How do believers defend a god who is going to murder billions and pin it on them?

by tootired2care 327 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  tec

  PER the bible... with Cain, the first time it came up. When He told Cain to master his sin. Because the anger and the jealousy that Cain felt toward his brother is what led him to sin, and spill the blood of his brother. Though, honestly, it was known BEFORE then, else Cain would not have had to lie about it when God asked him, and also Cain would not have known what God was talking about when God said 'sin' is crouching at your door. He would have had to wonder what this 'sin' thing was.

  Cain KNEW he had done wrong.

  (Hint: ah... no. You go ahead and do all of that stuff if you want, but me, I will let Christ - the one who KNOWS - teach me)

  Your turn.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  latinthunder

  You ARE aware of the definition of delusion: "a false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness"?

  Hence you've just admitted that creating and supporting delusions is a higher priority to you than determining reality.

  I am against supporting delusions, I am for freedom of expression and thought.

  So, the answer to my question above (about learning the lesson of the dangers of chasing fantasies which you believe as reality in your own mind) is, "NO", you HAVEN'T learned that lesson.

  I'm willing to accept that's what you believe.

  You apparently don't understand that as much as you or anyone else wants to BELIEVE God exists, it won't actually happen, right? It's not like in the story of Peter Pan, where a fairy actually dies whenever an adult says fairies don't exist?

  It's very much like Peter Pan, actually.

  The REAL fallacy is thinking that there is a being who HAS objective and absolute standards of reality, so if we all only follow HIS wishes, we'll be OK. That's delusional...

  God is the only TRUE reality, everything else is but an image.

  Speaking of conventions, you might want to check the commonly-accepted definition of the word, 'fact', since you're abusing it, as if you seem to think everybody is entitled to their own facts (you use it as if it's a synomym for 'opinion')? The Moon is verifiably proven and KNOWN to exist as a FACT: in comparison, the claim that God exists is NOT a verifiable FACT, and you are NOT entitled to your own facts.

  Everybody IS entilted to their own facts, it's called freedom and it's a God-given right.

  For one, I don't find 'evil' to be a particularly useful concept; it's far too simplistic of a concept (the dualistic 'bad/good' concept from Zorasterian beliefs is thought-limiting), and hence it's a "garbage-can" adjective.

  That, to me, sounds like a licence to act evilly.

  But that aside, humans force others to accept commonly-accepted definitions of reality all the time, eg have you not driven on the highway and noted those speed limit signs? Or do you argue with the cop that his idea of the speed limit and yours is just different, so you refuse the speeding ticket?

  I would, but the cop has a gun and is backed by the State, which I honor.

  That textbook contains agreed-upon standards

  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! That's funny. "Agreed upon." Don't look now... people have AGREED! LOLOLOL... You know the governing body agree on what is printed in the Watchtower? And people "study" that too. Follow the money.

  Wow, how confusing it must be for you, ironically trapped in the mire of relativism, but chasing after absolutes? The fallacy is thinking that ABSOLUTE standards exist, rather than accepting that they don't.

  There is no objective reality, therefore there are no absolute standards. You even said so yourself: "facts are not set in stone" do you recieve "new light" from your academic overlords?

  Religion MAY HAVE been the best-known science available in the ancient world 3,000 years ago, and it represented the best-available means to explain certain natural phenomena at the time, but science has moved WELL-BEYOND religion since at least Galileo (if not 2,000 yrs before), and anyone who clings to supernatural beliefs and superstition in this day and age is simply arguing AGAINST copious amounts of counter-evidence.

  Correction, Science claims to have moved past Religion, even though it never gives any definite explanations. People have agreed! LOLOLOLOL

  LOL! So you're against the idea of separation of church and State, then? You probably are just as unaware of your Nation's historical foundation, if you don't know WHY they decided combining theology with politics was a fundamentally BAD IDEA.

  Church and state should not have been separated. We are finding that out the hard way, unfortunately.

  So, no one can claim that Sauron of Tolkien's LOTR is a bad character and a poor role model to follow, since he's only a character?

  You can't put a fictional character on trial. A fictional character cannot inflict harm to society. A fictional character is neither guilty or innocent.

  Nonsense: the problem is that people BELIEVE in God, and BELIEVE in the concept of God; the problem is NOT that God himself is real and can be put on trial! Your argument is absurd, and deserves dismissal out of hand, just on it's face value, alone.

  People believe in God because God is real. Your frivolous lawsuit is thrown out of court. If you don't to believe, you don't have to. Isn't that a wonderful privilege?
• 

  adamah

  TEC said-

  PER the bible... with Cain, the first time it came up. When He told Cain to master his sin. Because the anger and the jealousy that Cain felt toward his brother is what led him to sin, and spill the blood of his brother. Though, honestly, it was known BEFORE then, else Cain would not have had to lie about it when God asked him, and also Cain would not have known what God was talking about when God said 'sin' is crouching at your door. He would have had to wonder what this 'sin' thing was.

  Cain KNEW he had done wrong.

  (Hint: ah... no. You go ahead and do all of that stuff if you want, but me, I will let Christ - the one who KNOWS - teach me)

  Once again, there TEC goes in her trademark approach, willing to using the Bible when it suits her one minute, but running for the cover of her voice the next....

  It's pointless engaging, as you've proven yet again that you INSIST on making up the rules, denying reality and sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly if it doesn't fit with YOUR wishes. That IS delusion, and your approach is EXACTLY like that advocated by GB when dealing with apostates (if you saw that thread on the young male who committed suicide in Glascow earlier today; that's what they advocated from the platform).

  Look up Genesis 9:5-6: THAT'S the answer to the question above, and the "no bloodshed" prohibition is part of the Noahide Covenant, where God BLESSED Noah and his sons (and their families) with the benefit of living in a World where God promised to hold humans accountable for any blood a murderer spilled for the blood of their victim. It explains WHY God carried out the Flood, in the first place: God wanted to wipe the face of the Earth clean of humanity AND animals AND plants, and give Noah the authority (and responsibility) to enforce the no bloodshed law.

  This is not just my interpretation: it's always been known amongst Bible commentators, it just that few pastors and priests have exactly been shouting it from the rooftops, since it opens a bunch of other questions that make God look like a putz.

  http://biblehub.com/commentaries/genesis/9-5.htm

  Barnes' Notes on the Bible

  The second restriction guards human life. The shedding of human blood is sternly prohibited. "Your blood of your lives." The blood which belongs to your lives, which constitutes the very life of your corporeal nature. "Will I require." I, the Lord, will find the murderer out, and exact the penalty of his crime. The very beast that causes the death of man shall be slain. The suicide and the homicide are alike accountable to God for the shedding of man's blood. The penalty of murder is here proclaimed - death for death. It is an instance of the law of retaliation. This is an axiom of moral equity. He that deprives another of any property is bound to make it good or to suffer the like loss.

  The first law promulgated in Scripture (i.e. eating of the forbidden fruit) was that between Creator and creature. If the creature refuse to the Creator the obedience due, he forfeits all the Creator has given him, and, therefore, his life. Hence, when Cain murdered his brother, he only displayed a new development of that sin which was in him, and, being already condemned to the extreme penalty under the first transgression, had only a minor punishment annexed to his personal crime. And so it continued to be in the antediluvian world. No civil law is on record for the restriction of crime. Cain, indeed, feared the natural vengeance which his conscience told him his sin deserved. But it was not competent in equity for the private individual to undertake the enforcement of the penalties of natural law. So long as the law was between Creator and creature, God himself was not only the sole legislator, but the sole administrator of law.

  The second law is that between creature and creature, which is here (Genesis 9:5-6) introduced on the occasion of giving permission to partake of animal food, as the first was published on that of granting the use of vegetable diet. In the former case, God is the administrator of the law, as he is the immediate and sovereign party in the legal compact. In the latter case, man is, by the express appointment of the Lord of all, constituted the executive agent. "By man shall his blood be shed." Here, then, is the formal institution of civil government. Here the civil sword is committed to the charge of man. The judgment of death by the executioner is solemnly delegated to man in vindication of human life.This trust is conveyed in the most general terms. "By man." The divine legislator does not name the sovereign, define his powers, or determine the law of succession. All these practical conditions of a stable government are left open questions.

  The emphasis is laid solely on "man." On man is impressively laid the obligation of instituting a civil constitution suited to his present fallen condition. On the nation as a body it is an incumbent duty to select the sovereign, to form the civil compact between prince and people, to settle the prerogative of the sovereign and the rights of the subjects, to fix the order of succession, to constitute the legislative, judicial, and administrative bodies, and to render due submission to the constituted authorities. And all these arrangements are to be made according to the principles of Scripture and the light of nature.

  The reason why retribution is exacted in the case of man is here also given. "For in the image of God has he made man." This points on the one hand to the function of the magistrate, and on the other to the claims of the violated law; and in both respects illustrates the meaning of being created in the image of God. Man resembles God in this, that he is a moral being, judging of right and wrong, endowed with reason and will, and capable of holding and exercising rights. Hence, he is in the first place competent to rule, and on his creation authorized to exercise a mild and moral sway over the inferior creatures. His capacity to govern even among his fellow-men is now recognized. The function of self-government in civil things is now conferred upon man. When duly called to the office, he is declared to be at liberty to discharge the part of a ruler among his fellow-men, and is entitled on the ground of this divine arrangement to claim the obedience of those who are under his sway. He must rule in the Lord, and they must obey in the Lord.

  Read my blog article on Noah's Flood and how JWs twist that passage by turning God's blessing into an obligation that ends up killing countless JWs.

  http://awgue.weebly.com/does-jehovahs-witnesses-blood-policy-reflect-they-understand-noahs-flood.html

  (PS Check my last comment on the prior page, and read the Jeremiah 31:33 citation and Romans 5:12, and ask Jesus about those, too. He knew the Torah....)

  Adam
• 

  tec

  Are you saying that the prophecy found in the Nevi'im for the time when laws were to be written on the hearts of men had occurred LONG BEFORE the prophecy was even written?

  Romans 2:12-14

  All who sin apart from the law, will perish apart from the law. And all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their conciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accuing, now even defendeing them)

  Israel had the law written for them on stone tablets... stone that was softer than their own hard hearts. Else the law might have been written on their hearts.

  And how do you explain Romans 5:12-13, then, which clearly says that "sin is not charged against someone when there is NO LAW?

  Explain what? What is the conflict in our particular conversation here?

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  tec

  There TEC goes in her trademark manner, willing to using the Bible one minute, but running for the cover of her voice the next....

  Yeah... I showed you the scripture. How about you answer that instead of tossing out your little cop-out digs.

  Explain how that was NOT a clear direction on not being allowed to spill blood. God warned Cain that his anger had allowed sin to crouch at his door; told Cain to master it or it would master him, Cain killed his brother; his brothers blood cried out to God, and Cain suffers a curse because of it.

  You wanted a per the bible, and I gave it to you.

  I know what Genesis 9:5-6 says, but clearly bloodshed was not permitted before then, and the example of Cain shows that.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  adamah

  I know what Genesis 9:5-6 says, but clearly bloodshed was not permitted before then, and the example of Cain shows that.

  Whatever: I edited my post above to include a link to the various Bible commentaries, where Genesis 9:5-6 has ALWAYS been interpreted as the point where God Delegates Divine Authority to mankind as a BLESSING (and hence the basis for 1 Peter 2:13-17 reference to secular authorities as being the duly-appointed servants of God, amongst other places in the Bible where that claim is made).

  But feel free to ignore even the most conservative Christian Bible commentaries (eg Barnes Bible Notes, Clarks, Gills, etc) since you only believe what you WANT to believe, even letting the evidence of the Bible itself be damned.

  (It's neck-and-neck for who's in the lead of demonstrating their unwillingness to use reason: you or LatinThunder.)

  PS Romans 2 has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with people who lived before the Law was handed down (like Cain); instead, it refers to Gentiles, and says they'll be judged on a different basis as Christians.

  Adam
• 

  tec

  I think I see where you have misunderstood, Adamah.

  Your Jeremiah reference refers to ISRAEL (Cain was not Israel, nor was Noah, nor was Abraham, nor was Isaac). And the new covenant that was made, also spoken of in that same Jeremiah reference, is the one made with CHRIST. Those IN Christ (including those who are grafted into Israel, ie, the gentiles) - and so in this new covenant - will have the law written upon their hearts. Those in Christ need no one to be teaching them, because they wil all know God. (something they do because they know Christ, who shows God)

  "The time is coming when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the coveant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.

  This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts, I will be their God and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor or a man his brother, saying 'Know the LORD', because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," delcared the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  tec

  You really ought to stop appealing to authority, if that authority is christian commentators, theologians, and the various doctrines/teachings of "Christianity" (mainstream or otherwise). They may have things right... they may have things wrong... most likely a combination of both. But I do not follow any of them... I DO follow Christ.

  PS Romans 2 has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with people who lived before the Law was handed down (like Cain); instead, it refers to Gentiles, and says they'll be judged on a different basis as Christians.

  Yes, it clearly says that those who obey the law (the gentiles who did not have the written law) show that the law is written upon their hearts. It is clear... no obsfucating.

  (Christians are also NOT judged, btw. There is no judgment for them. They have passed from death, to life, because they have Christ (the life) IN them... Paul is speaking to those gentiles who simply obey the requirements of the law, because the law is written upon their hearts; these are those who do by nature, the things required by the law; like those atheists today who do the requirements of the law, showing that the law is written upon their hearts)

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  adamah

  TEC said-

  I think I see where you have misunderstood, Adamah.

  "I misunderstood"? REALLY, TEC?

  Fortunately once again the thread itself contains a record to show who was confused....

  Your Jeremiah reference refers to ISRAEL (Cain was not Israel, nor was Noah, nor was Abraham, nor was Isaac).

  Yeah, no kidding TEC, which only begs the question: why would you even bother dragging a concept from a prophecy made 2,000 yrs later into the discussion, one which mentioned a time IN THE FUTURE when "laws would be written on men's hearts" (from Jeremiah), when it CLEARLY isn't even remotely relevant to the issue of God's Divine Will which existed at the time Cain spilled Abel's blood?

  In fact, since you raised issue, I now feel compelled to clarify this point with you, just to nail this down:

  You DO agree that the book of Genesis depicts EVENTS which are said to have occurred BEFORE EVENTS occurring in Jeremiah, which occurred BEFORE the EVENTS mentioned in the Gospels, right? In other words, you DO agree that the Bible is assembled more or less in a chronological order, where events claimed to have occurred in Genesis happened before say, those in Jeremiah?

  Or, do you feel entitled to relocate Bible characters and scriptures on the chronological time-line at YOUR whim, as if they're chess pieces you can just pick up and move about when you need to do so?

  TEC said-

  You really ought to stop appealing to authority, if that authority is christian commentators, theologians, and the various doctrines/teachings of "Christianity" (mainstream or otherwise). They may have things right... they may have things wrong... most likely a combination of both. But I do not follow any of them... I DO follow Christ.

  LOL! That's it: I'm out.

  TEC says NOT to "Appeal to Authority", but then, in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE sees no problem playing the Ultimate "Appeal to Divine Authority", and expects everyone to bow before her and her alter-ego BFF, AKA the voice of Jesus. TEC's infamous assymetrical rule strikes again.

  That's all the proof anyone needs to demonstrate the wisdom of the following saying:

  

  PS don't blame an atheist if you want to cling to an ancient document/law book from 3,000 years ago and claim it's "God-breathed", but are too cognitively-impaired to be able to figure out what it actually says...

  Adam
• 

  tec

  I believe that you have missed the point.

  Israel did not have the law written upon their hearts. Their hearts were too hard.

  The reference to the gentiles that Paul made in Romans shows that the law could be written upon the heart, and WAS written on hearts. Just not on all of Israel.

  Remember, you are the one suggested that the law could not be written upon hearts until the prophecy in Jeremiah was fulfilled. That spawned this particular conversation.

  Now, back to the original question, regarding the first decree not to spill blood.

  How can you read Cain and Abel and NOT see that the story shows the sin and crime of spilling blood?

  Peace,

  tammy