I made a reply, Aussie. Two actually, but I'm referring more to the second. Did you just think it was nonsense, so you didn't want to discuss what I said? I'm not offended either way, I'm just not sure why you never commented on it.
Tammy
If the bible is god's handbook for man, why is it such gobbledegook?
by Aussie Oz 112 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
GromitSK
It was me who Stephen called an atheist, simply because I used an image from a website that called itself “proud atheist”. I had not said anything about being an atheist, because I am not. But Stephen’s leap in logic is just one example of his inability to discuss anything involving logic and sound reason
Thanks BP - I thought I had missed something, apparently not (other than the right name )
-
Aussie Oz
Hi Tammy, my apologies for overlooking your last comment. My head was in reply to stephen mode and not focusing on yours.
As i understand what you said, that the bible is the lead up to Christ and he is the savior, i get the gist. I used to activly teach this myself. But i still feel that that does not answer my question as to FORMAT. Why 99.9% of the bible is shrouded in mystery and is open to so much interpretation and conjecture. Why the 'message' is not simple, clear and concise. I realize that the so called message of the christ is not complicated. But the rest plainly is.
By way of illustration: computer images are most generally stored as a JPEG. Pretty much universal and almost every upload site etc recognizes and excepts them, and they are easily emailed and so forth. Now, a DWG, RAW,TIF, PSD etc are still methods of relaying the same information but in a far more complex form, that IS NOT as easy to transmit or decode. Some can only be opened if you have particular software such as photoshop or autocad.
Now, if my aim is to make an image accesible to 99% of the poulation, that they can all download or open and all benefit from, which would i choose? Why JPEG of course, because if i use DWG or PSD format, only a select small number will be able to access it unless everyone has the special software.
So, i fail to see why almighty god did not use the simplest method of transmitting his so called life saving message but rather chose to format in dreams, visions, prophecies, time lines, mathematics and hallucinations of mutant beasts that can be and have been subject to much misunstanding and twisting.
The message of the bible in its whole, surely could have been relayed in very plain conscise language without all of the above. Indeed, i argue, that if god had intended it benefit all mankind and not just a select few, that that is what he would have done.
This leads me to conclude that the bible is 'gobbledook', that is; NOT plain and simple. NOT concise. NOT having one interpretation, NOT able to be twisted, NOT contradictory and so forth.
This leads me to conclude that either a) 'god' did not want mass understanding of said book or b) that he is not the author at all.
oz
-
wozza
Hi Ozzie Oz hope you survived the storm we're having ,and maybe we can meet one day.
I think Terry's post was excellent in that, point by point he establishes in my mind a case for showing that christians like Chalam have no case for boasting in their faith ,and their "blessed" priveleged and almost smug "gift" of the holy spirit they claim to ask for and be given .
Taking into account Terry's points one by one , and I can only conclude that over time there would eventually grow a multitude of faithful people who would claim god or Jesus or both blesses them , but over that time we would actually observe what we see today - a multitude of self proclaimed christians who say the holy spirit had revealed christ to them .
But the problem is with Chalam and others like Stephen is they have collected themselves into pockets of belief in their formula and contradict each others teachings yet claim the same leader and blessings ,how can this be ?
As pointed out we have ,what ,66 books as the canon ,other writings that some say should be included in the canon are classed as apochrypha?
And who decided on the 66? was it not the beginnings of the Catholic church in the 4th century ......is it then ok for protestants today to accept the findings of the catholic church back then ? We still have no harmony in a lot of belief areas as far as scripture is concerned let alone correct teaching which the holy spirit is supposed to be guiding.
In a nutshell do we have one true god ,and yet massive dis-harmony of teaching ?
Is there any wonder Ozzie Oz asks his question?
No Blessings but open mindedness
Stephen
-
tec
Hi Tammy, my apologies for overlooking your last comment.
No problem at all.
You used a computer analogy just so I would have to read it over twice, I think :)
The message of the bible in its whole, surely could have been relayed in very plain conscise language without all of the above. Indeed, i argue, that if god had intended it benefit all mankind and not just a select few, that that is what he would have done. This leads me to conclude that the bible is 'gobbledook', that is; NOT plain and simple. NOT concise. NOT having one interpretation, NOT able to be twisted, NOT contradictory and so forth. This leads me to conclude that either a) 'god' did not want mass understanding of said book or b) that he is not the author at all.
I don't know. I know that I find a God of love through the bible - perhaps because I begin with the premise of love and of Jesus' teaching. But I don't think God needs it to communicate with us, or to influence us. I think He does that through His Spirit.
Sometimes I think the bible limits our understanding, to a degree. Because if it's written, then it HAS to be true. As an example, I'll use the word hell. So many people refuse to reconsider the doctrine of hell - regardless of the different words translated to hell. Even though the idea a loving God is in contradiction to a burning, fiery, eternal place of torment.
So I think Jesus trusted in the Spirit to bring people to Him and His Father. Not a holy book. I don't know how much God authored, or how much man authored in God's name. Man has a tendency to mess things up. Even communicating with one another - we misunderstand each others' intentions or meaning, because of our choice of words.
I can only place my trust and my faith in Jesus and God. So that's what I do.
Tammy
-
tec
and their "blessed" priveleged and almost smug "gift" of the holy spirit they claim to ask for and be given .
Wozza - this is only 'smug' if it's false.
Otherwise, its simply the truth.
I'm not sure why people are on Stephen's case lately? I don't agree with everything he agrees with, either, but I've not seen him go on the offensive and attack anyone. Instead, I find that he gives comfort and understanding as best as he is able.
Tammy
-
Aussie Oz
Hi Wazza, survived well! are you in adelaide too?
Nah Tammy, i think the use of illustrations is a hangover from my public talk days!
I find a god of wrath and vengance in the bible who has merely sat back for the last 2000 years masqurading as love via 'jesus'. He still intends to kill billions of people at his war of armageddon. Including me.
So what you are really saying Tammy, is that we dont actually need the bible at all. What is needed is the spirit. That we cannot know how much or if any of it may inspired by god. In essence, that indeed it IS hard to fathom and nobody knows why.
If god doed not need it to influence or guide us, then why does it claim to be inspired? Or is that a part authored by men in gods name?
I am no longer a christian but i can't see how a christian can be undecided... either it is all true or all a lie, it cannot be both. It is either needed to bring the message or it is not...
If, as you say he communicates through the spirit and assuming the bit about how jesus died for us all as well as gods desire for nobody to perish is a true part of the bible, why then has he not given that gift to everybody, especially those who plead for it?
As for stephen, you ask why everybody has been on his case. I cant answer for other threads but on this one i took him to task for deliberate disregard of my wishes. You have been able to discuss without cut and paste scripture so i do not see why he could not honor my wishes also. The worse thing a christian can do is pull out the bible in front of an unbeliever.
I am not trying to be difficult, i just want logical answers!
I am also glad to see you write ''i dont know''...rather than just keep on insisting that the bible is as easy to understand as a walt disney book! Obviously a large portion of it is not understood by you either.
cheers
oz
-
wozza
Hello Oz - on KI now ex southern vales and worn out from exposing the proliferation of pedophiles there ,happy where I am though and ready for when they come a knocking.
TEC - when is smugness not false? I'm sure theres plenty of christians who feel sincere about what they believe or feel , but like many of us that were JW's we felt the same but that did not make our sincerity truthful did it?
When Ozzie oz asks his question I feel he is looking for a truthful and factual answer to all mankind .
After all because the bible seems so full of gobbledegook that is why there are so many explanations , after all christians can't even agree on the essence of who god is !
-
tec
Hi Aussie.
So what you are really saying Tammy, is that we dont actually need the bible at all. What is needed is the spirit.
I think the bible can take us so far - but that it is intended to lead us to Christ. Once we are led to Christ, and we accept Him, then the Spirit is all that we actually need. Doesn't mean the bible no longer serves a purpose. I take comfort in a great many stories and scriptures, and many of the stories/myths of OT have meaning that I find interesting. But not so much that those interests take precedence over following the love and faith that Jesus showed us.
I am no longer a christian but i can't see how a christian can be undecided... either it is all true or all a lie, it cannot be both. It is either needed to bring the message or it is not...
Well, the bible wasn't written all at once by one person, or even put together at the same time - so something uninspired could work its way in. So when the bible names itself inspired, it speaks of scripture as inspired. But which parts are scripture and which parts are not?
For me, if I cannot reconcile something in the OT with Jesus example and teaching (since Jesus is the reflection of His Father - and neither of them change), then I assume that something is wrong with the story itself, the scribe, or the translation. Or that I've simply missed the point/purpose of the story due to lack of understanding- whether it be literal or symbolic.
Nothing wrong with that. I don't need to know or understand everything. I like the freedom and joy in being able to wonder about things. I have patience and trust enough to wait for what I don't understand.
If, as you say he communicates through the spirit and assuming the bit about how jesus died for us all as well as gods desire for nobody to perish is a true part of the bible, why then has he not given that gift to everybody, especially those who plead for it?
I don't know what God knows about the hearts of any individual person - so I can't really answer that, except to guess. But since when do we know if what we want is going to be good for us - or for those around us? Plus, pleading for something and having faith to receive it don't necessarily go hand in hand.
But again, these are just thoughts on my behalf. I would say that you need to ask God, yourself. (Though I get that this might not mean anything to you anymore.)
Take care, Tammy -
tec
Wozza - I'll rephrase. Perhaps something seems smug to you, but is in actuality just the truth? Not to say that some people aren't high and mighty - because I get annoyed by that as well. But some people, claiming to have the Spirit, are just speaking the truth. Then it might come off as being smug to you, simply because you don't believe them.
Just a thought.
Tammy