Bible Mind Control is,,, Faith: belief in the unprovable,which,is glorified

by frankiespeakin 59 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  A Paduan

  Faith = waiting for what you know to be "Good"

  Faith = not accepting substitutes in the meantime.
• 

  Abaddon

  When we realise that our previous conception of "God" was too small to exist,

  Oh, I agree that most conceptions of god are unlikely (ontologically speaking) to exist. But I also think it's a massive pressumption to say 'well, these small, unlikely, flawed and human conceptions of god don't exist, but I believe there is x'.

  Doesn't matter what x is. It's like suggesting there is some other paranormal mechanism or entity for the delivery of Easter Eggs when we find out the Easter Bunny is a small, unlikely, flawed and human conceptions of the bounty of spring (or roadkill, as per the photo), or that there is some other paranormal mechanism or entity for the delivery of Christmas presents when we find out that Santa a small, unlikely, flawed and human conception of Christmas cheer.

  Essentially, albeit from a very liberal and enlightened viewpoint, you are engaging in exactly the same 'yes, but' argument that religionists (I know you're not one) engage in. They say; "ah, look at how silly the idea of Apollo is, it's obvious that god is <insert unsubstansiatable belief that makes them feel better about themselves>".

  People who go for the more leading-edge, new age, golly-gee flavours of spirituality are saying "ah, look at how silly the idea of Biblegod is, it's obvious that "god" is <insert unsubstansiatable belief that makes them feel better about themselves>".

  It's an assumption there is something like god based on the fact that there must be something behind all these childish conceptions of the divine that have trouble humanity for millenia.

  Now, basing your belief structure on the proverb 'there's no smoke without fire' is all very well, but what if it isn't smoke, but is just mist or fog? Then the presumption of fire is false.

  Of course, I know it's subjective, which is at least part of the point. Maybe I am a supicous bastard, but it's just too convenient that is is just subjective, it's too convenient that objectively there's no difference between belief and auto-suggestion.

  I never said that such anger and resentment wan't justified, just that it's damaging, and affects those around them.

  Ideally it should be damaging to those who have caused the hurt and resentment. I know what you mean, that people can get obsessive and closed-off, but places like this are ideal forums for people working through their anger. And anger can be fed by the fact that the causes of that anger do not disappear. Jesus got angry and resentful when it was appropriate, and likely would have carried on being angry and resentful if the things which made him feel that way would have remained the same. Of course your opinion is valid, but so's the anger.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  LT,

  My problem isn't with your stance, it's your "hit and run" method of expression. The crux of my point was:

  You've done plenty of attacking of beliefs, whilst providing little substancial argumentation.

  I have alway felt that inside every fat book is a skinny little book that is much more to the point. I've alway felt that excess verbage destorts,, often,, instead of clearifies meaning. I think I would make a very lousy book writer because,, I hate long drawn out, story telling,, or just adding words to make the book fatter,LOL (maybe a poet,, someday,,if,, I can,,find an intrest in it).

  Now I don't want to fault people who like to read really long books,,, while I like to skim them to see if the add to me anything new,, be it perspective or facts. We each have our own preferences,,which makes life far from booring,, in fact quite enjoyable,,,, shoot I think i'm being redundant right now,, so I won't say anymore about this subject and try to leave it a skinny book form, LOL.

  Whilst I applaud the efforts of Flower and yourself to stand up for yourselves (and wouldn't have it any other way), you deliver plenty of "anger"as expressed in the tone of your posts (though this will likely eventually abate - else chew you up).
  It's a cycle that we have all been through - some for longer than others - and which has been posted about frequently.

  Thanks for the applaud,, you are a genuinely nice person,, and I mean it!

  But,,,(everybody got big butts,, LOL),, I wish to disagree about the assumption that I am angry,, or what appears from your perspective as anger. I am not even the least bit angry,, and I mean this from the bottom, top and middle of my heart,, I feel no malice. I've experience some type of healing over the last months that have removed a great deal of anger,, my view point has very little room for anger,, at this point in life,, may it forever stay this way.LOL

  What I feel is tremendous releif to know for certain that this cruel god of the bible is just an ancient myth soon to met the fate of all the other ancient myths.

  To no longer be looking over my shoulder,, thinking,, "I wonder if this will make jehovah mad, sad, or glad. And instead feeling I want to do this good thing just for goodness sake,, and,, not becuase some tempermental god might take away my life if I don't. To me that is precious freedom,, and not something to cause anger,, but relief.

  I'm not trying to cause offense, so much as point out the effect that your manner might have on your readers.
  Be well, and keep up the growth - it's constructive criticism, not attack

  LT, that is why people like you so much,, you are a genuine good bloke.
• 

  itsallgoodnow

  going back and looking at Frankie's original post - I don't see anything angry or insulting about it, just his observations on faith. It didn't seem like he was trying to antagonize anybody and I'm shocked with some of the criticism he received for it.

  I was surprised he was attacked with the claim that his message was attacking. And then the attacker attacked those who agreed with frankie...

  Questions to stir up the mentally challenged?

  I guess this means that "thinking people" would agree with you, LT, on this topic, and all others are "mentally challenged"... The WTS uses this type of reasoning often... "thinking people would agree...."

  Just my observation,

  IAGN of the Mentally Challenged class
• 

  True North

  Here are three relevant definitions of faith from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith

  1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
  2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
  4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

  As frankiespeakin pointed out in his original post, the Bible states that faith is a requisite virtue for all Christians. However, he is also correct in drawing attention to the potential for error and abuse when people allow themselves to be controlled by or in the name of beliefs that do not "rest on logical proof or material evidence." In fact, depending upon how this observation is worded exactly, I think many if not most Christians would agree since they are likely to acknowledge that many others, even many calling themselves Christian, have put faith in falsehood.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Thanks everyone for your kind observations.

  I believe our species "man" is driven to increase knowledge of the meaning of life, and everything you can think of. But, will we ever really reach this "mythical" knowledge of absolute truth???

  I think not and stipulate their is no one that can show us "absolute truth",, and that anybody that makes the claim that they have experienced this knowledge,, look at him very sceptically,,, faith,,in them is not neccesary for your salvation.
• 

  flower

  Okay, I want $40.00 a month from you..

  When your policy matures, you will be rich beyond your wildest dreams.

  I can't show you what I'm investing your money in, let you talk to investors who have had their policies mature, or provide any evidence to back-up my claims.

  I know there are other people making the same sort of claims, but I'm the one who is right, but I can't meaningfully differentiate myself from the others as the only evidence I or they have are books telling us that this scheme works, or statements by people who feel happy with their investment plan (despite having no evidence to support it), or people who were visited by magic invisable sales people for the investment plan... and don't have any real evidence they were actually visited.

  Anyone investing in the above would be considered a fool by most people.

  Substitute faith for $40, and tell me what the difference is...

  Love it Abaddon!
• 

  LittleToe

  Abaddon:

  Essentially, albeit from a very liberal and enlightened viewpoint...

  Now who's condescending?

  People who go for the more leading-edge, new age, golly-gee flavours of spirituality are saying "ah, look at how silly the idea of Biblegod is, it's obvious that "god" is <insert unsubstansiatable belief that makes them feel better about themselves>".

  Now who's being presumptions about what people are saying
  Personally, I don't mock anyone's viewpoint. If they want to worship invisible pink unicorns, and it doesn't hurt them or anyone else, so mote it be.

  Now, basing your belief structure on the proverb 'there's no smoke without fire' is all very well, but what if it isn't smoke, but is just mist or fog? Then the presumption of fire is false.

  Pascal's wager is based on the risk analysis that there might just be fire in there somewhere...
  Most "Fire Procedures" work to that premise, too. It's called "better safe than sorry".

  Of course, I know it's subjective, which is at least part of the point. Maybe I am a supicous bastard, but it's just too convenient that is is just subjective, it's too convenient that objectively there's no difference between belief and auto-suggestion.

  Somethings in life are just that convenient, like "Drive-through Banking".

  As for your comments on auto-suggestion, I'll give you a little mileage on that. However, in the absence of "hard" data, some folks need "placeholders" to explain what they experience. That's not saying that they aren't looking for better explanations, or that ones wont be forthcoming.
  Have you genuinely got something better, that covers the bases of people's subjective experience?

  Ideally it should be damaging to those who have caused the hurt and resentment. ...Of course your opinion is valid, but so's the anger.

  Agreed.

  Frankie:

  ...I wish to disagree about the assumption that I am angry...

  Ok
  Reborn used to say that, too, but observing the progress of his posts was insightful.
  I'll keep an eye on your six (and please be assured that it's not to slip a knife in).

  What I feel is tremendous releif to know for certain that this cruel god of the bible is just an ancient myth soon to met the fate of all the other ancient myths.

  That is but one interpretation of "the book", albeit one that we held in common.
  I agree with your comment, though. I wish more would be liberated from the shackles of "cruel god inc.".

  ...no one that can show us "absolute truth",, and that anybody that makes the claim that they have experienced this knowledge,, look at him very sceptically,,, faith,,in them is not neccesary for your salvation.

  Hear, hear!!!

  Itsallgoodnow:
  You quote me out of context. You missed the line immediately before it:

  I'd love to know what the point is of your recent spate of threads.
  Questions to stir up the mentally challenged?

  I then go on to explain the reason for this statement:

  You've done plenty of attacking of beliefs, whilst providing little substancial argumentation.
  You don't even provide anything "better" for people to grasp, other than your assertions that everyone who holds said beliefs must be in error.

  And then further add:

  I used to enjoy your posts, but that delight is becoming a rare pleasure...
  Sorry, it's just my perspective, and I felt you ought to know.

  To address your points:

  I was surprised he was attacked with the claim that his message was attacking.

  As I say, please read what I wrote in context.

  And then the attacker attacked those who agreed with frankie...

  I'm afraid you'll have to provide evidence of that. I see none in this thread.
  Further, I take issue with being called an "attacker". I did no such thing, as I believe the context shows. If you genuinely feel otherwise, then I apologise unreservedly.

  The WTS uses this type of reasoning often... "thinking people would agree...."

  I never used that kind of reasoning, and appeal to triggerwords are not appreciated. But thanks for your comments. I'll try to make sure that my diatribe has a greater ratio of "IMHO"'s than already usually exists.

  TrueNorth:
  Agreed, though you didn't post the complete definition list.

  Flower:
  It was good, wasn't it
  I think Abaddon has pretty much covered all the bases of religion gone wrong (although I've yet to see examples of it "gone right").

  IMHO the difference with "faith" is that the salesman (making the claim of having seen the invisible) should be asking others to experience the same, before (and indeed if) investing their life. Further, that the investment shouldn't be into the salesmen themselves.

  LT of the "mentally challenged, but content" class.
• 

  Abaddon

  Now Ross, you know I'm not being condescending

  I think you DO mock people's viewpoints. How about racist's, flat-earther's, Scientologist's, homophobe's, Jehovah's Witnesses, George W Bush's etc.? Obviously some are damaging to others; but others are damaging to the person holding the viewpoint.

  And Pascall's wager is morally bankrupt; "I'm undecisive but scared, so I'll believe in god just in case. Hell Ross, my Dad's a dubbie elder and he more-or-less admitted to me after a few pints that you could never really know but at least if you did believe you'd be okay. And do you think belief based on a 'better safe than sorry' basis is worth anything?

  Oh, drive through banking hasn't been used as a tool to dominate and control peoples lives; belief has.

  However, in the absence of "hard" data, some folks need "placeholders" to explain what they experience.

  And that's fine. Problem is these 'placeholders' become entities regardless of their reality.

  Have you genuinely got something better, that covers the bases of people's subjective experience?

  Since when is having a solution a prequisit for pointing out faults?
• 

  LittleToe

  Gyles:

  you know I'm not being condescending

  I know, hence the wink

  I think you DO mock people's viewpoints

  No. I disagree with some of them, and in some cases might go to the bother of pointing out their flaws, but I don't mock.

  And Pascall's wager is morally bankrupt

  I don't think Pascall would agree with that. I suspect he was quite genuine (regardless of how migguided you may believe him to be).
  I take the rest of your comments under advisement, though.
  As I stated, it's "risk analysis". Though I would agree - "let the buyer beware!"

  drive through banking hasn't been used as a tool to dominate and control peoples lives

  No?
  Watch this space - LOL.

  However, in the absence of "hard" data, some folks need "placeholders" to explain what they experience.

  And that's fine. Problem is these 'placeholders' become entities regardless of their reality.

  And your issue with that is?

  Since when is having a solution a prequisit for pointing out faults?

  It never has been. It's just a personal gripe (that I have) when I see people deconstructing other people's belief systems mercilessly, without due regard to the consequence of said actions.