the bible says that a prophet who predicts something that does not occur is speaking words that the lord did not speak, but that is exactly what jesus did, if you can believe the author of mark.
here are the relevant verses:.
"when a prophet speaks in the name of the lord, if the word does not come about or come true, that is a word which the lord did not speak;" (deuteronomy 18:22).
agreed joe. just wanted to sort of throw this in to show that we all have some kind of faith in the unprovable after you had claimed not to. and when i first read this statement by teilhard it really struck me as the most sensible explanation of faith id ever heard.
mox
given recent events, some of this is almost funny.. side one: .
side two: .
expatbrit
umm, if you couldnt figure this out, this tract is directed towards muslims.
mox
examine the following statements and tell me if you think the wts is irresponsible in its furtherance of religious hatred which is an evil plaguing the world today.. 1 article 1. of the un declaration of human rights.
quote:.
all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
this is very interesting - i would need to see the entire article here, i think. the quote is from Theological Word Book of the Old Testament. Here is the most complete quote i can find online:
HATE... ...The verb... expresses an emotional attitude toward persons and things which are opposed, detested, despised and with which one wishes to have no contact or relationship. It is therefore the opposite of love. Whereas love draws and unites, hate separates and keeps distant. The hated and hating persons are considered foes or enemies and are considered odious, utterly unappealing... The hating that is usually referred to in the OT is the opposition, ill-will, and aversion men have for fellowmen... There is also a hating on the part of man which is acceptable to God. Man must have an aversion to and depart from evil...
mox
the bible says that a prophet who predicts something that does not occur is speaking words that the lord did not speak, but that is exactly what jesus did, if you can believe the author of mark.
here are the relevant verses:.
"when a prophet speaks in the name of the lord, if the word does not come about or come true, that is a word which the lord did not speak;" (deuteronomy 18:22).
we all have faith in something unprovable in the strictest sense. no one can prove that the world is not an illusion in their mind alone. this is an extreme example but in the end, nothing is absolutely provable. we draw conclusions based on what we subjectively find to be the most believable, by whichever criteria we choose, not that which is absolutely proven.
on this topic, if you dont mind, i would like to quote Teilhard, one of the most intelligent religionists i have ever read:
If, as the result of some interior revolution, I were to lose in succession my faith in Christ, my faith in a personal God, and my faith in spirit, I feel that I should continue to believe invincibly in the world. The world (its value, its infallibility and its goodness)- that, when all is said and done, is the first, the last, and the only thing in which I believe. It is by this faith that I live. And it is to this faith, I feel, that at the moment of death, rising above all doubts, I shall surrender myself.
- Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Christianity and Evolution, p. 99.
i would like to hear what you think of our jesuit friend here, mr alward.
mox
the bible contradicts itself in the matter of punishing children for the sins of their fathers.
in one place is says that it is strictly forbidden, but in another the lord speaks of slaughtering sons for the sins of their forefathers, and in yet another place the lord orders the murder of suckling babes.
here is the evidence:.
i would have thought this was about the clearest example of inherited punishment. Jehovah speaking to Moses:
Ex 34:7b (NIV) Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.
mox
moxy raised a point in the "exaggeration" thread that aggravated me at the meetings.
mispronunciations.
moxy mentioned the word 'hyperbole' as frequently being mispronounced.. another one that bugged me was 'epitome'.
you know what drives me NUTS thats related is when someone is reading a passage with a bible name in it or a paragraph with a greek or hebrew word in it like, oh say 'philoxenia.' invariably, it goes something like this:
'when speaking about hospitality, the authors of the christian greek scriptures used the greek word--' [dumb blank stare] 'im not even going to TRY that one!' [uproarious laughter from audience] haha, what a bunch of idiots we all are!
or like:
'when speaking about hospitality, the authors of the christian greek scriptures used the greek word... uhhh.. phixoloxolini... oh im sure [token Greek-speaking Brother] can do much better than me on that. haha'
mox
why yes, i am a smart ass.
josiah, king of judah (640-609 b.c.
), was installed as king at the age of eight.
josiah attempted to restore the kingdom of david and was opposed by pharaoh necho of egypt in a battle at megiddo.
thats a good point joseph, and i suppose a matter of ones degree of inerrantist thinking. one might take an extreme inerrantist view that every word, choices of vocabulary and grammar, were made by god. such a view is obviously untenable and im not aware of any such extreme inerrantists. (it wouldnt shock me to find some tho.) i think a more common inerrantist view is that authors recorded details as they personally saw them and that god made sure the message was accurate overall and in its important details. i would take it that lars falls into this category. by definition, i believe a view like this is also unfalsifiable.
mox
next time you're at a kingdom hall, or during a watchtower study,.
or book study, make the following statement out loud:.
"jesus exaggerated a lot!".
i would just like to complain about how tired i got of hearing this word pronounced 'hyperbowl.'
josiah, king of judah (640-609 b.c.
), was installed as king at the age of eight.
josiah attempted to restore the kingdom of david and was opposed by pharaoh necho of egypt in a battle at megiddo.
actually, i got the impression lars was only taking issue with the chronology in chronicles, that the wording allowed josiah to have died at megiddo. either way, this one doesnt bother me a great deal, errancy-wise. its not like there was a doctor there to pronounce him dead. the exact time of death was probably something of a subjective matter under the circumstances and medical science of the time. i dont think anyone doubts that josiah died somehow in a confrontation with necho. both josephus and esdras corroborate the basic events.
it was a dark day for judah to lose their reformist and arguably most successful king in a battle he brought onto himself for reasons undisclosed. he shouldve picked his fights better. one gets the impression from the curt account in the earlier kings that the affair was so embarrasing that the less said the better. perhaps the fatal injury was quite accidental. kings doesnt even mention a battle per se and chronicles includes a very unusual detail that josiah was in disguise for no apparent reason.
mox
as has been discussed elsewhere in this forum, the wtbts has published many images depicting life after armageddon and the elements and presentation are fairly similar from picture to picture.
the text referencing a paradise picture almost always at one point refers to the restoration of the conditions of the garden of eden prior to the fall.. but what about the things which are never included in the drawings?.
1. never any couples from different ethnic backgrounds.. 2. never any persons whose clothes obviously do not match their ethnicity.. 3. never any printed material like books, magazines, or newspapers.
there is also a conspicuous, almost eery, lack of hamsters.
