I can't see that Refiner has told anyone to reject anything.
I don't reject Christ or the OT God. I hold them in higher regard than most other fictional/legendary characters. I'm sure that's offensive to many, but it really isn't intended to be. As I've said before, I like a lot about Christianity. I just don't believe it. I don't think I ever did, though I tried to for years to convince myself I did.
If you want to settle your D. A. Reed question, why not e-mail him. His e-mail address is in his profile (Click here).
quote:I have been a Christian since 1983 and worked as a pastor in Illinois during 1993 and 1994. I have a B.A. (Biblical Studies), M.Div., Th.M., M.A. and M.Phil in philosophy, and am currently finishing a Ph.D. in Philosophical Theology.
I can't find a bio of the author. I'd be surprised if it ain't him, but hopefully he'll stop in and settle the question.
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.
Evasion. That's what I thought. If you were just wanting to be a smartass, then why didn't you make that a little more clear in your original post?
The underlying notion, that a human life has no absolute value, is quite a serious one, and one that bears discussion without faux outrage and flip suicide jokes.
The circumstances under which the relative value of a human life varies are fundamental to every society, like it or not. Perhaps that's a good topic for another thread.
I recommend going back to my original post where I brought that subject up to get the full heart of what I posted. I'm not going to defend myself against the insinuation you make when my original point defends your right to post here.
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.
When George Aar or Sudo post their anti-Bible sentiments, I tend to stay out of their way. I also have no comment on Refiner's rejection of Christ (or anyone else's). I wish I could convince you otherwise, but there's nothing I can say that you have not already heard, is there?
I say this topic is interesting to people who are ex-TWI. I'm not happy about it, but I'm just one voice among over 100, and my views have been welcome here. If Refiner's acting like a troll, his posts will ultimately bear that out. Trolls don't tend to stick around or continue posting. They're more hit-and-run as far as I can tell. Refiner seems to be interested in conversation, and wants to see how ex-TWI folks respond to his viewpoints. Maybe my viewpoint is biased. I'm more interested in his comparisons between TWI and JWs. If that means I have to put up with his Christ-rejection, well, I don't see a way around it.
Well, Raf, I'm glad to see that you don't think that Refiner is trying to get people to reject Christ. Because if people were thinking that of him they would be most mistaken.
"Defends your right to post here"???? What a most curious thing to say! Unless, of course, you are the owner of this board? Is that what you are inferring???
I really don't get what the big deal is here. If some one says they reject God or Christ, which happens quite frequently on this board, so what? We take it in stride when this is said by ex-twiers, but not anyone else?
I think Refiner has always been polite, wants to know what TWI was - like many other people, has been involved in a cult like us - we all have a lot in common.
I've read this whole thing, I really don't understand why people went off and got so upset.
Keep posting Refiner and Oz, I really enjoy points of view of people who were not involved in TWI - there is much more objectivity in many ways than those of us who were involved - many are still way too subjective. Refiner sometimes shakes up our waybrain attitudes, beliefs and thoughts we still have.
Well, Raf, I'm glad to see that you don't think that Refiner is trying to get people to reject Christ. Because if people were thinking that of him they would be most mistaken.
Actually, yes he is. To quote Judge Judy (pre-TV), don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. He says it's logical to reject Christ. So if you accept him, you're not logical. Fine, that's his opinion and he's entitled. And maybe he didn't explicitly ask anyone to adopt his belief, but he doesn't have to. Not when he names the thread "Why I reject Christ" and states that it's logical to do so.
quote:"Defends your right to post here"???? What a most curious thing to say! Unless, of course, you are the owner of this board? Is that what you are inferring???
Oh come on, I have to OWN the site to defend your right to post here? Is that how things work in Oz? Come back to Kansas, will ya?
Well... I'm glad to see that in the midst of all this "doctrinal hulla-balloo" we can all still find time to pick nits with each other (not just referring to this page)...
Sunesis' post pretty much mirrored my sentiments posted earlier... I think that sometimes our OLD WAYBRAINS creep back into our current way of thinking and TOO MUCH is read into something someone posts...
Not everything posted has a double meaning. Not everyone posting has an agenda. I think way too many times we try to imagine that there's more to the post (or poster) than meets the eye. Most all of the time there's not...
Actually, yes he is. To quote Judge Judy (pre-TV), don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. He says it's logical to reject Christ. So if you accept him, you're not logical. Fine, that's his opinion and he's entitled. And maybe he didn't explicitly ask anyone to adopt his belief, but he doesn't have to. Not when he names the thread "Why I reject Christ" and states that it's logical to do so.
The thing is, it isn't logical to believe that stuff, to many people. If I could understand what makes people tick in such a way that they believe in what amounts to fairy tales to me, I'd be happy. I think that this topic is valid and I know I've argued with people around here about the same topic in the past, but never getting a good answer. The only reason I can come up with that would make people psychologically depend on the belief in gods is that it is comforting towards the fears of death and personal responsibility. However, that observation also contradicts quite a few Christians that I've known, TWI not included. It seems very contradictory and illogical to be religious, yet people are, and some are not bad people.
A copperhead snake, a pit bull, and Adolf Hitler wander into your yard, but you only have one bullet. Who do you shoot?
Let's see, if I shoot the human being, I can save the lives of six million Jews, plus a million or so soldiers on both sides...
Or I could shoot one of the animals, saving two or three people at the very most....
Gee, what a _tough_ call to make... -->
That's completely hypothetical though, as Oakspear demonstrated. Why do you have to shoot Hitler? I'm pretty sure that when he was in charge of Germany, I'd be able to kick his arse in hand to hand combat with ease. Just the threat of shooting him or beating him up would be enough to get him to surrender. Then after I call the cops he could be arrested and stand trial. A copperhead snake will most likely run away from you unless you have it cornered, so most likely it will leave you alone anyway. The pit bull is just a dog, so unless it's being aggressive there's no reason to shoot it just because of it's breed. All of those situations as you presented could be handled without the need for a single bullet to be fired. Violence is a last resort for when you can't think your way around a problem.
The other problem is that you still haven't given any reason why the babies of the Akkadians or whoever it was deserved to die. Perhaps we have different morals, but the fact that a baby could potentially grow up and cause you harm in some way twenty years in the future is no reason to kill the baby. There are plenty of other alternatives that can be used to steer the child away from that course if you already know the end result.
quote:The thing is, it isn't logical to believe that stuff, to many people.
What can I tell you that's different from what you've already heard? Are there magic words I can utter to convince you that there is a God who loves you and wants you to have fellowship with Him?
You find that illogical? Well, nothing I say is going to convince you otherwise. My point was not whether Refiner was right or wrong. My point (now) is that it's disingenuous to say belief in Christ is illogical but I'm not trying to get anyone to reject Christ. You are. Which is fine. That's your right. Just own up to it.
I repeat: don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
P-Mosh: The reason that it's impossible to have any sort of meaningful, intelligent discourse with you is that you are intellectually dishonest. If it is possible for you to distinguish between the subjective and objective, you hide it with great skill. You assert without support, you declare without basis, and you cheat the conditions when you cannot concretely address an issue. I cannot say for certain whether this is primarily due to immaturity, ignorance, stupidity, or some other mental defect, but I can say that there is no point in continuing this argument with you.
quote:If you were just wanting to be a smartass, then why didn't you make that a little more clear in your original post?
For an apparently smart guy, you sure have trouble understanding simple concepts like sarcasm. You really thought I wanted help with spelling from you? Just to be a little more clear for you, my sarcasm was limited (initially) to the spelling thing. You were engaged in a running debate with (I think it was) P-Mosh and in at least two posts criticized his poor spelling. What? Your arguments weren't strong enough, so you have to resort to petty, picky carp (intentionally misspelled) like bringing attention to minor spelling errors?
quote:Evasion. That's what I thought...The underlying notion, that a human life has no absolute value, is quite a serious one, and one that bears discussion without faux outrage and flip suicide jokes.
No evasion. My "flip" solution to your "who do you shoot?" scenario was meant to indicate that I rejected your line of thinking. I used humor to make my point. I didn't expect you to agree, but the point was made nonetheless. My reference to suicide was also humor, expressing my weariness with your many analogies which you seem to think are unassailable and flawlessly prove your point.
I do not think that it is NEVER acceptable to kill a human being. I am not a pacifist. What I believe to be wrong is the assertion that exterminating whole cities down to the infants is somehow no different than putting down a vicious dog, or putting a sick farm animal to sleep.
I understand that you hold the belief that the bible is perfect and need to find a way to reconcile sections that apparently contradict each other. I don't hold that belief, so I find no need, and have no desire to make it "fit". It makes more sense to me that Joshua/Judges is a justification of genocide by a people looking to sanitize their bloody beginnings with a divine blessing. I know you don't agree, I don't expect you to, but to me, the difference between the bloody tribal god of the OT is quite far removed from the loving, forgiving father of the NT.
It's more of a difference of premises than anything else. Or maybe one of us is immature, ignorant, stupid or has some other mental defect (that was sarcasm)
quote:I cannot say for certain whether this is primarily due to immaturity, ignorance, stupidity, or some other mental defect......."Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish." -- Albert Einstein
Now you tell us! So all those hours I spent on your behalf, phoning Nebraska emergency call centers and suicide hotlines were just a waste of time?
BTW, does anyone know when it become popular to substitute "flip" for "flippant?" I heard that two times today on TV, as well as reading it in Zixar's post.
Is it practise on this site that posters are expected to edit their own posts if people find them offensive?
As well, is it practise that the Christians do not preach their beliefs on the board(and I have not seen any Christians preaching here) and so it is generally expected that Those who do not believe in Religion will not preach their beliefs on the site?
Just trying here to work out the standard proceedures at GSCafe.
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
LG
I can't see that Refiner has told anyone to reject anything.
I don't reject Christ or the OT God. I hold them in higher regard than most other fictional/legendary characters. I'm sure that's offensive to many, but it really isn't intended to be. As I've said before, I like a lot about Christianity. I just don't believe it. I don't think I ever did, though I tried to for years to convince myself I did.
If you want to settle your D. A. Reed question, why not e-mail him. His e-mail address is in his profile (Click here).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I sent him an e-mail.
Look at his profile:
I can't find a bio of the author. I'd be surprised if it ain't him, but hopefully he'll stop in and settle the question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Girl From Oz
Hey Raf, can you show me where Refiner has told anyone to reject Christ? At least one link will do, there's a good chap.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Refiner
Prisca.
Raf was not levelling any accusation at me. He was making a point directed at cynic.Raf has been very reasonable thruout, you are misinterpreting him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Girl From Oz
Well, "Long Gone" interpreted Raf the same way.
If I'm mistaken, I hope he understands.
If I'm not, then I'd still like to see where Refiner has told anyone to reject the Christ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Refiner
Because Im not interested in fighting anyone...because Im not interested in offending even one person...Ive changed the thread title.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
The underlying notion, that a human life has no absolute value, is quite a serious one, and one that bears discussion without faux outrage and flip suicide jokes.
The circumstances under which the relative value of a human life varies are fundamental to every society, like it or not. Perhaps that's a good topic for another thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Priscilla,
I recommend going back to my original post where I brought that subject up to get the full heart of what I posted. I'm not going to defend myself against the insinuation you make when my original point defends your right to post here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Here, I'll make it easy for you:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Girl From Oz
Well, Raf, I'm glad to see that you don't think that Refiner is trying to get people to reject Christ. Because if people were thinking that of him they would be most mistaken.
"Defends your right to post here"???? What a most curious thing to say! Unless, of course, you are the owner of this board? Is that what you are inferring???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Raf
Learning of your background allows me to understand you point of view, ex-JW and TWI?
Wow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
I really don't get what the big deal is here. If some one says they reject God or Christ, which happens quite frequently on this board, so what? We take it in stride when this is said by ex-twiers, but not anyone else?
I think Refiner has always been polite, wants to know what TWI was - like many other people, has been involved in a cult like us - we all have a lot in common.
I've read this whole thing, I really don't understand why people went off and got so upset.
Keep posting Refiner and Oz, I really enjoy points of view of people who were not involved in TWI - there is much more objectivity in many ways than those of us who were involved - many are still way too subjective. Refiner sometimes shakes up our waybrain attitudes, beliefs and thoughts we still have.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Actually, yes he is. To quote Judge Judy (pre-TV), don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. He says it's logical to reject Christ. So if you accept him, you're not logical. Fine, that's his opinion and he's entitled. And maybe he didn't explicitly ask anyone to adopt his belief, but he doesn't have to. Not when he names the thread "Why I reject Christ" and states that it's logical to do so.
Oh come on, I have to OWN the site to defend your right to post here? Is that how things work in Oz? Come back to Kansas, will ya?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Well... I'm glad to see that in the midst of all this "doctrinal hulla-balloo" we can all still find time to pick nits with each other (not just referring to this page)...
Sunesis' post pretty much mirrored my sentiments posted earlier... I think that sometimes our OLD WAYBRAINS creep back into our current way of thinking and TOO MUCH is read into something someone posts...
Not everything posted has a double meaning. Not everyone posting has an agenda. I think way too many times we try to imagine that there's more to the post (or poster) than meets the eye. Most all of the time there's not...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i tend to agree with you and sunesis
sometimes i find myself getting paranoid. it's really strange
ha ha ha ha ha ha it's really strange, strange
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
The thing is, it isn't logical to believe that stuff, to many people. If I could understand what makes people tick in such a way that they believe in what amounts to fairy tales to me, I'd be happy. I think that this topic is valid and I know I've argued with people around here about the same topic in the past, but never getting a good answer. The only reason I can come up with that would make people psychologically depend on the belief in gods is that it is comforting towards the fears of death and personal responsibility. However, that observation also contradicts quite a few Christians that I've known, TWI not included. It seems very contradictory and illogical to be religious, yet people are, and some are not bad people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
That's completely hypothetical though, as Oakspear demonstrated. Why do you have to shoot Hitler? I'm pretty sure that when he was in charge of Germany, I'd be able to kick his arse in hand to hand combat with ease. Just the threat of shooting him or beating him up would be enough to get him to surrender. Then after I call the cops he could be arrested and stand trial. A copperhead snake will most likely run away from you unless you have it cornered, so most likely it will leave you alone anyway. The pit bull is just a dog, so unless it's being aggressive there's no reason to shoot it just because of it's breed. All of those situations as you presented could be handled without the need for a single bullet to be fired. Violence is a last resort for when you can't think your way around a problem.
The other problem is that you still haven't given any reason why the babies of the Akkadians or whoever it was deserved to die. Perhaps we have different morals, but the fact that a baby could potentially grow up and cause you harm in some way twenty years in the future is no reason to kill the baby. There are plenty of other alternatives that can be used to steer the child away from that course if you already know the end result.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
What can I tell you that's different from what you've already heard? Are there magic words I can utter to convince you that there is a God who loves you and wants you to have fellowship with Him?
You find that illogical? Well, nothing I say is going to convince you otherwise. My point was not whether Refiner was right or wrong. My point (now) is that it's disingenuous to say belief in Christ is illogical but I'm not trying to get anyone to reject Christ. You are. Which is fine. That's your right. Just own up to it.
I repeat: don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
P-Mosh: The reason that it's impossible to have any sort of meaningful, intelligent discourse with you is that you are intellectually dishonest. If it is possible for you to distinguish between the subjective and objective, you hide it with great skill. You assert without support, you declare without basis, and you cheat the conditions when you cannot concretely address an issue. I cannot say for certain whether this is primarily due to immaturity, ignorance, stupidity, or some other mental defect, but I can say that there is no point in continuing this argument with you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Zixar:
For an apparently smart guy, you sure have trouble understanding simple concepts like sarcasm. You really thought I wanted help with spelling from you? Just to be a little more clear for you, my sarcasm was limited (initially) to the spelling thing. You were engaged in a running debate with (I think it was) P-Mosh and in at least two posts criticized his poor spelling. What? Your arguments weren't strong enough, so you have to resort to petty, picky carp (intentionally misspelled) like bringing attention to minor spelling errors? No evasion. My "flip" solution to your "who do you shoot?" scenario was meant to indicate that I rejected your line of thinking. I used humor to make my point. I didn't expect you to agree, but the point was made nonetheless. My reference to suicide was also humor, expressing my weariness with your many analogies which you seem to think are unassailable and flawlessly prove your point.I do not think that it is NEVER acceptable to kill a human being. I am not a pacifist. What I believe to be wrong is the assertion that exterminating whole cities down to the infants is somehow no different than putting down a vicious dog, or putting a sick farm animal to sleep.
I understand that you hold the belief that the bible is perfect and need to find a way to reconcile sections that apparently contradict each other. I don't hold that belief, so I find no need, and have no desire to make it "fit". It makes more sense to me that Joshua/Judges is a justification of genocide by a people looking to sanitize their bloody beginnings with a divine blessing. I know you don't agree, I don't expect you to, but to me, the difference between the bloody tribal god of the OT is quite far removed from the loving, forgiving father of the NT.
It's more of a difference of premises than anything else. Or maybe one of us is immature, ignorant, stupid or has some other mental defect (that was sarcasm)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I think Albert's God had a point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Great couple of posts Oak...
you are very funny, too bad you are so stupid.
Good luck with that
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
BTW, does anyone know when it become popular to substitute "flip" for "flippant?" I heard that two times today on TV, as well as reading it in Zixar's post.
Edited by LGLink to comment
Share on other sites
Refiner
Well I have a couple questions.
Is it practise on this site that posters are expected to edit their own posts if people find them offensive?
As well, is it practise that the Christians do not preach their beliefs on the board(and I have not seen any Christians preaching here) and so it is generally expected that Those who do not believe in Religion will not preach their beliefs on the site?
Just trying here to work out the standard proceedures at GSCafe.
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.