this fact. Again, no other human priesthood is needed nor will come to be. The old ways, were done away with by Christ.
Most groups claiming full authority over Christians try to enslave them under the old OT ways again. The LDS is trying to re-establish its own human priesthood. But all those chapters of Hebrews goes totally contrary to that.
Sacrements?
Matthew 13 is talking about Christ's baptism. John 3:5, is stating we (Christians) must be born again to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I agree with this but do not understand what you are talking about sacrements? All true believers are "born again" by the Holy Spirit of God. You can be born again and be in any church denomination. Again, the church of God are all the believers, not dependant on one organization or denomination. You are not born again by any works dictated to you by your religion. You are born again by the Spirit dwelling in you.
Galatians 1:8 , Glad you are the one who brought this up. Here is what it says, very important point;
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
Wasn't it the Angel Moroni, who preached a new gospel recorded in the book of Mormon? Hmmm, you may want to rethink that gospel in light of the above verse.
Last but not least, the final texts you gave say nothing at all about restoring "apostolic" authority. I guess the LDS also claims they were needed to restore truth on earth because for 1900 or so years, the whole church went into Apostacy? Well, then either they are lying or Christ is lying because he said he will send the Holy Spirit which will teach his church up until he arrives. He sent it at Pentecost and all believers recieve the spirit today too. To say the church went into total darkness is saying the Holy Spirit is powerless.
Peace, Lilly
 
Amazing
Amazing 9 years ago

There are so many good posts that I don't know where to begin. But, I will make one more reply to Lil, and then pick out some others:
Btw: The Catholic Church is an "organism" not an organization.
Lovelylil,
What I meant by invisible church is that being in the church does not mean you have to be "in" a church building. The spirit is in all true believers and we are "the church".
I understood your meaning ... and I agree with you. Catholics in general would agree with you. The faith has never been about a Church building or an organization ... it is an organizism ... always has been, and always will be.
I agree that the Apostles, as well as the prophets built a foundation for the Christian church. But they built it, upon the rock mass of Jesus Christ himself and not on any one of the Apostles.
This is a point of disagreement. I have returned to accepting that when Jesus called Peter the rock, and the context of the comments he made, that he was conferring power upon St. Peter. But, I disagree with the Church that this meant the Pope would be infallible.
I have no problem with Apostolic tradition and teachings. And the majority of Christian churches will also be in agreement with this, whether they are Catholic, Protestant, or even the little house church I attend, which is also based upon the teachings of the Apostles. But we are to be loyal to Christ first, and we should not treat the Apostles as if they are above him. By the RC Church for instance claiming they are built on Peter - this would be exalting Peter above Christ. The church which is the body of believers everywhere is built upon the Rock Mass of Christ and the foundation of the prophets and Apostles.
I fail to see how Jesus making St. Peter the rock places St. Peter above himself. Of course nothing is above Jesus, he is God the Son. But, for example, when he counseled the seven Churches in Asia Minor, he did not go directly to them individually or to their Priests (Pastors), he went to the Apostle John. The Apostles were in a key role, and their appointed successors continued that role. Maybe this ended with Luther, when the Protestants came along so that they could revise how Jesus was running his Church for 1500 years.
I think the main problem I have is that the Church Systems try to say who is/is not in the body of Christ. They will say you are only in the body if you belong to their church system. And this is not the way the Christian church is supposed to operate. All believers are all "in Christ" and are Christians, we do not need to be divided into different denominations. The denominations also set up their own traditions and doctrines unique to them that were not directly handed down by the Apostles. That is why it is important to check all things to God's word to see if it is true. However, I am not telling anyone not to belong to a particular denomination only that it is not neccesary to belong to Christ's church. Where two or three are gathered in his name, he is with them and they are a Church.
The Catholic Church never tries to say who is or is not in the Body of Chrust ... at least not in my experience or studies. I generally agree with your paragraph.
The church has been growing since Pentecost and I agree with you Christ promised to always be with them thru the Holy Spirit. I reject the JW's and Bible Students claim that the entire Church went into an Apostacy for 1900 years and there were no true Christians on the earth. Like you said very well and used scriptures, the wheat and weeds (true and false Christians) grow up together, (in the body of Christ) until the Angels are sent to seperate them out during the Harvest. The problem with the cults is they claim the harvest has already been done and they are the only true Christians left. Like you said the wheat and weeds grow up in the SAME place, which is the body of Christ. Then the tares or weeds are removed from among the true wheat. This point you made is significant because the cults have it reversed. They are claiming they are the wheat and were removed from the weeds of false religion. However, it is the weeds that are removed from the wheat - the reverse, and the wheat are left standing. (great point, Jim)
Thanks ... and maybe we can build on this point ... that is ... maybe better ecumenism between all Christian denominations, better acceptance, and better cooperation. There is enough good to work with that it can be done ... and the good news, the RCC is negotiating with the Orthodox, the Orthodox are negotiating with the World Council of Churches, and many other bodies are enjoying Interfaith activities.
One more thing about Jesus words that we need to worship "in spirit and truth" and Paul saying "God does not dwell in man made temples", If you look at the context of both those verses, the point is that the "place" of worship does not matter. As a believer in Christ and having the spirit in me, I am in the living Church and I can feel free to worship in a house church, a Catholic one, a Protestant one, etc. and it does not matter. As long as I am worshiping in spirit and truth. The place is not the most important thing. Granted, most Christians do not elevate the Church building or system above Christ and recongnize that the Church is really the believers.
Correct, church buildings are not the dwelling, but it is within the believer. My thought is that when believers do gather under a denomination and in church building, Christ is still there ... the church building does not chase him away either. The RCC has some additional aspects to this, but they are not really relevant to the topic.
I think we really agree on more than we disagree on.
Agree.
Jim Whitney
 
LittleToe
LittleToe 9 years ago

Jeremiah:
It looks to me like the next tussle could be the battle for the pre-eminent multi-faith group
You make an interesting point, hence I ask:
Jim:In your opinion, how do you identify the anti-christ?


I think we really agree on more than we disagree on.

I also agree on this point. Luther managed to strain out 95 points of contention that he felt needed reforming, but that is set against a backdrop of hundreds of points of agreement. The mainstream denominations have at least 95% agreement, and on the most important topics, to my mind.
The usual arguments concern abuse of power and nitpicking details of the sacrement of the Eucharist and baptism. Of all of these the Eucharist is probably the most contentious.
Would you like to tackle transubstantiation (which to most people is merely a very long string of letters)?
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
this thread was going to be about the true church.
but i simply changed the title.
okay ... so my experience thread set the stage for what seems to be a need to debate catholicism ... maybe because in the minds of many, there is a comparison to the watchtower ... a comparison which i believe is false.



Related Topics
KiddingMe
Police: Teen killed in N.Y. church assault wanted out
by KiddingMe 5 months ago
Defianttruth
Help to build a "Guide to Your New Faith"
by Defianttruth a month ago
JakeM2012
The extent that desperate cults will go to keep control of their youth
by JakeM2012 5 months ago
OrphanCrow
The Jehovah's Witnesses, the Royal Commission and the Catholic Church
by OrphanCrow 7 months ago
Saved_JW
Watchtower Paralells Mormonism
by Saved_JW 4 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/128300/debaters-lets-have-out?page=4&size=20







Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Debaters: Let's have It Out !
/  





 

Debaters: Let's have It Out !
by Amazing 9 years ago 124 Replies latest 9 years ago   jw friends
«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 »
 5
10
20
Narkissos
Narkissos 9 years ago

It looks to me like the next tussle could be the battle for the pre-eminent multi-faith group
Funny, and how true...
Historically most attempts at unification have resulted in at least one more division.
transubstantiation ( which to most people is merely a very long string of letters )?
Don't complain, we have one "s" more (transsubstantiation).
I am out of the debate as I tend to consider the notion of "apostolic authority" as a foundational myth (as suggested by the variant lists of the "twelve" among other things). But I would acknowledge that as soon as this notion appeared it was meant to found the authority of local bishops (as is clear in the book of Acts, the Pastorals, and Ignatius for instance), hence implying some kind of "apostolic succession". Iow, the doctrine was forged by the "successors" themselves, and could be because the "origins" were already lost in legend. Also, I believe the Protestant notion of "invisible church" to be wholly unscriptural (a second heel of Achilles besides sola scriptura).
 
Qcmbr
Qcmbr 9 years ago

LL - I can see that you think as LT does that I'm pushing LDS theology here - I'm not I was answering your specific questions with scriptures as asked. I'm beginning to realise that its almost impossible for me to make a point without it being seen as the LDS manifesto. I can't help loving and being my particular faith but its difficult to post when every point is riposted with a reference to the LDS.
OK let's deal with your points since you've done me the courtesy of time and effort which I'm aware is not easy though I must reject your attack - I do read more than one verse - you can't ask me for scriptures and then suggest I should have also footnoted the bible just in case I didn't read enough context.
If the reading of the scripture regarding Jesus being the only holder of the Melichizedek Priesthood (and you might want to look into why it was thus called and what it is as opposed to the Aaronic or Levitical Priesthoods and also how it was an order not a one off person) then the RC church has been very foolish to continue calling priests. I don't think they are that stupid rather that your interpretation is merely different and no more valid. Hebrews 7. 1 Peter 2. Revelation 20.6
Baptism is a sacrament http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrament
John 14:15 (read the whole chapter)You are Christs through obediance to the law not by a simple holy spirit- the spirit is the end result not the precursor. Acts 5:32 suggests that you cannot get the spirit without obedience to God. Romans 18:15 shows that obedience in action is an aim of the preaching. 2 Thess. 1:8 punishment for disobedience.
Have a look at Acts 5 when people raise up alternate organisations without authority.
Acts 6:3 gives an example of authority over the congregation.
And finally - LDS don't claim to teach a different Gospel.
 
Qcmbr
Qcmbr 9 years ago

LT:
Is the Christian's home here or with our Lord? - you and I are here so right now we are where we should be.

Given that the OT was a shadow of that to come, is the temple physical or spiritual? Both - there was a physical temple but there is also symbolism in the temple in which truths were hidden. The body is also likened to a temple (Jesus referred to his own body as such.) In reminding those who actually assumed God lived inside the temple as His home it was made abundantly clear that God did not live therein. What is actually interesting is what was teh temple actually for - what was its real purpose?
Is our High Priest mortal or immortal? If you refer to Jesus then immortal.
This doesn't negate the need to congregate orderly and acknowledge that some have the subordinate gift to "rule" but, to those who have room for it, the "kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36) it is "within" (Luke 17:21). I think we can see the symbolism used to describe the Kingdom of God which by a literal reading must be here (within you) but not here (still to come) physical (consuming all kingdoms at the end) but also a philosophy (it could be preached.)
None of these give any strong footing to ignore the authority of the priesthood , to seek after it and to become a physical part of the body of christ.
The RC church has a very legitemate claim to gather its followers together to administer the sacraments by the priesthood it assumes. To reject the need for or the continued observance of sacraments isn't warranted anywhere in scripture IMO.
 
lovelylil
lovelylil 9 years ago

Q,
I don't want to steal this thread from Jim. But in ALL of the proof scriptures you gave about the Mormon re-establishing the priesthood, including the one in Hebrews, none of these texts speak about re-establishing an earthly priesthood. I gave you several other whole chapters to read in Hebrews that clearly show that the old arrangement of an earthly priesthood that has to offer sacrifices or give sacrements, was done away with when Christ became the Perfect High Priest for the Christian church. The old earthly priesthood was a shadow of the new perfect one. The imperfect (aaronic) was a shadow of the Melchizadek priesthood. You mention the RCC and thier priesthood, well if they are claiming the earthly priesthood over believers in the same way as the LDS, then they are Just are wrong as the LDS church.
As far as the other point - you have yet to show me anywhere in the NT that it says the church went into total darkness and the apostolic order had to be re-established. Christ promised to be with his church and he has been always.
Peace, Lilly
 
lovelylil
lovelylil 9 years ago

Q,
One more thing. All believers make up the royal priesthood of God. The church does not need an earthly priesthood to make atonement for their sins anymore. Christ is the High Priest for the Church and the Priest of the new, better convenant. And Christ's kingdom is a heavenly, spiritual one. Not an earthly, physical one.
1 Peter 2:9,10 (About the Church)
9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
Here are some scriptural texts that show the Church are the believers, no matter where they may be gathered: And that they did not have to gather in any one place. Their faith in Christ and anointing with the Holy Spirit made them part of the Church or Christ's body. They built the church on Christ and the foundation laid by the prophets and Apostles. And the Holy Spirit designated some as Apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelizers, etc. See LT's comments about this.
Acts 15:4
When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
1 Corinthians 1:2
To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:
1 Corinthians 16:1
[ The Collection for God's People ] Now about the collection for God's people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do
2 Corinthians 8:1
[ Generosity Encouraged ] And now, brothers, we want you to know about the grace that God has given the Macedonian churches.
1 Thessalonians 1:1
Paul, Silas and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace to you.
No matter what denomination, or what organization you belong to or where you gather for worship, if you are "in Christ" you are IN The church and you ARE the church.
Anyway, I will put this to rest on my part and let you hash things out with someone else. I don't know what else I can say to help you understand the church or how Christ deals with it. LT, Jim, Grace, And many others made great points here. Perhaps you can go back and read them again. If you are happy in the Mormon church, thats great. Good luck to you.
Peace, Lilly
 
Farkel
Farkel 9 years ago

Jim, my old friend,
: So, Let's have it out ... let's post all the concerns, issues, claims, and even nasty remarks against the RC Church, Baptists, Presbyterisn, Angelican, Episcopal, Methodist, Non-Denominational, Pentecostal, Assembly of God, Mormon, Church of Christ, Free Bible Students, Dawn, and whomever else you want to criticize.
You simply cannot shine shit. Why bother? Those religions are ALL flawed, very human and very stupid. They all (to some degree) base their philosophy on a very flawed, very human and very stupid book that some uninformed people think is sacrosanct. I piss on it. It is the most disgusting guide book ever offered to mankind, except for the Koran. Now THAT book is worth pissing on by incontinent elephants!
Farkel
 
LittleToe
LittleToe 9 years ago

Q:
Sorry old chap. Your thinking appears to be so biased from being raised as a LDS that you don't even seem to see the holes in the string vest that everyone else is driving articulated lorries through (16-wheelers, for our American friends).
And btw, I already addressed that I don't charge you with "pushing LDS theology". It was me that drew you out, rather than you proselytising, and I accepted that. I repeat that I'm merely amused by the irony of you attacking a tenet of another faith that your own faith supports
Doug:Good to see ya, pal. Hope all is well with ya
Didier:
I disagree
The analogy of being living stones in a spiritual house (1Pet.2:5) and a nation (1Pet.2:9, and others) surely permits such a rendering? I'm going to dip into good old Covenant Theology here, and suggest that the contract was for a hereditary possession and had religious links only insomuch as the object of devotion was the same God. That surely doesn't speak of a specific denomination amongst those vying for position in the religion known as Christianity? Whilesoever a denomination meets the basic criteria of the NT (especially pertaining to "love") shouldn't it suggest that they are included?
Raising again the Pauline issue of the tradition of the apostles, was this ever actually written down by them?
 
lovelylil
lovelylil 9 years ago

LT,
I think you summed it all up well. Thanks. Because I am too tired to debate anymore with Q.
If people want to believe they are the only "true" Christians because they belong to a certain denomination, or keep certain rules, or participate in certain sacrements, or understand the bible in a certain way, or are the only ones who can trace their roots back to the Apostles, then more power to them. But I for one am glad they are not going to judge me as to whether or not I am a true Christian. And I will stick to my foolish notion that believers are in all denominations or no particular denomination, and that if you have the Spirit in you and faith in Christ, he willingly accepts you into his Church.
And I will let the Lord Jesus, who I accept as My High Priest, sort everything else out when he arrives. Peace everyone! Lilly
Jim, thanks again for all your hard work and starting this thread. It was a good oppportunity to see what others believe out there and to better understand why. I learned a few good things myself today and you helped broaden my mind a little.
 
UpAndAtom
UpAndAtom 9 years ago

To quote a source of information far wiser than I...
"...the church is within yourself and not in any pope nor preacher, nor in any building but in self! For thy body is indeed the temple of the living God, and the Christ becomes a personal companion in mind and in body; dependent upon the personality and individuality of the entity as it makes practical application of the tenets and truths that are expressed."
Edgar Cayce Reading 5125-1
 
lovelylil
lovelylil 9 years ago

I have an uncle who loves Edgar Cayce! Thanks for sharing that quote. Lilly
 
tetrapod.sapien
tetrapod.sapien 9 years ago

nd I will let the Lord Jesus, who I accept as My High Priest, sort everything else out when he arrives. Peace everyone!
 ...right.
did the Lord Jesus need to see you write that? or do you just fling that stuff around for kicks?
talk about getting the last word in, Lilly! wow. LMAO!!!!
tell me, is the "my" in "My High Priest" capitalized because it's the title of something? or because there is a special something between "My" and "High", that eludes the rest of us?
tetra (of the "high and priestly" class)
 
lovelylil
lovelylil 9 years ago

Tetra,
The whole point of me saying that Jesus is my high priest whom I accept is that I don't believe I need earthly priests to intervene for me and offer some kind of sacred "sacrement" or "sacrifice" on my behalf. But I am not saying he is only my high priest. He is the High Priest for all who believe in him. The capitalization was not intentional. And I am sure the other believers on this thread knew exactly what I meant. Lilly
 
tetrapod.sapien
tetrapod.sapien 9 years ago

i'm sure there were too. and i'll admit: understanding it is a HUGE part of it. har har...
tetra (of the "whole point" class)
 
Amazing
Amazing 9 years ago

Farkel,
Gawd! I finally found a topic that would get you to post again ... in full Farkel style  ... welcome back!
You simply cannot shine shit. Why bother?
Shit can have a glint and glow of a shine if it is moist enough.

Those religions are ALL flawed, very human and very stupid.
Aren't we all?
They all (to some degree) base their philosophy on a very flawed, very human and very stupid book that some uninformed people think is sacrosanct.
This is why I like Catholicism ... the Bible stays in the background.
I piss on it. It is the most disgusting guide book ever offered to mankind, ...
Piss away ... but as I see it, it is not the Bible, but what people have done with it that can be disgusting.
... except for the Koran. Now THAT book is worth pissing on by incontinent elephants!
Shhhhhhh ... be careful, you could ignite a world riot and cause JWD to get burned down by really true believers ... not to mention a few heads that may roll.
It's is truly good to see you again ... now, you have work to do to turn me back into an agnostic again. See what happens while you are away on the mountain carving out new commandments ... we take up religion ... and I am ready to be a Catholic priest.
Jim Whitney
 
restrangled
restrangled 9 years ago

Amazing,
I will admit I have read very little here but question any organized religion.
With The RC church there has been the torture and murder of anyone questioning it's authority, along with denying the science that have proved them wrong for centuries.
There is the question of Hell Fire which now has been denied by a pope.
There is also the problem of their pedophila within the ranks.
There is the question why they supported and hid Nazi criminals.
So as hard as we are on the WBTS, this group seems much worse. I am no Watchtower apologist, but I cannot tolerate lies and deciet from other religions either.
Perhaps this has already been addressed, but its my 2 cents.
r.
 
Qcmbr
Qcmbr 9 years ago

LT - having woken up this morning hoping against hope that both you and LL would stop the LDS thing I find that apparently I'm using a string vest with holes and that the new testament scriptures used to show examples of authority are actually my attempt to prove the LDS. Sheesh - stop the madness I want to get off.
LL - stop it! - if you want my defence of the LDS faith you won't find me doing it from the flawed bible alone - I hate reasoning from that divider of christians - we all have our favourite quotes and proofs and yet the book cannot be used to effectively clarify anything since we never can agree on what even one verse actually means. Take of your anti-LDS specs and actually think about what I posted and then you can see that my points are simple when I say you can see evidence of organisation I do not say 'mormon' organisation, when I say that there are orders of priesthood I do not say 'mormon' priesthood. You merely put forth another gospel yourself by your own personal reading of the scriptures - on a strict reading of the bible there is plenty of scriptures that condemn your view and support the RC church, you and I would be stuffed if the RCC actually have the correct biblical interpretation - all our personal interpretations where we deny their authority would then condemn us because we preach them - when you or I interpret scripture against one claiming authority from God we must be darned sure we aren't arguing the wrong side of the fence.
LT - you have not yet put any convincing effort to answering the claims of apostolic succession or authority RE the catholic church. You said you reject the need for it and I am interested in a clearer reasoning behind that rejection.
If I was ever to leave my faith (assuming I still believed in the christian God) I would be left with two choices of church to follow - either the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox Catholics because no one else has any claim IMO to anything more than their own interpretation and I don't buy the spirit fell upon me and that's enough because I've discussed with enough 'spirit filled' christians to know they disgree radically on their own personal godview with the 'spirit-filled' christians down the road.
The following scripture shows at least one biblcal record of how unity is achieved within the body of Christ. First of all we have one body - not any group believing what they will (else what on earth was the point of Paul's letters of correction), one Spirit (can the spirit speak lies, apparently if the differing beliefs held by spirit claiming christians is to be believed ergo the spirit they claim isn't what they think lest we call God the author of confusion,), one baptism not a plethora(born of the water - and no I don't take the strange reading that that means being born from the womb since that would be as sane as saying except a man breathes he cannot get to heaven - being born of the water describes a chosen act.) The saints would be perfected and the gospel would be taught in a unified manner by those called of God, which structure had titles associated with the different structured roles and one critical part of that unity was a unity of belief so that made up doctrines of men are exposed and our personal interpretations of scripture get done away with.
(New Testament | Ephesians 4:4 - 14)
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
Read it how you will and find the scriptures that will undoubtably disagree with this but I think the RC church has a good claim to legitemacy here - if as I labour the point - they can claim and show the transmission path of their authority.
 
Narkissos
Narkissos 9 years ago

Ross,
I disagree
I'm not sure with what... need another  I guess
The analogy of being living stones in a spiritual house (1Pet.2:5) and a nation (1Pet.2:9, and others) surely permits such a rendering?
Which rendering? "Invisible church"?
I think the debate "visible vs. invisible" church creates a false (and by all means unpractical) dichotomy -- which constitutes a sort of convenient strawman from the Protestant perspective. Moral persons such as the RCC, LDS, JWs, the Republican party or General Motors can all be described as both "visible" and "invisible". The structure is what matters, and the notion of "visibility" is pointless as far as a structure is concerned. The "great (supra-local) church" becoming conscious of itself (or herself?) in Ephesians or 1 Peter is not fundamentally different to me.
I'm going to dip into good old Covenant Theology here, and suggest that the contract was for a hereditary possession and had religious links only insomuch as the object of devotion was the same God. That surely doesn't speak of a specific denomination amongst those vying for position in the religion known as Christianity? Whilesoever a denomination meets the basic criteria of the NT (especially pertaining to "love") shouldn't it suggest that they are included?
Covenant theology (or meta-theology) sounds a bit like "new wine in old wineskins" to me... Yeah I know that's not an argument but I have a feeling that you'll get what I mean.
Raising again the Pauline issue of the tradition of the apostles, was this ever actually written down by them?
I'm not sure if your emphasis is on "written down" (vs. oral) or "by them" (vs. "original apostolic authority" as a retrospective fabrication by a later generation, as I suggested).
 
LittleToe
LittleToe 9 years ago

Restrangled:That seems to be a very black and white view of a historic tapestry, given that they also produced Mother Theresa. I guess for similar reasons I can't join the Navy - they had a terrible history of killing people, slavery and b*gg*ry of cabin boys!
Q:
You're sidetracking the discussion again. S'ok, I was taught to do that as a JW, so I know how deep the training can be. In particular I state this concerning:
...used to show examples of authority are actually my attempt to prove the LDS.
For the third time - I never laid such a claim. Your sensitivity to comments about your own faith, when used as examples to you, seems to be causing you to conclude that we all think you're trying to promote your own faith. That isn't the case, so stop making this personal and distracting the discussion from the main debate that currently appears to be the doctrine of "Apostolic Succession" (regardless of denomination). Besides, a pity-party for one isn't going to get you anywhere, it just puts chum in the water. I'd use examples from the JWs but they don't believe in the doctrine.
you have not yet put any convincing effort to answering the claims of apostolic succession or authority RE the catholic church. You said you reject the need for it and I am interested in a clearer reasoning behind that rejection.
More reading comprehension problems and side-tracking. I never said any such thing. I simply see no convincing proof that the Apostles passed on their authority to an individual each, or that there's some kind of unbroken chain. If you want to take the view that their successors were all the people that became believers then I might be more agreeable but I don't find the idea, that a single (or even twelve) individual[s] today exclusively has that power vested in them, finds a firm basis in scripture.
I do find it interesting that you find apostolic succession a key article of faith, and yet conveniently dismiss the RC claims because of some unstated apostacy allowing Joseph Smith the opportunity to take up the claymore. Somehow you dismiss all claims to fallibility in your own leaders while featuring the failures of the RC Popes. If you hadn't been raised in your faith do you truly believe you would think all of this?
Per your quoting of Ephesians, I agree with you concerning the unity in the body just not your identification of the body as a specific (in this case LDS) faith-group. I hold that the Body of Christ is united in Spirit but, as with everything that goes the way of fallen flesh, expresses that in a plethora of ways. It was the same in the First century where there was one "church" but a variety of beliefs concerning the minutea. Nowadays we are just more likely to take a more precise label for our beliefs concerning minutea. We still take the communal title "Christian". Ironically God seems to have no problem permitting it. Hence I believe that Augustine stated this best: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, diversity; in all things, love!"
If I was ever to leave my faith (assuming I still believed in the christian God) I would be left with two choices of church to follow - either the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox Catholics...
That sounds like the old JW line of "if I left the JWs, where would I go to?" instead of properly quoting Peter's words where he said "Whom would we go to?". Another parallel? You have come to the right place. They've done a good number on you!  (and before you get your knickers in a twist, it was stated tongue-in-cheek)
I'd like to take up a couple of your comments to Lil:
if you want my defence of the LDS faith you won't find me doing it from the flawed bible alone - I hate reasoning from that divider of christians
A little bit of LDS contempt for the Bible thrown into the mix? At least you're open about it! How do you think the church survived before Joseph Smith came on the scene? If, as you highlight, "God is not a God of confusion" then how do you explain His permitting centuries of believers to be so confused by such an inaccurate couple of "Testiment"s?
...when you or I interpret scripture against one claiming authority from God we must be darned sure we aren't arguing the wrong side of the fence.
Are you talking about the God of Moses in the wilderness or the God of the NT or some other God from a more modern "Testament"? Are you truly claiming to be a child of God, or do you continue to be afeared that God condemns you? I think I'll take my chances with Daddy, since the Holy Spirit (whom you seem to eschew as being able to teach anything to individuals) informs me that He already loves me (Rom.8). Meanwhile you seem to have spent months on this Board dancing between your own opinions and a strict party-line.
Some genuine questions for you:
◦how do you identify a modern-day Apostle?
◦how do you determine the accuracy of Holy writ?
◦how do you confirm the accuracy of the interpretation of holy writ?
Oh, and lest you think your faith is excluded from the debate because Jim is RC, allow me to remind you of some of the comments in his opening post to the thread:
So, Let's have it out ... let's post all the concerns, issues, claims, and even nasty remarks against the RC Church, Baptists, Presbyterisn, Angelican, Episcopal, Methodist, Non-Denominational, Pentecostal, Assembly of God, Mormon, Church of Christ, Free Bible Students, Dawn, and whomever else you want to criticize.
He opened it up completely; you joined the fray of your own free will; kindly don't call foul; feel free to get your own back. To that end I offer that I predominantly attend a Presbyterian denomination
Didier:
Yes, I'm still chuntering on about the "invisible" vs the "visible". Since the spiritual house is supposed to be holy, then how do you explain the concept of the wheat and the weeds? I guess I'm quite taken with the Ecumenical umbrella title of "Christianity" rather than the specific denominational titles. However even here there is a potential for being overly strict against Rom.2:13-15: "(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)"
Covenant theology (or meta-theology) sounds a bit like "new wine in old wineskins" to me... Yeah I know that's not an argument but I have a feeling that you'll get what I mean.
LOL
I'm not sure if your emphasis is on "written down" (vs. oral) or "by them" (vs. "original apostolic authority" as a retrospective fabrication by a later generation, as I suggested).
I have have proof for neither position. So in the absence of said proof, how do you determine the correct understanding? Do you use the "longevity of tradition" argument that I make for the RC (even though, itonically I'm not RC)?
 
exjdub
exjdub 9 years ago

if you want my defence of the LDS faith you won't find me doing it from the flawed bible alone - I hate reasoning from that divider of christians - we all have our favourite quotes and proofs and yet the book cannot be used to effectively clarify anything since we never can agree on what even one verse actually means.
That is the crux of the matter. Christians can't agree on one verse, so how can they possibly maintain that the bible is a clear guide to worshiping God? If the bible were that clear, or "inspired", then there is no way there could be this much confusion or disagreement. I don't say this to be difficult, or to cause trouble. I say it from the perspective of someone who tries to read everything they can, including an entire thread about something I no longer believe in, just to keep an open mind. I have seen nothing that would change my view of Christianity, or the bible. It is all still a myth that people cling to for comfort, or out of fear.
exjdub
 
LittleToe
LittleToe 9 years ago

Christians can't agree on one verse, so how can they possibly maintain that the bible is a clear guide to worshiping God? If the bible were that clear, or "inspired", then there is no way there could be this much confusion or disagreement.
Alternatively, people down through the ages have had their own experiences with the "Divine". Some chose to record them, and later generations canonised those works. The same process goes on today.
Maybe one day someone will dust off an old archive of JWD and canonise it - Gawd help us!
It is all still a myth that people cling to for comfort, or out of fear.
That's a little disingenuous. I come at this as someone who claims a living relationship with someone, rather than a religious heritage. I didn't accept Christianity out of either fear or a need for comfort! Further, I'm not that unique, in this regard.
I say it from the perspective of someone who tries to read everything they can, including an entire thread about something I no longer believe in, just to keep an open mind.
Good for you! I think we all need to take this approach.
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
this thread was going to be about the true church.
but i simply changed the title.
okay ... so my experience thread set the stage for what seems to be a need to debate catholicism ... maybe because in the minds of many, there is a comparison to the watchtower ... a comparison which i believe is false.



Related Topics
KiddingMe
Police: Teen killed in N.Y. church assault wanted out
by KiddingMe 5 months ago
Defianttruth
Help to build a "Guide to Your New Faith"
by Defianttruth a month ago
JakeM2012
The extent that desperate cults will go to keep control of their youth
by JakeM2012 5 months ago
OrphanCrow
The Jehovah's Witnesses, the Royal Commission and the Catholic Church
by OrphanCrow 7 months ago
Saved_JW
Watchtower Paralells Mormonism
by Saved_JW 4 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/128300/debaters-lets-have-out?page=5&size=20






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Debaters: Let's have It Out !
/  





 

Debaters: Let's have It Out !
by Amazing 9 years ago 124 Replies latest 9 years ago   jw friends
«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 »
 5
10
20
jgnat
jgnat 9 years ago

Way back on page 2, Narkissos resonated with my thinking:
My opinion is that there is none -- neither institutional continuity, nor creed, nor scripture, nor experience are beyond valid criticism -- and ironically the endless struggle of the alternative "foundations" have helped in making that clear to all. But -- still imo -- the very principle of "faith" is the opposite of the search for foundation (fundamentalism in the etymological sense). It is walking on the sea, not on solid ground.
My background, I was raised in the United Church (a poor attempt to consolidate, IMO. All we ended up with was weak compromise) and as a young woman, converted to a bible-based evangelical church. I liked it's dynamism and certainty. I've been to Anglican, non-denominational, Celebrant, semi-JW, and Catholic weddings and funerals. My favorite was the Celebrant, which stayed away from all religious nomenclature and celebrated the person. I appreciate the symbolism and ceremonial trappings of the Catholic ceremonies. I think they involve all the senses, making the protestant rituals look barren in comparison. The worst funeral I ever attended, however, was high Catholic. The priest, brought in from another diocese, knew nothing of my poor friend who died. He mostly complained about being brought in at the last moment. The ceremony was about the supremacy of the Church, not at all about my friend. It was awful.
I am no longer so certain, but I enjoy an active church. I am no longer satisfied with any church that sublimates the person in favor of the ritual.
So I would ask, Amazing, in the practice of the Catholic church today, if they are representing the best that Christ modeled for us. From what I have seen, they do not.
 
lovelylil
lovelylil 9 years ago

Q,
I could not have been any clearer than the fact that the denomination you belong to simply is not as important as some believe it is. None of them have full authority over all Christians in the world. There is no earthly priesthood any more, Christ our High Priest did away with the need for continual sacrifices. Why would you want to become enslaved to the old ways again?
This thread shows WHY I am anti religious establishment. People begin to believe that the denomination THEY are in, is the only correct one. And its funny you are saying that I am giving a restricted view of the scriptures? You are the one trying to establish an earthly priesthood complete with rituals again by one or two biblical verses. When almost all of Hebrews shows there is NO earthly priesthood anymore for believers.
As far as you pushing the views of the Mormons, the point is that you are trying to reject the RCC teaching of thier priesthood and authority over all Christians and yet you do not see that you have to apply the same standard you are using to judge them to the Mormom church. And the only reason you are trying to reject the RCC teachings is so you can say that the Mormons are correct. You have already said the Mormom church is re-establishing the priesthood on earth. What is that supposed to mean then except that you believe they are the true priesthood?
Someone said Christianity divides people. I think this is the wrong view. It is not Christianity that divides, it is man who promote one denomination over another that divides. Each denomination wants full control over all Christians. Christians need to understand that the church is not any one denomination but the totality of all Christians thru out the world who are united in the Spirit by Christ. It is a very simple arrangement really when you come down to it.
Where would you go if you left the Mormon establishment? The answer is you do not have to go to another organization, it is to the person of Jesus Christ that is where you should go. He is the way, life and the truth. All Christians united in him are in the true faith. I feel sorry for you that you cannot see this because you will not be free in Christ until you do.
Peace, Lilly
 
exjdub
exjdub 9 years ago


That's a little disingenuous. I come at this as someone who claims a living relationship with someone, rather than a religious heritage. I didn't accept Christianity out of either fear or a need for comfort! Further, I'm not that unique, in this regard.
Not disingenuous, just an opinion.
Ross, I respect the fact that you claim to have a personal relationship with Christ and I would not attempt to convince you otherwise. I just always find it interesting when someone says they have a personal relationship with an entity that is surrounded by so much mystery and confusion and then offer up the bible and Christianity as the only way to life after death (not that you have said this categorically, however as a group I believe this is the general consensus of Christians)
I think you might see if from a different perspective if someone were to start a thread about extra terrestrials and a debate ensued about the history and succession of aliens down to our day by a group of people who all felt that we should accept the aliens as our guides and spiritual advisors. Although you may accept that an individual claims to have a personal relationship with the alien, or aliens, I think you might raise an eyebrow if the group were to debate how to worship the aliens properly and that the only way to life everlasting is to submit to the aliens. It all seems so arbitrary and subjective.
To watch a group of people, who claim to have had a personal experience with Christ, debate apostolic succession and bible verse just seems to be a futile exercise because there never seems to be any agreement amongst the group, other than to state the "we are all bound by love and a belief in Christ."
I have had some "enlightening" (for the lack of a better word) through meditation and exploration that is very powerful and profound. But I wouldn't try to state for one moment that everyone should accept what I say as the way to life everlasting. I also would not feel that anyone that did not believe as I did is going to miss out on some wonderful experience at the "right hand of God".
I think any time you start out with a premise that acceptance of a certain entity as the only way through the door of "life everlasting" you have already limited yourself. This seems to be the downfall of many Christians. They just can't let go of the concept that they have the only doorway to life.
exjdub
 
Narkissos
Narkissos 9 years ago

Since the spiritual house is supposed to be holy, then how do you explain the concept of the wheat and the weeds?
First, was that parable originally about the church? In the Matthean interpretation the field is the world (13:38).
Second, afaik any (interesting) Christian theology implies some form of dualism (god/man, spirit/flesh, already/not-yet, righteous/sinner, etc.). Why would the "church" be exempt? Isn't it ironical to see Evangelicals claim that the worst of born-again sinners cannot "lose their salvation" and at the same time refusing the identification of the "invisible church" with any concrete gathering of people? The core of the issue is Protestant / modern individualism (which has grown dramatically from Luther to pietism, for instance). As has been repeatedly pointed out, the concept of body (the resurrected Christ being the church) is much more central to Paul than justification -- especially if the latter is reduced to an individual issue.
how do you determine the correct understanding? Do you use the "longevity of tradition" argument that I make for the RC ( even though, itonically I'm not RC )?
Being where I am (post-Christian rather than Christian) I don't feel the need to choose. However, if I play the theologian my answer would definitely be (surprise?) sacramental. I think Luther gave the best possible answer when he said (approximately) that wherever the Gospel is preached and the sacraments are administered, there the church is. Of course I would define "Gospel" and "sacraments" much differently, but I'd keep the pattern I guess. "Non-sacramental Christianity" is an empty shell (of which JWs are a caricatural example).
jgnat,
I'm not familiar with "Celebrants". When you oppose the "person" to the "ritual" do you mean the person of Christ/god or the person(s) of the believers (or both)?
 
LittleToe
LittleToe 9 years ago

exjdub / Didier:Strange as it might seem, and although I wouldn't necessarily use those precise words, I entirely agree with all your points.
I qualify that, only for other readers, by addressing exjdub and saying that I understand your use of the term "entity" here and in that context I agree. I approach "Christ" from another context, in which those words wouldn't be appropriate, but I agree with your general point.
As for the sacramental approach, I agree that this is where the body of believers gather. Theologically it is encumbent on believers to gather in some way around the sacraments. This is one reason why I lead a religious life, even though I clearly see the faults and failings of religion. Communal worship is at the heart of such a life, and brings an individual closer to (and contrawise, can repelfrom ) the business end of dealing with the Divine in a wider context than that of the mere individual.
 
Amazing
Amazing 9 years ago

LT and then Restrangled:
LT:
In your opinion, how do you identify the anti-christ?
I don't know for sure. Some things suggest it is a singluar agent or person ... and some suggest it is a generalized anti-Christ development throughout society at large. I just simply do not know for sure ... but my guess with the rise of secular humanism, coupled with the rise of radical Islam, there is not much room left for Christ.
Luther managed to strain out 95 points of contention that he felt needed reforming, but that is set against a backdrop of hundreds of points of agreement. The mainstream denominations have at least 95% agreement, and on the most important topics, to my mind.
Good point.
The usual arguments concern abuse of power and nitpicking details of the sacrement of the Eucharist and baptism. Of all of these the Eucharist is probably the most contentious. Would you like to tackle transubstantiation (which to most people is merely a very long string of letters)?
What part of transubstantiation is confusing to you? Perhaps I need a new thread to tackle this one - no?
Restrangled:
I will admit I have read very little here but question any organized religion.
Me too. I did not expect 105 responses. And I am going in and tackling ones that have core issues and concerns. Yours is one of them.
With The RC church there has been the torture and murder of anyone questioning it's authority, along with denying the science that have proved them wrong for centuries.
There are two issues here:
1. Torture and murder. Perhaps specifics would help. The RC church does not approve or engage in torture or murder. The Inquisition was a situation that went out of control. It was not ever approved by the Church, but it was still wrong. This does not remove the mantle of authority from the Church, nor the rightness of her teachings. It means that bad people did bad things. They were absolutely wrong. An excellent source for thing kind of dirt on the Church is the New Advent Catholic encyclopedia. The RCC is quite open about its errors. And where justified, they also give more accurate accounts that mitigate or exaplain away what have been blown into larger than life legends. The RCC still has the Office of Inquistion, by the way.
2. Denying science: Some of the accounts and claims surrounding Galeleo are myth of the kind that I inferred above. However, the Church burned itself on this topic, and has since learned to behave and accept science as it is revealed. Today, for example, Catholics can and do accept the science of evolution. I do, and I do not feel threatened by it. That is how far the RCC has come. Whereas many Protestant churches, especially the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, fight evolution tooth and nail.
There is the question of Hell Fire which now has been denied by a pope.
Hell: I have not reexplored this with the Church so I am talking somewhat blind. I grew up in the RCC believing in hell. I stopped believing in hell as a JW. Upon reconciling with the RCC, I still do not believe in hell. Those I have talked to in the Church say that nowadays, hell is simply eternal separation from God. That sounds as good as any idea to me. The Bible is not really clear, because it uses such loaded language in deep symbolism.
There is also the problem of their pedophila within the ranks.
Pedophiles: There are pedophiles in all churches, cities, counties, states, nations, provinces, territories cultures, societies on this planet. They have always existed, and will continue to exist. The problem with the RCC is that a small number of her Priests are pedophiles. The RCC Bishops were dead wrong in simply shuffling them around from parish to parish. However, a few lawsuits later, and the RCC in the USA got its act together and put a stop to it under a zero tolerance policy. The Church has never stopped or threatened or abused any Catholic for reporting the problem to the authorities. Since the zero tolerance policy was enacted, one bishop I know of still did not get it, and shuffled a pedophile priest around. That was exposed and stopped. Catholic participateed openly in condemning the pedophiles and in demanding the RCC do something. This is the correct way that a healthy church cmmunity should deal with this kind of problem.
There is the question why they supported and hid Nazi criminals.
Nazis: The RCC no Roman Catholic as a church never supported Nazi criminals. You may want to bring out specific situations and lets deal with those directly. As for the Pope, he was surrounded by both Nazis that were stations in Italy, as well as the Italian Fascist. Hitler himself wanted to terminate the Papacy, but used better tactics to try and work something out with the Pope. This resulted in the Concordat. This requires more discussion if you like. I believe that Catholics who fought in Hitlers military were wrong for doing so. However, what migigates their decision is that many, if not most, did not know about many of the war crimes. But, I believe that the Pope should have told Catholics to not fight for Hitler and then urged Catholic to leave Germany. Perhaps had that happened, we could be talking about the Jewish-Catholic Holocaust.
So as hard as we are on the WBTS, this group seems much worse. I am no Watchtower apologist, but I cannot tolerate lies and deciet from other religions either.
Watchtower: Much of the Catholic sins are deep in the past, and subsequent generations of Catholics have turned things around. The Watchtower did an excellent job of brainwashing JWs to believe that a religion has to be perfect, except when they themselves make mistakes. The people of God, whether Jewish or Christian, Protestant or Catholic, are sinners. If we judged a faith by the bad deeds of her members, then we need to start with the House of Israel. King Saul, its first king was evil. Even the prized King David was a murderer and adulterer. And the story continues. St. Peter, the first Pope of Rome, himself denied Jesus Christ who was in the process of being falsely condemned and executed, dying for our sins. Find a bad deed anywhere, and I will show you a sinner, whether Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or plain-jane atheist.
The Dichotomy: While no one can deny the wrongs committed by the RCC (only perhaps mitigate some of them or give a more accurate presentation) the RCC has also produced many saints ... people like Mother Teresa in our own lifetime. I grew up in the RCC where I was exposed more to this kind of Christian than to the bad guys. I reconciled with the RCC, not because I justify her bad, but because I find more good, more freedom, more responsibility to correct the bad. The problem with the Watchtower is not that they had done bad ... rather ... there is no proper vahicle to correct the problems.
Jim Whitney
 
Qcmbr
Qcmbr 9 years ago

Ok - despite my work colleagues pointing out I'm an obsessive plonker I'll remount the soapbox.
LL - You can't let it go I understand. You cannot read my responses without adding the words Mormon and LDS before each sentence. I cannot remember saying in this thread said that the LDS position is better or worse (and if I have sorry). I've tried to keep on topic and discuss a specific element of the RC church while responding to a point I vigorously disagree with regarding the absence of organised authoriy. You can avoid organisation believing your part of the body of christ, it is of no weight or matter to me nor should it be - I respect your choice.
LT - This isn't a pity parade - I don't ask for pity in my beliefs what I do ask for is balance and you have taken a tack unusual for you. Its not a weakness to express opinions that sometimes tow an official line and sometimes explore areas of doubt or maleable thought IMO. You suggested that you didn't think that there was any succesion principle or that anyone had handed anything on - I apologise for asking for clarification ignore it if you must. If you see a similar weakness in the LDS claims feel free to start a thread about it. As for my views on the bible I respect it for a totally different reason than you but I also see the butchery that is done to the text by historical error, myth insertion and the unskilled goggles of our modern day cultural spectacles. If you feel that we can agree using the bible alone then I salute your optimism.
Both of you do not understand the LDS position RE organisation (and I wouldn't expect you to) and our view of the Priesthood - I suspect there may be direct similarities with the RC viewpoint:
Qcmbr's abridged outline of his thoughts on the Priesthood.
"The Priesthood is manifest wherever God calls a servant (and in the vast majority of cases this is male) and ordains them to such. The ordination is always physical by someone already holding that power. Wherever the priesthood is found so the sacraments of baptism, breaking bread and water and the baptism of fire by the Holy Ghost are found. There are many circumstances where the priesthood has had no central earthly leadership and collpases down to the localised element of region or tribe or family or sole adherant. Whenever there is a meeting of priesthood holders there is a general deferance from one to the other (Abraham - Melchizedek, John - Jesus) so that an order establishes itself. Multiple churches can/have and do exist that are cut off from one another and are not listed as one single entity (7 churches of Paul, Kingdom of heaven separate from here, Northern Kingdom of Israel and Southern Kingdom, lost tribes of Israel etc..) but are united in the same authority and Priesthood. It is even possible for one branch or organised church to receive greater knowledge than another due to righteousness(City of Enoch) or to receive different instruction personalised for them (Paul's letters) but they ultimately then are brought along to the same position on faith and knowledge."
I don't think in this statement I have strayed outside of the bible, employed LDS examples or used terms unacceptable but I await correction.
 
LittleToe
LittleToe 9 years ago

Jim:Funny how a RC and a Reformer can be so agreeable, huh? Everyone thought we'd be calling each other heretics
I'm ok on the transubstantiation, thanks. I have a good understanding of it. While its a bone of contention to many, I'd rather say "lets just get on and break bread!"
Q:
You certainly are obsessive, to the point of not reading responses properly. You appear to have got it into your head that I can't see the man beyond the religion, which is blatantly untrue. On the other hand you appear to think you know my beliefs rather well, yourself
There's no need to start a new thread about LDS weaknesses, as this one was started with that inclusive option available.
If its any consolation, I don't find the LDS organisational structure entirely unreasonable. Thank you for your precis of the Priesthood. I am acutely aware of loaded language, though, having spent over three decades as a JW and having had numerous discussions with LDS Missionaries (the office of which I am aware you once held - which I state merely to highlight my interest in you, rather than by way of denigration).
The Priesthood is manifest wherever God calls a servant (and in the vast majority of cases this is male) and ordains them to such. The ordination is always physical by someone already holding that power.
I'm well aware that, while the language is left open, it is normative for there to be a smug acceptance that they will almost always be LDS. The JWs use similar speech when talking about Armaggedon survival being by God reading peoples' hearts. This view is supported by the fact that the argument will be made that any other claimants to apostolic succession belong to a broken line due to unrighteousness. The new line is alleged to have been resumed by Joseph Smith, in being ordained by the appearance of a risen Christ.
While I again acknowledge that the language is left open, in what circumstances do you think it is at all possible that someone outside of the LDS would be of said Priesthood? And if they could prove Apostolic succession, would it be inferior or superior to that of the Joseph Smith line? Which branch would defer to which?
It is even possible for one branch or organised church to receive greater knowledge than another due to righteousness(City of Enoch) or to receive different instruction personalised for them (Paul's letters) but they ultimately then are brought along to the same position on faith and knowledge."
So you don't actually have any real issue with different people being taught at different rates by the Holy Spirit, then? And there I was thinking that that was your primary accusation against the Protestant denominations!
In case you're wondering, I'm enjoying this conversation immensely, even if you do feel that I'm being a little heavy on you. I would be grateful if you would correct any statements that I have made that you believe to be factually incorrect.
Respectfully yours,
Ross.
 
Sad emo
Sad emo 9 years ago

This is a general question for all the denominations (but especially those who have ordained priests of any kind!). I'd never really thought that much about it until this thread and now I is confused!!
Is a 'priest' simply a servant of God or is it an office whereby special privileges/powers are bestowed on a person?
If both descriptions apply, is it possible to combine the two and how?
How can all Christians be called 'a royal priesthood' if there is the concept that ordained priests have special authority/power over and above ordinary Christians?
Are there two classes of Christian - priestly and ordinary? Maybe the WTS aren't far wrong on this matter after all...
 
Qcmbr
Qcmbr 9 years ago

Actually I do apologise LT I did misread Amazings initial premise and thought it was specifically about the RC. My fault entirely.
 
LittleToe
LittleToe 9 years ago

Emo:
As you're probably aware, there is no Priesthood in Reformed Protestant Churches, as each Christian is viewed as a Priest and Joint-King, with personal access to God.
There are clergy, however, inasmuch as some individuals have the gift to teach, pastor, evangelise (including knocking on doors and preaching from street corners), etc. Most folks are pretty glad that they don't have those "gifts" though
 
LittleToe
LittleToe 9 years ago

Q:No skin lost. You're a good bloke, and I have been riding ya pretty hard. I apologise if I've caused any offense.
 
lovelylil
lovelylil 9 years ago

emo,
That is a good question and one I have been asking for years myself. I am not familiar with all the religion's thoughts on this but I grew up in the RCC and know they believe in the ordained Priesthood. And they have the Priestly and laity class of people. I cannot find biblical support for this because to me, the earthly priesthood forshadowed the coming of our Final High Priest Jesus and he has made a sacrifice once for all time for all believers. And now believers themselves are called a "royal priesthood" and the need for an earthly priesthood was done away with.
I often wondered when I was a youngster in the RCC, why they had Priests but the Apostles were not exclusively given that title of Priest in their day and did not seem to perform functions as a Priest for the rest of the church.( such as like that of the RCC Priests) I could never understand why there would be two classes of Christians in the RCC church. And I never really got a satisfying answer from any Priest in my church nor anyone else in the RCC about these concerns. Maybe someone who is a current member and more familiar with their teachings can enlighten both of us on this? Lilly
btw: How does one who believes in the need for an earthly priesthood understand all the Hebrew texts stating that Jesus is the last, greater, perfect high priest?
 
Qcmbr
Qcmbr 9 years ago

..and that extends to LL. It also frees me up to widen out now.
Who currently has the priesthood according to LDS theology?
1/Levitical priesthood is held by literal descendents of Levi most not aware of the right and certainly not LDS.
2/Lost tribes are supposedly led by their own prophets or will be at some future time. They will have their own internal structures. Certainly not LDS.
3/LDS claim the priesthood through direct line to Jesus Christ but note:
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 121:34 - 37)
34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?
35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—
36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
4/LDS also recognise that God will call whom he will where and when but one identifying mark of a priesthood holder is they will recognise other priesthood holders and not reject them. The current prophet of the church is given all the keys of authority and thus would be deferred to.
When will they all be under one single organisation - when there will be no LDS or any manner of 'isms - when Jesus returns with His kingdom and recognises his own.
 
lovelylil
lovelylil 9 years ago

Q,
Thank you for that information. I have to go out for a couple of hours but I printed it out and will look it over. I will get back to you on this later. BTW: do you know all the scriptural support for the official LDS teaching on the Levitical Priesthood? If so, I would like to have it so I can look in up myself. Thanks. Have a good afternoon. Lilly
 
Amazing
Amazing 9 years ago

LT:
I'm ok on the transubstantiation, thanks. I have a good understanding of it. While its a bone of contention to many, I'd rather say "lets just get on and break bread!"
Well ... I still want to initiate a new thread on it, because I think it might be good for some who hold myths and misconceptions about the doctrine.
My next two threads will be on prayer to the Holy Spirit and Evolution, then on to Transubstantiation ... then I will take a break and go fishing.
 
lovelylil
lovelylil 9 years ago

Jim,
After posting the next few topics, you are going to need a few beers. I may need a couple glasses of wine myself. Lilly
 
Qcmbr
Qcmbr 9 years ago

Some scriptires that talk of the levites and their priesthood
(Old Testament | Deuteronomy 18:6 - 7)
6 ¶ And if a Levite come from any of thy gates out of all Israel, where he sojourned, and come with all the desire of his mind unto the place which the LORD shall choose;
7 Then he shall minister in the name of the LORD his God, as all his brethren the Levites do, which stand there before the LORD.
(Old Testament | Joshua 18:7)
7 But the Levites have no part among you; for the priesthood of the LORD is their inheritance: and Gad, and Reuben, and half the tribe of Manasseh, have received their inheritance beyond Jordan on the east, which Moses the servant of the LORD gave them.
Two different orders existed at the time of Christ - both were Gods but one represented the outward ordinances that have no saving power but were/are required while the other represents the saving power of Christ - the power wherby the City of Enoch became perfected.
(New Testament | Hebrews 7:11)
11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Authority of the kingdom can be given.
(New Testament | Matthew 16:18 - 19)
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
God's people are always referred to as a kingdom of priests or priesthood.
(Old Testament | Exodus 19:5 - 6)
5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
(New Testament | 1 Peter 2:9)
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
 
lovelylil
lovelylil 9 years ago

Q,
I am sorry I did not get back to you right away. I had something to do with my kids. I looked thru your notes about the Levitical Priesthood and Melchizedek. I would like to make these few points. Sorry in advance if this is long, I will try to explain why I think your reasoning about the priesthood is flawed in as simple a way I can. I will focus mostly on Hebrews chapter 7, please get out your bible to follow along with this.
Melchizedek is mentioned the first time in Genesis chapter 14:17-20. Here he meets with Abraham and Abraham gives Melchizedek gifts. In the OT there were Kings and there was the Priesthood, but here in Genesis we have Melchizedek who is both King and Priest. Melchizedek is the "type" for Jesus Christ, who will be King and Priest for the people. That is why Jesus is called by the author of Hebrews the Priest in the "order of Melchizedek".
By Abraham giving gifts to Melchizedek, he was showing Melchizedeks superiority to himself. In Hebrews 7:8-10, it is showing that since the Tribe of Levi was "in" Abraham, The Levitical Priesthood was also acknowleging the superiority of Melchizedek. Therefore this is showing that Melchizedek's priesthood is greater than the one descending from Abraham. When the Messiah came, his Priesthood superceded the Levitical Priesthood.
Hebrews 7:11 shows that God never planned the Levitical Priesthood to be permanent. Nor does he plan to ever restore it. God, when our Messiah came, totally set aside the Old Testament way of his people approaching him. See also verses 12,18,19a
Hebrews 7:19,22 shows that thru Jesus, God has now provided us a better way to approach him. Jesus will never die and will never need to be replaced by anyone - verse 23.
verse 25 - Jesus will hold his priesthood permanently and is the only one that can save us completely.
verse 27 - Jesus sacrifice is better than any animal sacrifices. The animal sacrifices pointed to the need of a new better sacrifice and was set in place temporarily. But God knew this type of sacrifice could never wash away man's sin completely. But Jesus sacrifice can. And Jesus sacrifice only has to be given once for all time and not over and over like animal sacrifices had to.
God's new arrangement is for us to go thru his Son, our High Priest and we can approach him directly now. We can also approach him any time day or night, no matter where we are. This is the new, better way. There is no more need for the human priesthood.
I want to make one point about your using a verse in Matthew 22:
About Matthew 22 - the parable of the wedding banquet
this parable is about being invited into God's heavenly kingdom and not into a Priesthood. In verse 22:14 it says "many are called but few are chosen". this statement is talking about the natural Jews and how many were called to accept the invitation to the kingdom but refused because they would not accept Christ. Thus many of them were called or "invited" but few believed and were ultimately chosen. Again, this is not an invitation to a preisthood but invitation to the heavenly kingdom as heirs with Christ.
Lilly
 
Farkel
Farkel 9 years ago

Hey Jim old Friend!
: It's is truly good to see you again ... now, you have work to do to turn me back into an agnostic again. See what happens while you are away on the mountain carving out new commandments ... we take up religion ... and I am ready to be a Catholic priest.
I don't want to turn you into anything. I want you to find happiness and continued good health, you stupid freaking moron who thinks that religion can give it to you! You freaking MORON!
Just joking, Jim. You are my friend and I only wish the best for you, even if you think some other's belief systems are somehow mystically and inately better than your own morals and ethics which the Creator gave you at birth. :smile:
Farkel
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
this thread was going to be about the true church.
but i simply changed the title.
okay ... so my experience thread set the stage for what seems to be a need to debate catholicism ... maybe because in the minds of many, there is a comparison to the watchtower ... a comparison which i believe is false.



Related Topics
KiddingMe
Police: Teen killed in N.Y. church assault wanted out
by KiddingMe 5 months ago
Defianttruth
Help to build a "Guide to Your New Faith"
by Defianttruth a month ago
JakeM2012
The extent that desperate cults will go to keep control of their youth
by JakeM2012 5 months ago
OrphanCrow
The Jehovah's Witnesses, the Royal Commission and the Catholic Church
by OrphanCrow 7 months ago
Saved_JW
Watchtower Paralells Mormonism
by Saved_JW 4 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/128300/debaters-lets-have-out?page=6&size=20






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Debaters: Let's have It Out !
/  





 

Debaters: Let's have It Out !
by Amazing 9 years ago 124 Replies latest 9 years ago   jw friends
«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 »
5
10
20
Amazing
Amazing 9 years ago

Doug Farkel with a Sparkel,
I don't want to turn you into anything. I want you to find happiness and continued good health, you stupid freaking moron who thinks that religion can give it to you! You freaking MORON!
I spit my coffe out when I saw this ... it is great to have Farkel with a Sparkel back, mean and nasty as ever.
Just joking, Jim. You are my friend and I only wish the best for you, even if you think some other's belief systems are somehow mystically and inately better than your own morals and ethics which the Creator gave you at birth. :smile:
I was already at peace with myself and God. I reconciled with the Catholic Church because it is simply a free and open place where I can be me and express my version of Christianity safely. There is also less chance I will run into assholes from the fundy side of life. I was raised RC, so it was more an act of going home, rather than adopting something new or better than what I am.
E-mail me at Amazing75@hotmail.com and give me your latest e-mail address. I will e-amil beck my phone numbers so you can call when the Spirit moves you.
Jim
 
jgnat
jgnat 9 years ago

Sorry it took so long to reply, narkissos. I just revisited this thread today.
I'm not familiar with "Celebrants". When you oppose the "person" to the "ritual" do you mean the person of Christ/god or the person(s) of the believers (or both)?
Persons as in people, not the person as in Godhead.
Here's a partial description of a Celebrant.
http://www.insightbooks.com/Celebrants.aspx
 
AuldSoul
AuldSoul 9 years ago

My argument is summed up in 1 Corinthians 3. Substitute the names of any Christian Religion X and Y for Paul and Apollos and you will have the argument I would present.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
 
Narkissos
Narkissos 9 years ago

Thank you jgnat. I thought it was a kind of church. Interesting.
 
greendawn
greendawn 9 years ago

"My argument is summed up in 1 Corinthians 3. Substitute the names of any Christian Religion X and Y for Paul and Apollos and you will have the argument I would present." Indeed it is the fleshly and the immature rather than the spiritual that tend to seggregate into numerous groups over very minor and silly issues.
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 »
5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
this thread was going to be about the true church.
but i simply changed the title.
okay ... so my experience thread set the stage for what seems to be a need to debate catholicism ... maybe because in the minds of many, there is a comparison to the watchtower ... a comparison which i believe is false.



Related Topics
KiddingMe
Police: Teen killed in N.Y. church assault wanted out
by KiddingMe 5 months ago
Defianttruth
Help to build a "Guide to Your New Faith"
by Defianttruth a month ago
JakeM2012
The extent that desperate cults will go to keep control of their youth
by JakeM2012 5 months ago
OrphanCrow
The Jehovah's Witnesses, the Royal Commission and the Catholic Church
by OrphanCrow 7 months ago
Saved_JW
Watchtower Paralells Mormonism
by Saved_JW 4 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/128300/debaters-lets-have-out?page=7&size=20