The Bible - is it really the GOOD Book - if so why?

by cantleave 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  glenster

  
  I like it by my rendition:

  For things wrong in the OT (ANE cosmology) and OT punishments for
  things not reaffirmed in the NT, I like the stance that God only
  brought them along so far (Jesus on marraige, monotheism only
  popularly established in the days of Isaiah, etc.).

  In the NT, faith understood as such (blessed is he who hasn't
  seen and believes).

  Accordingly:

  No longer a need for religion as law of the land with a militia
  to defend it. (Go among Jews and Gentiles w/o giving offense,
  sacrificing of the self to gain them to God--1 Cor.10:32-11:1.)

  The liberal stance on homosexuality (Matt.19:12 indicates that
  Jesus understood that some people are born with a sexual orienta-
  tion and others are made that way by people so would accept in-
  nate homosexuals. The same view holds that Paul in Rom.1 only
  counts it a sin for people to perform homosexuality against their
  nature--that Rom.1:26 refers to people appeasing false gods like
  Aphrodite, Diana, and other fetility gods with temple prostitution.

  (In 1 Cor.6:9 and 1 Tim.1:10, the meaning of the words "malokois"--NRSV: "male
  prostitutes"--and "arsenokoitai" are debated. In the Greek Septuagint, "arseno"
  is "a man" and "koitai" is "lying with," so for "arsenokoitai" to indicate male
  homosexuality "arseno" would be added to indicate who the man is lying with.
  This compound word doesn't specify that but just indicates a man is having sex
  in some way (having sex indiscriminately?)

  No need for ethically arbitrary food and clothes rules which just set be-
  lievers off in a 'centric way.

  If you're going to go there, that's basically the way to go.

  PS--what I don't like about the Qur'an: everything I don't like about the OT.
  Back to religion as law of the land with a militia to defend it (and apostates
  killed), homosexuality defined as a serious crime with hadiths prescribing harsh
  punishment, even ethically arbitrary food and clothes rules. Things wrong in
  the Qur'an--homosexuality, where semen is created in the body, camel urine given
  as a remedy for sickness, etc.--aren't good to see when it's commanding that God
  needs apostates put to death. These things were fixed in the NT and Muhammad
  screwed them up again.
• 

  Farkel

  : The Bible - is it really the GOOD Book - if so why?

  No. It is NOT a good book. I've read it over and over, and I cannot defend it.

  My scholarly answer is: it is a huge pile of bile and hate-filled dogshit.

  I'm trying to be conservative about what I really know the Bible is all about.

  Don't dare ask me my REAL opinion about that book. I KNOW the Bible and I know it well.

  Farkel
• 

  Fadeout

  Designs: I agree, the evolution of the society and the accompanying theology as reflected in the Bible is very interesting and historically important!

  TerraIncognita: Jg 1:19 is one of my all-time favorite humorous Bible verses.

  "The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron."

  Great stuff.
• 

  glenster

  Keeping up to speed with the facts and being ethical, understanding faith as
  such--as a choice whether or not to believe in a possible God beyond the known
  facts--doesn't breed hate. It's to know there isn't anything in the known facts
  to substantiate anyone getting hurt or killed over them, that it's a hope for
  something beyond them, among other things.

  Being 'centric and intolerant about the belief or non-belief stance (or about
  anything people can see they're in a group about) does, though. Making the
  belief or non-belief stance law of the land is like institutionalized 'centric
  intolerance, either of which has caused a lot of deaths. That, not to believe
  in God or not per se, has caused the most harm and death in history. You won't
  diminish the hate that can be bred otherwise by forcing the choice over some-
  thing that's fair game to make this or that choice about, or hating whoever
  makes the choice differently.

  It's one of the things I don't like about using God to support tribal war,
  Mosaic law, "eye for an eye," etc., in the OT (or such harm caused by other
  intolerant religious leaders or by non-believers such as certain leaders of
  State Atheism) and improves into faith understood as such, etc., in the NT.
• 

  LongHairGal

  CantLeave:

  I have to agree with you. The bible is hardly an advertisement of a loving creator. It is brutal. Maybe, it is just good for teaching people a standard of morality and "order" of a sort (but a punishing and brutal kind).

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite:

  It has been said that people who read the bible on their own generally never become a JW. I guess that is why the religion doesn't really want you to read it. Well, they say they do, but they have to 'explain' the bible highlights just in case you have an interpretation of your own and they only want you to use their bible.
• 

  roxanesophia

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite: The Bible is actually pretty good at discrediting Jehovah's Witness beliefs and teachings.
  
  Exactly. In the back of the NWT is all those beliefs and the scriptures that are supposed to back them up, but it's amazing how they can be turned around to work against the WT just as easily and you realize how a man made doctrine came about out of nothing particularly solid, scripturally.
  
  A GOOD book indeed!