|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Dec 12, 2018 19:49:43 GMT
If one HAS to sit through a service, I'd choose Roman Catholicism if the mass is in Latin - especially a Requiem Mass. Confutatis, Maledictis…. very scary!
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Dec 12, 2018 19:56:31 GMT
Morgana
Your opinion, but still a bigot.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 12, 2018 23:41:35 GMT
Well, I see fours separated sentences. The first refers to an unnamed church simply designated, "Mine". The second talks of JWs. The third, Lutheran. The fourth, "Mega churches". The implication (as I see it) is that they are exclusive of each other. I asked him if "Mine" and JWs are actually exclusive. You see with his response that he dodges answering.
He clearly said that his church was non-denominational. If you accept that, then you inferring that he might be suggesting that his church is JWs makes no sense logically. The question was answered before you even asked it. What is the "alternative understanding" that you were implying in your first comment?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 12, 2018 23:45:15 GMT
Morgana
Your opinion, but still a bigot.
How does that make him a "bigot"
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 13, 2018 0:49:12 GMT
Well, I see fours separated sentences. The first refers to an unnamed church simply designated, "Mine". The second talks of JWs. The third, Lutheran. The fourth, "Mega churches". The implication (as I see it) is that they are exclusive of each other. I asked him if "Mine" and JWs are actually exclusive. You see with his response that he dodges answering.
He clearly said that his church was non-denominational. If you accept that, then you inferring that he might be suggesting that his church is JWs makes no sense logically. The question was answered before you even asked it. What is the "alternative understanding" that you were implying in your first comment? This can be confusing, and the two of us could be misunderstanding each other. Hopefully, I'll make myself clear. Maybe this part you already know: Cooljgs (Smithjgs on the old board) subscribes to Watchtower theology without being officially a member of JWs. He'll make vague unidentified references to "my church" (as he did on this thread), but when posters ask him if he is a JW, he can answer with technical accuracy "No".
His response to the OP seemed to me an attempt to mislead. He started with "Mine but it’s non-denominational". JWs are commonly called a denomination, but JWs regard their organization as non-denominational. And then he offers comments on three entities (JWs, Lutheran, Megachurches), which will lead one (I think naturally) to infer that NONE of those would be the unnamed "Mine" of the first sentence. But there is an alternative understanding, one that allows him to claim truthfulness, while misleading posters less familiar with him. In that understanding "Mine" actually IS JW, and his next sentence ("I think JW’s are most accurate Scripturally, but add too many of their own tenets"), which leads people to think that "Mine" is not JW, might actually be nothing more than one reason he has to put off formally joining (by getting baptized).
Does this help?
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Dec 13, 2018 4:08:22 GMT
Now, this thread has very clearly implied we are talking about our subjective liking for Christian denominations on a relative scale. So even if you don't like Christianity itself you can prefer one school over others. Say in terms of having less dislike for any particular school relative to other schools if you do not actually like any Christian denomination at all.
I like Catholicism the most. It has an interesting history and has culturally influenced western world a lot. The major cultural changes that the western world underwent in early modern era were more or less directly or indirectly related to Catholicism or opposition of Catholicism. Eastern Orthodox would be my second favourite though I admit that I have very little knowledge of this school. I do love to read about the Russian Church's history.
The school that appeals the least to me is the Protestant religion. I find it extremely boring and this is a sort of religion that never makes me inquisitive at all. Different Protestant denominations make me feel totally repulsed.
Catholicism, of course (but, I really like Orthodoxy too). You should have added a poll for this one too, AJ. Will add a poll after a few hours
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Dec 13, 2018 4:30:44 GMT
Catholicism, of course (but, I really like Orthodoxy too). You should have added a poll for this one too, AJ. Will add a poll after a few hours Cool.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2018 4:46:27 GMT
Oh, Catholicism all the way.
Drink, smoke, fuck, confess... repeat. They also seem to have more 'yes/no' in regards to scriptural interpretation, in lieu of "Well, this fundo-indie-bapto-zoroastrian interpretation of the JB Phillips New Version of this particular scripture means it's ok to fuck elephants as long as it's springime" ambiguity.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 13, 2018 5:21:04 GMT
Oh, Catholicism all the way. Drink, smoke, fuck, confess... repeat. They also seem to have more 'yes/no' in regards to scriptural interpretation, in lieu of "Well, this fundo-indie-bapto-zoroastrian interpretation of the JB Phillips New Version of this particular scripture means it's ok to fuck elephants as long as it's springime" ambiguity. ...I hope they believe in using ladders in this circumstance! ( I mean contraceptive and sex toys are a no-no as are in vitro shit, abortions, homosexuality etc...….what could they possibly have against the humble ladder? ) Too many slats/sluts?... rungs instead of marital 'rings'?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 13, 2018 12:18:31 GMT
He clearly said that his church was non-denominational. If you accept that, then you inferring that he might be suggesting that his church is JWs makes no sense logically. The question was answered before you even asked it. What is the "alternative understanding" that you were implying in your first comment? This can be confusing, and the two of us could be misunderstanding each other. Hopefully, I'll make myself clear. Maybe this part you already know: Cooljgs (Smithjgs on the old board) subscribes to Watchtower theology without being officially a member of JWs. He'll make vague unidentified references to "my church" (as he did on this thread), but when posters ask him if he is a JW, he can answer with technical accuracy "No".
His response to the OP seemed to me an attempt to mislead. He started with "Mine but it’s non-denominational". JWs are commonly called a denomination, but JWs regard their organization as non-denominational. And then he offers comments on three entities (JWs, Lutheran, Megachurches), which will lead one (I think naturally) to infer that NONE of those would be the unnamed "Mine" of the first sentence. But there is an alternative understanding, one that allows him to claim truthfulness, while misleading posters less familiar with him. In that understanding "Mine" actually IS JW, and his next sentence ("I think JW’s are most accurate Scripturally, but add too many of their own tenets"), which leads people to think that "Mine" is not JW, might actually be nothing more than one reason he has to put off formally joining (by getting baptized).
Does this help?
To what end? What motivation would anyone (but him in particular) have to lie about their religious affiliation? I don’t understand how that’s to anyone’s benefit. I’m not saying you are wrong, I just don’t see the logic of what you’re suggesting. And I’m not even a fan of Cool (as I tend to think he is a complete tool).
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Dec 13, 2018 12:21:43 GMT
Will add a poll after a few hours Cool. Sorry Splash, it seems I can't add a poll now. It seems polls can only be added when you initiate a topic.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 13, 2018 12:25:22 GMT
Sorry Splash, it seems I can't add a poll now. It seems polls can only be added when you initiate a topic. I feel like that’s always been the case.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Dec 13, 2018 12:30:34 GMT
Sorry Splash, it seems I can't add a poll now. It seems polls can only be added when you initiate a topic. I feel like that’s always been the case. It seems that is true. But I had seen a topic in which a person claimed to have edited the poll. When told that editing a poll is not possible the person said he/she deleted the orginal and created another. I mistook it to mean that the poll was deleted and recreated. Now I feel I interpreted that person incorrectly. The person must have meant he/she deleted the topic itself an formed another with a poll with corrected or additional options.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 13, 2018 13:10:50 GMT
This can be confusing, and the two of us could be misunderstanding each other. Hopefully, I'll make myself clear. Maybe this part you already know: Cooljgs (Smithjgs on the old board) subscribes to Watchtower theology without being officially a member of JWs. He'll make vague unidentified references to "my church" (as he did on this thread), but when posters ask him if he is a JW, he can answer with technical accuracy "No".
His response to the OP seemed to me an attempt to mislead. He started with "Mine but it’s non-denominational". JWs are commonly called a denomination, but JWs regard their organization as non-denominational. And then he offers comments on three entities (JWs, Lutheran, Megachurches), which will lead one (I think naturally) to infer that NONE of those would be the unnamed "Mine" of the first sentence. But there is an alternative understanding, one that allows him to claim truthfulness, while misleading posters less familiar with him. In that understanding "Mine" actually IS JW, and his next sentence ("I think JW’s are most accurate Scripturally, but add too many of their own tenets"), which leads people to think that "Mine" is not JW, might actually be nothing more than one reason he has to put off formally joining (by getting baptized).
Does this help?
To what end? What motivation would anyone (but him in particular) have to lie about their religious affiliation? I don’t understand how that’s to anyone’s benefit. I’m not saying you are wrong, I just don’t see the logic of what you’re suggesting. And I’m not even a fan of Cool (as I tend to think he is a complete tool). To be precise here, on religious affiliation he doesn't lie. But in what's sometimes called a "lawyerly" fashion, he will carefully choose his words to convey a false impression without lying in the strict sense. To what end? My guess is that he'd rather avoid the dismissive contempt that many posters have for JWs. And even though he's not officially a JW, making his non-formal association with them widely known would still invite that contempt.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 13, 2018 13:22:53 GMT
To what end? What motivation would anyone (but him in particular) have to lie about their religious affiliation? I don’t understand how that’s to anyone’s benefit. I’m not saying you are wrong, I just don’t see the logic of what you’re suggesting. And I’m not even a fan of Cool (as I tend to think he is a complete tool). To be precise here, on religious affiliation he doesn't lie. But in what's sometimes called a "lawyerly" fashion, he will carefully choose his words to convey a false impression without lying in the strict sense. To what end? My guess is that he'd rather avoid the dismissive contempt that many posters have for JWs. And even though he's not officially a JW, making his non-formal association with them widely known would still invite that contempt. You mean by people like you right? Because you're the only one I see here doing that.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 13, 2018 13:35:13 GMT
To be precise here, on religious affiliation he doesn't lie. But in what's sometimes called a "lawyerly" fashion, he will carefully choose his words to convey a false impression without lying in the strict sense. To what end? My guess is that he'd rather avoid the dismissive contempt that many posters have for JWs. And even though he's not officially a JW, making his non-formal association with them widely known would still invite that contempt. You mean by people like you right? Because you're the only one I see here doing that. I show dismissive contempt? I strongly disagree. When it comes to Watchtower doctrines or policies, I will criticize, but never in a dismissive or contemptuous way. Far from being dismissive, I fully engage with WT positions and I have often quoted their website at length to show that I am accurately presenting their view. (But my issue here with Cooljgs is not WT teachings; it's his own misleading manner of presenting himself to others).
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 13, 2018 14:07:29 GMT
You mean by people like you right? Because you're the only one I see here doing that. I show dismissive contempt? I strongly disagree. When it comes to Watchtower doctrines or policies, I will criticize, but never in a dismissive or contemptuous way. Far from being dismissive, I fully engage with WT positions and I have often quoted their website at length to show that I am accurately presenting their view. Who here then are you claiming DOES show a dismissive contempt (as you define it) attitude towards JWs that is inconsistent with the dismissive contempt they would show to any other religion besides their own? (But my issue here with Cooljgs is not WT teachings; it's his own misleading manner of presenting himself to others). Why would you care about that? What difference does it make how he presents himself to others? I guess what I'm asking is, why does this particular issue strike a nerve with you enough to mention it as much as you do? I personally don't give a rats ass how someone else represents themselves, or what label you want to put on it because labels are not important to me. What's important is the actual positions people hold, and why they hold them. That's what I like addressing because beliefs affect actions; labels do not. If he called himself a "Jedi" who believes that Jesus Christ died for his sins, then he's a Jesus believing Jedi! But he still has to be able to defend the belief of "Jesus dying for his sins" (just like any other Christian). The fact that he doesn't call himself a Christian for fear of Christian persecution is completely irrelevant at that point.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Dec 13, 2018 14:47:48 GMT
Sorry Splash, it seems I can't add a poll now. It seems polls can only be added when you initiate a topic. Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Dec 13, 2018 15:00:13 GMT
Sorry Splash, it seems I can't add a poll now. It seems polls can only be added when you initiate a topic. Oh well. Here is the unofficial voting so far: Aj_ June: Fav is Catholicism, least fav is protestant religion. Winter_King: Fav is Catholicism politicaldial: Fav is Protestant Morgana: Least fav is Catholicism CaptainBryce: Unitarian Universalist is fav Cooljgs: Fav is non-denomination (which is his own interpretation). Among established ones his fav is JW. Clusium - Fav is Catholicism The Herald Erjen didn't specify which one was his most fav rachel: Her fav is Catholicism in a relative way eddyhops did say that his fav was Catholicism but it was clearly a sarcasm. So I am counting his vote to mean Catholicism is his least favourite. So overall: Catholicism is the favourite of 5 members and least favourite of 2 members. Unitarian Universalist is fav of 1 person Protestantism is fav of 1 person and least fav of 1 person. JW is fav of 1 person.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 13, 2018 15:26:08 GMT
I show dismissive contempt? I strongly disagree. When it comes to Watchtower doctrines or policies, I will criticize, but never in a dismissive or contemptuous way. Far from being dismissive, I fully engage with WT positions and I have often quoted their website at length to show that I am accurately presenting their view. (But my issue here with Cooljgs is not WT teachings; it's his own misleading manner of presenting himself to others). I don't try to log in my memory just which poster said what. My statement is based on the cumulative impression created after a dozen or so years on this and the old board. And it's not really surprising when you remember that the most widely known facts about them are that they come knocking at your door, which many people find annoying, and that they would rather let their kid die than get a blood transfusion. That would certainly be enough for many to be dismissive and contemptuous of a JW on this board or someone aligned with them.And that's what I getting at. When I say "represents himself to others" I don't mean what label he adopts. I mean how he expresses his actual positions, or (more to the point) WON'T express his actual positions. When it comes to anything that implicates JW doctrines, he typically doesn't say what he really means. I believe that's because he doesn't want to tip his hand that he aligns with WT views. This leads to total confusion on the part of the poster he's talking to. On more than one occasion, I've butt in and told the poster (sometimes with a JW.org link) just what he's getting at but won't make clear (and have been thanked for it by that poster). If he represented his views forthrightly, I expect I'd have fewer exchanges with him.
|
|