Disrespect of the Bible

by brotherdan 127 Replies latest jw friends

  • Terry

    HOLY means "set apart for special purpose".

    What special purpose has scripture been used for throughout history?

    The Catholic Church definitely wanted to control the reading and interpreting of the bible with its 73 books.

    If you were a scholar who wished to translate the bible into the understandable language of the day you risked being skinned alive and burned by the only true Christian Church in existence!!

    Is this a HOLY use of the Bible which needs to be respected?

    LUTHER wanted to get rid of several Bible books which he didn't agree with such as James, Hebrews and Revelation.

    As it happened, we lost 7 of the HOLY scriptures in a short time after the PROTESTANT PURGE attacked this HOLY book!

    As Forrest Gump might say, Holy is as Holy does!

    The Bible has been used by clergy and layman alike to predict the End of the World (which always applies to their own day and time and which never happens!) excuse slavery, hold women as second-class property of dominant men, pump up submission to Kings and Princes and allow the White race to persecute the black as cursed decendants of Ham!!

    Is this HOLY and worthy of respect?

    What a ridiculous idea: RESPECT the bible!

  • The Scotsman
    The Scotsman

    Brotherdan - best post I have read here in a long time - I am with you 100%.

    And yeah - you have and will receive the same old responses that appear on here all the time. It has got to the stage that we can predict "who" will respond to such threads.

    I would not get yourself overly concerned what others think or believe - its up to them.

    Faith is not a possession of everyone....

    The Scotsman

  • Juan Viejo2
    Juan Viejo2

    One Sunday morning back in the late 1950s, I was out in field service in an upscale neighborhood of Riverside, California. I had my clamshell bookbag filled to the brim with magazines and a couple of recent books. I also had my personal leatherette covered copy of the NWT along with a hardcover copy to place.

    I went to the front door of this very fancy home. A man in his late 40s answered the door and politely listened to my usual opening spiel and then invited me in. "How old are you, young man?" he asked.

    "I'm fourteen."

    He looked at my leatherette covered NWT. "That's a nice Bible you have there. Have you ever read it from cover to cover?"

    "Not completely, but most of it, I guess."

    He asked me if I'd ever read the King James Version. I replied that I had, and pulled out my small leather covered copy that was buried deep down in my bookbag. He then asked me if I could understand the language of the KJV. I told him that I could, but reading the NWT was much easier.

    He then invited me over to a bookcase that was filled with pricey legal books and premium bound versions of the classics. On the top shelf was a copy of what appeared to be a large family Bible, with rich leather, gilded edges and a very impressive ribbon bookmark. Next to it was a beautifully bound copy of "The Complete Works of Shakespeare." He then asked me if I'd ever read Shakespeare.

    "No. Not really. But I've seen the movies of Hamlet, MacBeth, and Richard III."

    "Here, I want to trade with you. You give me that copy of your New World Translation - and I'll give you this copy of Shakespeare. One condition: You must swear to me that you will read this book as faithfully as you read your Bible. I guarantee that you will learn far more about life and history from this book than you ever will reading the Bible."

    Clearly the book he was giving me was worth at least $50 to $100. Mine was worth maybe $5 - if it was brand new, which it was not. "That would be very nice of you sir," I said, "but not fair - as your book is so much nicer than mine."

    "I'm an attorney and do very well financially. I can certainly afford to replace this book any time I want. I like you very much and you seem to be an intelligent young man. Do me the honor of accepting my book. I'll know that if you read it and learn from it - that I will have given you something priceless."

    I promised that I would read his book of Shakespeare and cherish it. We made the swap, shook hands, and I was on my way.

    I kept that book for over 30 years and it was always within reach, usually on my bedside table. He was absolutely right - I did learn far more from that book of Shakespeare than I ever did from reading the Bible. Whenever a Shakespeare movie would come on the TV, I would follow the dialogue in my book as the actors spoke their lines. I was heartbroken when my ex-wife gave it to the Goodwill along with most of my other possesions.

    Reading the NWT is like reading high school or community college level poetry compared to the KJV. While the language of the KJV is beautiful, the sonnets and plays of Shakespeare ring with truth and clarity - exposing human conflict, expressing love, desire, and courage - far better than the Bible does. Only Psalms, Proverbs and Song of Solomon compare favorably to Shakespeare.

    The difference in the two books is that the Bible presents fictional stories and legends as "truth" - while Shakespeare presents characters and events based on actual history as "fictional."

    That attorney I met that Sunday morning over 50 years ago was right. I did learn more from Shakespeare...

    I don't feel that the Bible deserves any more respect than any other book - and certainly not to the honored level it is accorded, even by unbelievers, in the USA and Europe.

  • whereami


  • ZeusRocks

    I just want to reply to a couple of statements without making any remarks of a personal nature.

    It takes more faith to believe in something like evolution than it does to have faith in the Bible.

    This statement is an outright lie. It takes no faith the believe in evolution because it is a demonstrable theory. The bible does not have one scrap of evidence to back up it's claim of divine inspiration. It's historic content is extremely questionable from the beginning even through to Jesus himself and the claims about him. It takes more than just faith to believe in the bible, it also takes ignorance in the discoveries and progress humans have made over time and ignoring what has been discovered.

    I don't have enough faith to be an atheist

    Atheism requires no faith as it is not a belief system. It is simply a stand regarding the assertion that a god or gods exist.

    If Jesus does not exist and did not die for our sins, then we are helpless, hopeless, and lost for all time

    This is the most dehumanizing thing a person could ever truly believe. In other words, because a person is born human, they are hopeless, helpless and lost for all time. And because we are born human, a blood sacrifice if required to make it okay for us to live and be saved from being human. It is the epitomy of dehumanization. To believe this is one thing, but to pass it on to our children over the centuries is down right criminal. No one is born believing in god or jesus, it is instilled in us from birth by our parents and our environment depending on which country we are born in. There is not one thing that is moral or good about this fundamental doctrine.

    There are too many things that the Bible got right

    No there isn't. The laws in the bible are immoral. The god portrayed in the bible is immoral. A 10 year old child shows more moral character than what's in the bible. The bibles creation account is mixed up, a global flood never happened, evidence shows that the nation of Israel were never captives of Egypt, they never conquered the promised land. I'm not saying everything in the bible is false, but it does have more fiction than fact. It's a little bit like Gone with the Wind. Places in the book exist as well as some characters which can be verified, but the majority of it is fiction.

  • bohm


    Im sorry your getting so much flack here. This is a subject where one has to step lightly :-).

    I think the key thing is that some require their faith to be the only one, and thus that the evidence they are right to be abselutely bulletproof. Often this mean they choose a particular interpretation of the bible, then bend and twist the parts that does not quite fit into that interpretation, and pretend their interpretation is now the ultimate authority in science and history.

    When science find errors in their model of how they expect the universe, christ and God to be, its allways the scientist who is the trouble, most often he get a "devil" label and is dismissed as being blinded by atheists, whatever that means. I will continue to argue that crowd because if a person claim there is overwhelming objective evidence i am wrong, i want to see it, and i want to make fun when i hear the same piece of evidence that has been shown to be flawed the 117th time.

    But I dont really understand why this is required. Christ says the two most important things is to love god and love ones fellow man - where does evolution come in? Do we really need evolution to be false to love our fellow man, or god?. I dont get get it, thats why i dont really think i am being disrespectfull of the bible when i make fun at fundamentalist interpretations.


    ZeusRocks An Excellent post! Clear and to the point.

    Zeus is one of many gods us gladiators favour. We send ambrosia whenever it is in season.

  • bohm

    BD: Just a side note.

    The "Evolution does not increase information", "information from non-information", etc. -- dont use those arguments man! You can knock them down with a pillow, i have started several threads on those topic and i have not had ONE person try to defend them, the most response i ever got was being called names.

    Here is the essense of it. If you want to claim information cannot come from non-information, you got to pick a definition of information and make some kind of argument. Now, information is a quantifiable thing. It is studied in Information Theory, a subfield of mathematics. Information theory offers a couple of definitions of information where different aspects are being captured - its immensely useable and i would very much recommend you to read up on it on eg. wikipedia.

    In information theory there are basically two lines of definition - either Shannon entropy or Kolmogorov complexity. The problem is, if you choose one of them and try to apply it to evolution or the real world, there is no problem at all with having the amount of information increasing, it follows completely trivially.

    You might argue we choose the wrong definition. Well, what is the right definition?

    The argument, in the absence of a proper definition of information, end up boiling down to this:

    I see bunnies hopping around outside. I define a bunny to be "complex". Evolution want me to believe a bunny came from another, likely smaller, animal. I define that animal to be "less complex". I dont think that transition is possible through evolution, hence you cant go from "less complex" to "complex". This proove evolution false!

    and its circular at best. See this thread for abselutely no refutation of the above:


  • Crisis of Conscience
    Crisis of Conscience

    I haven't read through all the comments but here is my take on it.

    Now that my eyes are open, yes I have become very critical of things in the Bible. I have expressed this somewhat before in other posts.

    Let me begin with the "positive." The Bible contains many things that have helped me in my development in life. I can especially apply these things in my marriage as well as relationships with people.

    Now as far as the "negative." Most of everything I'm supposed to believe happened is based on faith. I know the Bible (or at least the NWT) identifies faith as "the assured expectation of things unseen" or something like that.

    When is the last time in your lifetime that you saw any of the Biblical miracles/events take place? For example, the parting of a sea, 5,000+ being fed with only a few fish and bread, someone resurrected, fire from heaven, a talking donkey (actually this could be argued since I know some people that are jackasses, LOL), someone wrestling with an angel, etc., etc.? I never have nor have come across anything worth believing in the newspapers, TV, and such.

    Would it be wrong of me to disrespect Santa Claus? Probably to some because they believe he is real. Well I'm concerned about people's feelings so I won't disrespect the Bible. But I currently doubt if all the things contained in it are real, if any.


  • Black Sheep
    Black Sheep
    when people leave the WTS, they also tend to leave their belief in God behind as well.

    When I realised that I had been raised in a high control cult, it took a few weeks to work out that everything I had been taught was now suspect.


    It would be unwise to 'cherry pick' the beliefs I liked on the offchance that they might be kosher.

    I was a spiritual babe.

    I knew nothing about god/gods that was reliable.

    If Dad was a towelhead, I might have already killed myself blowing up a bus in a market place.

    I had to start over in the knowledge that I had no knowledge that could be trusted. In fact, that was the only knowledge I could trust.

Share this