Neverending Story.. (just another Bible/God debate)

by SweetBabyCheezits 42 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • SweetBabyCheezits
    SweetBabyCheezits

    This is continued from another thread in which Psacramento and I were having a friendly discussion...

    This was the original question he posed:

    PS: And what proof would be enough for you? what evidence would be enough for you?

    SBC: A perfect creator wouldn't be obsessed with being loved or worshiped as that, by definition, contradicts perfection since it represents a fundamental need on his part.
    PS: While man wrote that God demanded worship and Jesus himself quoted the commandment, did Jesus, the Word of God, ever show obsession with it? for him or his father?

    It's hard to debate someone who picks which parts of the Bible are accurate and of divine origin. I find it odd that an omnigod would endorse or permit the writing of a very important message, but then allow parts of it to be corrupted, presenting him an an unpleasant light. Which parts do you accept as authentic, accurate, and conveyed by God? The Gospels? Jesus reiterated the "first commandment" at Matthew 22:37, stating that man MUST LOVE GOD with all heart, soul, mind, strength.

    If it weren't a need, he wouldn't even ask, let alone command it.

    SBC: There would also have to be some bridge between the gap of his superlative love and his willingness to let man suffer for the sake of his good name. (As a father, I hate to share my title with the Judeo-Christian god. Good parents don't drown their children.)
    PS: You make a valid point and Genesis does imply that the floods were sent By God, of course according to ancient man, everything was sent by God so perhaps a "grain of salt" is in order.

    Gosh, that makes it hard to know which parts of the Bible are trustworthy. Once again, this is something I'd hope a Supergod would resolve well in advance for the sake of his uber important message.

    SBC: This divine and uber-important message would have to transcend time and language barriers with NO CHANCE for loss of quality. Everyone would understand the message the same way, as there would be ZERO room for interpretation. Human language seems ill-fitted for such a task.
    PS: True, but what other way do you think God could have sent his message WITHOUT forcing it down anyones perverbial throat?

    Not sure how a clear message would be forcing anything. But according to popular view, those who don't accept the message will be sentenced to hell. How is that not forcing down our proverbial throats?

    SBC: ALL mankind could understand it without even learning to read and ALL mankind would have access to at ANY time.
    Sound like being forced to believe in soemthing...

    See previous comment.

    SBC: It wouldn't be transmitted in such a way that caused geographic partiality. Citizens of country X would not be at a disadvantage (because of isolation/environment) while citizens of country Y are taught it's message from birth.
    PS: The universal truth of God is present in virtually every region, what people choose to do with is is up to them.

    There are at least 15 countries listed at this site in which the Muslim population is 99.5% or higher. Let's be realistic: most of them will not get the chance to qualify for heaven by popular Christian opinion that I've heard. http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_islam.html

    SBC: Evidence would be preserved for every single miracle (fairy tale). Since the "doubting Thomas" was supposedly allowed to demand evidence that he could test with his eyes and hands, the rest of us should have the right to expect the same evidence before we believe hearsay.
    PS: God doesn't need or want you to believe because of miracles, the choice is yours.

    So why was it ok for Thomas to demand evidence? His request was granted - why can't I ask the same? You're brushing me off here. This is a big reason I can't believe in the Judeo-Christian god(s), which was the thrust of your question to me: What proof would I need?

    SBC: There would have to be numerous examples that the bible writers had specific fore-knowledge that ONLY a creator of the universe might have. This would be conveyed in clear, unambiguous terms. Again, no room for interpretation and no self-fulfilling prophecy.
    PS: Why? to prove what?

    It would help establish that the scriptures weren't just written by goat-herders.

    PS: to WHOM?

    Some of us cannot afford to buy things on faith. I'm broke. :-D

    SBC: It would be clearly established and verifiable by multiple independent, unbiased sources as to the date a prophecy was conceived and also verifiable by multiple independent, unbiased sources as to the date the prophecy was fulfilled. There would be ZERO room for debate on any prophecy.
    PS: Unbiased? How?

    Scientific method. Peer review, by those who have nothing to gain in supporting it. Unanimous agreement. Those are just a few ideas.

    SBC: This wouldn't prove anything but it would've been nice to have this simple idea passed on at the very beginning: "Handwashing is one of the best ways to prevent the spread of infection and illness." For bonus points, he would've given us the scientific method in Genesis.
    PS: Ok, a valid point, common sense not being very common I guess that God should have reminded people to do that, though it seems we did find without THAT "divine revelation".

    Tell that to the folks who died from communicable diseases simply because they didn't know about hand-washing.

    SBC: The "commandments" would focus on compassion and love for fellow man instead of emphasizing devotion to a self-absorbed creator. These would also speak VERY CLEARLY against sexual or physical abuse of a child; rape; slavery; torture; kidnapping; or abuse of one's mate. (Too bad those weren't important enough to be mentioned, eh?)
    PS: WHile I agree that the commandments could have been more complete, 600 Laws came after that too and look at the mess they made. I will give you that as I agree that they could have made more of a statement, though if they did I don't know how that would prove the existence of God.

    I'm only talking about the Bible god(s) here, just so you know. That the fundamental moral laws stated above are missing from the "law" tells me the Bible is a product of primitive man and nothing more. A just, loving god who truly cared would have ensured such things were covered.

    SBC: God's voice would be audibly heard each day by everyone and a verbal answer would confirm whether or not a prayer was being answered.
    PS: See, here is the thing, we it's fine to think about the things that would make US believe in God, the fact is that ALL those things you listed could be revelaed through personal revelation and it wouldn't matter one single bit to anyone EXCEPT the person they were revealed to.

    I'm just explaining what would help prove the Judeo-Christian god's existence to me. Thus far, I have not received a revelation.

    PS: No one would believe them anyways, we've seen enough proof of that. The fact is, short of God appearing and laying down the Law and Kaiboshing any and every doubt, there would always be people that don't believe. And for GOd to do that, would make him a dictator that took aways free will.

    Yet, even now, that shoe fits.

    PS: That said, EVEN if God did that, even if Christ ruled for 1000 years of love and peace, there would still be those to rebel against God and the one thing that Revelation does hit "nail on the head" is THAT.

    How can you be sure? If he made himself known to everyone and actually ruled as the omni-everything he claims to be (love, justice, wisdom, power), why would anyone want to rebel and die?

    PS: I submit that the very proof that most doubters WANT is the very proof that God may never gove because the he truly would be a dictator God and since God wants all to come to him with love and free choice to coem to him, that will probably never happen.

    Let's go back to the example of Thomas... why did he get his request for proof and I do not?

    I submit that it is because "God" - if it exists - is not anything like we think, nor does it intervene in our affairs.

  • sabastious
    sabastious

    We don't know what we are. No matter how strong the faith, or convictions, of a single individual or a religious behemoth they cannot accurately describe what we are. They have to use metaphor and vague prophecy to explain it... they don't know.

    It's THE question right? What are we?

    The fact that this question does not have an answer effectively deems our existence a riddle! PSac's interpretation of the Bible is honest, meaning everything is admittingly his own perception and not one graced by the spirit of our Creator. He would hope, but he is a humble learner and he is a humble teacher.

    -Sab

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    While I agree to your conclusions, I wonder if PS is cool with your drawing his comments from another thread and reposting them all to showcase them in negative light.

  • ProdigalSon
    ProdigalSon

    If the first commandment is to love God with every fiber of our being, we would first have to identify God, find God, develop relationship with God, and then fall in love with God. And then, it would have to be a reciprocal relationship, and one that is unconditional.

    With Jehovah?

    Are you kidding?

    I'd have to sleep with my eyes open for all eternity.

    Really, what was Jesus trying to say? How do you love a silent god who never shows himself? How do you love a monster that would cut someone off for all eternity, just because he felt you didn't try hard enough? You didn't worship him enough?

    What a crock of shit!

    Jesus said to look within. He said you were the temple. It's your intuition. It's your true self. It's not the piece of ourselves that acts like an idiot, that makes mistakes, that causes suffering because of the decisions it makes. It's the part that drove us into the Watchtower trap: the love of the Creator, the desire to find him. Then they take that love and mold it into fear. They drill "undeserved kindness" into your head. Add to that the basic Christian falsehood that we are born sinners, and we never had a chance of living up to Jehovah's Pharisee expectations.

    We have to love ourselves before we can love others. That is the first commandment. 'Ye are gods', said the Master.

  • tec
    tec
    I find it odd that an omnigod would endorse or permit the writing of a very important message, but then allow parts of it to be corrupted, presenting him an an unpleasant light. Which parts do you accept as authentic, accurate, and conveyed by God? The Gospels? Jesus reiterated the "first commandment" at , stating that man MUST LOVE GOD with all heart, soul, mind, strength.
    If it weren't a need, he wouldn't even ask, let alone command it.

    Two things here (and I hope you don't mind my joining in):

    First: Endorse or permit the writings? Honestly, my answer here is free will. Man has the will and ability to write things down for himself and others... sometimes has command (according to the bible) to write down scripture - but the scribes/translators, etc, also have the ability to corrupt these things. If they did not have the free will to do so, then there would be no need for a warning at the end of Revelations, concerning that book.

    I'm hoping to post something more thorough on free will soon, but the alternative to free will is that we are locked in and robots. No one would want that either. I personally think it would be a hopeless and dreary existence.

    Also - it is the Spirit that teaches. The book can help, sometimes it can hinder, but the Spirit is who we should be trying to hear.

    Second: Loving God is to our benefit. If we love Him, we will listen to Him, and what He tells us to do is listen to His Son, who tells us to love one another; to show mercy; to forgive. Those things are not easily done without love, and sometimes we have a hard time loving the people around us. Our friends, children, spouses, sure... but people we don't like? Not so easily.

    Third: God and the Israelites had a pact/contract between them. They would love Him and keep His commands, and He would protect them and keep them as His own people.

    (I guess that's three things, but you can handle that)

    Gosh, that makes it hard to know which parts of the Bible are trustworthy. Once again, this is something I'd hope a Supergod would resolve well in advance for the sake of his uber important message.

    See above. It is also quite simple... just look at the things written though Christ. Through what Christ teaches us. It becomes much simpler to know which parts to trust or not.

    Not sure how a clear message would be forcing anything. But according to popular view, those who don't accept the message will be sentenced to hell. How is that not forcing down our proverbial throats?

    Since when is popular view ever the only or even right view? I don't know why you would ask PSac about that. I think you know he doesn't believe it, and neither do I. I don't even think its biblical.

    So why was it ok for Thomas to demand evidence? His request was granted - why can't I ask the same? You're brushing me off here. This is a big reason I can't believe in the Judeo-Christian god(s), which was the thrust of your question to me: What proof would I need?

    Thomas was chosen by God and given to Christ for whatever reason, and He walked with Christ - and are you sure he was demanding proof of Christ's existence, or His being the Son of God... or just proof that He had risen in bodily form? You're asking for more than that. Note also that Christ said TO Thomas: 'blessed are they who do not see, yet do believe.'

    How can you be sure? If he made himself known to everyone and actually ruled as the omni-everything he claims to be (love, justice, wisdom, power), why would anyone want to rebel and die?

    Why do people rebel against love, justice, wisdom, and power now? (not necessarily by God, but those things in the world at present?) (I didn't get into the 'why didn't God provide advanced scientific/medical knowledge so that we would know those things were written by an omnibeing because that's a good size topic on its own, and this post is long enough as it is. Later perhaps) Tammy

  • tec
    tec

    I have no idea why everything came out like that...

  • SweetBabyCheezits
    SweetBabyCheezits
    Pete: While I agree to your conclusions, I wonder if PS is cool with your drawing his comments from another thread and reposting them all to showcase them in negative light.

    Peaceful Pete, it was Psac's idea to start a new thread as we were getting off BroDan's topic.

    Psac: That is a great list, but maybe another thread would be in order?

    Regardless, I'm not sure how I "showcased them in a negative light". I quoted my original reply and then his rebuttal and I formatted them as quotes in their context. My intent was only to continue the conversation we'd started elsewhere and offer a follow-up.

    Psac's an awesome guy and I think he knows I respect him. If I've broken some unspoken rule of Internets forum etiquette, please let me know and I will do my best to rectify the situation.

  • SweetBabyCheezits
    SweetBabyCheezits

    (and I hope you don't mind my joining in)

    This is open forum, Tammy, but you know you're always welcome in these discussions anyways.

    Regarding your first point, I know that's your view and I respect that but I cannot share it. Again, if God could create the entire universe, surely he could've devised a way of communicating his message across a couple hundred generations without any corruption.

    As for the second point, pehaps it would be in our best interests to love our creator but, as a father, it is in my children's best interests to love me... yet you'll never hear me command them to love me. I earn their love by being a good father (I hope!). Surely a father who is the superlative example of love and compassion would be able to earn his children's affection without having to demand it!

    Third point: Contracts that require love are typically illegal, unless you're conducting business in Nevada.

  • cyberjesus
    cyberjesus

    sbc, dude your either very very patient or very obstinate :) how many months did it take you to become atheist? or days? did it just clicked on ur head? .. also i fully support you on ur reasoning i do think that ur comenting on a finished conversation n he needs an opportinity to respond.

  • SweetBabyCheezits
    SweetBabyCheezits
    It is also quite simple... just look at the things written though Christ. Through what Christ teaches us. It becomes much simpler to know which parts to trust or not.

    So, Tammy, to determine which parts of the Bible are trustworthy, you're saying we must first accept some parts at face value and then base the rest of our judgment on that which we've accepted without question?

    Since when is popular view ever the only or even right view? I don't know why you would ask PSac about that. I think you know he doesn't believe it and neither do I. I don't even think its biblical.

    I realize that, Tammy, and you guys are cooler than many. But you have to take a pretty flexible view of the Bible (in my opinion, per my previous comment) and I really can't buy that either. According to the majority of Christians I've spoken to, hell is the sentence for not accepting Jesus as my savior.

    Thomas was chosen by God and given to Christ for whatever reason, and He walked with Christ - and are you sure he was demanding proof of Christ's existence, or His being the Son of God... or just proof that He had risen in bodily form?

    Thomas, from what I understood, was simply asking for proof that Jesus had been resurrected. My point was that Thomas did not accept hearsay as adequate reason to believe the "Jesus spottings". Therefore, why should I accept the hearsay of the Gospel accounts without sufficient evidence.

    Why do people rebel against love, justice, wisdom, and power now?

    I've yet to hear of a ruler who has ever led his subjects to an era of peace and prosperity by applying these qualities to the perfect degree. Please elaborate.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit