The Bible designed to stagnate people and ruin lives

by WTWizard 108 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  mP

  @TEC

  Says who? And which parts? The ones that showed the unforgiving and unmerciful God, or the one that showed the forgiving, merciful God? The OT contradicts itself on the nature of God. These misundersandings are one of the reasons we needed Christ to show us the Truth.

  Because He is the truth. Not the OT. Not the bible, itself. Christ. He also said 'woe to you scribes'. A scribe is someone who writes and copies scripture. Why would he say woe to them if they were copying and scribing correctly? He also showed that some of the laws had been given, not in accordance to truth, but in accordance to the limitations (hard-heartedness) of the people, themselves. Such as the law on divorce.

  @MP

  There are countless scriptures where jesus quotes the OT and refers to heroes like Noah. At no stage did jesus claim the OT is bullshit and a pack of lies.
• 

  mP

  @TEC

  Can you please address the numbers in the graphs that I have posted. Even the NT books themselves have more bad than good. Im not sure how your going to weasel your way out of that...
• 

  mP

  @TEC

  I have no idea which question si have failed to answer, because you failed to repeat them for me. I tried to address the main ones.

  I have compiled a monumental argument that demonstrates without doubt the Bible is more bad than good. The links provide a listing of each and every good and bad item that went into the tallies. I see you skipped this which is dishonest. You know your argument is unwinnable. Even the NT is itself just as bad as the OT. The gospels which are filled with Jesus life and sayings as no different.

  To ignore such monumental evidence and focus on some small nothing is the definition of dishonest.
• 

  tec

  You seem to completely ignore that Ruth was the exception to the law about killing and enslaving everyone that i found. The problem is that such a vile law was given by God in the first place. We can simply say that Ruth was extremely lucky, and no doubt her cooperation is what saved her, lets not mistake this was not an act of kindness but a transaction, she traded something of miltary value and got spared. The overall message is still to kill something you dishonestly ignore.

  You are thinking of Rahab the prostitute; not Ruth the moabite. Ruth has a book in the bible dedicated just to her.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  mP

  @TEC

  yes sorry about mixing Ruth and Rahab. Still one exception does refute my assertion that policy was to kill and enslave. Just because one survived doenst cancel the fact. Just because one Jew surived the holocaust doesnt somehow excuse the nazis of the evils of holocaust and the war. This is exactly what you have done, choosing to focus on an individual and ignoring the pattern set by the law.
• 

  tec

  I do know the Bible reasonably well.

  But you keep making mistakes. Which is not a crime, at least not one that I am not also guilty of. But you do not seem to be learning anything from the realization that you do not know the bible as well as you think you do.

  However i am having a hard time accepting your comments as you seem very liberal in your interpretation.

  Who says an interpretation must be something other than liberal?

  Genesis is stupid. Its making an outrageous statement that has absolute position to support it. How exactly where the canaanites blessed by this convenent, the Bible says they all deserve to die or be slaves. Your argument about the world gaining a blessing is

  preposterous.

  It wasn't an argument. It was just showing you that it is there, and the fact that it is there conflicts with your idea of a racist God.

  You ignored the other law that says they should be killed first. If that law were obeyed they would never have had the opportunity to come to the passover.

  No law was recorded in the laws of Moses stating such a thing. If anything, it was added later.

  But lets concentrate on the conflict for a moment. One spot in the OT says to love the alien as though the alien was native-born. Another spot says something in conflict (though conte x t might be in order). So how do we know which is the truth? We look TO the Truth to find the answer. To Christ. This is how the conflict is resolved. This is what I do. .

  Can you please address the numbers in the graphs that I have posted. Even the NT books themselves have more bad than good. Im not sure how your going to weasel your way out of that...

  I did address it and I am not weasling. Your graphs are completely subjective. Also wrong. And since we have spoken of Ruth the Moabite, and the book of Ruth is placed in the list of bad books with no good attached to them... we can just use that one to show the fault in those charts.

  Ruth was treated with respect and honor, even as a foreigner, by a man who was honorable and kind and merciful. He did right by her, and even had he not married her, he made certain that she was protected on his land and that she had plenty to eat. Ruth was held in high esteem and blessed by the Israelites and God. The book is about loyalty, and compassion and mercy, and true justice. If that is what you consider to be bad, then I cannot put much stock in the rest of those findings. .

  I have no idea which question si have failed to answer, because you failed to repeat them for me. I tried to address the main ones.

  . You got around to it, even though you deny what the question states. I asked how you can consider the covenant with Abraham to be based on race when a foreigner could join? An uncircumcised foreigner could not join. Any foriegner had to abide by the laws and become circumcised. So it was about the law of God being agreed to and obeyed; not about race. .

  I see you skipped this which is dishonest

  . I didn't skip it. It is just inaccurate, and completey subjective. Peace, tammy
• 

  tec

  I am off to bed. I do not wish to cause you any distress, mP. But I hope that you will consider these things that I have shared, and incorporate them into your understanding.

  Peace to you, and understanding through Christ if you wish it,

  tammy
• 

  mP

  @TEC

  The problem is you completely ignore the absurd contradictions in the Bible. These contradictions occur because the OT has evolved and been edited many times over hundreds of years. One author inserted one law and another inserted something that wasnt quite as harsh.

  http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/le/chapter_025.htm

  As for your slave man and your slave girl who become yours from the nations that are round about YOU people, from them YOU may buy a slave man and a slave girl. And also from the sons of the settlers who are residing as aliens with YOU , from them YOU may buy, and from their families that are with YOU whom they had born to them in YOUR land; and they must become YOUR possession. And YOU must pass them on as an inheritance to YOUR sons after YOU to inherit as a possession to time indefinite. Y OU may use them as workers, but upon YOUR brothers the sons of Israel, you must not tread, the one upon the other, with tyranny.

  This law says all gentiles must be slaves forever.

  Leviticus 19:33-34

  When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

  Eodus 22:21

  Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.

  One the one hand God says kill and slave everyone, and then he says to be kind ? What does this contradiction tell us about the Bible ?

  It is reasonable to expect that a superior God creator of the universe would not make such a simple mistake as writing such stupid contradictions. However if we accept that many men over many years edited the text we can see how these contradictions happened. Its almost always the simple answer that makes sense.
• 

  mP

  @TEC

  Who says an interpretation must be something other than liberal?

  @MP

  Being liberal implies that you are not being totally honest taking the text literally, but rather are not afraid of twisting things to match some agenda.

  I have always presented some scriptures and read them for what they say. I accept that you many times find these texts difficult and so ignore them and feel if you find a nice scripture with an opposing view then somehow that means you can forget the nasty verse.

  You either believe all the Bible or you dont. You can ignore some messages, if you wish. However if it has contradictions because of edits, how do you know which promises are true and which are false ?
• 

  mP

  @TEC

  I did address it and I am not weasling. Your graphs are completely subjective. Also wrong. And since we have spoken of Ruth the Moabite, and the book of Ruth is placed in the list of bad books with no good attached to them... we can just use that one to show the fault in those charts.

  @MP

  Im afraid you do not understand how the graphs were created. It is obvious yo just looked at them and didnt like the message so ignored them. Follow the links to the full lists and you will see overall there are more evils than goods.

  Since Ruth is short i will list some of the highlights of Ruth. I dont believe you truely know or understand some of the messages in Ruth. Take a look at some of the messages and you will see there are many things a christian of today will find offensive.

  Ruth: Good Stuff

  There's nothing good in Ruth.

  Okay, it is a nice story. And it seems to show some concern for poor widows -- even for those who are foreign-born and with different religious beliefs. But it's far from clear whether these tolerant ideas are endorsed or approved by the author. And there is no indication that such tolerance is a part of its message.

  So although I like the story, there is nothing in it that I can honestly call "good."

  Family Values in Ruth

  1. Naomi (Ruth's mother-in-law) advises Ruth as to how to best seduce Boaz. She tells her to wait until he is a bit drunk and has fallen asleep. Then "go in and uncover his feet [a biblical euphemism for male genitals], and lay thee down; and he will tell thee what to do." 3:3-4

  2. Ruth does as Naomi says, and then at midnight Boaz wakes up and finds Ruth "at his feet." He asks who she is, and she says, "I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore your skirt over thine handmaid." 3:7-9

  3. Boaz seems agreeable to the suggestion and says, "I will do thee all that thou requirest." Next he asks her to "Tarry this night ... lie down until the morning." so Ruth "lay at his feet until morning." 3:11-14

  4. Boaz purchases Ruth to be his wife. 4:10

  1/ Is Naomis instruction to Ruth really good or moral for a so called xian ?

  2/ Is Ruth a slut to use Xian terminology ?

  3/ Why is Ruth having sex before marriage, is that Christian ?

  4/ Is purchasing Ruth (woman) a good message for today ?

  Do you wish to revise your opinion on Ruth ?

  Is it a good book ?