by cofty 126 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
BTW, the OT is quite clear that this "true god" ordered the genocide of specific peoples right down to their babies. It's not gossip, it's not innuendo, it's in scripture.
And that is scripture, why? (scripture - inspired by God; truth) And is scripture infallable/inerrant... why?
Its not hard to ignore at all, IF, you are looking at the Truth of God... Christ... to know God.Peace,
Tammy
You're welcome, Cofty. Instead of a Hitch-Slap, I'll give ya a Hitch-High-Five. ;)
Twtich, I'm referring to the idea that they buried the body with reverence and gifts inside the grave, not the practice of leaving flowers in rememberance. There is a practice in many palces and times of decorating the inside of tombs, or example.
Well, I see your distinction now, thank you. I don't dispute the fact that more advanced ancient cultures decorated tombs (Egypt naturally comes to mind) But I would say the culture and spiritual beliefs of ancient Egypt and other civilizations of the time were more advanced than primitive man, whose beliefs on death we can only speculate on. How do you know there were human trash piles exactly?
But, to your point, we want to remember the dead because human life is special. If life is special, so is death, I'd argue. And, with death, suffering. In this way, a person's entire life could be considered a mystery, a sacrament, holy. The entire Christian approach is emphatically confirmed by the Incarnation, in which Being itself entered into humanity and experienced the totality of it: all the way to suffering and death.
Yes, I'd agree that the entire christian approach is based on reverence of the birth, life and death of one man in particular, more than any other. Belief in his sacrifice as redemption for us is a fundamental tenet of christianity of course and because of this, his suffering and by extension ours, is elevated to the spiritual concept of "holy", "grace" and other mysterious articles of faith. But only if you're a christian.
If we think human life is special, then we are stuck with the observation that it will, on late night, come to an end and that the end is likely to include suffering. It isn't obvious to me that we should partition a life into those pieces that are special (good times with family, climbing a mountain, whatever) and those pieces that are not (the things associated with the end of it).
It isn't obvious to me that realizing one's mortality is a position one would be stuck in but I guess it depends on the person and a belief in an afterlife. I'm of the opinion that accepting one's mortality only makes life more special, because it will end.
What is obvious to me is that human nature tends to want to remember the good and not the bad. Also, it's obvious that the suffering and death of a loved one will affect those still living, sometimes profoundly but probably for different reasons.
That said, I am in essential agreement with the original post, which compained about the simplistic and offensive approach of certain unspohisticated Christians. I am simply attempting to point out that these people are operating outside of the much larger Christian tradition. That tradition begins with the observation that Being itself assumes humanity and that humanity -- all of it, down to the suffering part -- is thereby mysterious, a sacrament. It is, as I have said, a point to begin thinking.
I'd agree with you on the extremist approach of some to the concept of suffering and death. You do seem to be a more sphisticated christian. However, if suffering and death are holy sacraments and thus something to be revered, it might be said that the difference between their view and yours is only a matter of slight degree.
Otherwise, I feel that we are stuck with the idea that, well, cancer sucks and watching family members die sucks, too. And nothing more. Maybe it works for some folks, and that's fine. But the trend throughout human history has been to go in the other direction and, in a way, it is the very definition of being human. We shouldn't be too hasty in throwing that away.
Cancer does suck and so does watching loved ones in pain suffer. As I've said, I don't see that as special or a holy grace; in fact it's the opposite. You yourself said the experience you had was not "good" in itself but that it's effect on you is obvious, as it would be on anyone. Is it because you put value on someone's life or their death?
To clarify, I understand your position to be that humanity as a whole has trended towards believing in an afterlife. Hard to argue against that point but not all of humanity has been or is spiritual. And the afterlife remains tied to belief, not fact, for all of humanity's history.
Anywho, tanks fo da thinkin bit.
Tammy, I admire the ease with which you pick and chose what to accept as the inspired word of "God" , ignoring vast wads of supposed scripture because it doesn't conform to your image and/or beliefs about your god's 'reputation'. With that kind of loyal, faith-based tunnel vision, you'd make an excellent press secretary for any worldy politician in trouble.
And I, Steve, admire the ease with which you ignore the simple truth that Christ is the Truth and the image of God. Not just you, though. You and many others. THAT leaves room for this picking and choosing of what to believe, imo. Because lets face it... "love your enemy and do good to those who harm you" doesn't transition well to 'burn your enemy at the stake; torture your enemy; kill your enemy; pay back evil with evil; shun them; disfellowship them; beat them; show them no mercy; do not forgive them unless you are absolutely sure that they're sorry and won't do it again and to ensure this, make sure they prove themselves over and over again before you'll treat them as someone you love again; wipe out the entire nation of jews or muslims or pagans or atheists or whatever and claim that God is backing you... etc, etc."
:)
All satire aside though,
If the bible is your messiah, then I can understand one thing being as important as another thing, even though they contradict. So that Christ is no more important to you than any other line of script in that book.
But if 'Jesus' (Jaheshua) is your Messiah, then it's Him that you follow. That IS what we're told to do. "Follow me." He is the living Word of God.
Peace,
Tammy
Bravo Tammy!!!! Bravo! I love it. You do satire well!
Thanks Nancy.
I should have said 'does transition well', though, for proper satire. Just couldn't bring myself to do it though, lol.
Peace,
Tammy
Well Tammy we have reached agreement on one thing and for that this thread has been productive:The Bible is not the inspired word of "god" so I cannot include you in comments I make about the Bible provided a handy guide to genocide and other unspeakable acts. It's interesting though that Christians who deplore the savage tactics of the earlier Roman Catholic church (e.g., burning apostates at the stake) were "merely" following the violent examples ordered by the Israelite's Jehovian god. In many,many ways the Inquisition was nothing compared to the blood-shed sanctioned in such "lovely"books as Ezekiel and Jeremiah. But, I acknowledge, if you do not take these books to be the inspired word of God, you cannot be accused of believing a book that endorses genocide, slavery and misogyny. And, if in your state of personal religious conviction you are unbothered by source material, you are marvellously immune to looking at the evidential basis of your belief system - in that regard,at least, you would win the wrath of millions of born-again Christians who thump the Bible loudly and proudly. Look at the republican mess in the states at the moment.
Tammy, what frustrates people including me is the way you have invented an uber-hero out of whole cloth. He is the epitome of everything you consider nice but is based on nothing outside your own imagination.
You reject the Jesus of history and the messiah of OT prophecy. You want nothing to do with the god of the OT who the gospels tell us again and again Jesus identified as his Father.
You quote NT data that casts Jesus in a good light and reject everything else as the lying pen of the scibes.
You want to play tennis without a net and only you get to call what is in and what is out.
To add intellectual insult you inject "Jesus told me so" every time you need new data to support your position. That is why I said a while ago that Jesus is your sockpuppet.
As I said your god is very very nice, he is a credit to you, but when you quote him to support actual debates in the real world about real suffering its bound to get people frustrated.
Are there some people arguing against the Bible without reading it first?
And are there some other people arguing for it that don't know what it says?
