I know this thread is 11 years old but a non-XTWI poster was provided more grace than I - maybe because I offended but if you got the time to read the extensive thread, you will see that the adversarial poster was provided more grace than I, maybe cause you were all younger in those days and more acceptable of critisism or just plain more tolerant.
Two points.
1. I apologize for not reading through your post and failing to see that you alredy noted how old the thread was.
2. I do not see how Refiner was treated nicer than you were. I got you signed in here when there was no way for people to just sign in anymore, and Refiner was run out of this site on a rail. You have no idea. Priscilla, not so much, because she just got bored with us real quick.
I am embarrassed at my behavior on this thread. And don't get me started on the Mike wars (don't ask).
Here's the original post, with some up-to-date thoughts.
Now when I was attending church as a young man, we never actually READ the bible. We read books and magazines that dispensed the church doctrine and looked up selectively quoted scriptures to confirm that the church doctrine was true.
I was a Jehovah's Witness early in life, and I believe that is the experience being described here. It conforms to my memory.
I never actually sat down and read the Bible, cover to cover, until I was about 30 years old.
My reading of the Bible turned me against any ability to Worship the Biblical God, or by extension, follow after Jesus.
The major sticking point for me was the difference in the nature of the two testaments.
The (as I saw it) violent, unfair, blindly enraged Old Testament God who advocated exterminated entire races simply because they were descended from the blood of Cain or other persons who had committed sins of incest, or were directly descended from “City builders”. This is extermination based on blood purity, a notion any modern Christian rejects.
This is where Biblical racists such as the ‘Christian Identity’ movement and Dan Gaymans ‘Church of Israel’ get their doctrine from in case you have ever wondered.
It is RIGHT there in the Old Testament.
I'm not going to argue with this interpretation of the Old Testament. However, while I have made some of my points of contention with the Old Testament fairly clear on other threads, I am not sure I see the same things Refiner is describing here. Yes, God does order mass murder in the Bible. I'm just not sure it fits the description being given here. Some chapters and verses would have helped the argument.
I could not accept the Old Testament God who sent plague amongst peoples simply because they hungered for chicken while wandering in the wilderness. Struck people down because they complained about lack of water while wandering in the desert. I must say I asked “Why doesn’t He just give them water”?
I thought He did. ??
The Old Testament God who sent bears to maul children because they had called His prophet “Old Baldy”. Or struck down illegitimate babes because they were fathered from an act of Adultery with the wife of Urriah the Hittite.
Yeah, those are two well known events in the Bible. I struggled with the death of David's first son with Bathsheba. I justified it in my mind by observing that God never promised health to that baby, and that David kind of brought it on himself. (Yeah, but David's not the one who died).
I decided such a God was not worthy of being worshipped.
This logically, in my mind, extended over to an unwillingness to accept Jesus, as the Father and Son were the same entity, being a trinity.
This is why I do not accept Christ.
Can someone offer comment on these matters?
This is a strange comment coming from a former Jehovah's Witness (which Refiner was) speaking to a group of ex-TWI people (which we were/are). But ok. I mean, really, strip the trinity out of the sentence, and it still makes sense. It's not like Jesus said "I distance myself from some of the things my Father did when he got hot-headed."
Raf: yes, it belongs in "Questioning Faith". This thread was very good but also a very long read (alot of tit-for-tat). It is/was not my intent to re-introduce it for discussion, I think everything had been said (at nasum); I did though just hafta throw in my 2 cents about the "Red Thread" which one poster had done already and that was also my take as well, it's also my opion of the matter when it comes to the gnostic issue. I just recently had read something on John 1:1 that related that verse to gnostitism (it that's a word) - it was from John Schoenheit (no intent to advertise, just stating the source).
Additionally, and this was not the prime intent, point out some of the inconsistencies of the forum protocol: in hind sight, it's probably a very moot point given the 11 years of progress and am aware of some of the belief changes.
I do maintain my statement on the stances you and WordWolf took at the time to bring some civility into the banter and that, in so many ways, you both continue to do to this day.
Why be embarrassed, it was quite obvious how you got drawn into the frey and as we all know, after 11 years, we pick our battles with more discretion.
What Mike wars, I don't know what it the world you are talking about.
"What Mike wars, I don't know what it the world you are talking about."
Mike is a guy who firmly believes that PFAL was God breathed and replaces the Bible as the written word of God. At one point, he stated it was revealed to him that when Christ returns, he will be holding a PFAL book in his right hand. Some of Mike's comments are what prompted Raf to develop his work on Actual Errors in PFAL and his analysis of The Blue Book.
The Blue Book review was independent of Mike and stemmed from Jerry Barrax' effort to deconstruct PFAL.
The notion that PFAL was a sort of "new and improved testament" was unique to Mike. The Actual Errors in PFAL thread came from that.
For those who have been around that long and are interested in my progression toward unbelief:
Jerry Barrax introduced to our forums the notion that James and Galatians are SO at odds that James ought to be removed from the Bible. I took the traditional approach and tried to reconcile the two books. Behind the scenes (although I never admitted it publicly), I realized that James and Galatians were indeed at odds to the extent that apologetics could not truly reconcile them. The writers of those two epistles simply talked past each other, using the same terms to refer to different ideas -- both correct in their own contexts, but ultimately not reconcilable. It was then, very early on, that I lost the belief that the Bible was without contradiction. I preferred the term "paradox," as it allowed me to accept both views as long as I compartmentalized them.
It was Mike who, in criticizing my Actual Errors effort, first said that a similar approach to the Bible would yield a similar result. I batted his argument away by focusing on PFAL, because if PFAL is "God's Word," it must have the qualities ascribed to God's Word by PFAL. That is, it must be without error or contradiction. But Wierwille's books did have errors and contradictions. I only highlighted those things that you could not argue out of by claiming doctrinal differences. I was rather nitpicky when it came to that, but there was a purpose. I never intended to argue that these were the only errors in PFAL. Rather, I was arguing that these were errors you could not talk your way out of no matter what your theological beliefs. And I was right. The list still holds up pretty much.
But what I did not reveal, again, was the effect this had on my study and understanding of the Bible itself. It didn't hold up. It had errors. It had contradictions. In this sub-forum, I have barely scratched the surface of the errors and contradictions of the Bible (not apparent errors and contradictions, but actual errors). It was many years before I would say that publicly ("many" being a relative term).
I think about 80 percent of the Greasespot rules stem from how badly I berated Mike. He deserved better than that. But he was still as wrong as a human being can be, and his defense of Wierwille's evil was morally sickening. Whatever.
The Mike wars were fascinating. If it happened today, there would be no war. Just a LOT of laughter.
waysider and Raf: I did not get my point across when I said: "What Mike wars, I don't know what it the world you are talking about." My intent was a joke in that: I don't need are want to hear about it since Raf did not want to reveal it. Kinda like, "you didn't see that did you" and I would say, "see what?".
O.K., that's strike 3 on me for trying to be witty or making a joke. Geesh, everyone's so dang (or darn if you like that better) litteral, oh yeh, it's the site. Do we have a bad joke forum somewhere?
Actually WordWolf, was just there and you did the last post - I do appreciate lawyer jokes. In Wisconsin we have a fish called a "Lawyer" - it's a bottom feeder. No Joke!
waysider and Raf: I did not get my point across when I said: "What Mike wars, I don't know what it the world you are talking about." My intent was a joke in that: I don't need are want to hear about it since Raf did not want to reveal it. Kinda like, "you didn't see that did you" and I would say, "see what?".
Doh! Good move.
O.K., that's strike 3 on me for trying to be witty or making a joke. Geesh, everyone's so dang (or darn if you like that better) litteral, oh yeh, it's the site. Do we have a bad joke forum somewhere?
CAN WE ALL LAUGH?!
Nope. Not strike 3. You struck US out. Mea culpa. You won Greasespot with that one.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
35
37
34
22
Popular Days
Jul 1
77
Jun 29
67
Jun 30
65
Jul 2
31
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 35 posts
Raf 37 posts
Refiner 34 posts
lindyhopper 22 posts
Popular Days
Jul 1 2004
77 posts
Jun 29 2004
67 posts
Jun 30 2004
65 posts
Jul 2 2004
31 posts
Popular Posts
George Aar
Why I personally reject the Bible is simply because it's the easiest case to make. Rather than spend endless hours trying to develop a plausible spin to explain why an all-knowing, all-powerful, omni
Raf
The last post on this thread was eleven years ago. Suffice it to say, MY position has changed since then.
waysider
Not only have we changed in those 11 years, the internet, in general, has changed. Social media has changed. On-line behaviors have changed. And, best of all, TWI has changed. It's shriveled up and be
Raf
I'm going to move this topic to "Questioning Faith," because it is naturally at home there.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Two points.
1. I apologize for not reading through your post and failing to see that you alredy noted how old the thread was.
2. I do not see how Refiner was treated nicer than you were. I got you signed in here when there was no way for people to just sign in anymore, and Refiner was run out of this site on a rail. You have no idea. Priscilla, not so much, because she just got bored with us real quick.
I am embarrassed at my behavior on this thread. And don't get me started on the Mike wars (don't ask).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Ah, the Mike wars...good times, good times...hahahahahahaha!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Here's the original post, with some up-to-date thoughts.
I was a Jehovah's Witness early in life, and I believe that is the experience being described here. It conforms to my memory.
I'm not going to argue with this interpretation of the Old Testament. However, while I have made some of my points of contention with the Old Testament fairly clear on other threads, I am not sure I see the same things Refiner is describing here. Yes, God does order mass murder in the Bible. I'm just not sure it fits the description being given here. Some chapters and verses would have helped the argument.
I thought He did. ??
Yeah, those are two well known events in the Bible. I struggled with the death of David's first son with Bathsheba. I justified it in my mind by observing that God never promised health to that baby, and that David kind of brought it on himself. (Yeah, but David's not the one who died).
This is a strange comment coming from a former Jehovah's Witness (which Refiner was) speaking to a group of ex-TWI people (which we were/are). But ok. I mean, really, strip the trinity out of the sentence, and it still makes sense. It's not like Jesus said "I distance myself from some of the things my Father did when he got hot-headed."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MRAP
Raf: yes, it belongs in "Questioning Faith". This thread was very good but also a very long read (alot of tit-for-tat). It is/was not my intent to re-introduce it for discussion, I think everything had been said (at nasum); I did though just hafta throw in my 2 cents about the "Red Thread" which one poster had done already and that was also my take as well, it's also my opion of the matter when it comes to the gnostic issue. I just recently had read something on John 1:1 that related that verse to gnostitism (it that's a word) - it was from John Schoenheit (no intent to advertise, just stating the source).
Additionally, and this was not the prime intent, point out some of the inconsistencies of the forum protocol: in hind sight, it's probably a very moot point given the 11 years of progress and am aware of some of the belief changes.
I do maintain my statement on the stances you and WordWolf took at the time to bring some civility into the banter and that, in so many ways, you both continue to do to this day.
Why be embarrassed, it was quite obvious how you got drawn into the frey and as we all know, after 11 years, we pick our battles with more discretion.
What Mike wars, I don't know what it the world you are talking about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"What Mike wars, I don't know what it the world you are talking about."
Mike is a guy who firmly believes that PFAL was God breathed and replaces the Bible as the written word of God. At one point, he stated it was revealed to him that when Christ returns, he will be holding a PFAL book in his right hand. Some of Mike's comments are what prompted Raf to develop his work on Actual Errors in PFAL and his analysis of The Blue Book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The Blue Book review was independent of Mike and stemmed from Jerry Barrax' effort to deconstruct PFAL.
The notion that PFAL was a sort of "new and improved testament" was unique to Mike. The Actual Errors in PFAL thread came from that.
For those who have been around that long and are interested in my progression toward unbelief:
Jerry Barrax introduced to our forums the notion that James and Galatians are SO at odds that James ought to be removed from the Bible. I took the traditional approach and tried to reconcile the two books. Behind the scenes (although I never admitted it publicly), I realized that James and Galatians were indeed at odds to the extent that apologetics could not truly reconcile them. The writers of those two epistles simply talked past each other, using the same terms to refer to different ideas -- both correct in their own contexts, but ultimately not reconcilable. It was then, very early on, that I lost the belief that the Bible was without contradiction. I preferred the term "paradox," as it allowed me to accept both views as long as I compartmentalized them.
It was Mike who, in criticizing my Actual Errors effort, first said that a similar approach to the Bible would yield a similar result. I batted his argument away by focusing on PFAL, because if PFAL is "God's Word," it must have the qualities ascribed to God's Word by PFAL. That is, it must be without error or contradiction. But Wierwille's books did have errors and contradictions. I only highlighted those things that you could not argue out of by claiming doctrinal differences. I was rather nitpicky when it came to that, but there was a purpose. I never intended to argue that these were the only errors in PFAL. Rather, I was arguing that these were errors you could not talk your way out of no matter what your theological beliefs. And I was right. The list still holds up pretty much.
But what I did not reveal, again, was the effect this had on my study and understanding of the Bible itself. It didn't hold up. It had errors. It had contradictions. In this sub-forum, I have barely scratched the surface of the errors and contradictions of the Bible (not apparent errors and contradictions, but actual errors). It was many years before I would say that publicly ("many" being a relative term).
I think about 80 percent of the Greasespot rules stem from how badly I berated Mike. He deserved better than that. But he was still as wrong as a human being can be, and his defense of Wierwille's evil was morally sickening. Whatever.
The Mike wars were fascinating. If it happened today, there would be no war. Just a LOT of laughter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MRAP
waysider and Raf: I did not get my point across when I said: "What Mike wars, I don't know what it the world you are talking about." My intent was a joke in that: I don't need are want to hear about it since Raf did not want to reveal it. Kinda like, "you didn't see that did you" and I would say, "see what?".
O.K., that's strike 3 on me for trying to be witty or making a joke. Geesh, everyone's so dang (or darn if you like that better) litteral, oh yeh, it's the site. Do we have a bad joke forum somewhere?
CAN WE ALL LAUGH?!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Yes, there is a bad joke forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Sorry for taking you literally, but we do have a Humor forum.
Once known as Just Plain Silly, it's called the Humor forum.
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/forum/60-humor/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MRAP
Actually WordWolf, was just there and you did the last post - I do appreciate lawyer jokes. In Wisconsin we have a fish called a "Lawyer" - it's a bottom feeder. No Joke!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Doh! Good move.
Nope. Not strike 3. You struck US out. Mea culpa. You won Greasespot with that one.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
I didn't know the "Mike Wars" had a name.
But Raf, wow! What a difference 11 years makes. Refiner could be you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I know, right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
I guess it's safe to say you no longer have that christians only forum...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oh that's been gone for years.
No one was signing up except for bots. It became unwieldy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
FYI, I tracked down Refiner and reminded him that his profile here is still active. Be a real hoot if he shows up!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
For those wondering, he's not interested.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Oh, well...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.