Well, Mel's movie was pretty intense !
lol, I was thinking you would reply with that movie when I was writing that post.
-Sab
Can we understand the Bible without the Watchtower?
by brotherdan 111 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
sabastious
-
PSacramento
lol, I was thinking you would reply with that movie when I was writing that post.
-Sab
Between this and your psoting in the omnisient thread I am wondering about you and your foresight...
-
sabastious
Between this and your psoting in the omnisient thread I am wondering about you and your foresight...
Well it WAS the goto reply. Gibson/Christian jokes never get old, imo.
-Sab
-
AGuest
Greetings, dear Cheerios and, again, peace to you!
@aguest: i do not really understand your comments. you state that you've studied contract law - modern contract law?
Yes.
have you studied ancient hebrew contract law?
In that (1) I have studied the law that's contained in the part of the Bible sometimes referred to as the Pentateuch (which I don't believe to be the original "torah" or even "Book of Moses"), and (2) modern contract law is derived from Biblical contract law (the Law Covenant, etc., which are the beginnings of the Hebrew laws), I would have to say yes. As to "ancient" hebrew contract laws, that is. As to "modern" hebrew law (i.e., the Talmud, Mishna, Gemera, etc.), I would have to say no.
is there even such a course?
Actually, according to Google... there is. Seems it's usually part of the modern day study course, though...
if there isn't, then how can you possibly understand the full extent of their law?
Well, there is; however, one doesn't have to study ancient hebrew law to understand the subject at hand (i.e., Amon, Shechem, and Hannah). If you study contract law, the whole thing kind of jumps out at ya, actually. It is one account that actually sticks to modern contract law almost explicitly.
you wouldn't be able to. you would be applying your study of MODERN contract law to what the hebrews did (or allegedly what god told them to do).
Of course, you would! You would simply be applying study of modern contract law to a situation on which such law was based... that, although occurring a long time ago... holds true even today. See?
our system of laws (and that is relative to where you live), while in principal may seem similar, has a very different spirit.
Yes, but that does not negate the application or carrying out. For example, today women are "given away" symbolically. And we say "husband and wife," versus "man and wife." And no dowry is paid (at least, not in most western countries). BUT... there is still a contract. When we take "vows" today, we are still entering into an ORAL contract. True, our government lets us out of them quite easily (they "void" them), in some states... but it was a contract, to begin with.
if i am illogical for applying my modern views to those days, wouldn't that make you the same?
If the law itself has changed, yes. And it has. Men (in the western world) don't "buy" their wives. Well, okay, not if you don't count the rock. But the FORMULA for the law... the contract formulation... has not changed at all. The only thing that changed is what can contract FOR. That can contract... and what MAKES a contract is just as true today as it was then. I tried to spell that out and even used colors to help you "see." But you don't have to take my word for it: ask any lawyer.
secondly, slavery absolutely is condoned in the bible - so long as you're not a hebrew.
Slavery is condoned today, dear one. True, it is indentured (paid) servitude... but it is still servitude. AND... it is STILL by contract.
the jah of the ot had no problem with them taking slaves, genocide, abuse of women, etc.
The god of the OT (i.e., "Jehovah"... "LORD"... etc.)... as the false stylus... and very poor understanding... of man has made him out to be... had no such problem, no. The Most Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies, however, absolutely had such problems. How do we know? Look... at/to... Christ. The One who came to "bear witness to the TRUTH."
was it their custom then? yes.
The Hebrew custom? Evidently, it was. But where did they learn it? You believe from the Most Holy One of Israel. Uh-uh. They learned it from others who had no problem with slavery... the vast mixed company from Egypt... who went with them. Rather than keeping the Law PURE... many, many laws of the crowd that went with them were incorporated.
is it acceptable today? no.
Slavery? I would say that that depends on where you live. Heck, it was acceptable where I live less than 200 years ago. We haven't made THAT much progress, dear one.
should it have been acceptable to a loving god that as he clearly states that he does not change for times indefinite to times indefinite ...
I think it depends. For example, if I owed a debt... and wished to sell myself into servitude to pay it off... I should be able to do that. Oh, wait... I DO do that, don't I? To pay my mortgage... Do I believe that "slavery" in the sense of one man owning another as property should have been... or was... acceptable to the Most Holy One of Israel? I don't. As to either. How can I know? By looking at Christ. Who did he own as property? Who did he say those who belonged to him could own in such a way? Did he not come to preach a RELEASE? Did he not tell his followers to go RELEASING? Did he not say that if you see him you see GOD?? So... you tell me: should I look to a book that contains errors... which it itself STATES it does... and based my entire faith on that? Or.... should I look to the One God Himself appointed to speak for Him... to show us how He "looks"... the One He told us to listen to... and look at/listen to that One? You tell me...
i wouldn't like to think so.
Who would? Yet... you do...
as to the hebrews not denigrating women .. are you saying that women were equal to the men?
I am. True, because of Eve's error her craving came to be for her husband and she was told he would dominate her... but NOWHERE does it say she would become inferior to him.
did the woman have a choice in who she was 'sold to' in marriage?
Not always, but that has absolutely NOTHING to do with God. Abram loved Sarai... and so married her. Isaac loved Rebekkah... and so married her. Jacob loved Rachel SO much he was willing to marry several of her sisters before could even have her. Yet, her father didn't send her off with another. In fact, her sisters got the man THEY wanted.
what happened if she fooled around, as young people tend to do ... didn't she become 'damaged goods' ...
Yes... and no. She was considered "damaged" by those men who did not understand the Law... and so, rather than NOT pointing the finger, as if THEY had no sin, and FORGIVING her... they often condemned such a woman. Christ did not do that, though, did he? So, while she may have been considered "damaged" in man's eyes... she was not damaged in God's. That's why my Lord did not condemn the woman brought to him who was literally CAUGHT in the act of adultery. Not accused... not alleged. Caught. And what did he do toward her? Forgave her. Funny thing, though - you won't find that account in every Bible. Certainly not ones used by those who still point the finger, judge... and condemn.
well, as you state, perhaps that is my modern viewpoint from today's society, but since jah of the ot does not change...
The Most Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies, does not change... and didn't. Man changed Him... to suit their needs and desires. The purpose of the Law wasn't so that I could look at you, dear Cheerios, and go "OOOoooooh! Look what YOU did! YOU'RE a sinner!" It was so that (1) I could look at MYSELF... know what would constitute a sin... against YOU... and so NOT so sin... or (2) I could FORGIVE you... if you so "sinned" against ME. It was a mirror. Not a window... which Israel used it for. Isaiah speaks on this, in the 58th and 59th chapters.
stands to reason that he would feel that way now. the WTS certainly doesnt treat women equally ... and that is their god.
AND THERE YOU GO!!! THAT should tell you SOMETHING!
thirdly, i'm not certain how to take your greeting or your communication style.
Ummmm... in the spirit that I give it? With love and a wish for peace for you and your household? Why take it any other way???
you call me "dear one" -
Indeed...
as you do not know me, that sounds a little condescending.
That someone calls you a "dear one"... sounds a little condescending? Well, goodness - I'd hate to think what it would sound like to you if someone called you... ummm... late for dinner - ...
also, you write as if you are writing to a child - as i am not a child, that is also slightly insulting.
I am going to be quite candid with you here, dear Cheerios: one, you cannot always tell what a person's tone is when you're reading what they've written. For that very reason, I try to use punctuation that indicates emphasis, inflection, etc. Please don't take this the wrong way but if I have not learned anything by being on this board for close to 10 years, it's that most who post here have absolutely NO sense of punctuation. None whatsoever. People just sit down at the keyboard and type. No periods, commas, nothing. But when someone uses punctuation, the LACK of understanding of these symbols, which actually have a purpose... is... incredible. True, I do misuse the ellipsis... but that is because I most probably really am taking a bit of a breath right then.
But, I truly believe (because I have seen and heard it)... if one reads what I post WITH the punctuation utilized as I intend it, there is almost no way one could take offense. I am a quiet person, really. I am animated when I talk... but I am not loud. I never raise my voice. Ever. I cannot think of a single time in all my 51 years where I have. I have only spoken sharply to my children... and my puppies (when danger was afoot or they weren't obeying a command)... whom I love and adore with all of my heart. Even then, my sharpness is quiet. It's just, well, sharp. Sort of, "Okay, you have to listen to me, now!" (I was sharp with my Li-Li just the other day... who is possibly the sweetest little girl dog on the planet, because she went outside and then came and jumped on my white duvet with her muddy paws... after I had JUST told her, "No, Li-Li, DON'T jump up there!"). But that's about as "rough" as I ever get.
as you seem to be a nice person,
I am a calm and subdued person... but I am not nice, dear one.
i thought i'd ask you if that was your intention?
It is. I pull off the best I can, given who I truly am (a good for nothing slave)... and my Lord makes up the rest. For example, the strength that I must sometimes show HERE... when folks are speaking to me in, well, unspeakable words... is beyond. It is not mine. It comes from and belongs to my Lord. For me to say different would be utterly lying.
if it's not, great (and i shall not take it as such).
It is my intention. Do I always succeed? Am I supposed to always succeed? Wouldn't THAT make me perfect... which many, including myself... deny?
just trying to understand your communication style. i enjoy debating, but only when it is non-offensive.
My style is as it has always been here, dear one. I don't enjoy debating so much as I enjoy discussing a matter. Or sharing a matter. I have learned, however, not to rush myself to take offense. Particularly since some here believe ME to be offensive, which that is not my intention at all. Who, then, am I to assume them intend offense? Excluding, that is, those who really do intend it... which is usually evidenced to me by how certain others... who RARELY take offense do so in my behalf. I figure, if it offended THEM, then, heck, it must really be offensive.
what i appreciate about you is that you have faith in the bible and god.
Please forgive me, but I have to correct you here: I have faith in God, yes. In the Bible, no. In some of the things written in the Bible... yes. In ALL that is written in the Bible... absolutely not.
i do not, however, and probably that is because of the WTS.
Well, that's a start, at least as far as the Bible is concerned. But know this, dear one... that you no longer believe in God is exactly the reason that harlot exists: to mislead, IF POSSIBLE... EVEN the chosen ones. I have NO doubt that some of you who have had your faith utterly shipwrecked... or currently risk sucha fate... belong to Israel. Which is why you and I were in her in the first place: to BE misled. And, sadly, it has worked as to some. Not only do they not believe in her any more (which is great!)... they no longer believe in God... and in that light, Christ... any longer. And so, our Adversary has indeed prevailed in his taunting the Father... as to such one.
that does not mean that i am not open to learning more about god, if he indeed does exist and is different than the god worshipped by the WTS.
He does exist and He absolutely IS different! All one has to do is look at CHRIST... to "SEE" that! I am telling you, truthfully - look at Christ... at what he did and did not do. Listen to what he said... and says! Because he is the IMAGE of God... the "exact" representation! Can you see him killing little children for taunting an old bald-headed man? No? Can you see him stoning a woman because she committed adultery? No? Can you see him giving a woman to a man who was going to abuse and mistreat her? No? THINK, dear one... LOOK... and LISTEN!
(i want nothing to do with that god - if that makes me a heathen, than so be it.)
Nor do I. And so I belong to the God of my Lord, who is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob... and NOT the God that the Jews made up to frighten their enemies, the MOST Holy Of Israel, JAH... of Armies.
but many tend to feel that there is a nicer god. so i am open to learning about him/her/it;
His name is JaHVeH. JAH (Psalm 68:4)... who breathes armies/causes armies [of spirit beings]... into life/to come to life. JAH... VEH. JAH... who breathes... armies. JAH... of Armies. It is NOT JeHoVaH.
however, i want some type of empirical evidence presented by people who are not blind zealots
You want a sign. The only sign I know of... besides the sign of Jonah... is the outpouring of holy spirit... and the resultant "gifts" of that gift. Will that suffice? If so... why not ask for that? (Luke 11:13)
- i do not see any difference between those people and WTS.
Nor do I.
if there is a god, that shouldn't be too difficult for him to provide.
It's not about what's too difficult for Him, dear Cheerios - it's about what's too difficult for US. Faith. Because that is all it takes.
I bid you peace... and ears to hear when the Spirit and the Bride say to YOU:
"Come! Take 'life's water'... the holy spirit of God... which holy spirit is poured out from the innermost parts of His Son and Christ, the Holy One of Israel and Holy Spirit, JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH... FREE!"
Your servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
-
bottleofwater
Don't forget to turn your logic switch off!!!
-
Joey Jo-Jo
PSacramento wrote: Well, Mel's movie was pretty intense !
So intense that most of the movie was not bible inspired.
-
jam
Sacramento : My source Thomas Jefferson
-
-
PSacramento
So intense that most of the movie was not bible inspired.
Artitistic freedom, isn't that what they call it?
Still the curcifixtion and whipping scence were very well done, a tad overdone but not as much as many people think.
Being whipped and scorged was a far more horrific thing then most people realize.
Sacramento : My source Thomas Jefferson
Not to play the numbers game, but I am not sure were TJ got his info from but far more Christians have been killed since Christianity started than have killed. Of course you did say that it was millions killed, imprisoned and tortured so, perhaps in a TOTAL sense, maybe but I am still not sure where he got those numbers from.
-
cheerios
@aguest: well thank you for your reply :) i cannot say that i quite agree with some of what you wrote, but we are in total agreement that the WTS has a horrible god that is not worthy of anything but deposing. and yes, i must admit, that i do believe that my experience with the jahwidiots has tainted my view towards christianity, but that is something that i am working on.
and thank you for explaining your communication style. i think you may have misunderstood my question a little, but your answers definitely tell me that you're not condescending. (i have been called such and spoken to by a member of the GB and other holier-than-thou dubs before - and they were condescending, so i get a little agitated when i hear such speech.) It's just your communication style. and that's fine by me :)
as to the sign - yeah, i struggle with that. i dont seem to have any faith; however, at the same time, i question why i should have to even have faith.
btw, you really seem to enjoy contract law ... i fell asleep in contract law in school :) to me it's quite the yawner ... explains why i didn't do very well in that class haha