To Norm

by ros 2 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  ros

  Hello, Norm:
  First let me say I appreciated the general civility of your post quoted below, and I'll try to respond in kind.

  It was very messy, . . .

  Yeh, can't keep it straight which board I'm posting on. Got coding syntax mixed up with H2O's..

  . . . but I think you said:
  Quote:
  So, you assume the reason and then answer it. Isn't that a straw-man? Okay, so maybe you're right. How could you not like me when you don't know me. Let me refine the point: You just don't like what I stand for.

  Yes, I could think of no other reason why YOU think I don't like you, because I actually do Ros. I do hope we can meet some day.

  You DO? (As a cat likes to meet a mouse?)
  (Let me assure you I'm not nearly as charming in person.)
  As I said, I shouldn't say you don't like ME. Sorry, that was presumptuous. What you don't like is Biblical faith (I think you used the word "loath" in one discussion). Since I'm a "believer" and you have expressed your disdain for such, I make the assumption that the disdain carries over to the people who hold to what you loath.
  As you know, I have good friends who "don't agree with me," and I would never say they don't like me because they "don't agree with me." The difference is they let me enjoy my faith without "taking potshots" at it - at least to me.

  What DO you stand for Ros? Do tell me.

  Okay, Norm, I'm going to acquiesce to your question, but I won't argue it. In a nutshell:
  **I am a non-trinitarian Christian. I don't believe in everlasting torture, don't believe the Bible teaches it, and I don't believe in the mainstream soul doctrine.
  **I am a political pacifist, and was before I became a JW.
  **I believe science is not at odds with religion (a misconception promulgated in large part by opposing factions between science-type atheists and dogmatic evangelicals "fundies"). Science and faith are compatible.
  **I believe in evolution in general, but not all the theories (neither do most scientists). The Creator is, in fact, most aptly revealed through science.
  **I believe there is an essential underlying message in the Bible that is God-inspired. That seems all the more apparent to me by the very fact that the writers documented events according to their own imperfect human perception (much the way fundamentalists will attribute events in their personal lives - including catastrophic events - to the actions and will of God). The underlying story/theme came through and culminated in the events of Christ (which I don't go into detail here) in such a way that I cannot attribute to mere coincidence, in spite of the crude and conflicting historical accounts that led up to those events. That is why Christ said that HE had revealed God and made His name (ie. personality) known. To my thinking, by these words, Jesus made it known that God was not revealed in the OT. (Not to mention things like: "Moses said . . . but I say to you . . ., etc.)
  **Hebrew historical documents and bits and pieces that have survived were compiled by scribes and historians, et.al., into a canon we call the Bible. There were other writings (some of which are referred to in Scripture) that have been lost, as well as records that have been intentionally excluded due to religious bias of the compilers. But the essential simple message is in there: We should be good; good to one another and good to the earth and all its creatures. Good will be eternal, bad will not.
  **That most traditional Christians do not understand the Bible because they insist on a predestined wholly inspired book compiled by God that is to be taken literally in every aspect - and it is that premise that skeptics can and do refute.
  **That sincere people of all religions throughout all time are acceptable to God (perhaps depicted by "the rest of the dead" in Rev.20).
  **That this is the life of the "knowledge of good and evil"; that was the message of the Adam and Eve story.
  **That it is essentially impossible to understand the analogies and parables of the Bible without studying the Hebrew culture and their mindset (for example the way they employ extreme exaggeration to illustrate a point, stating it as though it were fact; or acting out what they believe to illustrate a divine precept, etc.). Many westerners, by our culture, especially the math thinkers, have difficulty comprehending Hebraic thinking - almost as much difficulty as understanding Norwegians (who seem to share certain similarities). However, such in-depth study is not essential for understanding the basic simple message, which is the premise of universal love.
  **And, yes, I believe in what the ransom of Christ typifies.

  Realize this is a very brief epitome of what I believe, not comprehensive, and without going into details or justification of why I believe it. You do not need to explain to me that you DON'T believe these things, Norm, I know what atheism is. So now that I've given you some idea of what I believe, can we just agree to disagree in our opposing views about religion and faith?
  

  LOL! Sure you'll do it publically, because your friends who do study these things will come to the fore when you get in over your head. For the benefit of any who read this and may not be aware of it, and as you are sure to remember, in some of our arguments on the former H2O, I offered to discuss the issues with you in private e-mail because I don't care to get into those debates on a public forum. I said that over, and over, and over, and over.

  I agree, Ros, you did suggest it. But some times you can't resist it and come out of the woodwork and take some quick pot shots at the subject. This time you came out and take a little pot shot at me personally. When you do that in public you will get a public answer. What's the problem?

  I don't think I take potshots except in retaliation to ridicule or dogmatic preaching. In that case, you're right, sometimes it is irresistible. (You should know!) However, I don't think that is true in this case. My remark about you was a direct response to your crack about BRCI, which you know little about. I would say you took the first "potshot" - not at me, but at an organization you know I am associated with that works to make parting from the Watchtower a little less painful.

  Too many people get into the act, it goes off in too many directions, and it takes too much time to respond. But you declined discussing it privately saying you don't know that much about evolution/science and don't have the interest. (That I believe.) But you never drop hounding me to debate with you publically. I don't want to debate religion or science with you and all your friends publically. Or anything else.

  So engaging in debate with you, responding to your public posts you consider "hounding" you Ros?

  No. Reflecting on our past arguing on H2O, my recollection is that it was usually you and Cygnus who would take argumentative "potshots" at me, and I made rebuttal.

  I don't think you should post to these sites Ros. Someone might answer your posts and thus they would be hounding you. If you don't want to debate religion or science, or anything else with me, why do you bother responding to my posts?

  People answer my posts all the time here without hounding me. In fact, I would NOT say you are hounding in this post. Back on H2O I did consider not responding to some of your posts that seemed bent on drawing me into religious argument, and I even considered doing as you suggest, leaving the forum. Maybe I just don't understand how someone can come out of a religion like the Watchtower and be so intent on swaying others to believe their way. I just don't understand the lust for shattering other people's faith because you have come to a personal conclusion against it for yourself. Nevertheless, one of my character weaknesses perhaps is that it pushes my buttons for people to impose their thinking on me, especially trying to sway me with ridicule. (Maybe a Watchtower hangover.)

  Am I prohibited from responding to your posts making personal comments about me? Do we see the contours of a new kind of ruling class here?

  LOL. Does it look like it?

  Okay, so you and Alan are the most gentle and kind people you know. May we assume your other friends are not kind and gentle, or just not AS kind and gentle? (Wondering what this has to do with the topic, but . . . )

  I do not know who you talk about Ros, is it the comments from others in a public debate you are so terrified about? I am sorry but I can't and won't be held responsible for other debaters on this site Ros. I am sure you don't feel responsible for any of the other debaters here either.

  I have not a clue what you are alluding to here, Norm. Either you didn't understand me, or I'm missing your point. Considering it might be a culture block, let me explain that I was making jest of you saying Alan and you were about THE most gentle and kind people you know. My tongue-in-cheek reply was that this implies the other people you know are not gentle and kind--which of course we presume is not true.

  In that case, I wonder what the other people are like that you know. (My recollection is that Alan doesn't have too much tolerance for nonsense. Course, I don't know about that other stuff you mention.)

  Well, Ros, nonsense and bullshit is very much related as you know. For example I consider long harangues about "evidence" for a triune God, bullshit. Then again I consider long harangues to the contrary equally as much bullshit, go figure.

  Well, we agree on something, Norm!
  Now, personally, I consider long harangues about whether or not there is evidence of God to be of the same anal source as trinitarian debating (which also I refuse to be drawn into).

  I don't come here to debate or convert people to my way of thinking. I'm not here to draw people to my religious viewpoint. I'm here because there are Jehovah's Witnesses coming out of the Watchtower who need support from those of us who have been there, and places like this and other websites are places they come seeking that support. So is BRCI. Reaching out to these people is my main purpose and objective for being here. Not "haranguing" over atheism and trinitarianism, or the right to say "bulshit". I sincerely believe such is a deterrent to our objectives. If the objectives are otherwise, perhaps you're right - I have no business here.
  Norm, I have no objection to this kind of discussion with you although I rarely have time for something this lengthy. If it seemed like I took an unwarranted "potshot" at you in the BRCI post, I apologize.

  (Let's hope I didn't mess up on the syntax this time.)
• 

  Norm

  Hello Ros,

  Among other things you said:

  You DO? (As a cat likes to meet a mouse?)
  (Let me assure you I'm not nearly as charming in person.)
  As I said, I shouldn't say you don't like ME. Sorry, that was presumptuous. What you don't like is Biblical faith (I think you used the word "loath" in one discussion). Since I'm a "believer" and you have expressed your disdain for such, I make the assumption that the disdain carries over to the people who hold to what you loath.
  As you know, I have good friends who "don't agree with me," and I would never say they don't like me because they "don't agree with me." The difference is they let me enjoy my faith without "taking potshots" at it - at least to me.

  Hmm, I was thinking more along the lines of a big hug Ros, of course providing you would allow such a thing (people in a position to know tell me I do great hugs). As for Biblical faith, I find that I in many circumstances loath the results of that faith. As I have used some time to read up on the history of Christianity I can’t say that I have found much reason for that loathing to abate. You however is of course not responsible for what other Christians have done or indeed continue to do, so I think I am able to see the difference between the “man and the ball” to borrow an expression from the world of sports. Living in a culture (Norway) where we disagree on almost everything I think I have had excellent training. I do however also live in a culture where we do not mince words in our debates so I guess I can come over as quite abrasive for an American lady of your obvious quality, (I am used to women who not only dish it out but can take it as well) I guess that’s the reason for your allusions to “pot shots”.

  Okay, Norm, I'm going to acquiesce to your question, but I won't argue it. In a nutshell:
  **I am a non-trinitarian Christian. I don't believe in everlasting torture, don't believe the Bible teaches it, and I don't believe in the mainstream soul doctrine.
  **I am a political pacifist, and was before I became a JW.
  **I believe science is not at odds with religion (a misconception promulgated in large part by opposing factions between science-type atheists and dogmatic evangelicals "fundies"). Science and faith are compatible.
  **I believe in evolution in general, but not all the theories (neither do most scientists). The Creator is, in fact, most aptly revealed through science.
  **I believe there is an essential underlying message in the Bible that is God-inspired.

  I understand Ros, you have to pick an choose in the Bible to find the more edible parts, It isn’t easy but quite common. A lot of decent people, (like you) have a very hard time with the Bible and usually end up with a very tiny, very much home made little portion of it, which they feel they can accept, I guess that is what you allude to as the “underlying message” from God. What I find very strange with such an idea is that God somehow buried an “underlying message” under tons of crap for everyone to find their own personal “Bible”. I must say that I accept the theory of evolution as I accept the theory of gravity, both are theories in scientific terms, as they are observable. The idea of a Creator isn’t as far as I know even a theory in any science.
  The faith in virgin births, demons, and such phenomenon’s is as far as I know not very scientific either.

  That seems all the more apparent to me by the very fact that the writers documented events according to their own imperfect human perception (much the way fundamentalists will attribute events in their personal lives - including catastrophic events - to the actions and will of God). The underlying story/theme came through and culminated in the events of Christ (which I don't go into detail here) in such a way that I cannot attribute to mere coincidence, in spite of the crude and conflicting historical accounts that led up to those events. That is why Christ said that HE had revealed God and made His name (ie. personality) known. To my thinking, by these words, Jesus made it known that God was not revealed in the OT. (Not to mention things like: "Moses said . . . but I say to you . . ., etc.)

  I see you have found a way to rationalize yourself out of the extreme embarrassment and liability the Hebrew Bible must be to any thinking human being. No one need the Devil with the God described in those books. The Christ you describe didn’t seem to have much doubt about the validity of those scriptures, so it that case you are clearly at odds with your declared master.

  **Hebrew historical documents and bits and pieces that have survived were compiled by scribes and historians, et.al., into a canon we call the Bible. There were other writings (some of which are referred to in Scripture) that have been lost, as well as records that have been intentionally excluded due to religious bias of the compilers. But the essential simple message is in there: We should be good; good to one another and good to the earth and all its creatures. Good will be eternal, bad will not.

  I do agree that we should be good to each other Ros, that however isn’t the message of the Bible, it is not even the message of Jesus. Only those who believe in Jesus has the right to exist in the future. Everybody else only deserve to die, or according to the Bible be tormented forever in Hell. That’s why we have had and still have a tragedy called missionaries who’s job it is to convert people from the inferior faith’s to the only “true” one Christianity. Again history is one long demonstration of the fact that Christians have failed miserably in doing good.
  
  

  **That most traditional Christians do not understand the Bible because they insist on a predestined wholly inspired book compiled by God that is to be taken literally in every aspect - and it is that premise that skeptics can and do refute.
  **That sincere people of all religions throughout all time are acceptable to God (perhaps depicted by "the rest of the dead" in Rev.20).
  **That this is the life of the "knowledge of good and evil"; that was the message of the Adam and Eve story.

  No one understand the Bible Ros, including you and me. There are many reasons for that. I understand that you find very much comfort in such a universalistic view Ros, for a while I did too.
  
  

  **That it is essentially impossible to understand the analogies and parables of the Bible without studying the Hebrew culture and their mindset (for example the way they employ extreme exaggeration to illustrate a point, stating it as though it were fact; or acting out what they believe to illustrate a divine precept, etc.).

  I will recommend that you read a book titled: “The Bible Unearthed”, written by Israel Finkelstein, the director of an Archeological institute at the University of Tel Aviv. And an Historian living in Belgium, Neil Asher Silberman. I know you will find that book very interesting and it will help you a lot in this regard. You will find the book on Amazon.

  Many westerners, by our culture, especially the math thinkers, have difficulty comprehending Hebraic thinking - almost as much difficulty as understanding Norwegians (who seem to share certain similarities). However, such in-depth study is not essential for understanding the basic simple message, which is the premise of universal love.

  I think I have read the Bible at least as much as you Ros, and “universal love” isn’t what I find in there, to say the least.
  
  

  **And, yes, I believe in what the ransom of Christ typifies.
  Realize this is a very brief epitome of what I believe, not comprehensive, and without going into details or justification of why I believe it. You do not need to explain to me that you DON'T believe these things, Norm, I know what atheism is. So now that I've given you some idea of what I believe, can we just agree to disagree in our opposing views about religion and faith?

  I understand Ros, I am just making some comments to you thoughts, you don’t have to answer, going into detail here would probably not be very productive. One of the reasons I have engaged in debate with you earlier is when you make statements about atheism really being a religion and such, which of course is neither here nor there. And as I have stated before, whenever you venture into subjects which I feel I have something to say I will of course feel free to comment and if appropriate disagree with you.

  I don't think I take potshots except in retaliation to ridicule or dogmatic preaching. In that case, you're right, sometimes it is irresistible. (You should know!) However, I don't think that is true in this case. My remark about you was a direct response to your crack about BRCI, which you know little about. I would say you took the first "potshot" - not at me, but at an organization you know I am associated with that works to make parting from the Watchtower a little less painful.

  Yes, it was a crack, no more and no less, and as you said not aimed at you. Then you came out and told everybody that it was because I Don’t Like You, that I made that crack That kind of attempted mind reading remind me very much of a mind set we both know very well from our past, Ros, need I say more?

  People answer my posts all the time here without hounding me. In fact, I would NOT say you are hounding in this post. Back on H2O I did consider not responding to some of your posts that seemed bent on drawing me into religious argument, and I even considered doing as you suggest, leaving the forum. Maybe I just don't understand how someone can come out of a religion like the Watchtower and be so intent on swaying others to believe their way. I just don't understand the lust for shattering other people's faith because you have come to a personal conclusion against it for yourself. Nevertheless, one of my character weaknesses perhaps is that it pushes my buttons for people to impose their thinking on me, especially trying to sway me with ridicule. (Maybe a Watchtower hangover.)

  Trying to make people think and provide information is what helps people Ros, I have been doing that since 1988, when I left the Watchtower Society. Some times I do it by writing well documented essays, sometimes I try to do it by debating. As you very well know I am very critical of the Watchtower Society and their literature, I am equally critical of all the other various churches and denominations calling themselves Christian, (as I believe you are too) and with very good reason. Being an ex-Witness can give you an excellent BS detector if you want to use it. You’re not only detect religious BS and Bible BS, but you can even detect political BS. You said above:

  “I just don't understand the lust for shattering other people's faith because you have come to a personal conclusion against it for yourself.

  What are you doing on Beacon then Ros? Aren’t you trying to shatter people’s faith in the Watchtower Society? Aren’t you trying to provide them with information that will eventually shatter that faith? Why do you do that Ros? Is it because you have come to the “personal conclusion” that their faith is wrong? Inferior to your superior brand? Aren’t you trying to sway people Ros? Isn’t it because you think it might be far better for them in the long run? If I try to make people think critically about faith in general, why is it wrong when I do it and quite all right when you do it? I am trying to make people THINK Ros. What are you trying to do?

  My fight with the Watchtower Society doesn’t go along the religious lines Ros. What the average Jehovah's Witnesses believe about God, the Bible and such doesn’t make more or less sense than what you have just told me you believe. I do not concern myself much with it. The Watchtower Society is harming people with the blood policy, the DF’ing policy and their handling of incest, that’s what I got against them.
  Do I make myself clear?
  
  

  I don't come here to debate or convert people to my way of thinking. I'm not here to draw people to my religious viewpoint. I'm here because there are Jehovah's Witnesses coming out of the Watchtower who need support from those of us who have been there, and places like this and other websites are places they come seeking that support. So is BRCI. Reaching out to these people is my main purpose and objective for being here. Not "haranguing" over atheism and trinitarianism, or the right to say "bulshit". I sincerely believe such is a deterrent to our objectives. If the objectives are otherwise, perhaps you're right - I have no business here.
  Norm, I have no objection to this kind of discussion with you although I rarely have time for something this lengthy. If it seemed like I took an unwarranted "potshot" at you in the BRCI post, I apologize.
  (Let's hope I didn't mess up on the syntax this time.)

  As I have said many times before, I try to provide well documented information about the Watchtower Society. What people do with that information is up to them. Above all, I try to encourage people that get into personal contact with me to think, to be critical about everything. Nothing is to holy not to be criticized. As you very well know many of these people ask you what you personally think about things, and I guess that you tell them what you think, Ros. I also presume that you find it acceptable that I do the same. I also presume that you find that the help and support provided by me is in no way inferior or superior to what you provide, if you disagree, please tell me. And to clear that up once and for all, I think you have as much business being here as anyone, including me. We are both veterans in this activity although with a slightly different basis.
  I like debating because that’s still one of the best ways of correcting one’s thinking by hearing other views and being forced into rethinking one’s positions. I hope that’s the same with you, Ros.

  Take care,

  Norm.
• 

  sf

  I just needed to say that this comment from you Norm, reflects my mindset as well:

  "My fight with the Watchtower Society doesn’t go along the religious lines Ros. What the average Jehovah's Witnesses believe about God, the Bible and such doesn’t make more or less sense than what you have just told me you believe. I do not concern myself much with it. The Watchtower Society is harming people with the blood policy, the DF’ing policy and their handling of incest, that’s what I got against them.
  Do I make myself clear?"

  And also this:

  "Trying to make people think and provide information is what helps people..."

  Once they start reading, that's all it really takes for the ball to start rolling.

  Nice to see you here Ros; nice photo too.

  sKally