by smiddy 268 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Tammy
Why is god / Jesus so pre-occupied/ blessing or condemning ? people who accept the Old testament /New testament writings of 2000 years ago , ?and he/she ?apparently ignores the sriptures, religous texts, of people and nations that came after that period ? People that made up the rest of the world ?
smiddy
TEC
She was given to him as his wife. To have a family. You might think you can judge that sort of thing by todays standards, but it makes no sense to do so. That would have been an honor, elevating Hagar to a position of honor. She never ran away from Abraham.
Peace,
tammy
mP:
Thats the whole point. It was not her choice. When its not her choice its rape. Tammy its amazing how instead of feeling pain for the woman you instead elevate the criminals in the story like Abraham. Abraham is just a rapist. she couldnt run away from abraham because in those days she cpuld have been killed just because Abraham wanted too, a bit like a chicken on a farm today.
TEC
Of course, that is not what happened... but don't let that stop ya.
mP:
Why do you lie, TEC, when you know very well thats the very point of the highlight given to use in the Bible story. they could have written that Abraham left her in a nice place with food and some money, but they instead tell us she was left in the desert with her kid. Its a story filled with racism, the point being her descendants are unworthy and deserve to die.
Hebrews 11:1 is the ONLY scripture in the ENTIRE Bible where ANYONE actually attempts to define Christian faith in a methodical manner, and then the entire chapter attempts to present examples of men who showed faith in the OT.
Yes, examples of THEIR faith. So that we can better understand faith. By looking at these examples OF faith. I don't know why that is so hard to understand.
Per Paul, a Christian's FAITH is the ENTIRE foundation upon which the Christian's hopes are built, serving as all the evidence of the spiritual realm any Christian could ever NEED (and could HAVE, since you cannot perceive the imperceivable, see the invisible, etc); obviously, the spirit realm is not discernable with sensory organs.
BY DEFINITION then, faith is defined as BELIEVING in things when there's absolutely NO DISCERNABLE DETECTABLE EVIDENCE on which to base that belief (and NO, the Bible, although it's a physical object, doesn't count as VISIBLE or CREDIBLE PROOF of ANYTHING, since there's a new genre of literature which writers call FICTION, and sometimes readers mistakenly confuse the stories inside as NON-FICTION. It's a thing, a fad, and I don't expect fiction to stick around for long....). I discuss the visible evidence of the Bible later, as it pertains to KNOWLEDGE, as well as how accepting it constitutes FAITH.
Yeah, this isn't going anywhere. You tell me what you think faith is then. What is it actually? How is faith, which you say is based on nothing, evidence of something?
Makes no sense, Adamah, and it isn't what Paul was saying either. His faith sure wasn't based on nothing either. The apostles faith was not based on nothing.
People HEAR, and believe. (or not) Sometimes they hear what other witnesses tell them about Christ (oral or written witness), and the spirit within THEM, hears and recognizes truth. Then THEY might learn to ask and listen and hear Him for themselves. Then put FAITH in what HE tells/teaches them.
You DO realize "invisible evidence" is just meaningless gibberish, right? It's a paradox, like a "round square", etc. Just because words can be strung together to form a sentence that respects the rules of grammar does NOT mean the words contain a coherently possible or logical concept.
I realize that it is gibberish for you, yes.
But the fact is, the author of Hebrews is still speaking of evidence... unseen evidence; but evidence. So it is what he meant, whether you believe it to be true or not.
In the case of Abraham, Paul even says that Abraham completely trusted in God knowing that He would be able to resurrect Isaac if he slit his throat (never-mind that resurrection was an anachronistic belief in Abraham's time, as resurrection was introduced into Judaism MUCH LATER than the time in which the story of Abraham is set). The apolegetist Paul says Abraham remembered that God had earlier made a promise to build a Nation on Isaac, and rationalized that he could resurrect Isaac. Making decisions and rationalizing on the basis of FAITH (unseen evidence) is STILL FAITH, since making decisions on questionable assumptions is the very definition of FOOLISH decision-making.
The idea of a resurrection may have been introduced later, though I am not so sure you are right about that (there is a phrase when a man dies, he is gathered to his people, and that was used with Abraham)... but Abraham knew there would be a resurrection. He saw it from far off... but he saw it. Hebrews speaks of that too.
Besides, would it even matter if God HAD reneged on His promise, since "might makes right"? There's not much else you can do when your deity ORDERS you to kill someone, but to do what it demands, right?
Absolutely, it would matter. Who would be able to put faith in ANYTHING He said or promised, if He did not keep his word, and His promises fell through? Who could trust Him... ever?
But oddly enough, and contrary to your position, my Lord called me OUT of the wts, and ANY religon, so as to not put my faith in MEN, but in HIM. HE has not led me wrong. Not once.... tec
I'm pretty sure that everything you said after this point is deflection. You first say i'm in danger of listening to men, and joining another religion... and I tell you that it is my Lord who has taught me otherwise, so you find another tactic to take.
See, with all your other talk of 'testing Jesus', ultimately that would require YOU to make an INDEPENDENT moral determination of which course is correct, whether to follow the orders of 'heard' Jesus or the written words of Jesus (where 'love above all' also is a written principle of Jesus).
There is no conflict... but is there some reason you think an independent moral determination is somehow wrong. Did Christ not ask "Why can you not make a right decision for yourself?" Regardless, written or heard, Christ does not speak against love. He does speak truth, which not everyone likes, but He does not speak against love... He came FROM love (God).
So your method of verifying claims is as useless as teats on a bull, since YOU would STILL have to use your OWN morality to decide which course of action was correct!
And if that's not bad enough, suppose Jesus told you to kill someone as a display of the very greatest act of love for them, yet you were offered no rational explanation to do so?
My Lord would not tell me to do something like that.. because it is AGAINST love. I would a) know that it is not Him speaking; and/or b) remind Him of what He has already taught me, and/or c) ask further questions to see if I have misunderstood what I THOUGHT I heard from Him.
You do KNOW that you would have to rely on your FAITH in Jesus, right, since Jesus is telling you to do something? You see the 'fly in the ointment' with FAITH, of deciding on morality EVEN BEFORE knowing what the action involves?
You're the one who thinks faith is blind... not me.
Would YOU, Tammy, stand up to Jesus and say, "No, Jesus! That would be wrong!"?
You seem to have forgotten Abraham... or you are ignoring him in an effort to make a point that does not apply.
If you say "YES", I'm saying BS, unless you're admitting to having the faith of a faithless Israelite: TRUE FAITH means there is no room for doubt, BUT you're supposed to blindly follow orders and place TOTAL TRUST in Jesus, knowing that it IS the proper course and that YOU are a mere maggot who lacks the "big picture" view only seen from Heaven.
Again, you're the one saying blind faith, not me. I ask my Lord questions all the time, espeically if I don't understand something.
You see how HAVING FAITH is another way of saying, "becoming an automaton" who exercises no independent moral judgment of your own, when ORDERED to do something?
No... that's what YOU think. That is not what IS. I mean, that is the faith the wts demands, sure. But thankfully, not my Lord.
M'kay. If you say so. I mean, you're the one who's BFF with Jesus, right?
Actually, you are correct in that many people ASSUME that 2nd Tim is referring to THEIR Bible, the version they're holding in their hands, the "all scriptures" that 2nd Tim is referring to. Nope. Being that the NT wasn't canonized when 2nd Tim was written, it couldn't apply to much more than the Torah, and perhaps parts of the Tanakh.
I'm not sure if you can understand my amusment in your two statements above.
In any case, yes, I know this already. But you were the one who said this to me:
you claim your voice tells you what is right and feels free to cherry-pick scriptures, which contradicts the Bible itself which assures readers that "ALL scripture is inspired, and beneficial", serving as the basis on which to build faith, etc. How can your voice AND the Bible be right?
So you can probably concede that point then. Or maybe that was your way of doing so ; )
Though it is not MY voice, but my Lord's voice.
I didn't flip flop on anything. I never claimed to have auditory hallucinations to begin with. Hallucination is YOUR diagnosis.
That is what YOU have taken from what I said. So you HAVE diagnosed me, and you speak to me with that diagnosis already accepted by YOU.
For the LOVE of Jesus!
You clearly don't understand the difference between basic terms which are CRITICAL to understand ANYTHING in medicine (which may explain why Jesus didn't know about the value of handwashing: he didn't know much about biology, either).
So repeat after me:
AUDITORY HALLUCINATIONS ARE NOT A DIAGNOSIS, but a SYMPTOM.
Try it again?
AUDITORY HALLUCINATIONS are NOT a DIAGNOSIS, but a SYMPTOM!
Okay, how about you try to read the following and understand what I am saying:
I do not have this symptom that you have diagnosed me as having. I don't think that was too hard to understand. I do not have auditory HALLUCINATIONS. So all the words that you keep speaking about regarding that are moot.
And you said a lot of stuff, but you didn't actually answer this question:
i'm not sure i understand what you are saying here... but no problem. I can rephrase my question. Why do you seek to apply one motive to me, over another? Why do you say that I am trying to be 'special' (showing off, teasing others, etc... as you have stated) rather than trying to 'help' others who are seeking or asking questions?
Feel free to answer it, or not, but I'm not going to get drawn off on another tangent.
Just as you cannot resist the urge to repeatedly STATE that you hear the voice of Jesus, too.
You seem to forget that THIS thread is about hearing something from God. It is VERY specific. On threads having to do with faith... that IS a part of faith. That Christ is alive and that He does speak. I'm not jumping into your house to shout it out, or onto threads that are not related to shout it out. So perhaps if you do not want to read about it, then avoid these kinds of threads... but don't speak as though me speaking as to my faith, in matters of faith, is somehow wrong or me bragging, etc. That is kind of silly, imo.
Christ. Because I listen to HIM... I am not in danger of that.
If you understand what Jesus is commanding in the Bible, telling you to build and display FAITH (showing 'blind obedience' to him, another way to say having 'utmost faith' in him), you are either at some risk as it means you're in denial (which means at GREATER risk, since your compliance with following rules is actually GREATER if you're not even aware of the control being exerted; it's THAT insidious), or a hypocrit (weak in your faith, and you're a Doubting Thomas who constantly demands perceptible proof).
You can't seem to handle that Christ is not the same as religion; and calls his people out of religion, out of what man has made and TO Him, in spirit and truth. I'm not in the danger that you are going on about... BECAUSE my faith is in Christ, and not men.
You feel free to reject that if you want... but to keep insisting that I am in danger of something because of my faith in Christ, when Christ is the one who called me OUT of religion and men who ARE blind... well, is also silly.
The only law... is the law of love. Christ does not go against that... He TAUGHT that, He is FROM love. I don't need to worry about what others teach, their rules, hypocrisy, lack of knowledge, etc... not as long as I listen to Him, and not as long as I follow the law of love.
AGAIN, TAMMY, you are INSERTING a word that doesn't appear ANYWHERE in the entire Chapter of Hebrews 11: "KNOWING". Actually, gnosis (knowing) DOES appear ONE TIME in Hebrews 11, but it's followed by the word 'NOT' (i.e. not knowing) to describe how Abraham followed God's commands to enter the Promised Land as an alien on FAITH, NOT KNOWING where he'd pitch his tent as an alien living in a foreign land!
You're engaging in MASSIVE eisegesis by inserting 'knowledge' and knowing into Paul's words, where he actually pointed out the EXACT OPPOSITE condition: NOT KNOWING.
What is that saying... can't see the forest through the trees, lol? I gave examples to help show what i meant, but take the word knowing out if it bothers you.
Confidence, assurance, certainty, (knowing). Being SURE.
I am going to quote something from that Hebrews chapter, and hope that it helps you to see, what Paul is referring to in regard to things not YET seen:
By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemened the world and becaome heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
Noah was warned - so HE HEARD - about something that he had not YET seen (it had not YET happened)... but he acted in faith on what he HEARD, and what he had not YET seen, DID happen. His faith saved him, him AND his family, because he heard and exercised faith in what he heard. He did not act on nothing. He acted on what he HEARD, but had not YET seen.
THAT is the example of faith that the author of Hebrews is describing. That is what faith is... hearing, though not YET seeing.
That is how Abraham could be certain of the resurrection, though he had not YET seen it. Same with all the other examples listed that had people acting on what they heard, but had not YET seen.
Adamah, if the scriptures and the bible is all that was needed... what point is there in the Spirit? What point in Christ? In listening, and hearing? Why did He never say, all you need are the scriptures... instead of saying the opposite, "you diligently search the scriptures because you think that by them you have eternal life, but you refuse to come to ME... to have life?"
Jesus was saying that some people study the Bible as an intellectual pursuit, alone, to gain KNOWLEDGE (which CAN serve as visible evidence).
Now how do you know what He meant? Have you asked Him?
And you STILL didn't answer the question I asked. What poing is there in the Spirit? In Christ? Christ said that the Spirit will teach and guide us into ALL truth. Why would He say that if He really meant, just look to the scriptures and men of old? Those scriptures point to HIM, so we are to listen to HIM... just as God said. He did not say, put your faith in the scriptures: but listen to His Son. The scriptures did not help the pharisees; nor did they help Paul. Paul listened to the Spirit. There are also examples of one needing to have their eyes opened, to have the Spirit teach them, in order to understand what is written.
HECK, I do it like that ALL THE TIME, and I know the Bible pretty well (even better than most believers, I dare say), but I have ZERO FAITH in it. ZILCH. I wouldn't be an atheist, if I didn't KNOW it as well as I do. I USED to be a believer, but that was BEFORE I gained knowledge of the outside world AND studied the Bible itself; NONE of it added up, and had all the hallmarks of a SCAM.
You know what is in it... somewhat (though you did try to argue with me that I should think the bible is inerrant/inspired). But that doesn't mean you understand what is written; because you are not listening. Else you might understand what faith IS, and what it is based upon.
Unfortunately Jesus flip-flopped, too. You cannot SEE it, since you aren't WILLING to see it, but perhaps you could ASK (and I'm trying to resist the urge to say you need to pray to Darwinovah, the God of Rationalism, and ask for spiritual ears to hear His message. Couldn't resist the urge, so 10 'Hail Charles' for me as penitence!)
By all means... give me an example.
OMG! Is that a glimmer of hope, a ray of light I detect?
You mean because I used a word wrong, and can admit it? LOL... can you?
So what is it called when you add an adjective to lead the reader into seeing something your way? Because that is what you did.
Hmmm, I don't know. It SOUNDS alot like 'an effective use of logic and rhetoric', or 'presenting a compelling argument to someone who can reason on their own two feet and decide to use their own mental faculties'? In other words, per the Bible definition, that would constitute a 'sin'.
Nope, guess you can't ; ) Else you would just have answered the question.
Peace,
tammy
mP and Cofty,
You might want to think about what it means, why both Isaac AND Ishmael buried Abraham. Why the line of Ishmael (at least to start) is also recorded in the OT. Why was this, if Abraham just abandoned Ishmael and Hagar?
And for mP, why would God promise that Ishmael woudl grow into a great nation... which promise God has kept... if his descendants were so unworthy? Why would Abraham have needed that promise before he felt okay to send Ishmael and Hargar off?
Why is god / Jesus so pre-occupied/ blessing or condemning ? people who accept the Old testament /New testament writings of 2000 years ago , ?and he/she ?apparently ignores the sriptures, religous texts, of people and nations that came after that period ? People that made up the rest of the world ?
Are you sure that is Christ ignoring them... or them ignoring Christ? (due to what their fathers have taught them instead)
Peace,
tammy
Tammy - it's a story about slavery, the rape of a young woman by a 90 year old man of power, racism, treachery and abandonment of the most appalling kind.
It is all presented as worthy of our admiration because it was written by bible authors who had all the moral sense of an Afghan warlord.
Sadly, modern christians like you are stuck with the same blind loyalty to a concept.
Faith is not only mind-rot, it also debases your moral judgement and forces you to defend the indefensible.
You are judging people from thousands of years ago by modern western standards.
It is a story about faith. And yes, it is about slavery and being free... foreshadowing being of the earth (slave - woman); and of the spirit (free -woman)
You are inserting rape and abandonment though (and I'm not sure you understand anything about the treachery). Abraham was still part of Ishmael's life - you go ahead and ask his modern descendants and see what account they give you of their origins; never mind that his line is recorded in Genesis, that the Ishmaelites and Israelites had contact, and that Ishamel helped bury Abraham when his father died; Ishmael just was not to share in the inheritence of Isaac. (which means more than just that literal bit) He was also not a child when he was sent away, though the bible depicts it that way in the way he is described as a boy who is crying. But he was 14 when Isaac was born, and not sent away until AFTER Isaac was weaned (3-5 years more, on average).
It is presented as worthy... because of the faith of Abraham (hearing and obeying)... and the promises made and kept by God. One of which being that God KNEW Abraham loved Ishmael, and so God stayed with Ishmael and kept him safe, and made him into a great nation.
Peace,
tammy
You are judging people from thousands of years ago by modern western standards.
Christians continue to insist that forcing a young slave girl to have sex with her 90 year old slave master and then kicking her and her son out into the wilderness to die is a wonderful example of faith, worthy of imitation.
They also point to Abraham's willingness to kill his son and gasp with admiration.
Abraham and David and Moses and all the other giants of faith were moral reprobates by modern standards. They put "faith" and blind obedience above everything.
Christianity is a moral impediment.
Cofty,
I'm just guessing that even 3000 years ago a young slave girl would not be ecstatic about being forced by her slave owner to have sex with her 90 year old slave owner's husband..
And lets not forget their was no Viagra back in those days so at 90 years of age Abraham would be hard pressed to do much penetration with a limp noodle.
