What I don't get is how JWs can't see how their ideas paint God to be a terrorist

by gubberningbody 33 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  PSacramento

  Every time you try to explain what you base your faith on, the trail grows fainter.

  Were you or are you a JW?

  Because your Black and white view of things ( it is either this way or that way) is very typical of one.

  Bruce Metzger was a reknown biblical scholar, perhaps THE biblical scholar of this time, teacher of Barth Ehrman ( Bart worked with him on a book) and he did NOT believe the bible to be innerant and that it must be take for what it is and not for what it was never meant to be ( A science book for example).

  It doesn't mean it is worthless, far from that, and I agree.

  But according to you it must either be LITERAL and PERFECT and everyhting is EXACT or it is rejected, right?

  Well, my point is that the other option is to take if for what it is, a historical book about God, written by man, a book the details events and stories that were written down by ancient man according to HIS understanding at the time, some of it ( the prats about God) inspired by God and others written by man to justify man.

  Jereimah said as much when he criticiized the scribes for putting errors in scripture to try to control the people, Jesus did the same thing with his critique of the all the laws man had added to the bible without God's permission.
• 

  THE GLADIATOR

  PSacramento

  When I watch what you do with the scriptures I start to think of magic shows. The way you switch between quoting the Bible as fact and brushing aside the bits that you have decided are opinion.

  The sleight of hand, the distraction, the collapsing boxes. Tricks are convincing when they are done well. Unfortunately I know how the tricks are done.

  To conjure well and convincingly you have to accept that it is a trick and be the master of illusion. Unfortunately you are part of the illusion.
• 

  PSacramento

  If that is your opinion, I can respect that.

  But you didn't answer my question, did you?
• 

  THE GLADIATOR

  PSacramento I think your question was: But according to you it must either be LITERAL and PERFECT and everyhting is EXACT or it is rejected, right?

  That is not what I said. What I said was: “Modern Christians have come clean and declared that the Bible is an unreliable history book which should be taken with a pinch of opium if it is to make sense. They have a living faith that is no longer bound to any book. Flexible, comforting and tailor made.”

  This is the impression you give.

  I contrasted this with the JWs view of the bible. They- “believe that the entire Bible is God's word, produce by men speaking from God as they were borne along by Holy Spirit? The book from which nothing can be taken away or added?

  You have made it clear on many threads that this is not how you view the Bible. Yet, you take certain verses literally but challenge and interpret others to fit your own agenda. It is truly amazing to see the liberties you take with this ‘Holy book.’

  Did God write to humans through the Bible or is it the work of men? Will it tell me what God was thinking or what shepherds and fishermen were thinking? Is it the word of God or the word of man?

  It is neither perfect or exact. It seem obvious that no God had anything to do with its production. When trying to make sense of the world we live in, I would rather consider the thoughts of a scientist than those of an ancient shepherd.

  Personally I see the Bible as an attempt by man to explain the world he is part of and give his life meaning. A miss-match of hearsay, postulation and imagination run wild.
• 

  PSacramento

  Actually, the question was are you, were you a JW.

  But since you mentioned the bible and it interpretation I again state that I take it too seriously to take it literally.

  Yes, we can take certain things literal but some are colorful metaphors, others are speculative whiel other parts are man using god to condone thie actions, as was very typical of ancient man in those times.

  They went to War, the prayed for victory, they got it, ie: God was on their side.

  Just like so many people STILL do to this very day, so one can imagine how much more prevelant it was 3K years ago.

  The bible is a work of man, the parts in relation to God are inspired, the parts in relation to Man are historical.

  Are there errors? sure, why not?

  Are there mistakes? sure, they were only human, but were those mistakes on purpose of just ancient man writing what they truly believed?

  That is up to the reader.

  In case you haven't notice, I have NO AGGENDA so I can't twist scripture to suit it.

  I start my base of interpreting scripture From this stand:

  God is LOVE, God is GOOD and what is LOVE and what is GOD?

  4 Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

  8 Love never ends

  That is how I believe God to be and as such, I interpret and reconcile based on THAT.

  Hope that helps to clear up my "magic tricks".
• 

  THE GLADIATOR

  Actually, the question was are you, were you a JW.

  I was born and raised A JW but left 25 years ago. I have lived in freedom ever since. I have examined many religions and spiritual paths but concluded they are all bogus. Some of the principles are sensible to live by but once invisible beings are called into play, I leave the room.

  I notice that you have quoted a part of the bible that you have based your 'stand' on while rejecting others. Have you considered that this biblical ideal is also a mistake; made on purpose by ancient man writing what they truly believed? It sound fine but God's words or Man's?

  You see once you pick and choose, instead of the Bible being an inspired guide it becomes a patchwork of guesses. Accepting such ambiguous advice leads to a loss of clear thinking.
• 

  PSacramento

  The issue is that you seem to think I reject 'the other parts", I don't reject them at all.

  I reconcile them as we are supposed to, with the knowledge that God is love.

  I can see your "JW philosophy" coming through, that I was I asked.

  One thing I have noticed with my former JW's here, there "black and white" view of the bible is still there but working aginst is as ipposed to defening it as you used to.

  I submit to you that it is not a case of either THIS or THAT, that is all I am saying.

  You have seen what is wrong with the other different views of the JW's, why do you not see that looking at the bible THAT way is also wrong?
• 

  keyser soze

  As opposed to the peaceful god of the Old Testament that other Christians serve?
• 

  THE GLADIATOR

  PSacramento

  : The issue is that you seem to think I reject 'the other parts", I don't reject them at all.

  As an example, on the 'Intelligent Christain thread, you have just stated:

  'The same God of the mount of foreskins and dead babie, yep, that one, you can keep that one, I don't like him very much.'

  That sound like a rejection to me. This is the God of the Bible you are talking about. The God of love? If you don't accept him and all he is supposed to have done, according to the Bible, why not throw the worthless book away. Be done with it and base your faith on your personal revelations.
• 

  PSacramento

  That sound like a rejection to me. This is the God of the Bible you are talking about. The God of love? If you don't accept him and all he is supposed to have done, according to the Bible, why not throw the worthless book away. Be done with it and base your faith on your personal revelations.

  Why not throw the book away and be done with it?

  Life would be far simpler indeed, LOL !
  No need to try on reconcile and understand what was written by ancient man 3000 years ago, no need to take into acctoun how man saw life and God, no need to understand that IF the writers of the OT had gotten it right there would have been NO NEED for Jesus.

  Yes, far simpler indeed, but the problem is that, no mater how much the anciante scribes screwed up, and Jereimakh and Jesus made it clear that they did, either adding to the law, as per Jesus, or misleading people to control them, as per Jereimah, the OT is STILL part of the christian heritage and just because it is harder to reconcile doesn't mean I shoudl just "drop it".

  Ancient man believed that God was behind everything, he believed that if he went to war and prayed to God and won, that God was on his side and everythign he did was "OK" with God, that was his view and that is what he wrote down, just like everyone else did.

  Of course when he lost, God was angry and the enemy served as Gods wrath, as if God needs ANYONE to be his wrath or God needs anyone to fight his battles, what a weak God indeed.