The Bible designed to stagnate people and ruin lives

by WTWizard 108 Replies latest watchtower bible

tec

i stated the abrahamic covenant was racist, and that jesus was participating in a race inspired mission.
If the abrahamic covenant was racist, then why could anyone not of Israel (foreigners, other races) join Israel to become part of that covenant?
If the abrahamic covenant was racist, then why is it written that all peoples on earth will be blessed through him? Gen 12:3

its dishonest to answer a question with a never ending barrage of other stories.
It is not dishonest to show you a different reason why Christ ignored the gentile (not samaritan) woman.
You choose to call bs on Paul (or whoever you believe wrote Romans) because he said that Abraham had faith (even though Paul quoted from the OT), because you said in other places in the OT that Abraham showed no faith. So you also look at other stories to determine the meaning (or bs) of one story and account. So why is it dishonest that I do the same?

you are dishonest by only talking about jesus good words. the value of his ministry is accepting all available details. we cant simply use our modern western mrality to sweep away questionable or uncomfortable teachings.
You are calling me dishonest (even though I am happy to talk about any of Christ's words), but you are the one who said that the bible has "nothing positive to teach". All I did was point out some of the positive things.
The things I have pointed out (all written), just point to a different conclusion than you have drawn. That doesn't make me dishonest.
You ignore all the times Abraham showed that he had great faith, to say that he had no faith. Is that not dishonest by your standards? You are choosing to see the bad, and in doing so, ignoring the good and what that might do to change the conclusions that you draw. You are searching through the good about Christ to latch onto something that you think is bad (racism), but that has another e x planation, and so you could be wrong in your accusation. If I was accusing someone of racism, and another reason presented itself that disproved racism, I would drop it long before I risked accusing an innocent person of a crime they did not commit. Christ is a healer, the man who befriended the downtrodden, and defended them against the 'pharisees'. The man who preached that we serve one another, show forgiveness, and mercy, and love to both friend and enemy, who taught that it matters nothing what is on the outside, but rather it is what is on the inside of us that counts (which hardly sounds like the teaching of a racist) ... and who also said that we will be judged by the same measure we use to judge.
Peace,
tammy
still thinking

Of cours you have both come to different conclusions about what the bible really says...pick what you like. Ignore the murderous, incestuous stuff and focus of the LOVE. Pick and choose. Leave out the bits you don't like...tell the bits you do, as though they are facts. Dismmis the things you don't like as myth.
The fact that the bible shows that God was a vicious, jealous, vengeful god who encouraged HIS people to murder and avenge, should not change anyones idea that he is loving. Becasue we can find scriptures that says he is.
The things I have pointed out (all written), just point to a different conclusion than you have drawn. That doesn't make me dishonest.
No, it makes you selective. How can you honestly say that things YOU pick out are true, but the rest of the bible isn't? I am sorry, but that is beyond me.
The bible IS designed to ruin peoples lives. It teaches that love is kind and forgiving...AND that it is jealous and vengeful. It is designed to confuse and numb the brain. So that the people who put it together can control and manipulate because they have messed up our thinking skills with contradiction and told us to have 'faith' when none of it makes sense. That is the ultimate cop out. If you don't get it, have faith...for goodness sake!
You are calling me dishonest (even though I am happy to talk about any of Christ's words), but you are the one who said that the bible has
"nothing positive to teach". All I did was point out some of the positive things.
It doesn't have anything positve to teach...unless you think backtracking and contradicting is positive. Try that with your kids and see how they respond.
I am not even sure how you can claim that these truly are 'christs words'. You dismiss the rest of the bible as myth, how can you be so sure these were his words? What makes them true and the rest of the bible not? Unless Christ himself has spoken to you personally and confirmed that he said these things, you are simply assuming it. The whole book was written by men, not just the bits you don't like.
tec

The fact that the bible shows that God was a vicious, jealous, vengeful god who encouraged HIS people to murder and avenge, should not change anyones idea that he is loving. Becasue we can find scriptures that says he is.
No, not because we can find scriptures that says he is. But because CHRIST shows us God, and Christ is not those things. So neither is God.

No, it makes you selective. How can you honestly say that things YOU pick out are true, but the rest of the bible isn't? I am sorry, but that is beyond me.
Well, there is nothing to ignore if we understand that Christ went to Israel based on a promise, and not based on racism. But there are many things that conflict with deciding that he is racist. I have pointed those out. So I'm not stating that what I see is right, and what you see is wrong. I am just pointing out that there is a problem with what you are stating, and I am asking how you reconcile these conflicts in order to maintain your position? ('you' being in general, not you specifically)

It doesn't have anything positve to teach...unless you think backtracking and contradicting is positive. Try that with your kids and see how they respond.
So you think that Christ taught nothing positive?
How do you ex plain all the people that give to the poor and homeless, based on his teachings? Or those who forgive on a dime because of his teachings?
I am not even sure how you can claim that these truly are 'christs words'.
Well, I can't be 100% sure unless He tells me Himself, in spirit. But I can also reason based on the truth behind those words, and based on corroboration of the different witnesses who wrote accounts and helped compile them.
You dismiss the rest of the bible as myth, how can you be so sure these were his words?
I do not dismiss the rest of the bible as myth. I have never made such a statement.
The whole book was written by men, not just the bits you don't like.
Of course the whole book was written by men. Many different men, over many different time periods.
I don't dismiss the bits I don't like.
I dismiss what is in contradiction to Christ. Or I at least acknowledge that I (or mankind in general) do not understand enough about the people and time to be able to grasp what was behind something that seems to be in contradiction to Christ.
Peace,
tammy
still thinking

and based on corroboration of the different witnesses who wrote accounts and helped compile them.
Back to the 'witnessess' who wrote the account????? There is more evidence that the people who wrote these accounts were not witnessess then there is that they were. So you are basing your reasoning on hear say. But keep putting forth that the people who wrote the NT were actually there. This is simply not true.
still thinking

I do not dismiss the rest of the bible as myth. I have never made such a statement.
so, are you saying it is all factual?
ziddina

mP:
"constantine was not the first god emperor. ..."
Yeah, I know - take another look at my post: "Obviously, the emperors prior to Constantine tried to circumvent that situation by instituting emperor "worship" - placing the Emperor himself as their "god". ..."
mP:
"all the other messiahs were to use a modern term terrorists. they literally killed anyone who tried to coexist with the roman overlords. ..."
I would need to do more research on the teachings, behaviors and movements of the actual "messiahs" that were claiming divine approval and obtaining disciples, at around the time period when "Jesus" supposedly existed, since you provided no link for that information...
ziddina

mP:
"jesus was born when we entered the age of pisces. the end of the age we see in the gospels is talk about the end of aquarius. ..."
I've always heard that the astrological sign in dominance during that time was "Taurus", which was at the time giving way to "Aries" the ram, hence the imagery of "Jesus" as a "sacrificial lamb"... That such imagery wasn't just connected to the Jewish culture and tradition, but also as a means of co-opting the rising astrological sign...
I'd need to look that up, too....
The "fish" sign so common among early Christians was supposedly to symbolize "Jesus" miraculously supplying the fish AND LOAVES for the hungry crowds...
However, it is more likely that the "fish" sign was co-opted from the Roman fertility goddess Venus, as the "fish" was one of HER symbols, it also being a somewhat crude symbol of the female's sexual opening...
As opposed to being of "Pices", which is currently an icon of TWO fish...
ziddina

"You dismiss the rest of the bible as myth, how can you be so sure these were his words? What makes them true and the rest of the bible not? Unless Christ himself has spoken to you personally and confirmed that he said these things, you are simply assuming it. The whole book was written by men, not just the bits you don't like. ..." Still Thinking
Hah, hah! VERY well put, Still Thinking!!
tec

Back to the 'witnessess' who wrote the account????? There is more evidence that the people who wrote these accounts were not witnessess then there is that they were. So you are basing your reasoning on hear say. But keep putting forth that the people who wrote the NT were actually there. This is simply not true.
Some might have been (Revelations could have been written by one who was witness to Christ firsthand). Paul's letters were his own. Luke wrote what he witnessed (acts) as well as put together a compilation of Christ's life according to others, and things passed down. I have read that some probably wrote the stories 'according to' whomever. This would have been based on accounts handed down, right?
There is probably both.
But in either case, the stories handed down that corroborate is compelling evidence to me, as well as the truths in the teachings, that they are the words of Christ. So I reason to that. I, again, can only be 100% certain if He reveals it to me Himself.
so, are you saying it is all factual?
No. Some myth, some history, some literal, some poetic, some allegorical, some law, some geneology, some moral lessons... and anything else I can't think of.
Since I don't always know which is which (literal or allegorical or a mi x ture of both), then I concentrate on the message being given, regardless.
Peace,
tammy
still thinking

I have read that Jesus was born in the age of pisces too...and we are now entering the age of aquarius...or at least now in the age of aquarius.
This is a quote from 'the last pope' how correct it is I don't know...but here it is anyway....
Two thousand years ago, the Piscean astrological age began when the star of the Magi (described in Matthew 2) was most likely created by a conjunction of jupiter and Saturn in Pisces., the sign of the fish. It was predicted in the Bible that a Messiah figure would come preaching the sign of Jonah who was devoured by a great "fish" (Mathhew 12:40, Luke 11:29), Christian mystics would claim that as Jonah endured three days in the belly of a fish, Jesus would rise after three days from death. Othere references in the Bible depict a fish-signed Messiah who would become a fisher of souls and establish the era's dominant religion. As per the cosmic permutations of the era, this religion would be an otherworldly cult in which superstition would be its negative potential and faith its positive potential. It would spread across the world because it was most in sync with the amoral momentum of its age.
What follows Pisces is the Age of Aquarius, the Water Bearer. This new age is not dominated by faith. It will turn the collective current of humanity towards revolution, science and a hunger for a higher consciousness beyond dogma as the new virtues.

The Bible designed to stagnate people and ruin lives

Share this