Posts by David

3

Petition: Tell Pope Francis It's Time to End Sexual Violence in the Catholic Church

by defender of truth in

4,264 signed of 5,000 goal.

tell pope francis it's time to end sexual violence in the catholic church.

with survivors network of those abused by priests, center for constitutional rights.

David_Jay

As an adult survivor of child abuse myself, I am very much for petitioning and even far more practical action to induce change on the Catholic theater regarding this horrific and disgraceful criminal activity.

But it should be pointed out that the report that bishops should "not necessarily" be the ones responsible to report abuse (which is silly, if you ask me, because if you hear of abuse you should feel it a duty to make sure it is reported regardless of the circumstances) is itself controversial. The document the quote originated from was not officially approved by the Holy See, and the Church has made sure all involved do not follow the very odd advice (which was written by someone in the Church who has made other controversial statements before).

See http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2016/02/15/papal-commission-bishops-must-report-sex-abuse-charges/ for more information.

In the end, however, it demonstrates that upheaval is necessary to rid the Church of this evil. Apparently some people within want the status quo to remain the same, even to the point of trying to make their warped ideas official when they are not. I am not excusing the Church, of course, because there is no excuse for allowing this to happen or go on.

What I am saying is that if I were one of these bad clergymen, I would be frightened. Like the accused bishop who recently got hissed, booed, and faced the releasing of black balloons by Catholics at his appointment, I think Catholics are about to stop waiting for the Church to do anything and take matters into their own hands. Catholics can't be excommunicated or disciplined for kicking priests and bishops out of office and power, and the good Catholics aren't going to leave the Church. They will eventually drag the culprits out and show these idiots that there are more of them than there are good-for-nothing clergy who won't do anything about it. They will take power of appointments out of the hands of the heirarchy like most Prostants have done becuase it is the laity that has the wallets. Many have stopped giving monthly to the Church over this, and money talks loudest in the end...along with well-deserved cold jail cells.

11

Help to build a "Guide to Your New Faith"

by Defianttruth in

i have seen many people ask the question, "if its not the truth what else is there?

" i imagine that most people want to remain in a christian faith so i want to build a matrix for one to use as a guide in finding a new church if he or she feels a need to worship.

i personally don't attend any church and i will keep my personal beliefs to myself.

David_Jay

And don't expect a perfect church however. There are none.

There will be always be stupid people who through their stupidity and self-serving attitude will create problems, sometimes serious ones, for other members. Some will disappoint you, even if they be ministers.

There will sometimes be more interest in following church politics and polity than doctrine. It happens. This too is stupid, but it happens.

But you should be able to fight against it, shine a public light on it, and find support to help rid such problems. It may be difficult in some instances, but unlike the Watchtower brand of religion, you should be able to do this without fear you will lose your membership or position. If not, you know what to do. But even in the best of organizations, religious or secular, you will have your share of problems from the stupid.

Yet if it gets downright unbearable, and you can't help but use words like "criminal" and "evil," an exit would be recommended. Neither would it be advantageous to belong to a church, religion, or organization where the majority wear self-deluding blinders to ignore the problems. Even a good garden sometimes has its weeds and bugs, but a good gardener should also be on top of this.

11

Help to build a "Guide to Your New Faith"

by Defianttruth in

i have seen many people ask the question, "if its not the truth what else is there?

" i imagine that most people want to remain in a christian faith so i want to build a matrix for one to use as a guide in finding a new church if he or she feels a need to worship.

i personally don't attend any church and i will keep my personal beliefs to myself.

David_Jay

You may also want to note how their theology is built. If they use a multiple array of methods, using critical (analytical) approaches while not dismissing traditional views, you may have found a good group. (Most Christian denominations, Protestant and Catholic, share an ecumenical base of theology that is academically sound while remaining historically based in apostolic tradition.)

If they use a Bible translation produced by an ecumenical board of translators, this is also a good sign. (And if they allow study from several different versions, this is another good sign.)

If they have good relations with other Christian faiths as well as open dialogue with non-Christian ones (yes, even atheists), you are likely in good company.

Of course, it may not be a "church" you feel spiritually called to. Some people go to Temple or a synagogue. It may even be a mosque you choose. So while this post is mainly about those searching for a Christian congregation, rest assured many of these points are universal and can be applied in most religious situations.

75

Evolution and Atheism - please help

by Fernando in

not being familiar with either, my question is:.

what is the relationship between evolution and atheism?.

i'd love to hear from anyone and everyone, and also from any perspective.. without limiting the conversation in any way, i would of course also appreciate comments that are simple, clear, direct and correct (as i don't have the capacity to do a phd in evolution or atheism)..

David_Jay

Cofty,

I am still puzzled by your responses. All I can think is that there is something keeping you from reading my comments without some preconceived prejudice.

I am a strong believer in evolution. I even mentioned this in this last post of mine that I am not one to endorse accepting arguments against evolution. That is how I started after providing a link from a Scientific American editorial regarding other non-religious voices on the issue. Apparently the ability to fully read what I state is either a failure on my part in composition or one on yours to fully absorb what is presented or a combination, but I cannot imagine.

I merely mentioned that there are other scientific theories besides evolution that others endorse. Since I am a supporter of the evolutionary theory, your bombastic response is still uncharacteristic of a person who claims to be governed by logic, and your questions are for others.

But it doesn't speak well of us if we cannot tolerate the mere suggestion of the existence of alternative views without repeatedly blowing up with questioning challenges each and every time. Alternative views to ours are not attacks on what we believe, unless we find anything but our own views so fragile that such suggestions are perceived as threats. You can rest assured that the theory of evolution is not in danger of disappearing because others may have alternative, non-religious and equally scientific views. And yes, they are out there, but your convictions still remain the most popular.

Yet if we were once Jehovah's Witnesses then we are already done with people telling us that there cannot possibly be alternative views. The idea that only one or even the majority of voices on this forum have to be in the right is a holdover from the Watchtower system which demands uniformity of thought, practices bullying those who will not conform, and revealing the unreasonableness of those who adversely judge others who don't desire to agree withyou. I am certain that you are not intolerant of other views or missing those days when elders and the Governing Body demanded we think only one way. I think higher of you.

These alternatives were not an attack on you or your beliefs, but people deserve to know about all that is out there. Neither you nor anyone else will ever stop people from learning and choosing to embrace alternative views if they so choose. We should not forget that the more we show our distaste for the mere suggestion of other views and the freedom of thought, the more we and our own convictions will be viewed as unreasonable and unacceptable. And that would be a shame becuase evolution deserves better.

23

Obey the Superior Authorities God says / God says Satan is controlling the Superior Authorities.?

by smiddy in

romans 13 : 1-4 clearly states that the superior authorities are an arrangement from god , defy them and you are working against the arrangement of god at your own peril.. christians are to be obedient to the superior authorities ,"for their is no authority except by god , the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by god .therefore he who opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of god ".

matt.

4 :8-10 shows that all the kingdoms and governments are under satan`s control , jesus never disputed that claim .

David_Jay

Kaik is not saying that Satan the Devil is his own opposer.

The Catholic New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE) explains in a footnote to Job 1:6 where this new translation has the rendition "the satan also came with them...The Lord said to the satan...then the satan answered...."

"Lit., 'adversary' (as in 1 Kgs 11:14). Here [merely] a member of the heavenly court, 'the accuser' (Zec 3:1). In later biblical traditions this character will be developed as the devil."

The Hebrew terminology regarding an adversarial solicitor in the heavenly court was later applied by Jesus as another name for Beelzebul, the prince of demons accepted by some Jews in the era of the Second Temple. Though a leader among evil forces was developed before the birth of Christ in some Jewish thought, Jesus of Nazareth used the terms "adversary" and "accuser" for this same demonic prince instead of other popular names of the time. Jesus introduced new characteristics to this entity as one that attempts to work against providence and humankind, an enemy of both God and man and not merely a chief ruler among fallen spirits.

The Jewish and Catholic understanding is admittedly different from many who see the Devil as an archenemy of God or someone who is God's equal but evil. Many see all references to these spiritual solicitors as the same "Satan the Devil" proclaimed by Jesus, but that would belie a central teaching of Christianity, namely that part of Jesus' ministry was to unveil this chief demon and make him powerless by throwing light on his machinations which, up till then had been largely unknown to humans.

Catholicism (and some Protestant churches) agree with Judaism that these references in the Old Testament are not the same same "Devil" that Jesus reveals. There is also a growing number of Jews who are part of a movement to reclaim the New Testament as a Jewish work, mainly for cultural reasons. The production of "The Jewish Annotated New Testament: NRSV" is part of this, with Jewish commentators agreeing that Jesus of Nazareth introduced the Devil in his ministry, and thus such an introduction is central to the gospel itself. The words may be the same as used in the Old Testament they note, but the Devil as taught by Jesus was not a member of the angelic court with access to God as in Job. This evil spirit had, according to Jesus, been an adversary of God since the beginning of creation.

75

Evolution and Atheism - please help

by Fernando in

not being familiar with either, my question is:.

what is the relationship between evolution and atheism?.

i'd love to hear from anyone and everyone, and also from any perspective.. without limiting the conversation in any way, i would of course also appreciate comments that are simple, clear, direct and correct (as i don't have the capacity to do a phd in evolution or atheism)..

David_Jay

Fernando,

Evolution is not the only scientific theory out there. There are alternative scientific theories and very smart, non-relgious people who do not advocate or support evolution. (See http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dubitable-darwin-why-some-smart-nonreligious-people-doubt-the-theory-of-evolution/ as a starting point.)

I am not one to endorse criticism regarding evolution or Neo-Darwinism, but it is awfully two-dimensional to believe that the field is as polarized as Watchtowerism has portrayed the world. Science does not have their eggs in one evolutionary basket when it comes to explaining life's origins, neither does it find support in Creationism or some type of religious views. But the Jehovah's Witnesses have done a good job of convincing people that there are only two ways about thinking about most things, compartmentalizing them into "good" or "evil," "truth" or "false," "Jehovah" or "Satan." They have done the same with science, claiming their are only two sides to the issue, "evolution" or "Creation by God." Not true, don't fall into that trap.

Lastly, watch for the attitude from others that suggests that whatever choice you make is wrong. You might not choose to accept religion or God, but evolution isn't the only alternative for atheists, logical thinkers and scientists. Don't allow others to convince you as did the Jehovah's Witnesses that there is only one way to think, especially when it is the view they accept. Think for yourself, outside the box, pushing the envelope with courage. Great thinkers don't follow. Great thinkers lead.

13

Would you ever......?

by ctrwtf in

jw
friends

list as an accomplishment on a resume, "i escaped from a mind control doomsday cult?".

sometimes when i reflect on it, the magnitude of this accomplishment amazes me..

David_Jay

No, because that is also admitting you joined a cult.

Would you hire somebody who you knew once joined a cult if you had to choose between others who have never been in a cult and someone who has?

Would you listen to the opinion of someone who has been in a cult, even though they are out, or would you not always be second-guessing them?

When they talk about their new religion or new conviction or whatever views they had, wouldn't you always be thinking, "Yeah, you're so sure you are right now, but didn't you say the same thing when you were in that cult and trying to get me to join it? Why should I believe you now when you say you're sure you aren't being duped when you swore the same thing as a Jehovah's Witness?"

Yeah. Believe me. It's not a good thing.

75

Evolution and Atheism - please help

by Fernando in

not being familiar with either, my question is:.

what is the relationship between evolution and atheism?.

i'd love to hear from anyone and everyone, and also from any perspective.. without limiting the conversation in any way, i would of course also appreciate comments that are simple, clear, direct and correct (as i don't have the capacity to do a phd in evolution or atheism)..

David_Jay

Cofty,

I think your comments are very good and you show great depth of insight. Why you think I'm lecturing you or building some type of straw man argument is puzzling. I am writing with the understanding that more than you are reading these posts.

Besides I was under the impression that most here, including you, don't fail to have an even far better means of ensuring the validity of your convictions than most. I am generally criticizing the type of mindset we learned as Witnesses. As far as I am concerned I have but the highest respect for your views, your arguments, and the positions you take.

75

Evolution and Atheism - please help

by Fernando in

not being familiar with either, my question is:.

what is the relationship between evolution and atheism?.

i'd love to hear from anyone and everyone, and also from any perspective.. without limiting the conversation in any way, i would of course also appreciate comments that are simple, clear, direct and correct (as i don't have the capacity to do a phd in evolution or atheism)..

David_Jay

Cofty,

That is a good question, but of course it only limits the issue before a Christian Fundamentalist's dilemma perhaps.

In Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and in mainstream Christianity, "praying for one's recovery" is not a request for miracles. In fact, I know from experience, that in Catholicism (at least) the administering of medicine or even the scientific discovery and development of new treatments can often be viewed as an "answer to prayer." Seeking miracles, though often declared as a requisite by some "true believers," is not elemental to all theologies or Christian traditions. Some even see such things as unnecessarily "testing" the God they worship.

A good friend of mine was a professional Catholic theologian. Quite aged now, he is mostly retired, but occasionally gets called on by both clergy and even the USCCB from time to time. I was quite surprised at the dichotomous approach he has to the work he does. I would describe it as "shocking to the conservative religious" because in academic work, even when the result is religious, there is great importance that he places on "never having the end result tainted by superstition," as he put it.

Of course, were it not for meeting people like him I would probably have a similar view to yours. My experience in the JW religion left me both very sure of my reasoning skills but naive to the reality of how little I really knew about things. One cannot jump to conclusions on how religious people incorporate their scientific side into the holistic whole that ends up being who they are without meeting each and every one of them. Some of them are actually quite divided and prefer it that way to keep them going too far one way or the other.

So their dichotomy is actually cherished and kept in place at all costs. Science and other critical analytical forms of reason are often employed purposefully by many theists because of the fact that they will not easily or ever reconcile with religious though. They want a fail-safe to ensure that their convictions are more than mere credulity.

How many of us have a similar fail-safe in place to ensure we are not catering to our emotional need to be right, have all the answers, and are now in a position to remind others with opposite views that they need to change their ways (again, for those of us who thought this way as JWs)? Just because we chose atheism and science doesn't mean we don't need to constantly ensure and validate our current stand with just as much discipline as these people do.

23

Obey the Superior Authorities God says / God says Satan is controlling the Superior Authorities.?

by smiddy in

romans 13 : 1-4 clearly states that the superior authorities are an arrangement from god , defy them and you are working against the arrangement of god at your own peril.. christians are to be obedient to the superior authorities ,"for their is no authority except by god , the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by god .therefore he who opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of god ".

matt.

4 :8-10 shows that all the kingdoms and governments are under satan`s control , jesus never disputed that claim .

David_Jay

Vidiot and prologos bring up good points.

The Watchtower religion is good at creating paradoxes due to what is often termed as "radical Sola Scriptura." As most of you know, "Sola Scriptura" in its most elementary form is citing Scripture as the final authority regarding the definition of Christian dogma. It recognizes that Christian doctrine arose simultaneously with the writing of the Scriptures and, because of this understands that even primary doctrine is not often defined in dogmatic or explicit terms in Scripture as a result; however it appeals to Scripture as having the final say in defining how such doctrine should be shaped, explained, and employed. The "radical" form sees Scripture as the basis for religion, not solely as its interpreter.

The "radical Sola Scriptura" employed by the Jehovah's Witnesses is actually a product of the Second Great Awakening, the religious revival movement in North America of the 19th century. What are termed by religious academics as "new religious movements" or NRMs were often founded by lay persons of other Christian traditions or even those who were only "nominally Christian" until having some sort of emotional experience during this revival period or some time thereafter.

Moving forward on little more but the emotional experience brought on by the revival or their own personal reawakening, these persons, well-intended as they might have been, went forward without academic training in religion, Scripture, theology, and generally without formal training in anything like professional clergy were. Some were absent of even the basic training from religious instruction such as was offered in basic catechism classes or even Sunday school attendance. Where taught to distrust and even despise the clergy, some of these religious founders even went so far as to purposely avoid formal education.

From these came the likes of Joseph Smith (founder of the LDS movement) and Charles Taze Russell. Both shared a common misunderstanding that was often found among the uneducated in North America, generally that the Bible itself was the ultimate and final revelation from God. This was contrary to the dogma in Christianity that the person, Jesus of Nazareth as Christ, was himself the ultimate source of revelation from God. (For Jews this has been the Great Theophany at Mount Sinai and other smaller personal theophanies of the patriarchs.) Scripture was a written testament to these religious traditions, a part of the deposit of faith, but never the source of their systems, let alone the founding ingredient to religion or doctrine itself.

Mistaking "Sola Scriptura" as the belief that the written word of God was the first and final form of revelation from God, religions like the Jehovah's Witnesses grew popular among the NRMs. Offering an interpretation limited to the pages of Scripture, new and often radical interpretations came forth. Free from the historical and traditional understanding that shaped them, the Biblical texts became "proof texts" for odd and often very hard-to-sustain doctrines, often in need of constant revision. (Joseph Smith went one step further and "discovered" a new text that was "added" to the ultimate authority of written testimony.)

Dropping Christianity's traditional dogma from the picture, one cannot make sense of the texts regarding the Temptation of Christ, the Roman epistle's call to obedience to world authorities, and Johannine texts that describe the "world" as both being under Satan's control yet "so loved" that Christ died for it.

Obviously the original authors and the Church authorities that formally canonized these texts never imagined that the same Scriptures would be read free from an understanding of basic Christian doctrine. Yet the Watchtower brand of religion demands such a reading, and because of this one is left with a conflicting picture that cannot be reconciled in the vacuum in which such a theology resides.

David_Jay

Posts by David_Jay