by coldfish 290 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I'd like to at least thank 'a Christian' for trying to impart his viewpoints and taking the time he did to respond to others. I flipped my lid a bit I know.......but the reasoning of some will still baffle my ass till I die. I meant no harm to you a christian.....it's my OWN anger towards what I once swallowed......not anger at you. I do however think your reasoning is pathetic, but that has no bearing on you as a person.
Merry Christmas,
Gumby
whatever God does, by definition, is always good.
Which makes any talk about "God," whether praise or blasphemy, ultimately meaningless imo. The mythological yet living god Yhwh who could get angry, repent, change his mind, be good or bad according to the circumstances or to his own whim condemned himself to theological death by becoming "God" and is now buried under centuries of metaphysics.
Mike,
: You wrote: .... you've completely misunderstood a good deal of what I wrote ...
: I could have said the same.
You could, but the fact is that I didn't misunderstand you. The fact that I disagree with your interpretations, and carefully explained why, and in fact, showed why they're internally inconsistent, doesn't mean that I misunderstood you.
I'll now take portions of your previous post and show how you completely misunderstood what I wrote.
First point:
: You wrote: First, no one in his right mind would think that killing you to atone for the sins of Hitler's Gestapo in WWII would actually do so.
: To begin with, God did not kill Jesus Christ to pay for our sins.
I didn't say that he did. My phraseology deliberately left open the matter of who does the killing. Such passive language simply says that someone does the killing. Who does it is irrelevant. The point is that someone decides that such killing will somehow atone for sins.
I'm trying to avoid phraseology appropriate for people on a third-grade reading level, because it takes more words than advanced readers want or need. Let me rephrase for such people:
First, no one in his right mind would think that if a person or group of people (call this person or group entity "A") decided that if entity "A" killed you to atone for the sins of Hitler's Gestapo in WWII, those sins would actually be atoned for. Entity "A"'s killing you would be a gross miscarriage of justice, because the killing of you has no relation to the 'sins' of Hitler's Gestapo.
I hope that you can now understand why I said that you've completely misunderstood a good deal of what I wrote, because some of your other responses miss my points as completely as you did here. And of course, there's no point in responding to your comments on something you completely misunderstood.
Second point:
: You wrote: Second, no supernatural being with access to the "design specifications" of humans would need to be convinced by an actual demonstration that the things designed in by an omnipotent and perfectly competent Designer are really there.
: God did not need to be convinced.
That's painfully obvious. God, as the supposedly "perfectly competent Designer" would hardly need to be convinced that his creation did precisely what he designed it to do. Therefore, it should be obvious that I was talking about supernatural beings other than God. What beings? Whatever ones you want to postulate exist, in particular angels and such as described in the Bible. Such beings as you and I and others on this forum are quite familiar with from our JW backgrounds. Such beings as the Bible supposedly describes as onlookers in the great contest between good and evil, between God and Satan.
Since you completely misunderstood my meaning, there's no point in responding here to the rest of your comments. I thought of doing so, but given that you said you're out of this thread, there's no point.
Third point:
: You wrote: What's the further point of putting to death a man who was deliberately created to be an obvious exception to the rule to "atone" for the design flaws that the Supreme Designer put there in the first place?
: God did not put Adam to death.
I didn't say that he did. It ought to have been obvious that I was referring to Jesus, because it was Jesus -- not Adam -- who was supposed to "atone for the design flaws that the Supreme Designer put there ...". Do I really need to explain that I don't think that Adam was created to perform this function, and that I understand perfectly well that Jesus was supposed to have been put on earth to do it?
So, Mike, I hope you now see why I said that unless you carefully reread what I wrote, and understand and respond to what I actually said, there's no point in continuing. Given the above, I really don't think that anyone need be a mind reader to understand my points.
: Maybe you failed to communicate your thoughts clearly.
I think that what I wrote is quite clear.
: Maybe we just don't "speak the same language." This may be just as well anyway. For few here are willing to now dig any deeper into the Bible than they did as JWs, which was not very deep.
Mike, I spent years looking at this stuff from many different viewpoints. My library contains over a thousand reference works on Christian subjects. I've spent countless hours discussing fine points with any number of non-JW Christians. Not one has been able to answer the hard questions. So don't you dare tell me that I haven't done my homework!
: As JWs were all told exactly how every passage in the Bible was to be understood. In my opinion, most exJWs here are now far too willing to throw the baby (the God of the Bible) out with the dirty bath water (the JW religion).
I defer to Norm's comments on this.
: I think that's a shame. For Prov. 2:4,5 tells us, "If you look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure, then you will understand the fear of the LORD and find the knowledge of God."
Really. This is a comment along the lines of "The Bible says it's inspired, so I believe it." It's virtually a repeat of the mindset demanded by the religious philosopher St. Anselm (1033-1109):
I must believe in order that I may understand.
I much prefer the approach stated by another religious philosopher, Peter Abelard (1079-1142):
I must understand in order that I may believe.
I think that you and most other Christians (please refer me to the exceptions, if you know any) follow St. Anselm's philosophy. You've done a poor job of providing solid, fact-based understanding for those of us who agree with Abelard. So has God.
: As I think Abaddon's post makes plain, regardless of how well anyone here may show that the scriptures may actually speak in harmony with proven scientific realities,
That contingency has yet to be seen, I'm afraid. Excuses, sure. Showing, in the sense of providing solid evidence, no.
: it is unlikely that the scriptures or the one defending them will ever be very much respected on this forum.
I think you've really got the cart before the horse. "Once burned, twice shy" is one expression I can think of. And for such people who've never really done much research, your comments apply. But not to those of us who, like Abaddon obviously has, have done much contemplation and research, and based on that made our decisions about what to believe. Of course, should solid information contradicting our present conclusions ever come our way, I think that we'd change our minds immediately. Indeed, were there a Christian God, I'd love to sit down with him for a few months and have him explain all the contradictions I've seen between the Bible, parts of Christianity, reality and common sense.
: Why? I admit that the Bible itself is largely to blame.
That's quite an admission for a Christian, but I agree.
: For, if God did inspire the writing of the Bible as I believe He did, He clearly did so in a way that would permit many to fail to recognize its supernatural inspiration.
How nice of him.
: Why is that? It could be that God always provides just enough evidence to convince those who are willing to believe
Along the lines of St. Anselm, I presume. Pray tell me: how do such people avoid getting sucked by, say, Amway Corporation?
: and never enough to convince those who prefer not to believe.
Prefer? Where do you come off insulting me and others like that?
Mike, it's precisely this sort of insulting by apologists, when they're painted into a corner by logic and facts, that proves to people like me, Norm, Abaddon, gumby, Narkissos and plenty of others, that we're right about religion in general, and Christianity in particular. You always squander your opportunity to prove us wrong. I've ceased wondering why.
AlanF
Gumby,
You wrote: For gods sake Mike, Carl, and the rest who swallow this crap concerning the bible god, how can you guys believe what your saying? Do you guys really fricken believe a loving god would have his word written so hidden that he wants people to dig for it. Screw him them! Tell that to third world countries who don't have all the fricken bible tools you need to dissect gods word! According to you freakin einsteins, lower class people are screwed as for finding bible truths unless they happen to stumble onto guys like you who spend countless hours trying to figure shit out.
Nope. Some of us on this planet, at this time, are far more fortunate than others. Not only do most people in "third world countries" lack Bible study "tools" most of them lack Bibles. Many have never even heard the good news of Jesus Christ. And, of course, prior to the invention of the printing press and widespread literacy, for many hundreds of years, even in "Christian" countries, very few people ever had the opportunity or the ability to "dig" into God's word. Is God being unfair to treat some of us better than others? I don't think so. For Christ told us, "The one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows." But he added, "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." (Luke 12:48) Jesus said that even the people of Sodom and Gomorrha will receive a merciful final judgment, due to their not having as good an opportunity to come to know God as others have had. (Matt. 10:15; 11:23) If that is so, then certainly God will have mercy on peoples from times past and people now living in third world countries who are not as blessed as we are with ready access to His word and access to Bible study helps.
With the possible exception of Christ's own twelve apostles, I believe we here today are by far among the most blessed people ever in this regard. For we now have an Internet full of Bible study aids to help us in our Bible studies and plenty of fellow believers online to also assist us. When Daniel spoke of 'the time of the end" he spoke of it as a time when "knowledge will increase." Was he referring to our day? Maybe. We today who are living in "the information age" created by the Internet will not be able to plead ignorance on Judgment Day.
Norm,
I wrote: F
ew here are willing to now dig any deeper into the Bible than they did as JWs.
You asked: With all due respect, how do you know how much effort any of us has spent "digging deeper"
into the Bible?
What percentage of the people who participate here do you think have even read the entire Bible? With your answer in mind, do you really think my use of the word "few" was in referring to those here who have deeply studied the Bible was inaccurate?
You wrote: One has to educate oneself in evolution, some biology, geology, and even a little archeology. And it is extremely
important that you do study information that is critical to both positions. ... I have no idea what you have done, but judging from what I have read so far, it doesn't appear to be the case.
Since, I believe that God used evolution as His means of creating all life on earth, and have strongly defended many times on this forum and others all of the findings of biologists, geologists and archeologists, I believe your judging of the contents of my posts is a bit off the mark. I did much study of the sciences before forming my present opinions. And I continue to do so. Your critisisms of my posts as betraying a lack of such study is totally without merit.
You wrote: It must indeed be a strange God you worship that seems to deliberately muddle his allegedly life and death important information so that people can misunderstand it to their demise, another example of what a strange God you worship.
Take your complaint up with Jesus. For he told His disciples, "
The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand." (Luke 8:10)
You referred to the contents of the Bible as, "
complete hopeless superstitious drivel." That is quite typical of the total disrespect Christians constantly receive on this forum. Is it any wonder this place has so few Christians who are willing to spend time here discussing their beliefs with you?
Myself, I've taken enough abuse to last me for quite a while.
Mike
Mike,
No offence intended, but the best criticism of Christian apologetics I ever read was by a Christian, namely Sören Kierkegaard (in Sickness unto Death):
One sees now how extraordinarily (that there might be something extraordinary left) -- how extraordinarily stupid it is to defend Christianity, how little knowledge of men this betrays, and how truly, even though it be unconsciously, it is working in collusion with the enemy, by making of Christianity a miserable something or another which in the end has to be rescued by a defense. Therefore it is certain and true that he who first invented the notion of defending Christianity in Christendom is de facto Judas No. 2; he also betrays with a kiss, only his treachery is that of stupidity. To defend anything is always to discredit it. Let a man have a storehouse full of gold, let him be willing to dispense every ducat to the poor -- but let him besides that be stupid enough to begin this benevolent undertaking with a defense in which he advances three reasons to prove that it is justifiable -- and people will be almost inclined to doubt whether he is doing any good. But now for Christianity! Yea, he who defends it has never believed in it. If he believes, then the enthusiasm of faith is . . . not defense, no, it is attack and victory. The believer is a victor.I treasured those words when I was a believer. And I still can see their wisdom as a post-Christian. There is much in Christianity that many people could enjoy were it not defended as an objective truth (which, according to Kierkegaard, is not what Christianity is about) by Christian apologetes.
Mike....you say you have suffered abuse here and perhaps you have. I doubt Paul would have walked out so quickly with those in Greece he tried to pursuade. He was thrown out many times and stoned for speaking out, yet you feel you cannot take a little verbal heat. Did you think about those believers here you may have helped?
As for believers on this site....we have plenty of them who share their beliefs and we all get along....unless judgement is thrown at us.
I must say I did enjoy your take on those who have not heard the message. From a biblical perspective....your take on it seems just. If it is true what you say, then there will be many more than a select few whom Christ will spare.....including millions of Muslims who know nothing more than what they have heard and been taught.
The problem with my above statement is god did not spare the millions who worshipped other gods in Israel's time period. Those who worshipped Baal or any other god were killed because of not worshipping the true god. Do you feel these ones knew more about the true god than third world country people know today of christ? They must have in your opinion, because the Lord will spare the ignorant according to your theory. Why did god kill the ignorant in times past. Did all those in Noah's time REALLY know the true god by the preaching of one man?
Gumby
Alan, I wrote: It could be that God always provides just enough evidence to convince those who are willing to believe and never enough to convince those who prefer not to believe.
You responded: Prefer? Where do you come off insulting me and others like that? I never applied those words to you or to anyone else here. I'm sure there are some people, who for their own selfish or immoral reasons, refuse to consider the possibility that the story of Scripture may be true. If they allowed themselves to become convinced that it is they would either be forced to change their lives, something they don't want to do, or be forced to live with a guilty conscience, something they also don't want to do. If I thought you were one of those people I would not be wasting my time talking to you.
You wrote, "Should solid information contradicting our present conclusions ever come our way, I think that we'd change our minds immediately."
That is how I thought you and several others here felt and that is why I sometimes discuss the Scriptures with you.
However, many here are not so kind to me and others like me. It is standard procedure here for Christians to be personally attacked and insulted. Just look at what has been said against Christians and their beliefs in this thread.
Gumby tells me that my, "reasoning is pathetic." Norm says that the Bible is filled with, "complete hopeless superstitious drivel." Norm tells us that the beliefs of Christians are, "ludicrous." And that "only extremely superstitious, primitive and legalistic people could come up with" such a "silly idea." He says our beliefs are "incredible nonsense." Gumby says the only reason Christian believe what they do is that they are, "afraid to let go of their little security blanket." He goes on to say that anyone who believes the story of Scripture, "needs to have their fricken head examined."
But the attacks on Christians and the Bible has been mild in this thread compared to many others I have seen here. I have seen entire threads started and devoted to discussing how stupid Christians are. The fact that I have NOT personally attacked or insulted you or anyone else here, or any of your beliefs, by itself leads me to believe I am on the right side of this discussion.
Mike
If you didn't have me in mind, Mike, I accept that.
Nevertheless, my comments about lack of solid evidence from Christian apologists still stands. As Narkissos' quotation suggests, perhaps it's best not to engage in such, but it's not for me to say what others ought to do by way of defending their faith. As for me, I believe only due to evidence, not blind faith, and I refuse to believe merely because others, even others with some sort of authority or those I respect, do. I've learned from various quarters to "let the buyer beware."
So, if I ever "meet my maker", and he/she/it wants me to explain why I am not a believer, I'll certainly have a few words for him. At this point, though, I'm confident that this will never happen.
AlanF
Paul said to Peter...."Get behind me Satan". Did Peter complain he was attacked by Paul, or did he realise Paul was expressing his dislike of Peters ideas?
Why do christians take negativity as personal? I don't know anything about you Mike and I'll bet your a heck of a nice guy. To disagree doesn't equate with a personal attack on the individuals worth. I already I stated I flipped my lid a bit and said I was sorry and wished you a Merry Christmas....but you seemed to have forgotten that part
Once again....I hope I didn't hurt your feeling or scare you off.
Gumby
Hey Mike
Just for the record, i spent several yrs after leaving the wt in serious independent, deep bible study, also being an active church attender, praying, and a few other things. In the end, what caused me to throw out the bible was it's internal contradictions (as i percieved them). Morals, except for the fact that i could not respect what i saw as lies in the bible, had nothing to do w it. I did not throw out the bible because i wanted to be free to do certain things. Not at all.
S
