Posts by SweetBabyCheezits

42

Neverending Story.. (just another Bible/God debate)

by SweetBabyCheezits in

this is continued from another thread in which psacramento and i were having a friendly discussion.... .

this was the original question he posed:.

ps: and what proof would be enough for you?

SweetBabyCheezits

SBC: So, Tammy, to determine which parts of the Bible are trustworthy, you're saying we must first accept some parts at face value and then base the rest of our judgment on that which we've accepted without question?

TEC: Well, if I'm just going by the bible, I take what Christ says and measure everything against Him - which I can further measure against love.

Then that is where our paths part.... which is okay because neither of us condemns the other.

I'm just sharing my reasoning: If I don't trust that the Bible was authorized, compiled, recorded, copied, preserved, and translated under the guidance of the very God featured in it, then how can I extract ANY segments from which to judge the rest. It should all be equally suspect until proven genuine.

How can I know the words I'm reading in the Gospel accounts are from Jesus at all? If other parts of the bible have been corrupted by imperfect man, I can't just assume the verses containing "Christ's words" have somehow been innoculated from corruption.

But if I accept on faith that his supposed words are true, that would be circular reasoning, because that faith must start with knowledge... and that knowledge must come (directly or indirectly) from the record in which we learned "Christ's words" - the Bible.

But none of this debate really matters because, when you get down to it, we really just speak different languages. You and Psac can come to grips with a lot of Bible discrepancies because you speak in terms of faith. I don't 'speak faith' anymore. I suppose I could again someday but it would take a fundamental layer of reason and evidence to place that faith within my reach again.

What I truly appreciate is that you guys are not judgmental. You have your faith but your reason has made room for tolerance as well. For that, I salute you.

81

Jehovah's Witnesses - Are they loving?

by brotherdan in

jw
friends

jehovah's witnesses love to claim that they are a true religion because they are the most loving people on earth.

they rant and rave about how they apply john 13:35 to themselves.. in a recent conversation with djeggnog, i was shocked at some of the hateful things that he was saying to me.

now i know that i have been in some pretty heated debates with others, but i try to never make it personal.

SweetBabyCheezits

Are they loving?

Here are my thoughts, and they are only that - thoughts. There's no good in generalizing here. JWs are humans, subject the the same negative characteristics that stem from the mind, just like you and me. Some suppress the negative traits better than others.

Unfortunately, the WT Society promotes ignorance and pride in the highly-potent form of prejudice.

The Society does it's best to get members to bury most negative traits but, for its own health, does not discourage religious pride. (See last year's DC symposium on pride. Religious pride was set apart from judgment and ENCOURAGED instead of DISCOURAGED.)

But again there are varying degrees how prejudice is displayed even among JWs. If you poke someone in their pride enough, chances are the prejudice will bleed through. For Eggnog, it doesn't seem to take a lot.

Dan, you know JWN members carry a label. Though the label isn't an invention of the Watchtower Society, they have become increasingly skilled at using it to promote extreme prejudice. As long as Eggnog can view you behind that label, he can continue to elevate himself and treat you like crap when you get to him, without too many (or any) pangs of conscience.

So are they loving? I'd say the organization contains members who are, by nature, loving... but it creates an environment for prejudice, which opposes love. It depends on the individual as to how well they suppress the display of their prejudice.

236

What is your definition of a "Fundi" or a Fundamentalist?

by brotherdan in

i've been called a "fundi" many times in my discussions with people on the board, and i'd like to know what your definition is of a "fundi".

don't google it.

i just want to hear your personal definition.. i find it interesting because i don't go to any church.

SweetBabyCheezits

Also, whether they know it or not, they have Watchtower blinders on.

BTS, I'm not sure if I'm included in this generalization but I'd like to offer that my WT blinders came off a few years ago only to expose my Bible blinders. Later, I realized if I was going to invest myself in any particular faith, I needed to strip all childhood presuppositions off and start over from scratch. I approached belief as though my mind had been wiped free of religion, like a fresh OS install.

In doing so, I found no reason to accept anything the Bible had to say as being of divine origin.

Could leftover fragments of old black and white WT ideology have corrupted my reasoning? That's a possibilty. But the most basic logic tells me that a superhuman, omni-everything god should be capable of conveying his message clearly, transcending time and language barriers without room for contrasting metaphorical interpretations.

Clear communication does not seem to be the Bible's strong suite when you consider tens of thousands of denominations exist, all of which cannot be right.

42

Neverending Story.. (just another Bible/God debate)

by SweetBabyCheezits in

this is continued from another thread in which psacramento and i were having a friendly discussion.... .

this was the original question he posed:.

ps: and what proof would be enough for you?

SweetBabyCheezits

SBC to Trevor: You inspire me to stop debating and relax.

Just not today.

TEC: Other issues would include suicides by those of other faiths, wars as people try to assert their God or their place, people continuing in faith that their God is bigger and better than this one who has appeared. Trauma, etc, etc. So a big forceful I am God and I am here to people before they are not ready or willing to see/hear Him would hurt many. I think its safe to say that some would be terrified at the prospect of His existence.

My thinking wasn't that God would show up one day out of the blue like an estranged father, but that he would've made his prescence known - to at least two or three of our five senses - from the very beginning. Then there would've been no shock.

42

Neverending Story.. (just another Bible/God debate)

by SweetBabyCheezits in

this is continued from another thread in which psacramento and i were having a friendly discussion.... .

this was the original question he posed:.

ps: and what proof would be enough for you?

SweetBabyCheezits

Heyyyyy, Gladiator/Trevor, I was just thinking about you earlier this week! I've noticed that a some of my favorite posters were MIA. (NVL got booted.) Welcome back, with your diplomatic self!

You inspire me to stop debating and relax. I'm envious of those who have learned to be more laid-back. I hope it comes with maturity. (And I hope maturity comes to me. )

42

Neverending Story.. (just another Bible/God debate)

by SweetBabyCheezits in

this is continued from another thread in which psacramento and i were having a friendly discussion.... .

this was the original question he posed:.

ps: and what proof would be enough for you?

SweetBabyCheezits

PSac: Let's be very clear here, IF God came out in all his wonderous glory, the free will that we would have to believe or not would be removed.

Trevor: According to the Bible, angels have never had the free will that you believe is essential for humans to have. Angels have always known of god's existence as they are said they reside with Him. Some, still decided to rebel.

Psac: If they decided to rebel then they obviosuly had free will.

Psac, there is a broken link in the chain of logic here. If God manifests himself before angels but they still have free will, your first statement cannot be true.

Angels were privy to God before man, man was privy to God before "our fall",

Again, if man was privy to God before "the fall" (there is no "our" - I take no responsibility for my ancestor's failings), then according to your first statement, Adam and Eve were without free will. But then how did they rebel without free will?

perhaps God decided that since THAT way didn't work, maybe he'd try a different way?

You're a good man of faith, sir. I am without. To me, that sounds like God said, "Well, I didn't get their obedience by making myself obvious. Lemme try hiding for a few thousand years."

Trevor: I guess I was born on the wrong side of the railway track.

Psac: No, you weren't, we are all born with the capacity to know God, we just have a lot of "noise" going around in our heards and hearts.

The capacity to know god? My kids have the capacity to know me but I don't expect them to go on scavenger hunt to find me. I've made myself known to them from day one via 4 out of 5 human senses. Why? Because I love them and I want them to know me. I don't want one kid to know me simply because his mother talks about me so he sees me in "faith" while the other is like, "Dad, where are you? I need more than that!"

Why is so much value placed on faith alone? How does that improve the situation?? I see no reason that manifesting himself would remove free will to decide whether or not we would obey him.

For years I asked and prayed for God to make himself known to me, well...I should be honest and say that I yelled and demanded to know WHY things were the way they were and why God * waves accusatory finger* didn't fix it !!

As someone who doesn't believe in a personal god, I have to think you must've had at least a kernel of faith in order to get angry with God. Folks like Trevor and me... (hope I'm not speaking out of turn, T) we don't have that luxury of searching for god with our "feelings" anymore.

As for me and my household, we shall believe on reason and evidence.

42

Neverending Story.. (just another Bible/God debate)

by SweetBabyCheezits in

this is continued from another thread in which psacramento and i were having a friendly discussion.... .

this was the original question he posed:.

ps: and what proof would be enough for you?

SweetBabyCheezits

sbc, dude your either very very patient or very obstinate :) how many months did it take you to become atheist? or days? did it just clicked on ur head?

hey, CJ - el conquistador, I missed your presence on the board today.

Uhh, I'm obstinate. Plus I'm not allowed to reason with family so I have to release some energy on JWN.

I'm not a true atheist, per se. Not sure what I am but I think the "nontheist" or "humanist" would be close if I had to wear a label.

I feel quite certain that the Bible and other Abrahamic holy books are the product of primitive human minds, nothing more. And I have no real confidence that there is/was a superhuman creator but I do not completely rule out the possibility that some intelligence played a role in our existence way back when. These views range from deistic to pantheistic to pragmatic agnostic to atheistic, but never revert to traditional theism.

As far as how long it took... damn good question. Don't really recall. I remember losing faith in the Org in 2005 after finding the 607-587 discrepancy in an encyclopedia. Still held on to the Bible and Jesus for a while after that.... because I remember being offended by an atheist who mocked Christian beliefs after he overheard them mocking Scientologist beliefs.

Then I read The Age of Reason and realized I'd already started asking myself some of the same questions but was afraid to admit it. Like, at one point I felt sooo guilty because I started wondering why there was so much fuss about Jesus' sacrifice. I wondered what kind of lame sacrifice you're making if you know you'll see the one being sacrificed again (or you'll be alive again) in three days? How long is three days to a being who has existed for an eternity?

Thomas Paine just made me comfortable with questioning the Bible. And for that I am thankful.

42

Neverending Story.. (just another Bible/God debate)

by SweetBabyCheezits in

this is continued from another thread in which psacramento and i were having a friendly discussion.... .

this was the original question he posed:.

ps: and what proof would be enough for you?

SweetBabyCheezits

It is also quite simple... just look at the things written though Christ. Through what Christ teaches us. It becomes much simpler to know which parts to trust or not.

So, Tammy, to determine which parts of the Bible are trustworthy, you're saying we must first accept some parts at face value and then base the rest of our judgment on that which we've accepted without question?

Since when is popular view ever the only or even right view? I don't know why you would ask PSac about that. I think you know he doesn't believe it and neither do I. I don't even think its biblical.

I realize that, Tammy, and you guys are cooler than many. But you have to take a pretty flexible view of the Bible (in my opinion, per my previous comment) and I really can't buy that either. According to the majority of Christians I've spoken to, hell is the sentence for not accepting Jesus as my savior.

Thomas was chosen by God and given to Christ for whatever reason, and He walked with Christ - and are you sure he was demanding proof of Christ's existence, or His being the Son of God... or just proof that He had risen in bodily form?

Thomas, from what I understood, was simply asking for proof that Jesus had been resurrected. My point was that Thomas did not accept hearsay as adequate reason to believe the "Jesus spottings". Therefore, why should I accept the hearsay of the Gospel accounts without sufficient evidence.

Why do people rebel against love, justice, wisdom, and power now?

I've yet to hear of a ruler who has ever led his subjects to an era of peace and prosperity by applying these qualities to the perfect degree. Please elaborate.

42

Neverending Story.. (just another Bible/God debate)

by SweetBabyCheezits in

this is continued from another thread in which psacramento and i were having a friendly discussion.... .

this was the original question he posed:.

ps: and what proof would be enough for you?

SweetBabyCheezits

(and I hope you don't mind my joining in)

This is open forum, Tammy, but you know you're always welcome in these discussions anyways.

Regarding your first point, I know that's your view and I respect that but I cannot share it. Again, if God could create the entire universe, surely he could've devised a way of communicating his message across a couple hundred generations without any corruption.

As for the second point, pehaps it would be in our best interests to love our creator but, as a father, it is in my children's best interests to love me... yet you'll never hear me command them to love me. I earn their love by being a good father (I hope!). Surely a father who is the superlative example of love and compassion would be able to earn his children's affection without having to demand it!

Third point: Contracts that require love are typically illegal, unless you're conducting business in Nevada.

42

Neverending Story.. (just another Bible/God debate)

by SweetBabyCheezits in

this is continued from another thread in which psacramento and i were having a friendly discussion.... .

this was the original question he posed:.

ps: and what proof would be enough for you?

SweetBabyCheezits

Pete: While I agree to your conclusions, I wonder if PS is cool with your drawing his comments from another thread and reposting them all to showcase them in negative light.

Peaceful Pete, it was Psac's idea to start a new thread as we were getting off BroDan's topic.

Psac: That is a great list, but maybe another thread would be in order?

Regardless, I'm not sure how I "showcased them in a negative light". I quoted my original reply and then his rebuttal and I formatted them as quotes in their context. My intent was only to continue the conversation we'd started elsewhere and offer a follow-up.

Psac's an awesome guy and I think he knows I respect him. If I've broken some unspoken rule of Internets forum etiquette, please let me know and I will do my best to rectify the situation.