And I'm not so sure that even happened... at least as it is currently written/translated.
Here we go again. The same tired argument to excuse anything in the Bible done on God's part that is inexcusable.
How do believers defend a god who is going to murder billions and pin it on them?
by tootired2care 327 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
-
tootired2care
@Tec wrote:
(Also, Paul was bloodguilty... if you recall Stephen and others he persecuted; and then spent his life 'suffering for the name of Christ' as he had made others suffer for the name of Christ)
First of all thank you for your comments, they do make a discussion more stimulating.
When he made the comments about being free of the blood of all men he was not referring to Stephen (was he?) he was referring to completing his assignment. So it still doesn’t change the fact that those early christians believed that god was going to hold them accountable for his actions.
Not warning someone if you are told to warn them about danger or possible death... makes you somewhat accountable even by 'human' standards.
The thing is even man’s legal system as imperfect as it is would not hold you accountable for a murder that another is going to commit. The best analogy is that high circuit court judge goes out and kills someone and charges you with his crime? This is no god of love at all.
Those who do not know Him, but are known BY Him, are also invited into the kingdom. (not as kings and priests, but as subjects of the kingdom) The sheep and the goats parable shows this. (matt 25:31-46)
So how do you suppose people like these are invited?
all the dead are called out of the graves... and there are those among them whose names are written in the lamb's book of life - but these cannot be 'Christians', because all Christians were given the first resurrection - not just those who call themselves christians, but who ARE christians by having been annointed with holy spirit/baptized by fire.
TEC, this is only because they paid their debt by dying. This doesn’t contradict the point in 2 Thess at all, or make god any less of murderer or deranged for pinning it upon other humans.
-
tootired2care
@Adamah wrote:
Ezekiel is saying that the Hebrews had a duty to warn their fellow Jews, and if they DIDN'T warn the sinner, God would hold the one(s) who knew of the sins but didn't tell the sinner to "knock it off!" accountable for the sinner's death. The Jews had a sense of communal/corporate responsibility for sins, were even entire TOWNS were wiped out on the basis of the sins of the individuals (eg Sodom). Heck, the threat was that the sins of the few would lead to the ENTIRE NATION being "vomited out of the Promised Land" if they didn't render proper justice. Anyone who remembers the teacher holding the ENTIRE CLASS accountable for the misdeeds of the few by eg cancelling a field trip, can understand the concept.
That is a good point about the shared responsibility, the individual is more of modern concept I get that. Still are you contending that the god of the jews came to eventually view things differently from the perspective of ladening men with blood guilt for his planned genocides?
-
yadda yadda 2
Choice 1: Believe there is a God in heaven, who is love but has remained utterly hidden for millennia, who is suddenly about to massacre billions of persons at Armageddon.
Choice 2: Realise that some silly old superstitous Jewish priests in ancient times made up a few scary verses saying it was Yahweh's words to frighten all the people into obeying them.
I mean come on...it's a no brainer.
-
Farkel
One must be very wary of a God whom those humans who adore Him must spend a lot of time making excuses for his actions. No decent god needs humans to make excuses for him. Something is dearly wrong when that is necesary for his puny human children to do.
I spit on such gods. I never asked such a task from my own four children, and I do not have billions of children and billions of dead ones who have been making excuses for me for millenia.
For the record, don't believe in superstitions. It's bad luck!
Outlaw! Good to cya again!
Farkel
-
MadGiant
- You are connecting things that might not be connected. - In the OT, often God was attributed with having killed someone when it is either a natural consequence being warned against, or a consequence of actions (such as wars, etc) - Christ does come and invite some into the kingdom, and send some away. Those who might say, "lord, lord, did we not...", and Christ says, 'Away from me, you evildoers... I never knew you." -That would be those who claim to belong to Him, but it is their claim only, and Christ never knew them. - "You will surely die"... is not the same as... "I will kill you". I really, really need help with this. Are we reading from the same book? Come Judgment Day, your god will create horse-like locusts will human heads, women's hair, lion's teeth and scorpion's tails which will sting and inflict savage pain on sinners for five months (Revelation 9:7-10). As a result of the fires, plagues and beasts He inspires, the world will be covered in unburied dead bodies, rotting everywhere, while good Christians, will "rejoice over them and make merry, and shall send gifts to one another" (Revelation 11:5-10). Meanwhile, the smoke of the burning, rotting bodies will ascend and plague the Earth forever (Revelation 14:10-11). And the smell will attract scavenger birds who will feast upon "the supper of the great God" (Revelation 19:17-18). What happens to sinners since they cannot enter Heaven? Come Judgment Day, they shall be gathered together and hurled into a furnace of fire where there will be uncontrollable wailing and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 13:41-42, 50). Entire cities of people who don't believe will suffer a fate worse than that of Sodom and Gomorra (Mark 6:11). Jesus told us that God, who we already knew is subject to violent episodes, will take "vengeance on them that know not God" by burning them forever "in flaming fire" (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9). He will send an earthquake to kill 7,000 people (Revelation 11:13). And to add just a bit more drama, He will exercise his wrath by inflicting bodily sores, turning the seas and rivers to blood, scorching everyone with fire, causing people to consume their own tongues in pain, and causing horrendous storms which will strike dead the now speechless (though sated) sinners (Revelation 16:1-21). Are we talking about contradictions? Even better, I am taking the verses out of context, yeah, that most be it context. Take care, Ismael
-
latinthunder
Religion, at it's core, is a human attempt to explain natural disasters and death. People of the ancient world believed that such catastrophes were caused by human immorality. I believe that the collective human consciousness has total control over the elements of the earth and sky. For the past few thousands years or so humanity has existed in a state of self loathing. Therefore, the sky is slowly falling and the earth is thrashing in anger while humankind wars with itself. Basically, if we don't stop hating ourselves existence will not stop killing itself. The universe is just giving us what we have asked for, but with enough time to wisen up and turn everything around. Prophets have always said that, in the end, humans do pull out of the nose dive and conquer our fears once in for all. Love for self and neighbor is the key.
Most of Christianity, and much of modern religion, is designed to keep people in a state of self loathing, therefore keeping the heavens and earth on their current course of destruction. It's a big game played by people who just want to see the ship go down, so that they can prove God wrong.
-
adamah
That is a good point about the shared responsibility, the individual is more of modern concept I get that.
I suppose the command to go therefore and make disciples and warn individuals of Armageddon could be seen as a continuation of that concept seen in Ezekiel, AND Jesus' command to give one's life for another as the greatest act of love.
HOWEVER, the JWs cite Sodom and Gomorrah and the Flood BOTH as examples of such a need to preach to save others, when neither had that purpose in Judaism until the book of 2nd Peter added it into the mix, in the mid-to-late-2nd Century CE (and the Jews still don't believe that, since it's a Christian addition to the story, AKA eisegesis, just like the "serpent = Satan" interpretation is something a Jew would look at a Christian as if he was from outer space for saying, since they don't see the serpent as anything but a reptile).
Still are you contending that the god of the jews came to eventually view things differently from the perspective of ladening men with blood guilt for his planned genocides?
I'm contending that the DEPICTION of God's sense of justice evolved over time, from holding the entire Planet accountable (with Noah's Flood as a proto-Armageddon, where an offer of salvation wasn't even extended by God), to holding entire cities accountable for the actions of the inhabitants, to the emergence of "everybody stands before God on their own", as is seen emerging in later writings of the OT. God is all over the map, and his "justice" is FAR from perfect, if one stops to analyze it.
Adam
-
tec
Here we go again. The same tired argument to excuse anything in the Bible done on God's part that is inexcusable.
Defeat the argument, I won't use it again.
First of all thank you for your comments, they do make a discussion more stimulating.
Hmm. Well. You're welcome ; )
When he made the comments about being free of the blood of all men he was not referring to Stephen (was he?) he was referring to completing his assignment. So it still doesn’t change the fact that those early christians believed that god was going to hold them accountable for his actions.
He may have at least ALSO been referring to Stephen (as well as any others he persecuted). His assignment was given to him because of what he had been doing. And I think you are misunderstanding something. To compare it to social responsiblity... it would be like if you knew someone was going to commit a crime (or was in the act of wronging someone) and you did not tell them to stop or warn them of the consequences/judgment. If you let them go about their business (doing wrong) without warning them. You are being held accountable for the consequence or judgment... but for not warning them away from the action/crime/wrongdoing that will bring them TO consequence/judgment.
The thing is even man’s legal system as imperfect as it is would not hold you accountable for a murder that another is going to commit. The best analogy is that high circuit court judge goes out and kills someone and charges you with his crime? This is no god of love at all.
I agree. But hopefully, what I wrote above helps in understanding what is actually going on.
So how do you suppose people like these are invited
By Christ, Himself, when He returns and establishes His Kingdom. (depending upon their deeds/words... which reflect what is in the heart)
TEC, this is only because they paid their debt by dying. This doesn’t contradict the point in 2 Thess at all,
No one pays their 'debt' by dying. That is just a jw teaching. Else what debt would Christ have come to pay? That doctrine that the jws teach cancels the need for Christ out altogether. Should give us a clue that their teaching is false.
Death is a consequence of us having sin and death in us. We live, then we die. Dying doesn't earn us the right to live again.
So no... these ones who are called out from the graves at the second resurrection... ALL who have died... are resurrected to life (if their names are written in the lamb's book of life)... or judgment (the second death). These ones are judged according to what is written in their individual scrolls. (so their own deeds/words... all of which comes from the heart)
Peace to you,
tammy
-
tootired2care
He may have at least ALSO been referring to Stephen (as well as any others he persecuted). His assignment was given to him because of what he had been doing.
Surely you aren't suggesting that he was given that assignment primarily because he murdered Stephen, are you? His assignment was pretty much the same as the apostles that were there before him 'preaching without letup' which is largly what the book of Acts is about, nothing really new and ground breaking; perhaps he just did it to more of an extreme.
By Christ, Himself, when He returns and establishes His Kingdom. (depending upon their deeds/words... which reflect what is in the heart)
This seems to be where you have your own interpretation, because unless I misread 2 Thess 1:7-8, these people in the middle of the Amazon jungle seem to fit the criteria of Jesus wrath pretty well.
No one pays their 'debt' by dying. That is just a jw teaching. Else what debt would Christ have come to pay? That doctrine that the jws teach cancels the need for Christ out altogether. Should give us a clue that their teaching is false.
I'll give you that, but I guess this point is really off topic because the dead and resurrected are not the subject of this thread, it's those that are alive at the time that this supposed fiery judgement is going to happen. From how I see things it's inexcusable that god would hold those followers that are alive at the time of judgement accountable for his genocide because they didn't preach just enough, or they wanted to chill from the stresses of life.
