It's a triumph of revisionism that Christians can read a primitive, simplistic account about a wily snake who tricks a woman into eating forbidden fruit, gets his legs zapped off by God and is cursed to have his head stepped on by humans, and get out of it a tale of angelic rebellion and a far-reaching prophecy about the redemption of sinful mankind. The ancient Hebrew storytellers who passed on this fable from generation to generation would be speechless in their bafflement to learn of this.
Leaving the JWs, experiencing Christianity and finding freedom! (But it took awhile)
by im_free 99 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Kalos
Even Jeremiah said the same thing as you did now--Jeremiah 8:8
Hence SPIRITUALITY without religions is the best option, I feel.
-
jhine
I feel that from my stance at least I must put the record straight on some comments on this thread . I do not know if I was included personally in posts by Cofty and Terry , but as I was the only Christian to mention PMs I suspect that I maybe . I have NEVER badmouthed any individual or indeed any group of people in a PM and never claimed in a PM to know God in the way I think that you mean it Terry . Please correct me if I am wrong but are you refering to personal experiences which cannot be verified by anyone other than myself . I would never do either of those things . I have never done them publicly and would never do them privately . All is have ever done when sending a Pm is to congratulate some , offer emotional support , or council someone to be careful about accepting anything , from either side ,unless checking the facts for themselves .Something which I do publicly . I have never attempted to put someone off discussing anything with anyone .
Cofty as PMs are by nature private I am interested as to how you know that these things happen ?
o.k. chest empty now , normal service resumed .
Jan
-
cofty
Hence SPIRITUALITY without religions is the best option - Kalos
I'm curious about what you mean by "SPIRITUALITY" Kalos
jhine - I'm pleased to hear that, I wasn't accusing you personally. There are others who are less intellectually honest. Sometimes it backfires on them.
-
KateWild
Satan is not mentioned in Gen 3. A snake spoke to Eve. Its an ancient creation myth in which there is no Satan. He is not connected with the serpent until the NT.-cofty
I agree Satan is not mentioned, but as I said the serpent is. The whole of Gen chapter 3 introduces the concepts of good and bad, right and wrong, honesty and lies. The chapter was written with the intent of saying that doing something different from what God says is wrong. It is written in very concrete terms and is a load of nonesense. I do believe evil people exist though. Greedy, selfish, inconsiderate people.
Kate xx
-
dabster
Hi im_free, and welcome. Great to read your posts. It's really good to have you with us.
All this talk of atheism reminds me of what C.S. Lewis said when asked, "Materialists and some astronomers suggest that the solar planetary system and life as we know it was brought about by an accidental stellar collision. What is the Christian view of this theory?"
to which he answered,
"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents – the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts – i.e., of materialism and astronomy – are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape made by the splash when you knock over a milk jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was knocked over."
C.S. Lewis, Undeceptions (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1971), p.30
If life, the universe and everything came about by chance, my view on anything is as good as yours. There is no ultimate point to anything and there is therefore nothing to be gained in taking any course of action in particular. I was struck by Bill’s appeal to you:
"Please be cautious about those who want to reinforce your faith through Private Messages that may include criticism of myself and other atheists - I know this goes on. The only honest way to discuss these things is in public where our assertions can be held up to scrutiny."
Bill wants there to be honesty in our exchanges and no criticism of him. This is the sort of thing the French secular thinkers of the late nineteenth century did, who dispensed with the idea of a God but wanted to retain Christian morality. Sartre said that the true atheist cannot cheat in this way. It is inconsistent. His view was expressed in Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Kamarazov: ‘If God did not exist, everything would be permitted.’ Dishonesty and criticism included. I have only ever met one person, a former atheist, who spoke of having been as consistent as Sartre and spent some years in prison for attempting to murder his sister. My friend said he had believed it just as okay to help an old lady across the street as to push her under a bus. His life was later radically changed when he encountered God and salvation through Jesus. He is now a pastor in Austria.
Why wouldn’t the atheists among us understand, given what I presume would be their view that there is no ultimate meaning to anything, the views of Christians and atheists (and heck, even the views of the JWs, for that matter) to be equally valid?
-
im_free
I have some more questions that i would be interested in hearing answers for.
If you are an atheist that believes that there is some truth in the historicity of the Bible, (the reason I bring this is up is because it was mentioned that some atheists believe that there was a historical Jesus) where do you draw the line where you decide to accept and reject the recorded events? How do you decide?
It was also mentioned that belief in Satan or a supernatural evil force was all superstition. How do you explain this?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/27/family-possessed-seeks-exorcism/4939953/
Would you be able to tell the people that experienced this that it is all just in their imagination and it is merely superstition? I would like to hear your explanation.
-
Apognophos
Though I'm an agnostic, not an atheist, I don't think anyone can rightfully say that there is nothing historical in the Bible. For instance, the reign of Hezekiah and the gist of some of his account in the Bible have been verified by archaeology. It's a misunderstanding of the atheist position (sometimes fostered by hyperbolic comments from individual atheists like, "It's a book of lies") which says that an atheist thinks there is no truth in the Bible.
As far as where to draw the line, why not at what can be proven historically? Generally speaking:
- Creation account and tales of patriarchs down to the time of the Egyptian captivity: no evidence
- Return from Egypt under Moses: grain of truth? Perhaps a contingent of former Egyptian slaves joined Israel, or at least a people that came from the direction of Egypt. We can see Egyptian influence in the practices of the Jewish priests.
- Babylonian captivity: I believed this is verified. It was not uncommon to deport people to work as slaves in another land, and we can in fact see the effects that Babylon's religion had on Jewish beliefs post-exile.
- Some kings and other important figures in Judah/Israel: clear evidence in historical records, and I think Nehemiah's rebuilding of Jerusalem is more or less factual. Some of these people were no doubt real.
- Miraculous events in the lives of these individuals: no proof, naturally, so why should we accept them? Just because half of an account is true, why should we accept the other half that is much less plausible?
- New Testament gospels: Lots of evidence points to these being written by non-eyewitnesses and being the product of a sort of literary evolution from predecessor documents. Very little, if any, of a historical person named Jesus (Joshua) remains in the accounts. Perhaps he lived, but perhaps he didn't. Perhaps he was a Jewish teacher, or a Messiah claimant that was killed by Rome.
- Acts of the Apostles: Heavily contested. Probably none of this happened, according to many scholars.
- Epistles: Some were written by Paul and other claimed authors, some were falsely written in their name and use a different style of writing.
- Revelation: A possibly-drug-fueled diatribe against Rome and Nero (that is, the man with the number 666). Just barely made it into the canon.
You would find it very educational and eye-opening to buy a book about the writing of the Bible and its contradictions. Basically, we can tell from the "seams" that it's a collection of disparate writings by fallible men. Anachronisms, changes in language, duplicated stories that have been pasted together, etc.; it's a mess.
As to tales of possession, well, people are mentally ill. People are suggestible. That's no reason to assume possession by an immaterial being. If you saw somebody moaning and drooling with their eyes back in their head, how would tell if they were (a) demon-possessed, (b) on a drug trip, or (c) having a seizure? Satan and the demons are an unnecessary factor in the equation when explaining bad things and human behavior, so atheists simply strike them from the equation.
-
cofty
dabster - I will get to your hackneyed mumblings later.
im_free - I have no problem at all in dismissing all supernatural stories as delusional, dishonest or a combination of both.
There has never been a convincing incident recorded ever. The world is full of cameras and yet there is not a shred of evidence. One of the links you posted is debunked here...
Serious scientists have attempted to find real objective evidence of the supernatural and have drawn a blank. Susan Blackmore was a good example. She tried very hard to prove the skeptics wrong but ot do it honestly and with scintific rigour. She eventually concluded there was zero evidence for the supernatural. It is all in your mind.
Many years ago James Randi out up a $1million prize for anybody who could show evidence for the supernatural with scientific controls. It remains unclaimed.
Your other question is a better one. I will get back to you later, it deserves a thoughtful answer.
-
dabster
Thanks Bill. I look forward to it.