Fallacies about Faith

by tec 340 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  cofty

  There is nothing more useful than a pithy reply.
• 

  PelicanBeach

  Apparently Jephthah's daughter was not only obedient but also not too bright. She kept going on about her virginity as if that would be the result of her father's vow not her death! Stupid girl.

  "She said to her father, "Let this thing be done for me; let me alone two months, that I may go to the mountains and weep because of my virginity, I and my companions." Then he said, "Go." So he sent her away for two months; and she left with her companions, and wept on the mountains because of her virginity. At the end of two months she returned to her father, who did to her according to the vow which he had made; and she had no relations with a man. Thus it became a custom in Israel, that the daughters of Israel went yearly to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year"
• 

  jgnat

  I understand it, PelicanBeach. Life has more value once we got good at preserving it. Back then, women would lose half their infants before they made it to adulthood. Death was as commonplace as life.

  Now, having "enjoyed" twenty years of celibacy myself, I understand how this girl wanted to get a little living in before her death.

  P.S. I would not have lain around crying about it, though. Time to get your dancing shoes on, girl!
• 

  PelicanBeach

  Hi Jgnat,

  "I would not have lain around crying about it, though. Time to get your dancing shoes on, girl!" Good point.

  Maybe Jephthah's daughter should have said, "Pops, I'm going to the city and have a good time for myself and get rid of this virginity thing before you kill me."

  Pelican
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  OTWO: Yet when asked if they would go so far as to kill someone, all of today's theists on this board (correct me if I am wrong) say their God / Jesus /voice would never ever tell them to do such a thing.

  Okay, for FHN- any theists who believe God actually asked Abraham to sacrifice his son, what will you do if you are asked by God/Jesus/Holy Spirit/Allah to kill someone?

  Tec:

  Name another example after Abraham's test of faith... where anyone else was asked to sacrifice their child.

  Note a couple of lessons from Abraham and Isaac also, using your ability to think and reason:

  - God did not allow Abraham to harm Isaac; so if anyone thinks that God might ask the same thing of someone else, the end result would be the same; no harm being done

  Basically, "God is wonderful and would NEVER ask such a thing."

  It seems that such a way of thinking has to be carried out then. Jesus came to earth and spoke. He said his message. He gave us all we need. So he should not be visiting people via dreams and voices. The example was set with Abraham as far as testing the faithful that far, so it only makes sense that Jesus continued along that example, and any claims of divine communication today are delusions, or just people pretending. So now we know.
• 

  tec

  He doesnt require human sacrifice?.......... Erm jesus.....

  The debt that was owed to death you mean?

  Chirst did pay that... but God is not death.

  How do you reconcile 'god requiring human sacrifice'... and God saying, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice" ?

  Most of us can see what the story says, that you can't and are defending it is tragic.

  Apparently you can't, if you are defending those who harmed/killed those who cried out to God for help or justice against S&G. Or if you cannot understand that God provided the sacrifice and did not allow Abraham to harm Isaac... the child that would not even exist except that God promised him to Abraham, and that his offspring would be reckoned with Isaac. God also saved ALL of Abraham's house, right down to today.

  The OT record is replete with God murdering people, instituting blood sacrifices (animals mainly but at a pinch he was happy to take down opposing priests or cities), initiating genocides, inspiring blood obsessed scriptures and so on.

  The OT record is replete with men crediting God with such things... but the TRUTH is the one who shows us the truth about God. Something else many of you cannot seem to see that the 'story' culminates IN.

  The supposed culmination of all this blood letting was the human sacrifice of Jesus.

  If you mean that Christ ended all the sacrifice being done that came before... by laying down his own life for those he loved, so that death would have no authority over those who were covered by his blood (same as the entire households of Israelites were protected from death in Egypt, as long as they had the blood of the lamb on their doorpost... foreshadowing this), so that they would instead have LIFE in them... well, that sounds like a good thing.

  Your god is evil.

  Well, maybe that is what you got from your former faith.

  Christ, however, defended the weak and the downtrodden. Healed. Practiced what he preached. Spoke and lived truth. Forgave those who wronged Him. Loved friend AND enemy (those who made themselves his enemies). He taught and guided those who belonged to him then, and still does so today, and He keeps His promises. Since He is the Image and Truth of God... then you need only look at Christ to see my God. You are looking at OT passages through the eyes that men and religion have given you; and not through the Truth. That is why you look at Sodom and Gomorrah... and see 'evil god' for destroying that city; but don't see a God who acted on behalf of those being murdered/raped/etc by that city, those who were crying out to Him. Nor can you see that God acted to protect us (as well as Adam and Eve) from the death that Adam had allowed into the world, and all of us.

  I know that things are written to portray God as striking out in anger (such as with Uzzah and the ark, and of course God did not strike Uzzah down for attempting to do good by touching the ark to steady it). But if you could look at Christ... and listen to Him... then you could see and hear the truth of God (and these other stories) so much easier.

  It is of course true that I do not know all the details of what really happened in all of these stories. But I can and do know God... by knowing Christ. So when there is something written that is contrary to the nature and truth that Christ shows of God... I KNOW that there is something missing; something I am not seeing/understanding; or that the tale itself is incorrect.

  I am looking at Christ to know the truth about God.

  You are looking at the OT (that you know is not inerrant, that you don't even think is inspired)... to condemn God.

  This makes very little logical sense to me. Nor does condemning someone based on hearsay that you don't even trust yourself... seem moral to me at all. You will understand why some are not going to be too worried about your methods and judgments about God?

  Your morals on this issue are flawed.

  What morals are we speaking of here, specifically?

  Peace,

  tammy

  (ps... joshua 7 does not represent human sacrifice)
• 

  tec

  Quibble much?

  You know full-well that I'm referring to 'our Father who art in Heaven', the God of Jesus; don't be intentionally obtuse (or you risk people concluding that you're actually dense).

  I wasn't quibbling. Just being truthful. Compromising truth is how we get... well... so much compromise of the truth ; )

  The author of Hebrews said specifically that Abraham HAD done just that... reasoned that God would give Isaac back to him.

  EVEN WHEN God later asked him to kill his son, Isaac: Abraham followed orders and didn't stop to think of what was in his (Abraham's) heart: he was completely willing to kill his son since God asked him to do so... adamah

  TEC said- Well, the account says nothing about what was in Abraham's heart.

  ADAMAH SAID... You forget that supposedly Divinely-inspired Paul filled in the gaps in Hebrews 11, claiming that Abraham had faith that Isaac could be resurrected. Paul provided details of the state of Abraham's 'heart' (well, his brain: you know that many ancient Hebrews believed humans thought with their hearts, NOT their brains). I remember explaining all of that in the prior thread on faith and Hebrews, so review, if you've forgotten.

  How could I have forgotten that when I mentioned it myself in this same post that you are referencing:

  The author of Hebrews said specifically that Abraham HAD done just that... reasoned that God would give Isaac back to him... tec

  Now I could be mistaken... but I think it was you (and if not you, then others, and I apologize)... who cries foul when I use the NT to shed light on something written about in the OT. But here (and elsewhere) you also do it when you believe it suits your purpose.

  Abraham said God would provide the sacrifice, but he was actually telling Isaac a half-truth (AKA lil' fib),

  Now... a couple of sentences below, you state that I speculate beyond what is written... but here you are doing that very thing.

  since Abraham forgot to mention to the would-be sacrifice that he was referring to Isaac, whom God HAD provided to Abraham as a blessing; now God demanded him back!

  Abraham did not say that God HAD provided the sacrifice (in Isaac, because yes, God did give Isaac to Abraham)... but Abraham said God WOULD provide the sacrifice. Future tense, not past tense.

  In fact, the account serves as the role model for Jesus, who knew that God comes first, and family members are replaceable: that's the explanation for the JWs shunning of family members to this day, based on the principle 'the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away'....

  Well, like many things in the wts... that would just be one more thing that is misunderstood or misapplied, to enforce their shunning policy and keep the congregation 'clean' (on the outside, although inside it is full of dead men's bones).

  Anyway, you're speculating beyond what the details of what the account says,

  Yep, there it is... lol...

  since God hadn't explicitly told Abraham that He'd provide a suitable stunt ram at the last minute: if God HAD told him that, it wouldn't be a test of Abraham's FAITH, would it?

  I think you are correct that God hadn't told Abraham that... but faith is based on what is heard, not upon what is beheld already with the eyes. In any case, Abraham also had the promise that God had previously made Him, and had faith that God would not break His promise. He certainly had never broken a promise to Abraham before.

  And it wouldn't change the test of faith: Abraham STILL had to place trust in God that He would do as He promised.

  Yes.

  It changes nothing, since Abraham STILL had to be willing to kill Isaac.

  Per the account, yes.

  Besides, since the ram was provided BY God, only to be offered TO God, doesn't your God have ANY sense of shame, or isn't even slightly embarrassed to engage in such self-gratification in public? Shouldn't God do that kind of stuff in private, or maybe He actually enjoys having spectators look on while He's getting off on Himself?

  Mmm. Who else was around besides Abraham, Isaac... and God?

  See, nothing was actually 'sacrificed': Abraham didn't OWN the sacrifice, so HE experienced no loss: God can do magic, so HE didn't experience any loss. NO ONE sacrificed anything,

  Correct. (well, God doesn't do magic... but correct about how no one sacrificed anything... although the account does prophecise God sacrificing HIS Son out of love for man, and that Abraham was willing to do the same out of love for God) The account showed Abraham's faith in God and His promises; as well as showed Abraham and all of us, that God is the one who provides... for US.

  nd just like God giving the World his only begotten son is similarly a non-sacrifice, since God is the source of ALL wealth.

  What do you mean... wealth?

  God's son WAS tortured and killed.

  It's a gobsmackingly-moronic system, where the ONLY ones to benefit are the priestly class who offered sacrifices but kept a piece of the meat (and are the same ones who wrote the story where they instituted the sacrifical rites, and benefitted from the scheme).

  Well, not entirely. The preistly class may have taken advantage of their position... and used their position to beat the 'rank and file' down; but the people felt better giving the sacrifice... just as I imagine catholics feel better going to confession to absolve their consciences of their sins/guilt.

  Systems such as those exist and continue because the people want them.

  Adamah...That's the problem with faith: it represents a WILLINGNESS to follow orders in the name of a higher power without stopping to ask questions, or consulting one's own heart or conscience. Why bother, since one's own human conscience is irrelevant, since believers know that the Bible says that the human heart is treacherous, and cannot be trusted anyway: that's the whole "faulty compass" thing.

  TEC said- Now this part, I must disagree with. What point is there in Abraham questioning God... and being ALLOWED to question God... then, regarding Sodom and Gomorrah? One most certainly can question, think, reason, test. Christ taught in such a way so as to get people TO use their brains, examine their hearts, etc.

  Adamah... Holy Hades, TEC: I explained it before, but will repeat, in short form:

  In Sodom affair, Abraham interceded on behalf of others; God didn't command HIM to kill the Sodomites; that's what the two angels were doing.

  In the 'binding of Isaac' affair, God COMMANDED Abraham to kill Isaac; unlike the intercession on behalf of the Sodomites, God's request that he kill Isaac was considered as a TEST of Abraham's faith. Abraham passed, since God was conviced Abraham would actually plunge that knife into Isaac.

  God says to jump, and the only faith-driven response is to jump (and it's questionable to wait to ask "how high?")

  Okay, there are a couple of points that I must make on this.

  There comes a point where you KNOW someone, and so recognize them by their voice (including that they do not change), and so you can do as they tell you to do, knowing that they tell you to do so for your benefit. God had more than proven Himself to Abraham, and did so even more in this account.

  But if there is something that is being told to you that is entirely in conflict the God you know... then you can and should question the 'inspired expression'. (1John 4:1)

  That being said, if you do know God (now by knowing Christ, and being in union with Him), the spirit in you will recoil from what is false. So that you know to question something that is false to Him, the Truth.

  Mind you, some THINK that they know God and also know Christ... but do NOT. Something that can be shown in what they do, even if just compared to what we have written about what Christ did and taught.

  Adamah...Hence why Jihadists trust in Allah, JWs trust in Jehovah's power to resurrect and die refusing blood (based on a lie), when we all KNOW there will be no do-overs, no second-chances for those lives sacrificed in the name of 'faith'.

  TEC said- Well, no, we don't all 'know' that. But regardless, one SHOULD test, reason, think, ask. The author of Hebrews said specifically that Abraham HAD done just that... reasoned that God would give Isaac back to him.

  Adamah...Well, that's the million-dollar question, isn't it, the very definition of faith?

  What question? This one you mean:

  TEC, do YOU think the JWs are going to be resurrected in the New System?

  There is a resurrection... it is not up to me to say who takes part and who does not take part in that. Christ did say that 'unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you...' so that those refusing to do so cannot claim to be in union with Him that I can see... but that does not mean that there are no sheep among them (from the sheep and the goats parable).

  Do YOU think they're dying for nothing?

  Speaking of the blood doctrine? They are dying for a false christ and a false prophet and a lie. I suppose in the end that means they are dying for nothing, sadly. God certainly is not asking it of them.

  If you read my article on the misinterpretation of Genesis 9:5-6 (which explains the solution offered in Noah's Flood, which the JWs misread to come up with their flawed blood doctrine), you'd understand that the scripture is actually trying to PREVENT needless deaths exactly LIKE that which arises from refusing blood!

  (BTW, I've updated the information in that article (esp the parts which look at the use of the singular and plural forms of blood in the Hebrew passage, i.e. 'dam' and 'damim', the words in English being 'blood' AND 'bloods', which carry a completely different connotation IF such a distinction existed in English). It's worth reading again if it's been awhile....)

  I haven't looked at your blog in a while, but I have no argument with your conclusion that the wts blood doctrine is flawed and false.

  TEC said- Mmm. I find it interesting (but not surprising) that so far everyone has ignored or deflected from the point that God came in answer to those who cried out to him from the harm done them BY the people of S&G. Preferring instead to defend S&G... the ones who were doing the raping/blood-spilling/etc... of strangers passing through their town.

  Adamah... Do you think foreign countries have a RIGHT to establish their own laws, and practice their own religious beliefs?

  I think God has the right to defend those crying out to Him if He chooses. I'm not sure why 'foriegn countries' should mean that much to Him... except if they are harming those who DO belong to Him. And again, it was not Lot and Abraham crying out to Him... but those being harmed/raped/murdered.

  I'm guessing NOT, based on your 'buying in' to the story book written by those whom you think of as being on "your team". Your team captain can do no wrong, of course, and much like the actions of Saul, if God conducted the killings, it cannot be wrong.

  What does that have to do with what I said?

  That's the irony of claiming the Bible contains absolute moral values: the only one I see in action is, "might makes right".

  Well, then the people of S&G would simply have been being "measured by the same measure that they used" against others. Since they were doing the whole 'might makes right' when it comes to raping/murdering strangers who came to their town.

  TEC said- Actually, that was one question, and then things that happened from the story... the angels were sent to investigate, and Lot is the one who met them at the gate and sheltered/protected them.

  Again, what right does Lot have to move to a foreign land and expect the natives who live there to adopt HIS cultural practices,

  What does that have to do with the point?

  In any case, Lot could not force anyone to adopt anything... but why should he have to keep silent in the face of evil? Doesn't the saying go... 'all evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing'?

  Not saying that Lot was a good man... just trying to make a point. If you see someone do something evil, that harms another... is there something wrong with you if you speak against it and attempt to show a better way?

  esp when his morality indicated a REJECTION of the normative family values that he rejected? Lot disassociated himself from God and Abraham, and then acted the role of a "righteous man", when he wasn't: that was the overriding message of the author of the account.

  That was not the message of the account. But even so... what does that have to do with the blood spilling/raping that S&G were inflicting upon people?

  Adamah said... In fact, I suspect that's likely the intent of the story of Lot in Sodom: the account was designed to stress the point that given the circumstances under which the account was written (during or after captivity in Babylon), the Jews were strangers living immersed in a foreign culture against their will, and Lot was the poster boy of a boisterous outsider who didn't exactly fly under the radar and lay low, but instead made a showy display of his strange customs and was clueless to how he fit into the surrounding culture: instead of being rewarded for his cluelessness and sticking to "true values", he was made the anti-hero who VIOLATED those same principles every chance he got. The story ends with him becoming the forefather to the enemies of the Chosen People.

  TEC said- And this is NOT conjecture, lol?

  Adamah said... The difference is some conjecture is based on evidence and research, and not whisperings from Jesus.

  Its funny how some of you guys will use a loose definition of the word evidence when it suits your purpose... but if anyone uses evidence that points to Christ... well, evidence only counts if it is testable and scientific.

  But the reality is... your conjecture is based on the conjecture of others. I do not always have the answer... but if I hear the answer from Christ, I know it is the truth... as it is firsthand... and not conjecture based on conjecture based on more conjecture from people who were not there and know no one who WAS there.

  EVERYTHING you know about God are ideas which came from somewhere: your game is based on claiming Jesus gives you some special insight, and that's the oldest game in the book: in fact, the Holy Bible encourages that kind of thinking that the reader is "special".

  Everything that I know about God... is based upon Christ. Even if you just went by what is written about Christ and his words/deeds/teachings... that is better than listening to conjecture from others, and drawing your conclusions based upon that... without at least testing them against the truth that Christ teaches/reveals about His Father.

  The POINT is the contradictory claim, where 2nd Peter sums up Lot's life LONG AFTER he was dead, and declared him to be "righteous", EVEN AFTER the drunken incest. Drunken Xian males who commit incest must see Lot as their patron saint: Saint Lot, the protector of pedophiles, who was foregiven of his sins and is now in Heaven along with Uncle Abraham and other men of faith. Lovely, isn't it?

  It is neither lovely nor accurate. Earlier even you agreed that the account states that his daughters got him drunk and had sex with him. You might not agree that it happened that way... (though I imagine that like the others here, you don't believe it happened at all)... but does that mean you get to simply rewrite it the way that you want it to have happened, to help your 'case'?

  Adamah...Of course, Lot didn't make Paul's heroes of faith list, so there's another NT contradiction (as well as the OT/NT contradiction).

  Tec...Just because one person mentioned Lot and one person did not... does not make it a contradiction. One person claiming that Lot was righteous and another claiming that Lot was unrighteous... then you might have your contradiction.

  Adamah... Read the article, as I explained WHY the author of Genesis was often "too cool for school" by being 'subtle' when he could've spelled it out explicitly and even THAT would be too subtle for some readers. He likely wasn't anticipating Xians later hijacking his writings (which were written for his culture's religion) in order to create a spin-off, an action that other authors strongly polemicized and demanded the death penalty for corrupting "pure worship" of Jehovah.

  Mmm. I was referring to the NT contradiction that you mentioned... between Peter and Paul. There is no contradiction there.

  TEc...Name another example after Abraham's test of faith... where anyone else was asked to sacrifice their child.

  Adamah... Holy Hades, TEC: you'd think ONE time should be sufficient to get the point across, loud and clear?

  The point being made was in reference to OTWO stating that if God asked it of Abraham, he could ask it of you also. But in 4(?) thousand years... not another example of God asking someone to sacrifice their child to Him. No need, in any case. What happened with Abraham was prophetic about Christ... and that has already been fulfilled.

  Peace to you!

  tammy
• 

  tec

  Its actually kind of funny that my flubbed thread is still going on after 12 pages ; )

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  zound

  You've taken great pain to answer all those points but you didn't answer the hypothetical question if god/jesus asked you to kill your child would you do it - you did however say you would know it isn't god asking because he wouldn't ask such a thing - well lets stipulate this, it IS god asking, you know for some reason or another it IS god asking this of you - would you obey?
• 

  Band on the Run

  Tammy,

  Your thread is not going on for twelve pages. Your thread addressed fallacies atheists have about voice hearers. I refuse to call you a believer. This thread has meandered all over the place. It reminds me of a previous poster whose threads just climbed and climbed as people were aghast. You failed in your quest to explain what fallacies concerning voice hearers atheists have.

  I find it amazing that members here don't hold you to a consistent statement. You believe that you are so quick with your mind. Several people have repeatedly asked you about your moral choices. The idea that hearing Christ speaks to you wipes out the atrocitities attributed to faith. as described in Old Testament stories, is bizarre.

  This is becoming shades of AGuest. Granted, it is not as intense but it is the same old, same old.

  It is curious that both believers and atheists share concerns about the destruction of ancient cities or the damage done to Isaac. Imagine walking away from your father trying to murder you as an offering to a monster God. Humans show better morals.