|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 14, 2018 13:01:03 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. Coincidence?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2018 13:02:20 GMT
Unitarians, because they seem to be the least assholeish about it.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 14, 2018 13:09:18 GMT
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!" So far, you've admitted that you're NOT a Trinitarian, you believe JW's have the "most accurate" reading of scripture, that there are many of them in your family, and that you've criticized Russia for banning them. Yet you simultaneously insist that your views do not align with theirs. So perhaps it would make more sense for you to simply state exactly which views of theirs do NOT align with what you believe? Out of their doctrine, which views do you not subscribe to? Because all we have to judge so far are the ways (you've given) that suggest that your views align with theirs.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 14, 2018 14:08:20 GMT
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!" So far, you've admitted that you're NOT a Trinitarian, you believe JW's have the "most accurate" reading of scripture, that there are many of them in your family, and that you've criticized Russia for banning them. Yet you simultaneously insist that your views do not align with theirs. So perhaps it would make more sense for you to simply state exactly which views of theirs do NOT align with what you believe? Out of their doctrine, which views do you not subscribe to? Because all we have to judge so far are the ways (you've given) that suggest that your views align with theirs. i thought I explained myself pretty well but 1. A religion is more than accuracy in Bible inderstanding. The application of that understanding and perhaps a few assumptions not mentioned in scripture is where JW’s and me part ways to the extent that I would never qualify. 2. Not believing the trinity is not a big deal for JW’s. It is only a core belief to the extent that they think God & Jesus were father and son. There are literally dozens of things far more important to them. Not believing the trinity is simply a case of not buying into a church teaching rather than what is easy to read in most Bibles. 3. I would criticize any country for restricting religious rights and especially when the religion in question is pacifist. I criticize European countries for banning burkas that doesn’t make me a Muslim. 4. We all have family that are parts of other religions. That in no way makes me that religion but it does make me know who make up that religion. Basically this is not a If it walks like a duck... scenario. You would have to verify way more things I say in alignment with JW’s to accurately pretend I am one.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 14, 2018 14:20:57 GMT
My church is a compromise I see that captainbryce asks you which Watchtower views do not align with your beliefs. But anything you might name may only be reasons you don't get baptized as a JW. It wouldn't mean that there is some different church you attend, the one you called "Mine but it’s non-denominational". When I asked you if this "Mine" is not JWs, you refused to answer. Your dodgy response was, " You know the answer if you read the post". Now you tell geode, "My church is a compromise", again implying that your church is not JW's. Churches all give names to themselves (Methodist, Church Of Christ, Dutch Reform, etc. etc.). What name does your church give itself? You can answer that, but I'm going to assume you won't (you could have done so in the first place instead of saying "Mine"). So here's an alternate question: When all the members of your church attend a regular service together, is it at a church other than a Kingdom Hall of JWs?
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 14, 2018 14:30:39 GMT
So far, you've admitted that you're NOT a Trinitarian, you believe JW's have the "most accurate" reading of scripture, that there are many of them in your family, and that you've criticized Russia for banning them. Yet you simultaneously insist that your views do not align with theirs. So perhaps it would make more sense for you to simply state exactly which views of theirs do NOT align with what you believe? Out of their doctrine, which views do you not subscribe to? Because all we have to judge so far are the ways (you've given) that suggest that your views align with theirs. I didn't detect in cooljgs' answer to your question anything to indicate that, while he is not officially a JW, he attends a different church.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 14, 2018 14:59:09 GMT
So far, you've admitted that you're NOT a Trinitarian, you believe JW's have the "most accurate" reading of scripture, that there are many of them in your family, and that you've criticized Russia for banning them. Yet you simultaneously insist that your views do not align with theirs. So perhaps it would make more sense for you to simply state exactly which views of theirs do NOT align with what you believe? Out of their doctrine, which views do you not subscribe to? Because all we have to judge so far are the ways (you've given) that suggest that your views align with theirs. I didn't detect in cooljgs' answer to your question anything to indicate that, while he is not officially a JW, he attends a different church. i already said I did. By definition I would not be going to a nondenominational one if I went to Kingdom Halls. But please keep lying😊
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 14, 2018 16:00:11 GMT
My church is a compromise I see that captainbryce asks you which Watchtower views do not align with your beliefs. But anything you might name may only be reasons you don't get baptized as a JW. It wouldn't mean that there is some different church you attend, the one you called "Mine but it’s non-denominational". When I asked you if this "Mine" is not JWs, you refused to answer. Your dodgy response was, " You know the answer if you read the post". Now you tell geode, "My church is a compromise", again implying that your church is not JW's. Churches all give names to themselves (Methodist, Church Of Christ, Dutch Reform, etc. etc.). What name does your church give itself? You can answer that, but I'm going to assume you won't (you could have done so in the first place instead of saying "Mine"). So here's an alternate question: When all the members of your church attend a regular service together, is it at a church other than a Kingdom Hall of JWs?
clearly you ha e never figured out what JW beliefs are if you expect me to rattle off every belief I don’t hold And again, you repeatedly lie about my church attendance. I go every Sunday at 10 but I’m not sure how that alleviates your weird and pointless paranoi about my church habits since there are plenty of Kingdom Halls that have meetings at 10. You’re such a goober
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 14, 2018 16:06:11 GMT
i thought I explained myself pretty well but Well, several of us are here to inform you that you did not. 1. A religion is more than accuracy in Bible inderstanding. The application of that understanding and perhaps a few assumptions not mentioned in scripture is where JW’s and me part ways to the extent that I would never qualify. You still haven't mentioned any specific beliefs, doctrines, or practices that you actually disagree with. Merely saying that "you disagree with some stuff" is not telling anyone what you actually believe that's different from what they believe, or what they do that you disagree with. Maybe this is what Isapop is talking about with respect to your coyness and vagueness. 2. Not believing the trinity is not a big deal for JW’s. It is only a core belief to the extent that they think God & Jesus were father and son. There are literally dozens of things far more important to them. Not believing the trinity is simply a case of not buying into a church teaching rather than what is easy to read in most Bibles. I'm aware of that. None of this answers my actual question so far. 3. I would criticize any country for restricting religious rights and especially when the religion in question is pacifist. I criticize European countries for banning burkas that doesn’t make me a Muslim. Fine, then your previous assertion that you defend JWs is no more meaningful than saying you defend Muslims. 4. We all have family that are parts of other religions. That in no way makes me that religion but it does make me know who make up that religion. Basically this is not a If it walks like a duck... scenario. You would have to verify way more things I say in alignment with JW’s to accurately pretend I am one. As meticulous as this post was, you still haven't actually answered the question. Which makes me suspect more and more that you're a liar and that Isapop's assessment of you was correct.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 14, 2018 16:27:48 GMT
i thought I explained myself pretty well but Well, several of us are here to inform you that you did not. 1. A religion is more than accuracy in Bible inderstanding. The application of that understanding and perhaps a few assumptions not mentioned in scripture is where JW’s and me part ways to the extent that I would never qualify. You still haven't mentioned any specific beliefs, doctrines, or practices that you actually disagree with. Merely saying that "you disagree with some stuff" is not telling anyone what you actually believe that's different from what they believe, or what they do that you disagree with. Maybe this is what Isapop is talking about with respect to your coyness and vagueness. 2. Not believing the trinity is not a big deal for JW’s. It is only a core belief to the extent that they think God & Jesus were father and son. There are literally dozens of things far more important to them. Not believing the trinity is simply a case of not buying into a church teaching rather than what is easy to read in most Bibles. I'm aware of that. None of this answers my actual question so far. 3. I would criticize any country for restricting religious rights and especially when the religion in question is pacifist. I criticize European countries for banning burkas that doesn’t make me a Muslim. Fine, then your previous assertion that you defend JWs is no more meaningful than saying you defend Muslims. 4. We all have family that are parts of other religions. That in no way makes me that religion but it does make me know who make up that religion. Basically this is not a If it walks like a duck... scenario. You would have to verify way more things I say in alignment with JW’s to accurately pretend I am one. As meticulous as this post was, you still haven't actually answered the question. Which makes me suspect more and more that you're a liar and that Isapop's assessment of you was correct. Im never going to discuss specific beliefs in relation to a specific religion for several reasons of which I’ll list a few: 1. My very common mantra here is to pwn theophobiacs largely on the basis of treating the Bible as a work of fiction in order to reveal how wrong their reading of it is. It shows they are never read it in the first place and that humors me. 2. My beliefs are a mix of Biblical, dogma, and personal opinion where religion doesn’t address a matter. There would be no way to surmise from these thing what religion teaches all of those because a religion like that doesn’t exist. I would never have my church judged on the basis of my actions and views. 3. If you want challenge come at me as I would never even remotely pretend I have the ability to carry a religion on my shoulders. I think that disagreeing with some stuff is a perfect statement to verify you don’t belong to the religion. Again it would be nice to know why ones think I would avoid wanting to identify with JW’s in He first place. Theiphobiacs always start at the middle of an argument which is strange for champions of logic and science. Answer the why regarding suspicions. Saying “Derp! You aren’t writing your biography is proof you are a JW! Derp!” doesn’t cut it.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Dec 14, 2018 16:30:04 GMT
So far, you've admitted that you're NOT a Trinitarian, you believe JW's have the "most accurate" reading of scripture, that there are many of them in your family, and that you've criticized Russia for banning them. Yet you simultaneously insist that your views do not align with theirs. So perhaps it would make more sense for you to simply state exactly which views of theirs do NOT align with what you believe? Out of their doctrine, which views do you not subscribe to? Because all we have to judge so far are the ways (you've given) that suggest that your views align with theirs. i thought I explained myself pretty well but 1. A religion is more than accuracy in Bible inderstanding. The application of that understanding and perhaps a few assumptions not mentioned in scripture is where JW’s and me part ways to the extent that I would never qualify. 2. Not believing the trinity is not a big deal for JW’s. It is only a core belief to the extent that they think God & Jesus were father and son. There are literally dozens of things far more important to them. Not believing the trinity is simply a case of not buying into a church teaching rather than what is easy to read in most Bibles. 3. I would criticize any country for restricting religious rights and especially when the religion in question is pacifist. I criticize European countries for banning burkas that doesn’t make me a Muslim. 4. We all have family that are parts of other religions. That in no way makes me that religion but it does make me know who make up that religion. Basically this is not a If it walks like a duck... scenario. You would have to verify way more things I say in alignment with JW’s to accurately pretend I am one. ^^^ The reticence to simply state where he fits in the denominational scheme would almost suggest that he's ashamed of it.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 14, 2018 16:33:01 GMT
I see that captainbryce asks you which Watchtower views do not align with your beliefs. But anything you might name may only be reasons you don't get baptized as a JW. It wouldn't mean that there is some different church you attend, the one you called "Mine but it’s non-denominational". When I asked you if this "Mine" is not JWs, you refused to answer. Your dodgy response was, " You know the answer if you read the post". Now you tell geode , "My church is a compromise", again implying that your church is not JW's. Churches all give names to themselves (Methodist, Church Of Christ, Dutch Reform, etc. etc.). What name does your church give itself? You can answer that, but I'm going to assume you won't (you could have done so in the first place instead of saying "Mine"). So here's an alternate question: When all the members of your church attend a regular service together, is it at a church other than a Kingdom Hall of JWs?
And again, you repeatedly lie about my church attendance. I go every Sunday at 10 but I’m not sure how that alleviates your weird and pointless paranoi about my church habits since there are plenty of Kingdom Halls that have meetings at 10. Lie about your church attendance? I've made no assertions at all about your church attendance (for all I know, you might never attend). My question was, "When all the members of your church attend a regular service together, is it at a church other than a Kingdom Hall of JWs?" If the true answer was "Yes", you could have easily said so without revealing anything about your own church (except that it's not JW). But you dodge it again. On this board you want to create a distance between yourself and JWs. Not being a baptized member (a clever decision on your part, given their policies about shunning), affords you that opportunity. You'd like posters here to think you belong to some different church. But you dodge any questions that would differentiate this so-called other church from JWs. And whenever I use JW.org to clarify for some other poster what you mean when you make some vague theological statement, you try to be dismissive, but you never dispute what I say. A few of us on this board, including an official JW, understand that you associate with JWs without being an official member. There's nothing that anyone on this board would find wrong with that. Too bad you just can't be honest about it.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 14, 2018 16:39:01 GMT
i thought I explained myself pretty well but 1. A religion is more than accuracy in Bible inderstanding. The application of that understanding and perhaps a few assumptions not mentioned in scripture is where JW’s and me part ways to the extent that I would never qualify. 2. Not believing the trinity is not a big deal for JW’s. It is only a core belief to the extent that they think God & Jesus were father and son. There are literally dozens of things far more important to them. Not believing the trinity is simply a case of not buying into a church teaching rather than what is easy to read in most Bibles. 3. I would criticize any country for restricting religious rights and especially when the religion in question is pacifist. I criticize European countries for banning burkas that doesn’t make me a Muslim. 4. We all have family that are parts of other religions. That in no way makes me that religion but it does make me know who make up that religion. Basically this is not a If it walks like a duck... scenario. You would have to verify way more things I say in alignment with JW’s to accurately pretend I am one. ^^^ The reticence to simply state where he fits in the denominational scheme would almost suggest that he's ashamed of it. Lets think logically about this. If I actually mirrored the beliefs of a particular denomination then why would I be ashamed of said denomination? Wouldn’t the far more logical answer be that I’m reticent to state where I fit because I don’t in fact fit in a large denomination at all which is what I’ve already said and thus am not reticent at all about it? Logic boggles the mind sometimes...
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 14, 2018 16:40:06 GMT
And again, you repeatedly lie about my church attendance. I go every Sunday at 10 but I’m not sure how that alleviates your weird and pointless paranoi about my church habits since there are plenty of Kingdom Halls that have meetings at 10. Lie about your church attendance? I've made no assertions at all about your church attendance (for all I know, you might never attend). My question was, "When all the members of your church attend a regular service together, is it at a church other than a Kingdom Hall of JWs?" If the true answer was "No", you could have easily said so without revealing anything about your own church (except that it's not JW). But you dodge it again. On this board you want to create a distance between yourself and JWs. Not being a baptized member (a clever decision on your part, given their policies about shunning), affords you that opportunity. You'd like posters here to think you belong to some different church. But you dodge any questions that would differentiate this so-called other church from JWs. And whenever I use JW.org to clarify for some other poster what you mean when you make some vague theological statement, you try to be dismissive, but you never dispute what I say. A few of us on this board, including an official JW, understand that you associate with JWs without being an official member. There's nothing that anyone on this board would find wrong with that. Too bad you just can't be honest about it.
Thats a lot of typing. Again why would it be at a Kingdom Hall?
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 14, 2018 16:46:21 GMT
Lie about your church attendance? I've made no assertions at all about your church attendance (for all I know, you might never attend). My question was, "When all the members of your church attend a regular service together, is it at a church other than a Kingdom Hall of JWs?" If the true answer was "No", you could have easily said so without revealing anything about your own church (except that it's not JW). But you dodge it again. On this board you want to create a distance between yourself and JWs. Not being a baptized member (a clever decision on your part, given their policies about shunning), affords you that opportunity. You'd like posters here to think you belong to some different church. But you dodge any questions that would differentiate this so-called other church from JWs. And whenever I use JW.org to clarify for some other poster what you mean when you make some vague theological statement, you try to be dismissive, but you never dispute what I say. A few of us on this board, including an official JW, understand that you associate with JWs without being an official member. There's nothing that anyone on this board would find wrong with that. Too bad you just can't be honest about it.
Thats a lot of typing. Again why would it be at a Kingdom Hall? And again more evasiveness from you.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 14, 2018 16:50:21 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.
Im not sure I said they are my favorite. They are the most scripturally accurate. In other words, if you were to pick any non-cherry picked verses in scripture, it is more likely than not best told from a JW perspective. That may have little to do with whether their modern day spin on beliefs in connection to that accuracy is accurate itself. Anyway, despite the many positives they have and the unity they display, I don’t know if I would ever consider a group as strict as they are to be my favorite. Heck, I wouldn’t even be able to watch Game of Thrones.😩
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 14, 2018 16:51:45 GMT
^^^ The reticence to simply state where he fits in the denominational scheme would almost suggest that he's ashamed of it. Not shame. But as I said to captainbyrce, my guess is that he'd rather avoid the dismissive contempt that many posters have for JWs (as they might for Scientologists). 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 14, 2018 17:47:12 GMT
Well, several of us are here to inform you that you did not. You still haven't mentioned any specific beliefs, doctrines, or practices that you actually disagree with. Merely saying that "you disagree with some stuff" is not telling anyone what you actually believe that's different from what they believe, or what they do that you disagree with. Maybe this is what Isapop is talking about with respect to your coyness and vagueness. I'm aware of that. None of this answers my actual question so far. Fine, then your previous assertion that you defend JWs is no more meaningful than saying you defend Muslims. As meticulous as this post was, you still haven't actually answered the question. Which makes me suspect more and more that you're a liar and that Isapop's assessment of you was correct. Im never going to discuss specific beliefs in relation to a specific religion for several reasons of which I’ll list a few: 1. My very common mantra here is to pwn theophobiacs largely on the basis of treating the Bible as a work of fiction in order to reveal how wrong their reading of it is. It shows they are never read it in the first place and that humors me. 2. My beliefs are a mix of Biblical, dogma, and personal opinion where religion doesn’t address a matter. There would be no way to surmise from these thing what religion teaches all of those because a religion like that doesn’t exist. I would never have my church judged on the basis of my actions and views. 3. If you want challenge come at me as I would never even remotely pretend I have the ability to carry a religion on my shoulders. I think that disagreeing with some stuff is a perfect statement to verify you don’t belong to the religion. Considering that nobody here believes you, you've obviously mistaken. It isn't! I was even willing to give you the benefit of the doubt in the beginning of the discussion, but with what you've just wrote, I firmly believe that you are completely full of shit right now and essentially just making all of this up as you go along. It's such an absurd argument, I doubt whether even YOU believe it. In accordance with the principle of Occam's Razor think you lean Jehovah's Witness and (for reasons that shall apparently remain a mystery) are just ashamed to admit it. And the one person here who has convinced me of that was YOU. Again it would be nice to know why ones think I would avoid wanting to identify with JW’s in He first place. I'm sure it would. Just as it would be nice for everyone else here if you were actually an honest poster. But since you're not and you have no intention of ever being open and honest about your beliefs, then you're probably never going to resolve why everyone else things you have a JW ideology. Because the only thing you're willing to do is give everyone a reason to think you have a JW ideology, and then claim that you don't have one expecting everyone to just accept that with no elaboration.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 14, 2018 17:53:11 GMT
^^^ The reticence to simply state where he fits in the denominational scheme would almost suggest that he's ashamed of it. Lets think logically about this. If I actually mirrored the beliefs of a particular denomination then why would I be ashamed of said denomination? There could be MANY possible reasons for this (the list is too long to speculate about). But since you're not willing to discuss what you actually believe, your attempt at a logical exercise becomes pointless. Speculation is not evidence; it also doesn't quell suspicions. Wouldn’t the far more logical answer be that I’m reticent to state where I fit because I don’t in fact fit in a large denomination at all which is what I’ve already said and thus am not reticent at all about it? No, that isn't logical at all. Because nobody fucking asked you which denomination you fit into! The question is, what do you disagree with about specific denomination's doctrine? And you can't answer that! So the logical thing to assume in that case is that you're ashamed to admit aspects of their ideology that you agree with, or ashamed of the fact that you don't disagree with enough of it to convince people that you're not lock step with that denomination. Logic boggles the mind sometimes... For you I'm sure it does!
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 14, 2018 17:56:15 GMT
^^^ The reticence to simply state where he fits in the denominational scheme would almost suggest that he's ashamed of it. Not shame. But as I said to captainbyrce, my guess is that he'd rather avoid the dismissive contempt that many posters have for JWs (as they might for Scientologists). And even though he's not officially a JW, making his non-formal association with them widely known would still invite that contempt. The irony here is that while I was totally skeptical of your claims at first, he's done nothing but justify your position. He's the one who actually convinced me that your suspicions are right on. So I take back what I said earlier. At this point, I agree with you 100%.
|
|