I believed Bible is from God till I came across Jeremiah 7:31 where it says 'killing a son to atone the sins of others' have never come up in God's mind. Yet Jesus being killed by the sinners is used as the basis for the absolving of sins which forms bulk of the NT. This was a shock to me--the most important teaching itself is an apostate idea!
anointed1
JoinedPosts by anointed1
-
64
Is the Bible from Men, NOT God?
by the-Question infor those claiming that- how much thought or research have you done?.
objective or non-objective?.
ever read the other books claiming to be from god?
-
-
-
14
Why is this blind allegiance to the anointed ones?
by anointed1 ineven when they know that certain things are not right with the organization the flocks are blindly following their leaders viewing them as the future “kings and priests” (originally a sumerian concept).. greed for a “land of milk and honey” (either in this life or the next) is at the root of their allegiance.
interestingly, greed is something the flocks are warned against: ‘be on your guard against all kinds of greed which is idolatry.’ (luke 12:15; colossians 3:5).
-
-
anointed1
Yes, scratchme1010 you got it--it is basically allegiance to themselves, love of themselves.
-
14
Why is this blind allegiance to the anointed ones?
by anointed1 ineven when they know that certain things are not right with the organization the flocks are blindly following their leaders viewing them as the future “kings and priests” (originally a sumerian concept).. greed for a “land of milk and honey” (either in this life or the next) is at the root of their allegiance.
interestingly, greed is something the flocks are warned against: ‘be on your guard against all kinds of greed which is idolatry.’ (luke 12:15; colossians 3:5).
-
-
anointed1
When all my family members joined JWs one by one, I had problems such as these (which prevented me from going along with them):
1) How can murder of an innocent person by the sinners atone the sins of the sinners (which argues against the very inspiration of scriptures)
2) When we are told to do this and that because God wants, should we not reason: To claim that an omnipotent God “wants” something is not only illogical, it’s extremely insulting to such a God: it’s tantamount to saying that the god isn’t omnipotent!
3) When we are urged to pray to an all-knowing (omniscient) God, should we not ask: Why should we pray to an omniscient being who would already know of it?
-
14
Why is this blind allegiance to the anointed ones?
by anointed1 ineven when they know that certain things are not right with the organization the flocks are blindly following their leaders viewing them as the future “kings and priests” (originally a sumerian concept).. greed for a “land of milk and honey” (either in this life or the next) is at the root of their allegiance.
interestingly, greed is something the flocks are warned against: ‘be on your guard against all kinds of greed which is idolatry.’ (luke 12:15; colossians 3:5).
-
-
anointed1
Even when they know that certain things are not right with the organization the flocks are blindly following their leaders viewing them as the future “kings and priests” (originally a Sumerian concept).
Greed for a “land of milk and honey” (either in this life or the next) is at the root of their allegiance. Interestingly, greed is something the flocks are warned against: ‘Be on your guard against all kinds of greed which is idolatry.’ (Luke 12:15; Colossians 3:5)
-
28
A problem for believers
by Bugbear ina problem for believers!.
a majority of the world’s population acknowledge that they believe in a superior god or in their creator.
they also claim that they have got this special understanding and knowledge of his will and his law.
-
-
anointed1
What would have happened if there were no religions? Would we have found ourselves believers in God? Situation would definitely be different. It’s like what happened in Mosco zoo which did a unique experiment . They made one part of the zoo for the fresh species (those who are removed from their parents immediately after the birth). Not seeing what their seniors are doing, even carnivorous animals became vegetarians and lived in peace with other animals.
Humans have no time to experiment such things as they are deeply embroiled in their greed thus suffer from limited vision, hence cannot have overall view on anything. They will be mechanical on the question of what is right and wrong. But the very nature of what is right and wrong has to do with overall view. Donating a house to a homeless person is right when done by an individual. But same act when done by a King is wrong because king is bound to help all the homeless persons; helping only one person would be partiality. That means viewing as a whole is the key. When viewed as a whole, even materialists do a great service because it is our experience that without them the religionists would become extreme human rights violators. It means even atheists (though working independent of God) work for the good of the humanity.
Viewing as a whole comes with experience. In such experience even the question “Does God exist?” is irrelevant. That question has not been lived, experienced. It is just a bunch of: “Yes, because …….or No, because…….” then we add stuff to support our thinking……no experience. If there is experience, that question wouldn’t be asked.
-
13
The rich will not inherit the Kingdom of God—Did Jesus really say this?
by anointed1 init is our experience that love of money brings action towards accumulating abundance of wealth which ultimately convinces the owner that “i was wasting my time” which in turn motivates him to turn into philanthropy (like bill gates and co did).
this is a perfect design (designed to work independently of god) like a journey of which the first half is wasteful and the second half is fruitful, and it is to be viewed as a whole.
hence it is unlikely that jesus would say: “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of god.” (mathew 19:24) verse is obviously attributed to jesus by later writers.. this means question of morality is not complicated if viewed as a whole process.
-
-
-
13
The rich will not inherit the Kingdom of God—Did Jesus really say this?
by anointed1 init is our experience that love of money brings action towards accumulating abundance of wealth which ultimately convinces the owner that “i was wasting my time” which in turn motivates him to turn into philanthropy (like bill gates and co did).
this is a perfect design (designed to work independently of god) like a journey of which the first half is wasteful and the second half is fruitful, and it is to be viewed as a whole.
hence it is unlikely that jesus would say: “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of god.” (mathew 19:24) verse is obviously attributed to jesus by later writers.. this means question of morality is not complicated if viewed as a whole process.
-
-
-
20
Death and Judgement Day
by Tirisilex ini'm having a hard time with this.
what does the bible say what happens when you die?
when jesus was on the cross he said to the man that when he dies he will be with jesus in heaven.
-
-
anointed1
Even Jesus did not have answers to simple questions such as ‘why some are born blind?’ The answer he gave was more confusing and God-dishonoring: “this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” John 9:3
Hence we cannot have answers to such questions as yours.
-
13
The rich will not inherit the Kingdom of God—Did Jesus really say this?
by anointed1 init is our experience that love of money brings action towards accumulating abundance of wealth which ultimately convinces the owner that “i was wasting my time” which in turn motivates him to turn into philanthropy (like bill gates and co did).
this is a perfect design (designed to work independently of god) like a journey of which the first half is wasteful and the second half is fruitful, and it is to be viewed as a whole.
hence it is unlikely that jesus would say: “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of god.” (mathew 19:24) verse is obviously attributed to jesus by later writers.. this means question of morality is not complicated if viewed as a whole process.
-
-
anointed1
It is our experience that love of money brings action towards accumulating abundance of wealth which ultimately convinces the owner that “I was wasting my time” which in turn motivates him to turn into philanthropy (like Bill Gates and co did). This is a perfect design (designed to work independently of God) like a journey of which the first half is wasteful and the second half is fruitful, and it is to be viewed as a whole. It means question of what is right and wrong is irrelevant. Hence it is unlikely that Jesus would say: “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” (Mathew 19:24) Verse is obviously attributed to Jesus by later writers.
This means question of morality is not complicated if viewed as a whole process. Donating a house to a homeless person is right when done by an individual. But same act when done by a King is wrong because king is bound to help all the homeless persons; helping only one person would be partiality. That means viewing as a whole is the key. When viewed as a whole, even materialists do a great service because it is our experience that without them the religionists would become extreme human rights violators. It means even atheists (though working independent of God) work for the good of the humanity.
Viewing as a whole comes with experience. In such experience even the question “Does God exist?” is irrelevant. That question has not been lived, experienced. It is just a bunch of: “Yes, because …….or No, because…….” then we add stuff to support our thinking……no experience. If there is experience, that question wouldn’t be asked.
-
210
Morality Without Deity
by cofty inone of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
-
-
anointed1
“whether the gods love the pious because it is the pious, or whether the pious is pious only because it is loved by the gods”
Actually, there is no dilemma:
God cannot love the pious because they are pious because this would mean He loves only those of His sort which in itself is evil.
The pious and the impious attract appropriate rewards in such a way that the pious would feel inspired to continue his pious acts and the impious would feel pressurized to discontinue his impious acts.
Thus both the pious and the impious are loved by God.