What is "Right?"

by Farkel 53 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  lauralisa

  It is extremely interesting to me how broad the spectrum is among human beings when it comes to reasoning.

  There is at one end the purists' "letter of the law" and at the other, the "spirit of the law". The degree to which love [LOVE: definition unavailable at this time] alters perceptions and balances differences between disparate lines of reasoning is another interesting thing to observe.

  Let me make myself clear at this point. I am a recovering person, bitter at times, paralyzed with hopelessness and fear most of the time, but holding on to see if some kind of explanation or justice will eventually produce itself. I shake with anxiety over the fact that I let myself succumb to the lies and tactics of the WTS for over a decade. I trust no entity or organized group. I do not trust any person, nor do I trust myself. My only means of learning are of observation. The only remedy for the abject isolation I feel is a timid gesture here and there, and it is always a risk, even under the cloak of anonymity.

  My remarks were intentionally banal regarding how I'd been told to justify in my mind the unfathomable disregard for human life in the account Farkel brought to our attention. I was rather hoping for others' sharing how they had coped with these gross over-glossings of the true issues when involved with the cult called jehovah's witnesses. I haven't thrown the bible out of the window yet; I truly wish to comprehend it, and welcome anyone's insights whether I agree with them or not so that I have all that much more to go on to try and reason on things.

  Vitriolic responses with no pereived purpose other than perhaps "venting" do not help me or anyone else. I don't give a flying fuck about who was right or wrong, in an absolute sense or imperfect human sense or any other sense, in the account that was (well, I was hoping) to be discussed.

  The concept of being "hidden" in death and not having to scrape my way through this hateful, pathetic, nightmare of a toilet we call "life" appealed to me every single day. I am obviously offended by your (I'm certain unintentionally!?!) crude and petty suggestion that I check the fuck out if I have a "problem" with the way things are. Fortunately or not, it has not worked out that way for me, but it's definitely not for lack of trying.

  I'm discovering life after cult-mentality and I come here seeking some kind of fellow feeling. Having been ensnared by whoever the fuck those people are up in New York for a time, it seemed that this site would be such a place. I am not having fun yet, though.

  Be careful what you say in your off-hand remarks, "seeker". You are worse than those you have rejected if you continue in their pattern but do not have the excuse of being blinded by ignorance.
• 

  jst2laws

  Hey, Farkel,

  You had to grab me on a tough issue. To defend God’s fairness here against your wit will make me feel a little like the Pork sausage at a Jewish picnic. So I am going to try to avoid appearing to do so, even if I thought I could defend him.

  The quote you brought up was meant to sympathize with one who I suspected could not see justification for the suffering we face. I feel the same. If I had the power to stop this I would, as you and most here would. But what if the record was included as part of God’s word for the same reason I quoted it, to sympathize with those who cannot justify the hurt in their own lives.

  Qoute
  “WHY did a paltry human like Abraham have to ASK God to for HIM do what was RIGHT? Read the whole 18th chapter. Abraham asked God that question a BUNCH of times. Why? Why didn't God know what was "right" in the first place? HE set up the rules about "right" and "wrong" and now we have a human begging him to play by rules that a human KNEW was right, yet God didn't seem to get it until he was persuaded to do so by Abraham.”

  What if the account, or most of the Hebrew Scriptures, were not meant to be taken so literal, but just a record of the perception of God of the time. Then the lesson would be ‘No, God will not destroy even one righteous person’.

  Quote
  “HE set up the rules about "right" and "wrong" and now we have a human begging him to play by rules that a human KNEW was right, yet God didn't seem to get it until he was persuaded to do so by Abraham.”

  What if all the Hebrew drama was to show what God DID NOT WANT. The sacrifices of Abel and Enoch were not required by God. The Kingdom was not what God wanted. Even the law of Moses was a “burden” (Acts 15:10) on the people God new was futile when He gave it to them. But it was a lesson or “tutor leading to Christ”. What if all the other experiences recorded in the Hebrew scripts were just a lesson of what God did not want?

  So there I go, sounding like I’m trying to defend God’s record in the Hebrew scriptures. You and AlanF, JanH and others can defeat me at this. Remember, a few months ago I was making shepherding calls as an appointed servant in the organization. You have been preparing your stand for, what, almost thirty years.

  So be kind, and please don’t argue technical points of the Hebrew scripts with me. I’m more into the purpose and concept of the record.

  Jst2laws
• 

  jst2laws

  Hello Lauralisa,

  Qoute
  ” There is at one end the purists' "letter of the law" and at the other, the "spirit of the law". The degree to which love [LOVE: definition unavailable at this time] alters perceptions and balances differences between disparate lines of reasoning is another interesting thing to observe.” .....……“. I haven't thrown the bible out of the window yet; I truly wish to comprehend it, and welcome anyone's insights whether I agree with them or not so that I have all that much more to go on to try and reason on things.”

  I liked your thoughts and agree. If you still have a respect for the Bible, you will remember Jesus favored the “spirit of the law”. Even more than that “he came to fulfil the law and the prophets”. I believe that is the heart of understanding these things. I am not in a position to answer all the questions that will come up but believe they can be answered if viewed in the right spirit.
  I hope you find friends who will support you in your new life.

  Jst2laws
• 

  Farkel

  Jst2laws,

  : To defend God’s fairness here against your wit..

  LOL! Well, at least I never use wit as a substitute for facts!

  To understand that story as allegory or parable puts it in an entirely different light, of course. However as you well know, I'm interested in JW issues and JWs believe that story to be absolute fact. Therefore, I argued from that point of view.

  If more people would take stories like that and the story of Eden as just stories with some message instead of as absolute truth, we'd had a lot more balance in Christianity. And a lot less slaughter. For those who've shed the fear of a God who will slaughter them if they disbelieve much of the Bible as historical fact, the Bible is a great read. But only in "moderation!"

  Farkel
• 

  Rex B13

  Still can't get out of the literal rationalist mode, can you Farkel?

  You probably don't even realize that the story of Abraham and Isaac is a picture or 'type' of Christ. The account was written for the understanding of people throughout the ages but it was made understandable to ancient bedouins. THEY used terms that applied to themselves before anyone had any concept of 'omnipotence, omnipresent, omniscient' that we understand today. The events tell the story of ABRAHAM'S FAITHFULLNESS, not the attributes of God.
  Just like 'God was walking through the garden in the breezy part of the day' is not a statement of the full nature of God, nor is the account where Jacob 'wrestled' with God (this is understood to be an appearance of the Angel of God, Jesus Christ, before He came as messiah, as is the previous Genesis account).

  This is another example of how and why the forces of atheism are constantly 'spinning their wheels' over non-issues that have already been explained by apologists over the CENTURIES since the last book of the Bible was written.
  JW-rationalism is a left over from the 19th century. It's intent is to insist their is an explanation satisfying to all for every Biblical statement. Mystery is inherent in any work that comes from man translating the inspiration of God into the thoughts and terms of ancient hebrews.
  Rex
• 

  Farkel

  lauralisa,

  : I respect you immensely and enjoy your posts!

  That was very kind of you to mention. Thank you.

  : My take on this account was much different: it seemed to be a encouraging example of how God would take into consideration the hurt, confused, and scared feelings of a mere human and accommodate them, whether they were "right" or "wrong".

  The issue was that God wanted to kill the entire city and that would include righteous ones if any existed. In verse 21 "Jehovah" says he is "quite determined" to go down there and check things out. Doesn't this strike you as a little strange that the Creator of the Universe has to "go down" somewhere to check something out? It strikes me as strange. Why didn't he know in the first place? Why did he have to call out to find Adam in the Garden of Eden, too? Was he losing his eyesight?

  Abraham stated to Jehovah that it was "unthinkable" that he should kill the righteous with the wicked, and in verse 26 Jehovah once again indicated that he didn't know if there were any righteous people in Sodom or not. First, he had to find fifty righteous people, though. So I guess he had to engage in some serious "Field Service(tm)" in order to find out what he wanted to find out. Doesn't this also strike you as strange that the Creator of the entire COSMOS wasn't SURE there were any righteous people in Sodom?

  : (I guess with the "catch-all" resurrection hope thing, I was able to reconcile confusion over the doing away with entire cities of innocents. They would all come back and have ice cream any time they wanted in paradise conditions.)

  Yes, I sympathize with that. I felt exactly the same way for decades, and now feel shame I could have been so cold and callous in my dub life.

  : I'm looking forward to the responses to your post and wish you well.

  I think jst2laws made some valid comments. At least he's willing to accept a more balanced point-of-view than those who take that story as literal and undebatable. To view it literally one would have to accept God as a wishy-washy, incompetent dork who kills first and asks questions later.

  Farkel
• 

  Farkel

  AGuest,

  : Abraham was asking whether my Father was going to commit an unjust act, the answer to which was no, of course not, and in fact, had there been but ten righteous men in that city, NONE would have been dealt with, for the sake of those ten.

  Getting down to ten took a lot of negotiating on Abraham's part. God opened with fifty, and after two hours of serious games of Blackjack, Abraham got him down to ten. God may be good at a lot of things, but I guess he wasn't very good at Blackjack.

  God killed 'em all anyway, so what the good Abraham tried to get God to do was for squat. Anyone want a chunk of salt?

  But of course, God is going to resurrect them, not resurrect them, resurrect them, not resurrect them, resurrect them, not resurrect them....er, check your latest Watchtower for the newest light on who's gonna be resurrected and who isn't. It's sure to give you the truth on the matter.

  Farkel
• 

  TMS

  A tiny modern sub-plot of this whole Abraham-Jehovah exchange is that these scriptures show that Jehovah allowed his expressed will to be questioned without retribution, whereas the GB and congregation elders' decisions cannot be questioned with impunity.

  TMS
• 

  AGuest

  Er, Daddy-O? What say you? If memory 'serves' me right, it was Abraham who 'opened the bidding', yes? I don't even think my Father had dealt a 'game', but when Abraham did, He condescended to 'play', yes?

  Could He not have simply said, "Look, Abe, you don't know what you're talking about... there's less than 10 righteous folks in those cities together..."? But instead, it looks like He said, "Okay, Abe... tell you what, you find me 50... okay, 40... okay, 30... okay, okay 20... ALRIGHT TEN... righteous men... in those cities and I'll step off."

  Well, even with two ANGELS... there STILL weren't ten, Daddy-O. But it was Abe who wasn't the good blackjack player... he should have known his 'opponent' wasn't 'bluffing' him... yes? Perhaps Abe himself was trying to 'bluff'... and couldn't come up with even a 'pair'... uh, ten righteous men.

  Yes, JAH killed them anyway, but He also proved a point: there weren't even 10 righteous men... and when playing 'poker' with him, you'd better have a GOOD hand. Obviously, Abe didn't.

  Oh, and BTW, what the WT 'says' is supposed to mean WHAT to me?

  So, I've 'doubled down'... now pass the pretzels, please, Daddy-O? The, uh... 'salty' ones...

  Peace!

  Your friend, servant and a slave of Christ,

  SJ
• 

  Farkel

  AGuest,

  : Er, Daddy-O? What say you? If memory 'serves' me right, it was Abraham who 'opened the bidding', yes? I don't even think my Father had dealt a 'game', but when Abraham did, He condescended to 'play', yes?

  I think you meant "consented." If Abraham would have condescended to God, God would have killed him just like he killed everyone else showed him condescention.
  
  : Could He not have simply said, "Look, Abe, you don't know what you're talking about... there's less than 10 righteous folks in those cities together..."? But instead, it looks like He said, "Okay, Abe... tell you what, you find me 50... okay, 40... okay, 30... okay, okay 20... ALRIGHT TEN... righteous men... in those cities and I'll step off."

  : Well, even with two ANGELS... there STILL weren't ten, Daddy-O.

  It's impossible to tell for sure, Auguest. God killed all the eyewitnesses, including Lot's wife. He let survive a "righteous" man who also happened to screw his own two daughters and get them pregnant.

  I don't know why you keep trying to justify all this crap. Salt lick, anyone?

  Farkel