by cofty 214 Replies latest watchtower bible
I'm not evading. I wrote what I meant on a previous page. But we both know that unless the heavens open above you and you see Jesus coming down with his angels it don't matter what anyone here writes. So ignore and be happy.
It doesn't really matter what you or I believe. You already know that.
Some may enjoy this book review by by Frank Schaeffer.
. . .
Christians who believe that the Bible is without error and internally consistent are the victims of an ancient elitist cover-up. An "inerrantist" is someone who believes that the Bible is without error in everything that it affirms. Stark exposes the circularity of such "Bible-is-without-error" fundamentalist "logic." He calls out the double standards Evangelicals employ when defending their doctrines. Stark shows how the doctrine of biblical inerrancy actually works against Evangelicals, by undermining basic theistic tenets such as free will and divine sovereignty.
. . .
If you want to be informed about what the Bible really says and how Christianity came into existence -- if you want to know how to respond to Evangelicals trying to convert you to their brand of fundamentalism, read this book. If you're a former Evangelical, or a former Christian, who gave up on faith because you just couldn't reconcile your moral and intellectual integrity with the mythology and immorality-touted-as-righteousness that is pervasive throughout the Bible, then read this book.
If Stark is right about the Bible's limitations then maybe God feels slandered by the Bronze Age-to-Roman era "biography" of Him that, it turns out (judging by the insanity that makes up so much of the Bible) wasn't an authorized biography -- let alone "inspired" after all.
To reject the "absolute truth" of the Bible is not necessarily to reject Christianity, let alone God. Or put it this way, the best of any religious tradition depends on the choices by its adherents on how to live despite their holy books, not because of them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/jesus-was-wrong_b_772799.html
Snowbird and Believingxjw:
Sorry for late reply. Sodom wasn't warned as Genesis account only states that there was an outcried heard by God of their wickedness but it doesn't state that they were warned to repent by a prophet of God or anyone else. That section of Genesis was always confusing to me and I may start a new thread on this later. Anyways, Ninevites were warned and were saved even though it doesn't say how they repented and what was the difference in their way of life after Jonah spoke to them. Which raises the question, would Sodom repent if they had a prophet in their midst? One can speculate that they would have not. But that's just a speculation Matt 10:15 could be used to counter that argument. In fact would any other nations repent or are we to assume that all these people were totally evil from baby to the old men? Bible makes it appear that God had no problem helping Jews over and over even when many kept lacking faith though they had myriads of miracles performed in front of their eyes while at the same time the nations who got slaughtered never seen a single miracle but got annihilated anyways for their wickedness. What nation or people should put faith that God is working in behalf of another group just by hearing of some army winning many battles. That's like Iraqis should know that God is with America because US wins all the time. In same manner were the Canaanite nations expected to put faith that it was the true God leading Israelites? Comparing that to today, one can also argue that WTS is God's nation and even though they hide their past, they change their teachings and they suffocate life out of people we and the other 6 billion people will die at Armageddon just because we don't buy into wts theology.
NO ONE - including babies and children - is innocent in the sight of God.
If Bible God exists, as I stated earlier he plays a game with his creatures and doesn't give a care about us. He's not a righteous God as one is to imagine nor is he caring. 2000 years of lies and misary and He will destroy 99.9% of people because they didn't put faith in the right guy selling his version of God's story?
Religion works on hope and faith which both words are really useless without any real evidence.
Some passages of the Bible still bring me to tears. It's a wonder to me.
BUT, once someone uses that book to excuse murder or even poor treatment of another the gloves are off.
I suggest you consider the concept that religion has little to do with spirituality. Perhaps one is even exclusive of the other.
To suggest a "loving" god will murder is beyond logic. Taken a step further...god as a father murdering his children, on occasion? Sorry, not going to buy that nonsense. In fact I really wonder about anyone who tries to rationalize such inhumane behaviour.
I sure as shit don't want you as a neighbor and I'll watch you like a hawk...because I'll always wonder who your "god" will want to murder next.
It may be off topic, but the question of "Enola Gay" and war crimes I think should be answered in the affirmative.
I don't think the pilot and crew really understood what they were doing but they did understand that they were bombing civilians.
Killing civilians should be considered a war crime. My best friend and neighbor is guilty of it in Vietnam and has nightmares almost nightly. Time and again he has told me that he knew it was wrong (murder of civilians) but did it because he was ordered to. War crime.
Once one backs away from the murderous mindset of "religion" and today the religion of our Military Industrial Complex it's pretty clear that killing humans that aren't actively trying to kill you is wrong. Of course War Crimes can be claimed in MOST wars fought by the United States, so some will have difficulty dealing with the concept. I mention the US only because I know it the best and because I believe it guilty beyond question for most of it's history.
Neocons need not respond, the Libcons are even more guilty now. I'm not political. I'm disgusted by the political parties (party?). I do like to read and 50 years of this leads me to believe that humans need to distance themselves from the powermad, wealth craving few who will do anything to accumulate more "wealth and power".
Indeed, perhaps this takes us full circle. It's fairly safe to say that these mad ones are civilians and I do believe they need to be killed...so mayhaps I am condoning a war crime. If so, then let it be volunteers only. If I recall what I read about the Enola Gay in the late '50s those men were volunteers as well.
I'm not evading. I wrote what I meant on a previous page. But we both know that unless the heavens open above you and you see Jesus coming down with his angels it don't matter what anyone here writes. So ignore and be happy
I looked back through the thread, your only answer seems to be something about modern day warfare being just as bad. You really don't seem to have attempted to address the question about reconciling the inerrancy of the bible with the concept of a good god.
I am not asking you to convince me there is a god, just that your worldview is not internally inconsistent
Thanks for the book review LeavingWT sounds like a good read.
i would have to answer, cofty, that those soldiers (if any of them were thinkers) would have to comply or leave in a real hurry (as they would know that they would be killed for not complying). for us to try to make a comparison today i dont think works. simply because we have choices that those men did not have. so it's not a fair comparison. at least imho.
so here is question (stemming from reading some of the off-topic replies): if god gave us life, then chose to pretty much abandon us and leave us to our own devices, then gave us this controversial book (that doesnt really definitively answer anyone's questions) to help us along, then what right does he have to expect anything of us? seems like a classic setting-up-for-failure scenario to me. but that is just my opinion.
Psac: Your angle is VERY interesting to me. I just don't know how to be SURE on anything that is not based in God's word. And that is whether you believe it to be the Bible, the apocrypha, or anything else other than your conscience.
Its not a case of either/or, but a case of all of the above, we read the bible with an open mind and heart, and read it be asking Christ to guid us with the HS, we let our heart and love guide us in our interpretations and we CHECK those interpretations with history, with facts, with sceince when we can, and when we can't, YES< we check them with faith in Our Lord.
No mater what, faith is part of it and I admit that 100%.
When the Bible says that God commanded Israel to kill certain people, I can't say, "Well He didn't really mean that. He meant...."lalalala
Well, that is just it, you are not saying that, you are taking what you learn about God from the OT AND NT, from the teachings of his OWN Son who IS the WORD of God and then you analyis and study and try to understand what it all means.
You know? No insults implied. I just don't know how I could be so firm on something that I can't prove was not directly said by God.
No insult felt or understood to be implied my friend, far from that, it is discussions liek THIS that make this worthwhile :)
It is a combination of what is written, what is studied, what makes sense and is rational and what we experience in person with the HS in Us and with Our Lord guiding Us.
PSacramento if I was still a believer I would want to be your sort of believer. You are not a slave to the concept of biblical inerrancy - "the word made ink"
I am a slave to my Lord and my God, not to any book :)
Another poster has pointed me at the words of CS Lewis, I suspect you would agree?
Magdalene College, Cambridge 3 July 1963
Dear Mr Beversluis,
Yes. On my view one must apply something of the same sort of explanation to say, the atrocities (and treacheries) of Joshua. I see the grave danger we run by doing so; but the danger of believing in a God whom we cannot but regard as evil, and then, in mere terrified flattery calling Him “good” and worshipping Him, is a still greater danger. The ultimate question is whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the inerrancy of Scripture is to prevail when they conflict. I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the more certain of the two. Indeed only that doctrine renders this worship of Him obligatory or even permissible.Yes, I agree.
Let us remember the words of Jeremiah when we look to the bible being without error:
But my people do not know
the requirements of the Lord .
8 “ ‘How can you say, “We are wise,
for we have the law of the Lord ,”
when actually the lying pen of the scribes
has handled it falsely?
