Wow... that was longer than I thought.
CoCo - thank you, and also for the quote. I really like it.
Tammy
My Apologies to Christians.
by AK - Jeff 119 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
Witness 007
Jeff Mate you had me at hello!!!!!!! Where can I sign up to your religion.
-
AK - Jeff
Tammy -
I fully understand your attachment to the good side of Christian teachings. The part of his teachings that promote positive attitudes. In that respect, it would follow that you identify with other teachings of a similar nature. So did I upon exit of Jw's and Christianity.
So did Thomas Jefferson. So much so that he culled the NT of references to divinity, supernatural including the miracles, and created an edited version that contained the positive teachings found there into what is referred to as the Jeffersonian Bible. In a letter to William Canby he stated, "Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus." And to John Adams, that among "the very words only of Jesus...there will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man."
Though, it would seem to follow then, that if indeed these teachings were as pure as touted by men like Jefferson and later Gandhi, that it would spawn at least one group, of all the groups that have taken it up, who actually practiced those principles. Yet, just into the infancy of that experiment of Christianity, somewhere circa 175 Celus stated "Christians, needless to say, utterly detest one another; they slander each other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse, and cannot come to any sort of agreement in their teaching. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own with deceitful nonsense."
Therefore, perhaps in defense, today there has emerged a form of Christianity that is claimed to be 'personal', 'a matter of relationship between myself and Jesus alone'. These words are often spoken by those who have tired of religion, it's dogma, it's inability to land on agreeable ground with others. But, is this the teaching of Jesus, this separation and denial of 'religion'? Or is it but another sectarian approach to application of principles that simply won't work in evolved society? A pipe dream created from wishful thinking, but born no more from God than any other seemingly 'positive thinking' that comes down the pike?
It would seem to me, foremost of all, a contradiction to what Jesus himself stated. He spoke of his followers not as individuals seeking to find their singular approach to him or to God. He gathered them as a clan, brethren, and his words seem to indicate that he expected them to band together in 'unity' as they served him. He spoke of how one could identify his followers, by the love they had amongst themselves. The early leaders of this Christian movement, including Saul of Tarsus, Peter, James and John - writers of what are termed gospels and epistles, without which writings there would be no New Testament of Jesus' activities and life and teachings - these men did not promote a private version of 'following Christ', but a public one, and encouraged meeting with each other in groups - something that cannot be denied as the formation of an organized religion.
Now to the matter of inspiration. Should Christians begin to deny that the 'entire' Bible is inspired of God? And what does that mean, precisely? If we use our definition of 'inspired' to soften the horror of some of it's portions, how can we inversely use it's powerful messages and commands as 'the Word of God'? If we are to defend God against the claims of his brutality, such brutality written in the OT, the raping of women and killing of babies at the command of God - excusing it as the just the 'fallible word of man' - then how dare we, citing other portions of the Bible, praise God for his great wisdom, love and generosity? How dare we, like Jefferson, just gather the positive words and principles, and deny the rockmass of writing from which these gems were mined? But if we take the writings en masse, must we not accept that all, not just part, are correct, whether we view that as 'inspired' or not?
Doing so reminds of those unfortunate misguided souls who seek out death row inmates, and attempt to paint them as good human beings for their positive actions in life. They seek to excuse the evening, when in a fit of rage the man took a loaded 357 Magnum, casually put it to the head of a child and blew his brains across the room. They seek to use his positive words of wisdom spoken on some occasions, as proof that he is a 'good man', even a godly man. They want us to believe that his good outweighs his evil, and to do that, they must, as many Christians do, edit the record to exclude his violent actions.
In a court of law we are demanded to provide 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth'. Yet in the court of God's trial, determining the goodness or lack thereof of the Christian Deity, we are asked to excuse or expunge the record of God except where it fits our ability to 'find Jesus as our Saviour'. Are we not interested in the 'whole truth'? It seems not. For a movement is underway to pretend away that portion or portions of the Bible that tell the whole truth about this deity. We are willing then to call portions of the Bible 'fundamental' other portions 'metaphorical'. Some of it is accurate [generally the parts that make Jesus attractive as a King and Teacher or real as a person], other parts are 'fallible', especially those portions that paint God the murderer of millions, an atrocious monster who orders rape and pillage as part and parcel with his worship.
SO, are we to be allowed to discard as 'fallible' those portions that we can't accept? For me that would be almost all of it, sans the Jeffersonian NT. But by so doing, are we deluding ourselves into just an ala-cart selection of God for what we want him to be? And if so, then have not the atheists been fully correct in stating that, like all Gods previous, man has created this one too - in man's image he has created Him?
If the 'Word of God' is not the 'whole truth and nothing but the truth', then this thing called Christianity is a sham. For it's basis was always in the Bible, and if one rejects the Bible, whole or part, then how can one definitely state that this man Jesus was any more than simply an historical figure who offended Rome and was killed for sedition? If we can just pick and choose what portions we believe, then what would motivate us to 'seek Jesus' then? Why not 'seek' any other god or god/man? In our century alone, many fine men have lived. Some have been wise far beyond others. Gandhi comes to mind. Why not revere Gandhi, make him a God? At least in that case, we can truly verify what he said. And if we wish to view him divine, the complete, essentially uncorrupted version of his words can be obtained with relative ease. We could find the 'whole truth' about Gandhi. But can we find the 'whole truth' about Jesus, when we assert that the Bible is 'inspired' but not necessarily accurate in all it's parts?
Enough for now. I look forward to your reply. Peace.
Jeff
-
goldensky
Dear AK-Jeff, your post #10.847 is superb!
-
OnTheWayOut
Jeff, I like your thoughts on learning mythology, knowing it was fiction, and learning Biblical stories that weren't all that much different and being told they were real- even more than real, they were important for salvation. It reminds me of a time about 1986 when I was in the military. I found myself on a tour group of the Greek ruins. The guide talked about the teachings of what Apollo and other "gods" were about. I asked if any Greeks at all still believed this stuff. She laughed and laughed. Her "No, they know it's silly" answer virtually suggested to me that they NEVER believed this stuff. They knew it was just their myths, even when they lived it.
I imagine the beginnings of Christianity the same way. From my "spiritual path," it seems to me that Christianity developed as rebellion against the status quo of both Rome and Judiasm, then took a life of it's own because of the destruction of the temple. Before Constantine accepted Christianity, the Christians got tired of persecution. Rome despised them similarly to atheists because they abandoned Judiasm and still wouldn't worship the same way Romans did- Christians were in a cult of their own. One thing Rome did respect was long-held traditions. So it would seem that Christianity started trying to say that Christianity was long-held tradition and that the Jews own sacred scriptures pointed to Christ. So, sometime quite a while after the destruction of the temple, the several (not just 4) Gospels developed from people searching the Old Testament for obscure ways to connect it to the New Testament that they were writing. It became just more of "the bible proves the bible."
But before they wrote the Gospels and long after, I don't think Christians believed their myths any more than Romans and Greeks believed their myths.
Having recently watched "The Buddha" from PBS and having read much eastern thought, I am confident that most people that follow Buddhism do not really believe the mythology that developed about Prince Siddharta becoming the Buddha. Yet we would be hard-pressed to get them to admit that. So here we can see another spiritual path, granted an older one than Christianity, going through the same problems. Even though Buddhism has been slower about it, it still demonstrates how spirituality can go from myth to actual belief because of the influence of holy men and temples or churches in search of money. Long ago, even though nobody believed the myths, the holy men wouldn't say outloud that it was just myths. How could they ask for money to support the temple based on myths? Part of Buddhism's slower descent down the dark path of becoming a reality is that they don't so much have a holy book of beliefs. They have writings of wisdom instead. Another part of the slower descent is that they don't insist on people believing any of it. They recognize that each person is on their own spiritual journey. I, for instance, accept most all of the wisdom but reject any of the god beliefs of eastern thought.
My point is that this is the closest I can come to not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I know the Bible is bunk, yet there it is. Just as eastern thought and wisdom is valid to a large degree, and just as eastern thought and training helps millions to acheive some kind of inner peace, Christianity and Judaism do some of the same. If they could ditch the insistence on strict adherence to the teachings (as Buddhism has done) I could accept Christianity as more beneficial to it's followers. Judaism had more promise of becoming just like Buddhism in ditching insistence on belief in the myths, but the holy men got in the way. Christian holy men did the same thing a couple of generations after Peter, Paul, and James passed away.
I think Tammy has found the beneficial part. I think her "Christian" values are really her own values expressed thru Christianity, similar to "Buddhist" values. I would hate to try to browbeat her Christianity by taking it on logically. It's just not what she needs. It's not the Christians that share their values that I have a problem with- it's the Christians that preach the need to believe as they do or suffer damnation.
-
OnTheWayOut
Between the editing of the past and the demands of holy men of the past, the Bible has become an "ALL-OR-NOTHING" book. There are kernels of value in there, but even using the kernels, the holy men and today's fundamentalists say that us unbelievers cannot pick and choose from the holy scriptures. They would be highly upset at my suggestion that Judeo-Christian developement was just like other "mythologies."
-
lovelylil2
Hi Jeff,
I agree with Tammy's thoughts. I cannot understand why you would want to tear down a Christian's belief because you are no longer a christian. That is exactly what the Watchtower does and teaches its followers to do. Which is to tear down others for the way they believe. Maybe you feel christians are against you becuase you no longer are one? I for one have no hard feelings towards you at all. And I like Tammy would never mock a Muslim, Jew etc. You should probably examine why you continue to do this to christians. Perhaps you have unresolved bitterness towards the WT?
About debating the flood, noah, jonah, etc. I would like you to consider this point. There are many christians who do not interpret the old testament stories as literal but see them as stories pointing to Christ. Many (including myself) believe the ENTIRE bible is about Jesus. That is the theme, not the kingdom of God like the WT teaches.
Here are examples, The story of the ark and Noah points to Christ as the savior (he is the ark), Jonah and the whale represents jesus being in the grave 3 days, Abraham and Isaac story about God asking Abram to sacrifice his son represents what God would do in the future with his Son. Hence Abram is God, Isaac is representative of christ. The sacrificial lamb God provided Abraham is Jesus too and the sprinkling of blood on the doorpost so the Angel of Death passes over the jews reprsents Christ's blood and his power thru it to save us from death. There are many others too, these are to name a few. Whether these stories are literal is not as important as the fact that they are being used to teach LITERAL truths about Christ.
There are some good book studies out there about the Types and shadows in the OT that point to jesus. Have you ever read anything like this?
About Jesus being a real person, I would like to ask you if you ever spoke to a practicing jew? I have a friend in my area Rabbi Joseph ( a female) who gives wonderful talks at Christian churches about the Jewish faith and she once told me it is laughable how some former christians go on to deny even the existance of jesus Christ when EVEN JEWS believe he existed. They believe he was a Rabbi, Lived during the biblical times, had a following of people, taught many of the things recorded in the NT and that he was a wise Rabbi. They also believe he was put to death for blashemy for claiming to be the son of God and that is where they disagree with Christians. To say Jesus never existed as a historical person even if you believe he is not God is one thing but there is ample evidence he did exist and it is recorded in non christian publications. However, I won't hijack this thread for another discussion on that topic as it is something that has been discussed many times on this board. Actually it has been discused to death if you ask me.
Jeff, whatever spiritual journey you are personally on, I really do wish you peace. We have all been spiritually abused by the WT and have had enough name calling, put downs, and people tearing down our beliefs to last a lifetime, wouldn't you agree? So I wish you luck. Please do not become a bitter person. I am sure you are a nice guy but sometimes you do seem a little angry in your posts. Any anger you have I think may be misapplied to Christians who are innocents and should really be directed to the WT organization. An organization that by the way is absolutely NOT Christian and continues to prove that fact by their fruits.
Peace, Lilly
-
snowbird
Well said, and welcome back, Lilly!
You were sorely missed !
Syl
-
lovelylil2
Thanks sylvia,
Been very busy going on with life. I still lurk on the board to see whats new but do not have time to post. But today I am home sick from work, recovering from a sinus infection so I thought I would pass some time and chime in.
I am going to start a new thread about marking my 7th year out of the tower in a few minutes, feel free to join me over there. But first, I need a cup of coffee! Lilly
-
OnTheWayOut
Here are examples, The story of the ark and Noah points to Christ as the savior (he is the ark), Jonah and the whale represents jesus being in the grave 3 days, etc....
The problem for ex-JW's like myself is this- I have heard how something in the holy writings represents something else. I have read how that can be abused. I am sure there are plenty of others besides WTS that take the writings and make things represent parts of their organization and beliefs. It just doesn't fly.
Do you know how to write a story about a great detective that picks up on little seemingly insignificant clues and solves the case? It's not all that difficult. They write the outline backwards. "If my detective is going to say that Colonel Mustard killed Professor Plum in the library with a lead pipe to the head, then what would my detective need to discover?"
The New Testament is sort of like that, except it's more like a sequel with the Old Testament being the first book. You have to work backwards within the already-established story. "If my messiah were to prove himself, what would I need to write? How could I make his arrival seem like a promise from the Old Testament?"
It's easy to throw out the flood, Noah, and Jonah and equate them with allegory. What about when archeaology says the exodus didn't happen? Are the same Christians prepared to throw out Abraham and Moses? Are they prepared to discover that Jesus wasn't who the books say he was?