AllTimeJeff

Joined

• started 234 topics
• posted 6,022 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by AllTimeJeff

• 
  161

  Theological Arguments, Human Realities

  by AllTimeJeff in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as i have sunken to a new low in condescending posts (according to botchtowersociety, who truthfully is an expert on all things bullshit), it did occur to me that discussions, debates, and mud slinging insult matches on this board often have a common root.. let me put out there that i am not an atheist, nor an agnostic.

  frankly, i respect your right to believe that god is a trinity.

  that he is jesus.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Duly noted BTS.
• 
  40

  If JW's Should Be Accountable For Their Sordid History.....

  by AllTimeJeff in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ....shouldn't christian religions of all persuasions be accountable as well?.

  if this is insulting, it isn't meant to be.

  former jw's all the time come here on this forum and others to hold the governing body accountable for teaching lies and holding on to a history, a tradition if you will, that embraces leaders like c t russell and j f rutherford, both of whom taught things that are almost entirely rejected by jw's today.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Shamus, I agree with you on that score.
• 
  40

  If JW's Should Be Accountable For Their Sordid History.....

  by AllTimeJeff in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ....shouldn't christian religions of all persuasions be accountable as well?.

  if this is insulting, it isn't meant to be.

  former jw's all the time come here on this forum and others to hold the governing body accountable for teaching lies and holding on to a history, a tradition if you will, that embraces leaders like c t russell and j f rutherford, both of whom taught things that are almost entirely rejected by jw's today.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  I think that the realization that religions morph with their times, while on the one hand dis-crediting the argument that a religion is superior or "the truth", actually adds value to religion today.

  Because religions must bow to the whims of the culture they find themselves in, religions today are more frequently tolerant of gays, equality to women, etc. in our western world.

  I think that is a positive development, even if it also shows that their is no one superior truth to be found within any one religious theory.

  Now, I will happily allow that there ARE many roads. That is cool. I just wish we could get passed this idea that there is only one road, one way to worship and have faith that trumps others.

  Holding religions accountable for ALL their history demonstrates that there are many roads, and many reasons to be humble about one's faith.
• 
  40

  If JW's Should Be Accountable For Their Sordid History.....

  by AllTimeJeff in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ....shouldn't christian religions of all persuasions be accountable as well?.

  if this is insulting, it isn't meant to be.

  former jw's all the time come here on this forum and others to hold the governing body accountable for teaching lies and holding on to a history, a tradition if you will, that embraces leaders like c t russell and j f rutherford, both of whom taught things that are almost entirely rejected by jw's today.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  I agree Shamus that religions morph with the cultural sensibilities of their times. That makes sense.

  At the same time, because the Church changed, yet still claims supremecy thanks to "holy tradition", it makes sense to me that the church be held to the same standard we would hold the Governing Body.

  To the Catholic Church's credit, they finally changed their mind on Galileo... a few years ago.
• 
  40

  If JW's Should Be Accountable For Their Sordid History.....

  by AllTimeJeff in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ....shouldn't christian religions of all persuasions be accountable as well?.

  if this is insulting, it isn't meant to be.

  former jw's all the time come here on this forum and others to hold the governing body accountable for teaching lies and holding on to a history, a tradition if you will, that embraces leaders like c t russell and j f rutherford, both of whom taught things that are almost entirely rejected by jw's today.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  It isn't about rating which religion is worse. It's about being honest.

  If we are willing to discuss the history of one religion and demand accountability, we should apply the same standard to all.

  That is my main point.
• 
  13

  Selective Memory

  by EmptyInside in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i don't know if this is the case with everyone.

  but,most jehovah's witnesses i know seem to have selective memory.

  they will deny straight to your face that in 1995 ,the generation, was explained to be the wicked contemporaries.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Welcome to Orwell's world.
• 
  40

  If JW's Should Be Accountable For Their Sordid History.....

  by AllTimeJeff in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ....shouldn't christian religions of all persuasions be accountable as well?.

  if this is insulting, it isn't meant to be.

  former jw's all the time come here on this forum and others to hold the governing body accountable for teaching lies and holding on to a history, a tradition if you will, that embraces leaders like c t russell and j f rutherford, both of whom taught things that are almost entirely rejected by jw's today.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Exactly Shamus. You got my point EXACTLY!

  There's a kiss for trying anyway.....
• 
  26

  Fav Movie Directors, do U have one?

  by talesin in

  1. social
  2. entertainment

  second attempt here,.

  let me know your favs... :d .

  i love to watch flicks, and whether they are famous or obscure, would love to see your favs (exception, i don't watch zombie films, sorry, except for bodysnatchers).. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Copolla, for the Godfather movies alone.

  Scorcese rarely misses.

  I think Steven Soderbergh is very underrated.
• 
  40

  If JW's Should Be Accountable For Their Sordid History.....

  by AllTimeJeff in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ....shouldn't christian religions of all persuasions be accountable as well?.

  if this is insulting, it isn't meant to be.

  former jw's all the time come here on this forum and others to hold the governing body accountable for teaching lies and holding on to a history, a tradition if you will, that embraces leaders like c t russell and j f rutherford, both of whom taught things that are almost entirely rejected by jw's today.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  ....shouldn't Christian religions of all persuasions be accountable as well?

  If this is insulting, it isn't meant to be. But think about it. Former JW's all the time come here on this forum and others to hold the Governing Body accountable for teaching lies and holding on to a history, a tradition if you will, that embraces leaders like C T Russell and J F Rutherford, both of whom taught things that are almost entirely rejected by JW's today. In Rutherford's case, he was coincidentally a low life human being, an adulterer, an alcoholic, etc.

  So I do think it fascinating that some who leave JW's will join other Christian religions, and then not be honest about the sordid history of these religions. Like the Catholic Church. (too may points to go into with them, how about the Inquisition and the threats on Galileo for starters). The Protestant Reformation was also, uh, not cool to our liberal democratic sensibilities today.

  Our liberal, democratic sensibilities. It's so important to acknowledge, generally speaking, where we have progressed today and how we view religious excess. We don't tolerate the suppresion of women, the persecution and execution of homosexuals, or killing somone for the simple offense of reading of the bible in a language not Latin. Or the support of Hitler. (sorry Pius XII) How about the Inquisition? Whose accountable for that?

  That IS HISTORY. Certified. Can't run from it.

  I just find it fascinating that former JW's to this day will come to this board and demand accountability to the leadership of JW's for their past hypocrisy. While pointing out (rightly so) that such hypocrisy proves that JW's don't have the truth, there are many of the same who will leave JW's and join another Christian religion with a much older, sordid history of brutality and religious abuse.

  It's difficult to defend. I think at the very least that it is not 100% honest to bash JW's and at the same time not acknowledge the history and associated problems with older Christian religions, who did similar, often worse things while claiming to commit such crimes in the name of god and Jesus. (and the holy spirit...)

  Just a thought. And as Terry says, your mileage may vary.
• 
  161

  Theological Arguments, Human Realities

  by AllTimeJeff in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as i have sunken to a new low in condescending posts (according to botchtowersociety, who truthfully is an expert on all things bullshit), it did occur to me that discussions, debates, and mud slinging insult matches on this board often have a common root.. let me put out there that i am not an atheist, nor an agnostic.

  frankly, i respect your right to believe that god is a trinity.

  that he is jesus.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Allow me please to quote myself, since I see a lot of mental masturbation going on here..... (with apologies to Thomas Aquinas, and that other fellow..... Jesus)

  Let me put out there that I am NOT an atheist, nor an agnostic. Frankly, I respect your right to believe that god is a trinity. That he is Jesus. Allah. Diana Ross or Dolly Parton. Have at it.

  That isn't harmful or divisive.

  Sulla, BTS, and other Trinitarians, you personally believing in the Trinity, or engaging in theological discussions is in of itself, not bad.

  Where we ALL go wrong though is what the theological premise to discussions on the nature of god means in practical terms.

  My whole thread here was not discussing the contributions of theology in our modern times. The more liberal and accepting theology has become, the greater it's value in our modern times. However, I started this discussion on the narrow premise of theology and the discussions it engenders as to the nature of god.

  No. Seriously. Look at my first post on this thread. I actually said that.

  What's the point of having a "superior" theology on the matter of the nature of god if the reality of that belief doesn't positively effect our life now?

  If this helps Sulla or BTS, or any other cranky, theologically superior Trinitarians, I would like to clarify this statement: If your view of theology gives you a viewpoint of god that positively affects your life (esp post JW) more power to you.

  Please though, be honest. There are MANY competing theologies out there. More then ever, mankind now has the ability to consider for the first time, at the click of a button, the basics of most known religious and secular theologies. The fact that Christianity is a minority religion on the world scence, and that other theologies exist today which benefits non Christians around the world (Buddhism anyone?) proves that at best, Christian theology (trinitarian or otherwise) is merely one option among many to be considered seriously.

  Simply put, what I have an issue with is the presentation that your god, with your religious theology, is somehow superior. There simply is no logical basis to put one theology ahead of another, when all have the same amount of evidence to back it up.

  It simply isn't necesarry to have theology, old and proud as you may view it. That is a lesson that the 20th century taught us in spades.

  The value of our life now is what matters.

  Do you need to believe in theology to be a good person and live a quality life? No.

  Do you need to believe that Jesus is part of a Trinity to be a good person and live a quality life? No.

  Does it matter whether or not your version of the Trinity is strong or weak or different from the way JW's frame it to be a good person and live a quality life? No.

  Is this overly simplistic? No way. It allows for hundreds of millions of people today to do something that the Catholic Church was scared of allowing for centuries, esp during those nice little Inquisitions, where Christian theology was SO helpful to so many people. That is to say, it allows people to freely consider the evidence on their own, and weigh it against alternatives.

  I don't have to take Sulla's word for it. BTS's. Or Thomas Aquinas. I can actually compare the theology to our modern times, to see if it is relevant.

  Clearly, the evidence shows that while theology can be relevant for you personally, it is not needed for a life of value, contribution, and merit.

  Thus, why I titled this thread "Theological Arguments, Human Realities".

  Lest you trip up on the word "reality", I will add this handy definition (not from Thomas Aquinas)

  Wikipedia " In philosophy, reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined."

  Merriam Webster: (1) " the quality or state of being real" (2B) " something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily"

  Of necessity, the Trinity, as with other theology related to the nature of god, is derived from sources postulating on matters that can't be verified. It is dependent on those who will put faith in it. God himself does not speak. Aquinas opines. Sulla and Botchtower speak. Sadly, that is the best we can do for verification of theology, considering God's maddening silence on the matter.

  As an aside, faith is another matter entirely You are free to have faith. I do. My discussion here doesn't include faith. It is about the value of presenting theology which can't be verified as a superior, trumps all else presentation regarding the nature of god.

  Faith, like theology, has it's limited value to the beholder of it. Nothing can be verified. Although as we clearly show in this and other threads, we can argue and argue and argue about it.

  The funny thing to me is, we aren't even arguing about a subject. We are arguing about the ground rules to discuss the subject. Even if I were to agree that a theological discussion as to the nature of the Trinitarian god meant something to me, it must be allowed that god, as usual, is letting a lot of his kids do his dirty work for him.

  Sulla, BTS, you are talking for (your) god. Quote Aquinas all you want. At best, the source material for your own theology is whatever you choose to believe. That IS reality.