by Comatose 269 Replies latest watchtower bible
If you read through the thread, Quiet One, you will find that I have already responded to some of the questions that you are asking, including what I would do if my Lord asked me to do so.
It is not that I am impatient with you... it is just that i have already answered, and many things, I have answered a few times over.
Peace,
tammy
Why does God kill children?
Because they are there.
(Apologies to George Mallory. RIP)
tec, you still have not answered Cofty's question. You originally asserted that god has never told anyone to kill another person.
Now, you've editorialized the Genesis account about Abraham heavily in order to avoid answering the question, but there's nothing in the story to suggest Abraham was knowingly playing along with a divine practical joke.
The fact that you will not directly answer the question speaks volumes- way more than your fictitious excuses ever could.
Even if Abraham thought it was a joke, and even if he knew he wouldn't kill Isaac, the fact is your claim that god never orders one person to kill another is patently untrue. But, again, there's nothing in the story that indicates in any way your claims are true.
Additionally, you conveniently completely avoided my post on this scripture:
tec:
(Christ does not 'take action' and kill unbelievers either)
2 Thessalonians 1:7-9: "...the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance upon those who do not know God ("unbelievers") and those who do not obey ("unbelievers") the good news about our Lord Jesus. These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destructionfrom before the Lord and from the glory of his strength."
this scripture clearly states:
1. Jesus takes action
2. Jesus kills unbelievers
tec: I would first like to point out the 'oddness', at least I find it quite odd... how some of you look at the bible, and then defend your position on it.
--
If that isn't the kettle calling the pot black, I don't know what is.
You are quite self-assured in thinking you know what Abraham, Isaac, Jesus and God are thinking at all times. If it's not in the Bible, you just make it up- then state it as if it's a foregone conclusion.
I'll also add that if Abraham and Isaac knew this whole scenerio was just a big joke and nothing was going to happen, then it wasn't a test of faith, was it?
Again, tec, you undermined your own argument quite effectively all by yourself.
I think I am done answering your questions on Abraham, Shirley. You aren't listening. And i did not editorialize... I just wrote what IS written in there.
2 Thessalonians 1:7-9: "...the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance upon those who do not know God ("unbelievers") and those who do not obey ("unbelievers") the good news about our Lord Jesus. These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destructionfrom before the Lord and from the glory of his strength."
this scripture clearly states:
1. Jesus takes action
2. Jesus kills unbelievers
Oh, he takes action.
But he also clearly states HIMSELF that people are judged by their own words... and their own deeds... and some are placed on his right... entering into the Kingdom; and some are placed on his left; cast outside the kingdom, into the darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. (jealousy, resentment, anger, regret)
Eventually (after the thousand years) these ones seek to destroy the kingdom and those within the kingdom; and fire from heaven devours them. THEN the dead are resurrected... some to life, and some to judgment and death (the lake of fire, the second death, that is eternal). Again, their own words and deeds judge them. Though God may still have mercy upon whomever He wishes.
Peace,
tammy
Again, tec, you undermined your own argument quite effectively all by yourself.
No, as has been the case through this thread... you have misunderstood and so are misrepresnting.
Peace,
tammy
I understand Tec why you answer like that, I can remember being a jw and I would have said similar, I would have done so not realising that I was making excuses for what it actually says. It's hard to get around that god commanded Abraham to murder his son and he went on his way to do it. The question isn't anything to do with what Abraham might have thought inwardly, all that matters is what it says. Hebrews 11 shows that Abraham would have had faith in a resurrection, in order to be resurrected you'd need to be dead, and Abraham was willing to kill based on his faith whether we like it or not.
TEC, the story about Abraham being asked to sacrifice Isaac isn't exactly a cliff-hanger: the intended audience was Israelites, the sons of Jacob who formed the 12 tribes of Israel. Since they were alive and listening to their family legend (!), there was no question if YHWH would carry through with His request or provide a last-minute stunt ram to serve as replacement, since they were there listening to a story of their patriarchs.
TEC said:
"This event never happened to begin with... but it must be taken EXACTLY as written, because it is inconceivable that there could have been ANY errors creeping into the account as it was passed down and copied and re-copied, and also translated from one language and people to another language and people... in the 3000 years or so and who know how many generations* since it was first written."
Well, OF COURSE we don't believe it actually happened, but the PROBLEM is that most Christians DO believe it actually happened, and read it as if it were an actual historical event. They get the message loud and clear, such that JWs POINT to Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son to justify shunning their own children, placing God above their own flesh and blood. THAT'S the problem: some cannot discern fantasy from fact.
(BTW, did you know that Job is NOT a real historical character, but was only intended as a PARABLE since the inverted syntax that opens the story is ONLY used ONLY with Hebraic parables? In fact, the Bible itself tells the reader this by using the equivalent of "once upon a time", but that detail has been overlooked with time (as well as the FACT the speeches in the core use poetic form). Robert Sutherland is a lawyer who has written a book (available for free reading online) on Job, which relies on an ancient legal principle called "the Oath of Innocence" whereby a defendent could swear in court they were innocent, and then be let off scot-free!
It's interesting reading.)
Back to Abraham, though, I suspect you're missing the POINT of the story: the intended message is that if God asks you to jump, you shouldn't ask "how high?", but should jump as if your life depended on it! The request to sacrifice his son was a blind loyalty test, pure and simple, just like the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad was an obedience test for Adam and Eve, or Job's tale stemmed from an idle bar bet on a slow day in Heaven that arose surrounding Job's loyalty, or Jonah's story, etc: you'd think readers would finally catch on that there's a common theme running through them all, but apparently not! ALL are loyalty and obedience tests, and nothing more than that when it comes right down to it.
Problem is, blind unthinking and unquestioning loyalty is EXACTLY the same trait that's used by mortals to exploit and control the behavior of their fellow men: I shouldn't have to tell that to ANYONE on this forum, right? Inevitably SOME charasmatic individual claims to be God's Earthly representative, and the gullible and unquestioning will follow them like lemmings over the cliff (Heaven's Gate cult in San Diego, David Koresh in Waco, Jim Jones in Guyana). ALL demanded unquestioned loyalty, using the Bible.
Now, doesn't that strike you as just a little bit odd that God would feel the need to endlessly test loyalty of humans? Wouldn't the God who supposedly can read hearts and possesses omniscience (including having Divine foreknowledge) KNOW what the outcome would BE? Why would a PERFECT being have ANY need for beta-testing ANYTHING, or ANY kind of tests? Only beings without foresight need to conduct tests (and non-destructive tests are best).
Now, an argument could be made that Jehovah already KNOWS the outcome, but goes through the motions as a "teaching experience" for the mortal. Unfortunately, that argument runs into a stiff head-wind, since God would have supposedly permitted men to exercise their free will, but then wanted to punish them when they actually EXERCISED it and made the wrong choice: that decision instantly shifts the choice out of man's domain and into God's decision-making domain (God's will), so it's NOT free will, but the very ANTITHESIS of free will.
So if that's the lesson God was trying to teach Abraham, then God SHOULD'VE made men as robots who HAD to obey and love Him (JWs LOVE that line, don't they?), since that's exactly what he wants: unquestioned obedience.
Now, it's no coincidence that MEN in power benefit from having an army of other men who are willing to die for a make-believe being. The Pharoahs of Egypt depended on it to maintain control of a large country, and to live in the lap of luxury: it worked for them! Hebrews were only trying to keep up in an early version of the arms race, except instead of nuclear warheads, they had deities (where it's hard to bluff the deity's support after a crushing military defeat! However, the Hebrews were the first ones to LOSE on the battlefield, but not to accept the superiority of the Gods of their conquering Nations: they made excuses for why Jehovah lost, despite back-to-back defeats).
See, that's (yet) another example of where the Jehovah character blows his own traits, with too many claims piled on past the point of believability. You're stuggling with the cognitive dissonance that SOMETHING just doesn't add up, but you only need to accept the OBVIOUS: Jehovah doesn't exist, but the image of Gods have been an extremely useful tool for clever men to use to control others.
BTW, The whole idea of Jehovah providing a suitable proxy at the last minute also doesn't add up: the whole element of sacrifice is foregoing something with real tangible value by offering it to God, but with the hopes that He in turn will bless the person in spades (Eg Job or Abraham were wealthy men). But if Abraham didn't actually OWN the ram, but only found it, then what was he sacrificing? Similarly, if God supplied His own sacrificial ram, wasn't He basically offering a sacrifice to Himself? That's a level of self-gratification that borders on being embarrassing: He really should do that kind of thing in private!
Similarly, what was God sacrificing by sending Jesus as the "perfect" sacrifice, knowing that He could resurrect Him into Heaven, or knowing that Jesus WOULD BE coming to Heaven?
And what was humanity sacrificing in Jesus' offering? Because as I'm seeing it, the Christian story-line is that God basically loaned Jesus to mankind so we could pay a debt we owed to..... God? The debt to God (for original sin, and subsequent sin) was owed to God, but was paid back to God by a loan from God. Huh? Hasn't someone heard of loan forebearance?
That's exactly WHY Jews focus on God's mercy and forgiveness, and don't believe in original sin (and obviously not big fans of Jesus!). Christianity just makes no gob-smacking sense if you understand the principles underlying sacrificial rites!
Another BIG problem is that God cannot experience ANY LOSS, even temporary, which is a basic principle needed to offer a sacrifice; so once again, God is depicted as experiencing human emotions which are inconsistent with His claimed omnipotent traits.
PS noting the irony that infants in the Bible are not given independent status as sentient beings with souls, but rather are viewed only as an extension of their parents; that's why God feels justified in destroying Amaelkite, Babylonian, and Egyptian infants, or wanting to kill Moses' son for being uncircumcised. Yet Xian fundamentalists claim even a fetus is a living being with a soul, seemingly going against the example of their own God?
Adam
Well, OF COURSE we don't believe it actually happened, but the PROBLEM is that most Christians DO believe it actually happened, and read it as if it were an actual historical event. They get the message loud and clear, such that JWs POINT to Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son to justify shunning their own children, placing God above their own flesh and blood. THAT'S the problem: some cannot discern fantasy from fact.
No, love... the problem is that these ones don't know Christ. They look to the bible, or they look to the GB, to tell or show them about God... but they do not look to Christ, Himself. The actual Truth.
Are there things written in the OT that I don't understand. Absolutely! Are there things in the OT that the scribes and translaters don't (and didn't) understand?
Again, absolutely!
Which... again... is why we should look to the One who DOES know what happened and what was meant.
Because men have attributed things to God (maybe not the men who originally spoke of the tales; maybe just the men who later wrote them down and added their own spin) that were not God.
Things that were natural consequences or natural harm, but people attributed to God.
(BTW, did you know that Job is NOT a real historical character, but was only intended as a PARABLE since the inverted syntax that opens the story is ONLY used ONLY with Hebraic parables? In fact, the Bible itself tells the reader this by using the equivalent of "once upon a time", but that detail has been overlooked with time (as well as the FACT the speeches in the core use poetic form). Robert Sutherland is a lawyer who has written a book (available for free reading online) on Job, which relies on an ancient legal principle called "the Oath of Innocence" whereby a defendent could swear in court they were innocent, and then be let off scot-free!
I know that some or even many conclude this, yes.
Back to Abraham, though, I suspect you're missing the POINT of the story: the intended message is that if God asks you to jump, you shouldn't ask "how high?", but should jump as if your life depended on it!
I think you forget about Abraham questioning God about Sodom and Gomorrah, making certain that God would not do wrong.
just like the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad was an obedience test for Adam and Eve
That was a warning against something that would have the natural consequence - at that time - of death, for Adam and Eve.
Problem is, blind unthinking and unquestioning loyalty is EXACTLY the same trait that's used by mortals to exploit and control the behavior of their fellow men: I shouldn't have to tell that to ANYONE on this forum, right? Inevitably SOME charasmatic individual claims to be God's Earthly representative, and the gullible and unquestioning will follow them like lemmings over the cliff (Heaven's Gate cult in San Diego, David Koresh in Waco, Jim Jones in Guyana). ALL demanded unquestioned loyalty, using the Bible.
Not arguing with you. You would think by now that people would learn NOT to put their faith in men. But rather in Christ (if they do have faith, that is).
The only representative, truth, image, word, etc... of God... is the ONE God sent: Christ.
Now, doesn't that strike you as just a little bit odd that God would feel the need to endlessly test loyalty of humans?
He does not.
There is one who does accuse us though... and we get an example of this with the story of Job, however you read it.
Wouldn't the God who supposedly can read hearts and possesses omniscience (including having Divine foreknowledge) KNOW what the outcome would BE? Why would a PERFECT being have ANY need for beta-testing ANYTHING, or ANY kind of tests? Only beings without foresight need to conduct tests (and non-destructive tests are best).
And what of those who might turn and repent?
What of those who might choose life?
Would you not want the choice, as to yourself?
Now, an argument could be made that Jehovah already KNOWS the outcome, but goes through the motions as a "teaching experience" for the mortal. Unfortunately, that argument runs into a stiff head-wind, since God would have supposedly permitted men to exercise their free will, but then wanted to punish them when they actually EXERCISED it and made the wrong choice: that decision instantly shifts the choice out of man's domain and into God's decision-making domain (God's will), so it's NOT free will, but the very ANTITHESIS of free will.
No choice - good or bad, right or wrong - is without natural consequence. Having a natural consequence in NO way means that one does not have free will.
Wrong choices have consequences.
Though this moves into the thought of punishment... do you think society has taken away the free will of people because there are consequences when people break the laws of society?
So if that's the lesson God was trying to teach Abraham, then God SHOULD'VE made men as robots who HAD to obey and love Him (JWs LOVE that line, don't they?), since that's exactly what he wants: unquestioned obedience.
Well that is not the lesson.
If God wanted robots, then why would he not have simply made robots?
Now, it's no coincidence that MEN in power benefit from having an army of other men who are willing to die for a make-believe being. The Pharoahs of Egypt depended on it to maintain control of a large country, and to live in the lap of luxury: it worked for them! Hebrews were only trying to keep up in an early version of the arms race, except instead of nuclear warheads, they had deities (where it's hard to bluff the deity's support after a crushing military defeat! However, the Hebrews were the first ones to LOSE on the battlefield, but not to accept the superiority of the Gods of their conquering Nations: they made excuses for why Jehovah lost, despite back-to-back defeats).
Men have certainly used God in that manner. No argument from me.
See, that's (yet) another example of where the Jehovah character blows his own traits, with too many claims piled on past the point of believability. You're stuggling with the cognitive dissonance that SOMETHING just doesn't add up, but you only need to accept the OBVIOUS: Jehovah doesn't exist, but the image of Gods have been an extremely useful tool for clever men to use to control others.
I don't disagree with you. "jehovah" doesn't exist.
But the Father of Christ does. I have no cognitive dissonance on that. Too much evidence for me to doubt Him.
BTW, The whole idea of Jehovah providing a suitable proxy at the last minute also doesn't add up: the whole element of sacrifice is foregoing something with real tangible value by offering it to God, but with the hopes that He in turn will bless the person in spades (Eg Job or Abraham were wealthy men). But if Abraham didn't actually OWN the ram, but only found it, then what was he sacrificing? Similarly, if God supplied His own sacrificial ram, wasn't He basically offering a sacrifice to Himself? That's a level of self-gratification that borders on being embarrassing: He really should do that kind of thing in private!
The point being that God does not need anything from us.
God is the one who PROVIDES.
Similarly, what was God sacrificing by sending Jesus as the "perfect" sacrifice, knowing that He could resurrect Him into Heaven, or knowing that Jesus WOULD BE coming to Heaven?
Using that reasoning, what would Abraham have been sacrificing, knowing at the least that Isaac would be resurrected?
And what was humanity sacrificing in Jesus' offering? Because as I'm seeing it, the Christian story-line is that God basically loaned Jesus to mankind so we could pay a debt we owed to..... God? The debt to God (for original sin, and subsequent sin) was owed to God, but was paid back to God by a loan from God. Huh? Hasn't someone heard of loan forebearance?
The debt was to... death.
But regardless of that... have you never read these:
"so his own arm achieved salvation for him, and his own righteousness sustained him"Again God provides. Does it matter how man does these things? Men making God in their own image is the problem to begin with, right?
That's exactly WHY Jews focus on God's mercy and forgiveness, and don't believe in original sin (and obviously not big fans of Jesus!). Christianity just makes no gob-smacking sense if you understand the principles underlying sacrificial rites!
They did believe that the sons paid for the sins of the fathers.
Another BIG problem is that God cannot experience ANY LOSS, even temporary, which is a basic principle needed to offer a sacrifice; so once again, God is depicted as experiencing human emotions which are inconsistent with His claimed omnipotent traits.
Why can't he experience loss?
Peace,
tammy
Tec - I guess since we don't hear Jesus talking to us then this is where we mostly see things differently. You are coming at this from the point of view that since you feel you hear Jesus then it's all real, most of us hear don't hear Jesus and we feel, based on the evidence available, that he doesn't exist. I've sent you a pm saying as much.
i would like to feel connected to something, some form of spirituality, but the longer I go on and read and learn the less I feel there's a chance that there is a god. I don't see why god would see to it that there's a book written that so full of holes and things that makes absolutely no sense and then expect mankind to know what on earth it all means. It should be pretty simple, I'm god and this is the facts. More or less.
