|
Post by Morgana on Dec 13, 2018 16:26:23 GMT
Morgana
Your opinion, but still a bigot.
As someone else has already asked you but got no reply as usual, how does that make me a bigot?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Dec 13, 2018 17:06:14 GMT
I grew up Catholic, so this is the denomination I am most familiar with.
A while ago, I took the belief-o-matic test, which, if I remember correctly, told me that I have a lot in common with quakers and liberal protestantism; but not much with Greek-Orthodox or Roman-Catholic.
As for art: If you like visual arts, then Catholicism might be more suitable for you. But if you prefer music... Bach and Mendelssohn were Protestants.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Dec 13, 2018 17:26:25 GMT
Morgana
You are forming a negative opinion with nothing to support it.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 13, 2018 18:10:18 GMT
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? 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. Let me tell you why I'm having difficulty believing you. The only poster I ever remember specifically (and repeatedly) calling out JWs and or JW theology was PoisonedDragon1964 (who no longer posts here as far as I can tell). Geode the Mormon occasionally did it, but usually it was in the context of defending Mormonism (which was a religion he was part of and still defends for some reason). In any case, I've seen no other widespread attacks on JWs from anyone else here, and the only time I see the subject being brought up in this context is by you. The fact that you can't seem to name any specific poster that is guilty of the charge you are making, makes your story seem...let's just say "not very credible" to me right now. You see where I'm going with that? If this was as widespread as you are suggesting, then you should have no problems pulling up numerous examples of this ever actually happening other than the two examples I gave. I can't believe that I'm actually defending CoolJGS☺ right now! But what you're doing seems like an attack with no justifiable basis. You're accusing him of doing something (via inference, which is a stretch), and failed to provide a known motivation for why he'd be doing it. You haven't even really given a specific example of him doing it, but I'll put that aside for now. The one POSSIBLE motivation you are suggesting doesn't even seem to be something that you can validate with evidence. Again, I'm not saying you are "wrong"...he may in fact be intentionally coy and misleading about this, then again you might also be reading too much into it and seeing things that aren't there. I just don't buy the argument you are using as his motive because it's based on a lot of speculation, a lot of assumptions, and no actual examples that might establish this motive. It also seems like an unusual and fruitless thing to continue badgering him about. Especially since he says so many other stupid things that are actually relevant to his beliefs. 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 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. So you're basically saying that his methodology for expressing his views creates "confusion" and you like to clear up any possible confusion that he creates by calling him out and exposing that his views align with JW views?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 13, 2018 18:16:04 GMT
Morgana
You are forming a negative opinion with nothing to support it. First of all, that's not what "bigotry" means. Bigotry is intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself (which is what YOU just did). All she did was express an opinion about why Catholocism is a denomination that doesn't appeal to her (directly related to the question). And as far as I can tell, her opinion is no more bigoted than any other opinion that you might have about any denomination that's different from the one you practice. She gave a proper basis for her opinion ( I think by calling Mary the mother of God and having all those saints, as well as priests being able to forgive sins, it's more akin to paganism), that's her opinion. You can disagree with her, and if necessary start a new conversation challenging the assertion. But simply making an assertion that informs one's feelings about a particular religious denomination is not "bigotry". Bigotry would be her saying " I don't like Catholics, and I'd never associate with a Catholic because deep down they're all just a bunch of pagans". But that's not remotely similar to what she she said.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Dec 13, 2018 19:03:35 GMT
captainbryce
1. Fight your own battles. 2. The fact that someone makes an injurious false claim, without knowing the facts = bigotry. It is prejudice. Pre-judging.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 13, 2018 19:18:15 GMT
captainbryce
1. Fight your own battles. 2. The fact that someone makes an injurious false claim, without knowing the facts = bigotry. It is prejudice. Pre-judging. 1. I am fighting my own battle right now...it's with you! 2. Nobody made any false claims, and you haven't demonstrated that this person isn't aware of specific facts. The fact that you feel injured by it is irrelevant. That doesn't make the claim bigoted or prejudice. You don't get to just make up new definitions to words because someone else's opinion hurts your feelings. The most reasonable thing for you to do would be to request clarification as to why someone holds the opinion they do, not FALSELY accuse them of being a bigot and ignoring the meaning of the word.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Dec 13, 2018 19:40:25 GMT
captainbryce My feelings were not hurt. If you feel that this is a battle, that is your problem.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 13, 2018 20:11:30 GMT
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. Let me tell you why I'm having difficulty believing you. The only poster I ever remember specifically (and repeatedly) calling out JWs and or JW theology was PoisonedDragon1964 (who no longer posts here as far as I can tell). Geode the Mormon occasionally did it, but usually it was in the context of defending Mormonism (which was a religion he was part of and still defends for some reason). In any case, I've seen no other widespread attacks on JWs from anyone else here, and the only time I see the subject being brought up in this context is by you. The fact that you can't seem to name any specific poster that is guilty of the charge you are making, makes your story seem...let's just say "not very credible" to me right now. You see where I'm going with that? If this was as widespread as you are suggesting, then you should have no problems pulling up numerous examples of this ever actually happening other than the two examples I gave. I can't believe that I'm actually defending @coolcjs right now! But what you're doing seems like an attack with no justifiable basis. You're accusing him of doing something (via inference, which is a stretch), and failed to provide a known motivation for why he'd be doing it. You haven't even really given a specific example of him doing it, but I'll put that aside for now. The one POSSIBLE motivation you are suggesting doesn't even seem to be something that you can validate with evidence. Again, I'm not saying you are "wrong"...he may in fact be intentionally coy and misleading about this, then again you might also be reading too much into it and seeing things that aren't there. I just don't buy the argument you are using as his motive because it's based on a lot of speculation, a lot of assumptions, and no actual examples that might establish this motive. It also seems like an unusual and fruitless thing to continue badgering him about. Especially since he says so many other stupid things that are actually relevant to his beliefs. 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. When I say dismissive contempt, I don't mean calling out or attacking. I just mean a negative view that some posters take when they learn that the person they're talking to is a JW (just as they might also with a Scientologist). A recent example of him being misleading (you might recall) was when he denied being a "fundamentalist", a label that certainly fits JWs, and one that also invites dismissive contempt. I made a list of Biblical accounts, and told him that his theology teaches that they actually happened as described, which qualifies anyone as a fundamentalist. He took great umbrage, but he actually disputed nothing. Not exactly "exposing that his views align with JW views". That would be if he made his views clear, and I said, "Ah-Ha! That's what the WT teaches!" I've cleared up confusion by saying what he's AVOIDING saying. (Which comes from the WT website. Btw, whenever I do that, he'll facetiously ask, "What ELSE do I believe?" But he never disputes what I say.)
Edit: Let me add that I'm not the only poster who think cooljgs is evasive when it comes to his theology. Other posters (I can't remember who) have also accused him of concealing his views beneath vague and obfuscating language.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 13, 2018 22:11:44 GMT
captainbryce My feelings were not hurt. If you feel that this is a battle, that is your problem. You implied that your feelings were hurt both with your yelling, and with your comment: "someone makes an injurious false claim". And I have no "problem" battling with you or anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 14, 2018 4:03:32 GMT
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.Based on what I know of them, Coptic.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Dec 14, 2018 4:03:49 GMT
captainbryce
Who in the hell is yelling? Crave drama, eh?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Dec 14, 2018 6:11:32 GMT
ive explained why I don’t reference my specific church. However, that in no way means that I would then lie. I keep waiting for some kind of proofs you have after I have repeatedly stated I wasn’t. If I were one of JW’s I would proudly announce it. You'd like to pretend we haven't been over this before. I can almost recite word for word what I've told you in the past, but it seems I must do it again. I have never said you are a JW. I know, formally by baptism, that you are not. On this board, that gives you a factual deniability.
When I first encountered the poster you are talking to on the old board I assumed that he was a JW because his posting was almost 100% inline with being one. His non-Trinitarian stance and other things stood out. But some years ago I seem to remember him posting that he would be a JW but was not allowed to formally be part of them. It didn't really matter to me, and at the time there were a couple of JWs posting on the board that I interfaced with more. We often agreed on the subjects at hand, in fact I only remember one disagreement I ever had with a JW, where I disagreed with them in general. This was about blood transfusions, where I think they clearly misinterpret scripture. The JW posting at the time was advocating the benefits of shunning transfusions, linking to a JW site. I think that was the only time I might have been perceived as criticizing that denomination. I was in discussions about JW missionary work and shared some similarities to the missionary program of the church I used to belong to, the Mormon church.
I have criticized the Mormons more than any other church as I do not tend to criticize other religions other than the one I grew up in and left. I feel more justified in doing so. The irony was that when I posted about the Mormons excommunicating members that were protesting some of their practices a few weeks ago only one poster defended the Mormon church and that was CoolJGS. I didn't ask, but from what he wrote it sounded as if he agreed because The Mormons and JWs are perhaps the most similar in the way the handle dissidents out of all the Christian sects.
But that reminds me of the multiple occasions I have defended the JWs when somebody was calling them a cult. The JWs posting at that time replied to me in appreciation. I consider them to be a Christian sect.
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Dec 14, 2018 6:23:30 GMT
Favorites: 1) Unitarian Universalists 2) Lutheran 3) Presbyterian 4) Episcopalian (US Anglican) 5) Methodist 6) United Church of Christ Less well liked: 7) Anglican (Church of England) 8) Seventh Day Adventist 9) Eastern Orthodox 10) Jehovah’s Witnesses 11) Latter Day Saints (Mormons) Least favorite: 12) Roman Catholic 13) Southern Baptist 14) Pentecostal 15) Christian Science This ranking pretty much does it for me, too. Except that many of the umbrella identifications have both open, affirming, and inclusive synods and the opposite, conservative. As for Lutheran, my preference of all denominations is the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America). Lutherans also have conservative denominations such as The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and Lutheran Church-Wisconsin Synod - which fill me with horror. They are conservative. The same is true for Presbyterian. My Lovely Wife and I are presently members of a PC(USA) church - Presbyterian Church (USA). There are other, more conservative (i.e. bigoted) Presbyterian synods. Presbyterianism is Calvinist in its roots. The United Church Of Christ (UCC) is another "liberal' (meaning inclusive - conservative is always EXclusive) denomination. We have been members of a UCC church before and enjoyed the experience.
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Dec 14, 2018 8:27:21 GMT
Morgana
You are forming a negative opinion with nothing to support it. I gave my reasons for feeling the way I did. You chose to ignore them. Do Catholics believe Mary is the mother of God? Are Catholic priests allowed, after listening to a person confess his/her sins, to say 'all your sins are forgiven'? Are there more saints in the Catholic church than there were Pagan gods? Don't go calling people names when you don't understand the meaning of the word.
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Dec 14, 2018 8:29:40 GMT
Since CoolJGS said his was non-denominational, I will say the same ( I thought we could only choose a denomination).
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 14, 2018 12:15:18 GMT
You'd like to pretend we haven't been over this before. I can almost recite word for word what I've told you in the past, but it seems I must do it again. I have never said you are a JW. I know, formally by baptism, that you are not. On this board, that gives you a factual deniability.
When I first encountered the poster you are talking to on the old board I assumed that he was a JW because his posting was almost 100% inline with being one. His non-Trinitarian stance and other things stood out. But some years ago I seem to remember him posting that he would be a JW but was not allowed to formally be part of them. It didn't really matter to me, and at the time there were a couple of JWs posting on the board that I interfaced with more. We often agreed on the subjects at hand, in fact I only remember one disagreement I ever had with a JW, where I disagreed with them in general. This was about blood transfusions, where I think they clearly misinterpret scripture. The JW posting at the time was advocating the benefits of shunning transfusions, linking to a JW site. I think that was the only time I might have been perceived as criticizing that denomination. I was in discussions about JW missionary work and shared some similarities to the missionary program of the church I used to belong to, the Mormon church.
I have criticized the Mormons more than any other church as I do not tend to criticize other religions other than the one I grew up in and left. I feel more justified in doing so. The irony was that when I posted about the Mormons excommunicating members that were protesting some of their practices a few weeks ago only one poster defended the Mormon church and that was CoolJGS. I didn't ask, but from what he wrote it sounded as if he agreed because The Mormons and JWs are perhaps the most similar in the way the handle dissidents out of all the Christian sects.
But that reminds me of the multiple occasions I have defended the JWs when somebody was calling them a cult. The JWs posting at that time replied to me in appreciation. I consider them to be a Christian sect.
My beliefs don't actually align with JW's which is why Isapop 'sinsistence if both funny and indicative of his ignorance of me and JW's. I am non-denominational primarily because of the trinity which I think is the most blatant misreading of Scripture out there and it is unfortunately shared by the two largest denominations since they sprout from the one. My church is a compromise as it doesn't bother putting any kind of focus on it and thus the teaching gravitates naturally toward God and Jesus being distinctly different. Anything that aligns with me and JW's is almost entirely based on Scripture interpretation because, as I said, I believe they are most accurate regarding it or at least believe it is more important to go by Scripture than by their tenets. However, NO church out there exists solely off off the Bible. They must create additional tenets and dogma in order to create an order, to abide by laws, & apply it to whatever timeframe the religion exists in. That's where they fall short imo. Everything they do has a Scriptural reason, but that doesn't mean they aren't overreaching. I defend Witnesses a lot because there's a lot of them in my family and I know them and I also know how easy it is to navigate the website which literally discusses everything about them belief wise. Me saying that Russia sucks for banning them should in no way indicate that I am one, it should indicate that Russia sucks for attacking pacifists. That said, there are worse things than being accused of being a JW. If it keeps Isapop humorous to me, he can accuse me all day long. His posts largely are "Derp! That can't be right because JW's don't think that! Derp!"
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Dec 14, 2018 12:32:00 GMT
There is no relativism in Christianity. Only absolutes. So it is impossible for any of us to consider things on a relative basis...
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 14, 2018 12:54:21 GMT
Let me tell you why I'm having difficulty believing you. The only poster I ever remember specifically (and repeatedly) calling out JWs and or JW theology was PoisonedDragon1964 (who no longer posts here as far as I can tell). Geode the Mormon occasionally did it, but usually it was in the context of defending Mormonism (which was a religion he was part of and still defends for some reason). In any case, I've seen no other widespread attacks on JWs from anyone else here, and the only time I see the subject being brought up in this context is by you. The fact that you can't seem to name any specific poster that is guilty of the charge you are making, makes your story seem...let's just say "not very credible" to me right now. You see where I'm going with that? If this was as widespread as you are suggesting, then you should have no problems pulling up numerous examples of this ever actually happening other than the two examples I gave. I can't believe that I'm actually defending @coolcjs right now! But what you're doing seems like an attack with no justifiable basis. You're accusing him of doing something (via inference, which is a stretch), and failed to provide a known motivation for why he'd be doing it. You haven't even really given a specific example of him doing it, but I'll put that aside for now. The one POSSIBLE motivation you are suggesting doesn't even seem to be something that you can validate with evidence. Again, I'm not saying you are "wrong"...he may in fact be intentionally coy and misleading about this, then again you might also be reading too much into it and seeing things that aren't there. I just don't buy the argument you are using as his motive because it's based on a lot of speculation, a lot of assumptions, and no actual examples that might establish this motive. It also seems like an unusual and fruitless thing to continue badgering him about. Especially since he says so many other stupid things that are actually relevant to his beliefs. When I say dismissive contempt, I don't mean calling out or attacking. I just mean a negative view that some posters take when they learn that the person they're talking to is a JW (just as they might also with a Scientologist). A recent example of him being misleading (you might recall) was when he denied being a "fundamentalist", a label that certainly fits JWs, and one that also invites dismissive contempt. I made a list of Biblical accounts, and told him that his theology teaches that they actually happened as described, which qualifies anyone as a fundamentalist. He took great umbrage, but he actually disputed nothing. Not exactly "exposing that his views align with JW views". That would be if he made his views clear, and I said, "Ah-Ha! That's what the WT teaches!" I've cleared up confusion by saying what he's AVOIDING saying. (Which comes from the WT website. Btw, whenever I do that, he'll facetiously ask, "What ELSE do I believe?" But he never disputes what I say.)
Edit: Let me add that I'm not the only poster who think cooljgs is evasive when it comes to his theology. Other posters (I can't remember who) have also accused him of concealing his views beneath vague and obfuscating language.
Interesting. To be honest, I haven't paid that much attention to it. I'm very open about what I believe, and what I don't believe. I've even been open about the fact that my views are malleable, and have shifted radically from one extreme to the next. I'm not sure what would motivate someone to be coy about their views on the internet.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 14, 2018 12:55:48 GMT
captainbryce
Who in the hell is yelling? Crave drama, eh? ^Tehehe
|
|