Posts by ros

6

The Unbarred Gate

by Euphemism in

jw
friends

this is a poem i wrote while piph and i were on honeymoon.

i don't claim that it's a good poem, but i'm trying to be more open about my feelings, so i thought i'd share it.

so please bear with me.

Jewish Christians: anybody familiar?

by wasasister in

i have recently been exposed to something new - at least to me - in the religious world.

a christian group made up of jews and non-jews who keep jewish holidays and dietary laws, yet believe in christ.

they also seem to believe in the literal interpretation of scripture, although i'm not certain this is a generally held doctrine, or just one person's view.. does anyone have experience with the jew/christian meld religion?

ros

Hello, Wasasister:

There are a number of Judeao/Christian groups. Also, there are numerous fundamentalist Christian scholars who are zeroing in on Christianity's roots, Judaism. The World Wide Church of God at one time--when it was under Armstrong--held closely to Jewish celebrations.

Judeao-Christianity happens to be my interest as far as it can be differentiated from fundamentalist doctrine. I purchased the domain name for Grafted Tree to (someday) pursue some of my interests in that area. In the meantime, here are some links you might find interesting:

http://www.cjf.org/

http://www.bridgesforpeace.com/

http://www.biblicalholidays.com/restore.asp

http://www.shalom-crmi.org/index.html

http://www.christianquest.org/CQ-Files/GrafTree.html (my site)

~Ros

11

More evidence for the Flood

by Derrick in

jw
friends

you might want to consider an interesting article titled prehistoric beaches evidence for the flood (december 27, 1999) on the web site achievebalance.com in considering the global flood in noah's day.

the article is at the following link: .

http://www.achievebalance.com/think/flood.htm .

ros

Questions:

Did Noah know that the earth is round?
How big did he think the earth was?

Did the North American Indians before the 19th century know the earth is round?
How big did they think the earth was?

If there was an Indian legend from a northwestern tribe that there was a huge flood that covered the whole earth, and archeologists found that there was indeed a catastrophic Columbia River flood the filled the entire Columbia Basin to the tops of the Gorge, would that not be something significant?

If a nomad found himself out in the middle of a body of water and could not see land, might he have thought the whole sworld (as he knew it) was flooded and so that's the way he told it and the story would be told from generation to generation? (Bedouin still tell stories that go from generation to generation.)

Is it not at least interesting that science does concur that an extraordinarily catastrophic flood occurred in the region where it is written that Noah lived?

~Ros

82

Fables, Farces and Facts

by Farkel in

no, this piece is not about alliteration.

for true believers?

the subject matter is quite serious, and may just possibly affect the quality of the rest of you lives; it may also affect your eternal fate, if there is such a thing.

ros

An afterword to All:

I hope it can be seen, as I appreciate was expressed by Farkel and Wasa, that it was not my intention to preach or sway anyone to my belief or faith. That is a personal journey. My intention here was to show that it is possible to discuss the Bible and Christian faith intelligently--at least that was my hope--and perhaps present a more rational perspective of it from what religious literalists present.

~Ros

82

Fables, Farces and Facts

by Farkel in

no, this piece is not about alliteration.

for true believers?

the subject matter is quite serious, and may just possibly affect the quality of the rest of you lives; it may also affect your eternal fate, if there is such a thing.

ros

Farkel, you wrote:

Of course, you haven't presented the very real possibility that IF that story was concocted decades or more later, it would be EASY to make those events fit the time frame that looks very difficult to be not a coincidence.

You missed my very point, Farkel. I was specifically addressing the argument of skeptics who suggest the Gospels were written after the fact to make the story fit the prophecies. If so, they missed a very significant point that I discovered in my own study?that Jesus was resurrected on the day of the Festival of First Fruits. That coincidence(?) would have been a very impressive point for after-the-fact writers to bring out. But none of the Bible writers caught that point, regardless of when they may have written about the life of Jesus. There is indication that Paul noted it, but he didn?t mention it in connection with the occasion on which Jesus rose. It was a very important festival in Jewish tradition. A very significant point the Bible writers missed imo.

Jesus never wrote a word that has been presevered. His followers wrote their personal experiences of their times with Jesus. (I didn't know that fishermen who have a rather lowly profession could be literate back then, while carpenters (a rather lowly position, too) could be illiterate, especially when they happen to have the Ace of Spades: they are the offspring of GOD himself.

Whoa. I wouldn?t contend the Bible teaches that, other than it might be said we all are. We don?t know how literate Matthew, Mark and John were. Luke, of course, was a physician and probably a Gentile?granted, not an eye witness. (If Luke was a Gentile, he is the only non-Jew writer of record in the Bible).

We also don?t know how educated people were in general in the upper Galilee where Jesus was raised. Capernaum was very near the main trade route (Via Maris) for merchants from Mesapotamia and Egypt, so it was fairly affluent. Recent excavations of another affluent city, Sepphoris, was very near Nazereth. Many Bible scholars, including Fundamentalist scholars (e.g., Oral Roberts University professors) who are drawn, as I am, to Judeo-Christian scholarship, conclude that Jesus was, in fact, truly a Jewish Rabbi. I?ve forgotten all the indications of that, but some are the incident of him being taken and left with the temple priests in Jerusalem at age 12. Rabbi?s had to be taught a trade. And there is something about his apparel ("the hem of his garment") that indicates a Rabbi?not to mention that he taught in the Synagogues.

Example: When he emerged from the wilderness, the first thing he did was begin teaching in the Synagogues: ?And He began teaching in their synagogues and was paised by all.??Luke 4:15

That is where it goes on say that he quoted Is.61:1,2 and announced that ?Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.? Herein lies another point that Bible writers failed to explain. You can only get this from studying something about the Jewish religion. Rabbi?s took turns reading in the Synagogue, and there is a program of reading scriptures in sequence on the Sabbaths. It would be by coincidence(?) that this particular text would fall on the day that it was Rabbi Jesus? turn to stand up and read in the Synagogue.

Don't you wonder why Joseph and Mary (knowing what they did about their son and his unique relationship to God) didn't bother to get him educated enough to read and write? And if they did do this, why he never wrote a dang word that has survived? The Bible would have some serious credibility if the very son of God wrote some words that were preserved. Yet he didn't.

I don?t wonder about it because there is absolutely no way of knowing. However my speculation is that Joseph and Mary probably had the same perception about it as the rest of the population?that God was going to send Israel a deliverer?in the lineage of David?to free Israel from captivity to Rome and reestablish the throne of David. We don?t know how educated Jesus was, but indications are that he was educated, as the males were, in the synagogues, particularly by the Rabbis. What does seem evident from the Bible account is that astute Jews were expecting the messiah to be forthcoming at that time, and he would have to be in the lineage of David. (Clue: Matt.1:17)

Oh and by the way, another indication that God did not just deal with Jews is by the account of the astrologers who came from the east (region of Babylonia) looking for the baby Jesus. Why were foreigners (the real meaning of "pagan") looking for their savior to come from an Israelite? It must have been something in their religious teachings. (Just an aside point here.)

Furthermore, he NEVER told his apostles or disciples to write down ANYTHING that he said.

We don?t really have any way of knowing that, but it?s pretty well known that the main mode of communication in that day was verbal (i.e., preaching). They didn?t have books and a postal service, and most probably could not read anyway. :^)

In fact, I cannot think of any example in the Bible (except Revelation) where God actually commanded people to write down stuff in what would become the "Holy Bible." Almost ALL Bible books claim no authorship. Why? Were they ashamed, humble, or liars? According to the Bible, that is. Here is this book that is the absolute guide to man's redemption and here is this man who is the absolute son of GOD himself who never said, "write the stuff that I say down so that everyone can hear my words:"

Well I agree that God did not command people to compose a book. To me it doesn't matter what method of communication was used. I agree, God did not command the writing of the book, the Bible. (A quick search on the word "write" at BibleGateway.comdoes produce some OT commands to write, however.)

Yet, what IS in the Bible are sily stories like this:A prophet is walking about and ANGEL appears to him carrying a sword. The prophet is obviously terrified, and he asks the ANGEL if that ANGEL is going to mess him up. The ANGEL says basically, "no, I'm not going to mess you up." The prophet says, "well, then, what do you want?" The ANGEL replies, "take off your shoes, for you are standing on holy(tm) ground." This ends that utterly ridiculous and stupid story. What the heck does THAT mean, considering the fact that THAT idiocy got into the Bible and not ONE word that Jesus himself wrote made it in there.

Are you referring to where God told Moses to remove his sandals because it was sacred ground? I?m not sure which story.

In any case, I agree that the OT has a lot of story-telling that does not seem to have any particular significance to its theme. It mainly reveals the history and the culture of the Israelites. But here is what amazes me: The Bible was compiled from incomplete records, bits and pieces (particularly the OT), mainly Jewish scrolls and secular fragments, written from the Jewish perspective, into a collection that Catholic scholars decided to selectively make into a book. Fundamentalists again decided to discard some of those chapters but otherwise accept the book. They decided to bunch all of Moses' stuff into one section, all the historical stuff into another section, all the poetic stuff in yet another, and the ?major prophets? together and the ?minor prophets into another, without regard for chronological order. It is filled with stories that seem like religious superstition and fanaticism, historical fact and imagery, trechery, hypocrisy and infidelity, and yet:
When it?s all bunched together, there underlying it all is a story in the best tradition of great literature (at least the way I was taught in English Composition)---a story with an introduction, theme, climax, and conclusion that ties right back to the beginning (Revelation ties right back to Genesis) in ways beyond what appears to me were intended by the writers or the people who compiled it. But the story is not in what is actually written, it is behind it. Like fables and parables?it is not what is actually said or written, the point of the story is underlying.

BibleGod(tm) has a LOT of explaining to do. That's all I can say. Peace to you ros and all those who share your faith. I have no problem with your beliefs, and in fact, I'm happy you have them, simply because you don't crusade them. My faith is based on the wonderment I see around me, and I do not have to defend it. Everyone can see it, and it is fact.

Atheists disagree. :^))

As a bit of an epilogue: I printed this entire thread, and made notes about how to respond to "hooberus" and "paduan." Not "little toe," though. I don't mess with the Scotts. No matter what they do or do not say. Don't ask me why. I don't know why.
"hooberus" is a moron, and only responded by quoting scripture that amounted to a huge pile of red herrings and ad hominems. I kind of want to respond, but why? That person is incapable of rational thought.
Paduan responded with a boatload of strawman arguments and then accused ME of making the same arguments! I'm more inclined to wrap up this thread with my counter-arguments to him/her.
"Little Toe" is a Scottsman as I've said. Some things are just sacrosanct!

Are you Scottish, Farkel?
If so, I rest my case. ;-)))))

~Ros

82

Fables, Farces and Facts

by Farkel in

no, this piece is not about alliteration.

for true believers?

the subject matter is quite serious, and may just possibly affect the quality of the rest of you lives; it may also affect your eternal fate, if there is such a thing.

ros

Hi, Farkel:

Excuse me, in my haste I missed seeing your reply. I didn't mean to ignore it. Let me respond here:

Ros was quoted:

: First the scriptures do not say that God worked only through Israel.

Farkel replied:

Really? How do you know this? How can you tell that to all the civilizations that Israel destroyed ON DIRECT ORDERS FROM GOD according to the O.T. this? ( See the collective works of Moses, the biggest Bible butcherer of all.)

I didn't say I know it. I quoted what the scriptures say about it. Read Amos 9:7 for example.
Again I'll make the point that just because the Israelite writers claimed their wars were God ordered doesn't mean (imo) that they were. Like most religious people, the Bible is full of examples that clearly reveal Israelites were as superstituous as their neighbors.

Where is there any shred of Biblical evidence that God worked to help people or save people in the O.T who were not Jews? Heck, during the time of Jeroboam and Rheoboam and during that wole period of the separation of Judah and Israel, they were not only killing each OTHER, they had their own pet prophets. The Israelites were natural born killers, nurtured by a natural born killer God who appointed natural born Judges and Kings. It was all so, well, just "natural" for them to be murderers and genocidal maniancs.

Like I said, the Israelites were a crude people, although I don't think they were any more butcherous than other nations at the time.

Well, I think we can conclude that God did not exactly help the Israelites against the Assyrians (2Kings 15, 16, 17, 18), and he did not exactly exhalt King Josiah against Pharaoh Neco of Egypt (2Kings 23:29), and one might say that Custer got more help from the Indians than Israel got from their God against Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. In fact, the only time the Israelites prospered as a nation was under Kings David and Solomon. The rest of the time they were subservient to captors.

I maintain, the way the Israelites are expressed by the Israelite writers (that is, they way things are interpreted by their own writers) in the record, and the actual events recorded, are two different things--the actual events being more viable. Again, I'll refer to the example I wrote before of Judah's two sons being killed. When two of Judah's sons on separate occasions died, Judah (or whomever told the story) concluded that God killed the two sons. The facts would be that two sons died. That God killed them would be the writers interpretation. I maintain that much of what was attributed to the will of God in the OT was the writer's interpretation. Religion is very superstituous. Fundamentalists today still do the same thing in attributing all kinds of things in their lives to God, or God answering their prayers, healing, etc. Fundamentalists will still say that war is God's will, and that one nation or another is God's people. The Israelites were no different.

The only thing about the Israelite nation that is significant is that a certain man was born among them who in a very short lifetime changed the world. Were it not for that fact alone, we likely would never have heard of the Israelites or the Bible. There's really only one life in the Biblical account that has importance for Christian belief.

The religion of the Israelites, aside from being monotheistic, was not much different from their reigious neighbors. Even the temple design was gleened from pagans. Much of their ceremonialism was not that different from paganism, except for being monotheistic. That the events in their history mysteriously culminated in an abstract fulfillment in the man Jesus is most fascinating. But it was not what the Jews were looking for by any stretch.

Take the story of Cinderella--it's not a true story--we know that. But the story has a moral--a message. Look for the message--that's where the truth may be found--in the metaphor or the parable. What does it mean?

The bottom line of the Bible story, imo, is that evil will perish but life will not. I speculate that this existence may be out of the presence of God because it is necessary to experience good and evil in the long run. Mortals are here to experience evil, otherwise how could one ever know good if everything is relative? "Look, they have become like us, knowing good and evil"--Gen.3:22 (Is that a clue?) So I tend to think maybe this is the life of the knowledge of good and evil. Who knows, maybe Eden was not even really on this planet. :-)

Which kingdom of Israel did God prefer back then? If he preferred Israel, then all of Judah's prophets were false. If he preferred Judah, then all of Israel's prophets were false. Yet, those kingdoms each had their own "prophets." All of them lied, by the way, and I can prove it.

Well, neither one of them fared very well from that point on.

Is BibleGod(m) the ultimate God of human invention and confusion? I think so.

Jesus said he made God's name (reputation, nature) known. If Jesus did that, evidently the Israelites didn't understand Him very well. So it would depend on whether you were referring to the God of Jesus, or the Israelite understanding of God.

Some people are looking in the wrong place to find God. I look at caterpillars and butterflies and I wonder. I don't need lying and superstitious books to help me out. The caterpillars help me out. And they do that not by trying to help me out, but by doing what they've always done for 300,000,000 years. (They don't even know they are helping me out, but they are.)

In some respects, I agree with you. I place greater emphasis on God revealed through nature than in writings. My faith in the biblical account in not in a literal acceptance of everything the way it was understood by the Israelites. I think Jesus made that point quite clear. My faith in the Bible is in the Christ and in the moral of the story (well, that's admittedly an over simplification, but what I mean is that my faith is nothing like that of fundamentalists, as you can see. :-)

~Ros

82

Fables, Farces and Facts

by Farkel in

no, this piece is not about alliteration.

for true believers?

the subject matter is quite serious, and may just possibly affect the quality of the rest of you lives; it may also affect your eternal fate, if there is such a thing.

ros

I think I failed to respond to a question whether there was historical proof of Jesus.

There is only circumstantial historical proof of the man Jesus--like most historical characters. Granted some are more circumstantial than others. :-)

Generally speaking, I think there is enough circumstantial historical reference that even most skeptics believe the man existed.

~Ros

82

Fables, Farces and Facts

by Farkel in

no, this piece is not about alliteration.

for true believers?

the subject matter is quite serious, and may just possibly affect the quality of the rest of you lives; it may also affect your eternal fate, if there is such a thing.

ros

SFF:

If taken literally, that would about size it up. :-)

~Ros

82

Fables, Farces and Facts

by Farkel in

no, this piece is not about alliteration.

for true believers?

the subject matter is quite serious, and may just possibly affect the quality of the rest of you lives; it may also affect your eternal fate, if there is such a thing.

ros

Wasa wrote:

As a Christian, Ros, are you offended - as I was - when someone who identifies him/herself with your beliefs using Christianity to spew forth narrow-minded, elitist propaganda? I know when I was a Witness, I really hated it when a fellow Witness was being an obvious prick and offending people.

Yes, it is offensive. I'm not very tolerant of literalist fundamentalism for its abject ignorance because if reflects very negatively on God and Christianity. Fundamentalists are worse than the Watchtower for disowning science and common sense imo, not to mention basic Christian principles such as "judging". I was in born-again fundamentalism before I was a JW, and I'm less tolerant of their doctrinalism than I am of WTism, generally speaking. I've often said: Christianity is wonderful. Too bad man and religion give it such a bad name.

SFF wrote:

As an afterthought though, didn't the old testament God Jehovah have the Israelite's destroy all kinds of what he considered pagan people who worshipped pagan Gods with no consideration many times for women, infants, and children, and even livestock?

Well we can certainly surmise that the scribes of such events believed it was the will of God/Jehovah/Yahweh. That doesn't mean that it was. Remember, the word "pagan" did not mean "idolatry". Pagan, like Gentile, was anything and anyone not Jewish--that's all. Everything not Jewish was pagan. Pagan <i>worship</i> was evil because it was idolatry.

How many times have you known religious people, particularly fundamentalists, who believe that everything that happens to them is God's will, or the answer to some prayer, or punishment because they did something wrong, etc. etc. etc. I have always known educated and intelligent people who happen to also be religious, and they will pray for something to happen--say, recovery from a sickness, or for someone else--and regardless what happens they will interpret it as answer to the prayers. I tend to think people in Biblical times were no different than they are today. Strongly religious people tend to credit and/or blame God for everything. That's how I think some of the Bible writers were at times. I think we can trust that many of the names and events were real, but the writer's religious beliefs strongly sway how the story is told, just like people today. Try to imagine how a political event might be recorded if it were covered by Rush Lindbaugh and Ted Kennedy, respectively. :D)))

Consider the Bible story of Elisha at 2Kings 2:23-25 where children were mocking Elisha, he cursed them in God's name, and two she-bears came out and tore up 42 of the kids. The implication is that God obeyed Elisha's curse to punish the children for chiding him. Well, it doesn't exactly say that. Let's try another scenario:
Elisha, a balding fellow, is wandering up the road toward Bethel near a forest.
A large gang of children from the town see the old man and begin running along the forest road chiding him.
The noisy rambunctious gang of kids get too near a couple of mama bears in the nearby woods, and get attacked.
Elisha, who is cursing them for harrassing him, believes it was God who make the bears do it, so that's the way he wrote about it. (Even then, it doesn't really say that God made it happen.)

Another example from Genesis 38:6-10:
6 And Judah took a wife for Er his first-born, and her name was Tamar.
7 And Er, Judah's first-born, was wicked in the sight of Jehovah. And Jehovah slew him.
8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
9 And Onan knew that the seed would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest he should give seed to his brother.
10 And the thing which he did was evil in the sight of Jehovah: and he slew him also.

My conclusion: Two of Judah's sons died. Judah believed God did it, so that's the way he wrote about it. We don't know why they died.

Abraham's descendents, the Israelites, were a crude, tribal, nomadic people on the outskirts of the first cities of what we call western civilization. The "sons of Abraham" were unsophisticated, uneducated, wanderers, shepherds, bedouin, unlike the people in the new city states where science, arts, math, writing, banking, trade and commerce were suddenly developing on the world scene.
The fact that it is the history of the uneducated nomads that survived the milleniums, more than any of the others, is one of the marvels that I find most fascinating. Nevertheless, they were people with human nature, not different than people are today. How much of what we read today is 100% accurate. (Interestingly, it was bedouin shepherd boys who discovered the "Dead Sea Scrolls" that have brought light to some of the Bible mysteries today.)

I can tell you I know some very educated people that when they get on subjects of politics or religion, you can't trust their interpretation of almost anything. I think some of the Bible writers were pretty human. They gave God credit/blame for a lot of their actions because that is how they believed.

That's why I think Jesus said, speaking to His Father:
"I have revealed you [or, "your name"] to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word."--John 17:6

The Israelites never did really understand God. They understood Law. Christ rejected their understanding of God. Christ revealed His nature--that is, to the extent possible to humans.

Jmo,
~Ros

47

The Case For God

by Farkel in

a caterpillar.

although there are many more examples in nature for wonderment, the caterpillar is spectacularly unique.

imagine one animal changing into an entirely different species in just a few months;from a multi-legged ugly grub into a stunningly beautiful winged insect.

ros

Ah, well . . . who was it who said:

Some people wonder why roses have thorns. I'm just grateful that thorns have roses.

~Ros