Judaism...Islam...Christianity...and now the Watchtower religion

by Terry 19 Replies latest watchtower bible

glenster

There are some points in these posts but the big swipes against whole groups of
believers, attributing whole groups with the worst behavior of some, reminds
me of the JWs writers. I'd feel strongest about agreeing with the criticisms
about the believers or non-believers for getting too 'centric about others,
because that's where the most harm starts, but I can't because it sounds that
way itself. Not messing with the facts doesn't just mean not sayng the world is
6,000 years old, it also means not propagandizing against others.
"The Catholic Church plunged into the INQUISITION"
"The Spanish Inquisition resulted in 3,230 deaths in three and a half cen-
turies. And then, in the single year of 1936, Spanish atheists murdered 6,832
members of the Catholic clergy -- 'more than twice the number of the victims of
345 years of inquisition.'"
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=1108-gardiner
"Rejecting science almost wrecked the Catholic Church"
Too broad. Many of that faith and others understand faith as such, and it
shouldn't harm their ability to contribute to science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science
"...they have been compatible for centuries, both before and after the Galileo
incident, which he sees as exaggerated by the Church's enemies. The enemies of
religion prefer to forget that, in 1794, revolutionary atheists inspired by the
Enlightenment beheaded Antoine Lavoisier, the father of modern chemistry."
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=1108-gardiner
It reminds me of the end of Religulous. I agree with some of the points,
but they only seem to have been meant to substantiate the editorial at the end
where Bill proposes what amounts to a conservative literalist atheist Armaged-
don--the world would be good if we could just get rid of everyone different than
me (even religious moderates because they support the extremists). If I'd stand
shoulder to shoulder with him and criticize, it would be to criticize extreme
'centric stances, but I can't because he's making the same kind of stance
himself and doesn't seem to realize how ironic he's being.
"It is the radical who gets things done and changes the world."
Positively in progressing with something beneficial and in the world's worst
problems in rousing people with "hooray for us, bash them" PR.
"A 'moderate' person is a fence-sitter who doesn't get involved in
controversy. This renders them ineffective at combatting any evils interior or
exterior." "A moderate Jehovah's Witness keeps their mouth shut for fear of
reprisal just as a moderate Muslim does." "They don't count for anything as a
force for renewal or change." "Just my two cents."
Fairly priced. This is the radical new type of change? Some things never
change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHD0ZdhtmSQ
moshe

For Judaism, in the 1st Century, Jews either clung to the sacrificial system of Priests or formed Messianic apocalyptic cults or went off into the desert away from everybody and everything.
Terry, is this your opinion? When he Temple was destroyed the Levites couldn't collect the 10% tithe (taxes) any longer- now what Jew would cry about that? There is some truth to the fact that some cults did form, but their activities brought down the Roman army on them and over 900 Jewish villages were destroyed in one campaign alone to wipe out all the opposition. Most Jews ended up as slaves or fled to other lands during that era. They finally gained respect when they took over the banking systems of Christendom.
The centralized Temple Priesthood system would have collapsed anyway as the increasing Jewish population outstripped the available animals for sacrifices.
Terry

Glenster says: There are some points in these posts but the big swipes against whole groups of
believers, attributing whole groups with the worst behavior of some, reminds
me of the JWs writers.
Terry: "The Catholic Church plunged into the INQUISITION"
Glenster: "The Spanish Inquisition resulted in 3,230 deaths in three and a half cen-
turies. And then, in the single year of 1936, Spanish atheists murdered 6,832
members of the Catholic clergy -- 'more than twice the number of the victims of
345 years of inquisition.'"
Reply by Terry: I wonder what you are thinking? Justifying bad behavior by pointing to worse behavior is hardly a valid point. When Atheists do bad things they do so individually out of personal animus. When the Catholic Church institutionally commits to a program of torture based conversion---well, surely you must see there is no moral equivalency in your example!!
Terry: "Rejecting science almost wrecked the Catholic Church"
Glenster: Too broad. Many of that faith and others understand faith as such, and it
shouldn't harm their ability to contribute to science.
Terry reply: Once again you miss the point of the discussion. The Catholic Church was the SOLE MONOLITHIC christian institution on earth entrusted with providing correct guidance (orthodoxy) for one thousand five hundred years! The pronouncements AGAINST science by the Church allowed their critics proof positive "infallibility" was a joke. It led to stronger and stronger opposition and the undermining of their own authority.
Terry: "A 'moderate' person is a fence-sitter who doesn't get involved in
controversy. This renders them ineffective at combatting any evils interior or
exterior." "A moderate Jehovah's Witness keeps their mouth shut for fear of
reprisal just as a moderate Muslim does." "They don't count for anything as a
force for renewal or change." "Just my two cents."
Glenster: Fairly priced. This is the radical new type of change? Some things never
change.
Terry reply: Ask yourself what changed Judaism into Christianity, Catholic dominance into Protestant success, the Divine right of Kings into Democratic separation of Church and State and then repeat your last comment out loud to yourself.
Moderates have done nothing to change this world. What you are implying (wrongly) is that all effective dissent is automatically RADICAL. You cannot justify this so you resort to covert polemic instead.
Moderate means wishy-washy; like your animadversions.
Passive-agressive commentary is not the same thing as point of view. I know what I stand for and what my role on JW-net is. I want to provoke
people to re-examine what they consider core belief and expose it to self-scrutiny.
I provide various topics to engage others in thoughtful discussion to flush out what the source of their "absolutes" in life really are.
I welcome criticism based on something rather than nothing.
Terry

For Judaism, in the 1st Century, Jews either clung to the sacrificial system of Priests or formed Messianic apocalyptic cults or went off into the desert away from everybody and everything.
Terry, is this your opinion? When he Temple was destroyed the Levites couldn't collect the 10% tithe (taxes) any longer- now what Jew would cry about that? There is some truth to the fact that some cults did form, but their activities brought down the Roman army on them and over 900 Jewish villages were destroyed in one campaign alone to wipe out all the opposition. Most Jews ended up as slaves or fled to other lands during that era. They finally gained respect when they took over the banking systems of Christendom.
The centralized Temple Priesthood system would have collapsed anyway as the increasing Jewish population outstripped the available animals for sacrifices.
Judaism had a hard time fending off its enemies when it was united. But, when divided, it had little chance at all. The insularity of montheistic purity is its Achilles Heel. The pagans accepted almost anything from surrounding peoples in the way of religious belief and practices. But, Judiasm would not. It painted a large target on itself.
Where Judaism went awry again and again was in its failure to adapt to Modern change in society. Once the Reform Judaism took hold it flourished and dragged the rest of Judiaism along with it kicking and screaming into the future.
ablebodiedman

Passive-agressive commentary is not the same thing as point of view. I know what I stand for and what my role on JW-net is. I want to provoke
people to re-examine what they consider core belief and expose it to self-scrutiny.
I provide various topics to engage others in thoughtful discussion to flush out what the source of their "absolutes" in life really are.
After scrutinizing what you have said in the above thread I can see only one solution.
Get rid of all the hypocrites and those who refuse to obey Jesus Christ.
Nothing else seems to work because it is constantly undermined.
Matthew 13
The harvest is a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels. 40 Therefore, just as the weeds are collected and burned with fire, so it will be in the conclusion of the system of things. 41 The Son of man will send forth his angels, and they will collect out from his kingdom all things that cause stumbling and persons who are doing lawlessness, 42 and they will pitch them into the fiery furnace. There is where [their] weeping and the gnashing of [their] teeth will be. 43 At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Let him that has ears listen.
Guess that makes me identify with Christianity.
You got a better idea?
abe
glenster

"Justifying bad behavior by pointing to worse behavior ..." (deaths caused by
Inquisition or atheists).
Huh?? Thanks for that interpretation (?!). My point was just that the
'centric ones of either of those or any of the groups (race, etc.) cause the
problems--'centric believers or non--believers. The earlier post seemed im-
balanced and 'centric, so I added some balance.
"When Atheists do bad things they do so individually out of personal animus."
Being too 'centric about race, belief or non-belief, income level, age group,
nationality, etc., isn't inherent in any of those things--atheism same as the
rest. It's the ones who were too 'centric about any of them that have caused
the most harm. If incorporated by some of the worst religious/political
leaders, and there are examples of believers/non-believers who were and made
belief or non-belief law of the land, it's been bad and even led to deaths
either way.
"I want to provoke people to re-examine what they consider core belief and
expose it to self-scrutiny."
The above is a core belief of mine. What particularly do you want me to
scrutinize?
"Ask yourself what changed Judaism into Christianity, Catholic dominance into
Protestant success, the Divine right of Kings into Democratic separation of
Church and State and then repeat your last comment out loud to yourself.
Moderates have done nothing to change this world."
"A 'moderate' person is a fence-sitter who doesn't get involved in
controversy. This renders them ineffective at combatting any evils interior or
exterior."
This may partly just be a matter of agreeing on defining terms. It depends on
whether you mean the stance or the action for it. For example, in WWII the
Nazis had the more extreme stance, Allies the more moderate stance, but either
side was willing to go to radical actions about it.
Likewise, going from religion as law of the land to where it doesn't have to
be (Mosaic law to Christianity) is to go from a more 'centric/radical stance
toward a more moderate stance. Some of both the radicals and moderates went to
extremes/radical actions for it, but I make the point that I take the side of
the non-'centric stance. The people of the world will get along better being
relaxed about the differences of the sort I listed.
"I welcome criticism based on something rather than nothing."
My stance is that the 'centric people (a type of radical stance) in history
have caused the most harm. I'm sorry if that wasn't more clear. I'd recommend
not rejecting that as nothing or a polemic. I probably dislike the same
harmful things as you--I just recommend to not be so 'centric about it with
broad swings about one side of things that it seems like a 'centric stance (be-
lievers bad this and that).
Not being 'centric is easy to do and is more beneficial. It doesn't
preclude going to greater lengths about that stance with radical effort as some
of the Allies or early Christians did.
Terry

Abe says: After scrutinizing what you have said in the above thread I can see only one solution.
Get rid of all the hypocrites and those who refuse to obey Jesus Christ.
Nothing else seems to work because it is constantly undermined.
What we are talking about here is the refusal to adapt. That refusal drives a wedge. A wedge between people and an internal wedge between rational thought and reactionary retreat into delusion (leading to radical actions often of a destructive nature.)
Your above referenced "solution" is just the sort of destructive and delusional "remedy" that prevents religious belief from being viable socially.
Guess that makes me identify with Christianity.
You got a better idea?
There is no such thing (identity) as "Christianity". There are only claims of such. For something to exist as an identity it cannot be other.
You could fill a hundred stadiums with self-professed "christians" and not have solidarity, unity or agreement among the lot of them.
Yes, I have a better idea. Provoke thinking! Until people are willing to actually look at their belief system skeptically and analytically they can't see it symptomatically as a disease rather than a cure.
Terry

This may partly just be a matter of agreeing on defining terms. It depends on
whether you mean the stance or the action for it. For example, in WWII the
Nazis had the more extreme stance, Allies the more moderate stance, but either
side was willing to go to radical actions about it.
We are all the center of our universe. Rightly so. Without our own life (and all the interests which maintain its vitality) we can possess no values at all. We cannot afford to be moderate in our pursuit of life in a competitive enviornment. Why? The one most fit survies; not the one most moderate.
Until we protect, preserve and defend that which maintains our own well-being we cannot reach out to others (family, tribe, nation, world) to extend social benefits.
The Nazis "centric" stance was a reaction to the burden of Versailles. The European solution to Nazi invasions was a "moderate" one of pacifying Hitler to avoid war at all costs.
I would contend that any force against Hitler would have quashed all of his military plans immediately. It was the dilatory foot-shuffling of Europe which enabled the Nazi rise to efficent and insuperable strength.
So much for moderation.
The choice of "moderation" as a term in these contexts is quite problematic to me.
The problem with any person or group who says: "I'll meet you half way" is that success is entirely dependant on mutuality. Without a meeting of the minds the other party may proceed to take it all and leave you with nothing.
In fighting against Jehovah's Witness domination by Governing Body authority, for example, being moderate will achieve nothing.
In arguing with a polemicist, moderation will achieve nothing.
There is nothing radical about superior force when it is directed against fecklessness.
ablebodiedman

Yes, I have a better idea. Provoke thinking! Until people are willing to actually look at their belief system skeptically and analytically they can't see it symptomatically as a disease rather than a cure.
Terry,
So, do you mean that a belief system exists that works?
A belief system based on thinking?
Intelligent thinking?
Then what I see happening around the world must be a result or measurement of what the MOST intelligent people are thinking.
If it isn't, then the most intelligent people in the world are not intelligent enough to have an effect.
So, you must have a belief system entirely based on intelligent thinking.
Are you intelligent enough to implement your belief system?
Or have you already implemented it?
If so, please show me the results.
In Christ
abe
Terry

Terry,
So, do you mean that a belief system exists that works?
A belief system based on thinking?
Intelligent thinking?
Then what I see happening around the world must be a result or measurement of what the MOST intelligent people are thinking.
If it isn't, then the most intelligent people in the world are not intelligent enough to have an effect.
So, you must have a belief system entirely based on intelligent thinking.
Are you intelligent enough to implement your belief system?
Or have you already implemented it?
If so, please show me the results.
Very well.
First off, I think BELIEF is a sucker's game. I refuse to play. If you can't go 48 hours without resorting to imaginary conversation with invisible people how the heck can you live in the real world?
Secondly, life becomes problematic the more socializing you do. I minimize my socializing to an extremely small cadre. I don't take on obligations that require unnecessary dovetailing of world views either. Groups like to suck you in. I avoid groups, organizations, clubs, affiliations and such.
Third, I live my life for myself and my family. The rest can go to hell for all I care. Well, not quite that extreme. I urge others on discussion groups to weigh their world view and apply skeptical curiousity. Usually that only provokes people who live in fear and who cling to fundamentalist superstitions to defend, defend and defend.
For me, success in life is largely a matter of understanding where I fit in, how I earn a living, pay bills and enjoy my family. This world got along fine before I came along and will do just as well when I'm gone.
There are no secrets to living life. Nobody knows anything although many pretend to have the answers. I immediately mistrust people who have it all figured out.
Neither the bible, the Koran, the book of Moormon or any other concoction has anything valuable to offer as far as I can detect. It is all puff and blow and a lot of imagination! Thinking for yourself takes a lifetime to achieve. You have to find a way to test things before you ingest.
I live a small and quiet life on my own terms as far as feasible. I don't depend on other people to make me happy or to agree with me. Life is my responsiblity. I'm in charge of happiness, fulfillment and education. Beyond that? It is a matter of how lucky/unlucky you are.

Judaism...Islam...Christianity...and now the Watchtower religion

Share this