Because you seemed to have appointed yourself the spelling monitor a page or two back. I was being sarcastic. -->
quote:A copperhead snake, a pit bull, and Adolf Hitler wander into your yard, but you only have one bullet. Who do you shoot?
Well, if I stay in the house the pit bull will probably attack Adolph when he begins to make his obligatory speech. The Copperhead will bite the dog when he investigates, doggy fashion. I'll let the Copperhead scare off the punks that are bouncing a basketball off the side of my apartment building and save the bullet for myself to save me from more of your analogies.
By the way. If I had known that this thread would generate the aggravation that it has generated I would never have posted it.
In retropect I was in error calling the thread "Why I reject Christ".
Anyone who cares to read it will notice that I havent breathed a WORD about Christ. I should have called it "Why I reject the OT God".
As Lindy and Sunesis mentioned earlier in this thread, a good many folks in the earliest centuries of Christian history, such as those of the Marcionites and various gnostic movements, did reject the Old Testament God, believing that Christ (or "Krestus" = the Kind, the Benevolent One) was an alien to this world who had revealed a new, higher God of goodness, in contrast to the harsh, wordly God of justice and judgment in the OT.
Interestingly, for some of the same reasons athiests and agnostics reject the OT deity today on account of his cruelties, a number of early Christians also did for the same reasons, prior to the suppression of these movements.
Incidently the Arch-heretic Marcion (circ.70 -150 CE) compiled and circulated the earliest known NT canon, around 130 CE, along with a treatise entitled "Antithesis" which drew a comparison of OT and NT passages to demonstrate the character differences between deities.
Marcion's canon comprised of one gospel ( of which the orthodox "Luke" is a gaudy, almost laughable expansion) and 10 letters attributed to Paul in shorter form.
Marcion's canon served as the catalyst which compelled his proto-orthodox rivals to come up with their own canon, to which they added the deutero-Pauline "Pastoral Epistles" which depicts this "Paul" even attacking Marcion's treatise by name. The Apostle's Creed also contains much distinctly anti-marcionite, almost refuting their rival's ideas point by point.
The Marcionites were at one time Catholicism's most formidible rival, and the texts which have come down to us reflect this fact in the polemical touches throughout.
No Marcionite literature has survived, outside of citations of the Marcionite text and reported beliefs found in the dissertations leveled against them by Tertullian, Epiphanius, Adamantius (Pseudo-Origin), and a few others.
"uncomfortable questions..."? Yikes. That sounds like the guy who farts in the middle of the room and then when no one laughs says "aw, you guys are uptight, am I making you uncomfortable?"
In other words Refiner, you can call Jesus anything you want, or question anything you want, or reject anything you want or accept anything you want. I may or may not agree or like it. If I don't like it, guess what?
As long as you leave Michelle Pfeiffer out of it. Next thing, you'll be dissin' Sharon Stone and after that it's pretty much over.
What's the big problem? I really don't see it... Refiner came here as an ex-cultie and guess what? WE ARE EX-CULTIES! (well, most of us anyway) He started a topic stating his opinion, big farging deal! There will be posts opposing and posts supporting... how's that any different than any other thread?
However, I don't buy Refiner's statement of "By the way. If I had known that this thread would generate the aggravation that it has generated I would never have posted it." The impression I've gotten of you Refiner is that you're pretty sharp. I'm thinking you knew that it would be somewhat 'contriversial'!
Anyway, he's entitled to his opinion... I've never gotten the vibe that he has any secret agenda... I think this site works for ANYONE that's been in a cult, it's comforting (in a way) to me in a way that we weren't the only one's duped.
There's Christians and non-Christians around here... I'm not feeling that the hostility towards him is really justified... he's just expressing his opinions and then defending himself against the attacks. I don't recall any place where he tried to force his beliefs on anyone.
Sometimes different viewpoints can be healthy. They make you look at your perspective and either help you strengthen it or change.
Now as to TS saying that I "knew it would be inflammatory" , Ive thought on it and will conceed that he is right. I probably, (unconsciously mind) chose that title because i knew it would generate reads and lots of replies.
Fair enuff.
Im a bit inflammatory and have been in trouble online for it before.
Yeah Exy, to reject something I guess youd have to percieve there was an OFFER in the first place, and I dont believe Ive had an offer.
Im under the impression that Im supposed to wrestle and agonize endlessly searching for my Lord to answer me, well Ive been there, and havent recieved a reply as I see it.
I happen to think Jesus Christ is the most amazing person to have ever put sandal to sand. But I don't feel obligated or compelled to convince anyone else to think so who's already made up his or her mind to the contrary. I think it's sad, but we're not puppets on strings. We each have to come to our own conclusions.
I'm glad you 'fessed up to being a bit inflammatory, Refiner. If you hadn't, your credibility would have slipped a little with me. :D--> I don't mind rabble rousers as long as they aren't mean, and you don't look so mean to me. At least you didn't tell me I'm a dumbass who might as well believe in the Easter Bunny, so you got some points with me there. :D-->:D-->:D-->
"I too am an ex-JW, but unlike Refiner, I'm also ex-TWI.
"How would I feel if someone who's not ex-TWI showed up and started posting on how we all need to accept the Trinity? Don't know. It hasn't happened (I'm assuming DA Reed is ex-TWI, but I don't know that for sure).
"Do people who are not ex-TWI have to respect some kind of boundaries before posting? Is it trolling if they try to start an interesting/controversial discussion? I should hope not. But at the same time I understand how folks like Dot and Goey are feeling."
*****
I don't know D. A. Reed except through his posts on forums frequented by ex-Wayfers. I remember him indicating, however, he had known someone who was involved with or who had been involved with TWI, and that he had not himself been involved with the sect.
Refiner's posts have not yet bothered me much. I point out, nonetheless, that Refiner has apparently made 383 posts (well, that was his indicated tally when I started writing this post) in scantly over one month, and has seven threads sitting on the first pages of the "Doctrinal" and "About the Way" forums.
D. A. Reed has made all the apologetic and other points he has made in the present version of this forum in a GS-indicated total of 29 posts, since registering more than two years ago.
Rafael's analogy is, rather characteristically, superficial. D. A. Reed's posting on ex-Wayfer forums is not equivalent to some Arian-turned-cult-romping-atheist-windbag's cyber-joining of himself to some ex-Wayfers.
*****
"The natural man then assumes that he has the final criterion of truth within himself. Every form of authority that comes to him must justify itself by standards inherent in man and operative apart from the authority that speaks." -- Cornelius Van Til. The Defense of the Faith
I saw one of his Witness books in a Word bookstore when I was doubting, bought it and read it. Then I wrote to the man and he wrote a long handwritten response giving me all kinds of links to support and information.
Raf is full of crap. it's okay for a never-been-way person to come here and tell us to accept the Trinity, but it's not okay for a never-been-way person to come here and tell us Christ is not Lord.
:)-->
By the way, I've always thought it was the same David Reed. You sure it's not him?
Hey cynic. Heres how I view posting. I post something, people either respond of they dont. If they dont respond I drop it. Look at my thread about "Spiritualization" noone cares about it. I havent posted a doctrinal analysis thread about a non TWI church since.
Fact is, I post, people reply to me by name, so being polite I personally reply to them, then they reply again, etc.
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
Dot Matrix
Refiner, how dare you come here and tell me I want to remain coddled --
The title of the thread for one
WHY I REJECT CHRIST --
And yes I have read your posts -- and that is my impression.
So, welcome to the Spot...
Edited by moddishwasherLink to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Lindy PT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
As Lindy and Sunesis mentioned earlier in this thread, a good many folks in the earliest centuries of Christian history, such as those of the Marcionites and various gnostic movements, did reject the Old Testament God, believing that Christ (or "Krestus" = the Kind, the Benevolent One) was an alien to this world who had revealed a new, higher God of goodness, in contrast to the harsh, wordly God of justice and judgment in the OT.
Interestingly, for some of the same reasons athiests and agnostics reject the OT deity today on account of his cruelties, a number of early Christians also did for the same reasons, prior to the suppression of these movements.
Incidently the Arch-heretic Marcion (circ.70 -150 CE) compiled and circulated the earliest known NT canon, around 130 CE, along with a treatise entitled "Antithesis" which drew a comparison of OT and NT passages to demonstrate the character differences between deities.
Marcion's canon comprised of one gospel ( of which the orthodox "Luke" is a gaudy, almost laughable expansion) and 10 letters attributed to Paul in shorter form.
Marcion's canon served as the catalyst which compelled his proto-orthodox rivals to come up with their own canon, to which they added the deutero-Pauline "Pastoral Epistles" which depicts this "Paul" even attacking Marcion's treatise by name. The Apostle's Creed also contains much distinctly anti-marcionite, almost refuting their rival's ideas point by point.
The Marcionites were at one time Catholicism's most formidible rival, and the texts which have come down to us reflect this fact in the polemical touches throughout.
No Marcionite literature has survived, outside of citations of the Marcionite text and reported beliefs found in the dissertations leveled against them by Tertullian, Epiphanius, Adamantius (Pseudo-Origin), and a few others.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Refiner
I did notice your comments Dan and they seem a reasonable possibilty to me, Also Uncle hairy said some things that I tend to agree with.
As to those who have discovered the "truth", well, I am caused to wonder why some of them are so offended and defensive.
I dont see any pagands here howling down the Christians.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Oh brother.
"uncomfortable questions..."? Yikes. That sounds like the guy who farts in the middle of the room and then when no one laughs says "aw, you guys are uptight, am I making you uncomfortable?"
In other words Refiner, you can call Jesus anything you want, or question anything you want, or reject anything you want or accept anything you want. I may or may not agree or like it. If I don't like it, guess what?
As long as you leave Michelle Pfeiffer out of it. Next thing, you'll be dissin' Sharon Stone and after that it's pretty much over.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
well um michelle and sharon are born of the seed of the serpent
other than that, i agree totally with johnny socks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
What's the big problem? I really don't see it... Refiner came here as an ex-cultie and guess what? WE ARE EX-CULTIES! (well, most of us anyway) He started a topic stating his opinion, big farging deal! There will be posts opposing and posts supporting... how's that any different than any other thread?
However, I don't buy Refiner's statement of "By the way. If I had known that this thread would generate the aggravation that it has generated I would never have posted it." The impression I've gotten of you Refiner is that you're pretty sharp. I'm thinking you knew that it would be somewhat 'contriversial'!
Anyway, he's entitled to his opinion... I've never gotten the vibe that he has any secret agenda... I think this site works for ANYONE that's been in a cult, it's comforting (in a way) to me in a way that we weren't the only one's duped.
There's Christians and non-Christians around here... I'm not feeling that the hostility towards him is really justified... he's just expressing his opinions and then defending himself against the attacks. I don't recall any place where he tried to force his beliefs on anyone.
Sometimes different viewpoints can be healthy. They make you look at your perspective and either help you strengthen it or change.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
ps. i would like to join danny's cult goddamnit especially since i know he's the only member.... well sock's cult look pretty damn good too
mwah
confused
hurt
mwah
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
well i'm thinking about what you said, strange one
editing here
perhaps refiner did not think it was sacreligious to post the words why i reject christ
seems from his responses thus far he didn't know it would set off 4th of july fireworks
i tend to give people the benefit of the doubt
(not a hypocrite.... because all the other posters i've seen here posting for a long time, but not him or ozzie girl)
what am i missing to those who think he might be a troll or whatever ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Refiner
Exy you are a nut. But a funny nut.
Now as to TS saying that I "knew it would be inflammatory" , Ive thought on it and will conceed that he is right. I probably, (unconsciously mind) chose that title because i knew it would generate reads and lots of replies.
Fair enuff.
Im a bit inflammatory and have been in trouble online for it before.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Refiner
Well exy, I think the use of the word "REJECT' carries a certain meaning and triggered off our Christian brethren here.
The question is whether that meaning is the one I meant to convey.
I think in retrospect the term "reject" is probably too ACTIVE a term.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
okay i give i give you messed up
Edited by moddishwasherLink to comment
Share on other sites
Refiner
Yeah Exy, to reject something I guess youd have to percieve there was an OFFER in the first place, and I dont believe Ive had an offer.
Im under the impression that Im supposed to wrestle and agonize endlessly searching for my Lord to answer me, well Ive been there, and havent recieved a reply as I see it.
Hows that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
I happen to think Jesus Christ is the most amazing person to have ever put sandal to sand. But I don't feel obligated or compelled to convince anyone else to think so who's already made up his or her mind to the contrary. I think it's sad, but we're not puppets on strings. We each have to come to our own conclusions.
I'm glad you 'fessed up to being a bit inflammatory, Refiner. If you hadn't, your credibility would have slipped a little with me.
:D--> I don't mind rabble rousers as long as they aren't mean, and you don't look so mean to me. At least you didn't tell me I'm a dumbass who might as well believe in the Easter Bunny, so you got some points with me there. 
:D-->
:D-->
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i meant you messed up with the title of your thread silly boy
:)-->
Edited by moddishwasherLink to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Rafael wrote,
"I'm having a bit of a hard time with this.
"I too am an ex-JW, but unlike Refiner, I'm also ex-TWI.
"How would I feel if someone who's not ex-TWI showed up and started posting on how we all need to accept the Trinity? Don't know. It hasn't happened (I'm assuming DA Reed is ex-TWI, but I don't know that for sure).
"Do people who are not ex-TWI have to respect some kind of boundaries before posting? Is it trolling if they try to start an interesting/controversial discussion? I should hope not. But at the same time I understand how folks like Dot and Goey are feeling."
*****
I don't know D. A. Reed except through his posts on forums frequented by ex-Wayfers. I remember him indicating, however, he had known someone who was involved with or who had been involved with TWI, and that he had not himself been involved with the sect.
Refiner's posts have not yet bothered me much. I point out, nonetheless, that Refiner has apparently made 383 posts (well, that was his indicated tally when I started writing this post) in scantly over one month, and has seven threads sitting on the first pages of the "Doctrinal" and "About the Way" forums.
D. A. Reed has made all the apologetic and other points he has made in the present version of this forum in a GS-indicated total of 29 posts, since registering more than two years ago.
Rafael's analogy is, rather characteristically, superficial. D. A. Reed's posting on ex-Wayfer forums is not equivalent to some Arian-turned-cult-romping-atheist-windbag's cyber-joining of himself to some ex-Wayfers.
*****
"The natural man then assumes that he has the final criterion of truth within himself. Every form of authority that comes to him must justify itself by standards inherent in man and operative apart from the authority that speaks." -- Cornelius Van Til. The Defense of the Faith
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
what ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Refiner
David Reed was very helpful to me.
I saw one of his Witness books in a Word bookstore when I was doubting, bought it and read it. Then I wrote to the man and he wrote a long handwritten response giving me all kinds of links to support and information.
Thank you David Reed!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Refiner,
I sort of enjoy being an a$$hole. Don't take my invective too seriously.
I think that is a different David Reed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Translation:
Raf is full of crap. it's okay for a never-been-way person to come here and tell us to accept the Trinity, but it's not okay for a never-been-way person to come here and tell us Christ is not Lord.
By the way, I've always thought it was the same David Reed. You sure it's not him?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Refiner
Hey cynic. Heres how I view posting. I post something, people either respond of they dont. If they dont respond I drop it. Look at my thread about "Spiritualization" noone cares about it. I havent posted a doctrinal analysis thread about a non TWI church since.
Fact is, I post, people reply to me by name, so being polite I personally reply to them, then they reply again, etc.
I cant help it if people love me.
I love them right back.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Rafael,
You've apparently sat around playing with that idea that alien should be characterized as a univocal term for just far too long.
*****
No, I'm fairly confident, but am not sure, that D. A. and the other D. A. are not the same guy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I love you too, Cynic.
I'd bet good money it's the same guy. Will have to ask him if he turns up sometime.
In the meantime, I still think the analogy holds.
A non-TWI person who comes in telling us to accept the trinity has the same standing as a non-TWI person who comes in telling us to "reject Christ."
Call it superficial if you want, but you still haven't discredited the analogy.
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.