Lack of accurate knowledge....

@fmf said
You say I lack credibility, which is your prerogative of course, but, having been a follower of Jesus for many years and having had strong faith, I probably have more credibility talking about the nature of faith than I would have if I'd only ever been a non-believer all my life.

Let me ask you a question if I may. Can you pin it down to one important event or teaching or doctrine that the Catholic religion did, if they were even responsible so to say, of you eventually leaving the church?

@galveston75 said
Let me ask you a question if I may. Can you pin it down to one important event or teaching or doctrine that the Catholic religion did, if they were even responsible so to say, of you eventually leaving the church?

My problem was with the credibility of the Bible [as a basis for the things that Christians claim about a creator being, about who Jesus was, and the claims they make about themselves]. That's it. That's why I no longer self-identify as a Christian.

As for "the Catholic religion", in so far as my own personal experience of it goes, I am impressed with its work and its role at the grassroots ~ I am still involved in certain ways, and I have no compunction whatsoever about self-identifying as a sociological Catholic, as it were. There is nothing bad that "the Catholic religion did" to me that was responsible for me losing my faith.

@divegeester said
I notice you ducked this question secondson.

Oh dear I got two thumbs down for bringing it up again.

Tut-tut divegeester.

@fmf said
It was all just as real to me then as it is to you now.

If that were true you'd still be a Christian.

@divegeester said
Oh dear I got two thumbs down for bringing it up again.

Tut-tut divegeester.

You got the thumbs down for asking the question in the first place, not for bringing it up again.

I very rarely thumb up or down. And not this time either, so don't put me on your list.

To answer your presumptuous question, I was not suggesting that FMF couldn't be a Christian because he was a Catholic.

Anyone can be a Christian regardless of denominational affiliation, but there are exceptions.

@secondson said
If that were true you'd still be a Christian.

No. You aren't getting it. I am not still a Christian because I lost my faith. You don't think you will lose your faith. And maybe you won't. Twenty years ago, like you now, I had no reason to believe I was going to lose my faith. Like you are now, back then I was certain about my strong faith.

@secondson said
To answer your presumptuous question, I was not suggesting that FMF couldn't be a Christian because he was a Catholic..

If you are now distancing yourself from your comments on page 7 of this thread, just say so.

@secondson said
Anyone can be a Christian regardless of denominational affiliation, but there are exceptions.

What exceptions are you referring to?

@secondson said
You had religion to the hilt, but you never knew Jesus.

How do you know this, who are you to judge?

@secondson said
To answer your presumptuous question, I was not suggesting that FMF couldn't be a Christian because he was a Catholic.

Here is what you posted on page 7.

”I find it quite interesting to learn, now that I know it was the religion of Catholicism you had for 28 years, that I too was a Catholic for exactly the same amount of time.
Religion produces "feelings" as you say, but not a relationship. "Feelings" come from all manner of experience, whether right or wrong, but a "relationship", with the living God, is based in truth, and on the Word of God.
Accept the fact, FMF, that your arguments are based in human reasoning. Religiosity never produced a relationship with God. A relationship with our creator is all on God's end, and has nothing to do with human religious performance, initially.”

If you are not suggesting that FMF could not have had a relationship with God because he was a Catholic, then what are you saying?

@fmf said
My problem was with the credibility of the Bible [as a basis for the things that Christians claim about a creator being, about who Jesus was, and the claims they make about themselves]. That's it. That's why I no longer self-identify as a Christian.

As for "the Catholic religion", in so far as my own personal experience of it goes, I am impressed with its work and its role at ...[text shortened]... e is nothing bad that "the Catholic religion did" to me that was responsible for me losing my faith.

Well I actually appreciate your comment. And believe it or not I do understand your viewpoint. The reason is there are actually 100's of millions of people who view the Bible as you do.
And to be truthful it is not your fault.
Jesus set up teachers who were the first 12 apostles and then hundreds of disciples to go out and teach exactly what he taught them. When this was done for the next few decades the congregations that were established grew and prospered.
But Jesus warned that sometime after his death and with the eventual death of his true followers that things would change in time. He said that oppressive men with false teachings would eventually take over and dilute the things he taught and would change and introduce many false teachings. That happened about 400 years after Jesus died.
So in order for false teachings to be introduced and made to stick, the Bible was taken out of the common peoples hands.
This was to hide the truths and pretty much shut the bible down and with these new teachings it slowly took Jehovah out of the picture. Then the trinity took over as well as other beliefs and much of the bible has been pretty much ignored or told by their priest, etc, do not worry about the details such as Jesus's clear cut command to learn every verse and scripture in the Bible and get to know his Father and to see what the future holds as for as life on this planet after Armageddon.
No churches including the Catholics see this, teach this or give their patrons hope for the future other then if you don't succumb to the church and it's false teachings, you will burn forever in a burning hell.
Jesus never taught this.
So..........millions like yourself doubt big time in the Bible. It is because the churches do not teach the deeper and meaningful things and things that we should be doing in that teaching work and about Jehovah. They've even taken his name out of their Bibles. It should be in all bibles at least 700 times.
So yes I do understand your viewpoint and the reason is because most JW's have all come from those religions because they were empty and void of real spirituality.

@galveston75 said
So yes I do understand your viewpoint and the reason is because most JW's have all come from those religions because they were empty and void of real spirituality.

In your opinion, or the official opinion of the Watchtower leadership, whichever suits; is it possible for any other religion other than the Jehovah’s Witness to contain what you refer to in your post as “real spirituality”?

Any, any at all?

@divegeester said
In your opinion, or the official opinion of the Watchtower leadership, whichever suits; is it possible for any other religion other than the Jehovah’s Witness to contain what you refer to in your post as “real spirituality”?

Any, any at all?

Of course. But lots of changes have to be made and the bible gives no indication that they will. Revelation does explain that. Even in your bible...

@galveston75 said
So..........millions like yourself doubt big time in the Bible. It is because the churches do not teach the deeper and meaningful things and things that we should be doing in that teaching work and about Jehovah. They've even taken his name out of their Bibles. It should be in all bibles at least 700 times.

I "doubt" the Bible even more when you talk about it. It's amusing that you witter on endlessly about there being "deeper and meaningful things and things" about the Bible and yet all you ever seem to do is come here and prattle on about how your organization inserted the word "Jehovah" into its doctored version of the Bible "700 times".

@fmf said
I "doubt" the Bible even more when you talk about it. It's amusing that you witter on endlessly about there being "deeper and meaningful things and things" about the Bible and yet all you ever seem to do is come here and prattle on about how your organization inserted the word "Jehovah" into its doctored version of the Bible "700 times".

Doubting the Bible is fine, but what do you have to share from your own spiritual experience -- not squabbling over texts -- that might be beneficial to your brothers and sisters on Earth to hear?

If you sought and found nothing, that's fine.
If you sought, and weird synchronicities happened, that's also fine, although of course it would be correct to be skeptical about any interpretations.
Or, if you'd rather not say, that's also fine, but why does it appear that you are here to refine and correct the understanding of other people?
Whose spiritual ecologies are you willing to implode, and to satisfy what?