Fables, Farces and Facts

by Farkel 82 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • ros
    ros

    Wasa wrote:

    As a Christian, Ros, are you offended - as I was - when someone who identifies him/herself with your beliefs using Christianity to spew forth narrow-minded, elitist propaganda? I know when I was a Witness, I really hated it when a fellow Witness was being an obvious prick and offending people.

    Yes, it is offensive. I'm not very tolerant of literalist fundamentalism for its abject ignorance because if reflects very negatively on God and Christianity. Fundamentalists are worse than the Watchtower for disowning science and common sense imo, not to mention basic Christian principles such as "judging". I was in born-again fundamentalism before I was a JW, and I'm less tolerant of their doctrinalism than I am of WTism, generally speaking. I've often said: Christianity is wonderful. Too bad man and religion give it such a bad name.

    SFF wrote:

    As an afterthought though, didn't the old testament God Jehovah have the Israelite's destroy all kinds of what he considered pagan people who worshipped pagan Gods with no consideration many times for women, infants, and children, and even livestock?

    Well we can certainly surmise that the scribes of such events believed it was the will of God/Jehovah/Yahweh. That doesn't mean that it was. Remember, the word "pagan" did not mean "idolatry". Pagan, like Gentile, was anything and anyone not Jewish--that's all. Everything not Jewish was pagan. Pagan <i>worship</i> was evil because it was idolatry.

    How many times have you known religious people, particularly fundamentalists, who believe that everything that happens to them is God's will, or the answer to some prayer, or punishment because they did something wrong, etc. etc. etc. I have always known educated and intelligent people who happen to also be religious, and they will pray for something to happen--say, recovery from a sickness, or for someone else--and regardless what happens they will interpret it as answer to the prayers. I tend to think people in Biblical times were no different than they are today. Strongly religious people tend to credit and/or blame God for everything. That's how I think some of the Bible writers were at times. I think we can trust that many of the names and events were real, but the writer's religious beliefs strongly sway how the story is told, just like people today. Try to imagine how a political event might be recorded if it were covered by Rush Lindbaugh and Ted Kennedy, respectively. :D)))

    Consider the Bible story of Elisha at 2Kings 2:23-25 where children were mocking Elisha, he cursed them in God's name, and two she-bears came out and tore up 42 of the kids. The implication is that God obeyed Elisha's curse to punish the children for chiding him. Well, it doesn't exactly say that. Let's try another scenario:
    Elisha, a balding fellow, is wandering up the road toward Bethel near a forest.
    A large gang of children from the town see the old man and begin running along the forest road chiding him.
    The noisy rambunctious gang of kids get too near a couple of mama bears in the nearby woods, and get attacked.
    Elisha, who is cursing them for harrassing him, believes it was God who make the bears do it, so that's the way he wrote about it. (Even then, it doesn't really say that God made it happen.)

    Another example from Genesis 38:6-10:
    6 And Judah took a wife for Er his first-born, and her name was Tamar.
    7 And Er, Judah's first-born, was wicked in the sight of Jehovah. And Jehovah slew him.
    8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
    9 And Onan knew that the seed would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest he should give seed to his brother.
    10 And the thing which he did was evil in the sight of Jehovah: and he slew him also.

    My conclusion: Two of Judah's sons died. Judah believed God did it, so that's the way he wrote about it. We don't know why they died.

    Abraham's descendents, the Israelites, were a crude, tribal, nomadic people on the outskirts of the first cities of what we call western civilization. The "sons of Abraham" were unsophisticated, uneducated, wanderers, shepherds, bedouin, unlike the people in the new city states where science, arts, math, writing, banking, trade and commerce were suddenly developing on the world scene.
    The fact that it is the history of the uneducated nomads that survived the milleniums, more than any of the others, is one of the marvels that I find most fascinating. Nevertheless, they were people with human nature, not different than people are today. How much of what we read today is 100% accurate. (Interestingly, it was bedouin shepherd boys who discovered the "Dead Sea Scrolls" that have brought light to some of the Bible mysteries today.)

    I can tell you I know some very educated people that when they get on subjects of politics or religion, you can't trust their interpretation of almost anything. I think some of the Bible writers were pretty human. They gave God credit/blame for a lot of their actions because that is how they believed.

    That's why I think Jesus said, speaking to His Father:
    "I have revealed you [or, "your name"] to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word."--John 17:6

    The Israelites never did really understand God. They understood Law. Christ rejected their understanding of God. Christ revealed His nature--that is, to the extent possible to humans.

    Jmo,
    ~Ros


  • wasasister
    wasasister

    Ros concludes:

    Jmo

    I like your "o", as it makes more sense than any other explanation put forth by other Bible-believers. What you wrote is very similar to what my Rabbi friend said to me about the Hebrew Scriptures, ie: even the people who read them first did not take them literally. We really do need to put things in the context of the times to understand them.

    Now, what can we do to clone you so that your ilk can rise up and run the fundy's into the Red Sea?

    Wasa

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    ros,

    (For the folks who don't know, ros and I have been bantering with each other for at least six years. Maybe more. We've had good bantering and we've had not-so-good bantering. But we're still here and still bantering. This is good. We have in common a number of the same friends.)

    She claims in this thread:

    : First the scriptures do not say that God worked only through Israel.

    Really? How do you know this? How can you tell that to all the civilizations that Israel destroyed ON DIRECT ORDERS FROM GOD according to the O.T. this? ( See the collective works of Moses, the biggest Bible butcherer of all.)

    Where is there any shred of Biblical evidence that God worked to help people or save people in the O.T who were not Jews? Heck, during the time of Jeroboam and Rheoboam and during that wole period of the separation of Judah and Israel, they were not only killing each OTHER, they had their own pet prophets. The Israelites were natural born killers, nurtured by a natural born killer God who appointed natural born Judges and Kings. It was all so, well, just "natural" for them to be murderers and genocidal maniancs.

    Which kingdom of Israel did God prefer back then? If he preferred Israel, then all of Judah's prophets were false. If he preferred Judah, then all of Israel's prophets were false. Yet, those kingdoms each had their own "prophets." All of them lied, by the way, and I can prove it.

    Is BibleGod(m) the ultimate God of human invention and confusion? I think so.

    Some people are looking in the wrong place to find God. I look at caterpillars and butterflies and I wonder. I don't need lying and superstitious books to help me out. The caterpillars help me out. And they do that not by trying to help me out, but by doing what they've always done for 300,000,000 years. (They don't even know they are helping me out, but they are.)

    Farkel

  • setfreefinally
    setfreefinally

    Ros, thank you very much for taking the time to tell me why you believe the way you do. While I would hope that what you bring out is true. If you want to believe what I think the bible says, one would be more inclined to believe what Farkel replied to you. I am at a point in my search for answers that I am finding more and more difficulty in putting a whole lot of stock in what the bible says about being inspired and beneficial for teaching and setting things straight etc. It sometimes seems to be a muddled up mess of somewhat contradictory teachings poorly written.

    Just my admittedly somewhat uninformed thoughts. I may think differently next month if new "light" comes forth.

    thanks again

    SFF

  • ros
    ros

    SFF:

    If taken literally, that would about size it up. :-)

    ~Ros

  • ros
    ros

    I think I failed to respond to a question whether there was historical proof of Jesus.

    There is only circumstantial historical proof of the man Jesus--like most historical characters. Granted some are more circumstantial than others. :-)

    Generally speaking, I think there is enough circumstantial historical reference that even most skeptics believe the man existed.

    ~Ros

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    SimpleSally,

    You are definitely on the right path. The more you question, the better off you are. If what you question is Truth, it will stand up to your questions. If it isn't, it just won't.

    I wish you the very best on your quest. It is a bumpy road filled will paradox and confusion, but the end is there for those who prevail.

    I don't have a friggen clue what the "end" means. Maybe someone can clue me in on this one.

    "True Believers(TM) need not apply. I know your shit, and your shit is just that.

    Farkel

  • ros
    ros

    Hi, Farkel:

    Excuse me, in my haste I missed seeing your reply. I didn't mean to ignore it. Let me respond here:

    Ros was quoted:

    : First the scriptures do not say that God worked only through Israel.

    Farkel replied:

    Really? How do you know this? How can you tell that to all the civilizations that Israel destroyed ON DIRECT ORDERS FROM GOD according to the O.T. this? ( See the collective works of Moses, the biggest Bible butcherer of all.)

    I didn't say I know it. I quoted what the scriptures say about it. Read Amos 9:7 for example.
    Again I'll make the point that just because the Israelite writers claimed their wars were God ordered doesn't mean (imo) that they were. Like most religious people, the Bible is full of examples that clearly reveal Israelites were as superstituous as their neighbors.

    Where is there any shred of Biblical evidence that God worked to help people or save people in the O.T who were not Jews? Heck, during the time of Jeroboam and Rheoboam and during that wole period of the separation of Judah and Israel, they were not only killing each OTHER, they had their own pet prophets. The Israelites were natural born killers, nurtured by a natural born killer God who appointed natural born Judges and Kings. It was all so, well, just "natural" for them to be murderers and genocidal maniancs.

    Like I said, the Israelites were a crude people, although I don't think they were any more butcherous than other nations at the time.

    Well, I think we can conclude that God did not exactly help the Israelites against the Assyrians (2Kings 15, 16, 17, 18), and he did not exactly exhalt King Josiah against Pharaoh Neco of Egypt (2Kings 23:29), and one might say that Custer got more help from the Indians than Israel got from their God against Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. In fact, the only time the Israelites prospered as a nation was under Kings David and Solomon. The rest of the time they were subservient to captors.

    I maintain, the way the Israelites are expressed by the Israelite writers (that is, they way things are interpreted by their own writers) in the record, and the actual events recorded, are two different things--the actual events being more viable. Again, I'll refer to the example I wrote before of Judah's two sons being killed. When two of Judah's sons on separate occasions died, Judah (or whomever told the story) concluded that God killed the two sons. The facts would be that two sons died. That God killed them would be the writers interpretation. I maintain that much of what was attributed to the will of God in the OT was the writer's interpretation. Religion is very superstituous. Fundamentalists today still do the same thing in attributing all kinds of things in their lives to God, or God answering their prayers, healing, etc. Fundamentalists will still say that war is God's will, and that one nation or another is God's people. The Israelites were no different.

    The only thing about the Israelite nation that is significant is that a certain man was born among them who in a very short lifetime changed the world. Were it not for that fact alone, we likely would never have heard of the Israelites or the Bible. There's really only one life in the Biblical account that has importance for Christian belief.

    The religion of the Israelites, aside from being monotheistic, was not much different from their reigious neighbors. Even the temple design was gleened from pagans. Much of their ceremonialism was not that different from paganism, except for being monotheistic. That the events in their history mysteriously culminated in an abstract fulfillment in the man Jesus is most fascinating. But it was not what the Jews were looking for by any stretch.

    Take the story of Cinderella--it's not a true story--we know that. But the story has a moral--a message. Look for the message--that's where the truth may be found--in the metaphor or the parable. What does it mean?

    The bottom line of the Bible story, imo, is that evil will perish but life will not. I speculate that this existence may be out of the presence of God because it is necessary to experience good and evil in the long run. Mortals are here to experience evil, otherwise how could one ever know good if everything is relative? "Look, they have become like us, knowing good and evil"--Gen.3:22 (Is that a clue?) So I tend to think maybe this is the life of the knowledge of good and evil. Who knows, maybe Eden was not even really on this planet. :-)

    Which kingdom of Israel did God prefer back then? If he preferred Israel, then all of Judah's prophets were false. If he preferred Judah, then all of Israel's prophets were false. Yet, those kingdoms each had their own "prophets." All of them lied, by the way, and I can prove it.

    Well, neither one of them fared very well from that point on.

    Is BibleGod(m) the ultimate God of human invention and confusion? I think so.

    Jesus said he made God's name (reputation, nature) known. If Jesus did that, evidently the Israelites didn't understand Him very well. So it would depend on whether you were referring to the God of Jesus, or the Israelite understanding of God.

    Some people are looking in the wrong place to find God. I look at caterpillars and butterflies and I wonder. I don't need lying and superstitious books to help me out. The caterpillars help me out. And they do that not by trying to help me out, but by doing what they've always done for 300,000,000 years. (They don't even know they are helping me out, but they are.)

    In some respects, I agree with you. I place greater emphasis on God revealed through nature than in writings. My faith in the biblical account in not in a literal acceptance of everything the way it was understood by the Israelites. I think Jesus made that point quite clear. My faith in the Bible is in the Christ and in the moral of the story (well, that's admittedly an over simplification, but what I mean is that my faith is nothing like that of fundamentalists, as you can see. :-)

    ~Ros

  • Faraon
    Faraon

    You people need faith, and an extensive understanding of the bible in order to understand god and its will.

    You must remember that this was in the old testament. Things were different then. Christ changed everything. Before Jesus, the Earth had foundations, and a firmament (a firm surface) on which the two sources of light (the sun and the moon) and the stars slid through every day. This was the reason Yah was able to stop the sun only and held the moon and the stars in their place or they would?ve collided with each other. When Jesus created the new testament, god took the Earth away from its foundations, let it spin on itself and around the sun. He also moved the stars away, so that it would only appear that some of them emitted their light 14.5 billion years away, and were created at least 14.5 billion years ago. Don?t let this fool you. This is an illusion created by Satan. We know that god only created the universe only about 7,000 years ago. God would not be able to stop everything all of a sudden at around 1,000 miles per hour. Just think what would happen to you if you were sitting on a SST traveling at 1,000 mph and crashed all of a sudden against a mountain at that speed. Does the word pancake come to mind? God would have had to stop not only the Earth but also everything on it. Imagine all that energy needed! I would?ve actually been quicker to transform the entire Israeli army into Sampsons for a day or send his angels/demons to finish them all. Hey, if only took one angel to kill hundreds of thousands of enemies in one night, why not repeat the feat? Maybe even change their hearts like the folks in Nineveh! Thank Jesus he changed the whole universe again to give us new laws.

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    Thanks to all of you for your comments and insights. I'm very happy that this thread is ending with decency and dignity, albeit with some differences among us. This too is good.

    ros,

    I have but one comment on this, and it is only a comment.

    You said:

    " This is what was required to make this happen: 1) Passover had to fall on the Sabbath that year so it would be "parts of three days" from the Sabbath to their Festival of First Fruits.
    (And btw, that is how the Israelites did count (a part of a day or a year counted as one)--we know from the way they counted the years of reigns of kings compared to the way the Babylonans counted."

    Of course, you haven't presented the very real possibility that IF that story was concocted decades or more later, it would be EASY to make those events fit the time frame that looks very difficult to be not a coincidence.

    Jesus never wrote a word that has been presevered. His followers wrote their personal experiences of their times with Jesus. (I didn't know that fishermen who have a rather lowly profession could be literate back then, while carpenters (a rather lowly position, too) could be illiterate, especially when they happen to have the Ace of Spades: they are the offspring of GOD himself. Don't you wonder why Joseph and Mary (knowing what they did about their son and his unique relationship to God) didn't bother to get him educated enough to read and write? And if they did do this, why he never wrote a dang word that has survived? The Bible would have some serious credibility if the very son of God wrote some words that were preserved. Yet he didn't.

    Furthermore, he NEVER told his apostles or disciples to write down ANYTHING that he said. In fact, I cannot think of any example in the Bible (except Revelation) where God actually commanded people to write down stuff in what would become the "Holy Bible." Almost ALL Bible books claim no authorship. Why? Were they ashamed, humble, or liars? According to the Bible, that is. Here is this book that is the absolute guide to man's redemption and here is this man who is the absolute son of GOD himself who never said, "write the stuff that I say down so that everyone can hear my words:"

    Yet, what IS in the Bible are silly stories like this:

    A prophet is walking about and ANGEL appears to him carrying a sword. The prophet is obviously terrified, and he asks the ANGEL if that ANGEL is going to mess him up. The ANGEL says basically, "no, I'm not going to mess you up." The prophet says, "well, then, what do you want?" The ANGEL replies, "take off your shoes, for you are standing on holy(tm) ground."

    This ends that utterly ridiculous and stupid story. What the heck does THAT mean, considering the fact that THAT idiocy got into the Bible and not ONE word that Jesus himself wrote made it in there.

    BibleGod(tm) has a LOT of explaining to do. That's all I can say.

    Peace to you ros and all those who share your faith. I have no problem with your beliefs, and in fact, I'm happy you have them, simply because you don't crusade them. My faith is based on the wonderment I see around me, and I do not have to defend it. Everyone can see it, and it is fact.

    As a bit of an epilogue: I printed this entire thread, and made notes about how to respond to "hooberus" and "paduan." Not "little toe," though. I don't mess with the Scotts. No matter what they do or do not say. Don't ask me why. I don't know why.

    "hooberus" is a moron, and only responded by quoting scripture that amounted to a huge pile of red herrings and ad hominems. I kind of want to respond, but why? That person is incapable of rational thought.

    Paduan responded with a boatload of strawman arguments and then accused ME of making the same arguments! I'm more inclined to wrap up this thread with my counter-arguments to him/her.

    "Little Toe" is a Scottsman as I've said. Some things are just sacrosanct!

    Farkel

    Farkel

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit