by Leander 51 Replies latest jw friends
(SJ quickly glances over shoulder, but calms down as she 'hears' "Truth... is truth, child").
COMF smiles as he remembers, "Lies... are lies, son."
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your piety nor wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a line,
Nor all your tears wash out a word of it.
"Lies... are lies, son."
Indeed. And yet, although the 'father' of the lie, even Satan is capable of speaking truth:
"And God said unto Satan, 'Whence comest thou?' Then Satan answered God, and said, 'From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.'"
Truly... nothing new under the sun... son...
SJ
Im having a Bible rant this weekend, so I might as well stick one in here. Its not a hijack.
King David.
Now he lusts after Bathsheba, and he goes so far as to have her Husband Killed. Thats MURDER!
Bathsheba gets pregnant from the feverish encounter with David and whats the punishment?
God kills the KID!!
I mean, what the hell do you call that.
God, you suck, really.
whats the punishment? God kills the KID!!
Sounds bad, doesn't it? And yet, that was the punishment under the law.
Exodus 20:5
Deuteronomy 5:9
As King of Israel, David was under that law, as were his sons, whomever their mother. You/I/Israel/David may not LIKE the law, just as we might not like some laws today. But law... is law, yes? Praise JAH that the law no longer calls for the sins of the father to come upon the son.
But at risk of sounding even more crass, unloving... and even heinous, perhaps, to you... may I ask what you think would happen to the overall world crime rate IF:
1. Parents were held accountable... and punished...
for their children's crimes;
2. Children were held accountable... and punished...
for their parents' crimes?
I mean, if you knew that your child was gonna bear your sins, perhaps even be killed for them, would you be so quick to do wrong? Funny, me neither. But evidently, just like much of mankind today, Israel was a people who couldn't do right by their fellow man on their own and so NEEDED law, even law SO strict it resulted in death.
Which do you think would hurt David MORE: killing HIM for his crime... or his child?
David could have stopped at adultery... and been forgiven. For God did not send Nathan to reprove him for his adultery as the adultery was not really the 'crime'. Why? Because in some cases, adultery is a 'sin'... of the flesh.
John 8:1-11
John 4:16-18
The CRIME was that he PLOTTED against his fellow man to have him killed because after he first tried to get him to have sex with his [Uriah's] wife because he [David] had gotten her pregnant, he [Uriah] wouldn't! Why was such a plot so heinous? Because he [David] wanted Uriah's wife? No. He HAD Uriah's wife. Obviously, she wanted him, too, and being that she, too, was an adultress, most likely Uriah wouldn't have wanted her back anyway. So, she was pretty much David's. He had Uriah killed, however, TO COVER HIS OWN ERROR! David had Uriah killed, 'because his OWN works were wicked, but those of his brother (who would not have relations with his wife while they were at war) were righteous.'
Thus, in order to hide his OWN fault, he dealt in 'treachery' with his fellowman. And THAT... is a sin... PURELY of the HEART! That is not due to weakness of the flesh, or a need to love or be loved... but purely due to hardness of the heart! He felt NO remorse during the process! And for such sin, there was a grave price. With such sin there always is.
In loving Bathsheba, David would have had his error 'covered', for love is understandable in that we are a species that NEEDS to love and BE loved... some of us in order to live. And apparently Michal had failed David in this way. (No, I am not saying as did Adam, "It's the woman's fault," or that Michal was a 'bad' wife. The account itself kinda lends credence to that and all I am saying is that if it occurred otherwise, I would think it would have been recorded otherwise. I mean, they didn't cut corners when telling about this part of it... so, if you disagree, calm down... and check the record.)
Anyway, by his action, David showed that he 'hated' his 'brother'... which is inexcusable... for we do not NEED to hate (as we NEED to love)... our brother OR our enemy... for ANY reason. While we may hate what they DO... we CANNOT hate them and still be called 'sons of God'.
So, because Uriah wouldn't do what it would take to 'fix' DAVID's error... David grew to hate him... and had him killed.
But then, what do I know? Only that which I 'hear'.
Bottom line, though, is that David (and Bathsheba) were forgiven to some degree by God, and their child's spirit is in God's hands. And I got NO stones to throw.
Peace.
A slave of Christ,
SJ
Thats why I get outraged reading these accounts...
Yes, David and Bathsheba were forgiven. The child, an innocent life, was murdered. Something is very awry here.....
If, by saying that David was more hurt by having his child killed, you could say that with anyone else he cared for.... Bathseba could have been killed, or David's close relatives... killing an innocent baby does not seem right.
I do not agree with the thinking that a child should have to pay for their parents mistakes. I also dont think this would deter parents from making poor decisions. Come on, have you seen alot of parents today? Heck, they would probably rob a store just to get their kid taken away! The only thing, the only just thing, is to have every adult be responsible for what they do.... and only themselves, not their offspring.
Anyone ever read this book?
Sincerely,
District Overbeer
Probably not this year, but next year I intend to read the Bible books IN THE ORDER THEY WERE WRITTEN. I hear it's a whole new look on things.
Thats what I'm trying to do now. But I haven't been to dedicated to it yet. The thought of reading the whole bible again is still feeling a bit overwhelming to me right now. I'll probably put it aside and pick it up later. But I can see how it would make a WORLD of difference.
plum.
http://www.geocities.com/plum_crazy22002/LinksReligion.html?1021363884840
Dearest Terafera... MUCH peace to you!
You said:
I do not agree with the thinking that a child should have to pay for their parents mistakes. The only thing, the only just thing, is to have every adult be responsible for what they do.... and only themselves, not their offspring.It appears that you missed the part where, apparently, my Father and my Lord agreed with you, for I said:
"that WAS the punishment under the law..."
The 'law' changed, though, dear one, so that "each one must carry his own burden" and "ALL will render an accounting". Thus, the sins of the father no longer come upon the sons to the nth generation... and it has been that way for about, say 3-4 millenniums.
And Lordy, how in the WORLD can we still be 'mad' over something God allowed to happen over 3,500 years ago? Like JAH was the only 'god' doing stuff. How come no one ever gets mad at 'Baal', etc., and all the children put to through the fire, etc., as a 'sacrifice' to them? Do not the words 'supreme', 'almighty', etc., etc., mean anything? Talk about Watchtower 'baggage'... how can you be mad at someone you don't even believe exists, and if you DO... do you REALLY think He cares that you deign to 'check His hand'?
Sigh! Earthling man... who still can't solve his own problems but thinks he can mete out justice even better than God... go figure...
I digress.
Anyway, in light of your comments that:
I also dont think this would deter parents from making poor decisions. Come on, have you seen alot of parents today? Heck, they would probably rob a store just to get their kid taken away!I must say that I am still of the PERSONAL opinion (sorry!), that a lot more parents need to pay for what their kids do and that if they knew their kids were going to pay, might do a lot less 'bad' stuff themselves. Not all of them, of course (hence, the word "incorigible"), but a good many of them. Why do I 'feel' that way? Because as the Director of Operations for a non-profit agency that does drug, alcohol, mental health, pregnancy, STD and HIV counseling for kids age 12 to 23, I can TELL you that 95% (and perhaps more) of the time, "the apple don't fall far from the tree". Honey, we attempt, with a large measure of futility, to "fix" kids that leave our offices and go RIGHT BACK into the "mud"... home... where some folks who are even more messed up than they are await them. Haven't you been reading the abuse posts here?
And then, on the other hand, you have your run-of-the-mill-just-bad-for-no-apparent-reason-but-just-want-to-be bad*ss kids, that no matter what, they ain't gonna listen. What's left? I dunno, but maybe, MAYBE... knowing that mom and dad are gonna have to pay (and I don't mean money, 'cause some of them rascals truly believe that money 'grows on trees'... in Columbia...), and their parents DO pay... instead of the government or you and me... MAYBE... they'll think twice. But notice, I did say maybe. My hopes are not very high on this one.
Please know, though, that my statement along these lines, in this post and the previous, are only my opinion (which I should have refrained from doing, but unfortunately, I haven't 'conquered' my heartfelt feelings on this one, simply because of the work I do and 'element' I see almost every day... and so gave vent to it in the thread when I SHOULD have just stuck to what I 'heard'... and now look...)
Praise JAH, then, dear Terafera that I'm not 'the One'... not even close... for we'd all be in some BIG trouble! All of us.
Again, I bid you peace!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SJ
Leander,
: bibical flaw
That's redundant.
With regards to the story of Job: I have no respect for Gods who make bets. Gambling is a vice. It's even worse when a "God" fucks up an entire family like he did to Job's family so the bet could play out. The only thing God proved by that bet was that Job was the worst kind of moron to continue staying faithful that that jerkoff Bible-God.
Farkel
As King of Israel, David was under that law, as were his sons, whomever their mother. You/I/Israel/David may not LIKE the law, just as we might not like some laws today. But law... is law, yes? Praise JAH that the law no longer calls for the sins of the father to come upon the son.
Are we supposed to thank your god because now, instead of murdering innocent people to satisfy some law, he will merely murder those who don't have faith in him?
Which do you think would hurt David MORE: killing HIM for his crime... or his child?Killing his child of course. Perhaps that's why your god thought it was the most appropriate punishment. Fortunately, modern lawmakers are more humane, and realise that the purpose of punishment is not to hurt the wrongdoer as much as possible, but to protect society, compensate the victims and rehabilitate the wrongdoer if possible. If David was already an adulterer and murderer, what kind of punishment is killing the evidence of his adultery?
I must say that I am still of the PERSONAL opinion (sorry!), that a lot more parents need to pay for what their kids do and that if they knew their kids were going to pay, might do a lot less 'bad' stuff themselves.To make parents pay for the actions of their children seems reasonable. Parents are responsible for the behaviour of their children. The reverse, however, is not true. To punish a child for the actions of his/her parent is absolutely abhorrent. That's the trouble with getting your morality from an Iron Age war tribe.
--
But if you pray all your sins are hooked upon the sky
Pray and the heathen lie will disappear
Prayers they hide the saddest view
(Believing the strangest things, loving the alien)
-- David Bowie, Loving The Alien
