Posts by adamah

20

Just caught my 7 yr old watching 'Calebs Aeroplane' think I overreacted

by not bitter in

jw
friends

at least i think thats what its called.

she was watching it at my parents house just now.

i asked what she was watching on my mums tablet and mum said whilst laughing 'oh sorry but she wants to watch bible stories' then all i heard was something about jehovah and keeping rooms tidy.

adamah

SDS-7 said-

Anyway, kids are naturally going to ask questions about stuff like that, as they grow. They're good at seeing contradictions, better than adults because they have no previous assumptions when approaching stuff the first time. Your kid will be fine. Just so long as you teach them to think, they can handle the rest on their own, in time.

Yup...

Just remember that the appeal JWs use are primarily EMOTIONAL ones, and you cannot fight their emotional sales pitch with an emotional response, since it's modeling behaviors that teach kids to play THEIR game, i.e. to play on their "turf".

The key to breaking the cycle is to explain WHY the JWs beiefs are nonsense, in a calm and logical manner. i.e. one that doesn't involve firing up the child's amygdala (near the brain stem), but encourages them to use the upper-cortical higher brain (the part that uses logic).

In fact, exposing kids to their message NEEDS to happen, since they're going to be exposed to their messages at SOME POINT in their lives, and they'll need to be 'innoculated' against its persuasive power. So using logic and educating your children (in an age-appropriate manner) is the "vaccine" that robs the JWs message of its 'punch'.

Of course, someone who feels the need to pick a user name like "not bitter" is going to have to cut themselves some slack, LOL, and will likely struggle with maintaining their emotional responses, but remember that Rome wasn't built in a day, and likewise, people don't join a cult overnight: in fact, there's many risk factors (eg being a dogmatic personality with an inflated sense of one's self-importance, believing in magical thinking, believing in God, believing in Xianity, not having a fear of voicing one's opinion (needed to preach to others), a need to convince one's self that they are correct, willing to violate personal boundaries, etc, etc). All of these are factors that must align in order to become 'at-risk' for joining the JWs.

But you're right to be concerned, since JWs ARE the types who feel no restraints in inculcating these traits in their kids and grandkids, and they even feel they're doing them a favor by doing so: they think their very lives are at stake!

Easily addressed, and the best part is you don't raise children to be drama-queens and narcissistics since the World doesn't need more of THOSE, LOL!

Adam

28

Major flub in Slavery Watchtower Study Article

by scotoma in

jw
friends

do you ever wonder if the watchtower writers actually read the context of their key scriptures?.

they seem intent on perpetuating the idea that the jewish law was divine - perfect.. paragraph two asks the question "what would prompt an israelite slave to forfeit his opportunity.

to be free?".

adamah

Oub said-Ok, so you're doing that weird thing that some people do where you SEEM to disagree with me, but everything you say is actually in agreement with what I just said.

Was I too subtle for you? Then try this on for size: I disagree with you, and I explained why in my post above. Calling it "emotional blackmail" is as deepity as any religiosity that can be can imagined, when it's really just.... a hyperbolic mischaracterization. It's as inaccurate as saying the WTBTS uses bomb threats: WTF does THAT even mean?

Oub said- Frankly, who the fuck cares what "psychotherapist Susan Forward" says? Did God die and she get appointed as his replacement when I wasn't looking? I'm thinking, "No!"

Way to shoot down the credibility of the person who coined the term, and who you cited! Most people let others do that kind of thing, but are you beating the Xmas rush?

Anyway, it's a junk term from 'pop psychology', but is useful when confined to it's specific meaning: the situation is not helped by applying it to other situations where it doesn't even fit (eg to describe the ORGANIZATION POLICIES used by the WTBTS to control it's members, based on Bible scriptures, which are hardly personal).

Oub said- You're attempt at being "technically correct" at defining a term that has more meanings than you're willing to allow is only obfuscating the very point you are trying to make. Please try to focus.

Thanks for your concern over my ability to make my point.

And there's no "technically correct" about it: even as defined by the originator of the term (who you shot down, BTW), the term doesn't fit, so your use is incorrect... Use it at your own risk, since it's on your head if you abuse it with people who actually know what it refers to.

Oub said- Maybe you should try annoying our mutual enemies instead of pissing off your potential allies.

LOL! Is that some kind of thinly-veiled threat, as if it's:

EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL?

Look, Oubliette, it's not about you, me, your ego or mine, but about sharing knowledge; if you don't understand that, then good luck! Homey don't play the 'mine's bigger than yours' ego-driven game, since life's too short for that nonsense.

28

Major flub in Slavery Watchtower Study Article

by scotoma in

jw
friends

do you ever wonder if the watchtower writers actually read the context of their key scriptures?.

they seem intent on perpetuating the idea that the jewish law was divine - perfect.. paragraph two asks the question "what would prompt an israelite slave to forfeit his opportunity.

to be free?".

adamah

Scotoma said- I used the term blackmail loosely because ordinary (non legalistic) person's understand that it is obtaining something from another person without using physical force. And ordinary people understand that it is bad. Poetic licence if you will.

Actually in a legal sense it is neither extortion or blackmail. The slave knew the rules when he took a wife from his master's household. So, the Master wasn't doing anything wrong legally. Now if the Master gave a woman in his household to the slave and certified it in writing and then decided to change his mind he would have a problem with the men in the gates. The Watchtower also makes the claim that when you got baptized in recognition of the "spirit led organization" that you knew what you were getting into. That's how they can deny any wrongdoing by disfellowshipping someone who leaves.

Yeah, I missed that you used the phrase (my comment was directed at Oubliette), but I was objecting to applying the term "emotional blackmail" to the modern-day JW practice of shunning, and not to the historical slave/master relationship, anyway.

However, your comment raises an interesting point about historical moral relativism, where some wonder if applying our mores to those who lived 3,000 yrs ago in an ancient World with strange practices is appropriate.

However, a MORE IMPORTANT question (and the flip-side of that moral relativist coin) is why do some people seemingly believe that ancient brutal laws have ANY value to us, in this modern day and age? When it comes to legal codes, OLDER ain't better!

If that were the case, then we should just cut to the chase and adopt the Code of Ur-Nammu, which predates ALL the others, including the Mosaic Code found in the Torah (and it also regulates slavery, containing provisions quite similar to those found in the Torah, including the bit about holding the slave's family as possessions of the owner to discourage his leaving: see the part below IN BOLD):

http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Sumer/ur_nammu_law.htm

The Ur-Nammu law code is the oldest known, written about 300 years before Hammurabi's law code. When first found in 1901, the laws of Hammurabi (1792-1750 BC) were heralded as the earliest known laws. Now older collections are known: They are laws of the town Eshnunna (ca. 1800 BC), the laws of King Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (ca. 1930 BC), and Old Babylonian copies (ca. 1900-1700 BC) of the Ur-Nammu law code , with 26 laws of the 57. This cylinder is the first copy found that originally had the whole text of the code, and it is the world's oldest law code. Further it actually mentions the name of Ur-Nammu for the first time.

Prologue

"…After An and Enlil had turned over the Kingship of Ur to Nanna, at that time did Ur-Nammu, son born of Ninsun, for his beloved mother who bore him, in accordance with his principles of equity and truth... Then did Ur-Nammu the mighty warrior, king of Ur, king of Sumer and Akkad, by the might of Nanna, lord of the city, and in accordance with the true word of Utu, establish equity in the land; he banished malediction, violence and strife, and set the monthly Temple expenses at 90 gur of barley, 30 sheep, and 30 sila of butter. He fashioned the bronze sila-measure, standardized the one-mina weight, and standardized the stone weight of a shekel of silver in relation to one mina... The orphan was not delivered up to the rich man; the widow was not delivered up to the mighty man; the man of one shekel was not delivered up to the man of one mina."

(One mina was made equal to 60 shekels).

1. If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.
2. If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed.
3. If a man commits a kidnapping, he is to be imprisoned and pay 15 shekels of silver.
4. If a slave marries a slave, and that slave is set free, he does not leave the household.
5. If a slave marries a native (i.e. free) person, he/she is to hand the firstborn son over to his owner.
6. If a man violates the right of another and deflowers the virgin wife of a young man, they shall kill that male.
7. If the wife of a man followed after another man and he slept with her, they shall slay that woman, but that male shall be set free.
8. If a man proceeded by force, and deflowered the virgin slavewoman of another man, that man must pay five shekels of silver.
9. If a man divorces his first-time wife, he shall pay her one mina of silver.
10. If it is a (former) widow whom he divorces, he shall pay her half a mina of silver.
11. If the man had slept with the widow without there having been any marriage contract, he need not pay any silver.
13. If a man is accused of sorcery he must undergo ordeal by water; if he is proven innocent, his accuser must pay 3 shekels.
14. If a man accused the wife of a man of adultery, and the river ordeal proved her innocent, then the man who had accused her must pay one-third of a mina of silver.
15. If a prospective son-in-law enters the house of his prospective father-in-law, but his father-in-law later gives his daughter to another man, the father-in-law shall return to the rejected son-in-law twofold the amount of bridal presents he had brought.
17. If a slave escapes from the city limits, and someone returns him, the owner shall pay two shekels to the one who returned him.
18. If a man knocks out the eye of another man, he shall weigh out ½ a mina of silver.
19. If a man has cut off another man’s foot, he is to pay ten shekels.
20. If a man, in the course of a scuffle, smashed the limb of another man with a club, he shall pay one mina of silver.
21. If someone severed the nose of another man with a copper knife, he must pay two-thirds of a mina of silver.
22. If a man knocks out a tooth of another man, he shall pay two shekels of silver.
24. [...] If he does not have a slave, he is to pay 10 shekels of silver. If he does not have silver, he is to give another thing that belongs to him.
25. If a man’s slave-woman, comparing herself to her mistress, speaks insolently to her, her mouth shall be scoured with 1 quart of salt.
28. If a man appeared as a witness, and was shown to be a perjurer, he must pay fifteen shekels of silver.
29. If a man appears as a witness, but withdraws his oath, he must make payment, to the extent of the value in litigation of the case.
30. If a man stealthily cultivates the field of another man and he raises a complaint, this is however to be rejected, and this man will lose his expenses.
31. If a man flooded the field of a man with water, he shall measure out three kur of barley per iku of field.
32. If a man had let an arable field to a(nother) man for cultivation, but he did not cultivate it, turning it into wasteland, he shall measure out three kur of barley per iku of field.

Adam

28

Major flub in Slavery Watchtower Study Article

by scotoma in

jw
friends

do you ever wonder if the watchtower writers actually read the context of their key scriptures?.

they seem intent on perpetuating the idea that the jewish law was divine - perfect.. paragraph two asks the question "what would prompt an israelite slave to forfeit his opportunity.

to be free?".

adamah

Oub said-

The phrase "emotional blackmail" has become disconnected from the meaning of the term blackmail. Had you understood this, or read the link you reposted, you would know this:

Nope, try again:

According to psychotherapist Susan Forward, who did much to popularise the term, [4] "emotional blackmail" is a powerful form of manipulation in which blackmailers who are close to the victim threaten, either directly or indirectly, to punish them to get what they want. They may know the victim's vulnerabilities and their deepest secrets. "Many of the people who use emotional blackmail are friends, colleagues and family members with whom we have close ties that we want to strengthen and salvage" [5] - parents, partners, bosses or lovers. No matter how much the blackmailer cares about the victim, they use their intimate knowledge to win compliance.

JWs don't need to resort to 'interpersonal knowledge', since they rely on a completely impersonal implicit policy of "do what WE demand of you, or you risk losing your own family, since WE own them, and can even make them shun you if we declare you a persona non grata".

Granted, someone's JW family members MAY also use 'emotional blackmail' (as described in that link) as a control measure, too, but that's a separate issue, and the term 'emotional blackmail' doesn't apply to the WTBTS' policy of shunning of DFed members: it's an ugly form of extortion, pure and simple (and WORSE, it's completely legal, since shunning has been ruled as protected under 'free exercise of religion' doctrine).

Adam

28

Major flub in Slavery Watchtower Study Article

by scotoma in

jw
friends

do you ever wonder if the watchtower writers actually read the context of their key scriptures?.

they seem intent on perpetuating the idea that the jewish law was divine - perfect.. paragraph two asks the question "what would prompt an israelite slave to forfeit his opportunity.

to be free?".

adamah

Yeah, great catch, Scotoma.

It's amazing that the WT has figured out how to create a fully-voluntary system of slavery in 2013, and the best you can hope for is to be owned by a "loving master" (which rings more to Stolkholm Syndrome to me).

The chains are mental nowadays, but slavery has always relied on both mental AND physical restraits, and the mental 'chains' are often even harder to break and more debilitating...

Oubliette said- They hold your family hostage. It's a form of emotional blackmail.

Well close, since 'blackmail' is when someone threatens to use someone else's secrets against them by disclosing them in public if the victim doesn't buy their silence.

Blackmail IS actually a specific sub-category of 'extortion', a broader term which implies using a threat of violence, or coercion by alienation from family, etc, in order to force someone to do something against their will.

So the WT situation is actually, "emotional (religious) extortion", NOT "emotional blackmail", since the coercion is used to encourage members to stay IN the JWs to avoid shunning.

Adam

33

so happy today!!

by XstuckX in

jw
friends

i'm married with small children.

my wife and i both born-in and baptized jws.

i began my slow drift about a year ago.

adamah

XStuck said-

My son is in wrestling and football. My daughter is in band. I know how much it hurt me to never be allowed to do the things I loved in school and could not put my children through the same misery I went through.

That's it, right there:

Someone's gotta break the cycle, and as long as the people actually manage to get it done, the rest of the stuff is details.

Adam

340

Fallacies about Faith

by tec in

jw
friends

peace to you!.

this thread is about false things (some) atheists think theists believe.

this is not a thread about false things that atheists think about theists.

adamah

Yup, that's it, in a nutshell: Abraham was declared "righteous" since he "listened, obeyed, and was blessed" by Jehovah for following his orders, and put his faith in Jehovah.

TEC said- Yes, except for the 'jehovah' part. There is no 'jehovah'.

Quibble much?

You know full-well that I'm referring to 'our Father who art in Heaven', the God of Jesus; don't be intentionally obtuse (or you risk people concluding that you're actually dense).

EVEN WHEN God later asked him to kill his son, Isaac: Abraham followed orders and didn't stop to think of what was in his (Abraham's) heart: he was completely willing to kill his son since God asked him to do so.

TEC said- Well, the account says nothing about what was in Abraham's heart.

You forget that supposedly Divinely-inspired Paul filled in the gaps in Hebrews 11, claiming that Abraham had faith that Isaac could be resurrected. Paul provided details of the state of Abraham's 'heart' (well, his brain: you know that many ancient Hebrews believed humans thought with their hearts, NOT their brains). I remember explaining all of that in the prior thread on faith and Hebrews, so review, if you've forgotten.

TEC said- But this goes beyond the point that I had made with regard to Snare thinking that i had said it was righteous to follow your own heart (because who knows what might be IN your heart). Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son to God, yes... while at the same time knowing that God had already promised him that his offspring would come through Isaac. He even said when Isaac asked him, that God would provide the sacrifice... and God DID provide the sacrifice. So while he might not have known how all of these seemingly contradictory promises/requests would play out, he knew that God would keep his promise.

Abraham said God would provide the sacrifice, but he was actually telling Isaac a half-truth (AKA lil' fib), since Abraham forgot to mention to the would-be sacrifice that he was referring to Isaac, whom God HAD provided to Abraham as a blessing; now God demanded him back! In fact, the account serves as the role model for Jesus, who knew that God comes first, and family members are replaceable: that's the explanation for the JWs shunning of family members to this day, based on the principle 'the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away'....

Anyway, you're speculating beyond what the details of what the account says, since God hadn't explicitly told Abraham that He'd provide a suitable stunt ram at the last minute: if God HAD told him that, it wouldn't be a test of Abraham's FAITH, would it? And it wouldn't change the test of faith: Abraham STILL had to place trust in God that He would do as He promised. It changes nothing, since Abraham STILL had to be willing to kill Isaac.

Besides, since the ram was provided BY God, only to be offered TO God, doesn't your God have ANY sense of shame, or isn't even slightly embarrassed to engage in such self-gratification in public? Shouldn't God do that kind of stuff in private, or maybe He actually enjoys having spectators look on while He's getting off on Himself?

See, nothing was actually 'sacrificed': Abraham didn't OWN the sacrifice, so HE experienced no loss: God can do magic, so HE didn't experience any loss. NO ONE sacrificed anything, just like God giving the World his only begotten son is similarly a non-sacrifice, since God is the source of ALL wealth. It's a gobsmackingly-moronic system, where the ONLY ones to benefit are the priestly class who offered sacrifices but kept a piece of the meat (and are the same ones who wrote the story where they instituted the sacrifical rites, and benefitted from the scheme).

That's the problem with faith: it represents a WILLINGNESS to follow orders in the name of a higher power without stopping to ask questions, or consulting one's own heart or conscience. Why bother, since one's own human conscience is irrelevant, since believers know that the Bible says that the human heart is treacherous, and cannot be trusted anyway: that's the whole "faulty compass" thing.

TEC said- Now this part, I must disagree with. What point is there in Abraham questioning God... and being ALLOWED to question God... then, regarding Sodom and Gomorrah? One most certainly can question, think, reason, test. Christ taught in such a way so as to get people TO use their brains, examine their hearts, etc.

Holy Hades, TEC: I explained it before, but will repeat, in short form:

In Sodom affair, Abraham interceded on behalf of others; God didn't command HIM to kill the Sodomites; that's what the two angels were doing.

In the 'binding of Isaac' affair, God COMMANDED Abraham to kill Isaac; unlike the intercession on behalf of the Sodomites, God's request that he kill Isaac was considered as a TEST of Abraham's faith. Abraham passed, since God was conviced Abraham would actually plunge that knife into Isaac.

God says to jump, and the only faith-driven response is to jump (and it's questionable to wait to ask "how high?")

Hence why Jihadists trust in Allah, JWs trust in Jehovah's power to resurrect and die refusing blood (based on a lie), when we all KNOW there will be no do-overs, no second-chances for those lives sacrificed in the name of 'faith'.

TEC said- Well, no, we don't all 'know' that. But regardless, one SHOULD test, reason, think, ask. The author of Hebrews said specifically that Abraham HAD done just that... reasoned that God would give Isaac back to him.

Well, that's the million-dollar question, isn't it, the very definition of faith?

TEC, do YOU think the JWs are going to be resurrected in the New System?

Do YOU think they're dying for nothing?

If you read my article on the misinterpretation of Genesis 9:5-6 (which explains the solution offered in Noah's Flood, which the JWs misread to come up with their flawed blood doctrine), you'd understand that the scripture is actually trying to PREVENT needless deaths exactly LIKE that which arises from refusing blood!

(BTW, I've updated the information in that article (esp the parts which look at the use of the singular and plural forms of blood in the Hebrew passage, i.e. 'dam' and 'damim', the words in English being 'blood' AND 'bloods', which carry a completely different connotation IF such a distinction existed in English). It's worth reading again if it's been awhile....)

TEC Said- Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed simply because they did not know the God of Abraham existed... but rather because of the cries that had gone up to God BECAUSE of the actions of that town. Because of the blood that town had spilled of others, and perhaps even the innocent among them.

Yeah, there's plenty of extra-biblical stories and Hebrew myths that sprung up around the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which I discuss in the blog article (link above). I suspect that the main reason behind the legends is much like how the stories of Paul Bunyan serve as a way to explain the natural appearance of America (eg the Grand Canyon is said to appear as it does today as a result of Paul Bunyan dragging his axe in the ground).

TEC said- Mmm. I find it interesting (but not surprising) that so far everyone has ignored or deflected from the point that God came in answer to those who cried out to him from the harm done them BY the people of S&G. Preferring instead to defend S&G... the ones who were doing the raping/blood-spilling/etc... of strangers passing through their town.

Do you think foreign countries have a RIGHT to establish their own laws, and practice their own religious beliefs?

I'm guessing NOT, based on your 'buying in' to the story book written by those whom you think of as being on "your team". Your team captain can do no wrong, of course, and much like the actions of Saul, if God conducted the killings, it cannot be wrong.

That's the irony of claiming the Bible contains absolute moral values: the only one I see in action is, "might makes right".

TEC Said- Does a person need to know God to know that raping/spilling the blood strangers that come into your town is wrong? God acted on behalf of the innocent BEING harmed and destroyed. The blood of those who had been harmed/slain cried out to Him, same as Abel's did. In the story, the two angels were sent to investigate, giving anyone the opportunity to prove their own righteousness, by doing good to those strangers. (do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing so, some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it) But according to the story, it was Lot who took them in, trying to protect them. Every other man, young and old, came to do them harm, and harm Lot also for protecting them... tec

That's all conjecture, of course (and smacks of moral relativism)... adamah

TEC said- Actually, that was one question, and then things that happened from the story... the angels were sent to investigate, and Lot is the one who met them at the gate and sheltered/protected them.

Again, what right does Lot have to move to a foreign land and expect the natives who live there to adopt HIS cultural practices, esp when his morality indicated a REJECTION of the normative family values that he rejected? Lot disassociated himself from God and Abraham, and then acted the role of a "righteous man", when he wasn't: that was the overriding message of the author of the account.

BTW, I wrote in pt III of my Lot series on speculation about what may explain the Sodomites behavior of raping visitors, driven by ancient superstitions and paranoia from perceiving they may be under an alien invasion from spirit beings:

http://awgue.weebly.com/article-pt-3-revisiting-sodom-could-sodoms-mob-behavior-stem-from-fear-of-fallen-angels.html

but remember that Lot and Abraham were foreigners living in a foreign land as aliens (non-citizens), where the inhabitants worshipped their own Gods and had their own customs. The story smacks of religious hegemony, since it wasn't like they had any authority to move into a foreign land and expect others to worship their Gods, and adopt their customs, etc. It would be like S. Americans who cross into the States illegally, and expect us to become Catholics, do things like they're done in Guatamala, etc, etc.

TEC said- So? It was not Abraham and Lot crying out to God about S&G... but others who lived in that land, or who passed through S&G.

Read my article on Lot: I get into that kind of stuff in much greater detail, based on research (and there's some much later extrabiblical rabbinical tales of Lot's daughter having been killed for showing mercy to a starving man; it's been a favorite story for millenia, where the thinking evolved with time).

In fact, I suspect that's likely the intent of the story of Lot in Sodom: the account was designed to stress the point that given the circumstances under which the account was written (during or after captivity in Babylon), the Jews were strangers living immersed in a foreign culture against their will, and Lot was the poster boy of a boisterous outsider who didn't exactly fly under the radar and lay low, but instead made a showy display of his strange customs and was clueless to how he fit into the surrounding culture: instead of being rewarded for his cluelessness and sticking to "true values", he was made the anti-hero who VIOLATED those same principles every chance he got. The story ends with him becoming the forefather to the enemies of the Chosen People.

TEC said- And this is NOT conjecture, lol?

The difference is some conjecture is based on evidence and research, and not whisperings from Jesus.

EVERYTHING you know about God are ideas which came from somewhere: your game is based on claiming Jesus gives you some special insight, and that's the oldest game in the book: in fact, the Holy Bible encourages that kind of thinking that the reader is "special".

Of course, the author's intent was likely lost on the author of 2nd Peter (who wrote his epistle some 1,000 years AFTER the Genesis account was written (!), relying on the Greek Septuagint, no less....), who declared Lot to be not a heel, but a hero (AKA a righteous man) to fit into Xian theology.

TEC said- More conjecture. Besides that though... you think a man cannot be righteous and then later commit actions that are not righteous?

The POINT is the contradictory claim, where 2nd Peter sums up Lot's life LONG AFTER he was dead, and declared him to be "righteous", EVEN AFTER the drunken incest. Drunken Xian males who commit incest must see Lot as their patron saint: Saint Lot, the protector of pedophiles, who was foregiven of his sins and is now in Heaven along with Uncle Abraham and other men of faith. Lovely, isn't it?

Of course, Lot didn't make Paul's heroes of faith list, so there's another NT contradiction (as well as the OT/NT contradiction).

Just because one person mentioned Lot and one person did not... does not make it a contradiction. One person claiming that Lot was righteous and another claiming that Lot was unrighteous... then you might have your contradiction.

Read the article, as I explained WHY the author of Genesis was often "too cool for school" by being 'subtle' when he could've spelled it out explicitly and even THAT would be too subtle for some readers. He likely wasn't anticipating Xians later hijacking his writings (which were written for his culture's religion) in order to create a spin-off, an action that other authors strongly polemicized and demanded the death penalty for corrupting "pure worship" of Jehovah.

Yet when asked if they would go so far as to kill someone, all of today's theists on this board (correct me if I am wrong) say their God / Jesus /voice would never ever tell them to do such a thing. If God did it to Abraham, He could do it to youi.

Name another example after Abraham's test of faith... where anyone else was asked to sacrifice their child.

Holy Hades, TEC: you'd think ONE time should be sufficient to get the point across, loud and clear?

That's just sad excusiology, like holocaust deniers who say "OK, well Hitler may have been responsible for the deaths of 6 million Jews, but can you name ANOTHER example of atrocities he committed?"

BTW, your selective memory is kicking in, as you're forgetting all about when King David killed the descendents of Saul (including his young grandchildren) to avenge Saul's murder of the Gibeonites. Seems God told David that he was carrying a grudge about it until that time, and was causing a drought:

http://www.illustratedbiblestories.ca/raindance_comm_1.htm

Sounds more like scape-goating to me!

And so much for individual responsibility of the wrong-doer himself (Saul)? God held Saul's offspring accountable for the sins of their father (and grandfather), a good example of the ancient belief in inherited obligations for sins, a variation of the community responsibility for sins as I mentioned above.

Adam

7

Why do we say Cain's murder of Abel was the first one...

by Django_Unchained in

jw
friends

when god started it all?

could have sworn he signed adam and eve's death warrants first, and by extension everyone else's....

adamah

Actually, the account suggests Cain wasn't even guilty of murder (intentional killing), but of manslaughter (accidental killing).

http://awgue.weebly.com/why-did-god-seemingly-allow-cain-to-get-away-with-murder.html

Besides, God gets the distinction of being the first mass murderer in the Bible (Lamech brags of killing two men, but that's not 'mass murder'), so God is the star of the Flood account, and He gets away with it scot-free, since "might makes right".

In his defense, God's anger management skills improve somewhat thereafter, since He scales it back by limiting Himself to ordering genocidal campaigns, killing idolators, Sabbath breakers, ordering human sacrifices, etc.

But one has to wonder, since after wiping out all life on Earth in the Flood, AND Armageddon, AND the final killing after the 1,000 yr reign, who's to say that God's going to be able to control Himself thereafter, and not have a hankering for some more bloodshed, and dream up some pretenses to carry out some blood-letting in the New System just for old time's sake?

God's worse than Kim Jong Un, and I'd be very scared if I wanted to live under His rule in the New System (well, that is, if I believed in Gods).

I mean, even after killing his own uncle, Kim Jong Un showed a little mercy when he spared the life of his murdered uncle's wife, his aunt (although it's going to make for some awkward family reunions, LOL!)

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/12/15/kim-jong-un-aunt-appears-to-have-survived-husband-downfall-execution/

Adam

340

Fallacies about Faith

by tec in

jw
friends

peace to you!.

this thread is about false things (some) atheists think theists believe.

this is not a thread about false things that atheists think about theists.

adamah

FHN said-

1. not all theists are Christians 2: not all Chrisitans believe the Bible was written by God or that it is all truth.

Yeah, no kidding: maybe that's EXACTLY why OTWO took the extra effort to add the part in bold:

OTWO said- yet when asked if they would go so far as to kill someone, all of today's theists on this board (correct me if I am wrong) say their God / Jesus /voice would never ever tell them to do such a thing.

So your points are moot, since all theists on the board participating in the conversion are Xians AND they accept the account of the 'binding of Isaac' is true as written (and you and I both know that TEC is not shy about employing the 'lying scribes' defense when she feels the need to get rid of uncomfortable passages; she hasn't done so (yet?) for the 'binding of Isaac' account). They usually want to change the scenario around, or claim their God would never do that for them: they're "special", and immutable God would NEVER ask them to do the same.

But I noticed you didn't answer the question (as OTWO did, and you know MY answer would be same, i.e. HELL NO!).

FHN, what would YOU do if Jehovah asked you to offer your child as a sacrifice to Him: would you prove your steadfast faith by doing what God ordered and plunging the knife into his neck to sever his jugular veins and carotid arteries, or would you balk and stammer?

Sure, you tell yourself, "It would NEVER happen to me" (which is true, since Gods don't exist, but HUMANS do, and some are willing to manipulate others by exploiting a fear of Gods). However, JW parents routinely deal with the same scenario when their children die from refusing a blood transfusion, and there's insufficient laws in their land to protect their own children from the religiously-motivated lethal madness.

Adam

33

so happy today!!

by XstuckX in

jw
friends

i'm married with small children.

my wife and i both born-in and baptized jws.

i began my slow drift about a year ago.

adamah

XStuckX said-

Wow....if someone would have told me this morning that before the day was over my wife would be pressuring me to turn in our DA letters I would have laughed in their face.

LOL! Like the old saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for, as when the Gods want to punish you, they grant you your wishes."

BTW, if he fires you (if you are his employee), he's likely bought a "wrongful discharge" lawsuit, since he's not allowed to do that! Document EVERYTHING you do and say (and his responses), and look NOW into the employment laws in your state/land, and start looking for another job yesterday.

Adam