CEDARS (Again) Is it really about religious beliefs?
Yes, sorry, there wasn't a reply when I deleted it. I should have left a comment that it was edited. This was the deleted comment
I feel like I am harping on about this point but finding religion largely redundant is not the same as finding obsolete.
I wonder if that means there will be no Christmas Tree in the Cedar household? Yes...I know....even a Xmas Tree doesn't have a religious meaning in some homes these days.
Obsolete - from the dictionary - no longer produced or used; out of date.
Redundant - not or no longer needed or useful; superfluous.
In my own terms, obsolete - gone and redundant - no longer needed.
Even if you were to take the words to mean the same (and they likely do), you qualified your thoughts with 'largely' whereas Cedars did not.
You are right about Xmas, however I don't think there are many people that continue to celebrate it because it has pagan roots. But point taken in that it possibly isn't Christian either. I guess it comes down to how people personally view it and what it means to them and their families.
In my opinion, that was the worst that Cedars has ever written (that I know of). It was long, rambling, peevish, unnecessary. I am still baffled by what motivated Cedars to write a piece concerning Mike and Kim ... pleeease.
I see. I suspect that what Cedars meant is nearer the definition of redundant than obsolete. And that's what I took his meaning to be, in context. It might be worth asking him.
The idea that the main three religions share and teach, namely that we are born sinful and need to be saved is repulsive. The idea that without a god we could not figure out right or wrong is insulting.
So at their very basic level they are repulsive. Everything after that is just window dressing and at a store that I would not want to shop at.
edit... I would also agree that religion is not yet obsolete but is becoming obsolete.
I personally believe that religion will decline over the next few decades and will then make a comeback in a big way. When ideas go into decline they are usually rediscovered, recycled and repackaged and then hailed as "new".
If human development were to take a left turn into chaos, religion would immediately resurface as a tool for control, rule of law and general order.
If human development continues in its technological strides forward, religion will just be repackaged as a fundamental life philosophy, which is essentially what religion is anyway.
In the meantime the debate between religion and atheism is pretty neat and I have my popcorn and soda ready for the next exciting chapter. The conclusion to this debate on the fundamental meaning of life (which usually is at the core of these contests) is actually forgone though: No matter what, no one gets out of this alive.
a bitter war between the evangelical and atheist factions in the ex-JW community is raging – and it has just escalated.
There's a bitter war going on? News to me ... I think that's pure hyperbole.
Any group of ex-[member-of-a religion] people is always going to have a mix of those who have been put off religion and those who simply think it was the wrong one and are looking for another. This of course will always attract those who think their religion is the one they may be interested in buying.
Some people get a bit too pushy with their promotion of their faith, but a "bitter war"? It's just having rules and balance and applying them. If people are becoming disruptive in any arena then you clip their wings or ultimately show them the door. It's no different to if people are constantly pushing politics or any other agenda.
I haven't seen any war going on. There are some healthy debates, some heated ones and the odd troll but a "bitter war" is just hyped rhetoric IMO possibly meant to try and label and dismiss criticism as much as anything else.
Some people don't like to be criticized or challenged and the thing they 'know' to deal with it is to apply a label to those being critical so they can be dismissed as "haters" and their complaints along with them. Applying a motive that may not be there to blunt the criticism i.e. "oh, they are saying that because they are evangelical christians, not because it's a valid complaint"
Everyone does this to some extent, but some people definitely do it more than others.
In my opinion, Cedars videos are a response to a very recent debate that I had with him on Facebook.
IN a nutshell, I was demonstrating to him the problems with Atheism philosophically, along with justifying the existence of God.
I had previously challenged Cedars in a vdeo which was very well balanced, no personal attacks whatsoever. It was a very respectful critique of his worldview. What is ironic, is that Cedars responded to that video by mocking me and my beliefs on his Facebook thread with other people.
I think Cedars has a very deep emotional hatred towards Christians but feigns neutrality for the sake of his viewership. This mini debate on FB prob. pushed him over the edge.
I will be excited to see the videos he will be posting, at least he will not be giving us a front anymore. It will be good for the viewers to see the authentic John Cedars for once. And I will be happy to respond.
I was demonstrating to him the problems with Atheism philosophically,
i think this thread might be more appropriate in the Adult and Heated Debate section. I don't think it presents a very good first impression to any first-time visitors who might happen by.
That said, I wonder why Listener chose to post his comments here instead of on the website more directly concerned. Is he prohibited from posting there? Or could this be a case of "forum shopping?" A less charitable person might see it as a form of evangelism or activism in itself, maybe even self-promotion.
As far as I'm concerned, Cedars can post whatever he wants on his site. If you want to take him to task, do it there. If you don't want to hear what he has to say, don't read his posts. But it seems unfair to attack him on an entirely different site. That smacks of gossip-mongering to me.
For the record, I don't agree with everything Cedars says and does. But he's performing a yeoman's work in exposing the Watchtower as a dangerous and mind-controlling cult. So is Simon, ApostaChick, Katie Kitten, Jakke Control, Mike & Kim, and many others, each in their own way. Some may be more to your taste than others. You might favor the approach of one more than another. You may find some cartoonish or even off-putting, but that doesn't diminish the value of the underlying message they're trying to put across . They are all to be commended for their efforts, even if you would have put or done things differently. Well, why didn't you?
In my personal opinion, JW Survey and activists like Cedars are what helped me wake up. Mike and Kim just came off as crazy apostates, like the ones you hear about at the assemblies. With that said, activists shouldn't be attacking each other whether they're religious, atheist, aggressive, or non-aggressive. Getting people out of the Borg is the most important thing, not how it's achieved.