by Spectrum 91 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I really liked the book "Jehovah Unmasked" by Nathaniel Merritt
I know bible thumpers hate that book but personally I really liked it and if you desire to hang on to the NT it allows you to do that and the Jesus teachings.
Hey who is runningman where do you find him. Loved that research.
Balsam
According to most christian denominations, he will soon be sanctioning the greatest massacre of all time, at armageddon. When humans murder, we are thrown in jail or executed. When god murders, he is worshipped and praised. The logical absurdity of worshipping a deity that is morally inferior to the lowliest of human legal systems is laughable.
Imagine this world view: your god creates the universe and all that is in it, including the antithesis of "good", the devil. He then allows this "devil" to unleash a symphony of horror on the earth for thousands and thousands of years while standing to the side and doing nothing.
After sitting on his holy ass for thousands of years, he finally decides to "make things right" by slaughtering all the humans who chose to "follow" the "devil" option versus kissing his ass (while he stands idly by doing nothing). The absurdity of this premise is vomit-inducing and anybody buying into this crap needs years of psychotherapy and or antipsychotic medication.
kid-A
What about the bone duty? Green book, early '70's, I must have been about 8, we did it in the book study, about how we'd have to collect bones for seven years or something like that after Armagedinit...?
Lovely, puts god right up there with Pol Pot...
And people accept is uncritically and some of those people were us *shudder* ... mouths open, swallowing every last drop... like golden showers for the hard of thinking... mark you, I flew my ball point pen to the moon and back several times in the study of that book, so maybe I mised the punch line...?
"Hi, I'm god. If I don't kill you I'll end up pissing in your face. You'll have a nice day now, and honk if you love Jesus"
... now, where have all the Biblical literalists gone, hmmmm....?
Kid,
"After sitting on his holy ass for thousands of years, he finally decides to "make things right" by slaughtering all the humans who chose to "follow" the "devil" option versus kissing his ass (while he stands idly by doing nothing). The absurdity of this premise is vomit-inducing and anybody buying into this crap needs years of psychotherapy and or antipsychotic medication."
So I guess there's no way you two are going to make up!!
After sitting on his holy ass for thousands of years, he finally decides to "make things right" by slaughtering all the humans who chose to "follow" the "devil" option versus kissing his ass (while he stands idly by doing nothing). The absurdity of this premise is vomit-inducing and anybody buying into this crap needs years of psychotherapy and or antipsychotic medication.
Are You Looking Forward to Armageddon? Let us put aside our squeamishness for a moment. Let's consider what the Watchtower Society says will happen when God destroys all the "worldly people" (i.e. pretty much everybody who is not a Jehovah's Witness)...
The number of corpses
if laid side by side in rows of six
would stretch all the way to the moonYou may be asking yourself, "What kind of person would put a ghastly picture like that on a Web site?" On the other hand, you might be asking, "What kind of religion preaches that this is what God wants?"
courtesy of timothy campbell.
My, my, it looks like folks had fun with my post. Many were downright predictable with the name calling. What I liked best, though were the posts by Abbadon and Narkissos. Instead of just brushing me off as a fundie, they did make some very good points. Abbaddon mentioned that there is no direct prohibition on abortion in the Bible, despite the procedure being known in ancient times. Very good! Narkissos had the best one, I think, for the business of the thread! Some secular scholars don't believe that Israel was ever powerful enough to commit the massacres described in the Bible. Most higher critics, think the bible is just so much fiction anyway. If one is going to hold to that view, then this whole matter of the massacres is just irrelavent anyway. Kudos on that one Nark!
Despite what I said, I am not a fundie. What I am is a fader who is trying to figure things out. I am not a literalist, but then again, neither am I inclined to accept the higher critic's proclaimation that the Bible is just the product of human thinking either.
As to abortion, you might be surprised to find out that the Supreme Court has never found an absolute right for a person to have one. In Roe v. Wade, the Supremes found that a woman's right to privacy extended that far, subject to state regulation. On the question of a right to an abortion, the Court said, "...some Amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree." The media would have you think that Casey v. Planned Parenthood found otherwise and established an absolute right to an abortion, it didn't. The Supremes said, "we are led to conclude this: the essential holding of Roe v. Wade should be retained and once again reafirmed." That included the holding that I quoted earlier. They said "We also reaffirm Roe's holding that 'subsequent to viabilty, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgement, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.'" So a woman has no unlimited right to terminate a pregnancy.
My personal feelings on the subject are not so bound up in scripture as many of you assumed, especially in light of Abbadon's comment. I simply feel that abortion, especially as it is practiced today, is a barbaric practice unworthy of use by an enlightened people. How so many people who claim to be for the humane treatment of our fellow beings as many who champion the cause of "the woman's right to choose" can so revel in such a cruel and barbaric a practice as abortion is beyond me. Rather than killing those unborn who are incovenient, I feel that people should be responsible enough to take the steps not to get pregnant in the first place. You may not like it, but that is where I stand.
Forscher
Tetrapod.
I happen to agree with you there.
Forscher
I feel that people should be responsible enough to take the steps not to get pregnant in the first place.
What about rape? Incest? What about severely deformed fetuses that will have to endure painful suffering their entire lives?
Heres the point: nobody LIKES abortion. No woman would "enjoy" the termination of a pregnancy. The simple fact is, people make bad choices, birth control is NOT 100%, and women get pregnant from rape and incest. Where do you propose all these unwanted children go? State orphanages? Why bring a child into the world that will never be loved, properly cared for and has no chance at a happy future? And please, adoption is not an answer. There are hundreds of thousands of unwanted children wallowing in orphanages because nobody wanted to adopt them.
I do agree however, society needs to 1) improve sex-ed so kids stop getting pregnant and 2) the medical community needs to develop far more effective birth control techniques. Most notably, there needs to be an effective male contraceptive (i.e. a pill or other chemical that halts sperm production) so that women are not the only ones who have to bear the responsibility for contraception.
What about rape? Incest? What about severely deformed fetuses that will have to endure painful suffering their entire lives?
You've got a point there Kid-A that I won't argue with. I don't think a woman should be forced to bear a baby concieved through rape. But I also don't think that abortion should be held out as the only option. She should be imformed of the options available to her and allowed to make an informed decision. I might not like it that most will choose to abort in that instance, but I'll live with it.
Incest, that's a hard one. I'll admit that there are a number of considerations with that one. I think the if genetic testing shows the baby to be deformity free, and the woman is old enough to make a mature decision in the matter, then she should keep it if she wants, my point is that an abortion shouldn't be forced in that situation. If she is not mature enough, then the state will have to step in. Niether should be forced to bring the baby to term in that situation. Again, I don't like abortion, but that only seems fair.
Severely deformed Fetuses? Give the mother the information to make an informed decision, and stand by that decision. I am troubled by the thought that any deformity might be used as an excuse fo an abortion. Some, such as Down's Syndrome, don't suffer painfully throughout their lives, so I would want to be careful tredding down that road.
I realize that the issue is not a black or white issue as both the Fundies and the radical liberals potray it. Uncomfortable compromises need to be struck. But what I object to is abortion being just another method of birth control as some are demanding today. People should be resposible in their actions. And I agree that the medical proffession needs to provide effective options, though the 97% effectivness of the pill when properly done is pretty hard to beat. I also think that an effective male contraceptive should be provided as well so that the onus is not just on the woman and the man can play his part as well in avoiding an unwanted preganncy.
Froscher
