by LouBelle 153 Replies latest jw friends
First off, it sounds like something I was fed by the WTS as a child.
Secondly it contains several assumptions that may not be true.
If you accept the statement as a fact, with no qualification, then I'd have to agree that it's a really ropey proposition. However there are more opinions and standpoints than just that one.
If you want a crack at the puzzle, feel free. The answers will be on the back page
The answers will be on the back page
"littletoe warfare" ;-)
If the bible is gods word and a manual for how we should live our lives then it should be clear and uncomplicated, not hidden in metaphor.
Spot the hidden assumptions! I love it.
1. There is a god.
2. The bible is 'its' word.
3. We need a manual by which to live our lives.
4. Life is clear and uncomplicated when someone tells us exactly what to do.
5. We are not capable of interpreting lessons hidden in metaphor.
How many based on JW thinking? In particular, none, but all definitely fundamentalist in general.
So, what's my score?
Having a bit of fun, but seriously, that's what I read.
t
Like the evidence that the world exists, or that people die and there's often a residual feeling that it's not the end, or...
Questioning the existence of the universe and our part in it has lead many cultures to believe in god/gods. Which one to pick?
The reformation had a lot to do with that, and some denominations continue to revise the "hymn sheet" as evidence becomes available.
So if there is a need for revision does it not follow that there are articles of faith that were originally in error?
If so how are we to chose what is and what is not correct?
God hasn't issued any updates, these revision are made by people.
LT,
I've written a long and winding reply, but then resigned from posting it, because most likely it wouldn't advance the discussion. I see how I may have misused the word "prove" which may have required some hedging. Sorry about that.
I still think I'm more intellectually honest not believing in all the concepts of God I have seen in my short life than I would be believing in them. These include every single concept of God I've seen presented on this board.
Unfortunately I have no access to the "uncoloured" concept of God you've mentioned, so my reply would probably boil down to barking up the wrong tree.
Regards,
Pole
If the bible is gods word and a manual for how we should live our lives then it should be clear and uncomplicated, not hidden in metaphor.
Assumptions:
1. 'THE' bible exists discreetly.
2. A specific 'god' exists without specification and delimitation.
3. The god has word(s) which are discernible and may be contained in #1.
4. We have lives which are discreet and meaningful.
5. There is a way we should live our lives.
6. Also, there is a way we should not live our lives.
7. This one is sort of hidden, but it can be inferred that living our lives purposefully is assumed to be the right way. In other words, the argument of "should" is taken for granted. As if it is weighed against other should's, without validating that there is a should in the first place.
8. Given the above, we know the bible to be a relatively finished product. Therefore any question of how it 'should' be is in itself a contradiction. The bible is exactly the way it is. Only an interpretation about it can be clear/uncomplicated. Or perhaps they are referring to the translation process? Or even to how this 'god' of theirs should have written it in the first place. The language is way off, that's for sure. And again, the bible itself is not clear and uncomplicated. They are referring, I presume, to the stories within the bible. This contains additional assumptions, chiefly that they are somehow meant to be understood. So, until the meaning given the bible seems clear and uncomplicated, the asserter of the above would not rest.
9. Hidden in metaphor...? The bible can not possibly be hidden in metaphor. "The bible" here refers to the idea of an overarching theme to the collection of books in the common modern protestant cannon. That such a theme actually exists in the first place is open to much scholarly dispute.
10. Common usage of words slips a bit, but not too much. So common usage can be assumed.
It is clear, in the least, that this statement is a logical fallacy of the "does not follow" variety. I would say:
Versions of books called bibles are exactly the way they are. What way are they?
My answer, as many of you know, is that the way they are is a hodgepodge of remarkly violent tales, appropriated folk-lore, and ancient semitic behaviour code.
Tal:
Good!
I can potentially see at least two more, though, which are very close to ones that you've iterated.
Mtbatoon:
Questioning the existence of the universe and our part in it has lead many cultures to believe in god/gods. Which one to pick?
Good question. Am I to understand that you were specifically refuting WTS BibleGod TM ?
So if there is a need for revision does it not follow that there are articles of faith that were originally in error?
Or initially interpreted incorrectly? Or perhaps based upon ancient documents that suited the language of that "age" but are more difficult to adapt to our current level of evolution?
If so how are we to chose what is and what is not correct?
If science clearly contradicts an "article of faith", then evidently something needs re-interpreting. Unfortunately many folks are not that strong. It shakes their confidence somewhat. Haven't we all faced various degrees of that, through our contact with the WTS? Some beliefs take longer than others to uproot, or even to view from another perspective.
God hasn't issued any updates, these revision are made by people.
Another assumption, or two, or three?
Pole:
You have absolutely nothing to apologise for, as far as I can see. I'm sorry if I made you feel that way.
I'd love to see what you originally wrote (if you still have it). It might not answer my specific objection, but it might be food for a further discussion, as these threads tend to weave around a bit anyhow
I still think I'm more intellectually honest not believing in all the concepts of God I have seen in my short life than believing in them. These include every single concept of God I've seen presented on this board.
Having gained a little insight into some of your assumptions and conclusions, I would agree. Further, we all hold these, making my perspective no more valid than yours, IMHO.
In part many of my views are shaped by my upbringing and there may well be an echo of JW ideology in my statement. I do however stand by it.
If the bible is gods word and a manual for how we should live our lives then it should be clear and uncomplicated
is a proposition not an assumption.
it should be clear and uncomplicated,
Is an assumption and from my proposition i stand by it.
not hidden in metaphor.
Another assumption but if the bible is a clear as some people claim then why after millenniumis it still being studied and debated?
God hasn't issued any updates, these revision are made by people.Another assumption, or two, or three?
So are you assuming that he has?
Spook:
Good!
You kinda covered one of the other points I'd iterate, in that we often assume it HAS to be clear and uncomplicated. I can see another point that no-one has covered yet, though.
Doncha just hate word-games, when it get's down to the very last answer - I know I do
Ok I see I have been outwitted today...........That's what I get for having only 4 hrs sleep I guess
