|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 14, 2018 18:42:37 GMT
Lol
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 14, 2018 19:45:56 GMT
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%. If we could see the old board again, with some of the exchanges that included JW elder Tas (now looking4klingons) there would never be any doubts to begin with.
Did you notice the post from Aj_June . In his tally he wrote this: "Cooljgs: Fav is non-denomination (which is his own interpretation). Among established ones his fav is JW." So he inferred that Cooljgs fav was separate from JW. That's the inference Cooljgs was hoping people would make.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 14, 2018 19:50:43 GMT
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%. If we could see the old board again, with some of the exchanges that included JW elder Tas (now looking4klingons) there would never be any doubts to begin with.
Did you notice the post from The Herald Erjen . In his tally he wrote this: "Cooljgs: Fav is non-denomination (which is his own interpretation). Among established ones his fav is JW." So he inferred that Cooljgs fav was separate from JW. That's the inference Cooljgs was hoping people would make.
You won’t see any such thing. What I posted then is what I post now. Rabbit would have provided evidence for you to the contrary. But you win. Just like I had to admit to being gay when Bruce was around, I will now admit to being one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.😊 JW.org rules
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 14, 2018 19:59:54 GMT
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%. If we could see the old board again, with some of the exchanges that included JW elder Tas (now looking4klingons) there would never be any doubts to begin with.
Did you notice the post from The Herald Erjen . In his tally he wrote this: "Cooljgs: Fav is non-denomination (which is his own interpretation). Among established ones his fav is JW." So he inferred that Cooljgs fav was separate from JW. That's the inference Cooljgs was hoping people would make.
Are you sure I'm the one who wrote that?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 14, 2018 20:02:43 GMT
If we could see the old board again, with some of the exchanges that included JW elder Tas (now looking4klingons) there would never be any doubts to begin with.
Did you notice the post from The Herald Erjen . In his tally he wrote this: "Cooljgs: Fav is non-denomination (which is his own interpretation). Among established ones his fav is JW." So he inferred that Cooljgs fav was separate from JW. That's the inference Cooljgs was hoping people would make.
Are you sure I'm the one who wrote that? aj said something similar so you may have been replying to him. Isapop isn’t one to let details get in the way of a dumb argument.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 14, 2018 20:11:14 GMT
Are you sure I'm the one who wrote that? aj said something similar so you may have been replying to him. Isapop isn’t one to let details get in the way of a dumb argument. Well, hopefully Isapop isn't one to refuse to admit that he dropped the ball. I may have had some less-than-complimentary criticisms of you, brother, but that didn't look like something I would write.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 14, 2018 20:13:10 GMT
aj said something similar so you may have been replying to him. Isapop isn’t one to let details get in the way of a dumb argument. Well, hopefully Isapop isn't one to refuse to admit that he dropped the ball. I may have had some less-than-complimentary criticisms of you, brother, but that didn't look like something I would write. well be careful. I saw your comment about the flag on the other board and that’s a sure fire way to convince Isapop you’re a JW
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 14, 2018 20:15:16 GMT
Well, hopefully Isapop isn't one to refuse to admit that he dropped the ball. I may have had some less-than-complimentary criticisms of you, brother, but that didn't look like something I would write. well be careful. I saw your comment about the flag on the other board and that’s a sure fire way to convince Isapop you’re a JW Thanks for the heads-up. The OP didn't say which flag, so he was probably taking a swipe at nationalism in general.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 14, 2018 20:36:40 GMT
Now that I’m one of Jehovahs Witnesses I would like to clarify my answer.
Obvious Jehovah Witnesses appeal to me most and no other group as all other Christian religions are a part of Christendom which is a part of false religion aka Babylon the Great.
I don’t know what I was smoking when I said the other things since I’m literally not allowed to smoke anything this side of a ham.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 14, 2018 20:56:13 GMT
If we could see the old board again, with some of the exchanges that included JW elder Tas (now looking4klingons) there would never be any doubts to begin with.
Did you notice the post from The Herald Erjen . In his tally he wrote this: "Cooljgs: Fav is non-denomination (which is his own interpretation). Among established ones his fav is JW." So he inferred that Cooljgs fav was separate from JW. That's the inference Cooljgs was hoping people would make.
Are you sure I'm the one who wrote that? Oh yes, you were only quoting aj june. Sorry about that. I'll correct my post. (At least it doesn't change the point being made.)
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 14, 2018 20:57:37 GMT
Are you sure I'm the one who wrote that? Oh yes, you were only quoting anjune. Sorry about that. I'll correct my post. (At least it doesn't change the point being made.) No harm done, Isapop.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 14, 2018 21:02:26 GMT
If we could see the old board again, with some of the exchanges that included JW elder Tas (now looking4klingons) there would never be any doubts to begin with.
Did you notice the post from Aj_June . In his tally he wrote this: "Cooljgs: Fav is non-denomination (which is his own interpretation). Among established ones his fav is JW." So he inferred that Cooljgs fav was separate from JW. That's the inference Cooljgs was hoping people would make.
But you win. Just like I had to admit to being gay when Bruce was around, I will now admit to being one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.😊 But no one, especially not me, has said that you are (I have said repeatedly that I know you are not). So, your deceptive post here might succeed in fooling the casual reader of this thread. But it won't fool anyone who was paying closer attention.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Dec 16, 2018 13:34:17 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!"
I am currently non-denominational as well. I think that although scripture is somewhat mixed as to the Trinity, that predominantly it indicates that God (as in the Father) and Jesus are separate. But I don't think that the New World translation is the best in terms of interpreting scripture. As I said, the JW interpretation about receiving blood transfusions is clearly wrong.
True, every church creates their own practices and theology to some extent. I find it difficult to argue against a pacifist stand. I understand defending JWs when unfairly attacked. I have done it myself and I am clearly not a JW. I do not feel it bad to be called a JW.
One can identify anyway they wish in terms of religious affiliation. Although non-denominational I do not regularly attend services as you do, and I am comfortable with worshiping with many Christian denominations even though I do not believe portions of their beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 16, 2018 14:19:07 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!"
I am currently non-denominational as well. I think that although scripture is somewhat mixed as to the Trinity, that predominantly it indicates that God (as in the Father) and Jesus are separate. But I don't think that the New World translation is the best in terms of interpreting scripture. As I said, the JW interpretation about receiving blood transfusions is clearly wrong.
True, every church creates their own practices and theology to some extent. I find it difficult to argue against a pacifist stand. I understand defending JWs when unfairly attacked. I have done it myself and I am clearly not a JW. I do not feel it bad to be called a JW.
One can identify anyway they wish in terms of religious affiliation. Although non-denominational I do not regularly attend services as you do, and I am comfortable with worshiping with many Christian denominations even though I do not believe portions of their beliefs.
Well, the not partaking blood is not a Bible interpretation from the NWT. It's in every Bible and they perhaps overreach to include transfusions. However, because of their stance, they have helped science and medicine by insisting on substitutes, so much so that I can request them and not be looked out weird. That's advancement. I personally find transfusion to be archaic. I'll take one of I have to, but nowadays I would not have to. The part I don't get is when Christians eat something like a blood sausage as any interpretation should involve avoiding actual consumption, but I assume their religion has that covered in some way. Overall the NWT is the best Bible to read and especially the latest iteration, but person who is interested in the Bible should be aware of a few translation. I don;t have a problem with interfaith stuff, but I can't worship what I don't believe so I avoid group prayers and whatnot unless they are extremely generic or primarily Bible based. So I would not participate in the Apostles' Creed.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Dec 16, 2018 17:04:31 GMT
Another thing about Unitarian Universalism: Are they really considered Christians? When I took the belief-o-matic tests for the first time (in 2004, I think), I got a high compatibility with Unitarian Universalism; a religion/belief I had not heard of before. I had heard of Unitarians, who are Christians who reject the Trinity. But when I informed myself about Unitarian Universalism, they self-describe themselves as having roots in Unitarianism; but not being specifically Christian. Which is why I didn't mention them in my favorites. In my opinion they are not Christians. But according to belief-o-matic I have more in common with them (91%) then with liberal Quakerism (73%) or liberal Christian Protestantism (65%). belief-o-matic also says I have 100% compatibility with Secular Humanism. They are probably not wrong.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Dec 16, 2018 17:52:59 GMT
Another thing about Unitarian Universalism: Are they really considered Christians? When I took the belief-o-matic tests for the first time (in 2004, I think), I got a high compatibility with Unitarian Universalism; a religion/belief I had not heard of before. I had heard of Unitarians, who are Christians who reject the Trinity. But when I informed myself about Unitarian Universalism, they self-describe themselves as having roots in Unitarianism; but not being specifically Christian. Which is why I didn't mention them in my favorites. In my opinion they are not Christians. But according to belief-o-matic I have more in common with them (91%) then with liberal Quakerism (73%) or liberal Christian Protestantism (65%). belief-o-matic also says I have 100% compatibility with Secular Humanism. They are probably not wrong. Unitarian Universalism is more of an offshoot of Christianity, than a sect of Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by looking4klingons on Dec 17, 2018 23:19:56 GMT
“The part I don't get is when Christians eat something like a blood sausage as any interpretation should involve avoiding actual consumption, but I assume their religion has that covered in some way.”
The thing is, (for example) many religious people, like Baptists, are taught to avoid alcohol. When you ask, “Is drinking alcohol really condemned by the Scriptures? Didn’t the Apostle Paul tell Timothy to take some wine for his stomach?”
They’ll automatically say, “Well, that was for his health.” So...if their health is involved, they can disregard — what they think — is God’s Law?
That’s what they’re basically saying. Then if their very life is threatened, how much so? And “needing” a blood transfusion always indicates a life-threatening situation! Their religious leaders are saying, “God will understand”! Revelation 2:10b is thus ignored. Cf.1 Samuel 15:22....IOW, you can’t substitute anything in place of obedience.
|
|
|
Post by looking4klingons on Dec 17, 2018 23:24:35 GMT
Mine but it’s non-denominational I think JW’s are most accurate Scripturally, but add too many of their own tenets. I might like Lutheran if I ever went to a service. Mega church ones in Lexington seem to be fairly lenient. Aren’t Lutherans, Trinitarian?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 17, 2018 23:35:50 GMT
Mine but it’s non-denominational I think JW’s are most accurate Scripturally, but add too many of their own tenets. I might like Lutheran if I ever went to a service. Mega church ones in Lexington seem to be fairly lenient. Aren’t Lutherans, Trinitarian? I wouldn't become Lutheran, they just seem like nice folk.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2018 18:03:08 GMT
Like: the one that was present among believers in and during Acts 2:42
Dislike: all others
|
|