How could you not gain a greater sense of morality after putting away that book about the Killer God who has killed all the animals save a pair (or seven) of each, all the humans save eight, plans to kill all the humans again except for those that admit He loves them?
Question for Atheists.. Did you gain a Greater Sense of Morality and Happiness?
by objectivetruth 70 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Focus
Don't forget all the fish she malevolently drowned, OnTheWayOut.
What sort of weak, wavering wannabe Apostate are you, eh?
And have you forgotten the same evil pedophilic pervert was also into bestiality. As the Watchtower has taught, Jehoober sent animals to Adam from whom he was expected to choose a sexual partner, presumably irrespective of their (deemed lack of) consent? Do you need a citation from the Watchtower? Easily provided - or you can find it yourself, on my original "The List":
http://www.freeminds.org/history/list.htm
unless Randy's been a'tampering. Of course, "porneia" was subsequently definitionally curtailed by the WTS so that sex with animals was OK, as long as the animal was dead.
I mean, in this matter of who Adam could penetrate, did goobergawd (Fred Franz version) take size - I mean dimensions - into account?
Did he send Adam a comely ant with which to frisk? Could have been technical issues there.
Or a microbe??
Or an internally cavernous pachyderm? How sexually satisfied would she have been, irrespective of Adam's proportions (about which the WTS has not directly speculated, but with progressive revelation, who can tell what is on its way?)?
Or was it just sex with sheep, baboons, dogs and the like, pretty boring and pedestrian fare, from the Typical Elder POV that is?
What positions would have been achievable?
Had "gOD" got about to thinking who the offspring might have taken after?
Fortunately, Adam showed more taste than "God" and declined the offer to sodomise cats. I'll tell you what, if Adam had tried it with my sort, he'd have been singing soprano, there'd have been no Eve, no need for a snake or magic tree in heavenly garden, no original sin and the whole sham wouldn't have got off the ground... lol.
But you, OnTheWayOut, never mentioned any of that. You borderline apologist you... I'm reminded of AlanF.
More seriously, friend: "they" are not just crazier than you imagine, and even crazier than even I (an expert hereon) can imagine - THEY ARE CRAZIER THAN CAN BE IMAGINED!
__
Focus
("Sanity" Class)
For the lazy:
"Before God created anything new, a woman, God left the man free to
determine whether there was a suitable companion for him among all the
lower animals. He did not oblige the man to go seeking a companion among
them, thus requiring the use of much time on the man's part, but Jehovah
God brought the various beasts of the earth and the flying creatures of the
heavens before the man. God gave the man the freedom to name these
creatures. But the perfect man, created in God's image and according to
God's likeness, was not inclined to bestiality. He merely acquainted
himself, unafraid, with them and named them, but he found among them no
suitable companion for himself. As a lone human on earth he continued to
worship his God and Creator, not lower animals. He needed no command from
God against animal worship. He had just the one law against improper
eating. -Genesis 2:19,20. After the man fully exercised his freedom to
reject any of the lower creatures as a companion and helper for him, God
acted. 'Hence Jehovah God had a deep sleep fall upon the man and, while he
was sleeping, he took one of his ribs and then closed up the flesh over its
place. And Jehovah God proceeded to build the rib that he had taken from
the man into a woman and to bring her to the man. Then the man said: 'This
is at last bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one will be called
Woman (Ishshah), because from man (ish) this one was taken.'' -Genesis
2:21-23. This reveals that God told the man just how the woman had been
created, to show to the man that she was related to him in flesh and bone,
for she was a part of him. Adam's words on accepting the woman as his wife
make plain that he exercised his free choice to have this woman as his
helper and companion. She was the last one of the creatures that God
brought to Adam to see which creature he would choose as his life-long
companion. [Questions] Before God created woman, why did he bring the
animals to man? What attitudes toward those animals did the man not
manifest? How did God proceed to make woman, and did Adam know this? Did
Adam exercise any freedom of choice in accepting the woman as his
companion?"
- 1966 "Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God", an official
Watchtower publication, pp45-7EXPLANATION BY FOCUS:
(1) So, God forcibly procured animals for Adam to rape. It is rape, as a baboon cannot consent. However, I'll defer to any superior authority on that subject, as may be found hereabouts.
(2) Adam declined, though he may have groped and fondled them a bit ("merely acquainted himself .. with them") first.
And we know, from the fumblings of the Elder Class, what that "acquaintanceship" involves... You Know what I mean.
-
objectivetruth
lol @ focus.. That is Crazy! I've never seen that article.. Nothing that Organization prints surprises me anymore.
-
Caedes
I think it is patronizing and absurd to suggest one group is 'better' than the other. There are moral and happy atheists and there are immoral and unhappy ones too, theists would be the same. I would be very surprised if atheists were more moral and caring as a group, I would expect the results to be very similar.
-
Oubliette
Moral compared to what?
-
objectivetruth
Caedes - I dont think the Question is which group is "better". The question is What Positive & Negative Effects does organized religion have on individuals..
If Humans are Innately good and caring, for no other reason than their Conscience, what happens when some one else tells them what is right & wrong, and then what happens when these people return to trusting their own Hearts & Consciences. I am not an Atheist, but I do not Judge them, and I do not feel animosity towards their differing view points.
-
objectivetruth
Oubliette - Many Witnesses or other Hard Core Religions claim to "love" their neighbors, but in Reality they hate them, and they are only concerned with their View Point, and their appearance. So Moral in terms of Love vs. Hate.
-
objectivetruth
Focus - Nicely Said " plagued by secret doubts that they aren't right. Or even that they backed the wrong horse. Suppressing these doubts leads to great tension - but they have to suppress them, 'cos if gOD detects them... there's a possibility of a " zaap! ". The bigger these secret doubts, the bigger the fanaticism to cover up these doubts. Fundamentalists are the ones with the greatest fears they are wrong."
-
objectivetruth
Smiddy - Think about all of the Books in the Bible.. There is a lot of Killing,hate,lust,greed,etc.. Naturally Since the Bible says "All Scripture is Inspired of God" they believe it.. The Bible Says it, about it self, so it must be True Right?
So you are Right, if there were No Religous Texts, we would either be worse off, or in the same position.. Humans would make up a bunch of stuff, to make themselves appear as God's.
So I'll revise the Question, If we only had One Holy Book That Consisted of the Following, would you be an Atheist?
1. The Ten Commandments.
2. The Sermon on The Mount.
I understand that many Atheists, have a deep understanding of Science, and Evolution.. But, if there was not a Holy Book, that Proved that God is Evil, or Does not Exist.. Would Atheist's start seeking to understand all of the Biblical Contradictions and Logical Fallacies?
-
OneEyedJoe
You raise an interesting concept, and I think that you're probably correct that there are those who are currently athiests but would not be if they'd origonally been introduced to a kinder, simpler religion like the one you propose. The problem is that a religion based simply on the 10 commandments and the sermon on the mount isn't necessarily one that requires belief in god. Those are more or less just rules to live by, and I think most athiests live by them just as well as christians do.
As for me and my belief in god, the interaction (which may well have been fabricated or significantly altered, but still serves to make the point) between Napoleon and Pierre Simon Laplace sums it up well. Laplace wrote a book that explained the motion of the planets, and explained why they are stable, instead of being flung off into space as previous models predicted. Previously it was thought that God was the force keeping the planets in a stable orbit. Napoleon, upon reading the book, asked Laplace about the conspicuous absence of any mention of the creator, to which Laplace replied "I had no need of that hypothesis."
Historically God has been used to explain the unexplainable. People are uncomfortable with things they don't understand, so they'd say God did it and they could move on. God is an excuse not to look further to understand something. When you look at the many things that are now explained and well understood, that previoiusly were thought to be the unknowable actions of god, it becomes apparent that the trend is for unexplained things to be explained and understood in time. There are things we don't currently understand, but to assume that they're the actions of God makes the same mistake that so many in the past made. It is for this reason that I don't believe in God. There's no compelling evidence for the existence of any god, but there's compelling evidence that anything explained by the introduction of a god will eventually be explained more accurately another way that has no need of the assumption of god.