An Old Argument.... does it hold water?

by AK - Jeff 1495 Replies latest jw experiences

  • Qcmbr
    Qcmbr

    Why do believers speak authoratively? It seems a common malaise of believers to talk as though they absolutely know what their god does or does not do, think or is motivated by. Believers are more than happy to claim that others do not 'see','hear' or perceive the 'truth' but that to them God has perfectly revealed itself so they are free to speak as its spokesperson. While AGuest is one of our most extreme the hallmark of all believers is that at some point they must make a statement on behalf of divinity ( he died for x, it's name is y, she is responsible only for the good, they are all powerful etc.)

    Where are the good old fashioned believers who believe god is a punishing god of wrath and anger? I suspect that what we see today is belief filtered by our advancing secular morals so driving a new definition of the biblical god ( not enough experience to say if this is also happening with the Allah believers ) in short modern believers are out of step with the perception of bible god just as much as Xians are out of step with the old testament war loving and animal sacrificing Yahweh. The lack of consistency across believers in time, culture and individuals is perhaps the greatest testimony against all the gods. No god cares enough to ensure they are portrayed consistently by all believers. No god cares to stop acts of barbarity or stupidity done in their name. All gods seem perfectly happy for anything to be said as gospel truth by anyone.

    That there are passionate personal reasons to believe, that people experience - via their physical mind and emotional, chemical body - powerful perceptions that seem otherworldly and supernatural is certainly not in doubt. I've had them myself so I do understand. What is in doubt is that they are actually divine ( and the vast majority cannot be since they lead to different truths like the veracity of the Book of Mormon or the acceptability of a global genocidal flood ) and since there is no discernible variance in earnestness or even willingness to die for such tenuous truth ( I dont think many scientists would accept death as a penalty for an incorrect theory ) it becomes abundantly clear that the likelihood of any version of god being true is statistically close to zero. Just a few years ago I would have passionately defended my god ( who would have confirmed to me that AGuest's was clearly a devil fooling her ) and have felt justified in talking about greater light, knowledge and love in my life because of the influence of the spirit in my life. All wrong but seemingly the absolute truth at the time.

    I used to believe I was a true seeker of truth but I realised that a truth seeker is eclectic giving a little, learning a lot whereas a believer has ceased to seek truth (though the conceit is that they will never admit that ) and simply seeks to justify their position by preaching and self inculcation ( repeatedly reading approved religious materials , scouring well read texts like a starving man seeking sustenance from a pile of well picked chicken bones, while avoiding critical works .) This position of assured truth owner is what makes belief in god so intellectually weak and socially dangerous. With the honourable exception of PSac no believer has had the guts to simply accept that they do not know why their god has not provided a morally acceptable answer to why we suffer but we have had a full display of speaking for and behalf of god.

    Considering how many times posters misunderstand each other here I don't think there is much chance they have switched to hyper clarity and understanding mode with the divine.

  • sizemik
    sizemik

    Hell, I feel like I've arrived back late from lunch . . .

    Actually . . . for reasons unique to itself . . . out of the thousands of threads I've read, this one has to rate in the top five.

    There have been some very good comments . . . and all comments have been helpful. Some of the humor is priceless. Thanks to everyone here.

    As a result, I feel a lot more confirmed in what you would probably label "atheism," . . . at least in regard to anything remotely religious, than at any other time since shortly after birth.

    Finally one statement hit me between the eyes . . .

    Yes, God's Son said to love truth even more than one's own soul. . . . N.drew

    I don't think it matters who said it . . . that's it in a nutshell really . . . loving truth. If you love truth to the point where you cannot lie to yourself . . . only then do you love it more than your "life" . . . because the truth may cost you just that.

    Thanks for that statement N.drew . . .

    I don't think your gears are faulty kiddo . . . but you shift them faster than an eighteen wheeler hammering up the Virgin River Canyon.

    Nevertheless . . . I owe you one.

  • N.drew
    N.drew

    Thankyou sizemik, one of the nicest compliments!

    Right next to Cucumber's (I hope you don't mind) worst insult.

    Hey Mr. Qcmbr, I got shit too. This, what you said, sounds like the Governing Body;

    it becomes abundantly clear that the likelihood of any version of god being true is statistically close to zero. Just a few years ago I would have passionately defended my god ( who would have confirmed to me that AGuest's was clearly a devil fooling her ) and have felt justified in talking about greater light, knowledge and love in my life because of the influence of the spirit in my life. All wrong but seemingly the

    How's it feel to be in their class?

  • jay88
    jay88

    Aguest: That is one school of thought, dear EP (again, peace to you, dear one!)... and actually, it is the one that furthers my point. With the article, it appears as al-?ilahah. Let me ask you: when you pronounce that "word"... what do you HEAR? "Al il ah"... or "Al il hah". In Arabic/Aramaic, it means for some "there is no god but Allah." For others, it means "there is no god except the one [true] god." However, I will share with you what my Lord had shared with ME... and that is that the term came from "Al (there is no) il (el, or god)... [but] Jah." In turn THIS phrase came from the Hebrew "hal el a Jah"... or... "hallel u Jah".

    EP: Except that when you pronounce that translation, you are doing so in modern english from words that no one actually knows exactly how they were pronounced from two DISTANTLY related and different alphabets. Doesn't hold water to just try to sound it out close enough in modern english.

    Aguest: I would NOT lie to you about this, dear one. I speak neither Hebrew, Arabic, or Aramaic. My Lord, however, not only speaks all three... but also knows the evolution/transition of all three. From Hebrew TO Arabic and Aramaic (a form of Hebrew and Chaldean).

    EP: I don't think you are lying at all. You are just wrong and there is no shame in that. If your LORD really can speak all three of those languages, why is he relying on sounding it out in modern english?

    ............

    I think this was left unanswered. I saw it as one of the many nuggets in this thread.

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    Typically when doomsday doesn't come, many cult members leave but many get even deeper into their beliefs.
    For reasons having to do with cognitive dissonance and not being able to deal with the reality that they were wrong, some become further convinced that they have to stick with their cult.

    It has always been a difficult thing to understand. I see it in my mother from 1975 with the JW's. Now I see it here in less cultish beliefs. People dig in deeper and cannot deal with a God who may have just stood by and done nothing (or wasn't there) when the tsunami struck. Some say that proof of God was in the loving response to the tsunami by humans, still not dealing with the inaction that preceeded.

    These debates truly are endless. I will offer some food for thought here and probably dicker with y'all today but then move on to the next thread. It is just a philosophical debate to say or deny the following: If God is indeed omnipotent, he manifestly is not good, and if he is good he manifestly is not omnipotent. I see that disaster allowing each side to dig deeper in their beliefs.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-R6hx4qwyY

  • Twitch
    Twitch
    These debates truly are endless.

    True, but not without point. If such debates help people to think critically, it cannot be a loss.

  • N.drew
    N.drew

    You should listen to the King of Jordan.

    He is talking about the Israel/Palestine issue, but I shall apply it to the NOW.

    The Earth and everyone is the NOW.

    "The prevailing approach in past peace efforts has been for all sides to take incremental steps, to work on small issues and leave the tough ones, like the final status of Jerusalem, to a later date. The problem is that we will never get to the end if we keep kicking the big problems down the road."

    Now, if you imagine Jerusalem stands for peace, and the big, tough problem is tolerance, you can see his point, can't you?

    I did not listen to the Tsunami video, as I have no sound, and I think I don't like that guy, so I won't turn on my lap top for nothing, but thanks for sharing OTWO. Do not comet suicide.

    So, believe it or not, tsunami is a small problem. Starving children, small problem. Let us not keep kicking the big problem "down the road".

    What is it? TOLERANCE The world lacks tolerance.

  • tec
    tec

    With the honourable exception of PSac no believer has had the guts to simply accept that they do not know why their god has not provided a morally acceptable answer to why we suffer but we have had a full display of speaking for and behalf of god.

    You guys keep saying that, but Psac has himself clarified that he said he cannot provide an answer that a non-believer can accept. Not that he doesn't have any answers for himself.

    Not that I disagree with the honourable part about Psac.

    Of those who have given you answers, those answers have been out of our understanding. No doubt that in the 'like it or leave it' category, you choose to leave it... as is your right. But do not say that your questions were not answered, just because you do not agree with them.

    Peace,

    Tammy

  • tec
    tec

    Won'tleave - perfect or complete? Are either of those here yet?

    Peace,

    Tammy

  • jay88
    jay88

    Would you say Tammy that non-believers suffer from a form of cognitive dissonance?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit