When God breaks his own laws

by Nickolas 111 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  SweetBabyCheezits

  Gladiator, I return the salute with mutual respect... and a star because I don't see a salute smiley.

  YIZ: ...some nay sayers are only pointing out by the most part the negativities in scriptures (God killing people, etc.)

  So this leaves me the question, what about the positives in Scriptures?

  My mother would say the same about the WT Society, that I only look at the negative.

  I'm sure you feel this is totally different, though. And in a way it is. In the case of Yahweh, the claim is that he's perfect. That's the highest of standards. There are none above that level. We can't even conceive of anything beyond it.

  Such being the case, if he falls short of perfection in only ONE aspect, then that claim is bunk. You can tout cases of mercy, justice, and love all day long but if an omnipotent "father" condones the rape of ANY of his children, in ANY context, that creates an enormous chasm in my faith.

  In the case of the Yahweh, though, there are NUMEROUS accounts of heinous acts attributed to him. Why count the hits and forget this misses? I will not dilute those negative accounts just because there are also passages of love, mercy, and justice. If it weren't for presupposition, I don't think you would either.

  Most self-proclaimed Christians I talk to will no sooner question their cherished beliefs than current JWs question theirs. My parents see the "fruits" of their beloved Society and Christians see the love and mercy of their Judeo-Christian god(s) and/or the bible.
• 

  tec

  In the case of the Yahweh, though, there are NUMEROUS accounts of heinous acts attributed to him.

  I think you said a mouthful right here, SBC.

  Tammy
• 

  SweetBabyCheezits

  Okay, let's roll with that assumption.

  So were the nasty things that man attributed to god in the bible errors or a conspiracy to tarnish god's reputation? And, in either case, how can I have any confidence in the rest of the bible if mistakes or sabotage found its way into scripture? By what consistent method can I determine which passages are accurate by divine decree... if others are known to be wrong?

  For example, when I read the following passage, should I assume that imperfect man falsely claimed this law came from god?

  Deuteronomy 22:28-29

  Or should I say that this did come from god but rape was slap-on-the-wrist okay in that context? Where were the female victim's rights?

  And do we accept that god never changes? If that's correct, is it true then that his sense of justice in matters of rape is still the same?

  What kind of world would we live in if his sense of justice truly DID NOT change? Maybe the whole world would be filled with misogynistic practices found predominantly in parts of the middle east. Today, do westerners perceive that to be just?

  These questions aren't meant to insult your god or your faith, just to reason on atrocious accounts without whitewashing them.
• 

  tec

  You're looking at things backwards, SBC. God's perceptions of justice and mercy do not change - BUT - our perception of Him and his laws do. You are looking at God through the eyes of a people who were admittedly (even in the bible) hard-hearted and stubborn. How many times did they prove to be disloyal or unfaithful? How many times did they choose arbitrary rules over mercy and forgiveness, even though He sent prophets trying to turn them around?

  No, the only way to see God is through His Son, who showed His Father as He truly is - who did teach that no harm be brought to another, who treated women with respect and worth, who taught and lived forgiveness and mercy.

  But as to that passage, it is my opinion that this law (man-made) was meant to deter the offender. Not reward him. It's just that women were thought of as commodity or burden (a thought which Jesus corrected in his treatment, and even Paul realized when saying there is no male or female in Christ), being stuck with a woman you only wanted once (or being forced to pay a fair amount for defiling her) is the only thing taken into consideration in a world run by men - not her feelings on the matter - though she would at least be financially provided for now - and since there weren't exactly women rising up for equal rights.

  And you're not insulting at all.

  Tammy
• 

  Berengaria

  If he is all powerful, what need was there for him to be so petty? If it is right to be the good Samaritan, why hasn't he? He need not ignore the pain and suffering on this side of the street.

  He didn't break his own laws, he just doesn't exist.
• 

  SweetBabyCheezits

  So, Tammy, you disagree with the popular Christian belief that god had Moses pass these laws & regulations (in Deut) down to the people? You say that particular law is man-made. So how can you tell which parts of the bible are of divine origin?

  ...women were thought of as commodity or burden...

  So why wouldn't god correct their thinking when he - according to popular thought - issued the Mosaic Law? Do you believe all of the pre-Jesus bible was from man or just the parts that conflict with your perception of god?

  You're looking at things backwards, SBC.

  I see. Well I'm interested in seeing where, specifically, my logic is flawed. Can we boil it down to the most fundamental issue?

  Brief review: In my search for truth, I took a scalpel and painfully cut away my presupposition so I could judge without (or with less) bias. If I don't start with the presupposition that there is a deity, he is personal, he is benevolent, he is omni-everything, and that he inspired or allowed scripture to be written to PROVIDE a perception of him, then why would I put any more faith in the bible than some other iron age writings that cites historical people, places, and events? I'd have to judge them ALL under equal scrutiny.

  Really, how would Christians have any perception of Jesus without the bible? To me, you've built a bridge of faith on the pillars of the bible. If you remove those pillars, the bridge can't support itself. (Like most illustrations, mine proves nothing but I'm trying to express how I see it, that's all.)

  But if I'm the one who is looking at things backwards, please tell me how to see things forwards. Can I do that without presupposition? If not, is that really seeing things forwards?

  My original objective upon leaving the WT (mentally) was to build faith from scratch - an unbiased slate. I still have none and it certainly isn't due to a lack of effort.

  But as to that passage, it is my opinion that this law (man-made) was meant to deter the offender. Not reward him. It's just that women were thought of as commodity or burden (a thought which Jesus corrected in his treatment, and even Paul realized when saying there is no male or female in Christ), being stuck with a woman you only wanted once (or being forced to pay a fair amount for defiling her) is the only thing taken into consideration in a world run by men - not her feelings on the matter - though she would at least be financially provided for now - and since there weren't exactly women rising up for equal rights.

  Ah, a benefit for the rape victim, I see. Except that she still had to live with the guy who violated her.

  Why does this feel like one JWs response when I questioned him regarding the WT's organ transplant fiasco? He defended it with all manner of contortionist feats and rationalization. "Well, some brothers back then had stronger viewpoints about transplants. But even at that, medicine wasn't as advanced in the 70's so it was likely Jehovah knew it would be in our best interests to avoid transplants until the procedures were safer."

  Ah, a benefit for the person who refused an organ transplant that they desperately needed... except... oh no.
• 

  SweetBabyCheezits

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LWh6-Zyj4E&feature=channel
• 

  SweetBabyCheezits

  A satirical glimpse at some contrasts between Jesus and Yahweh....

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmhFniUTQIE&NR=1
• 

  tec

  So, Tammy, you disagree with the popular Christian belief that god had Moses pass these laws & regulations (in Deut) down to the people? You say that particular law is man-made. So how can you tell which parts of the bible are of divine origin?

  No, I don't disagree... BUT... some allowances were made in accordance to what the people were willing to accept. By God or by Moses? Jesus says Moses.

  Example: Mark 10:3-5

  "What did MOSES command you?" he replied. They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." "It was because your hearts were hard that MOSES wrote you this law," Jesus replied.

  So why wouldn't god correct their thinking when he - according to popular thought - issued the Mosaic Law? Do you believe all of that law was from man?

  Again, they could not or would not hear.

  Example: Matt: 23: 37

  "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing."

  Really, how would Christians have any perception of Jesus without the bible? To me, you've built a bridge of faith on the pillars of the bible. If you remove those pillars, the bridge can't support itself. (Like most illustrations, mine proves nothing but I'm trying to express how I see it, that's all.)

  I understand your illustration. The bible has taught me about Christ, and I might not know of Him, otherwise. Of course, the bible is a compilation of many witness accounts to his life and teachings. You might choose not to believe them as evidence, but how can a person dismiss them completely? Knowledge of him has been passed from generation to generation.

  But if I'm the one who is looking at things backwards, please tell me how to see things forwards. Can I do that without presupposition? If not, is that really seeing things forwards?

  The thing you're doing backward is thinking you can see God through Israel, when even they** did not SEE him enough to recognize his Son. You have to look through the Son to see the Father... whether you believe in either of them or not. If you can't do that, then it seems you might indeed be biased against it... because even the book that you are basing your suppositions regarding God's nature, says to do that.

  Ah, a benefit for the rape victim, I see. Except that she still had to live with the guy who violated her

  According to the time, thinking and the manner of those people, (as well as the surrounding nations) yes. See my answers above regarding hard-heartedness. Besides, even if the men considered women possessions, the 'thou shalt not covet or steal thy neighbor's possession', should have been enough to prevent this.

  Hence the punishment - marry and provide for her forever OR pay out of your pocket. (eye for eye might have worked better here, but I don't think that a patriarchal society would have been able to 'hear' that one either)

  The JW illustration doesn't really work here, because only SOME men would have had stronger views on organ transplants. The rest of the world were fine with them. Or maybe it does work. Both views were wrong, but both views were based on their unwillingness to understand love/and or mercy, and/or God.

  I didn't mean to offend you, either, in stating that you were looking at things backward. But it is backward to base your thoughts on God on the OT over his Son. I can't say otherwise.

  Tammy

  ** edited to "many of them"... did not see.
• 

  designs

  Tammy-

  To a sizeable portion of Christian Denominations Jesus is Jehovah of the Old Testament so ostensibly we are looking at the same person. In the Gospels Jesus sits as the gatekeeper to heaven and hell, the decision maker. In Judaism Adam sits in this place welcoming all of his children home, and those sent to hell are only sent temporarily and then invited into paradise not eternally damned like the NT Jesus figure condemns them, so who is more merciful Adam or Jesus.

  By the time of Jesus slavery had all but disappeared in Jewish life, note the day laborers in the Gospels, yet Paul perpetuates and condones slavery in the Epistles, his little blurb sent Christians on a slave trade expedition that engulfed most of the known world, Africa, South America, Asia.