I wonder... (page 3)

Oubliette

Great OP Vince!

I appreciated the way you clearly explained the key motivating ideas that helped you to take a stand and live your own authentic life, not one chosen for you by a bunch of deluded old fools in Brooklyn.

braincleaned

Daniel1555, I want to make sure you know I'm not here to destroy the hope anyone holds on life, nor the faith one may give Jehovah.

I am just like everybody else here — I wish to share my feelings and what epistemological path brought me where I am.
This goes for you too Rip — I'm not aiming to change your personal conclusions.

I think my questions are more than reasonable. I also think my attitude is an open one. But nothing can rationaize what Jehovah does in the Bible, nor does any of his good deeds excuse his wicked ones.
This is my opinon — my natural bias was FOR Jehovah . Thses conclusions were painful to me. Nonetheless, truth is truth. Sometimes facing it hurts.

braincleaned

Rip, you say " I am not the ONE who is the author of my own existance..."

I agree. Actually, logic is that no one, no thing, is ever the author of its own existence. That is another problem I faced, because neither is God the author of his own existence.

Although I never believed he was created — so I concluded that if he always existed, it was not absurd to believe that the workings of Nature could ALSO have always existed.
I was faced with two possibilities that were impossible to prove.
However, because evolution turned out to be true (if not always explained the same way), and that the scientific knowledge the Bible portrays fits the understanding of the times, I lean towards Nature as being responsible for life as we know it.

Also, when you say " I simply think that it would be more risky to not believe he exist than it is to believe he exists." — What you are proposing is Pascal's Wager.
Problem with that is that belief is not a choice; hence Jehovah would know if you are disingenuously serving him.

Does this make sense to you?

Rip

OK, Braincleaned. Hope you are not taking it as an attack. you bring a good point that 'God might not be the author of his own existance' and you can't assert 100% because that is where our reason lacks something and we simply do not know. May be he is, may be he is not. And simply if he is the author of his own existance, this is what makes him God vs. Humans who can't be author of their own existance. And I think this tends to be the most correct thinking because the Bible says he is the Alpha and Omega. My stand point is that God to be HIM, he must be the first cause of himself and then the cause of everithing.

About Evolution, I believe that it helped to achieve creation and that its laws were designed by an ingenious person (Jehovah). Its been a tool for him to attain diversity of species we have now. Don't believe in Darwin's fallacies of the Homos.....till Homo Sapiens, I think its purely hypothetical, took my time to examine it.

About Blaise Pascal, I personally liked his reasoning and his way of bringing all his interests int the spotlight while evaluating a situation; i was thinking in terms of interests without taking into account that Jehovah needs my service, he is all powerful and can do the job even when none seems to cooperate. Don't think we are of any service to him when it comes to accomplishing his purpose. So his basis of judgement is not my service, but my willingness to be used, just in case. He can use even stones (said Jesus). and Eph 2:8, 9 Salvation is a gift by faith not a reward by deeds.

Talk to you later

About Pascal

braincleaned

Well argued Rip.
I get your point on the Wager, and your " willingness to be used, just in case." Best defense of Pascal's Wager so far, in my opinion.

We will agree to disagree on evolution. No problem.

I have just one question though; what is the evidence, even circumstantial, that convinces you that there is such a God?
If you can, please avoid the god-of-the-gaps logic.
What I would like to understand, is if this conviction is a deep-seated need to believe, a strong bias, or a reasonable explanation of facts.

In other words, how do we go from "we can't know" to asserting the existance of a god that clearly has its roots in ancient writings that are scientifically and medically moot?

Phizzy

An answer to Pascal's wager which I find quite satisfactory : (I don't know who said this)

"You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in god. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him."

Not bad a ??

The God of the Bible, Yahweh or Jehovah does not exist. A loving God's existence lacks any kind of proof. One word says it all EVIL.

If a God exists, he is Evil God, not Good God. And, like the broken pencil, he is pointless anyway.

tec

If I may share a bit of my journey, I did not have to worry too much about the cult at first, because my main battle was based deeper than that. After all, the root of any christian religion is in the Bible itself; faith in Jehovah and Christ; trust in the idea that the Bible is inspired by God himself.

So yes, my quest went to the base, the root of the JW faith… the Bible.

I respect your journey, Braincleaned. There are a couple of premises here that I would call into question, since you did invite me over ; ).

Because the root of any christian faith (not religion, necessarily)... is Christ. Not the bible. Not 'jehovah'... the golden calf the wts made for God because - to them - Christ (think of Moses) is taking too long to come back down the mountain. Also NOT trust in the idea that the bible is inspired by God Himself.

These are things that religion teaches man to put their faith IN... because religion itself does not know; does not know Christ, who is the Spirit.

So then when these things fall down... so does the faith that was built upon them. (building one's faith upon the sand, as opposed to building ones faith upon the Rock -who is Christ, not Peter as some religions teach)

Since childhood, the character of Jehovah was a problem for me. The "God of Love" was capable of the most violent and cruel actions deemed to be "perfect justice" — unquestionable — too high to be understood by us mortal sinners.

And this always bothered me.'

Yes, me as well. But that is because I listened to what men said and what religion said... and also what the men who wrote or transcribed the OT said.

When I learned to look at and listen to Christ... to see God... I could see God for who He truly is. That is what Christ DID... showed us His Father. Know CHRIST... know GOD.

When I saw that TRUTH... so much more opened up to me.

What stops some people though is fear against what they have been taught their whole lives. Fear against speaking against something that is written in the bible... like that is committing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit or something. But it is not. Christ Himself (who IS the Holy Spirit) said, "Woe to you scribes..."

.

Since I was 12, the story of Elisha and the 42 kids mauled to death for teasing him horrified me. That wasn't justice. The punishment did not fit the crime (if teasing was a crime)! To this day, the story still angers me. (2 kings 2:23-25).

.

Never happened. At least, not from God. Somewhere some youths could have been mauled by she-bears. But God did not send any she-bears to maul anyone. Man is the one who does and imagines things like that (people to the lions, etc). Not God. I won't go into details either, but I hope you also get the point... and there are times when killing and striking down and punishment and genocice are attributed to God... but that is often due to the lack of understanding on behalf of the people witnessesing or later recording events.

.

Peace to you,

.

tammy

braincleaned

Thank you for commenting tec. I see your perspective better.

Just to make sure though — you do not believe in the OT as a litteral account of Jesus' Father (or him as Father)?

What about Jesus' confirming the Mosaic Law as a "good" thing (and as we all know this was a horrid law)? See Matt. 5:17-20.

How do you feel about Jesus' family values? see Matt. 34-39.

These are just a beginning of questions I started asking myself.

Permit me to respectfully point out that it looks as though you are picking and choosing what fits your hopes, no?

jgnat

I think the bible can be appreciated more if it is treated more as a collection of books (writings), and not as a single book or manual. The little book linked below (208 pages, easy read) helped me understand how scholars have concluded there are multiple authors, and how each particular bent (sect) shaped the passages they contributed to.

http://www.amazon.ca/In-Beginning-New-Interpretation-Genesis/dp/0345406044

I don't see the bible as a single, cohesive message any more. This relieves me from trying to wrap my head around various apologist arguments that try to straighten the bent wire.

As an aside, I have complete confidence in the results of your particular journey, braincleaned.

braincleaned

Thank you jgnat. The journey is not over, of course. No logical human can say "Now I'm good. At this point I KNOW. No new information can possibly bring me better understanding."
Yet... that's precisely what most theist do. Not that they do not have any evidence, but they KNOW. In itself, this is a red flag on sane reason and logic.

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

I wonder...

Share this