Posts by adamah

269

Why does god kill children?

by Comatose in

i was thinking about all the accounts in the bible that indicate god kills children as a punishment or teaching experience.

1. kills all of egypts firstborn sons, who were innocent kids who did nothing to him or his people, who had no control over the decisions pharoah made.

how many times have you read that account or thought about it without realizing the devastating pain dealt to all those parents, and remembered those were innocent kids?.

adamah

Yup. Here's where Biblehub is handy:

http://biblehub.com/exodus/4-21.htm

Note that EVERY OTHER TRANSLATION renders the Hebrew as, "I (YHWH) will harden his heart", and the NWT is the ONLY outlier who blatantly inserts concepts into the translation in order to cover the tracks of God's outrageous behavior: so why change it, if there's nothing to defend? So add "lying translators" to the ranks of "lying scribes", indeed.

Unfortunately, it's not the only example of WTBTS letting their doctrinal needs drive the Hebrew translation, eg they start in Genesis 3:6, listing only two of the three reasons why Eve saw the fruit as desirable to eat. Of course, they omit the most IMPORTANT reason, the THIRD one: Eve saw the fruit as desirable to eat in order to "gain wisdom". So why remove that one? Because wisdom-bestowing fruit seems fruity to MOST modern readers, and the concept opens a can of worms (people ask, "Why doesn't God want mankind to possess wisdom?" Why not, indeed?).

BTW, note how verse 22-23 contains the prediction of death of Egypt's firstborns, so the account reads like a set-up, with God in the role of a psychopathic killer who gets some twisted thrill out of making people dance for their children's lives, and then pushes them to the floor so he can claim they didn't dance and he can feel justified in killing their children in front of them. That's just SICK, no matter who's doing it.

God got into a "mine's bigger than yours" ego battle with the Pharoah (who WAS considered not just a mortal, but as the living embodiment of the Egyptian Gods), and infants are going to die as a result.

Exodus 4 (NASB):

21 The LORD said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. 22 “Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD, “Israel is My son, My firstborn. 23 “So I said to you, ‘Let My son go that he may serve Me’; but you have refused to let him go. Behold, I will kill your son, your firstborn.”’

As an aside, verse 24 is interesting, as it's a fragmentary eye-brow-raiser that translators and interpreters (eg rabbis) have wrestled with for millenia:

24 Now it came about at the lodging place on the way that the LORD met him and sought to put him to death.25 ThenZipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and threw it at Moses’ feet, and she said, “You are indeed a bridegroom of blood to me.” 26 So He let him alone. At that time she said, “You are a bridegroom of blood”—because of the circumcision.

The traditional reading is that God wanted to KILL Moses, but he used the blood of the foreskin of his newborn son to cleanse himself of his sins; God didn't kill Moses, after all. A more plausible reading though is that YHWH seeking the death of the NEWBORN, since Moses had delayed his circumcision: God loves him sum' fresh foreskin, and he doesn't like to WAIT for it! God was satiated when he got his foreskin, and didn't have to kill Moses' son.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipporah_at_the_inn

Much of the intricacies and significance of the details have been lost on 99.99% of readers, when intuitively such passages can be seen to be just so goofy as to be clearly related to long-extinct cultural beliefs, eg do you think God should KILL an infant who isn't circumcized on the 8th day after birth?

It doesn't help to have translators who try to "update" the Bible by burying the more embarrassing examples that somehow got "lost in translation", in their attempt to keep the Bible relevant to modern people.

Adam

90

Can this logic be refuted?

by notsurewheretogo in

i was an elder until march 2012 until i resigned.

i then stopped going to meetings in october 2012 and have enjoyed 9 months of freedom that i have found to be jouful!

i loved learning ttatt and sites like this and jwfacts.com have been excellent.. i told the elders that i needed a break and that they should not contact me unless it was a social visit and true to their word they have done that.

adamah

Just to dog-pile on, you are wasting your breath using reasoning with the unreasoning. Your logic could be air-tight and flawless, and it wouldn't matter one bit since it's not a purely logical decision.

I suspect you need to ask yourself WHY you want to share TTATT with them?

I suspect you're harboring a bit of that JW thinking of, "If you had REALLY GOOD NEWS, wouldn't YOU TOO want to share it with others?" In the case of TTATT, it's good news that they don't have to waste their lives dedicated to the preaching work, or dying for a lie (blood doctrine), etc. But the fact is, that's a vestige of JW "stinking thinking", feeling a sense of responsibility for others, and warning them requires over-stepping personal boundaries to intrude in their lives. You owe them NOTHING, as they'd turn on YOU on a dime (which you'll likely soon find out the hard way).

Perhaps your ego tells you that since JWs listened to you when you were an elder, that it spilled over into them having personal respect for YOU, and not the title of 'elder'. I assure you, it's the LATTER: while you may have stepped down, they still treat you nicely since you MAY return to the role. But if you lose that, you're as good as dead to them.

It's a bitter-sweet realization that we cannot or alter or influence the actions of those who aren't willing to listen with an open mind; people HAVE to be motivated to accept TTATT, since it's not only a logical decision, but one influenced by emotions.

Adam

269

Why does god kill children?

by Comatose in

i was thinking about all the accounts in the bible that indicate god kills children as a punishment or teaching experience.

1. kills all of egypts firstborn sons, who were innocent kids who did nothing to him or his people, who had no control over the decisions pharoah made.

how many times have you read that account or thought about it without realizing the devastating pain dealt to all those parents, and remembered those were innocent kids?.

adamah

Comatose said:

"Pharoah was already going to harden his heart but Jehovah allowed it to happen, he didn't cause it, he allowed it to happen. Well why the hell is the bible written so crappy it takes those kinds of explanations."

That argument fails, since it directly contradicts the EXACT words of Exodus 4:21, where God stated his INTENT ("I WILL") to alter Pharoah's heart, such that he will NOT let the people go, and then God actually carried through with his words (God cannot lie, right?). God basically admits that He KNEW Pharoah WOULD comply (possessing Divine foreknowledge), but He altered Pharoah's free-will to make him be stuborn.

Exodus 4:21: And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

So arguing as the CO did requires eisegesis, or worse: he's actually altering the meaning of what the Bible actually says repeatedly, which is of course described as a sin (being a teacher of false doctrines).

Adam

269

Why does god kill children?

by Comatose in

i was thinking about all the accounts in the bible that indicate god kills children as a punishment or teaching experience.

1. kills all of egypts firstborn sons, who were innocent kids who did nothing to him or his people, who had no control over the decisions pharoah made.

how many times have you read that account or thought about it without realizing the devastating pain dealt to all those parents, and remembered those were innocent kids?.

adamah

And don't call me Shirley said:

"No doubt any potential retorts will be to the effect that those parts of the Bible are not inspired and are scribal lies.

By tec's own admission, Moses, the writer of Genesis, was indeed an inspired prophet, so his account should be accepted as genuine scripture.

But, acknowledging it will also blow tec's arguments out of the water, so it'll be written off as inspired.... but in error."

I didn't read the entire thread (sorry!), but I assume someone is apologizing for God's behavior on the basis of lying scribes? Good luck with THAT approach: that's why I mentioned the thought is not only found in the OT, but also the NT, so the belief spanned 1,000 years and apologetists are now arguing against the words of Paul AND Moses. That's a level of "lying scribes" that would have to be soooo widespread as to leave the credibility of the ENTIRE Bible in doubt, which is kind of the point: it IS a fictional work written by uninspired men, and men make mistakes and introduce 'continuity errors'. Even more prevalent is how characters display moral flexibility, and assessments of their morality can be seen to change over time to suit author's current agenda.

That's the point I made in my 3-part article on Lot, who was written by 'Moses' to be a despicable heel in Genesis, but went to a hero in NT, since the character served very-different purposes for each of the authors (for 'Moses', Lot served as a despicable character who was used as an excuse to discriminate against his descendents, the Moabite/Ammonites; for '2nd Peter', Lot was upgraded to "righteous man" who was saved from Sodom's destruction due to his OWN righteousness, thus fitting emerging Christian doctrinal needs).

If any here haven't read it, the series of articles documenting Lot's post-mortem promotion to "righteous" are found here (the navigation menu is on the upper-right-hand side of the page):

http://www.awgue.weebly.com

Adamah

269

Why does god kill children?

by Comatose in

i was thinking about all the accounts in the bible that indicate god kills children as a punishment or teaching experience.

1. kills all of egypts firstborn sons, who were innocent kids who did nothing to him or his people, who had no control over the decisions pharoah made.

how many times have you read that account or thought about it without realizing the devastating pain dealt to all those parents, and remembered those were innocent kids?.

adamah

Comatose said:

"I was thinking about all the accounts in the bible that indicate god kills children as a punishment or teaching experience.

1. Kills all of Egypts firstborn sons, who were innocent kids who did nothing to him or his people, who had no control over the decisions Pharoah made. How many times have you read that account or thought about it without realizing the devastating pain dealt to all those parents, and remembered those were innocent kids?"

It's actually worse than that, since Pharoah had no control over the decisions he made: Jehovah used him like a ventriloquist works a dummy, played him like a fiddle.

Jehovah actively interfered with Pharoah's free will decision, since he was initially willing to comply with Moses' request to "let my people go"; however, Jehovah wanted an excuse to get into a magic showdown face-off with the Pharoah's magicians, and God needed an excuse to show off the trick he came up with of killing all Egyptian firstborns.

The first occurance of hardening Pharoah's heart occurs BEFORE the magic show started, in Exodus 4:21:

Exodus 4:21: And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.
Here's a list of the sequence of who hardened Pharoah's heart, but notice YHWH started the process and acheived his goal of not letting Pharoah comply.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/hardened.html

Paul confirms this in Romans 9:17–18, so apparently he's OK with infanticide to show what a great and powerful guy God is.

So if you're OK with the idea of a deity murdering human infants just to show off what an awesome loving God He is, then you, like Paul, will just LOVE Jehovah (and Paul knew a thing or two about murdering others, per his own confessions: if the Bible actually WERE true, it would serve as self-incriminating evidence that is admissible in court to convict the murderers).

Of course, it's a myth, but even if I were a believer, the question I'd be asking myself is: how morally-challenged would I have to be, to think that such an evil despicable being is worthy of being worshiped, in the first place? That would require a level of blindness to faults that borders on maladaptive psychological dysfunction (eg Stockholm Syndrome).

Adam

New Blog post: What Did O.J. Simpson's Legal Defense Team and the Yahwist Have In Common?

by adamah in

i just wrote a new article on my blog, asking what johnnie cochran and the yahwist in genesis have in common?.

http://awgue.weebly.com/what-did-ojs-legal-defense-team-and-genesis-yahwist-have-in-common.html.

as always, thoughts and comments on the article are appreciated, either over here or there..... .

adamah

Hello,

I just wrote a new article on my blog, asking what Johnnie Cochran and the Yahwist in Genesis have in common?

http://awgue.weebly.com/what-did-ojs-legal-defense-team-and-genesis-yahwist-have-in-common.html

As always, thoughts and comments on the article are appreciated, either over here or there....

Adamah

25

More evidence of fraud in 2nd Peter: Noah didn't preach, per Genesis 6

by adamah in

thanks for reading the 3-part series on the contradictory characterization of lot in genesis vs 2nd peter, analyzing genesis 19 and comparing it to 2nd peter 2. in the articles, i took a step-by-step approach to show how 2nd peter's declaring lot as "righteous" was exactly the opposite goal of the author of genesis, since the point of the story is how unrighteous lot was saved not due to his righteousness, but on behalf of his righteous uncle abraham (the star of the torah).. of course, the book of 2nd peter is widely acknowledged by nt scholars to be a fraudulent work, written under a pseudonymous (fake) name in order to 'patch up' some loose ends in the torah, likely to support then-blossoming doctines of christianity.

of particular interest to ex-jws is that one intent was to support the duty to warn others of the coming end of days, including the jw's beloved scripture, matt 28:19, that justifies their preaching work: "go thereforth and make disciples...." the only support for the claim that noah preached before the flood is found in 2nd peter, so it's a dubious claim.. in the latest article, i examine the flood account in genesis 6, showing how god had already condemned mankind even before he offered the covenant agreement to noah, so there's absolutely no reason for noah to be a "preacher of righteousness", as 2nd peter claims, since god's judgment had already been passed, and death sentence had been handed down.. .

http://awgue.weebly.com/genesis-vs-2nd-peter-noah-didnt-preach-bupkis.html.

adamah

mP said:

"Given the catholics say that Peter was executed in 65 ~ ad, and everybody admits that the letters of peter are much older, how can both be true ?"

I assume you meant "the letters of Peter are much YOUNGER" (not older). St Peter was apparently able to write from beyond the grave.... :)

The reason seems clear: Xians had already adopted that trait of winning at all costs, even lying and engaging in fraud in order to win converts in the name of God (and note that the trend continues to this very day, with JWs who have "insider" policies which they don't share with potential converts until they "grow in their faith").

Paul even warns against lying in the name of God, in the book of Romans 3:5-8 (NLT):

5 “But,” some might say, “our sinfulness serves a good purpose, for it helps people see how righteous God is. Isn’t it unfair, then, for him to punish us?” (This is merely a human point of view.) 6 Of course not! If God were not entirely fair, how would he be qualified to judge the world? 7 “But,” someone might still argue, “how can God condemn me as a sinner if my dishonesty highlights his truthfulness and brings him more glory?” 8 And some people even slander us by claiming that we say, “The more we sin, the better it is!” Those who say such things deserve to be condemned."

So Paul was taking the no fraud tact, the higher road. So what better way to hide evidence of one's own wrong-doing and Bible-tampering, than to support the protectorate of the faith, the Apostle Paul? It's like criminals who support law enforcement with large donations from their ill-gotten gains.

"Whats particularly strange is why is a jew writing exclusively in Greek and is only known by a Greek name ? This seems particularly strange given Peter has arguments with paul that gentiles are not welcomed into their church on multiple occassions."

Depending on who's account of the Incident of Antioch you believe, then 2nd Peter may represent an attempt to resolve the conflict that lingered on the issue of Paul vs Peter: the statement in 2nd Peter serves the purpose of unifying the church on what have been a lingering contentious issue even after both of their deaths, as if Peter had offered a peace pipe to Paul so as if to extinguish a smoldering fire.

That kind of stuff is highly suspicious, even aside from the other issues surrounding the authenticity of 2nd Peter (questioning by early church leaders, where some had to actually believe in the ideas expressed by Paul in Romans).

25

More evidence of fraud in 2nd Peter: Noah didn't preach, per Genesis 6

by adamah in

thanks for reading the 3-part series on the contradictory characterization of lot in genesis vs 2nd peter, analyzing genesis 19 and comparing it to 2nd peter 2. in the articles, i took a step-by-step approach to show how 2nd peter's declaring lot as "righteous" was exactly the opposite goal of the author of genesis, since the point of the story is how unrighteous lot was saved not due to his righteousness, but on behalf of his righteous uncle abraham (the star of the torah).. of course, the book of 2nd peter is widely acknowledged by nt scholars to be a fraudulent work, written under a pseudonymous (fake) name in order to 'patch up' some loose ends in the torah, likely to support then-blossoming doctines of christianity.

of particular interest to ex-jws is that one intent was to support the duty to warn others of the coming end of days, including the jw's beloved scripture, matt 28:19, that justifies their preaching work: "go thereforth and make disciples...." the only support for the claim that noah preached before the flood is found in 2nd peter, so it's a dubious claim.. in the latest article, i examine the flood account in genesis 6, showing how god had already condemned mankind even before he offered the covenant agreement to noah, so there's absolutely no reason for noah to be a "preacher of righteousness", as 2nd peter claims, since god's judgment had already been passed, and death sentence had been handed down.. .

http://awgue.weebly.com/genesis-vs-2nd-peter-noah-didnt-preach-bupkis.html.

adamah

Hi Dewandelaar,

Thanks for reading! :)

"What I do not understand about the floodthing: why are there so many tales in different continents that are covering the same event"

Yeah, that's something I didn't get around to discussing in the article (which was long enough, as it was, and it's off-topic of the point I was trying to make). Of course, JWs say that there's so many similar tales about floods from around the World that it MUST be true.

The Flood account likely IS based on a real historical flood event (eg Black Sea deluge hypothesis or another flood event that occurred as the ice age was coming to an end, circa 11th century BC), but obviously it has grown to hyperbolic proportions (as tall tales tend to do). Floods would grab the attention of ancient men as they were devastating events, and a common fear in a time of history when agrarian empires were prevailing: flooding meant devastation of one's crops, not to mention the loss of life. The Nile, Tigris and Euphrates overflowed their banks with regularity, so it wasn't exactly as shocking or as out of the ordinary to ancient men as it is to us (we've built dams and levees, for one).

The flood stories also contain a protagonist who manages to survive due to his craftiness: usually the individual is apointed as King, so the element of Gods' delegating their authority to humans to create gov't reappears. That motif is found in the older Sumerian Flood legend with Ziusudra, the Sumerian Noah who was listed in the Sumerian King List (who may be a fictional character created later, and used to justify the existing power structure).

Here's a page that looks at similar motifs shared in the Hebrew version and the earlier Sumerian myths:

http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/parallels.htm

As far as those myths appearing in other cultures, remember that Europeans have been spreading Christianity around the World, and it's likely the versions found in Hawaii, Japan, China and even American Indian culture are local adaptations of a common origin, or even those versions originally told them by missionaries 500 years ago.

For instance, did you know that some Japanese believe that Jesus died in Japan? This shows the depths of syncretism that occurs, given enough time:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Little-Known-Legend-of-Jesus-in-Japan-183833821.html

But even going back further, there was much more cultural interchange in the past than realized, even before Persia's Royal Court circa 500BC (which was a sprawling empire, with representatives sent from India to N. Africa). Vedic initiates from India likely wandered in the foreign culture of Mesopotamian region circa 600BC, rejecting all material concerns by stripping off their clothes, and eating grass to emulate cows (a practice known as 'browzing'). This sounds alot like the source of Daniel's account of King Nebuchadnezzar going mad and eating grass.

"Also... why are there so many myths about halfgods dating from that time. It is all surcumstantial evidence but nevertheless there must be some good things in it?"

Likely the same reason there's many movies and TV shows about vampires in the 1990's: trends happen. "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer" caught on, and it led to a string of imitators, including the Twilight stories. A new genre suddenly springs up, and everyone wants to get a piece of the action with their "me, too" versions. Same thing likely happened with the Hercules legend, or Odysseus in Homer's writings, etc. Thematic borrowing, with nothing new under the Sun.

Here's comparisons between Jesus and others, and it's hard to deny the similarities between these legends when it's laid out:

http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/

That's not to say that a Jewish rabbi named Jesus didn't actually live (who became the center of the legend): I suspect he DID (as does NT scholars like Bart Ehrman). Christopher Hitchens has some interesting observations on the historicity of Jesus Christ, comparing him to Socrates:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQw9sNmNEeA

"One thing with the Genesis account that has been wrinkling in my brains this morning though is the fact that the writer of Genesis wrote this account some 2000 years after the creation, flood incident, babylonic happenings, abraham stuff etc. I have always wondered why it is Moses who wrote the history of the complete mankind and not someone that was closer in the timeline (like Noah)."

There are no OT scholars who actually believe that "Moses", the character from the Bible, actually wrote the Torah (for one, he records his own funeral, something that even the author of 2nd Peter didn't do!). Instead, the thinking is that many authors (redactors) contributed to the work over centuries, so it's not as old as you'd think. In fact, John Van Seters looks at the idea of Genesis actually being a late ADDITION to the Torah, in his book, "Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis".

It's a HUGE topic, but essentially the thinking is that while 50% is legal code, note that it starts off with a narrative that shows what happens when people don't follow the one rule they've been given (Adam and Eve).

It's a mistake to read the Torah as if it were intended to be a literal historical record of actual events and people, when that was not the goal of ancient authors in the period. But that doesn't stop Christian literalists from trying to make it so, even if it means accepting absurd fantastical beliefs (such as talking serpents, magic fruit that bestows wisdom, etc).

Adam

269

Why does god kill children?

by Comatose in

i was thinking about all the accounts in the bible that indicate god kills children as a punishment or teaching experience.

1. kills all of egypts firstborn sons, who were innocent kids who did nothing to him or his people, who had no control over the decisions pharoah made.

how many times have you read that account or thought about it without realizing the devastating pain dealt to all those parents, and remembered those were innocent kids?.

adamah

Good question!

Creationist Ray Comfort likes to point out how the banana is the PERFECT SHAPE for eating, with a long cylindrical shape that facilitates putting it into one's mouth. Ray points to the banana as PROOF of an "Intelligent Designer".

Of course, Ray forgets that the banana's "perfect" shape is also the #1 cause of infant mortality due to choking/asphyxiation on fruit (hot dogs are #1 for non-fruit foods). Hence the banana is ABSOLUTE PROOF that God HATES babies!

Adamah

7

Children of God Cult

by EmptyInside in

jw
friends

i was listening to an interview on public radio of chris owens,formerly of the band,girls.. anyway,they touched on briefly how he was raised in the children of god cult.

he mentioned how isolated he felt,and when he left at 16,he accepted the fact that he would lose communication with his mother.

since that is the way of groups like that.

adamah

Londo said,

"Cult = a group that employs BITE

Religion = a group that does not employ BITE"

Which only begs the question: which organized religions DON'T employ BITE, to some degree? Unitarians?