Why did Jehovah act more in ancient times than he does now? (page 2)

BONEZZ

Thank you Interested Ones (Hill and Brenda)...

...my plan has worked and since I am responding to you I can count TWO (2) Return Visits...wow my numbers are lookin' good this month. BIG DADDY is smilin' now!

-BONEZZ (of the Neilsen Ratings class)

frankiespeakin

Why did Jehovah act more in ancient times than he does now?

Because we have video recorders now and Jehovah does not want any of his miracles on these recording devises. He wants pure faith with no video proof,,if you can't have pure faith without these props then he doesn't want you around forever,,and will not give you everlasting life. Its our faith with out proof that proves we are worthy.

SAHS

Often the depictions of people thought to be ?heroes? at the time change as speculations are entertained and embellishments are added, so that over a long period of time the historical accounts take on an almost fanciful, Walt Disney aspect. Here?s something to think about:

If it?s considered logical by many people today to believe in the evolution of the biological life forms currently on our earth, then why not consider that there may have also been a sort of ?evolutionary? process involved to formulate and expound on the literary works we now know as ?holy books,? including the Christian Bible? It seems far more plausible to hypothesize the ?natural selection? of words in scrolls or books than that of protein molecules in DNA.

In other words, the Bible as we know it today may have originated as more or less ordinary, uninteresting ?accounts? of people, either factual or purely speculative, and then went through a slow but steady process of change (sort of like the ?broken telephone? game) until at some point ?miracles? started being thrown into the text.

Could it be, say, a few thousand years from now, if the Watchtower is still in the writing business by then, that Charles Russell will be written about as having been able to walk on water? (Maybe by using his magic radioactive radon belt.) Or will Franklin Rutherford be written about as having tapped his magic walking stick on the sandy ground in San Diego, California causing a lovely mansion called ?Beth-Sarim? to instantly emerge right out of the ground? What fanciful ?miracles? could appear in the text of writings thousands of years from now based on the rather ?plain? accounts forming the WT history of today?s era (like the Proclaimers book)?

Could people in the year, say, 4000 C.E. be writing a posting in a discussion board like this one asking why God (as he would then be know, perhaps under the name ?Russell? instead of ?Yahweh?) was so active back in the year 2004 C.E. as opposed to then? People then could be wondering why there were so many so-called ?miracles? in our time?and if they were really true.

?SAHS

Princess

who says he did?
do not believe everything you read....

Exactly. Steve and I were discussing this last night. We scoff at the Mormon's story of how the Book Of Mormon is inspired by God but is our story any less ridiculous? The Bible is inspired of God 'cause he says so. WTF? God was really busy for quite a long period of time and then he quit. No one has seen or heard from him since. Except for the crazies of course. God sure picks unusual people to speak directly to and no one else ever hears it. I'm not buying it. It's all bunk IMHO. Don't get me wrong, I believe in God. I just don't believe the Bible...there is no proof.

Narkissos

Don't get me wrong, I believe in God. I just don't believe the Bible...there is no proof.

Princess,

This really makes me wonder.

I may be wrong, but I hold the Bible to be the "cradle of God". I.e., a non-exhaustive yet significant collection of texts in which the very concept of "God" was gradually constructed.

How can "God" survive the deconstruction of the Bible?

Do you mean that the Bible texts, although essentially wrong, came out with a right result ("God") after all?

Is there an independent way of "proving God" without the Bible, when all the kinds of monotheisms are ultimately dependent on the Bible?

Or do you mean:

- I believe in God although there is no proof;

- I don't believe the Bible because there is no proof?

Don't get me wrong: I believe neither...

Elsewhere

Why did Jehovah act more in ancient times than he does now?

The less educated and more superstitious a population, the more they see the ?supernatural?.

Our population is educated to the point that few people are left who mistake natural events for the supernatural.

Carmel

He joined the longshore union and only works one day a week so he has a few off to consider His next coarse of action!

caveman

Princess

Nark, lots of people believe in God but aren't Christian and don't believe in the Bible. I guess I don't understand your point. Can't I believe in a creator without believing the Bible?

Narkissos

lots of people believe in God but aren't Christian and don't believe in the Bible. I guess I don't understand your point. Can't I believe in a creator without believing the Bible?

Princess,

Sure you can. But where did you get that idea of "God," or "Creator," in the first place? My guess is it is a direct or indirect inheritance of Jewish monotheism. Afaik every kind of monotheism (Jewish, Christian or Muslim) ultimately comes from the same source. Even secular western deism is post-Christian. In other cultures people believe in "gods" (e.g. the Hindu, or "Pagan") or in something which is neither "God" nor "Creator" (e.g. Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism). By saying you believe in "God," you accept at least one product of the Bible and related texts -- "God". As I said (and I mean it) I may be wrong... but I still fail to see any independent source for the concept of "God" in the universal history of ideas.

toreador

He is on vacation.

Why did Jehovah act more in ancient times than he does now?

Share this