My answer to the header question is that the God I believe doesn’t kill billions. A, because Old Testament stories where he kills large numbers are either parabolic stories and historically not accurate or are the result of cause and effect through selfish actions. To illustrate, God is sometimes said to cause judgement as if it were direct as with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, but really it was a result of the Jewish people not showing love to their enemies (the Romans) to forgive them. The law of cause and effect in other words set up by God, and thus attributed by to God in a semi metaphorical way. B, those killed directly are killed only due to saving the lives of others, and C, physical death isn’t really ultimate death anyway, as no one really dies except physically. The dead are alive to God. Not all Christians will agree with me, but it is my view.
Seraphim23
JoinedPosts by Seraphim23
-
327
How do believers defend a god who is going to murder billions and pin it on them?
by tootired2care inat that time those slain by the lord will be everywherefrom one end of the earth to the other.
they will not be mourned or gathered up or buried, but will be like dung lying on the ground.
- jerimiah 25:33.
-
-
-
65
Gay MS??
by andysmiles inabout me, i am being raised in a jw family.
all of my family expect for one aunt, who had left but not disfellowedshiped thankly, are in jw.
my father is an elder and so is my grandfather.
-
-
Seraphim23
Hi andysmiles, interesting name of which I understand the meaning. I’m a baptised JW who is gay also but I’m well down the road from coming out and leaving the JW faith although I was never disfellowshiped officially. I am also still a believer in God, but my understanding of God is not the same as the JWs teach. I had my crisis when I was 19 and now I am 38.
In answer to your question about Holy Spirit appointments of gay people, is that JWs don’t have it right on the whole gay issue anyway. For a start Sodom wasn’t destroyed because of gay people as Ezekiel 16:49 points out. There is also good biblical evidence that first century Christianity didn’t have a problem with gay people either. The book of Romans with its anti-gay verses has been twisted away from its context which was really about idolatry in fertility temples and so on. Even the word that meant gay that are in the bible has been translated away over time due to prejudice.
So for this reason God wouldn’t have a problem with a gay person being appointed to anything a straight person would. That said I don’t think God is in the business of appointing people via the hands of others human being anyway. Certainly doesn’t seem to be biblical support for it that I can see. In fact it seems to paint the picture that when humans do the choosing, it often goes wrong.
Seems to have been some very good advice already posted while I have been writing this, so I won’t go over what others have already said, except to say that one doesn’t have to reject belief in God and be a gay person who is happy. If you ever need to chat, I am here for you.
-
10
What is the stand/view of the JWs regarding the Illuminati and conspiracy theory?
by UBM101 ini mean.... are the dubs pretty much supporters of the conspiracy theory (watching videos, researching etc) or do they avoid such materials/topics?
-
-
Seraphim23
I think the Illuminati and conspiracy theories are not mainstream for JWs because they already have a paranoid worldview based on the Satan being in charge and responsible for all the bad stuff in the world. Pan-demonism as I call it is almost a mental illness among many JWs. My mother has it for one. When I was small I had a toy my atheist dad got me made by a company called zodiac toys. Well that went into the bin. My brother at the time said it right when he sarcastically called it a zodiac devil worshiper. The toy in question was a simple pen pointer and magically erasable sheet to write or draw on as many times as one wanted.
Anyhow I digressed a bit. JWs when leaving the JW faith tend to go in several directions afterwards. A common one is atheism of course but another one is a replacement worldview that keeps the fear in the world. This view and direction is the absolute fascination with conspiracy theories. It replaces the ordered chaos and explanations of the world the JWs have with its organisational viewpoint with JWs being immune from Satan if they toe the line, to another view without the organisational framework, because those who leave obviously reject organised religion in most cases. So for JWs who leave but cannot move on from much of the JW theology, these often go down this path with Satan still being there in charge but through more human cohorts like the illuminate idea as it provides an escape from the JW version of fear mongering. Of course it is still just as stupid and paranoid but thats another matter I guess.
-
15
Did the Serpent Lie?
by CyrusThePersian inin john 8:44 jesus is quoted as saying that the devil is a "liar and the father of the lie.
" an obvious reference to the serpent story in genesis chapter 3.
(the johannine community, responsible for the gospel of john, the epistles of 1, 2, 3 john and revelation, was among the first to equate the serpent of genesis with satan, see rev.
-
-
Seraphim23
Your right, I did watch that TV series. I do take in new information and change my views accordingly.
I could have just mentioned Jesus answer to Genesis as being the parable of the prodigal son. If understood this way, the lie of the devil is in what the serpent implies by saying what he says as opposed to what is said. This way one doesn’t have to, but can maintain a literal understanding of Genesis. I wouldn’t recommend it, but it is possible to do.
-
15
Did the Serpent Lie?
by CyrusThePersian inin john 8:44 jesus is quoted as saying that the devil is a "liar and the father of the lie.
" an obvious reference to the serpent story in genesis chapter 3.
(the johannine community, responsible for the gospel of john, the epistles of 1, 2, 3 john and revelation, was among the first to equate the serpent of genesis with satan, see rev.
-
-
Seraphim23
Genesis doesn’t have to be literal to have truth in it. The creation story is a metaphorical symbolic parable which is kind of obvious to some Christians, just not the fundamentalist types. The tree of good and bad symbolises the law and it being a curse to those enslaved to it, and the tree of life symbolises mercy and the transcendence of law which is what Jesus taught. The lie in question is about human’s relationship with God and that they tend to think that laws grant a way to God by providing a way to be righteous, when the real truth is that God is beyond good and bad, and loves the good and bad alike. The death being spoken of is spiritual death from the point of view of the people themselves and their own conscience as it relates to belief in a God or higher power.
Hence the Ark of the Covenant that apparently held the stone tablets of the law symbolised the tree of good and evil, and the covering lid of the ark symbolised the tree of life. The holy of holies represents the centre of the Garden of Eden, which is also why trees were part of the decoration of the temple.
The whole symbolic system points to how humans relate to themselves and a higher power, as well as fundamental aspects of the human condition such as suffering, justice, good and bad, laws and self-worth, identity and judgement and mercy. It also includes the ideas of life after death and how if true that changes the terms of discussion around such topics. The serpent symbolised humans themselves, as well as Adam and Eve did. The lie is a metaphorical device with a deep set of meanings regarding how humans relate to their own relationship with reality as it confronts us. It is easy to show that the creation story is not literally true as with other parables. Jesus` words in John 8:44 should be understood in this light
-
59
Is Richard Dawkins giving atheists a bad name?
by slimboyfat inhe just can't seem to stop himself taunting "these muslims" or "some muslim or other".
among his favourite taunts are:.
"all the world's muslims have fewer nobel prizes than trinity college, cambridge.".
-
-
Seraphim23
If you read what I said carefully, which I know is an issue for you; you will see that I didn’t actually call him a bully or anything at all. Although he is patronising at times but he has other qualities which I like. I guess love covers a multitude of sins.
-
59
Is Richard Dawkins giving atheists a bad name?
by slimboyfat inhe just can't seem to stop himself taunting "these muslims" or "some muslim or other".
among his favourite taunts are:.
"all the world's muslims have fewer nobel prizes than trinity college, cambridge.".
-
-
Seraphim23
I actually like him Cofty which is more than I can say for some. I would also critic Christian or religious fundamentalists in the same way, so I’m quite Partisan. However my word `logic` was in reference to logical positivism:
“logical positivism also called logical empiricism, a philosophical movement that arose in Vienna in the 1920s and was characterized by the view that scientific knowledge is the only kind of factual knowledge and all traditional metaphysical doctrines are to be rejected as meaningless…..”
-
59
Is Richard Dawkins giving atheists a bad name?
by slimboyfat inhe just can't seem to stop himself taunting "these muslims" or "some muslim or other".
among his favourite taunts are:.
"all the world's muslims have fewer nobel prizes than trinity college, cambridge.".
-
-
Seraphim23
My view regarding Dawkins is that he is part of, and encourages, the parasitical relationship between new atheists and religious fundamentalists. It’s like they are part of the same coin, while less room exists as a result for the much more harmonious relationship between theists who don’t have a book as an idol and don’t reject science, and atheists who don’t feel the need to condescend in arrogant patronisation of other views on the ground of scientific materialism and logical empiricism. It always the bullies in the playground that get all the attention at the expense of those who want to get on and study.
-
11
Now that Gays can legally get married, if one of the gay couple want to become a JW would he or she have to get a divorce?
by booker-t ini remember years ago maybe 20 years ago an elder or co was giving a talk on armaggeddon and he said that we know we are close to the end when homosexuals get the same rights as straight people.
he said jehovah would never allow gay people to marry because it would be an abomination and he would do the same as sodom and gommorrah.
what if a member of a gay couple decides to become a jws would he or she have to get a divorce?.
-
-
Seraphim23
They would in all likelihood tell them to end the relationship and get a divorce. Not because God recognises the marriage because they would argue he doesn’t, but because it would be a legally pragmatic thing to do in releasing oneself from any legal obligation. Of course even a cursory reading of the Sodom and Gomorrah story would show it was not destroyed for homosexuality but for treating the vulnerable and poor and strange with contempt. Something the WT does to the vulnerable and poor and those strange to it, including gay people of course.
-
70
If you believe in nothing, then how do you know JW's are wrong?
by slimboyfat inmany who leave the witnesses go on to affirm other recognisable sets of beliefs.
some become christians of various sorts, others tend toward patriotism as a kind of rejection of the anti-patriotic stance of the watchtower, while yet more simply affirm in general the secular values of mainstream society.
do you believe jehovah's witnesses are wrong?
-
-
Seraphim23
What a fascinating philosophical thread I missed five years ago. I think all things are based on belief except two that don’t. One is mathematics, which interestingly doesn’t exist in what we call reality. What I mean by that, is that perceived reality conforms to mathematical rules true, but nothing that exists is mathematics. The other is our own reality, not the body though, but that thing that is aware of the body and much else as well. Maths of course doesn’t exist as I said but matter and forces work according to its rules, but what exactly are they confirming to? Even mathematics poses a kind of belief or acceptance that it works without knowing why, leaving only the inner thing of the subjective self as existing with no need for proof. Who ever needed to prove their own existence to themselves? It is simply irrelevant and in fact when one thinks about it, one doesn’t even need evidence let alone proof that one own self is real, why is that? but perhaps it provides some clues as to why belief is needed, as when one belief is removed anther takes its place. It is like all have the same amount of belief but its arranged differently for each person, yet consistency still seems to be present in the universe due to mathematical laws.
Sorry just thinking outloud.