NeonMadman

Joined

• started 102 topics
• posted 3,698 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by NeonMadman

• 
  5

  Do C.O. still usually come visit the congregations on Tuesday/Thursday/Sunday?

  by Iamallcool in

  1. jw
  2. friends
  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NeonMadman

  I hate it when threads get so bogged down in excessive rhetoric.
• 
  2

  Watch Tower Fallacies - 4/2/2013

  by cognisonance in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in another thread a poster, oubliette, asked to share logic fallacies we spot in wt publication.

  that is a great idea and thread to which i've already contributed.

  i'll also the contents of this post to that thread, but thought that it's easier to discuss a particular fallacy (or fallacies) in use in wts publications if we consider one quote at a time.

  1. 
  2. 
• 

  NeonMadman

  Before trusting it, ask: (1) Who published this material? What are the author’s credentials? (2) Why was this published? What motivated the writer? Is there any bias? (3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?

  This might also be considered a form of special pleading, since they do not recommend that these questions be applied to evaluating their own material, only to material that disagrees with their position.
• 
  26

  BOE Letter: Kingdom News No. 38

  by pixel in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  to all bodies of elders re: kingdom news no.

  dear brothers: .

  april 1, 2013. we are pleased to inform you that in november 2013 a month-long special campaign will focus on a wide distribution of kingdom news no.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NeonMadman

  How special that the special GB think we special publishers are so special, that we get a special campaign to especially show off our special zeal!

  Special special special!

  Well, isn't that special!!

  
• 
  34

  The Church's Biggest Lie

  by ProdigalSon in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  think you've sorted out the mess that christianity has become?.

  ever wonder why the other 2/3 of the planet doesn't believe the utter nonsense of "resurrection"??.

  chew on this, christians:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NeonMadman

  St. Gregory also wrote: “Every soul comes into this world strengthened by the victories or weakened by the defeats of its previous life.” (5)

  Just as an exercise, I decided to check out this quotation as best I could. Your cited source, of course, is an out-of-print Theosophy text that gives me no indication where or in what writing St. Gregory might have said such a thing. So I went to this site: http://www.sage.edu/faculty/salomd/nyssa/index.html and searched in every text of St. Gregory's on the site for the phrase "previous life," which is within quotation marks in your citation, and therefore should be quoted exactly. Of the 23 works reproduced in full on that site, none contains the phrase, "previous life." Now, to be 100% fair, I'll acknowledge that a different translation of Gregory's works might use different phrasing, but the burden is upon you to provide the exact citation so that it can be checked out in context.
• 
  34

  The Church's Biggest Lie

  by ProdigalSon in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  think you've sorted out the mess that christianity has become?.

  ever wonder why the other 2/3 of the planet doesn't believe the utter nonsense of "resurrection"??.

  chew on this, christians:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NeonMadman

  Oh I have read them, and I did plenty of my own research.

  If that's really true, then it should be a simple matter for you to provide specific citations of the Fathers where they advocated a doctrine of reincarnation. So far, you haven't provided one.

  Then you'll turn around and say it ccomes from "Theosophy" sources and is out of context.

  If what you provide are simply references to Theosophy sources and/or are out of context, then, yes, I'll say that. If you provide actual citations to the Fathers that I can check out rather than "So and so said such and such" without specifying exactly where he said it, then I'll examine the quotations to see whether the context supports the argument that you are using the citation to support. It the quotation in context doesn't say what you are claiming, you can be certain I'll call you out on it.

  You think I haven't been here long enough to know what kind of response I would get from my "own research"?

  From everything I've seen so far, your "own research" appears to be on the level of JW research. You know, they have extensively researched other religions because they've read Mankind's Search for God? You haven't posted anything yet that leads me to believe you have considered this topic from any sources other than Theosophical literature that takes the position you are advocating, and that without supporting its own claims with appropriate references that can actually be checked by a discerning reader.

  "Bing Bong" and invoking the 911 card is all you have left.

  Interesting that you include that in a response to my comment, since I have used neither in my arguments. Straw man, anyone?

  Sayonara, til the next time I feel like dropping a truth bomb on ya all

  Still waiting for the first one.
• 
  34

  The Church's Biggest Lie

  by ProdigalSon in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  think you've sorted out the mess that christianity has become?.

  ever wonder why the other 2/3 of the planet doesn't believe the utter nonsense of "resurrection"??.

  chew on this, christians:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NeonMadman

  And you've been proven wrong. Ignoring the evidence doesn't serve anyone well.

  If we've been proven wrong, it certainly hasn't been by you. You haven't presented any evidence to prove anyone wrong. All you've done is to cut and paste from works that assert the same things that you do, making bald assertions without providing any specific references that can be checked (e.g., as I pointed out above, 'Justin Martyr taught so and so' but with no references to specific statements of Justin's to back up the assertion). You'll have to present some actual evidence before we can ignore it.

  Fragments from the 2nd century don't prove jack shit.

  Actually, they do. The cumulative weight of the manuscript evidence that exists is that the NT as we have it today is substantially the same as the writings that were produced by the apostles and their associates. If the Bible today doesn't teach reincarnation, then it didn't in the early centuries of the church, either.

  The canon was carefully selected hundreds of years later to eliminate "heresies".

  Not only is this statement false, but it shows massive ignorance of the history of the canon of the NT. The writings of the NT were accepted as Scripture even during the lives of the writers. At 2 Peter 3:16, Peter refers to Paul's writings as "Scripture." At 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul quotes Luke 10:7 and calls it "Scripture." Even if you take the liberal view that these were later works by other authors (a viewpoint with which I strenuously disagree), they would still be dated no later than the early 2nd century, showing that those works (Paul's writings and Luke's Gospel) were regarded as part of the "canon" even then - long before you are asserting that the canon was "carefully selected." The establishment of a formal canon by church council in the 4th century does not mean that the canon was unknown before that time. It's not like a bunch of bishops sat down one dey and decided to select a canon when up to that time, nobody had the slightest idea which books were considered Scripture. The majority of NT books were accepted as inspired Scripture from the time of their being written. What the church ultimately formalized at the council of Carthage was a canon that had already been known and accepted for hundreds of years. Maybe you should read some literature from sources other than this new cult you seem to have embraced unquestioningly.

  Sound like a Cult in Brooklyn we know?

  Your method of argumentation certainly does, as I pointed out in my previous post.

  One thing about the Vatican, if they're covering it up, it's undoubtedly true.

  Another bald assertion offered without evidence. To claim that if the Vatican's covering something up it means that it's true, you first have to prove that the Vatican is covering something up, and you haven't done that. If you can't establish the rest of your argument using real citations and evidence rather than naked assertions, then you haven't shown that there's anything to be covered up in the first place. I can claim that there are little green men living on Pluto and that NASA is covering it up, but to make the argument stick, I first have to prove that the little green men actually exist, and then, as a separate argument, prove that NASA knows about them and is in fact covering up what they know. The same process applies to your argument, and your cutting and pasting of assertions without meaningful citation fails to meet the criteria for proof that any reasonable person would demand.
• 
  34

  The Church's Biggest Lie

  by ProdigalSon in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  think you've sorted out the mess that christianity has become?.

  ever wonder why the other 2/3 of the planet doesn't believe the utter nonsense of "resurrection"??.

  chew on this, christians:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NeonMadman

  Rather than claiming that the Church Fathers taught reincarnation and then offering a series of references to a Theosophical book, wouldn't it be better to offer the citations to the actual writings of the Fathers themselves so that their alleged statements can be examined in context? It's pretty clear at this point that you have no knowledge of the writings of the Fathers apart from what you have read in the publications of those who promote the same teaching that you are doing here. It's as if a JW wrote that 'Justin Martyr said so and so' and then referenced the Watchtower rather than Justin's own writings. If Justin really did say that the soul inhabits more than one body, as your article claims, then you should be able to point me to a specific citation in his writings that I can then look up and read in context to see if that's really what he said and meant, or if the Theosophist writer is just taking something he said out of context (or possibly even just making it up out of whole cloth) to support the conclusion he wants to arrive at.

  Or, here's an idea - maybe you should do some research of your own rather than just cutting and pasting and linking articles from the publications produced by one side of the argument. This method really smacks of the JW mentality. They can't think for themselves so they just cut and paste from WT publications. Read some of the Church Fathers for yourself and see if you come away thinking that reincarnation was the predominant teaching of the early church. Here's a good volume to start with: http://www.amazon.com/The-Apostolic-Fathers-Moody-Classics/dp/0802456596/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1364411560&sr=8-1-fkmr2
• 
  34

  The Church's Biggest Lie

  by ProdigalSon in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  think you've sorted out the mess that christianity has become?.

  ever wonder why the other 2/3 of the planet doesn't believe the utter nonsense of "resurrection"??.

  chew on this, christians:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NeonMadman

  Its also fair and important to state for the uninitiated that many of these Manuscripts are actually tiny with only a handful of words. The Rylands fragment holds but a few verses.

  That's very true, but it doesn't change the fact that the text of the NT is enormously well attested, going back well before the 6th century. "Many" of the manuscripts fit your description, but certainly not all. We do have complete or near-complete manuscripts before that time, as well as many, many fragments documenting different parts of the NT text. There is even some scholarly buzz that there may soon be information released about some NT fragments that may date back even into the first century, currently under study. So there is no evidence whatsoever for any alteration of the text such as has been asserted by the OP. The NT is by far the best attested ancient document we have - except possibly for the Old Testament. If we can't rely on the NT we have today reflecting the actual original text to a very high degree, then we have no basis to accept any document of antiquity whatsoever, and we need to simply admit that we know nothing about the ancient past. And, again, I reiterate, reincarnation is not mentioned in any of the extant documents.
• 
  11

  If anyone needs the unleavened bread recipe....

  by Newly Enlightened in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  sorry it's so late in the day with this.. if anyone would like the passover bread recipe:.

  1 cup whole wheat flour, 2 tbls olive oil [extra virgin] 1/2 cup water.

  mix.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NeonMadman

  Does the flour need to be whole wheat? I'm going for the drywall flavor here...
• 
  34

  The Church's Biggest Lie

  by ProdigalSon in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  think you've sorted out the mess that christianity has become?.

  ever wonder why the other 2/3 of the planet doesn't believe the utter nonsense of "resurrection"??.

  chew on this, christians:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NeonMadman

  By the way, Origen probably isn't the best source to use in discussing what the early Church Fathers believed. His doctrine was pretty wonky in a number of areas. Some scholars in the area of Patristics consider Origen to have been a heretic.