Is Biblical Morality Situational, Based Upon the Arbitrary Whims of Yahweh?

by leavingwt 268 Replies latest jw friends

  • still thinking
    still thinking

    Glad you had a good evening EP. I understand your frustration. And thank you for your explanation.

    I don't however understand your tolerance for statements based on 'faith' as opposed to statements made by someone thinking they have faith based on evidence. At the end of the day, if neither have any evidence why support one over the other?

    Do you support someone saying whatever they like providing they admit they have no proof? In fact, the statements based on faith, more often than not, have scripture thrown in as 'evidence' and at the same time, that said evidence is treated as though it cannot be trusted by that same person. Why would you have tolerance for that?

    Perhaps, sometimes tolerance is based more on personal feelings towards a poster than what they actually say.

  • tec
    tec

    mP, I responded to your post on page 10. Just letting you know, since it might have gotten lost in the last couple pages.

  • mP
    mP

    Thanx Tec, i like separate posts when replying to separate ppl, it makes it easier to separate the two thoughts.

    ORIGINAL REPLY FROM TEC

    firstly the problem with the geneology differences is it brings the credibility of the authors. plain and simple, one or both must be liars, they both cant be correct. their intent is to decieve, thats all that can be said about it.

    Really, that's all that can be said about it? So when someone is mistaken, does that make them a liar? Or when someone is told something that someone else is mistaken about, that makes them a liar as well.

    There are more than just truth or liar aspects to this. And again, it has nothing to do with Christ and his teachings.

    if someone starts a tale with a big downright lie, why believe anything else they say? either they have resoect for the truth, or they dont think much nof their audience.

    This might be true, but this is not something you can state about the above.

    lastly jesus message isnt that kind or good as what you think. there are numerous scriptures where he says some very horribnle things about causing division in families

    Families did become divided when some chose to follow Him, and some chose not to. (That doesn't mean that those families remained divided, but some probably did). But what is your point here? People have always had free will to choose or not to choose. Note that he did not tell people to leave their families, or treat them with anything other than love.

    , death and murder and racism.

    I would like the scriptures that support Christ saying that he will cause death, murder, and racism, yes.

    regardung the last take a look at the story of the woman with a problem mthat made her unclean.'the scripture and apostles are very much angry that a samaritizn womN dared to troubele jesus.

    These are two different stories here. The 'unclean' woman was healed by her faith in Christ. She was also Israel.

    The samaritan woman by the well was treated well by Christ. He spoke to her by the well, taught her, and revealed who he was to her.

    It is a Caananite woman who you are speaking about above, and Christ ignored her since he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel... however... he still granted her what she asked for. He was not angry in the least. In fact, it doesn't even show the apostles as being angry unless there is a different parallel passage other than Matthew that shows differently

    is that really an example of goodness from jesus or the apsotles? think how many women iver the years were treated as durt, because jesus and the bible says women are below men to say it succinctly.

    He never says that. His example shows that he thought much differently. Such as speaking to women as equal with men. Having female disciples. Revealing himself after his resurrection first to women. Teaching that Mary had chosen correctly to listen with the men, instead of doing the cooking and hostessing, when Martha complained about her sister not helping her. He said that Mary had chosen the better of the two and it would not be taken from her.

    What men chose to twist and warp from his example and teaching is on them, not Him.

    Peace,

    Tammy

    ======================

    MP

    RACIST JESUS

    http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/mr/chapter_007.htm

    The woman was a Grecian, a Sy·ro·phoe·ni´cian nationally; and she kept asking him to expel the demon from her daughter. But he began by saying to her: “First let the children be satisfied, for it is not right to take the bread of the children and throw it to the little dogs.” In reply, however, she said to him: “Yes, sir, and yet the little dogs underneath the table eat of the crumbs of the little children.” At that he said to her: “Because of saying this, go; the demon has gone out of your daughter.” So she went away to her home and found the young child laid on the bed and the demon gone out.

    http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/mt/chapter_015.htm

    Leaving there, Jesus now withdrew into the parts of Tyre and Si´don. And, look! a Phoe·ni´cian woman from those regions came out and cried aloud, saying: “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David. My daughter is badly demonized.” But he did not say a word in answer to her. So his disciples came up and began to request him: “Send her away; because she keeps crying out after us.” In answer he said: “I was not sent forth to any but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” When the woman came she began doing obeisance to him, saying: “Lord, help me!” In answer he said: “It is not right to take the bread of the children and throw it to little dogs.” She said: “Yes, Lord; but really the little dogs do eat of the crumbs falling from the table of their masters.” Then Jesus said in reply to her: “O woman, great is your faith; let it happen to you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed from that hour on.

    We have the story recorded twice with the woman being Greek and Phoenician. In both cases Jesus ignores the women asking for his help because she is the wrong race. Im sorry thats racism and i expect better from the Son of God who loves everyone. You can ignore the racism and concentrate on the good outcome, but considering we as ordinary mortals cant do miracles the only thing we can copy is the racist angle. Im sorry just because you help someone does not give anyone the right to be racist, insult etc to others simply because they are different.

    PREACH TO ONLY JEWS

    http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/mt/chapter_010.htm

    These twelve Jesus sent forth, giving them these orders: “Do not go off into the road of the nations, and do not enter into a Sa·mar´i·tan city; but, instead, go continually to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. As YOU go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.’

    I know there are other scriptures that say other things, but still its concerning that Jesus would say conflicting messages.

    VIOLENT DISRUPTIVE JESUS

    http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/mt/chapter_010.htm

    Do not think I came to put peace upon the earth; I came to put, not peace, but a sword. For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a young wife against her mother-in-law.

    Should Gods son really say he is not peaceful but brings war and division between people, families etc.

    Im sorry Jesus was not a nice guy, he was an arrogant Jew, as they all were in those days. Thats a fact and product of history. Its easy to find the same attitudes in the OT where the Jews think they are special and can do no wrong because God gives them that authority. To some extent we see the same behaviour in their treatment of the Palestinians today. Most of Jesus preaching is curses and abuses, he expects instant authority without any reason.

  • just n from bethel
    just n from bethel

    Solomon thought he had it all solved. ... He is essentially throwing his hands in the air which is much the feeling I get from modern atheists.

    His life ended with about 1000 women (assuming all 9s and 10s much younger than him) at his beck and call - I'd say he pretty much "had it all solved".

  • tec
    tec

    What you think is racism is not racism at all. Israel was chosen because of a promise to Abraham, and the covenant (contract) formed between them and God. A contract that they constantly renigged upon, true, but God keeps his word. So the promises and kingdmo were offered to them first, as His covenant was with them, and theirs with Him. He was not under any obligation to go beyond that covenant. But he did do this anyway... based on the woman's faith.

    Same deal with the disciples.

    God's son is peaceful, but we are not. If some choose to follow Him, and others choose to fight against Him, then division follows. Were people TO follow Him, even just his teachings (love, forgiveness, mercy, do unto others, etc), then there would be no division.

    All Jews being arrogant in those days is a fact? Is that your fact, mp, or a fact of someone else's? I can't tell if what you wrote is your words, or a paste. And if it is a fact, then perhaps that could be backed up that ALL JEWS were arrogant in those days. Because I'm sure some were, just based on humanity itself. Some of any people are arrogant.

    Peace,

    tammy

  • mP
    mP

    TEC

    What you think is racism is not racism at all. Israel was chosen because of a promise to Abraham, and the covenant (contract) formed between them and God. A contract that they constantly renigged upon, true, but God keeps his word. So the promises and kingdmo were offered to them first, as His covenant was with them, and theirs with Him

    MP

    The reasoning behind the specialness does not change the fact the notion is racist. Whether the Abraham story is true or false does not change the fact the concept behind the specialty of the Hebrew people as taught in the Bible is not racist.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

    a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races .

    Given all the violence, genocide by the Hebrews against their neighbours, how can one not say their policies did not include a racist factor.

    The entire story of Abraham is adsurd, how can God be his friend for a hundred years and yet never reveal his name >Jehovah< to him.

    http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/ex/chapter_006.htm

    And God went on to speak to Moses and to say to him: “I am Jehovah. 3 And I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God Almighty, but as respects my name Jehovah I did not make myself known to them. 4

    Group guilt that is hereditary and so on is one of those ancient customs that we no longer accept. The entire concept of sin is based on this absurd nonsense. In our modern world each person is responsible for their own individual actions. If your dad robs a bank, the government does not imprison other relatives if your dad disappears. Any such law would be laughed at. The story of Abraham is stupid propaganda that only fits an age when group guilt as discussed above had meaning.

  • still thinking
    still thinking
    What you think is racism is not racism at all

    You speak with such authority...like you know this as a fact tec...where you there? Or are you going off what was written which may or may not be true and correct? Or are you just guessing because you would like that to be true.

    If treating people differently based on their race is not racism then I really don't know what is. He had his favourites...so anyone not his favourite would have to prove themselves. Why? because they were not Jews...how is that not racist?

  • sabastious
    sabastious
    The reasoning behind the specialness does not change the fact the notion is racist. Whether the Abraham story is true or false does not change the fact the concept behind the specialty of the Hebrew people as taught in the Bible is not racist.

    Your question about racism will get an answer depending on what time and culture you ask it. At this point in the timeline the term has been well hashed out because much pain and suffering has been recorded. "God chose us because my friend heard him in his head and I believe him" is not the same as, "God chose us because we are special and you are not and therefore should be removed from the earth." This is one reason why I think "traits" are what the Bible are looking for, traits we didn't have before the Flood of Genesis.

    -Sab

  • tec
    tec

    The reasoning behind the specialness does not change the fact the notion is racist. Whether the Abraham story is true or false does not change the fact the concept behind the specialty of the Hebrew people as taught in the Bible is not racist.

    If you have a contract with someone and you fullfill that with them (before moving on to include someone else in that contract) does that make you a racist?

    That contract was based on faith; not race. Had Abraham been Chinese (and I think he did travel from the far east), then the contract would have been with him and his descendants.

    You speak with such authority...like you know this as a fact tec...where you there? Or are you going off what was written which may or may not be true and correct? Or are you just guessing because you would like that to be true.

    I'm going off the testimony that there was a covenant between God and Abraham, and so God and Israel. There is also a covenant between God and the descendants of Ishmael, that Ishmael also become a great nation. Those covenants began with the faith of one man, Abraham.

    It is a contract, it is not racism. Were it racism, then those of other races certainly could not have entered INTO the covenant with Israel, simply on the basis that they were not the same race. But this is not the case. People of other 'races' could join Israel, and the covenant between them and God.

    because they were not Jews...how is that not racist?

    Because the covenant and promise needed to be fullfilled first... and that was with Israel.

    Peace,

    tammy

  • still thinking
    still thinking

    sab...I can honestly say I have never heard of anyone saying whether something is racist or not depends on the time and culture.

    Regardless of when this occured...even if it was today...how would you feel if you asked for gods help and were snubbed because YOU weren't a Jew or from the house of Israel or whatever you want to call it? And...what would YOU call that behaviour?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit