Sab: Yes to give us all the illusion that we are forgiven (because sin is a fabrication). So we'd all stop killing and "keep our eyes on the prize."
We're all mercenaries at heart.
does the bible have to agree with itself for it to have lasting value?.
-sab.
Sab: Yes to give us all the illusion that we are forgiven (because sin is a fabrication). So we'd all stop killing and "keep our eyes on the prize."
We're all mercenaries at heart.
does the bible have to agree with itself for it to have lasting value?.
-sab.
On the other hand, when I see a book used as a source of faith that speaks of a god who is jealous and has fits of anger and kills off those who fail to please him, it all makes sense as a book that holds perspectives of primitive men at that time. It was used to control the people with fear. That's why women had no rights and stories of death and destruction for the rebellious filled page after page. Control. The bible is no better than the WT Society today, IMO.
But the second half has Jesus (yaaay!) and he seems like a pretty good guy.... although Christianity sprouted as a cult with lots of people following some guy around who said you should disown your family and be his follower. Some people did disown their family for him. I see that as destructive now.
does the bible have to agree with itself for it to have lasting value?.
-sab.
Psac: ... it is very easy for ancient man to equate bad things happening to their enemy is "divine judgment" and to write it as such.
Psac, I'm really trying to understand but I can't get this straight in my head... You seem to reach some similar conclusions as those of us who consider the bible to be just another book and Jehovah & Jesus to be just another couple of imaginary gods.
Why do you stop short of finding the entire bible to be just another human conception?
How does one have faith in a personal Christian god without accepting the Bible? (TEC gave me her perspective a while back but it lacked logic that I need before I can put faith in any book or god again. No offense, TEC, I'm just saying I don't have that connection with Jesus to let faith patch up the holes. And I don't know how to have that connection to Jesus without faith. It's a bit of a catch 22 that I think a loving god would've worked out in advance.)
How do you know which parts you can trust? If you can't trust all of it, I don't see how you can trust parts of it. You might say, "well, everything that talks about Christian love"... but you'd sound exactly like my mother, who said she ignores the negative things about the WT Society and only looks at the good things.
Doesn't work for me. When a group or a book claims to be backed by the omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent creator of the entire universe, I expect a little more than ever-changing doctrine or a holy book that is only half accurate (more credit than it deserves).
does the bible have to agree with itself for it to have lasting value?.
-sab.
Have you yourself actually and in truth read for yourself the accounts written in Bible about how wicked the Egyptians and the inhabitants of Canaan were?
Inkie, yes, I have read those bible accounts. Based on what I read in the bible, Canaanites (not necessarily all) did evil things, Egyptians (not necessarily all) did evil things, and Israelites (not necessarily all) did evil things. Yahweh was no Gandhi either. If cleansing the land was his goal, surely an all powerful god could've executed his attacks with the skill and accuracy of a scalpel instead of a shotgun.
I see no justification for killing babies and children just because they were be born to heathen parents.
I see no justification for rape.
I see no justification for slavery.
I see no justification for wiping out entire nations.
BTW, speaking of disgusting atrocities of the OT, I thought it was funny that there are two very similar accounts in the bible (Judges 19 and Genesis 19) in which a man accepts visitors in his home and some of the townsmen come to his house and demand that he send out his male visitor(s) so they can rape them? But instead of, I dunno, say.... calling down evil on these sexual predators to have two she-bears tear them to pieces (that's silly, I know), the man of the house offers his virgin daughter(s) for the townsmen to have their way. The conclusion of Judges 19 account is especially gruesome when the Levite finds his dead, gang-raped concubine the next AM and cuts her into 12 pieces, Dahmer-style, and sends a piece to each tribe. But I suppose that's all poetry. Or or maybe the scribes or copyists added that in? Or maybe it was a mistranslation?
does the bible have to agree with itself for it to have lasting value?.
-sab.
I see that the Bible has a clear message throughout. The OT shows God's wrath towards the wicked, but also His desire for people to come to Him. The NT shows God's love for people, and yet His wrath towards those that supress truth. Revelation contains much of the same sort of wrath that God showed towards the godless in the OT. The angels pour out vials of God's anger on those that will not serve Him.
BD, c'mon, dude. You didn't really address my earlier questions about the conficts in principle. Here's what you said:
Every seeming contradiction can be answered in a reasonable way (at least the ones that I have researched).
You know that isn't news to any of us. JWs taught the same thing. But let's just take one of those contradictions: why did God need to "show his wrath" by slaughtering infants and children in the OT? How wicked were they? If the men who wrote the bible said that he violently raped a baby to show the pagans who he was, would also be righteous since he's God? Any conduct attributed to God is perfect and just, right? Where do you draw the line in rationalizing away horrific acts with "his ways are higher than our ways"? Don't you think Muslims have some similar expression about Allah to rationalize his atrocities?
There's a reason that some of us on here give Christians such a hard time: Because we see similarities between JWs and those who believe the Bible should be taken literally as a book to live THROUGH.
Think about the fact that you'd like to expose fallacious thinking of a JW (other than your wife). You realize that at one time you saw things the way they do but now you want to help them recognize the lunacy of it. And you can tell when they avoid facing the issues that present a cognitive dissonance. They can rationalize away failed prophecy, changing doctrine, and the unloving act of shunning just as easily as you rationalize away a loving god who authorizes rape.
does the bible have to agree with itself for it to have lasting value?.
-sab.
Conflicts in principle turned me off.
How do you rationalize God is love vs. God being responsible for genocide, rape, slavery, and the slaughtering of innocent children?
How do you rationalize God is humble vs. YOU MUST LOVE YOUR GOD and THERE MUST BE NO OTHER GODS and the demand for constant praise and adoration from puny humans?
How do you rationalize God is like a father vs. those of us who are fathers who know would never demand that our sons and daughters love us MORE than their own offspring (whenever that happens)?
Why is it that things that are CLEARLY immoral to us today are whitewashed in the bible because God did it?
do you agree that there should not be a mosque in the area that was wiped out by muslim extremists?
on the view, it was discussed with bill o'reilly and the ladies of the view.
joy behar and whoopie flipped because bill said "muslims" were responsible for the carnage there and it would not be appropriate for a mosque in that area.. what do you think?.
Hell, I'd love to see a world without any religion.... but not at the expense of human rights and freedom.
i was browsing through the december 2010 awake, and noticed an article on the earthquake that happened in haiti earlier this year.
it didn't take long for the article to disturb me.
the third paragraph initiated the sanctimonious tone that is present througout the article.
When I was still attending meetings, I'd get soooo sick of the self-congratulating comments at the hall:
"And to think that people in the world are so scared of Revelation! [laughs] How wonderful that Jehovah - thru the F&DS - teaches us what all of these visions and prophecies mean and how they apply today!" [heads nod, an old sister or two give an obligatory, "mmm-hmmm"]
"Those doctors said I'd die without a blood transfusion but guess what... I refused and I'm still here today!" [audience laughs at stupid doctors]
"All of the jokes and cartoons about Jehovah's Witnesses PROVE that we are fulfilling Jesus command at Matt 24:14 and 28:19,20! So the jokes really on them!" [belly laugh at something that was unfunny]
Even before I woke up to reality I noticed that JWs seemed to be sooooooo concerned about showing humility EXCEPT when it came to religious beliefs.
is it possible (and is there any evidence?
) that religion was invented by mistake?
that perhaps someone wanting to describe the reasons for things not understood used metaphors that the ignorant took literally?
do you agree that there should not be a mosque in the area that was wiped out by muslim extremists?
on the view, it was discussed with bill o'reilly and the ladies of the view.
joy behar and whoopie flipped because bill said "muslims" were responsible for the carnage there and it would not be appropriate for a mosque in that area.. what do you think?.
How's this analogy?
After the WTS destroyed your family because of their religious fanaticism, how would you like a KH being built next door to you?
Ding, for your analogy to be a parallel, instead of a KH, the building would need to be more like a Catholic church. Both JWs and Catholics claim to follow Christ but JWs do not represent all of Christianity. Likewise, radical Muslim terrorists do not represent all of Islam.
So let's change it a bit: After the WTS destroyed your family because of their religious fanaticism, how would you like a Catholic church being built next door to you?