Would the world be a better place without Atheism/Religious-ism?

by AK - Jeff 98 Replies latest jw friends

  • AGuest

    Yes, I remember this, dear OTWO (peace to you!). You can be sure, I asked about it some time ago. It was then that I was directed to what Isaiah wrote:

    “Call out full-throated; do not hold back. Raise your voice just like a horn, and tell my people their revolt, and the house of Jacob their sins. Yet day after day it was I whom they kept seeking, and it was in the knowledge of my ways that they would express delight, like a nation that carried on righteousness itself and that had not left the very justice of their God, in that they kept asking me for righteous judgments, drawing near to God in whom they had delight,

    “‘For what reason did we fast and you did not see, and did we afflict our soul and you would take no note?’

    “Indeed YOU people were finding delight in the very day of YOUR fasting, when there were all YOUR toilers that YOU kept driving to work. Indeed for quarreling and struggle YOU would fast, and for striking with the fist of wickedness. Did YOU not keep fasting as in the day for making YOUR voice to be heard in the height? Should the fast that I choose become like this, as a day for earthling man to afflict his soul? For bowing down his head just like a rush, and that he should spread out mere sackcloth and ashes as his couch? Is it this that you call a fast and a day acceptable to JaHVeH?

    Is not this the fast that I choose? To loosen the fetters of wickedness, to release the bands of the yoke bar, and to send away the crushed ones free, and that YOU people should tear in twoeveryyoke bar?Is it not the dividing of your bread out to the hungry one, and that you should bring the afflicted, homeless people into [your] house? That, in case you should see someone naked, you must cover him, and that you should not hide yourself from your own flesh?

    “In that case your light would break forth just like the dawn; and speedily would recuperation spring up for you. And before you your righteousness would certainly walk; the very glory of JaHVeH would be your rear guard.In that case you would call, and JaHVeH himself would answer; you would cry for help, and he would say, ‘Here I am!’

    If you willremove from your midstthe yoke bar, the poking out of the finger and the speaking of what is hurtful; and you will grant to the hungry one your own soul[ful desire], and you will satisfy the soul that is being afflicted, your light also will certainly flash up even in the darkness, and your gloom will be like midday. And JaHVeH will be bound to lead you constantly and to satisfy your soul even in a scorched land, and he will invigorate your very bones; and you must become like a well-watered garden, and like the source of water, the waters of which do not lie. And at your instance men will certainly build up the places devastated a long time; you will raise up even the foundations of continuous generations. And you will actually be called the repairer of [the] gap, the restorer of roadways by which to dwell.

    If in view of the sabbath you will turn back your foot as regards doing your own delights on my holy day, and will actually call the sabbath an exquisite delight, a holy [day] of Jehovah, one being glorified, and will actually glorify it rather than doing your own ways, rather than finding what delights you and speaking a word;you will in that case find your exquisite delight in JaHVeH, and I will make you ride upon the high places of the earth; and I will cause you to eat from the hereditary possession of Jacob your forefather, for the mouth of JaHVeH itself has spoken [it].” Isaiah 58:1-14

    So, now, who's right, who's wrong? Since I didn't know on my own... but wanted to understand (and you can appreciate why), how a God of LOVE could allow one man to own another, I had to take the matter to my Lord to know. And I trusted him, because he came to... and did... fulfill the Law. And so I asked him regarding this matter (which is why I've taken this long to respond... I had recorded what he said somewhere and had to find it, sorry)... and here is what he said to me about it:

    "Did I not say to you, child, ' Keep on releasing, and YOU will be released?' As well as 'all things you wish man to do to YOU... you must do to THEM?' This was the same law as given to Israel. But did they hear? Israel had the right to servants, but whom they were bound to care for... for life. However, they were never granted to "own" another, for what man can own another, in body AND spirit? They were possessions, yes, but in that they were now under the protection and care of the household... even forever. So that such servants never had to worry about being cast OUT of the house. Just as Israel was a people for a special possession, which possession bound them to the Most Holy One of Israel... and Him to them. Are they owned so that they cannot go this way or that? It was due to Israel's error in this thing... in that they wickedly left the law of love, on which hung the entire Law... by oppressing their fellowman... not even an enemy... and so the wrongful "yoking" of others... that brought THEM into captivity and slavery... not once, not twice, but three times. And I was sent to preach a release... to those of Israel who would hear: that if they released those captive to THEM... they would, themselves, BE released by those who held sway over them, whether forces of this world... or the other. And those that did hear... set their servants who wished it free, while others reobligated themselves... and their households... to care for them... forever."

    And so I have to stick by what I share, dear OTWO, that it was never lawful to "own" another man. And my Lord lived this truth: rather than enslaving anyone in any manner... other than "employing" them to assist him, for which they were compensated... my Lord set them free... both spiritually AND physically... and told his disciples to do likewise. Because YOU cannot be free... while you are enslaving another... in the manner we're speaking of here or in any manner. You, yourself, are also enslaved, because it is a lack of love.

    So, ask me what/who I believe and I will tell you that I take my Lord's word over "the Bible" any day. I have stated that here on many, MANY occasions. For as he said, "All that I tell you written (but not necessarily in the Bible)... but not all that is written (including in the Bible)... is what I will tell you. I, then, am going with the anointing that I received from him on this matter. I have to. Because HE is the Truth... and the One who "opens up" the scriptures.

    Again, I bid you peace.

    A slave of Christ,


  • OnTheWayOut

    So, now, who's right, who's wrong?

    This is not an "OTWO vs. AGuest" thing. You made a statement and I said it was wrong. I wasn't intending to "win" and you "lose." I just knew the statement was wrong and thought it needed to be said.

    Here's the portion of the statement I addressed:
    It is unlawful, both under the Law Covenant (which was given AFTER Israel left Egypt)... AND under the NEW Covenant... to literally "own" another man... or woman... as a piece of property.

    I addressed the "Law Covenant" portion of your comment. I did not discuss the philosophical "owning" of a person's mind, body and spirit.

    The clear scriptures (from the Law Covenant) say that a non-Israelite could be considered property and willed to offspring. Your focus on the "legaleze" of your word "literally" in your comment falls short. The scripture is all about "literally" owning the person's body the same as a piece of property. Of course they didn't own the person's mind or spirit. But I am not here to debate such a statement.

    I find it so strange that you misspoke despite your admission that you previously "wanted to understand (and you can appreciate why), how a God of LOVE could allow one man to own another" and you "had to take the matter to [your] Lord to know." You actually coincidentally spoke to JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH (your lord) previously about this exact subject that I would later bring up and you actually recorded what JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH told you about how it really wasn't unloving of the Israelites to "own" slaves as property, yet you misspoke. All you had to do was say that you misspoke.

    I am reminded of a Watchtower article that says they are not false prophets when applying Deut. 18:22 to their predictions:

    "Jehovah's Witnesses, in their eagerness for Jesus' second coming, have suggested dates that turned out to be incorrect. Because of this, some have called them false prophets. Never in these instances, however, did they presume to originate predictions 'in the name of Jehovah.' Never did they say, 'These are the words of Jehovah.'" Awake! 1993 Mar. 22 p.4

    So if you forgot to say "Simon says..." or "This was my thoughts, not those of the Holy Spirit" or whatever, just say you misspoke.
    Feel free to dig your hole deeper if you must deny misspeaking and go ahead and have the last word. I will not debate over what you meant or what the Bible meant here or what insider information wasn't available to me from JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH. It's like debating with Bill Clinton when he is caught lying and argues over the meaning of the word "is."

  • OnTheWayOut

    Watch how easy it is.

    I said "Watchtower article" and quoted "Awake!" I misspoke. Oops.

  • ziddina

    I suspect that religion will never disappear as long as humans are afraid of death...

    If either religion or atheism ceased to exist, I mentioned earler [on your other thread, I believe....] that religion tends to believe in stasis. The belief that humanity is the apex of "God's" creative energies, blinds religious people to the true nature of the universe - chaotic, dangerous at times, and always changing.

    Religious people tend to think that there's a big 'sky-daddy' up there who'll always be on 'their' side, will protect them from harm and danger [usually, but not always...] and when the moment of death comes, will welcome them into an impossibly-delightful 'paradise' of eternal ease and comfort... Which sounds really boring, in actuality.

    There are some classic examples of results of an underlying belief in a static system. The way that the Bubonic Plague swept across Europe and much of the known world, in the Dark Ages, Middle Ages, and even at the beginnings of the Renaissance, demonstrates that the dominant religious systems of the time were woefully inadequate to the challenge; in fact, they severely hampered attempts to produce effective remedies for that mega-epidemic, among others...

    This is, I suspect, because faith-based systems tend to believe that the planet was created specifically for humans, instead of the more accurate viewpoint that we humans are simply components of a very large, complex, multi-system web of life...

    Being out of touch with reality can be deadly. We've already seen many species go extinct resulting from the human race's inability to perceive how their actions affect the 'web of life' - in essence, another lack of contact with reality. It can even push the human race into extinction.....


  • ziddina

    I have always been intrigued by those scriptures, regarding the proper behavior of Christians who were actual slaves, that ZeusRocks brought out on page 3...

    And PSacramento's comment, "Advising people in the 1st century Roman Empire that were slaves, NOT to rebel just because they have a new faith, was VERY PRUDENT and dos NOT consititute advocating slavery. ..." doesn't quite delve into all aspects of the situation...

    Anyone here remember Spartacus??? NOT Kirk Douglas - the actual man - the actual SLAVE who led one of the most successful revolts against Imperial Rome's enslavement.


    This was one of the most shocking revolts against Imperial Rome. It was a drastic awakening for the arrogant Roman elite; to realize that a mere SLAVE had almost succeeded in upsetting their powerful empire.


    As a result of Spartacus' revolt, the Romans cracked down on rebellious slaves. Anything that smelled of slave revolt was brutally crushed. So, it was extremely pragmatic for the Christians to be "inspired" to advise their members who were slaves, to be submissive and obedient.

    There are several other examples of Christian pragmatism, in responses to political and social issues present at the time. The comment about "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's..." is a convenient way to make sure that Christians weren't going to incur the wrath of Rome by holding back their tax payments. The advice later on in the New Testament, to "Let he who has no sword, sell his outer garment to buy one..." appears to be a calculated effort at ingratiating the now-warlike Christians into the good graces of the Roman Army...

    Soooo, it appears to me that the Christians were responding to contemporary pressures in many cases; but of course they PERCEIVED it as "divine inspiration"...

    Which segues back to my comments about religion tending to push its adherents OUT OF CONTACT with reality...

    Anyone who is deluding themselves - lying to themselves, in effect - have basically hampered their ability to view reality clearly and in an unbiased manner...

    The discipline of science tends to prevent that, because any experiment published for review in scientific journals, papers or magazines, MUST BE REPLICABLE by fellow scientists of the same discipline... That 'failsafe' helps prevent 'belief' from taking the place of observed results...


  • ziddina

    ZeusRocks, you said, "The point is though, that even among the jews it wasn't mandatory to own an slave. In the bible, neither Jesus nor any of the apostles would have been going against any law in teaching their followers that it is not right to own another human being, especially a fellow believer. ..."

    But, why on earth would Jesus condemn slavery?? The Christian church is structured hierarchically; the model of slavery actually FITS the Christian model...

    Why wouldn't it?? Christianity arose in a time and place where slavery was an accepted practice. [As ZeusRocks indicated...] They would have had NO CONCEPT of a time when the human race would have evolved beyond slavery. Christians were restricted by the realities that existed AT THAT TIME - the idea of an 'escape' from slavery would only have existed by purchase of their own freedom, or a heavenly reward upon death. In no way could 1st century Christians be capable of EVER conceiving a time when slavery would be officially outlawed by the "kingdoms of the world"...


  • ZeusRocks

    Hopefully it's fixed now.

    Slavery was lawful and slaves were regarded as property. Even if a slave was treated as part of the family, they were still property. That in itself is inhumane.

    Jesus spoke out against many things regarding how the laws were being kept. He went around teaching, that's what he did. He predominantely spoke about love and spoke out against the jewish system yet never mentioned that owning another human being is not showing love. Slavery is a HUGE issue. The silence in the NT is what allowed slavery to continue for so long and led to the suffering of so many people.

    "[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America

    "The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., a Baptist pastor from South Carolina.

    "I give my daughter, Joyce Falkner, present wife of John Falkner, of the county of Fayette and State of Virginia, a negro girl by name of Gemima otherwise called Mima. I give her to the above Joyce together with said Mima's increase forever and for the only use of the said Joyce, to will and dispose of as to her seemeth fit, hereby revoking all other claims of right or title to the said Gemima alias Mima of her increase forever." The 1791 will of Toliver Craig, disposing of his assets (and children of his assets) in the event of his death.

    An all powerful god would easily have already seen the immorality in slavery and what would be the result of silence on this matter to allow his followers to continue to believe that owning another person is okay and of no real importance. And the fact that it is justified is sickening. He was supposedly teaching people how to be kind and loving to others yet left out a monumentally important thing. There was nothing stopping him from, at the very least, teaching his followers that owning another human being is unethical and so to be his followers they were to not regard other human beings as property as that is not loving.

    This is one reason why religious beliefs (especially those based on ancient texts) are dangerous and down right stupid. These ancient texts and the characters in them, were written by people ingorant of the world around them and were part of a culture that by todays standards, parts of would be considered immoral.

    Our lives begin to end when we are silent about things that matter because when we become silent, our lives are not ours anyomore. We allow them to be controlled.

    Those who would sacrifice freedom for temporary security deserve neither. -- Ben Franklin

    Wiser words than anything these ancient texts spew out.

  • ziddina

    Rats!! ZeusRocks, could you modify your last post a bit?? Your quotes and subsequent comments blur together - are a bit difficult to distinguish...

    Thanks!! Zid

  • ZeusRocks

    Damn, don't know what happened. I guess just have to read in one column.

  • ziddina

    (zapped by Zid !!!)

Share this