Posts by OutsiderLookingIn

240

Introduction - Any Believers?

by Believer in

i’ve been reading it for a few of years off and on, but have been a little too ... maybe ... timid to join.

i left the watchtower organization almost 20 years ago but never abandoned my faith and belief in god.

i knew the gb/organization didn’t represent god, so when i lost my faith in them, i managed to keep my faith in an all wise benevolent creator.

Okay. I think we've reached the limits of this discussion because it's getting redundant. My comments on the subject however imperfect and imprecise are spread throughout the pages of this OP. Cofty, I'm glad that we were finally able to agree that you're judging from a 21st century standard. And I can say that I got my very first dedicated meme from Outlaw, even if it is calling me stupid. Maybe an encore after this post? I bid you all a good night.

240

Introduction - Any Believers?

by Believer in

i’ve been reading it for a few of years off and on, but have been a little too ... maybe ... timid to join.

i left the watchtower organization almost 20 years ago but never abandoned my faith and belief in god.

i knew the gb/organization didn’t represent god, so when i lost my faith in them, i managed to keep my faith in an all wise benevolent creator.

OutsiderLookingIn

Sheesh, guys! That statement was sarcasm--and clearly not a mandate from God. Sorry to have offended; I'll speak more plainly going forward. My thinking was that a month very likely diminished the immediate aggression associated with warfare. It wasn't instant gratification or the heat of passion. And the guy might think twice if he had to provide for her as a wife instead of only using her for sex.

David Jay, I'm not sure how what we're saying is so different. I agree that God didn't tell people to rape and pillage or to keep slaves. I have said that the Law was tied to the culture and that it governed their interactions with other people in a more humane manner--for that time. The Law was along the lines of "if you're going to do X, don't be completely awful about it," or a guide for living in a fallen world. That's been my point all along, but it was called cultural relativism. Would you say something else? My mention of dietary laws and animal sacrifice was just to say it's not applicable for Christians because of the NT, not that the Law exalted Israel above anyone else.

Wayward, no I wouldn't; I wouldn't want it for myself either. All I'm saying is it was a very different world then. Even with arranged marriages today, I don't quite understand it. Maybe you meet once or twice before the marriage and hope you like each other? Or learn to? We're not under the law. We don't live in that world. I'm very glad for that.

240

Introduction - Any Believers?

by Believer in

i’ve been reading it for a few of years off and on, but have been a little too ... maybe ... timid to join.

i left the watchtower organization almost 20 years ago but never abandoned my faith and belief in god.

i knew the gb/organization didn’t represent god, so when i lost my faith in them, i managed to keep my faith in an all wise benevolent creator.

OutsiderLookingIn

Diogenesister: Considering god ORDERED Hosea to marry a hooker

Yes, that's true, but Hosea wasn't a priest; he was a prophet. Priests could only come from the Levites and the high priest could only come from Aaron's line. Only the priests were subject to these limitations. Other men could marry whomever they wanted. Priests and prophets had different roles--priests bring the people to God (presenting their sacrifices) and prophets bring God (His message) to the people. Hosea and his wife is an allegory of Israel's repeated unfaithfulness to God.

Re Jephthah's daughter, that is one popular interpretation. His vow was to sacrifice whatever came to meet him as a burnt offering. And that perhaps with the surrounding pagan influences, he didn't see anything wrong with it. It's clear he didn't think he would see his only child there. I've thought about this before (maybe too much #nerd lol) and also consider that God was opposed to human sacrifice, that the girl went away for two months with her friends and that the text twice mentions that she would never marry, not that she was killed. When Hannah dedicated Samuel to the Lord, it didn't mean she would kill him--only that he would be in God's service all the days of his life. So as soon as he was weaned, he went into the house of the Lord. It's definitely something to think about, though. Thanks.

240

Introduction - Any Believers?

by Believer in

i’ve been reading it for a few of years off and on, but have been a little too ... maybe ... timid to join.

i left the watchtower organization almost 20 years ago but never abandoned my faith and belief in god.

i knew the gb/organization didn’t represent god, so when i lost my faith in them, i managed to keep my faith in an all wise benevolent creator.

OutsiderLookingIn

Yes, Cofty, we're talking about the same passages. You see it as rape; I see it as a protection in wartime as the law of war is "to the victor go the spoils." Is it reasonable to conclude rape and sex slaves if God required a month before marrying the person? A month is a long time to hold off on rape. And not only that, after marrying the person couldn't get rid of them on a whim or even make a profit off of them. The next verse, Deuteronomy 21:14 reads: "It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her." This is decidedly not the concubine being used up by those men in Benjamin.

As for the Midianite virgins, you have read that into those passages because it doesn't say they became sex slaves. Those women were given to Eleazar as a tribute to God (Numbers 31:40-41). So perhaps it means they would never get married like Jephthah's daughter (Judges 11:34-40). Furthermore, the high priest was holy to God--he couldn't marry non-Israelites or even widows or divorced women (Leviticus 21:10-15; Ezekiel 44:22). But all of a sudden God allows him to have 32 foreign sex slaves? Hmmm.

God recognized the existence of slavery, but Israelites were not mandated to keep slaves. And again, it was more of a free market principle--people could sell themselves into slavery or service to pay debts (Leviticus 24:47-48; Deuteronomy 15:12-17). Crazy, I know. But it wasn't an entirely one-sided transaction like chattel slavery in the Americas.

I know we don't agree nor is that my intention, but the fact is we all inject our bias onto the page. As a world, we've come a long way and I'm so very glad for that, but it's hard to judge a global culture of Attila the Huns when the biggest issue of the day is "what does Brexit mean for my freedom of travel?" This is why I initially told Believer that the OT is so far removed from modern life that we just don't get it nor do we have to. We learn what we can from it and move on. Mainly, the unifying theme of the Bible: love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself.

Hi there, Mark of Cane. My point in saying that was actually something different, namely, that a belief in the supernatural is necessarily beyond the limits of human understanding. So for me to say that there are things I don't understand or that the supernatural exists is always beyond the realm of "reason."

To address your points, though, I haven't shied away from the OT; it still is profitable for something. We can learn from what ancient Israel did and didn't do, from their missteps, the ease with which it's possible to slip into idol worship (not just statues but things that take the place of God). I think we can learn from anyone, even if it's just learning what not to do. But those conditions don't exist anymore; it is history, background. That was then, this is now. For instance, there are long, repeated descriptions of the system of animal sacrifice. We don't do that anymore. We don't need it, but the entire book of Hebrews wouldn't make sense without it. There are dietary restrictions that might still be the best for health reasons, but their main purpose was to set apart the Israelites from surrounding nations. The account of Peter going to Cornelius's house for dinner says kosher rules no longer apply (Acts 10). And boy, I am glad because I love bacon. And shrimp! God gave the law to create order and a standard. Then He gave us Jesus. As I said before, the law was a guide for how to live in a fallen world and they were infused with humanity for the times. People turned them into ways to oppress other people.

I would agree that it's harder to defend a pick-and-choose faith. I used to do it but now I'm all in. And that doesn't mean that I'm happy when bad things happen or that I'm reverting to OT tactics when we're called to something else under Christ. I'm not, in JW style, looking forward to Armageddon because I know I've done some things and judgment will start at the house of God (1 Peter 4:17). We will all be called to account. It just means that the Old Testament is there and I don't ignore it.

Lastly, a general comment about the concept of God's love being at odds with judgment. I don't understand. Part of righteousness is justice. The judge in California has been nearly run off the bench for giving a six-month sentence to the swimmer who raped a young woman on Stanford's campus. Yet we conclude that God is wrong or maniacal because He has His standard of justice. We may not agree with the standard, but it doesn't mean it is a contradiction in terms to be love and require justice. I believe in the goodness of God; I also believe He is a consuming fire. He is not to be played with. Says so even in the NT (Hebrews 12:29). That's where being omnipotent comes into play. Revelation 20 says the dead will be judged according to their works, good or evil. So as a Christian, I believe that we're still responsible for what we do (including how we treat people), but our salvation comes through Jesus and we can't earn that salvation; we just receive it.

240

Introduction - Any Believers?

by Believer in

i’ve been reading it for a few of years off and on, but have been a little too ... maybe ... timid to join.

i left the watchtower organization almost 20 years ago but never abandoned my faith and belief in god.

i knew the gb/organization didn’t represent god, so when i lost my faith in them, i managed to keep my faith in an all wise benevolent creator.

OutsiderLookingIn

Cofty: We can go round and round on this merry-go-round but we won't get anywhere. I have written that God did not approve of kidnap/rape, yet here it is again. I have mentioned the pervasive culture of warfare and avenger mindset, but that's cultural relativism. I have said that after Christ, we are called to peace so that behavior would not be a reasonable course. Jesus was born during the so-called pax Romana, years of unprecedented relative peace and I think this was divinely orchestrated timing. But I already know, you don't care. You have reached your conclusion. You don't believe in the God of the Bible. You have communicated your point effectively. I get it.

Giles Gray: Bias is present in every argument. There has been bias in what is gleaned from my responses. Yes, I'm biased for God; that's why I'm a believer. I've experienced the peace that passes all understanding and it wasn't chemically induced. I went from toeing the faith line to experiencing God in my life. So it's not hypocritical when part of my belief is that if I knew everything, I would in fact be God. Those statements went together: I'm not God and I don't know everything. You call it a cop out, but you also think that belief generally is a cop out so I can't win for losing. I believe in the supernatural so arguing beyond what we can see or scientifically explain will clearly exceed the limits of human understanding. There will always be a gap I won't be able to bridge.

As an aside, faith isn't going anywhere. And if you think so, you might be as deluded as I'm sure you think I am. This is a very atheist-friendly space and yet there are still believers. This may be a topic for a new OP, but I actually think complete ridicule/non-exposure to religion plays right into the hand of the Watchtower because they can be there to pick up the pieces when life throws the inevitable curve ball. If not them, some other destructive cult. In reading Steve Hassan's book Combatting Mind Control, I was surprised that many weren't religious at all. Probably a backlash against religion that leads right into the hands of the next two-bit con.

240

Introduction - Any Believers?

by Believer in

i’ve been reading it for a few of years off and on, but have been a little too ... maybe ... timid to join.

i left the watchtower organization almost 20 years ago but never abandoned my faith and belief in god.

i knew the gb/organization didn’t represent god, so when i lost my faith in them, i managed to keep my faith in an all wise benevolent creator.

OutsiderLookingIn

Giles Gray, why is "I don't understand everything" the mark of enlightenment for exJWs and non-believers but irrefutable evidence that believers are irrational?

I don't even have to go back to ancient Israel to admit I don't understand everything--I can say that about my own life right here and right now. I have shared my reasons for first investigating JWs and with some I have shared a little more. Why did I, a never JW, have to be exposed to this JW nonsense by falling in love? And at a time in my life when I was seeking God more than I ever had before. This on top of regular life, which even outside the Watchtower is not a Shangri-La. Maybe it's my "calling". Maybe it's just a test. I don't know.

But I believe. Why do believers take the goodness of God at face value? Speaking for myself, I believe that God's ways are higher than my ways and His thoughts higher than my thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9). I also believe that all things work together for good to those who love God and are called according to His purpose (Romans 8:28). It doesn't say all things are good or that I will understand it all, but it will work out. How did God get Joseph to Egypt to govern in the time of famine? His own brothers sold him into slavery, he was lied on and thrown in jail then forgotten for another two years after I'm sure he thought the release papers were coming. All good things, right? But Joseph recognized that what was intended for evil, God meant it for good (Genesis 50:20).

So I guess that's my choice. But in doing so, I don't put my life on hold. I choose belief and you don't. What I attribute to God in His infinite wisdom, you attribute to the universe. Different strokes for different folks. People have their reasons and their paths.

From my first post onward, I never tried to convince or convert anyone. You asked me questions and I answered according to my understanding--which is what I was expressing in the first place. If your challenge isn't with me, but with my God, then I certainly won't be able to answer that.

240

Introduction - Any Believers?

by Believer in

i’ve been reading it for a few of years off and on, but have been a little too ... maybe ... timid to join.

i left the watchtower organization almost 20 years ago but never abandoned my faith and belief in god.

i knew the gb/organization didn’t represent god, so when i lost my faith in them, i managed to keep my faith in an all wise benevolent creator.

OutsiderLookingIn

Well then, you have it all figured it out, Cofty. I'm not becoming a moral imbecile, just saying that the arrogance of modernity is knowing what was best for worlds apart and miles away because it's soooo obvious. I was at the Getty Villa the other day seeing artifacts from antiquity and even the signage noted that warfare was a part of life. They went out every year to gain or defend territory; it was thing to do. And when it wasn't war, it was warlike sport. Yet we can sit in some of the most stable times in the relative comfort of our homes and say shoulda, woulda, coulda.

There is a difference between killing and murder, the latter being done with malice aforethought (premeditation). Murder is wrong, while killing may occur in a time of war. Once more, the New Testament puts forth a different mechanism with the same goal to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. It is no longer about protecting land borders but being equipped for spiritual warfare. Jesus did understand context and could interpret the spirit of the law which was mercy, justice and doing the will of the Father.

I'm not trying to change your mind and you won't change mine so we can continue on but at the end of the day, it is what it is. To each his own.

240

Introduction - Any Believers?

by Believer in

i’ve been reading it for a few of years off and on, but have been a little too ... maybe ... timid to join.

i left the watchtower organization almost 20 years ago but never abandoned my faith and belief in god.

i knew the gb/organization didn’t represent god, so when i lost my faith in them, i managed to keep my faith in an all wise benevolent creator.

OutsiderLookingIn

Thanks for that clarification. I wasn't familiar because it doesn't say rape; it says the soldiers could take these women as wives after a battle (Deuteronomy 21). To be honest, I'm not sure how to tell the difference in a non-romantic relationship. The Bible doesn't go into the marriage proposal or waiting period except, off the top of my head, with Rebekah, Ruth, Abigail and Mary. Beyond allowing a month to grieve (more time than Rebekah or Abigail had), the bigger picture was God providing a protection to captive women so that they wouldn't be used and discarded. If she didn't please him (the very common, flimsy reason men gave for divorce), he had to set her free and not sell her into slavery or mistreat her.

I guess either way it would be problematic--killing everyone would be genocide and keeping some alive was rape. What would the third alternative have been? The Bible is not pacifist--God has recognized that on this earth there is a time for war and a time for peace. The New Testament limits this more to spiritual warfare and peace with God, but does not condemn military service either. As for kidnapping, the only instance I'm aware of was not prompted by God, but Israel's *brilliant* plan to keep their rash oath not to give their daughters to the men of Benjamin in marriage (Judges 21).

In any case, I'm not God, nor do I claim to understand everything completely. You call it red herrings; I call it context and wouldn't use them to justify selfish motives or mistreatment of others. You reach the conclusions you reach and I do the same. That is the freedom I value and I believe you do as well.

240

Introduction - Any Believers?

by Believer in

i’ve been reading it for a few of years off and on, but have been a little too ... maybe ... timid to join.

i left the watchtower organization almost 20 years ago but never abandoned my faith and belief in god.

i knew the gb/organization didn’t represent god, so when i lost my faith in them, i managed to keep my faith in an all wise benevolent creator.

OutsiderLookingIn

Exactly what part of what I said could be construed as condoning rape? Does the fact that there was a law governing the situation mean approval of the underlying behavior? Are legislators condoning criminal activity because they have codify laws and enact statutes for criminal offenses? Penalties for lawbreaking and laws themselves are generally cultural and subject to change.

As for cultural relativism, warfare and slavery was a way of life in antiquity. It just was. Marriage was not the romantic notion of two people in love deciding to spend their lives together; the norm was arranged marriage. Among more elite couples, marriage was used to formalize treaties. I'm not sure that we as armchair historians of the last century get to impugn the interpersonal relationships that characterized much of the world. In modern life, it is a moral given that slavery is wrong and I think that's wonderful. But this is a fairly new concept, not even two hundred years old in the "greatest country in the world" (the United States), but in quotes to show the highest self-image is often the basest reality). For thousands of years, slavery was a given; most people were slaves or in various levels of servitude (feudalism, indentured servitude, apprenticeships, sweatshops). The slavery for which we have the most disdain, chattel slavery in the US based on visible race, was particularly brutal and glaring in its inhumanity. Our idea that slavery is wrong is great progress, but what about growing income disparities, the plight of the working poor, or one worker being forced to do what it used to take three people just to keep his job? How many are in a position to quit their job when their boss gets on their nerves? And yet this is obviously progress. Even in moving forward, there always seems to be new ways to oppress.

To divorce the Old Testament from a historical context (real people at a fixed point in time) is a recipe for disaster. I would agree that, read in isolation, parts of the Old Testament are extreme. But then I see a parallel with Jesus saying, if your right hand is causing you to sin (be separated from God), cut it off. Yes, it's extreme but the idea behind it is that sin really is that big a deal; avoid it at all costs. It doesn't always seem that way to me, but that is the position God takes. Furthermore, I see no indication that strict application of the Old Testament is a reasonable course today. Especially since we have the New Testament, which teaches to live at peace with everyone as much as it depends on you and reinforces the ideas of personal responsibility, kindness to others and minding your own business.

My effort was only to bridge the gap between the Old and New Testament, and explain to Believer how I reconcile the two. It was never my intent to convince anyone of anything so it's not my "impossible challenge. The primary goal of the Bible is to reconcile us to God. From this perspective, the "act of love" would be keeping Israel close to God and away from the physical and spiritual dangers of idol worship. God was providing everything they needed and had already proven Himself many times before, but even that was not enough for them to trust Him. It wasn't an illusory or hypothetical risk--Israel repeatedly fell into idolatry because they were surrounded by it. It's love to want the best for someone even though they insist on another way. Of course, people have always questioned the underlying premise so the conclusions reached will vary.

240

Introduction - Any Believers?

by Believer in

i’ve been reading it for a few of years off and on, but have been a little too ... maybe ... timid to join.

i left the watchtower organization almost 20 years ago but never abandoned my faith and belief in god.

i knew the gb/organization didn’t represent god, so when i lost my faith in them, i managed to keep my faith in an all wise benevolent creator.

OutsiderLookingIn

Sorry for the delay, Cofty. Out of town and on my phone. I hope the formatting turns out okay.

I don't need the references. I've read all of the Old Testament.

Yes, God can do as he pleases. That's just what it means to be sovereign. Fortunately for us, He withholds the full weight of his power: He has not dealt with us according to our sins, nor punished us according to our iniquities (Psalm 103:10).

Now as for God condoning these things in giving the law, the law was never perfect or complete. It was a tutor (Galatians 3:24) that was supposed to make the Israelites realize their need for a Savior because without God, it was impossible to comply with the letter and spirit. You could make all of the sacrifices you wanted and be just as messed up and disinterested in God. So it wasn't following all the rules that ever made anybody righteous, it was always reverence for God and belief in God for his provision, his mercy and his own righteousness, which is Jesus (Romans 10:3). Jesus ultimately was the fulfillment of the law (Matthew 5:17; Romans 10:4).

So the law wasn't perfect as much as how to live best in a fallen world. At that time in antiquity, there were a lot of things historically that we don't experience today. To follow the letter irrespective of cultural context really misses the point.

One point I've thought of is that the law didn't always exist. The Ten Commandments (and more) obviously didn't come until Moses so people before Moses weren't under the law. (I pointed this out once when a JW tried to say that Adam was a murderer by some law of Moses. Adam didn't have the law).

My point was just that the law was given to help the Israelites avoid some of the mistakes that their forefathers had made. An example: don't take your wife's sister as a rival (Leviticus 18:18). That's obviously the case of Jacob. There was intense jealousy between Leah and Rachel then that hatred flowed down the line with Joseph being sold by his brothers into slavery. Which is never what was intended. The family is always supposed to be the strongest link as human relationships are concerned; that's the only "organization" God ever gave.

As for some of the things you mentioned--

Forced marriage/rape: this was unfortunately a protection to women, who were the most vulnerable in society. A woman who had been raped was essentially disqualified from marriage, which meant no one would take care of them or keep them in their household. So you see the example with Tamar after she was raped, she went into Absalom's household and he supported her (2 Samuel 13:20). Why? Because she was never going to be married after being violated by someone else. She even says to her rapist half-brother Amnon, not marrying me would be worse than what you have already done to me (2 Samuel 13:16). Because he wouldn't be taking care of her and would have had already subjected her to shame.

Yes, I'm glad to live in 2016 where I can support myself, live by myself and report a rape to the proper authorities. But again this is the cultural context that I was referring to--these things didn't exist. That's not how it was so it was the best solution.

Infanticide/genocide: this was a warrior/avenger culture and to leave even one behind was a liability. We see that sometimes where Doeg the Edomite comes and tells on David and gets all those priests killed or one person from the household remains and comes back and revenge is the house. So if one child remained in the family line, he would come back and avenge them. Also as a matter of worship, other cultures with showy overtures to their gods led Israel astray into the demeaning pagan rituals. We see that repeatedly throughout the Old Testament when they were around other nations, Israel did what they did, adopting those gods.

No intermarriage: because it would be a snare and lead the people to go after other gods and serve them. Solomon is the best example with his thousand wives that turned his heart from God. Also the Israelites returning to foreign wives in Ezra after the Babylonian captivity. Even though it wasn't a perfect solution, what do they do? They divorced their wives and put them out so that they wouldn't fall back into this system of idol worship (Ezra 10).

So all of these rules are meant to keep Israel under the protection of God, the only true God, the Lord. That's how I see it. In terms of God being a God of justice and righteousness, that is still there. The Old Testament is full of so many accounts where the Israelites go astray and then cry out to the Lord and he saves them. That's a repeated occurrence. The forgiveness of God is the exact exhibition of his mercy.

There is also His provision under the law for the poor-- not gleaning the corners of the field (Leviticus 19:9-10, 23:22) and the year of Jubilee when debts were released and land restored (Leviticus 25).

As I see it, the New Testament just adds a new "angle" to the Law and the Prophets. It doesn't really change anything, it fulfills it.

Jesus got angry, most notably throwing the money-changers out of the temple but pretty much any time the Pharisees tried to burden the people with their own rules or displayed their hypocrisy. Jesus's message was one of repentance that is turning back from sin and back to the Lord. The law which had become an instrument of oppression was given back its original intent of mercy and justice. The greatest commandment is the same as what we find in the Old Testament because Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 6:5: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind. Then love your neighbor as yourself (or do unto others as you would have them do unto you) is the second half of the Ten Commandments (also Leviticus 19:18). That's what those things are about. If anything, the New Testament just expands the concept of neighbor, not just fellow Israelites but all mankind.

The belief in life after this one (resurrection) is key to the Christian faith if you're looking from a justice perspective. Because obviously there are many instances of injustice in this world. Cases of poverty or illness or anything that might happen isn't necessarily a "judgment". It's just how Solomon says, time and chance happen to us all. But that itself is not always judgment on the person. The judgment on the person is always going to be based on what they did in their own lives, the decisions that they made. If you look at Revelation 20:12-13, when they're raised again, the dead will be judged according to their works whether good or evil.

But as I said, this isn't pie in the sky, do nothing faith. If you can do something to help right now, you should. Don't withhold good from someone who deserves it when it is in your power to do it (proverbs 3:27).

The law was always meant to look at how you're treating your neighbor. And I think that's what God is concerned about: how we treat other people and love for Him (which is made manifest in how we treat people, i.e., love one another).

I haven't had a chance to scroll through the latest pages but hoping that answers the questions so far.