For all believers: I have a serious question

by confusedandalone 29 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Ucantnome

    i think it's difficult to answer. I was raised to turn the other cheek as a Christian but i also have faith in God. I can remember discussing this before i left the witnesses. As a witness i felt i was expected to reach out to become an elder in the congregation this would be pleasing to God but i never did. I wasn't keen on the arrangement

  • adamah

    TEC said-

    Are you serious? Do you not listen? All the conversations that you and I have had... and how I have described the bible as imperfect... COUNTLESS times... and you say this to me, that I am holding the bible out as a 'perfect' more code, or that I think the bible is suppposed to offer guiding principles? Really? No wonder you don't get it Adamah. You don't listen. You don't even READ.

    Talk is cheap, TEC: give me ONE example where you admit the Bible is offering incorrect morality.

  • adamah

    Jonah said-

    My answer is obviously in the time referred to in the question. Obviously you'd have rocks in ya head if you voted in the affirmative in 2013 AD.

    Well, that's comforting to hear (although you're now admitting to failing God's test of faith offered to Abraham (and spoken about in Hebrews 11), where God commanded Abraham to offer his son, Isaac, on faith alone, AKA blind obedience).

    But as J Hofer asked, why does the Bible still enjoy the undeserved reputation of containing superior morality that's of ANY relevance today in 2013?


  • JamesThomas

    Perhaps what is most tragic thing is that the biblical "God" is embraced by many millions as the very highest form of kindness and love. An archtype that is freely willing to kill countless men, women, children and animals.

    If this is good, then what is evil? If this love, then what is hate?

    What does such a grossly demented concept of "love" do to our mind and soul?

  • jonahstourguide

    hey adamah, I'm sorry for inadvertantly comforting you, I certainly didn't intend to.

    I was simply clarifying the original question that I was answering

    that i think you may have missed the import of.

    You wanna start another topic about abe etc go and ask another question

    Hey and anyway, no need to slag off at me for what you think are my thoughts in general.

  • OnTheWayOut

    SImilar to J. Hofer's answer at the bottom of page 2, this is not what it pretends to be.

    You say " This is not a question of wether it is right or wrong..." yet it is framed quite clearly to show that such killing for God is wrong.

    I am with you on this, but I wouldn't expect to hold my breath on good answers to such a baited premise.

    Other than TEC trying to pretend that the God of Jesus had nothing to do with this stuff, without specifically telling us which parts of it Jesus rejects and which parts he accepts, believers are not going to take the bait.

  • NeverKnew

    similar to what would you have done if you were living in nazi germany during the 30s and early 40s (being of germanic descent that is). the answer is, nobody knows. different times, huge pressure, no way out.

    I agree. I can't say what rationalization I'd use if convicted in my own righteousness. I'd have to be THOROUGHLY convinced that the message was actually from God and not some insane dictator.

    1. If you were there would you have personally participated in those killings or would you ignore the commands?

    2. Yes would you personally take out your sword and run it through the belly of a pregnant woman the way your god commanded?

    3. Would you have crushed in the skull of your child that was disrespectful to you?

    When I read #1, shunning came to mind. I think about the participation of congregations against individuals.

    When I read #2, shunning came to mind. I thought of the pregnant females saddened by the knowledge that their mothers and fathers would never develop relationships with their grandchildren.

    When I read #3, shunning came to mind. I wondered which was worse, being shunned or dying so as not to have to suffer through knowing you'd never be around those that you loved dearly.

    Participating with others in the destruction of another physically, mentally OR emotionally is wrong in my eyes, but I've read it's condoned in some circles. *sigh*

    Btw, I'm a theist.

  • Cold Steel
    Cold Steel

    1. If you were there would you have personally participated in those killings or would you ignore the commands?

    This is a leading question, and one designed to cast judgment on the ancient prophets without a sufficient background of context. I personally detest the taking of life, but if one fully recognized the debauchery of the nations so condemned, one might have a completely different view. First, I'm not a soldier, nor have I ever shed the blood of man. But those who received these commands were trained soldiers. The wickedness of these cultures was such that it offended the sensibilities of the Israelites and their God. These cultures killed their own infants in much more terrible ways than the Israelites, and they weren't just competing societies. They represented the bottom of the barrel of human barbarism, depravity, decadence and savagery. They delighted in the murder of their families and infants. So I would have to be there, in the context of the times, to answer this question.

    2. Would you personally take out your sword and run it through the belly of a pregnant woman the way your god commanded?

    See Question 1. Also, keep in mind that killing isn't ending the existence of a person or animal. People and animals have spirits which survive the death of the body. In some situations, a person is better off being spared the pains of life, the plagues, famines, droughts and other aspects of human life. But just because they would be better off doesn't give a person the right to dispatch them by the sword. That command would have to come from the Lord. When the children of Israel sinned in worshiping the golden calf, Moses separated the rebellious from the obedient, then ordered the obedient to slay the rebellious, even if they were friends or family. By then the powers of God had been so thoroughly manifest through Moses that there were no mitigating factors for those who refused to serve God.

    3. Would you have crushed in the skull of your child that was disrespectful to you?

    No, but then, this was never commanded or condoned.

    As one Old Testament scholar explained:

    A good example of the way the Mosaic Law was administered can be found in the provisions for dealing with a dissolute, disobedient and obstreperous son. Here, certainly, it would seem harsh to impose the death penalty, and so it was. Yet, every son of Israel knew that it was a most serious offense to rebel against parents because it was a capital offense. At the same time, the law required parents to exhibit the utmost patience with a rebellious son and try to work with him in order to overcome his evil ways. This is evident from the fact that before parents could declare their son anathema, the following was required of them:

    "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them; then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; and they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard." (Deut. 21)

    At this point the parents had to pick up a stone and be the first to strike their son down. No wonder we have no record of this procedure ever being used! Parents, no matter how provoked, would be extremely unlikely to resort to such desperate measures. Nevertheless, the provision in the law had an important psychological value. It impressed upon the youth of Israel that their parents did have the legal power over their very lives if they became violently rebellious. (Skousen, W. Cleon, The Third Thousand Years)

  • cofty

    So Mormon moral obfuscation is just as disgusting as the christian and Muslim variety. Interesting.

  • adamah

    Cold Steel said-

    (Skousen, W. Cleon, The Third Thousand Years)

    Cleon? I remember his book, the "Naked Communist" (which some nutty right-wing ultra-conservative professor used as a textbook in a history course I took in JC in the early 80's. I dunno how he got away with using it as a textbook, but the entire class generally nodded off during his prostelyzing lectures)!

    BTW, we're still waiting for the USSR to come take America over to turn us into commies!!


Share this