Posts by Oroborus21

43

BIG LIE IN THE BIBLE!

by Gill in

god makes the sun shine and the rain fall on the righteous and the unrighteous!.

that's what it says in the bible, (paraphrased to more or less).

matthew 5 :45. so, that being the case, why does he not make it rain in drought stricken areas?.

you misunderstand the moral lesson in the main, which is to love "evil persons" thus it is a lesson in "undeserved kindness" aka Grace. True, perfect Justice would imply that God should make the righteous man's field watered and curtain off his unrighteous' neighbor's from the rainfall but he does not. (or rather it does not occur that way in the physical world, normally of course, which Jesus and the audience observe.)

Thus Jesus implies that God shows kindness or love to the unrighteous and therefore implores us, in imitation of the Father, to do the same.

Whether one is a believer or not, whether one sees the words as inspired or not, surely the lesson is simple enough and valuable to all.

As for comparing it to Job's verses, simply because rain is mentioned there, it doesn't detract from the verses in Matthew nor contribute to some global understanding of "rain" as a whole. (Rain certaintly wasn't a blessing for everyone in the Noah story.) One has to be certain that the "reference" is meant to be harmonized when trying to make an inter-scriptural evaluation and not merely look up in a concordance all instances of the same word in the belief that everywhere the Bible uses the same word it is the intention (of the writers, compilers or God) to harmonize these instances.

-Eduardo

43

BIG LIE IN THE BIBLE!

by Gill in

god makes the sun shine and the rain fall on the righteous and the unrighteous!.

that's what it says in the bible, (paraphrased to more or less).

matthew 5 :45. so, that being the case, why does he not make it rain in drought stricken areas?.

Oroborus21

justsomedude,

ok I can't believe I am actually going to take time to explain this or that it is necessary....

the statement is one of observation that is namely when the rain pours in any given area upon a population, there are in the speaker's judgment (and yes it is Jesus) in that population both righteous and unrighteous, and thus it rains to their equal benefit (or not actually). The point being made is that generally rain does not just shower upon the field of the righteous man while leaving his next door neighbour's bone dry because he happens to be unrighteous.

This is a simple, folksy and easy to understand illustration which is a metaphor for God's love/righteousness/fairness, etc.

This statement is obviously not meant to convey ANYTHING about climate, drought, where rain does and doesn't fall in some larger sense than the one which I have described.

Further this statement is not one of science which might describe the actual processes involved of evaporation, condensation and precipitation.

Contrary to a very stupid but catchy Country Song, God does not have his angels "pour out the rain" and of course Jesus knew that. Like most believers, Jesus and the audience understand that God, as the Creator, is to be recognized for such blessings as beneficial rain.

-Eduardo

43

BIG LIE IN THE BIBLE!

by Gill in

god makes the sun shine and the rain fall on the righteous and the unrighteous!.

that's what it says in the bible, (paraphrased to more or less).

matthew 5 :45. so, that being the case, why does he not make it rain in drought stricken areas?.

Oroborus21

Dear Bozos:

In these verses, the statement is being made by a speaker, who references in metaphorical fashion, their observation (or if you like, belief) that God makes it rain upon both the righteous and the unrighteous, in order to support their imploring the hearer to exercise the qualities of love or mercy or kindness or fairness in imitation of God.

Please take note that the statement may or may not be factually true - it is only the speaker's belief or observation. Please further take note that the statement is not one of science - other than a logical device within the speaker's rhetoric.

If a person has faith in the Bible or otherwise believes that it is God's word, then these scriptures may have significance and applicable meaning.

If one only believes these scriptures to be merely literature, one may still observe the above - which is clearly evident to anyone applying fundamental literacy skills aka "a brain" - without getting their panties in a wad over whether there are any greater implications - and indeed, it would seem contradictory for nonbelievers to assign the weight of divinity and yet claim to be a nonbeliever.

-Eduardo

43

BIG LIE IN THE BIBLE!

by Gill in

god makes the sun shine and the rain fall on the righteous and the unrighteous!.

that's what it says in the bible, (paraphrased to more or less).

matthew 5 :45. so, that being the case, why does he not make it rain in drought stricken areas?.

Oroborus21

It's more or less saying that God gives the basic necessities of life to ALL of his children.

Wrong. You simply misunderstand the meaning of the scriptures. This statement is in reference to God's fundamental fairness and love towards all, with the admonition that we should love our enemies, indeed have love for everyone.

Further, you misunderstand the scripture to be some literal indication of rainfall patterns & climate when it is simply a metaphorical reference to God's righteousness.

Use your brain.

-Eduardo

6

So, how many "Big Love" Fans out there and why?

by Madame Quixote in

okay, against all my preconceived notions against polygamy i have become an avid fan of the hbo series, "big love.

" i'm totally hooked on it.

and why, if you care to share?

Oroborus21

I watched the first four or five episodes but I have gotten bored with it. Maybe I will check out the latest episodes as they are on my on demand. - Eduardo

57

Who here is still left from h20?

by GermanXJW in

jw
friends

i wonder how many here have already posted on the old h20 hourglass outpost-board?

it started to be a reform website and was one of the first sites i dared to register.

took some time for me to see the truth.

Oroborus21

I am an H20 alum, posted simply as Eduardo.

Thanks to Cygnus i have all the old archives. That archive/new site that blondie found looks cool but doesn't have all the archives yet or much of a discussion going.

By the way H20 is alive and kicking. Here is the site:

http://www.geocities.com/hourglass2.geo/ (front door)

and

http://h2o.aimoo.com/forum/freeboard.cfm?id=311102 (forum)

It was the server issue that killed it. I think after it was down for a few months or whatever, it was never the same and many people found other forums, especially this one.

-Eduardo

44

Is There Any JW Belief That You Still Believe In?

by minimus in

jw
friends

would you have any qualms about taking blood??

do you believe in a paradise earth?

do you think there is only one "truth"?

Oroborus21

There are many that I believe, but referring to them as "JW beliefs" while maybe accurate, probably ignores that they may be shared by others or even stem from the Adventist strain of Christianity.

As to specific beliefs there are many but just to give two, I would say that I don't believe in the Trinity and even more clearly, the concept of Hell, NOT BEING a destination for the wicked or place of torture, etc. I believe is quite correct. If anyone in conversation is indicating a belief in Hell, I really consider them quite delusioned and probably look at them the same way other people look at JWs when they start talking about only a 144,000 going to Heaven.

-Eduardo

115

Are you tired of the whole atheist/believer debate?

by nicolaou in

i'm usually the first one to stir this particular pot but it get's so frustrating to keep coming up against the same old arguments.

the phrase "banging your head against a brick wall" springs to mind.

how many times have believers argued for a designer but refused to answer the obvious question of the designer's origin?.

Oroborus21

On the other hand, my personal experience would not be logical cause for someone else to adopt my beliefs.
Respectfully,

AuldSoul

no argument with the force of experience upon the conclusions of an individual, but I wonder whether this statement above goes against what we commonly assume about eye-witness testimony.

You mentioned for example if you witnessed a tornado and no one in the world ever saw one. If persons chanced upon the scene shortly after the tornado, saw the destruction and then questioned you as to what it was that caused it, your explanation and description of a tornado, would have to be given some weight, depending of course on whether a) you were a generally trustworthy person with a reputation for truthfulness, b) had no motive to lie or gain from lying and c) whether the explanation didn't defy the known laws of the universe (however, carefully note that this latter qualification is one which is subject to revision based upon the contributions of discovery).

From the above example, it is not a stretch to wonder whether the testimonies of persons who have seen divine miracles, or as in the case of Jesus, Abraham, Moses or other figures in the Bible who claim to have direct knowledge of or association with God, should be accorded similar treatment. In some cases, the weight of these persons' testimonies should be accorded some value to one who seeks a logical explanation of the universe and the God question.

-Eduardo

115

Are you tired of the whole atheist/believer debate?

by nicolaou in

i'm usually the first one to stir this particular pot but it get's so frustrating to keep coming up against the same old arguments.

the phrase "banging your head against a brick wall" springs to mind.

how many times have believers argued for a designer but refused to answer the obvious question of the designer's origin?.

Oroborus21

Kid-A - when I use the term in this context I mean it to apply very broadly to all who have a systematic method of investigation aka science

115

Are you tired of the whole atheist/believer debate?

by nicolaou in

i'm usually the first one to stir this particular pot but it get's so frustrating to keep coming up against the same old arguments.

the phrase "banging your head against a brick wall" springs to mind.

how many times have believers argued for a designer but refused to answer the obvious question of the designer's origin?.

Oroborus21

The question of whether there is something bigger than our existence is one fundamental to our being human. It isn't going away and will always be debated -- unless of course there is a God which manifests himself in a way that convinces everyone :-)

Anyway, what is the question regarding the Origin of God? I haven't followed the threads debating this topic so I was curious about that.

I don't see why it has to be an either/or proposition. I believe that humans are not only capable but actually quite comfortable with holding dichotic paradigms, ideas, or explanations (one of the inherent flaws in Cognitive Dissonance theory) and can find both of them useful.

As for myself, I have both a "Believing paradigm" and a "Non-believing Paradigm."

My believing paradigm accepts the Bible as God's inspired word (but not the homely folktale of its origins and compilation), including both its origins and the explanation of our destiny (more or less along the lines of the JW explanation) [I don't accept any belief or theology that essentially makes life on earth a "way-station" or mere intermediate visitations while we aren't in Heaven - that just seems stupid], and sees the Earth as the starting point for man's ultimate destiny of populating the entire universe as we get to live forever and expand our culture beyond Earth's boundaries eventually.

The non-believing paradigm, finds value in the Bible and good advice for how we may live our lives, recognizes that our life is brief, and this is all there is, so enjoy it as the Epicureans might say - but yet, seems less hopeful and a bit depressing. The non-believing paradigm essentially could be summed up by the expression "reality sucks."

At best, the non-believing paradigm instructs us that we should enjoy our life, enjoy our relationships as these are the most important thing in the world, says there is little point in trying to accomplish anything in life except to help your fellow man in whatever small way you can and maybe try to leave a more comfortable life for your offspring, but really, when you are dead that is all - your game is over. There is no reset and there is no second-game.

Maybe the non-believing paradigm is reality, is the "correct" one but it sure isn't inspiring. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, it seems like the non-believing paradigm is something that was developed by guys who don't get invited to parties.

When Pandora looked inside the box, after all of the world's troubles had escaped because of her curiosity, what she found still lingering there was HOPE.

There is a lesson there for all men of science, who through their eager investigation, have unleashed upon the world such troubles as Doubt and Despair.

Hope still and will forever linger in many persons' hearts. That hope, namely, is that there really is something more than these 70 or 80 years upon this third rock from the Sun.

-Eduardo