djeggnog why do you seem to lecture every reply? Do you believe we are all entitled to your opinion and must agree? BORING!
Memorial - Why do i keep going?
by maisha 48 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Chariklo
djeggnog
It wouldn't be a bad idea to check your facts before you post.
The Roman Catholic Church, for example, who has its own beliefs regarding the Eucharist, teaches the Eucharistic bread to be a symbol of the church community, when the bread actually symbolizes Jesus' sinless fleshly body that he offered up in sacrifice for the life of the world, while the wine symbolizes Jesus' blood that makes operative the new covenant and those that rightly partake of the emblems and eat and drink during the ceremony acknowledge the kingdom covenant as being operative toward them.
Actually, no. (What follows is for those who are interested to know both what the RC doctrine actually is and why djeggnog is totally, completely, utterly way, way way off the mark. For the rest of you, this might be boring, so just skip.)
The RC Church does NOT teach "the Eucharistic bread to be a symbol of the church community, nor does it teach that "the bread actually symbolizes Jesus' sinless fleshly body..." Same in respect of the wine/blood, whilst this bit "those that rightly partake of the emblems and eat and drink during the ceremony acknowlledge the kingdom convenat as being operative toward them."
Frankly, that is a load of gibberish mixed with phooey. You've absorbed little tiny references to what the RC doctrine is, totally misunderstood it and mixed it thoroughly with JW expressions and come up with the nonsense above. It's so altogether wrong that it's hard to know where to begin to unpick it.
First, it doesn't teach the "Eucharistic bread" to be a symbol of anything. Catholic doctrine says that during the celebration of the Mass, at the moment of consecration, the bread actually becomes Christ's body, and the wine actually becomes his blood. It doesn't look like it, taste like it, feel like it etc, in other words it defies the senses, but it actually is Jesus Christ, in the words of the Church, "body, blood, soul and divinity". Not a symbol. Not symbolising anything whatsoever.
Catholics do not speak of "those that rightly partake of the emblems". They receive Holy Communion. The bread and wine are gifts to the altar, as a sacrifice, and at the sacrifice of the Mass they become the body and blood as before. Not emblems. Not symbols. The one, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world" not only re-enacted but actually taking place, one and the same, at each Mass. This is what the Catholic Church believes. Nothing in any way resembling your understanding.
The only sense in which the bread and wine can be seen as symbols is that all present may, through prayer, add their private prayers, devotions, concerns, petitions and troubles mentally and spiritually, and totally silently in their hearts, to the gifts being offered, and God in His mercy and infinite wisdom will hear their prayers as an offering along with the sacrificial gifts. That is all valid Catholic understanding and teaching.
Now, I mention this because, in this area, I can recognise pure ignorance hyping itself up as an authority when I see it. Sorry if this comes across as brutal, djeggnog. I don't know you very well and I haven't read all that many of your posts, but those I have read are very loud in telling people what the facts are. In this instance, it is not just that you don't know your facts, but you go to lengths to represent your own misunderstandings and misinterpretations as facts, and yourself as a knowledgeable authority. In this instance, where I do know what I'm talking about, I've taken the trouble to give what may be boring truths and definitions so that people can see that you are basically talking through the top of your head.
Please don't do it.
-
simon17
I will go for my family, but they don't shun me or anything so that makes more sense than your situation.
However, its not the worst meeting to go to. Its like the only positive meeting of the year. 364 days of the year its all guilt and fear and "you're not doing enough!!!!!". But for one day, its more like "oh, you went to the memorial, that is a wonderful thing you have done to show you care for god. COme back next week and give up your life for us so then we can guilt you to death"
-
etna
@eggnog
Jesus was entrhoned as King when he was resurrected. You might want to read the bible instead of the wacthtower.
Etna
-
djeggnog
@Chariklo:
It wouldn't be a bad idea to check your facts before you post.
I do not want to argue with you. I didn't stutter and I wrote exactly what it was I intended to write in my previous post. If I wanted to get into what other teachings there were in the Roman Catholic Church, I would have done that, but my focus was on just one aspect I addressed, not every aspect of RCC teachings. I read what you wrote and none of what you wrote undermined the point I was making, namely, that "Christendom does not have it right." I had provided a single example of how the Eucharistic bread was viewed, but the main point you may have missed was that the bulk of that paragraph addressed the real meaning of the bread and the real meaning of the wine, the latter about which you might notice I said absolutely nothing regarding Christendom's view.
Now, I mention this because, in this area, I can recognise pure ignorance hyping itself up as an authority when I see it. Sorry if this comes across as brutal, djeggnog.
"Brutal"? No. I can be brutal, too, but here's the thing: You wrote a lot about the belief of the Roman Catholic Church as to the emblems, but I wrote only 26 words -- count them:
(1) The (2) Roman (3) Catholic (4) Church, (5) for (6) example, (7) who (8) has (9) its (10) own (11) beliefs (12) regarding (13) the (14) Eucharist, (15) teaches (16) the (17) Eucharistic (18) bread (19) to (20) be (21) a (22) symbol (23) of (24) the (25) church (26) community....
Who knows how many words you wrote, but, again, my only point in that piece was to say in response to @etna's message that "Christendom does not have it right." I don't claim and never have claimed to be an authority on the beliefs of any Christian denomination, but Jehovah's Witnesses, which is the denomination with which I am affiliated, so if my penning 26 words is regarded by you as 'hyping myself up as an authority,' then, please, be as brutally honest as you wish. I never mind anyone making a fool of yourself with strawmen that are based on 26 words.
I don't know you very well and I haven't read all that many of your posts, but those I have read are very loud in telling people what the facts are.
You should really take the time to read my posts and if you should do this, you might want to read them carefully. I never stutter and I always mean what I say, even if I should throw in a few typos from time to time.
In this instance, it is not just that you don't know your facts, but you go to lengths to represent your own misunderstandings and misinterpretations as facts, and yourself as a knowledgeable authority.
Question #1: Are you still talking about the 26 words that I have no intention of retracting or are you referring to something else you read in this one post of mine that you read?
In this instance, where I do know what I'm talking about, I've taken the trouble to give what may be boring truths and definitions so that people can see that you are basically talking through the top of your head. [ΒΆ] Please don't do it.
Question #2: How do you think these "boring truths and definitions" you took the trouble to provide in your message is being received by those who are actually following this thread? I'm a mind, @Chariklo, and if you should decide in the future to argue with me about anything, you might consider bringing a working knowledge of the subject at hand with you, and maybe next time it would be good to take a moment to try to get a sense of that about which I was actually speaking before taking the time to post a response to a subject with which you could have, but didn't take the time to acquaint yourself that proves to be unavailing as was your response. I could ask you to please not do this again, but I realize that being hasty may be more your style, so I won't.
BTW, @Chariklo, this is not my "brutal" mode; it's more of my "kind" mode. Just for grins, why not try to guess the mode I'm in as I now go on to respond to @etna's post?
@etna:
Jesus was [enthroned] as King when he was resurrected. You might want to read the bible instead of the [Watchtower].
Paul says different: At Hebrews 10:12, 13, he says that Jesus "sat down at the right hand of God, from then on awaiting until his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet." Paul wrote this in 61 AD, some 28 years after Jesus' resurrection, proving that Jesus was still waiting until his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet at that time. What's interesting is that Revelation 12:10 says also: "Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down...," which suggests that Jesus' authority as king didn't come until after John received the vision he wrote down in Revelation, and John wrote this in 96 AD, some 63 years after Jesus' resurrection.
You can open up your Bible and read it, but you should maybe consult an encyclopedia to validate whether the books of Hebrews and Revelation were written about the time when I said they were, for if both of these books were written before Jesus' resurrection, then..., well....
@djeggnog
-
Chariklo
OK, Eggnog, this is the last time I'm going to feed you by answering you in detail. FYI, I am writing at this moment in patient mode.
but I wrote only 26 words -- count them:
(1) The (2) Roman (3) Catholic (4) Church, (5) for (6) example, (7) who (8) has (9) its (10) own (11) beliefs (12) regarding (13) the (14) Eucharist, (15) teaches (16) the (17) Eucharistic (18) bread (19) to (20) be (21) a (22) symbol (23) of (24) the (25) church (26) community....
Please note that the passage I quoted from you in my previous post above contained 83 words. It ended with "...operative towards them". Hence my point, which perhaps you had difficulty understanding.
I wsas not so much concerned with defining Catholic doctrine, which in itself is of only passing interest at best to those on this forum, but to defiine it accurately to expose the ignorance in which you referred to it while presenting yourself as an authority to others. That is a feature of your posts in this thread and elsewhere, and has been commented on by others.
Jehovah's Witnesses, which is the denomination with which I am affiliated,
You think Jehovah's Witnesses are a denomination? They don't. They think they are a religion. Are you sure you are a JW and member of a JW congregation? (Many of us here think they are a cult.)
I don't know you very well and I haven't read all that many of your posts, but those I have read are very loud in telling people what the facts are.
You should really take the time to read my posts and if you should do this, you might want to read them carefully. I never stutter and I always mean what I say, even if I should throw in a few typos from time to time.
Rest assured, Eggnog, I had no thought that you stuttered. And be assured that I always read everything carefully. I've now read many more of your posts, far from all but quite as many as I choose to.
This is Maisha's thread. Most posters here have written with empathy and concern for him. Empathy and concern for others are a feature of this forum, one of its great strengths. I do not detect those qualities in your posts, such as I have read.
Within this thread you have been conspicuously lacking in kindness to other posters including those who are troubled, and maybe less tough than others. This is not the first time within this thread that posters other than myself have brought you to task for your attitude.
They seem to me to have it right.
Maisha, I apologise for allowing myself to be sidetracked within your thread. What I wrote to you before atill applies, and maybe these later posts, especially anything typifying the WT approach, will confirm for you that this year you might do well just not to turn up at the Memorial. Basically, anything but that could be a better option!
-
jworld
I went last year but will not be going this year. There is no way God is working through a small publishing and real estate development corporation out of New York. Its just silly!
-
djeggnog
@Azazel:
djeggnog why do you seem to lecture every reply? Do you believe we are all entitled to your opinion and must agree? BORING!
Of course, I do. I believe that everyone on JWN is entitled to hear my opinions, as many as I can articulate, and there are so many of them that I am often amazed over the vast number of words it takes to articulate my opinions! If I had a penny (US: $0.01) for every two words I've written to forums like this one since the late 90s, I'd be a multibillionaire many times over! And as to folks agreeing with my opinions, why not? I mean, if they are all of them correct and well-researched, it seems to me that agreeing with them would be an absolute must, right?
On another note, I have to tell you though that I've never seen a horse like the one that your avatar portrays, and I do love horses. I tell you what: That's one colorful thoroughbred. Sweet!
@etna:
djeggnog, Why do you go to the memorial. Didn't Jesus say to keep doing this until I return. He "returned in 1914". So why do they still do this. Have [Christendom] got it right or does Jesus come many times?
@djeggnog wrote:
The Roman Catholic Church, for example, who has its own beliefs regarding the Eucharist, teaches the Eucharistic bread to be a symbol of the church community, when the bread actually symbolizes Jesus' sinless fleshly body that he offered up in sacrifice for the life of the world, while the wine symbolizes Jesus' blood that makes operative the new covenant and those that rightly partake of the emblems and eat and drink during the ceremony acknowledge the kingdom covenant as being operative toward them.
@Chariklo wrote:
It wouldn't be a bad idea to check your facts before you post.
@djeggnog wrote:
I do not want to argue with you.... I had provided a single example of how the Eucharistic bread was viewed, but the main point you may have missed was that the bulk of that paragraph addressed the real meaning of the bread and the real meaning of the wine, the latter about which you might notice I said absolutely nothing regarding Christendom's view.... You wrote a lot about the belief of the Roman Catholic Church as to the emblems, but I wrote only 26 words -- count them:
(1) The (2) Roman (3) Catholic (4) Church, (5) for (6) example, (7) who (8) has (9) its (10) own (11) beliefs (12) regarding (13) the (14) Eucharist, (15) teaches (16) the (17) Eucharistic (18) bread (19) to (20) be (21) a (22) symbol (23) of (24) the (25) church (26) community....
@Chariklo wrote:
OK, Eggnog, this is the last time I'm going to feed you by answering you in detail. FYI, I am writing at this moment in patient mode.
<insert rim shot here>
I wasn't sure how many words there were in that paragraph, so I decided to count the words in the rest of that paragraph: (27) when (28) the (29) bread (30) actually (31) symbolizes (32) Jesus' (33) sinless (34) fleshly (35) body (36) that (37) he (38) offered (39) up (40) in (41) sacrifice (42) for (43) the (44) life (45) of (46) the (47) world, (48) while (49) the (50) wine (51) symbolizes (52) Jesus' (53) blood (54) that (55) makes (56) operative (57) the (58) new (59) covenant (60) and (61) those (62) that (63) rightly (64) partake (65) of (66) the (67) emblems (68) and (69) eat (70) and (71) drink (72) during (73) the (74) ceremony (75) acknowledge (76) the (77) kingdom (78) covenant (79) as (80) being (81) operative (82) toward (83) them.
Please note that the passage I quoted from you in my previous post above contained 83 words. It ended with "...operative [toward] them". Hence my point, which perhaps you had difficulty understanding.
Yes, I see that now, 83 words. But did you notice that none of the other (let's see 83-26) 57 words in the subject paragraph had anything at all to do with the Roman Catholic Church theological viewpoint about the Eucharist in contrast with the first 26? No? Hence my point.
I suppose it's possible that you either didn't notice this or your intent here is to be deliberately obtuse and argumentative in your response, which is fine. I did want to point out though, since we're here and all of the words have been counted that #82 is "toward," and for whatever reason you quoted me as having used the word "towards," which I could never have used because while both "toward" and "towards" mean exactly the same thing, my wordsmithing is based on the US English lexicon, where "toward" is in common use and not on the UK English lexicon, where "towards" would be the word of choice.
In college, did study both lexicons somewhat, so I'm "somewhat" familiar with the one used across the Pond, but if you don't live in Great Britain and are living here in the US, use of the word "towards" instead of "toward" in an essay (and Essays"R"JWN) would definitely harm your grade were I doing the grading. If, however, this quote was an unintentional typo and I just made it a federal case of it, then, as the late Gilda Radner (Emily Litella) of the first Saturday Night Live cast in the 70s might say, "never mind."
FYI, I've written all of this in "bored out of my skull" mode.
I [was] not so much concerned with defining Catholic doctrine, which in itself is of only passing interest at best to those on this forum, but to [define] it accurately to expose the ignorance in which you referred to it while presenting yourself as an authority to others. That is a feature of your posts in this thread and elsewhere, and has been commented on by others.
Oh, has this "feature" of mine been commented on by the JWN experts? You do not have to be an expert to make a comment on a JWN thread; all one needs to do that is to have an opinion and have the ability to form one or more coherent sentences. Thankfully, the ability to spell words correctly isn't a requirement here, so I'm pretty sure I'd win something due to the number of typos that find their way into many of my posts. I'd be amazed if the "typo count" for lengthy "essays" (like this one) should turn out to be zero.
Now what was the point I was going to make? Oh, yeah....
You say you weren't concerned with defining Catholic doctrine, but in "defining Catholic doctrine ... accurately" in order "to expose the ignorance in which [I] referred to [Catholic doctrine]." I sense a contradiction, but ok. I'm not sure that you exposed my ignorance, but I'm going to let this one go, @Chariklo.
@djeggnog wrote:
Who knows how many words you wrote, but, again, my only point in that piece was to say in response to @etna's message that "Christendom does not have it right." I don't claim and never have claimed to be an authority on the beliefs of any Christian denomination, but Jehovah's Witnesses, which is the denomination with which I am affiliated, so if my penning 26 words is regarded by you as 'hyping myself up as an authority,' then, please, be as brutally honest as you wish. I never mind anyone making a fool of yourself with strawmen that are based on 26 words.
@Chariklo wrote:
You think Jehovah's Witnesses are a denomination? They don't. They think they are a religion. Are you sure you are a JW and member of a JW congregation? (Many of us here think they are a cult.)
What do you mean by "they don't"? I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and we happen to be on the list of Christian denominations in the world. We are on the NGO list, too. It might be helpful to know, @Chariklo, what it is you believe to make a Christian denomination differ from a religious body, or, as you put it, "a religion." This seems to me to be a distinction without a difference, but maybe you will be able to help me to see daylight on this because, right now, I think yours to have been a goofy statement. I don't know. Where exactly were you educated about the world's religions? Planet Earth? Please don't say you obtained your education from reading the Watchtower and Awake! magazines. I know what was meant in the context that this saw was used, but, seriously, I cannot take anyone seriously that would make a statement like the one you just made here despite the pejorative.
Even if some should think the word "cult" to be an apt description of Jehovah's Witnesses as a group, a cult is an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices, many of which employ many rituals in their religious practices. As it happens, the word "cult" would aptly describe every Christian denomination on the planet since all Christian denominations are each of them exclusive systems that are distinctly different from other denominations, each having their own religious beliefs and practices, and some of them employing rituals among their religious practices.
I really don't see, @Chariklo, how Jehovah's Witnesses would be the only group indicted by this particular definition, for if you have ever been inside of a Catholic church to see the rituals employed during Mass or seen a priest presiding over the Eucharist depicted in a movie, then it's hard to see how the RCC would escape indictment as a cult. Perhaps you are of the opinion, as are many Catholics, that the RCC is not a Christian denomination at all, since it claims to trace its roots, not back to 325 AD and its pagan honorary Christian, Constantine, but back to the apostle Peter, but wouldn't you agree that this the RCC is not only a cult were we to apply the above-described definition to it, but also a Christian denomination as much so as the group known as Jehovah's Witnesses?
@Chariklo wrote:
I don't know you very well and I haven't read all that many of your posts, but those I have read are very loud in telling people what the facts are.
@djeggnog wrote:
You should really take the time to read my posts and if you should do this, you might want to read them carefully. I never stutter and I always mean what I say, even if I should throw in a few typos from time to time.
@Chariklo wrote:
Rest assured, Eggnog, I had no thought that you stuttered. And be assured that I always read everything carefully. I've now read many more of your posts, far from all but quite as many as I choose to.
Being that I am an ordained Christian minister, you should appreciate that my telling people what the facts are would be by design. Telling people the facts -- the truth -- as I understand the facts is what I do. Read as many of my post as you can in one sitting. If I had my druthers, I would tell you that you can derive much enlightenment from reading my posts, but I won't. Get yourself a beer, pour yourself a glass of wine, a Coke, whatever, and get your Bible.
Now use the Watchtower Library CD, if you have it, for research purposes, but please stay away from it in positing arguments, for I only use it when folks on here quote from it to prove something to me, in order to explain to them, in turn, what the article(s) they quoted means and why their not having completed high school has made them functional illiterates with respect to their inability to comprehend the things they actually thought they read and understood. I'm not joking around here; it's really pathetic the dearth of academic acuity that many of the people here on JWN that left God's organization possess. That is why I have said many times on JWN that these folks were never really understood what dedication means, what their baptism meant, because they've never been taught by anyone what things the Bible teaches, only what things they've read in our publications to aid them in understanding what the Bible teaches. It is primarily for this reason that we have recently produced a simplified edition of the Watchtower.
If something I should say to you is unclear, feel free to ask me to explain what it was I meant, but never assume based on what things you think we believe as Jehovah's Witnesses that you know what I meant, for often you will find that I meant something quite different than what you may have thought I meant or what you may have thought the Bible teaches or you may have thought Jehovah's Witnesses teach.
(For example, in a different thread, someone on here posited the idea that the generation that Jesus said would not pass away during the first century AD lasted 37 years counting from 33 AD to 70 AD, but this calculation makes no sense in view of the fact that the sign that Jesus provided only became apparent in 66 AD -- not in 33 AD for this was only the prophecy -- and the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy as to this sign occurred when Christians had first came to discern it 33 years later, in 66 AD, when it was that the generation of the sign began and that sign ended, not in 103 AD or 37 years later, but just four years later in 70 AD. People often repeat the same errors that they hear others on here saying, because they don't seem to know how to think about the veracity of the things they hear. [I've noticed that @OUTLAW has been ignoring my posts lately, so hopefully he'll be able to do something with this next statement.] People don't get to meet many geniuses during their lifetimes, but you are fortunate to be one of the lucky ones, for I am such.)
The articles contained on the WT Library CD are designed to help the reader learn and comprehend scriptures that are difficult to comprehend without help from the many experienced Christians that helped write these articles and the many external sources quoted in many of these articles, but they are neither inerrant or inspired. Many active and former Jehovah's Witnesses rely so heavily on the Society's publications that they can often cite the publication year, the article and the page number from memory, but they cannot explain what things these articles articulate using scriptural citations, which makes many of them, in my opinion, parrots of our publications, rather than students of the Bible, because they are just as 2 Timothy 3:7 describes them, "always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth."
This is Maisha's thread. Most posters here have written with empathy and concern for him. Empathy and concern for others are a feature of this forum, one of its great strengths. I do not detect those qualities in your posts, such as I have read.
I don't care about your "empathy and concern" detectors, since they may be slightly impaired due to biases, prejudices and things like these. Frankly, I wouldn't really give a great deal of thought to what you think to be my qualities. None of this is about me. It's possible that you will never "get" me, but that's ok, too. My hope is that the lurkers of these JWN threads will "get" me and benefit from at least one of the things that read in my posts.
But you're right about this being Maisha's thread. I am worried though that too many former Witnesses will lose their lives because of illiteracy and prejudices and biases engendered by the things they suffered at the hands of bad elders, whose many imperfections either stumbled some of the folks here from pursuing true worship or have put many on their heels so that they are thinking about jumping ship because they sense shipwreck on their horizons. This is where my empathy and concern lies.
Within this thread you have been conspicuously lacking in kindness to other posters including those who are troubled, and maybe less tough than others.
I'm sure this true, but I exchanged many posts with many people here on JWN in more than just this thread, and perhaps your subjective judgment of me can only be based upon what things you know and not upon what things you don't know, which is totally understandable (in this context), but if any of my remarks in any of the posts you read in which I was involved should come off to you as being unnecessarily "tough," I believed those "tough" remarks were deserved.
This is not the first time within this thread that posters other than myself have brought you to task for your attitude.
And depending upon how long this thread continues, this will probably not be the last time either.
They seem to me to have it right.
Ok.
@djeggnog
-
sizemik
... this is not my "brutal" mode; it's more of my "kind" mode. . . . Eggy
... why not try to guess the mode I'm in as I now go on to respond to ... . . . Eggy
FYI, I've written all of this in "bored out of my skull" mode. . . . Eggy
So you're a man of many modes . . . wow what a surprise.
If you ever click into "normal mode" . . . you may get to see what you've written above for the stream of narcissistic drivel that it is.