by Amazing 63 Replies latest jw friends
Well Amazing you have been through a lot and are only human. I wish you well, Catholic Church association or not.
My lack of enthusiasm for the religious teachings of the Catholic Church have nothing to do with what I was taught as a JW.
It's the existence of the position of Pope, the priests who are not permitted to marry, the horrendous history of child molestation and cover up, and the past church history of forcing people to believe or at least submit.
Renee:
If you decide to let someone interpret the Bible for me, than any one of them could be right.
Hence the tradition of following in our parents footsteps. It has been challenged over the last hundred years, but nowadays folks are more inclined to go with their gut than to actually do any research. This thread has been a case in point, when it comes to 2000+ years of history and theology. So often folks read a precis of a subject and believe themselves informed (and I have to confess to falling into that kind of sloppy malaise myself from time to time). Ah, the Google generation...
Amazing
Why do people feel that they need to tell me where I went wrong?
Errrr.... you said;
I am sharing my views given the questions I get when I do post about belief in God or my association with the Catholic Church.
Which part of sharing precludes discussion? If I shared my views and you thought they were contradictory, you'd be free to comment or not as you wished. I would not be free to feign surprise that someone should question my views when I am airing them publicly on a discussion board. Well, I would but it would be nonsensical.
There is no comparison between the Catholic Church and the Watchtower Society.
So you say, however, I say an organization that practices forms of punishment such as "latae sententiae" or "ferendae sententiae" for 'wrong doings' which are not 'wrong doings' if you look at what the Bible has to say is remarkably comparable to one that "DA's" or "DF's" people for 'wrong doings' which are not 'wrong doings' if you look at what the Bible has to say. Thus I find your assertion (they are not comparable) unfounded.
Rather the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are the historic Church.
Yes and, so, what? Why is it a good thing that they have been making doctrinal errors and fabrications longer than anyone else?
Some of the rest appear combative when there is really nothing to fight about.
This is a discussion; if being asked questions or being asked to back-up your assertions is 'combative', heaven help us all.
If I stated that Barnes FC were the 'historic' football club, and that the rules of the football (soccer) and rugby were not comparable, the first statement would 'mean' precisely nothing in a modern context as to 'authenticity', and the second statement would be just wrong; someone pointing that out would not be combative.
Just because your beliefs are religious does not make questioning them combative. Play fair. I understand you make no statements as to exclusivity of 'rightness' of the RC. What I question is you in your new search for a faith identifying so strongly with a organization that has many faults and non-scriptural beliefs, and (harmful) similarities with an organization you have previously associated with and left due to its harmful organizational practises and non-scriptural beliefs. It maketh not sense, at least to me.
Abaddon,
Okay, let me clarify things a bit better ... and maybe this will finally be it.
Errrr.... you said; "I am sharing my views given the questions I get when I do post about belief in God or my association with the Catholic Church." ... Which part of sharing precludes discussion? If I shared my views and you thought they were contradictory, you'd be free to comment or not as you wished. I would not be free to feign surprise that someone should question my views when I am airing them publicly on a discussion board. Well, I would but it would be nonsensical.
Errrr ... you left out the preceding sentence reads as follows: "By way of reminder, my posting on "Faith in God and the Church" is not meant to convert anyone, because I have been out of the preaching business now for 14-years. I am sharing my views given the questions I get when I do post about belief in God or my association with the Catholic Church." Context suggest that I intend no debate in a nice way. I am not debating an issue, I am merely sharing an experience that led to a decision. An experience is a snapshot of history, and is merely objective fact. Sharing can be, and often is a one-way act. If I share my lunch with someone who cares to eat, I do not intend to have them argue with me about how sandwiches are made.
Jim W. said: "There is no comparison between the Catholic Church and the Watchtower Society." To which you responded: "So you say, however, I say an organization that practices forms of punishment such as "latae sententiae" or "ferendae sententiae" for 'wrong doings' which are not 'wrong doings' if you look at what the Bible has to say is remarkably comparable to one that "DA's" or "DF's" people for 'wrong doings' which are not 'wrong doings' if you look at what the Bible has to say. Thus I find your assertion (they are not comparable) unfounded."
Again you place importance on the NT Bible, I nor longer do. However, if you want some real juicy stuff with which to choke on regarding the RCC, read this from their own New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm have fun. Notwithstanding what the Church reserves to itself based on its long history of nearly 2,000 years, and varied issues that led to such rules, the incident of excomunication is a rare event in the RCC. I have never known in my 55-years of any RCC person being excommunicated. And they are quick to forgive and forget. Excommunication is Biblical if you are looking to the NT as your sole source of authority, and an infrequent event, which the Church mirrors. Much unlike the Watchtower Society where we had DFings about one or twice every two or three months in the 9 congregations I was associated during my 25-years with it. For example, were a Catholic to strike the Pope or shoot him as the Turk fellow did 26 years ago, yes a Catholic would likely be excommunicated ... but if he/she repented, they woujld be forgiven very easily, as was the Turk man whom Pope John Paul II did. You will have to do better than this.
Jim W. said: "Rather the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are the historic Church." To which you replied: "Yes and, so, what? Why is it a good thing that they have been making doctrinal errors and fabrications longer than anyone else?"
First, my point that I have repeated to others in this thread is that I am only speaking of objective historic fact. I made no other inferrence. The issues since have been raised by others like yourself. You speak of doctrinal error, but you do not detail what errors are involved. Name a few, and try not to echo the nonsense the Watchtower uses ... because I will hammer it down and demonstrate the intellectual dishonesty.
This is a discussion; if being asked questions or being asked to back-up your assertions is 'combative', heaven help us all.
I shared an experience to answer questions I receive because amny have wondered why the decision. Then, when I share it somehow turns into a combat zone. Questions are one thing. But telling me as did, say Mike S. that the RCC is a whore like the Watchtower is not my idea of discussion questions. Now if someone is still unclear on why I reconciled with the Church, and then asked me to clear up a point ... great. But, I am being told how wrong I am at the get-go, before I can answer anything. I do not sit here and tell others how wrong they are for being baptists (who supported slavery ... and I could go on and on about the Presbyterians, Angleicans, Pentecostals, etc. etc.) I nice share a personal experience to which shades of Watchtower-styled arguements are presented as though I were promooting Catholicism ... to which my opening paragraph clearly said that I was not preaching.
But, if you want to have a debate ... then by all means, let's hash it out! But let me start a new thread.
If I stated that Barnes FC were the 'historic' football club, and that the rules of the football (soccer) and rugby were not comparable, the first statement would 'mean' precisely nothing in a modern context as to 'authenticity', and the second statement would be just wrong; someone pointing that out would not be combative.
If Barnes FC (whomever they are) had been appointed by Jesus Christ as the guardian of the rules and game of football, perhaps the historic connection might take on a new dimension. But, let's leave that for another debate and a new thread.
Just because your beliefs are religious does not make questioning them combative. Play fair.
True, except when I intended no debate or discussion, and clearly stated throughout my thread that I was only sharing my experience, and had no intention of converting, preaching, or debating ... as I am doing again in this response. I am not afraid of questions and debate ... and anyone who knows my history on this forum and H20 knows well that I have been in the thick of things with the best of them. I was avoiding debating Catholicism on this forum precisely because it is mostly intended as an ex-JW forum. I was trying to be respectful. But, as I noted above, I will debate if you really want to.
I understand you make no statements as to exclusivity of 'rightness' of the RC. What I question is you in your new search for a faith identifying so strongly with a organization that has many faults and non-scriptural beliefs, and (harmful) similarities with an organization you have previously associated with and left due to its harmful organizational practises and non-scriptural beliefs. It maketh not sense, at least to me.
If you accept your first statement in the above paragraph, then the subsequent comments are irrelevant. However, I was not in search of a faith ... I was raised Roman Catholic, and my faith in Jesus Christ alone is my salvation is not impacted by any Church I associate. This is a Catholic and Orthodox position, as Pope John Paul II said, "It is all about Jesus." Reconciling with the RCC was merely an act of going home ... not an act of searching out and discovering a faith. It is confortable for me ... and the day that it is not, I will leave and go elsewhere or nowhere as I was for the last 14-years. My faith in Jesus Christ will remain regardless.
Again, you claim non-scriptural beliefs as an issue ... but which ones?
And of what harmful similarities do you speak?
Please, do not answer on this thread. Please respond on my new thread called, "Let's Have it Out"
Jim Whitney
