Disowning the God of the OT is not an Option

by cofty 94 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Alive!

  Caleb - parts of this remind me of something I read recently by Rob Bell.

  I was interested in his direction of thinking - ( that doesn't make me a fall-over follower by any, any means ) but it niggled some internal arguments/ discussions for me.

  Just the concept of how we read scripture.

  We can read an extraordinary piece written by a human writer (outside of the bible) and sense something greater than we can give words to. It can have a sense of the divine.

  I'm starting to revisit scripture and see the depth of humanity within it - it is a lesson to us. That is where my feeble brain is heading anyway.
• 

  cofty

  Caleb - Interesting, but I think you missed my point.

  If Jesus of the gospels had said the same things you wrote, that would have been interesting. But he didn't.

  He uncritically adored the god of the OT. He quoted from the OT frequently. He never once challenged the assumption that the OT recorded an accurate picture of god's character.

  It is not possible to be a moral person if your purpose in life is to champion a moral monster.

  Christians want to "have their cake and eat it".

  "The God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ" was evil - Therefore Jesus of the gospels was not a good man.
• 

  Dismissing servant

  Remember...Jesus is the only one in the bible threating non believers with eternal punishment. The OT God never did that. He "just" killed people that were enemies of the Jewish state. But jesus will be killing for "thought crimes" when he returns.
• 

  CalebInFloroda

  While I understand and even look forward to comments all make on threads, I understand that what most people do (and rightly so) is add and expect a comment from others that reflects their personal opinions and convictions. Mine are no different, but my conviction is that of the science of philology.

  My personal convictions regarding the God-or-no-God issue doesn't "play well with others" since I'm Jewish (read my thread about the gay Jewish JW I wrote about and you will see what I mean). Thus I have little to offer to support most atheists and theists on this board. I'm in nobody's corner on that issue, but I will fight for your rights to believe whatever you wish--as long as it's not JW doctrine.

  Thus what I wrote is philology data, not theology, not an opinion, and I offered no formula regarding what to make of what I wrote. As a philologist this was all I could add to what I viewed were very honest views written by Cofty. As a scientist I can only work with empirical data, and in Scriptural discussions I can only speak about the text at its most basic etymological level. That all the empirical data a linguist has to,work with in this situation.

  So Obliette, it's up to the reader to decide what the data means. I just mentioned that the narrative details in this ancient text belie many of the claims made by many theists, and that if the text were allowed to speak more for itself instead of through a pre-focused lens, the the theological results would be different and we might even be having a totally different subject to debate.

  Sorry if people were hoping to find support for their particular point of view, whether you are atheist or theist. I might play devil's advocate once in a while when I am here, but it's always to promote discussion of the arguments at play. In the end I don't give a poop what you believe or don't or what conclusions you come to with any data I present. That's a job for a Jehovah's Witness to tell you what to believe and judge you if you don't agree with them, and I am no longer one.
• 

  Oubliette

  CIF: So Obliette, it's up to the reader to decide what the data means.

  Well that's not a particularly critical or scientific approach.

  But since you feel that way, you'll have no trouble understanding that I've examined "the data" (the Bible) and concluded it is an internally incoherent document filled with delusions and misperceptions.

  It would be of some value as a historical document for anthropological study were it not for the fact that it has been and continues to be used to justify horrible atrocities all over the world.

  Bertrand Russell once said, "Well, there can't be a practical reason for believing what isn't true. ... Either the thing is true, or it isn't. If it is true, you should believe it, and if it isn't, you shouldn't. And if you can't find out whether it's true or whether it isn't, you should suspend judgment."

  -
  
• 

  Oubliette

  
  
• 

  Phizzy

  " I can only speak about the text at its most basic etymological level. "

  But even then you have to use exegesis to understand the writer's intention and message. And despite leaving behind all JW tendencies, is there not a possibility that your Jewish faith may make eisegesis more of a possible danger, even for a "scientist" ?
• 

  CalebInFloroda

  I'm a Jew, not a member of Judaism (and Jews don't refer to it as a "faith" like Christians refer to their religion). There are atheist Jews, secular Jews, Jews who are Buddhist, etc. I'm Sephardic, Mizrahi, Hebrew, Judean, whatever helps explain it, and I have even been formally invited to take advantage of the Law of Return so I am considered Jewish by the world community at large...but not all of us are religious.
• 

  CalebInFloroda

  And Cofty and Oubiette, I don't know how to repeat it anymore clearly that I totally appreciate the stands you take. Why should I have any problem with them or either of you?
• 

  Oubliette

  Here's a link to the interview:
  
  Why are you not a Christian?
  
  My favorite part @ 0:18 - 3:25
  
  Q: Do you think there's a practical reason for having a religious belief ?
  
  A: Well there can't be a practical reason for believing what isn't true! … Either a thing is true or it isn't. If it is true you should believe it, and if it isn't you shouldn't. And if you can't find out whether it's true or whether isn't you should suspend judgment.
  
  It seems to me a fundamental dishonesty and a fundamental treachery to intellectual integrity to hold a belief because you think it's useful and not because you think it's true.