by Farkel 53 Replies latest jw friends
The thing about it is, Shelby, is that YOUR "Christ" is the one who keeps transforming himself into an angel of light. That's the reason that he's inspiring you to tell me to "HUSH".
What a fool you have proved to be ... and what's more you've been duped into believing that you haven't been fooled.
Friday,
who happens to really know.
Friday, who happens to really know.
This... from a man who worships... his dog. Okay, Friday, 'you know'. Yeah. Right.
In TRUTH:
"... you do NOT know... you are MISERABLE...
and PITIABLE... and poor... and
BLIND... and NAKED."
But perhaps... in your case... ignorance... is bliss. Wouldn't want you to bust a blood vessel or something, now would we? No, can't have that.
A slave of Christ,
SJ
SJ
HUSH, Shelby ... and may the true God further rebuke YOU! This isn't/wasn't a JOKE, you impudent woman.
A slave of the real Christ,
Friday
Farkel,
I read your first post on this thread, but not most of the others. I would like to take a stab at it.
After reading your post, I got out my Bible and read Gen 18. I just did not seem to read what you read somehow. This is how I saw it:
God says 'I'm going to destroy S&G because they are full of bad people."
Abraham says,'But God, it's not fair to destroy the good people, too.'
God says, 'I won't destroy the good people.'
Abraham goes out to find the good people and can't find any.
God never changed what He was saying was right or wrong. But Abraham it seems was implying that God was wrong about there being no rightous people in S&G. Abraham turned out to be wrong, not God.
While Abraham did seem to be appealing to a right and wrong 'outside of' God, there is nothing here saying that there IS such a thing. In fact, I think the story reinforces the idea that God IS 'right.'
What do ya think?
--LisaBoBeesa
Lisa,
Read verse 5, and try to explain to us how you can say Jehovah knew precisely what was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah. Then read verse 26 about Jehovah saying "IF" if I shall find fifty righteous men. Then verse 30 which states about the same thing using "IF."
The point is simple. Anyone reading these verses could conclude that Jehovah was either not sure before he decided to do his slaughtering, or he was being deceitful to Abraham.
AGuest stated that Jehovah already knew, so by her own reasoning Jehovah was being deceptive to Abraham, and Jehovah said he hates that sort of thing. Put another way, he hold humans up to a higher standard than he holds himself.
BTW, Aguest: I'm not the least bit intimidated by your version of God. With regards to your silly statement that I'm still "stuck" in WT thinking, may I remind you that I don't believe that shit, either. I use JW beliefs to show how ridiculous they are. I cannot believe you haven't figured that out about me yet.
Farkel
Farkel,
I read Gen 18:5 but I don't see what you are talking about. Maybe you meant another verse?
Regarding "IF": I don't see how this word makes God's words deceitful. HOWEVER, upon further review.....I must admit... verse 20 and 21 do seem to support the idea that God didn't know for sure what was going on in S&G, because He was 'going down to wee whether or not these reports are true.' It is notable that He had not decided to destroy them before He knew if they were evil. He had decided to destroy them IF they were evil. Also, there is no way of knowing if Abraham's words convinced God to spare them if a few rightous souls could be found, or if God had already decided that if the reports were not true even for a few people He would spare them.
So, I would say:
#1 God was not deceitful.
#2 God was not wrong.
#2 God did not decide to kill people before he knew if they were bad.
The important question that is left is: Do these verses show that the God of the Bible is in fact NOT all-knowing?
A question worthy of further research!
--LisaBobeesa
:Do these verses show that the God of the Bible is in fact NOT all-knowing?
He didn't know where Adam was. Genesis 3:9.
If he knew what humans would do, he wouldn't have to test us, would he?
If the Bible is to be believed, God cannot be omniscient. If he was, there would be no issue of "Universal Sovereignty" as dubs teach. Then again they also teach that he COULD know everything that will happen but he sort of "turns it off" in some cases and then "turns it on" when it comes to prophecy. Obviously, in the case of the WTS He has not only "turned it off," he has declared a blackout.
By the way, I meant Gen. 18:21, not 18:5. Sorry for the misdirection.
Farkel
Farkel,
I've been doing a little research and this is what I have found:
I found two Christian commentaries that say re Gen 18:21 something along the lines of:
" 'I will go down . . . and see'--language used after the manner of men. These cities were to be made examples to all future ages of God's severity; and therefore ample proof given that the judgment was neither rash nor excessive." Others said something like, 'this is no admission of doupt on the part of God, but rather the use of language after the manner or men.'....
If this were correct, it would explain things...but I would have to research futher as to where this explanation comes from before I could decide if I can buy it or not.
I found a couple Jewish commentaries that say that the point of Genesis is to show the need for The Law, and that is the point of this and other things found in the book. They also say there are '70 faces of Genesis' meaning that many authors, making it difficult to understand (this is my interpretation), and explaining some other issues with Genesis. Actually, I found these commentaries more interesting because they gave more background info and were much less absolute.
The most interesting thing I found was here:
http:/ /www.commentarymagazine.com/0009/bk.marks.html
I would be interested in what you think about the above.
You said:
"If the Bible is to be believed, God cannot be omniscient. If he was, there would be no issue of "Universal Sovereignty" as dubs teach."
I don't know much about the rules of logic, but I know a Straw Man when I see one. Please do not try to disprove God or the Bible using what Dubs teach. They are WRONG about almost EVERYTHING.
Till next time,
LisaBobeesa
LisaBObeesa,
I've been doing a little research and this is what I have found:
I found two Christian commentaries that say re Gen 18:21 something along the lines of:
" 'I will go down . . . and see'--language used after the manner of men. These cities were to be made examples to all future ages of God's severity; and therefore ample proof given that the judgment was neither rash nor excessive." Others said something like, 'this is no admission of doupt on the part of God, but rather the use of language after the manner or men.'....
1. So the flood was not ample proof of J's severity?
2. How does it prove that the judgement was neither rash nor excessive? There had to be young children in the population Were even newborn children wicked and deserved to be murdered?
3. Lot is called a righteous man in the bible, but instead of giving himself to the mob, or try to fight them off, he offers his daughters to them. What a hero to follow! Of course his daughters were his property and according to "God's Word", he could sell them as slaves in an economic pinch.
4. If Sodom's crime was homosexuality, why didn't the murder of all people in those cities stopped homosexuality? There were even homosexual prostitutes practicing their trade in Salomon's temple.
5. Why didn't the Jewish tribal god of war destroy other cities who also were wicked? Didn't this god have knowledge of cities in America, Australia, China, Africa, etc. Aztecs would offer the hearts of tens of thousands of Tlaxcaltecan people on wars whose only purpose was to provide hearts for Huitzilopochtli. I would think that this practice was more wicked than the sexual habits of a town, yet he just ignored the sacrifices to other gods.
6. There is no reference to his trying to teach the sodomites that their practices were wrong. His solution? Kill 'em all. They'll learn when I resurrect them. No, maybe not, maybe yes, maybe not, maybe yes, maybe not, maybe yes, maybe not. Ok. I will resurrect them if I can find 50 righteous Jdubs. Ok, ten?
JRP
If I wanted your opinion, I would beat it out of you (seen in a bumper sticker)
Lisa,
: The most interesting thing I found was here:
: http:/ /www.commentarymagazine.com/0009/bk.marks.html
: I would be interested in what you think about the above.
If it's anything like the few examples you gave, it looks like its going to be another repository of Bible excuse-o-getics, but since you asked, I will take a look at it. I'm really not that interested in discussing whether the Bible is true or not, but I am interested in discussing whether the JW's interpretation of the Bible is true. The only reason I point out places in the Bible that are so morally outrageous or even idiotic is because if a JW can start questioning the veracity of their own Bible, questioning their own reliance on it to solve all of their problems will naturally follow.
That's why I don't attack wacky beliefs in the Bible from other faiths. Other faiths don't mess up people with anywhere near the magnitude the JW faith does.
::You said:
:: "If the Bible is to be believed, God cannot be omniscient. If he was, there would be no issue of "Universal Sovereignty" as dubs teach."
: I don't know much about the rules of logic, but I know a Straw Man when I see one. Please do not try to disprove God or the Bible using what Dubs teach. They are WRONG about almost EVERYTHING.
That's not a strawman. My whole argument was against God's omniscience. Since this board is called "Jehovahs-witness.com" and since this board is about JW issues, I added another example from the JW point-of-view that buttressed my argument. A straw man is when someone doesn't deal with the original argument (in this case God's omniscience with regards to Abraham and Sodom), but rather brings up an easier argument to defeat and then defeats it. Since I DID give my evidence to you for Sodom and only added "Universal Sovereignty" as an aside for dubs, I committed no Straw Man.
Farkel
