So is dark chocolate, but I don't worship it or expect it to save my immortal soul
That's good, because unlike Faith in God, it isn't worthy of worship nor can it save your soul.
BA - But it is good with a bottle of shiraz.
YOU are bound to be like God, KNOWING good and bad
by nicolaou 54 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Brother Apostate
-
sweetstuff
That's good, because unlike Faith in God, it isn't worthy of worship nor can it save your soul.
BA - But it is good with a bottle of shiraz.
I respect your right to believe in "God" and have faith, as long as you respect mine, to think the god of the bible is a major meanie and the bully of the universe, hence, I don't believe in that version of "god" or the bible. But to each his or her own.
Now pass me the booze already.
-
onacruse
An older, but very relavant thread:
What's Right about Right?
-
hillary_step
BA,
As I'm sure you are aware, I believe that the Bible is God-breathed, that the men who wrote the Bible were scribes who wrote God's thoughts.
Yes, I am aware of this, and this is why I showed by a logical development that your definition of faith is exactly what you tried to prove to jwfacts that it was not. I quote:
jwfacts- No, Faith is what the vast majority of humanity have; and it is Faith (adherence to beliefs unproven)
BA - Faith is not as you define it. Faith is "knowing" something is or will occur with such conviction as if it has already been. Faith, like logic and reason, requires exrercise.
What you cannot seem to come to terms with is that your first statement quoted above actually agrees with the definition that jwfacts gave of "faith" and which you disagreed with.
As I'm sure you are aware, I believe that the Bible is God-breathed, that the men who wrote the Bible were scribes who wrote God's thoughts.
His definition, which by the way is the correct one unlike your own WTS version, defines faith as 'adherence to beliefs unproven". This is exactly on what your faith is based.
As an aside, I am frequently astonished at just how wrong you can be and yet how little your frequent logical blunders affect your confidence in yourself. Could it be that this is actually your definition of faith? That is, regardless of the facts my faith makes it right?
HS
-
Chap
"Let's assume for the moment that God decides what is good and what is bad.
Does He 'a' choose what is good because it is obviously good or 'b' is it good simply because He says so?
If 'a' then what is good is independant of God and He has no choice but to accept it as good.
If 'b' then the definition of what is good is arbitrary - God could decide that child abuse was good and it would be because He said so."
God as described in the Bible IS good so that negates both "a" and "b".
This would mean everything good originates from God and everything not originating from God is not good. If God is good and good is arbitrary (bad) how is God free to do anything?
Why do we recognize child abuse as a bad thing? If God is good and child abuse is bad, us stating so would only be agreeing with God. If we are created in the image of God and God decides that child abuse is good, we would agree with God if we are not corrupt. -
nicolaou
Only an idiot could possibly read "child abuse" intro the Abraham- Isaac account - Brother Apostate.
Look at these two Rembrandt’s paintings. In the first one Abraham points to the heavens rather than Isaac, as if in blind obedience to God and oblivious to what he is about to do to his son. In the second his hands cover Isaac’s face, preventing him from seeing or crying out. Not only is Isaac silenced, his personal features are obscured. Isaac has been turned into an object. He has been dehumanized by being made a sacrifice; he no longer has a right to ask questions not that he even could he is probably paralysed by fear!
God asks and then twice commends Abraham for not withholding his son. Abraham asks no questions and God offers no qualifications. The child seems to be a pawn in the hands of two “adults” who need to work out an issue between them.
Child abuse? Certainly, only an ignorant fool would say otherwise.
-
Brother Apostate
Lol, a "Rembrant painting" as proof of how it WUZ, ROTFLMAO!
Nicalaou, get help, if you believe that a painter millenia after the event captured the real deal, you need a check up from the neck up.
Quit embarrassing yourself already!
BA-
-
nicolaou
Fine, take it from the word of your own god (any translation will do);
(Genesis 22:1-10) 22
Now after these things it came about that the [true] God put Abraham to the test. Accordingly he said to him: "Abraham!" to which he said: "Here I am!" 2 And he went on to say: "Take, please, your son, your only son whom you so love, Isaac, and make a trip to the land of Mo·ri´ah and there offer him up as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall designate to you." 3 So Abraham got up early in the morning and saddled his ass and took two of his attendants with him and Isaac his son; and he split the wood for the burnt offering. Then he rose and went on the trip to the place that the [true] God designated to him. 4 It was first on the third day that Abraham raised his eyes and began to see the place from a distance. 5 Abraham now said to his attendants: "YOU stay here with the ass, but I and the boy want to go on over there and worship and return to YOU." 6 After that Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and put it upon Isaac his son and took in his hands the fire and the slaughtering knife, and both of them went on together. 7 And Isaac began to say to Abraham his father: "My father!" In turn he said: "Here I am, my son!" So he continued: "Here are the fire and the wood, but where is the sheep for the burnt offering?" 8 To this Abraham said: "God will provide himself the sheep for the burnt offering, my son." And both of them walked on together. 9 Finally they reached the place that the [true] God had designated to him, and Abraham built an altar there and set the wood in order and bound Isaac his son hand and foot and put him upon the altar on top of the wood. 10 Then Abraham put out his hand and took the slaughtering knife to kill his son.
Quite a graphic and horrifying picture I would say.
-
BurnTheShips
The question is whether Isaac was a child at all. He was in his mid twenties as the time, and his father an old man. His physical advantage over Abraham would have been considerable, so no, it must have been a voluntary act on the behalf of Isaac, not child abuse. The binding of Isaac provides a prophetic pattern or type for the voluntary sacrifice of Jesus.
Burn -
BurnTheShips
Here is a bit more information regarding the alleged child abuse.
While it is often imagined that Isaac was a young boy at the time of the incident, this is mostly a modern idea, with most traditional sources claiming he was an adult. According to Josephus, Isaac is twenty-five years old at the time of the sacrifice; the Talmudic sages teach that Isaac is thirty-seven, likely based on the fact that the next Biblical story is of Sarah's death at 127 (she was ninety when Isaac was born). In either case, Isaac is a fully grown man, strong enough to prevent the elderly Abraham from tying him up had he wanted to resist.
Also, according to the narrative in Genesis, Abraham already knew God's promise regarding Isaac and his future progeny. so why would God require the sacrifice of his son? It must have seemed absurd to Abraham. It certainly would have to me. However, Abraham made the leap of faith. Despite not knowing or understanding how or why, he trusted God. God stayed his hand. According to Kierkegaard, Abraham not only relinquished everything, but trusted that somehow God would give it all back.
Burn
