A reason why most religious theological teachings are sociologically dangerous and damaging

by thetrueone 233 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  InterestedOne

  ziddina wrote:

  Her level of blindness to the falseness of her highly specious "reasoning" - more accurately, excuses and revisionism - was positively astounding to behold. . . .

  Hence the macabre fascination.

  Thank you for expressing in words some of my feelings. When I recently emailed my JW acquaintance some questions/comments about JW-ism, she simply responded asking (in all caps) "WHY DO YOU CARE?" That got me thinking, and I was unable to answer. Your description captures some of the answer. I too have a fascination with the mental phenomenon I see in my JW acquaintance as well as in Tec's posts and find it, as you said, "astounding to behold" in a macabre way.

  I can only take it in small doses though. When I attended the KH, it was too much of this phenomenon all at once, and I literally could not stomach it. I would become physically sick to my stomach by the end of the meetings, like after being on an amusement park ride & had to just sit in my vehicle in the parking lot for a while before the vertigo subsided enough to drive home.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  To Flyinghighnow

  I posted a retraction to that comment.

  Thank you.
• 

  ziddina

  Yes, Interested One, that is quite similar to the reaction I have, when I read tec's posts - especially the ones where she denies the legitimacy of any and all biblical scriptures that are brought up which contradict her comments and personal belief system...

  tec is, in effect, committing blasphemy and a genuine apostasy [biblically speaking...], when measured against the scriptures - ALL of the scriptures, not just the ones that she deigns to accept as "inspired"...

  And after committing such grievous sins against the scriptures which the one that she calls her "lord", which "Jesus" himself considered to be "holy"and "divinely inspired", she has the astounding gall - hypocrisy - to go on about how she is somehow specially endowed with greater spiritual understanding than most of the biblical authors...

  And in this comment:

  "I do throw out (or acknowledge that we are missing some understanding or translation or perspective or whatever) anything that contradicts with Christ and His teachings. ..." tec, above

  tec is, in effect, taking over the position of the "holy spirit", which [according to the bible, is supposed to be responsible for the "inspired writings" which - whether she likes it or not, form the foundation for HER belief system] is the inspiration and guiding force for all of those books which SHE selectively accepts or rejects...

  And by doing that, she is, in effect, putting herself ABOVE the "holy spirit"... [Does that constitute "sinning against the holy spirit"???]

  And to top all of that off, she absolutely refuses to consider the possibility that my comments, or anyone else's comments, which attempt to point this out to her, could possibly be worthy of consideration - though she will CLAIM to have "considered" them, and then rejects them with yet another line of specious reasoning...

  Macabre fascination and vertigo-inducing phenomenon, indeed...
• 

  thetrueone

  Interesting discussion folks thanks for all your comments.

  I think its good to discuss these things openly, because it does help to understand areself,

  where are thoughts and ideals meet are knowledge and perhaps a bit of are emotions as well.
• 

  ziddina

  "In other words, anyone who believes in something that you consider to be a delusion... can rightfully be compared to your mother?..." tec, above

  No.

  It is in your pattern of "avoidance" behaviors, that you remind me of my mother.

  She would never ADMIT to being wrong regarding her pet delusions, and your absolute belief in the correctness of your own special interpretations is just as irrationally ironclad.
• 

  sabastious

  But what religion doesn't structure itself in how its presented to the public, involving mind control to various degrees ?

  Structure is required for probability of learning to take place. Whether or not a family goes to Church or not doesn't change the fact that morals need practice. There are preset rules that predispose us to morals, mostly our point of progression in human evolution, but they still have to be taught and refined by various methods of structure. Utilitarianism is not required, but it sure makes the job easier for the dictators.

  -Sab
• 

  tec

  where she denies the legitimacy of any and all biblical scriptures that are brought up which contradict her comments and personal belief system...

  Once again, anything that contradicts Christ. Not my comments or personal belief system. But things that contradict Christ... since Christ is the Truth. There is nothing in that bible that states 'the bible is the truth', or the 'ot is the truth' so follow it.

  I follow Christ (as best I can)... as HE asks... and I make no apologies for that.

  nd after committing such grievous sins against the scriptures

  Grievous sin against a scripture? I'm not sure that a scripture can be sinned against.

  which the one that she calls her "lord", which "Jesus" himself considered to be "holy"and "divinely inspired",

  You know what He considered to be holy and divinely inspired how? He, himself, said that people search the scriptures as if to find life in them, but refuse to come to Him for life.

  she has the astounding gall - hypocrisy - to go on about how she is somehow specially endowed with greater spiritual understanding than most of the biblical authors...

  I have never stated any such thing. I simply listen to Christ first and foremost. But if everything was well and good in all the writings of the OT, then Christ would not have had to come and correct or change any understandings... and he would have had no reason to state 'woe to you scribes'. Or state that people should come to Him, rather than the scriptures. Or state that He is the truth, the life, the way... then we would simply have the OT as being the life, the truth, and the way. But it is not so.

  tec is, in effect, taking over the position of the "holy spirit", which [according to the bible, is supposed to be responsible for the "inspired writings" which - whether she likes it or not, form the foundation for HER belief system] is the inspiration and guiding force for all of those books which SHE selectively accepts or rejects...

  Christ forms the foundation of my belief. Not everything in the bible is inspired, or from the Holy Spirit. We have had this discussion before.

  And by doing that, she is, in effect, putting herself ABOVE the "holy spirit"... [Does that constitute "sinning against the holy spirit"???]

  Maybe you should let me worry about me, Zid... and you worry about you? I am not certain you understand what consitutes putting oneself above the holy spirit. I am listening to Christ... that can't really be putting oneself above the Holy Spirit.

  And to top all of that off, she absolutely refuses to consider the possibility that my comments, or anyone else's comments, which attempt to point this out to her, could possibly be worthy of consideration - though she will CLAIM to have "considered" them, and then rejects

  them with yet another line of specious reasoning...

  What... that I don't take seriously comments that state I am sinning against a holy spirit that you don't even believe in? You're right. I have not considered what you say in this matter... though you are wrong to think that I will claim otherwise. I mean, how would you know that your view of how I should view the bible and Christ is right? Should I listen to what you say on the matter, or what He said and says on the matter?

  The book of Luke states that it is based upon investigation... not inspiration... and yet you believe that the bible states that it is in its entirety, inspired. All scripture is god-breathed, does not mean that the entire bible is scripture... the bible as we have it was not even put together at the time that verse and letter was written. Jeremiah 8:8 speaks of the lying pen of the scribes who have handled the law falsely, and again, Christ says woe to you scribes. Nor do you tend to put a warning to anyone who might change the words of a certain book (revelations) if that can't happen in the first place. You ignore all of this, Zid, to continue with what you have decided is the right way to look at the bible (even though you think that is wrong altogether). How rational is that? I don't think you have a leg to stand on when it comes to accusing me of ignoring things to suit my belief, even if I was doing that.

  Mind you, I have no problem with you calling me an apostate or a blasphemer or whatever... though it seems silly to me for you to do so... but apostate is not a bad thing when you are apostacizing against something or someone that is not Truth, as most here well know.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  NewChapter

  But I think the thing that baffles me is that you do seem to reject the foundation on which Christ based his ministry---the old testament. The NT was not written at that time, and anytime he read scripture was from the OT. The very scriptures that tell you about Christ are also the scriptures that you tend to dismiss if they don't fit in with how you have personally defined Christ. If they can't be trusted for the other stuff, then how can they be trusted when it comes to Jesus? Your understanding is selective. Jesus was raised on those old scrolls, and he taught from them, but that doesn't really matter. He never said that any of them were wrong---quite the contrary---and it is only logical if those scrolls were lying about his father, whose name he came to defend, he would have mentioned it and it would have been recorded.

  It is difficult to discuss this with you, because I think I would need for you to select the portions of the bible you DO accept and bind them. The things that his disciples later wrote aren't valid either. Paul---pretty hateful---not valid. I know you have this all worked out in your belief system, but everyone is just clueless as to your method.

  We are at a disadvantage. We don't know your starting and ending point, so discussion is nearly impossible. I don't know what you believe, or why you believe, or even how to find out. It all comes down to the same thing---You believe in Christ as you have defined him. We have no way of understanding your definition. Sometimes it seems to change, but then you say we simply didn't understand---but we really can't understand because we are not clued into the method. It is ambiguous and there is a lot of wiggle room.

  Ah well. That is what I've concluded anyway. Construct it however you please. It is faith based and not evidence based, so maybe even trying to figure out the system is fruitless for someone that does not believe. It is baffling to watch, and I'm not trying to be mean, but sometimes I get a bit dizzy trying to piece it all together.

  NC
• 

  tec

  I get that you don't understand, NC. Perhaps I am guilty of the "assuming the reader knows what is in my head" fallacy, and so perhaps I've left some details out. I don't think I have though. I just think that we disagree. But it is certainly not impossible, so I keep trying to be more clear, and you keep trying to understand. I do not like being accused of lying, or playing mind games, when I am trying to be sincere, though.

  See now, I disagree with your first sentence:

  But I think the thing that baffles me is that you do seem to reject the foundation on which Christ based his ministry---the old testament.

  Christ based his ministry upon what he knew firsthand. From the get-go, we must disagree on this... because you cannot believe that he had a first hand ex perience, and I do.

  So I take Him at his word, regardless of what is written elsewhere or whether that word is conflicted by something written in the OT, that can be mistranslated and/or added to/taken away from. I learn from Him, and test all else according to Him. Not the other way around.

  This might be a vital part of not being able to understand one another.

  and it is only logical if those scrolls were lying about his father, whose name he came to defend, he would have mentioned it and it would have been recorded.

  He did say woe to you scribes. Why would he say that? He also said that He is the Truth and to listen to Him. So instead of searching through everything ever written or taught in the OT or elsewhere to find things that contradict or agree with Him, I just look at Him and his teachings and deeds.

  The things that his disciples later wrote aren't valid either. Paul---pretty hateful---not valid

  You didn't get this from me. I don't think Paul is hateful, or that he and the other disciples invalid. Not being infallable does not make something invalid.

  but everyone is just clueless as to your method.

  Christ. What he said, taught, and did. All of those things are equally important and bring contex t into understanding Him and His teachings. Deeds especially.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  NewChapter

  Yet Jesus read from those old scrolls as part of his ministry, and Paul had some hateful things to say about women. So you have not invalidated him, but I'm pretty sure you are not flush with the anti-women stuff. Or maybe you don't think his view of women is hateful, in which case this may just be semantics. I find him quite hateful. So do you simply accept what he said about everything else, and dismiss what he said about women? And if so, why? I suspect that this will all come back to 'because it disagrees with Jesus' kind of thing. We don't really know that for sure. he may have been kind to women, but he did not define their role in the church and in the family---he left it to Paul.

  And I never called you a liar, but I think you know that. The mind games though---sometimes I get very lost talking to you. Perhaps it is not intentional, but I've said before, it is sometimes like trying to grasp water. Things get very fluid when we have a conversation, and I walk away having NO IDEA where you are coming from or how you got there.

  NC