why i disbelieve

by inkling 18 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

inkling

I think you're a goner.

(In your friend's eyes.)
yeah... I havn't yet got the nerve to send it
[inkling]
dark angle

Very well argued!! You express succinctly a summary of a doubting well-informed JW. Thanks for posting this. Will print it and may pass it to my friends and see what may be their reaction. (I have to translate it first to our dialect.)
Lady Zombie
donny

Very good post. I could not have said it better.
Slappy

The following are what my biblical studies have led me to conclude. I cannot vouch for the validity of any of them, for I am only human and am prone to errors, sometimes more than others.
First off, I'm sure you understand the reason for the Bible being divided into the OT and the NT; the whole dispensation thing. Life under the Law and life under Grace and all that. I view the OT as a history book of sorts. It also shows us, especially those of us that aren't Jewish, what Christ has saved us from. No longer are we subject to the Law and all that that entailed. And, we are given the choice to become one of God's own.
In the OT, God communicated directly with people on earth and performed miracles day in and day out for them. And yet they constantly turned to other "gods" for one reason or another. So what makes you think that even if God gave you a direct sign you would then choose to believe that He exists? Because you said so? Well, God said that even if He did give you a sign, you still wouldn't believe. (Mark 8:11, Luke 11:29, Matthew 16:1, Matthew 12:38) So, if there IS a God, would it be fair to assume that we should take His Word over yours?
Of course, we have to make two assumptions: that there is a God, and that the Bible is His Word. You make the general and, quite honestly, cliche, argument that all the crap that happens in the world is in direct correlation with the lack of a loving, caring God. (He is also Holy and Righteous, people so love to 4get those two things in forming their opinion of God, JWs in particular). However, if you actually study what Jesus taught while He was here on earth, you would see that not once does He advocate violence (aka. Koran) or anything else that would be detrimental to society (His people). In fact, He was all for forgiveness (Matthew 18:21&22), love (parable of Good Samaritan, Luke 10), and helping those in need (His entire life was spent doing that). (Btw, as a side note, He also didn't forbid others to preach and heal in His name even if they weren't "with" Him...it's quite interesting, and sad, how many "religions" seem to ignore that little detail) Also, if you study the letters of the disciples, who were directly influenced by Jesus and the example He set, you'll see that neither did they advocate anything that was detrimental, but advocated living peaceably with all, among other virtues. However, how many people actually listen to and apply those teachings (the Golden Rule sums it all up quite nicely, IMO) in their lives? Not too many. Can you not see that if everybody actually followed the example Jesus set how much better the world would be? Even in the Bible, either when God was communicating directly with people or when He was walking this earth as a man, not very many actually followed the desires of God. What assumption can we make from that? That we all have a choice to follow God and His desires or to follow our own will, aka free will. And as we see each and everyday, there are those have chosen to believe in God and try to follow the example that Jesus set (it's not easy at times, trust me), and there are those that follow their own will (while this is a lot easier, we can see how much pain and suffering it has caused in the world).
Now, you can also argue about all those religious wars and the pain and suffering they have caused? That's true, but that's man taking things into his control (thanks to free will) and doing what he wants, using God as an excuse; aka muslims and other radical offshoots of countless "religions". But you say, what about the OT, God was constantly having His people destroy those that worshipped false gods. Ahh, but that was the OT while the Law was still in effect, and while God only had his chosen people, the Jews. As soon as Christ came to earth and the dispensation of Grace began, do you see the need for God to advocate such tactics? No, because now everybody, not just the Jews, are His people, and what would be the point of destroying His own?
True, we don't know what was going on before God created the universe. However, we don't know that the Big Bang happened either (it's only a theory), so why did you state that like it was fact? One common answer I've heard (and find quite humorous) is that God was creating Hell for those who seeked to meddle in things beyond their comprehension. (A little comic-relief never hurt anybody, right? )
That's all I have for the moment. Sorry I have to make the assumption that there is a God and that the Bible is His Word. But isn't that what logic is? Making assumptions and logically reasoning why those assumptions are true? Otherwise, what's the point of using logic to prove something that is already fact? Also, I don't recall the use of fact (that seems more along the lines of the scientific method) every being a focal point in logic, but I may be wrong there.
Btw, don't judge what the Bible says off of JW interpretations...or mine for that matter. Develop your own interpretations...preferably not that it's all crap b4 you've made an honest attempt at it.
treadnh2o

Ever notice a JW can ask a question requiring thought but when asked a question that requires the INDIVIDUAL to think the defense mechanisms kick into high gear? They will either answer a question with a question, quote the Watchtower, even if the quote is completely out of context, or run away screaming Apostate? It's refreshing to see people understand( whether they are right or wrong) what they are saying.
hamilcarr

The idea of God that is presented in the Bible strikes me as such a vastly improbable character that a claim of his actual existence and the reality of his interactions with people thousands of years ago would need to be accompanied by REALLY good evidence. I see none.
I think it's perfectly logical to defend the non-existence of this God as represented in the pages of the OT. Of course it's impossible to logically denounce all 6 billion interpretations given to 'the divine'. Christian theists are very astute though in logically rejecting the existence of all but their God. Probably we can learn a lot from these disbelievers.
Awakened07

Good post/thread, inkling. It should be thought provoking.
I view the OT as a history book of sorts. It also shows us, especially those of us that aren't Jewish, what Christ has saved us from. No longer are we subject to the Law and all that that entailed.
Since Jesus apparently is the same God as in the OT, He saved us from the very law He himself originally had devised. -There is also a tendency to nonchalantly forget all the people who did live under that harsh law over centuries.
In the OT, God communicated directly with people on earth and performed miracles day in and day out for them.
So it claims. We who live today have no way of verifying that claim, and it is not part of our common experience. We have to just 'take it on faith'; that is to say choose to believe it's true. The Watchtower recently wrote that we don't need miracles today, because we can read about them in the Bible. Does that sound rational and reasonable?
Well, God said that even if He did give you a sign, you still wouldn't believe. (Mark 8:11, Luke 11:29, Matthew 16:1, Matthew 12:38)
Which is very convenient. The Bible writers may have been many things; outright stupid was not one of them. And; they did not write what they wrote in a vacuum. They were surrounded by some skeptics and people who relied on intelligent, rational thought and philosophy back then too, so what better way to caution would-be followers against such thought than to say that 'seeing would not equal believing', and that God had 'hidden' the truth from the intelligent and revealed it to those who were as children.
So, if there IS a God, would it be fair to assume that we should take His Word over yours?
Perhaps, if.
Of course, we have to make two assumptions: that there is a God, and that the Bible is His Word.
Exactly - you make those assumptions first.
- If for instance you make the initial assumption that there really is a wealthy Nigerian tribal king who needs your help getting his enormous fortune to another country, then the rest of his story and its factual details seem compelling and true. Everything checks out; you get addresses and phone numbers, you can call him and his lawyer and talk to them, you can see what banks and accounts they plan on using, have daily e-mail contact... And you'll be a rich man yourself soon. Just one catch. It all rests on the premise, the presupposition that the Nigerian king is who he claims to be. In real life, one just can't make decisions like that. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Facts come first, and after careful study/analysis, then one can reach a conclusion. One does not first conclude, and then try to find facts to fit that conclusion.
You make the general and, quite honestly, cliche, argument that all the crap that happens in the world is in direct correlation with the lack of a loving, caring God.
It's not just the 'crap' that humans do, it's the 'crap' that's been going on from long before humans emerged, and 'crap' that humans have no control over, like natural disasters and diseases in animals. The entire universe seems to be in a 'fallen state', not just mankind who 'sinned'. There is absolutely no reason why there should be asteroids, comets and meteoroids flying around out there, posing a threat to mankind, flora and fauna. It's 100 years ago tomorrow that a large meteoroid hit Tunguska, Russia, estimated to around a 1000 times as powerful as the bomb dropped over Hiroshima. There are over a thousand large objects on various orbits flying past earth, just 'waiting' for a 'nudge' by the gravity of Venus for instance, to change trajectory enough to hit earth. This kind of 'crap' (+ many other things) was not caused by mankind.
(He is also Holy and Righteous, people so love to 4get those two things in forming their opinion of God, JWs in particular).
Since you've mentioned this a couple of times, it would be nice if you could elaborate on this, preferably in its own thread. How does God being Holy (define it first) and Righteous (explain) change anything? Why do JWs in particular forget this?
However, if you actually study what Jesus taught while He was here on earth, you would see that not once does He advocate violence (aka. Koran) or anything else that would be detrimental to society (His people).
When you have already determined in advance that he is God, is good, peaceful etc., then of course you would not see any such verses even if you found them. I'm not going to generally attack the Jesus of the Bible, because generally he comes off as a decent, peaceful, emancipating guy, but he had his moments. I'm not going to go into detail, because I know the apologetics for them, but "key words" would be: physically (in anger) ridding the temple area of traders instead of intelligently convincing them to leave, demanding more love for himself than for own family, being inconsiderate of his parent's feelings, allowing his disciples to take and eat grain on the sabbath with the only justification being that he's the son of God therefore calling the shots, cursing a fig tree for not blooming out of season... As I said, I know the apologetics for all of those, but they're not convincing to me. They are only convincing if you've already decided how you want him to be, or how he has to be as God.
(Btw, as a side note, He also didn't forbid others to preach and heal in His name even if they weren't "with" Him...it's quite interesting, and sad, how many "religions" seem to ignore that little detail)
-But did also say 'if you are not with me, you are against me'.
Can you not see that if everybody actually followed the example Jesus set how much better the world would be?
Yes, as long as we're talking of the golden rule, which was not a genuinely new thought at the time. It's a rather self-evident rule for sustaining a well functioning society.
And as we see each and everyday, there are those have chosen to believe in God and try to follow the example that Jesus set (it's not easy at times, trust me), and there are those that follow their own will (while this is a lot easier, we can see how much pain and suffering it has caused in the world).
There are bad and good people among all religions and among those who lack a religion. There are intelligent and stupid people among all of them too. Many atheists live a life that closely follows the ethics in the major religions, not because they have derived them from those, but because they have intelligently thought it over and found that society and their own and their family's life will be better for following certain rules/ethics.
Since atheists and agnostics are among a very small minority in the vast majority of nations, wouldn't the pain and suffering in the world rather - statistically - be the doing of people who profess to follow a religion/God? Or are they excused, because they just 'fall short'. Non-believers may fall short too sometimes, even to their own ethics. -But - by all means - there are many religious people who lead a good life, helping others etc. But those kind of people aren't exclusively religious.
Now, you can also argue about all those religious wars and the pain and suffering they have caused? That's true, but that's man taking things into his control (thanks to free will) and doing what he wants, using God as an excuse; aka muslims and other radical offshoots of countless "religions". But you say, what about the OT, God was constantly having His people destroy those that worshipped false gods. Ahh, but that was the OT while the Law was still in effect, and while God only had his chosen people, the Jews. As soon as Christ came to earth and the dispensation of Grace began, do you see the need for God to advocate such tactics? No, because now everybody, not just the Jews, are His people, and what would be the point of destroying His own?
The wars in the OT, decreed or even sometimes allegedly fought by God, were just as distressful, painful, and devastating as the wars caused by 'men taking things into their own hands and blaming it on God' since then. Quite a few people lived through them (well, or died in them). - Not our pain, suffering or loss of loved ones though, so let's just forget that... As long as we can be racist and say that the Creator of the universe chose one small tribe over all others, we may as well say we shouldn't care about their lives, since they were 'bad people'. Some of them evidently were, but the Israelites who were chosen weren't exactly saints either. Why did God choose one small tribe at first, and then later extend that grace to all?
True, we don't know what was going on before God created the universe. However, we don't know that the Big Bang happened either (it's only a theory), so why did you state that like it was fact?
Everything in the natural sciences are 'only theories', but they are the models that currently best fit the largest amount of pieces of fact/evidence. Theories predict that certain things should be true if the theory is true, and the big bang theory has been shown to have good predictive power. This does not mean that we have found the Ultimate Final Truth, which for some reason especially Christians demand we should find in science (probably because it would have to fully substitute the simple 'God did it'), but we have found an explanation that best fits the currently available facts.
One common answer I've heard (and find quite humorous) is that God was creating Hell for those who seeked to meddle in things beyond their comprehension. (A little comic-relief never hurt anybody, right? )
As I think you are a believer in the mentioned Hell, threatening people who dare to inquire into the mysteries of the universe we live in and try to find answers using their senses and powers of deduction with such a place, is not what I would call comic relief. If mankind had always been content not 'meddling' in such things (or afraid to do so), we would have had no progress. Most things we know today were once beyond people's comprehension.
Sorry I have to make the assumption that there is a God and that the Bible is His Word. But isn't that what logic is? Making assumptions and logically reasoning why those assumptions are true?
No, you don't start out by making assumptions, unless they are experiences we all share in common and can therefore say are self-evident.
I can make the initial assumption that there's an invisible, huge troll outside my house. But why would I do that? However, if there were large footprints out there that seemed to come from no where, I would have reason to believe some large animal had made them. From there I could inquire further. It would be incredibly lazy of me to instead simply postulate that they had to come from an invisible troll. If I did some research and hid in the bushes while filming the place at night, I would probably find that the footprints were caused by a large animal, a bear for instance. Now - If I hid in the bushes with my camera and I could actually see those footprints form in the mud out of thin air, I would have a piece of evidence that would lead me to believe such a troll did indeed exist. That is to say - I had only postulated that it had to be a troll, so I would also have to find out if this invisible creature was indeed a troll. The problem with God, angels and demons is that they are not part of our common experience. We can find things in nature that at first glance are "footprints" of an invisible God, but on further investigation, those "footprints" have been shown to have natural origins again and again.
Slappy

As I think you are a believer in the mentioned Hell, threatening people who dare to inquire into the mysteries of the universe we live in and try to find answers using their senses and powers of deduction with such a place, is not what I would call comic relief. If mankind had always been content not 'meddling' in such things (or afraid to do so), we would have had no progress. Most things we know today were once beyond people's comprehension.
It was a joke! It was something I had come across while studying philosophy in college. The philosopher had mentioned that that was one answer given by those that didn't want to take the time to think out a logical response to such questions. (A little touchy aren't we?)
Which is very convenient. The Bible writers may have been many things; outright stupid was not one of them.
True, which I find equally curious. We (those less-than-intelligen humans that believe) say that the countless authors whose works compose the Bible were directly inspired by God. So instead of viewing them as "covering-your-ass" statements that are very prevalent in the Bible, what if they were wise cautions because God knows all that is out there that can lead people astray? For them to be only "covering-your-ass" statements written by mere humans (who must have had nothing better to do than to think up a whole knew religion just for the hell of it--all 50+ authors, over a span of 4,000 years, or however many it was), then that is some serious collusion going on through space and time. The like of which we haven't seen again, or are likely to see anytime in the future.
Maybe it was a group started by Abraham, or Moses, who handed down this fairy tale over the years to their descendents with orders to continue adding to it; you know, a family hobby of sorts. Of course, those descendents, being Jews, wouldn't have written something like the NT because it doesn't agree with their beliefs of who and what the Messiah was supposed to do. So maybe another group of people (probably some tipsy Gentiles who wanted to be included in this fairy tale) somehow learned of this book and the religion it was creating and decided that they wanted a piece of it to. And with the history between the Gentiles and Jews being as it was, the Gentiles knew what to add to the fairy tale to rile the Jews up, which is why the Jews disregard the NT.
Maybe somebody else has a less facetious explaination???
(He is also Holy and Righteous, people so love to 4get those two things in forming their opinion of God, JWs in particular).
Since you've mentioned this a couple of times, it would be nice if you could elaborate on this, preferably in its own thread. How does God being Holy (define it first) and Righteous (explain) change anything? Why do JWs in particular forget this?
Sure, I'll see when I can get something together. I've mostly used it in response to JWs, but I'll see if I can broaden it a little. Thx for the suggestion.
-But did also say 'if you are not with me, you are against me'
Lol, true true. In fact, I asked myself that exact same question a few weeks ago and sat down to look for an answer. The following is what I came up with.
Jesus gave the "Forbid him not, for he that is not against us is for us" response in answer to John telling Him how they had forbade one casting out demons in the name of Christ from doing so because that individual wasn't part of their "group". (Luke 9:49-50, Mark 9:38-40) Later on in Luke, when Jesus is accused of casting out demons through Beelzebub (after all, He wasn't doing it through God, but He was doing it, so there had to be some other explanation), He gives a logical response to the question. I won't take up space by recounting it all (it's in Luke 11:15-23), but He makes the point that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. It is also in this portion (Matthew 12:30 as well) where He makes the comment about "He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters".
So, the answer to the above question lies in the context in which Jesus was speaking (that's another thing "religions" are fond of, taking individual verses to suit their needs and completely disregarding their context). In Luke 9, Jesus was making the point that you don't have to be with a certain "group" in order to carrying on His work. The fact that that individual was able to cast out demons in Jesus name was a direct manifestation that he was against the devil, and therefore, "for God" as it were. An enemy of my enemy is a friend sort of thing, although I doubt it's that simple. So this portion is pointing out that who we "physically" associate ourselves with doesn't, in any way, shape, or form, determine our relationship with Jesus.
Then, in Luke 11, when Jesus makes His seemingly contradictory statement, you see that He is speaking in reference to something else. The preceding verse (vs 22), "But when a stronger than he comes and overcomes him...and divides his spoils" is making the point that when we are not with Christ, Satan is stronger than us, and is able to take us for his use. And as such, we are no longer able to carry on the work that Jesus would have us do, and as a result, are against Him. A friend of my enemy is my enemy sort of thing, although again, I doubt it's that simple. This portion digs a little deeper by completely disregarding who we are "physically" associated with, and makes the point that when we aren't with Christ (belief-wise) then we are against Him because what's the opposite of believing? Not believing. And if you don't believe in Him, how can you do anything for Him? Therefore, instead of gathering, we are scattering.
I can make the initial assumption that there's an invisible, huge troll outside my house. But why would I do that? However, if there were large footprints out there that seemed to come from no where, I would have reason to believe some large animal had made them. From there I could inquire further. It would be incredibly lazy of me to instead simply postulate that they had to come from an invisible troll. If I did some research and hid in the bushes while filming the place at night, I would probably find that the footprints were caused by a large animal, a bear for instance. Now - If I hid in the bushes with my camera and I could actually see those footprints form in the mud out of thin air, I would have a piece of evidence that would lead me to believe such a troll did indeed exist. That is to say - I had only postulated that it had to be a troll, so I would also have to find out if this invisible creature was indeed a troll . The problem with God, angels and demons is that they are not part of our common experience. We can find things in nature that at first glance are "footprints" of an invisible God, but on further investigation, those "footprints" have been shown to have natural origins again and again.
I'm pretty sure that's the scientific method, which, while it does incorporate logical reasoning, is not logical reasoning. Logic applies our own cognitive abilities to a problem without the need to perform various tests as show of proof.
No, you don't start out by making assumptions, unless they are experiences we all share in common and can therefore say are self-evident.
Logic is the study of the principles of valid inference and demonstration. The word derives from Greek?????? (logike), fem. of ??????? (logikos), "possessed of reason, intellectual, dialectical, argumentative", from ?????logos, "word, thought, idea, argument, account, reason, or principle".
If they're "self-evident", then they're facts. I don't see how incorporating facts is part of logical reasoning. Also, there is inductive reasoning, which works backwards from a conclusion, and deductive reasoning, which works towards a conclusion.
Since Jesus apparently is the same God as in the OT, He saved us from the very law He himself originally had devised. -There is also a tendency to nonchalantly forget all the people who did live under that harsh law over centuries.
Why did God choose one small tribe at first, and then later extend that grace to all?
The law was put in place to show the Israelites how God wanted them to live, so that they would please Him. For if God did create us, does it not make sense that He would do so for His pleasure? However, as the OT shows, Israel as a whole constantly rebelled against God. However, there were some individuals that still honored God, and God rewarded them for their faithfulness (take Job for example, and He wasn't even an Israelite; same with Ruth). However, due to Israel's constant rejection of God, He in turn, rejected them. Not in the sense that they have no hope, but in the sense that they are no longer His chosen people. (Which, btw, they were chosen because of Abraham, who was one faithful man among many unfaithful, and God chose to honor and bless him and his "seed" as a result; so I doubt "racism" had anything to do with it.) So, when there was no longer any hope, God gives us the opportunity to escape from under the law, Himself.
Now, you can argue, and rightly so, that if God is omniscient, wouldn't He have known how things would have ultimately turned out? So why didn't He just forego the law and all the trouble it caused and give everybody option #2 right away (He is such a loving God after-all). You know, I can't say for sure. It could be because without knowing what we were escaping from, could we truly appreciate the sacrifice made? I doubt that I could. It parallels with the assertion that without pain, can one truly know pleasure? (and the many other assertions along that line)
Also, you said that the law is harsh. Is it? How? It seems to me that if we were to follow the 10 Commandments then we would be much better off as a society. Does the fact that something is difficult make it harsh? Unfair? Is anything good and worthwhile ever easy? In my experience, no. Although with society (at least in the US) wanting things to be given to them nowadays, I can see where something that is difficult might cause a fair amount of whining.
- If for instance you make the initial assumption that there really is a wealthy Nigerian tribal king who needs your help getting his enormous fortune to another country, then the rest of his story and its factual details seem compelling and true. Everything checks out; you get addresses and phone numbers, you can call him and his lawyer and talk to them, you can see what banks and accounts they plan on using, have daily e-mail contact... And you'll be a rich man yourself soon. Just one catch . It all rests on the premise, the presupposition that the Nigerian king is who he claims to be. In real life, one just can't make decisions like that. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof . Facts come first, and after careful study/analysis, then one can reach a conclusion. One does not first conclude, and then try to find facts to fit that conclusion.
That's a decent example, however, there is one small difference that renders it void. In your example, you have to give to this Nigerian King in order to receive from Him. Such is not the case with God. The offer is already out there, we don't have to give anything to receive. How about this example. Your best friend tells you he/she has a gift to give you and that all you have to do is go to their house and get it. Are you going to go to all that trouble to decide whether or not your friend truly has a gift for you? Or will you just head over to their place to pick up your gift without a second thought? Granted, this isn't a perfect example either because you know for a fact that your friend is real, but you can't say the same for God. Then again, if we could give a perfect analogy in relation to God, that would mean that He wasn't God. True?
When you have already determined in advance that he is God, is good, peaceful etc., then of course you would not see any such verses even if you found them. I'm not going to generally attack the Jesus of the Bible, because generally he comes off as a decent, peaceful, emancipating guy, but he had his moments. I'm not going to go into detail, because I know the apologetics for them, but "key words" would be: physically (in anger) ridding the temple area of traders instead of intelligently convincing them to leave, demanding more love for himself than for own family, being inconsiderate of his parent's feelings, allowing his disciples to take and eat grain on the sabbath with the only justification being that he's the son of God therefore calling the shots, cursing a fig tree for not blooming out of season... As I said, I know the apologetics for all of those, but they're not convincing to me . They are only convincing if you've already decided how you want him to be, or how he has to be as God.
I don't know any of the "apologetics" for these statements, so forgive me if I say something that's already been said. And how do you propose that Jesus have gone about convincing money-grubbers to leave an excellent place to do business? What if you came home and found a bunch of people you didn't know having a party and generally making a mess of your house? Do you think you could be able to convince them to leave peacefully? No disrespect, but I doubt it. Ephesians 4:26 states "Be angry, and sin not..." So, was what Jesus did a sin? Do you believe that there is such a thing as righteous anger?
As for demanding more love for himself than for own family, you must have reference to Luke 9:57-62. He wasn't demanding, He was warning that if one wanted to follow Him, then there was going to be a materialistic cost. Is this so different from anything else that we apply our time to? If we truly, and I mean truly, want to succeed at something we have to devote all of our time to that one thing. For example, look at Tiger Woods, his entire life has been golf, why do you think he's the best? Look at anybody that is absolutely great on the guitar; how much time do you think they've spent practicing the guitar compared with doing anything else? Or look at somebody that is really into their job, hence the expression "married to his/her job". How many people like this do you know of that have a life outside their work? Not many I wager.
Inconsiderate of His parent's feelings? You seem to have tacked on a word with the sole reason of trying to make a point that doesn't exist. You must have reference to either Luke 2:41-52 or Luke 8:19-21. In Luke 2, it states that He went back with his "parents" and was subject to them, so I'm not picking "inconsiderate" up there. Then in Luke 8, which I'm guessing is the portion you probably have reference to, Jesus makes the point that physical relationship takes second place to spiritual relationship. He couldn't have been "inconsiderate" to his parent's feelings, for He was doing the work of His Father. It's been that way over countless generations, somebody finds something that they believe is bigger than themselves and they devote themselves to that, mostly to the detriment of any previous relationships they may have had. Now, sometimes, those "larger than life" instances are for the wrong reason, but can you make an honest claim that helping those in need, as Jesus was doing, was the wrong reason? I hope not. Also, as He hung on the cross, He asked John to look after and care for His mother; that looks like compassion to me (John 19:26-27). Seriously, when you're in that much pain, are you still capable of thinking of somebody else and how to provide for them? Is there another portion I'm missing that you had reference to?
I'm pretty sure that Jesus quoted how David ate the showbread that was only meant for the priests, in defense of the disciples picking and eating corn on the sabbath (Mark 2:23-28). He also states that the sabbath was created for man, not man for the sabbath. Therefore, man has preeminence. Don't recall Him saying that He's God, so He can do whatever He wants.
As for cursing the fig tree out of season (Mark 12:13-14,20-21), you do realize that that was to make a point? He did that a lot you know. Made points through parables and such. Did you know that if a fig tree has buds (which are edible, He wasn't looking for mature figs) then that is a sign that the tree will be fruitful later on? However, since there were no buds, there would be no fruit that year. The point was that if we're truly His, then we should always be "bearing fruit". The tree had leaves, which was an outward manifestation that it was a healthy tree, but that was just an act. That can be directly attributed to one who says they know Christ and goes through all the motions, but in reality have done nothing to "bear fruit".
Sorry these are so long, it's just that discussions of this "caliber" aren't easy to throw together in a few sentences and still convey an sort of coherent idea. Also, I'm trying to avoid the whole "have to have faith" issue because I know how you feel about that, and nothing will be accomplished because of it. To borrow Paul's words:
For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I becamse as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak; that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23

why i disbelieve

Share this