The Hubble, Yahweh, the Bible, and faith.

by Nickolas 269 Replies latest jw friends

  • Nickolas
    Nickolas

    But I ask you... why do you listen to the people who have a small view?

    Alas, Tammy, I perceive you have taken the small view, yet I still wish to listen to you and what you have to say.

    (I am not offended, and you won't offend me by speaking your mind. I am interested in the answer)

    Thank you for that. I do appreciate the opportunity to be candid without being perceived as aggressive or insulting.

    God is not limited to the pages of the OT, though, or even the NT. He is Spirit. Something many people cannot grasp, and that many other people cannot help but to seek out.

    But you offer no evidence to support this, Tammy. You are asserting that you are aware of the existence of a spirit world that I cannot see and further that you know what goes on in that world. I am unable to act on faith. Call it a personal failing but I've been fooled once before by faith. You have to show me evidence if I am to believe the incredible things you are telling me. It is really as simple as that.

    I have a question though, and this is just a side point... it might not be for you, because you might not have made the comment. But someone said that they were not interested in the Apocryhpa because they had already read all they need to know about Yahweh in the OT. How is that different from me saying, "I don't need to read anything to do with Darwin... I know all I need to know about him through what I've read about social Darwinism"?

    Yes, the comment belongs to me. I regard the Bible as complete fiction. No offense. I would liken it more to me saying "I don't need to read anything more of J.R.R. Tolkien's because I have read quite enough about the Hobbits and other creatures of the underworld." The Bible is boring, has a choppy plot and story line and an even more disappointing climax. I think you can understand why reading the Apocrytha with that perspective would have no appeal. Also, I don't know what social Darwinism has to do with the conversation, Tammy. Darwin did not author any papers on human societal issues. He wrote only about the evolution of species through natural selection as an alternative to the widely held belief in the Genesis account of creation. Social Darwinism is an appropriation of his name, not his ideals.

  • tec
    tec

    Alas, Tammy, I perceive you have taken the small view, yet I still wish to listen to you and what you have to say.

    See, I thought the small view was limiting ones view of God, on the OT. I am still uncertain as to how you think my view is small?

    Thank you for that. I do appreciate the opportunity to be candid without being perceived as aggressive or insulting.

    Of course:)

    But you offer no evidence to support this, Tammy. You are asserting that you are aware of the existence of a spirit world that I cannot see and further that you know what goes on in that world. I am unable to act on faith. Call it a personal failing but I've been fooled once

    before by faith. You have to show me evidence if I am to believe the incredible things you are telling me. It is really as simple as that.

    You don't have to believe in anything I tell you. (I would like to clarify that you have been fooled by people or religion, but not faith). You know I can't prove what I believe to you.

    Some evidence is that every civilization everywhere has been aware of and seeking out something beyond the physical. There is a theory for that of course. But nothing says that theory is any more valid than the thought that we seek something that IS there. I have that same yearning/seeking/belief. There are witnesses as well, to the spiritual, to Christ (but the counterfeit witnesses tend to color that so I tend not to mention any of them)

    In either case, I don't believe because of those things. I believe because I love Christ, and I believe what he says, and when I look through Him, I can see God even in the OT (not all of it, but some of it). Yes, I know that I am trusting that all the witnesses to and writings about Christ are not a complete fraud - when it comes to which 'version' of a creator I believe IN. But that theory (the whole thing a fraud and lie) just seems ludicrous to me. I have also recieved understanding when I asked, help when I asked, fruits of the spirit when I asked as well. That is personal evidence though, that might help confirm. But the faith was already there.

    I regard the Bible as complete fiction

    Complete fiction? As in nothing happened in it, none of the 'characters' were real, etc?

    Do you realize that you have kind of taken the same stance as the people that you think have a small view here? That the bible is ONE all or nothing book? Don't you also believe what it says about God (disregarding Christ), and therefore conclude that Yahweh is too small to be anything more than man's creation?

    Social Darwinism is an appropriation of his name, not his ideals.

    Do you mean to tell me that someone can take another person's NAME and use it to their own ends and agendas???

    Never say so!

    ;)

    Just teasing you, Nickolas, but I hope you understand. If I concluded everything I believed about Darwin based off what others wrote about social darwinism, then I would have a very small and inaccurate view of the man and his theories/ideals. Which I would only know if I eXplored all the other ways to know him. So please don't let man's warped/fale ideals color your perception of who or what God is. What does one man (or woman) know more than another?

    Peace to you,

    Tammy

  • Nickolas
    Nickolas

    Some of what the Bible reports on is grounded in fact but that is common literary legere de main. Fiction incorporating an authentic thread of history is still fiction. The works of Shakespeare is an apropos example. Here's another. I'm a film fan and I regard Oliver Stone's movie JFK as complete fiction, despite it being based on an actual event. The Bible is in the same category. Presenting what cannot be proven within the context of what can be proven constitutes not a proof but imaginative fiction. It's up to you to decide whether or not to believe it. That's just the way it is.

    Peace back, Tammy.

  • tec
    tec

    *grins*

    (I think you're a great guy, Nickolas.)

  • Nickolas
    Nickolas

    Likewise, m'lady.

  • sizemik
    sizemik

    I'm pleased this thread has continued with a somewhat philospophical treatment of the subject

    God can be molded to explain anything, that is the core of the issue. . . . Bohm

    My personal dilemma is based around the evidential content of any explanation. The rapidly growing accumulated knowledge still refuses to add to the evidential content of the God belief . . . that is; it cannot seem to add even the smallest amount to an already empty bucket, for those that need confirmation through the physical world. Anything offered is very contentious and ultimately subjective. . . evidence of "design" for example.

    All that we can confirm belief-wise, either comes from within the minds of other men . . . or from within our own mind. Nothing "external" that can be observed, tested and proved by many in concerted observation, as with science, and thereby add to the common evidential bucket. It's only a personal confirmation . . . subjective to everybody else, other than the individual that holds to it.

    An individuals "experience" cannot be effectively shared so as to convince to the same level of confirmation . . . each must experience it for themself. If you don't have that personal confirmation through experience . . . then you have nothing to go on. Ancient writings describe events where large numbers had the God belief confirmed by a common physical evidential demonstration . . . the Red Sea, Jesus miracles etc. What was so special about them that they had that confirmation presented? And why doesn't everyone have access to the same evidential experience?

    I can't put my finger on it . . . but there's something mildly disturbing about that.

  • jay88
    jay88

    Why doesn't everyone have access to the same evidential experience?

    This is why we are in the mess we are in. From the GB to members on this board.

    They would say that WWI(1914) would be equal to the parting of the red sea.(JW)

    Or Christ's calling is in abundance for does who have a ears to hear.(forum members)

  • Pistoff
    Pistoff

    A historical view of belief in gods, King of Gods and ultimately one God makes it easy to see that man reimagines an invisible ruler that is everything humans are not, and a future or coexisting world that is everything ours is not.

    This view changed as humans changed; it has been impeded by the view that ancient humans had the inside track on god(s) or God, or that one person or another has a better view because they had direct communication with god(s) or God.

    The bible, OT and NT, is not history but a theological take on why bad things happened to the ancestors of the writers, whom the writers believed to be in touch with and approved by God.

    The best example, and possibly the best analyzed, is Jesus. History outside of the NT canon says only that Jesus of Nazareth lived and died.

    His followers, who saw something in Jesus they connected with, could not comprehend his death when they felt so connected to Kingdom through Jesus.

    The gospels are filled not with literal history, but with prophecy historicized; over decades the more literate of his followers applied OT passages to events 'remembered' about Jesus.

  • Nickolas
    Nickolas

    I can't put my finger on it . . . but there's something mildly disturbing about that.

    Allow me, sizemik, to quote from the Richard Le Gallienne translation of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, written around 900 years ago:

    And do you think that unto such as you
    A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
    God gave a secret, and denied it me?
    Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!

    Seemed it bothered Omar Khayyam, too.

  • AGuest
    AGuest

    Greetings, and may you all have peace! Dear Nick, the greatest of love and peace to you! Please let me say that I would not change a single word of dear Tec's (the greatest of love and peace to you, as well, dear one!) comments: I agree vehemently with them all. I would like to expand upon them, though, if you will permit me - thank you!

    People believe in Yahweh because of the Bible.

    This is what dear tec and I have been trying to help you and some here understand, dear one: SOME people believe in "Yahweh" (even "God") because of the Bible. However, neither she nor I... nor many others... believe in "Yahweh", the god portrayed in the Bible. Answering only for myself, I believe in the Most Holy One of Israel... JAH of Armies ("JaHVeH")... and yes, there is a difference. A HUGE different. While there are some things in the Bible that are accurate about Him, a GREAT deal of what is in there is NOT accurate, not even truthful.

    Even so let's, for the sake of this discussion, say we're talking about the same Person (we are not, though, and I will expound on that in a sec), MANY believed... long before the Bible was canonized as we know it (in the 3rd/4th centure CE). More than that, MANY believed... long before the FIRST Bible version (the Septuagint) was compiled (in the 3rd/4th centure BCE). What many don't know is that at lease one ancient pharaohs (before Moses) believed in the Most Holy One of Israel. Because at least one acknowledged that "God" (and not "one of our gods") was "with" Joseph. Yes, this account in included in the Bible; however (1) it was orally passed down long before it was written down (so the Bible was not the only way THESE folks believed in JAH); (2) the Egyptian history would have certainly attempted to discredit any MYTH that a Hebrew who was a son of Israel (Jacob), the son of Isaac... was second only to a pharaoh in Egypt, and, (3) if not Egypty, then certain the world of Islam (descendants of Abraham's other son by Hagar, Ishmael, who, at some point, came to consider Isaac his "enemy").

    And many believe NOW... and it has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible.

    Belief in Yahweh comes from nowhere else.

    In "Yahweh"... "Jehovah"... "THE LORD"... perhaps not. But until you understand that our faith in not IN the "God" of the Bible... you're not really going to ever understand WHY our faith can stand... in light of what Hubbel and other "evidence" presented in the PHYSICAL world.

    God does some very human things in the Bible.

    "He" does. But that is not true of the Most Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies. Because what His SON is recorded to have done (also "in the Bible") was most NON-human: healing sick, feeding crowds, walking on water, turning water to wine, resurrecting the dead... and resurrecting himself... are not things humans can do (on their own, sans holy spirit). If one looks, then, at the "God" of the OT... one is going to see the vengeful, vindictive, hastily offended, kick ass and takes names later "God"... created by Israel.

    IF, however, one looks at the IMAGE and "exact representation" of the Most Holy One of Israel... JAH of Armies... one will see an entirely different "reflection", no? And one doesn't have to do that by reading the Bible (although, if one lacks faith, one CAN look there... for a start, I guess, but even so, the "image" appears more a with brushed nickel than polished chrome).

    Some sociopathic and psychopathic things, too.

    Indeed! Which is what caused ME great consternation: how can the God and Father of "Jesus Christ" be and act how He was/did in the OT... while "Jesus" is saying that everything HE did he learned from his Father, that "just as [he] saw the Father doing [he] did", that he "did nothing of his own initiative, but only what he saw the FATHER doing"? Didn't make sense. Even more, how could this kind, loving person... who healed the sick, fed the poor, taught love, etc., be the SAME "person" the WTBTS was running around telling everyone they were following... while virtually NEVER referring to him, speaking to/of him, directing people to him... and treating not only their "enemies" reprehensibly... but even their own flesh?!! How could that BE? THAT... didn't make sense to me.

    MUCH more than science proving this and not proving that, I was concerned with how religion (and particularly "christianity", and more particularly, the WTBTS) "acted", in light of claims to know, represent, follow, belong to, believe in, and be a disciple of Christ. And what most confused ME is, while a JW... why "we" made "Jehovah" the focus... when "the Bible" says that HE said... and His Son said... to listen to, follow, laud, bow down before, honor, glorify... and bear witness... to the SON.

    So... I asked. And although the answers I received are largely included in the Bible, they are not ALL included there... nor, I found, was all that was in the Bible even TRUTH, let alone accurate. And so, as you have seen me post here on MANY occasions... I only use the Bible for those who would not believe what I shared... as well as who I received it from... UNLESS I referred to where it "says so 'in the Bible'."

    In this thread, however, I have shared things that are NOT obviously delineated in the Bible. Indeed, more of sounds closer to... wait for it... SCIENCE (yes, I know - science "fiction"). But it's not fiction, at all... AND... it IS... ALL... written down. Somewhere. But not necessarily in the Bible. Or in ANY "holy" book we know of right now.

    How is he any different from all the other gods humankind has abandoned along the way?

    For one, He manifests Himself... through His Son... to those with faith. Not through a book or through traditions and stories.

    you offer no evidence to support this, Tammy.

    That's not accurate, dear one. Both dear tec and I... and others... have offered that there IS evidence: His Son, for one. That you and others REFUSE to consider the evidence offered... because it is not PHYSICAL and so cannot be "proven" pursuant to the proscriptions of what it takes to prove something PHYSICAL... is our fault, how?

    The Bible is boring, has a choppy plot and story line and an even more disappointing climax.

    I would agree. I would also offer, however, that the Bible is not a "book," per se, which is why so many confuse THEMSELVES when [trying to] read it. It is a [very small] library... of writings, histories, records, chronologies, letters, accounts, prophecies, and revelations. And just as with EVERY library created by MAN... it includes technical writings, science, math, history, poetry, music, fiction... and non-fiction. And just like every such library, EVERY book/writing in it is not necessarily beneficial to the purpose at hand. You don't need to read every book in the library to know how to catch steelhead. Or bass. Or tuna.

    And do you think that unto such as you
    A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
    God gave a secret, and denied it me?
    Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!

    Obviously, the author was speaking of clergy (and so, was absolutely right!)... as well as those who follow them. Neither applies, however, to the Body of Christ: (1) there is no clergy (we have on leader... and each of us try to consider ourselves "least" ones, rather than teachers/masters over any other; and (2) we're not fanatics, by any stretch. You are absolutely free to "hear" what we share... or "refrain." No Armageddon, if you don't. No fire and brimstone because you wouldn't. A prayer, perhaps, yes, but that's about as "fanatical" as it gets.

    Anyway, just my $0.02 in a wonderful discussion and, again, peace to you!

    YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

    SA

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit