by EndofMysteries 45 Replies latest watchtower bible
Someone was trying to preach at us, My Dear Monkey. It smooth evaded me.
Now kiss me, quickly, before Bekster gets here.
It seems they tried to appeal to something, quoting a book that ain't even cannonized. I've read the Book of Enoch, but it was years ago when the Evangelicals tried to trap me into their own hell.
Well, that was just pathetic then.
OH well. Kisses to you, dinah, and your deceased kitty.
But what were they appealing to? I don't understand. I'll just keep off this thread and maybe he/she can come back in and try to make some sense out of this.
But what were they appealing to? I don't understand. I'll just keep off this thread and maybe he/she can come back in and try to make some sense out of this.
I'll pray for him/her. I figure it was a flame and run.
EndOfMysteries:
"Obviously none of you fit what I was referring to. I'm speaking of those who say they hate God, the bloodthirsty, etc, etc, on top of not believing in him. If he is real, he's just a bloodthirsty, etc, etc. My post was just to point out, if you believe if he's real his only a bloodthirsty, etc, etc, that perhaps many of those scriptures could have been apostacy that had been inserted or edited."
First of all EOM, if those psychopathic scriptures were inserted later on, we would have a substantial portion of the Bible missing if it were to be corrected by your standards.
Second of all, scholars don't base their determination of what scriptures have been inserted based on what offends them. That is egocentric and unobjective. What if all the nasty things said in those scriptures were there to begin with and the nice things later added on? More likely what if those scriptures that were added a combination of both with most of them neutral in nature? Scholars base their reasoning on far more subtle principles.
villabolo
I'm gonna join the Church of Li'l Wayne. He'll let us lick the rapper.
I suddenly understand the deeper meaning of this thread. It is nothing less than basic set theory, a mathematical pun - ask yourself: "How many atheists hate god?" NONE! it is the empty set! So all properties apply on atheists who hate god, it is logical to say they are blue and green AT THE SAME TIME! heck, it is even logically sound to say they hate and love God!
But that didnt get me any monkey love..
"Obviously none of you fit what I was referring to. I'm speaking of those who say they hate God, the bloodthirsty, etc, etc, on top of not believing in him. If he is real, he's just a bloodthirsty, etc, etc. My post was just to point out, if you believe if he's real his only a bloodthirsty, etc, etc, that perhaps many of those scriptures could have been apostacy that had been inserted or edited. Anyway, I did not assume all hate God, and have bad feelings, which is why I said to those "who hate God", not, to all athiests."
I see what you mean... sort of. I certainly used to qualify as someone that hated God. In my last couple of years as a Witness, when I still completely believed in God, I'll admit, I despised him with everything I had.
Did I hate him because he was bloodthirsty? Yes! I hated him for all the killing, all the unspeakably evil acts that he had supposedly committed either himself or by command. The innocent babies and children, the pregnant woman that he struck or ordered struck down. All the cruel and brutal laws. All the good, kind people I believed he would kill in the furture. It's hard not to hate a God like that!
God's acts of mercy and kindness in the Bible compared to his acts of violent judgement and punishment are few and far between. To highlight the few good things God has done and point to those as examples of God's inate goodness is a bit like pointing out that Hitler was a painter and a vegetarian. A couple of kind acts or good qualities don't negate all the numerous evil deeds committed.
As for your asking if I would have felt guilty at having misjudged God at the time I was still thinking this, no I wouldn't. Claiming that the scriptures detailing God's bloodthirsty military campaigns and his slaughter of numerous humans are just human written apostasy means that you are throwing the validity of the entire Bible into question.
What parts of the Bible do you believe were inspired then? Just the happy smiley parts where no one gets killed or threatened? How do you prove that?
But even granting you such unfounded conjecture (that the horrible bits of the Bible are written by man and the good parts by God) I still don't know why should have felt guilty about hating God. I had only the evidence of the supposedly God-inspired Bible as my source of information. If God had allowed such severe human tampering of the only book he's ever written; his supposedly holy and crucial instruction manual for all man-kind, humans' only link to him, then God is still responsible for the fact that I and many other people came to the conclusion we did. He couldn't realistically expect me or anyone else to think he were wonderful and lovely contrary to what is written about him in his 'divine word'.
If short, if God existed and cared about his public image and what people thought of him, none of that stuff would be in the Bible. He wouldn't have allowed it, or would have at the very least provided evidence that it wasn't true. And if he meant it as a test... well, he's cruel on an entirely new level then.
Of course, that would have been the thinking of my Theist mind. As an Atheist, I can't hate what doesn't exist. The fictional character of the God Yahweh as written by men still turns my stomach, but for different reasons now.
if that is God's truth-
Here is where the car first left the highway and the driver got lost in the desert- let's get back on the road and find out what that "if", is all about.
An atheist who sees problems in this material world will likely work to make it better. A person who stongly believes that God will solve the world's problems is likely content to sit on his hands and let God fix the Earth and human society. Now which of these two groups will be upset when God doesn't do squat to fix any of the world's problems?
The book wasn't written after the 66 books of bible selected. It is verified part of the dead sea scrolls as well, it's before all the apostles letters.
Once Paul, and many of the leaders were wiped out by martyr, and the bible only in the hands of the corrupt priest, Jews scattered and broken up, it was easy to make changes.
and to those confused, those who don't believe in him, because if they did they'd hate him thinking he's an unjust, bloodthirsty, etc. Not making sense between the OT and the NT bipolar appearance.
