I'm not sure how to begin this other than to say God still loves you. Your name was sent to me so that I might pass on this information to you. I know what you have been through lately being a member of the Watchtower, and I am sincerely sorry you had to be part of its demise. As you are undoubtedly aware, the WT became the Harlot riding the beast several years ago. I just would like you to know that we can show you exactly what happened to them and it was prophesied 2700 years ago. Please take a moment to visit our website at www.truebiblecode.com , you will find all of your answers there! May God continue to bless you, Bill
Hi Bill:
Thanks for the thought, but how do you know that "God" loves me?
How can you presume to speak for "God" and confidently state what such a being likes, hates, or loves?
I am curious as to what you mean by "God". Most people mean a being that is invisible to our five senses. That restriction seems an insurmountable obstacle to obtaining information about "God". Do you have a different definition of "God", or do you have a sixth sense?
I visited the site you directed me to. At first I thought it was a parody site, but I don't think anyone would put that much time and effort into a joke, so I guess someone is serious about what is written there. I don't know if you are contributor to the site, and I certainly do not want to insult or offend you, but I sincerely think the person or persons behind that site need to take a deep breath of fresh air, find some interests outside of the Bible, and perhaps seek professional psychological help.
I don't believe that the Watchtower was foretold anywhere in the Bible, either as the "Faithful and discreet slave" or as the "harlot". That is not to say that certain appellations from the Bible don't apply to them ("wolves in sheep's clothing" and "false prophets" spring immediately to mind).
Attempting to apply dates to Biblical "prophecy" has always been a foolish endeavor. Even the Watchtower has gradually come to realize this. They have had "egg on their face" too many times. Though even they never were so blatantly foolhardy as to state that "the great tribulation" had already begun!
If there is anything valuable in the Bible it is simply the message of love (however tainted that message might be, given the context of the Bible). The site you directed me to, with its evident obsession with identifying classes and dates, and its totally ludicrous statement: "You will all go to Gehenna unless you join the LWs (in our understanding)," has totally obscured the simple message that "love is the law's fulfillment."
Sincerely,
Steve
I know God loves you because He says so:
9 Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance (2 Peter 3).
10 the One telling from the beginning the finale, and from long ago the things that have not been done; the One saying, 'My own counsel will stand, and everything that is my delight I shall do' (Isaiah 46).
You are right in a sense (no pun intended); God is only a thin veil of reason away from us. That is how he operates. He uses mediators to convey his thoughts and deeds to us since no one sees him and yet lives. It is only those that take the time and effort to see him that will…when the time is right. This doesn't mean you won't see him in your mind any more than Newton saw gravity!
I must convey that yes, considerable thought and effort went into the website and we believe it is for good reason…..to spread the good news of Jesus' return. I'm sure that you have known that the end times are near. This is no coincidence. We have 8 independent proofs of this from Biblical interpretations. That's too many to discard for anyone.
The statement regarding joining our church is for the 1st New Covenant Saints that have transgressed in the Watchtower. I know you do not understand this as of yet, however, you will if you take it on as a challenge worth accepting. The fact is, more people who do not join the true religion (FDS4) will be saved during Armageddon during the Rapture than those who do! By the way, Gehenna is only a holding place for those that don’t seek God with all their hearts all there minds and all their souls (should be a pretty busy place!). This is certainly not the end of things for them though. I sincerely hope you take the time to carefully peruse and scrutinize the pages of our site. And I encourage you to rebuke anything you see that you feel is an incorrect interpretation…that is what we are all about. We do ask though that if you do rebuke something you back it up with scriptures. We don’t subscribe to the doctrines of man or his churches. We only subscribe to true and correct Biblical understanding as we know it after carefully harmonizing it with all other scriptures. Thanks so much for your email and may God bless you, Bill
Hi Bill,
In answer to my question, you stated:
"I know God loves you because He says so"
and then you quoted what some men wrote. I'm confused. Are you claiming that the men who wrote these things were "God"?
If I told you that I know that President Bush wants to eliminate Social Security, and you asked me how I knew this, and I replied "because he says so" and then I proceeded to quote what two guys down the street said, would you consider this a sensible answer?
--Steve
I understand your skepticism Steve, I too used to be that way….in fact I was Agnostic at best! Yes, men did write the Bible, however they were inspired by God through the Holy Spirit. If you take a moment and look at our website, especially the section on the 9th Generation Bible Code, much of this will make sense to you. When you see the word symbolic and event symbolic meanings come to life for you, the Bible will never be the same. It will be in living color instead of black and white as it was to all except Jesus’ disciples. The parables and illustrations will be explained to you. The whole Bible is written in a “strange way”, there is no disputing that. If you look at how historians wrote in that day, you will find it is no different than they do today. The Bible in both the Old and the New Testament are written in this exact same manner throughout. This is no coincidence. If God could create our universe and everything in it, do you not suppose he could write a book that would be a little less confusing? Of course he could, but it was designed so that those that didn’t want to learn about God would simply pass it on as a bunch of old historical documents surrounding Adams family and their exploits in agronomy and horticulture. Remember, it was written so that you would not understand it until the time of the end. This time is now, and I know you feel it….we all do, this is also not an accident. I hope you take the time to do this research, it is worth the effort…nothing else on this planet is…..God bless, Bill
Hi Bill:
I read what you asked me to read. There seems to be a fundamental flaw in the logic. It says:
We are looking at the whole book as being effectively written by one person, because Paul tells us that it was:
16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness (2 Timothy 3).
And Peter tells us:
21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man's will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit (2 Peter 1).
If you truly believe that God, whilst not being the physical author of the book, has inspired every bible writer to express his story in the writer’s own literary style, and in his own phraseology, even in the way he wanted to say it but in God’s words. Then given this, there is a question that is begging to be asked, and it is this:
How could the creator of the perfect universe, which is a gigantic and inordinately intricate example of hyper intelligence, perfection and complete understanding wisdom and control, write or inspire to be written such a daft book?
Or: Why would such a clever guy write such a stupid book?
The writer goes on to conclude that it really isn't a stupid book once you know the "code". However, the code appears to be the usual mental acrobatics involved when trying to reconcile the irreconcilable.
But there's a much simpler explanation that seems to have been overlooked. What if "Paul" (or whoever wrote 2 Timothy 3) and "Peter" (or whoever wrote 2 Peter 1) were wrong?
Obviously it is circular reasoning to claim that "God" inspired the writing of the Bible because the Bible makes the claim. I could write "God inspired my writing of Falling in Truth" (my novel about Jehovah's Witnesses), and I could put that statement in my book. Would that be evidence of the book having been inspired by God? If not, then the Bible's self-referential claim is not evidence either.
Occam's razor cuts out all of these complex mental acrobatics and leaves the simple truth: it is such a daft book because "God" had nothing to do with it! It was written by ignorant men all on their own.
Russell gave an equally convincing argument that the "last days" began in 1799. Christians have been claiming that their time was "the last days" for nearly 2,000 years. It's not unusual for you to believe it too. But given the track record, and the source of such an idea, I'd say the chances are slim to none.
--Steve
Bill:
I looked through some more of the site, and I just wanted to share one last thought with you.
Have you ever seen the movie "A Beautiful Mind?" It was about a brilliant gentleman who went crazy and started finding patterns in everything. In one scene he has magazine articles cut out and hung all over the walls with arrows and notes (pointing out imaginary connections).
That is what the site reminds me of. I think the person or persons behind the site are suffering from the same disorder. Their brilliance is sadly going to waste on an illusion.
--Steve
I understand your concerns, however, if you look at the way the Bible is written, even over a 2700 year period and by numerous writers, you will see the fundamental pattern throughout its pages. No other book in the world duplicates this process! This is no coincidence. People did not talk that way back then and they certainly didn't write that way back then...just look at the history books! All of these scriptures were written by men borne along by Holy Spirit guidance. After you read through the code section, you will begin to see this. The book was designed to keep those that did not want to see God from understanding it hence even Jesus only spoke to the crowds in parables and illustrations, only to his disciples did he explain all things! This was for their own salvation. However, for those that truly seek God and his Word, the treasures far outweigh the effort to do so. If you have any questions regarding the scriptures, please let us know. If you have any ideas we will gladly accept those too. Please direct any questions you have to the helpdesk@lordswitnesses.com God bless you Steve, Bill
Hi Bill:
When you say that men didn't write that way back then, I think you must not know about the many ancient documents (older than the Bible) that were written very much like that. The story of Noah and the flood is a virtual copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh, which predates it. Writings such as "the Book of Enoch" are identical in style to "the prophets" (this one is even quoted in the Bible, so why the book is not included in the canon is a mystery: is it inspired or is it not?) The stories about Jesus are virtual copies of stories written about Krishna thousands of years before. The four "gospels" are no different in style or content from the scores of "gospels" written around the same time (such as the gospel of Thomas). The book of Revelation is indistinguishable from the hundreds of apocalyptical writings of its time...
Why would a loving God inspire such a book which -- taken at face value (which God would've known it would be, and would've intended it to be according to your theory, by the majority of humankind for the majority of its history) -- foments witch burnings, the burning of heretics, the Crusades, suppression of women, inquisitions, drinking poison and handling poisonous snakes, suppression of science and denial of reality, animal abuse, child abuse, refusal of life-saving medicine and medical procedures, splitting up of families, trials by ordeal, support of slavery, etc.?
To answer that question by claiming that there's a hidden code in there that a handful of men will discover -- after nearly 2,000 years of damage to a vast portion of human society -- is a pathetically weak argument.
You stated:
The book was designed to keep those that did not want to see God from understanding it
But millions of people have read the Bible and not all of them "did not want to see God" so how come none of them understood it until your group?
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that this handful of men have really hit upon something with this "code" business. Well, good for them, but: so what? What good is it for the rest of humankind? The damage done by the Bible far outweighs the joy of a few men playing with their secret code.
I also think it's counter-reality to claim (as your site does) that the Watchtower was the Faithful and Discreet Slave up until the 1990's when they joined the U.N. and became "the Harlot". How could they have been faithful and discreet when they deliberately lied to their members and forbade life-saving measures to them such as vaccinations and organ transplants, and still today: blood?
-- Steve
Hi Bill, Mediator of international bible communication,
Hello Steve,
Your points are very well made. Perhaps if you joined the LWs with your grasp of reasoning and clear presentation of argument, we'd have a few more guys!
Yes so what kind of a crazy God writes a deliberately ambiguous book and only reveals what it truly means at the last minute when it is way too late for most humans to benefit from, and after millions of sincere people have laboured in the dark for nearly 6,000 years?
Well, firstly an incredibly intelligent God. The brainpower necessary to encode a book in that way written during 1600 years by is it 40 different bible writers?? is unimaginable. But the book was not valueless before the decoded meanings were found. On the contrary it is the most valueable book ever written even in the literal meaning.
Your argument is rather like the complaint of a man given a perfect limousine better than any other car, who then finds out of the day of his death that is also has warp drive. Is he in a position to complain, given that his car is better than everyone esle's without the warp drive?
The reason he only spills the beans at the very end is to protect his last church and to protect society. Once the general public understand that there are only a few years left what will happen to the world? Would it be safe or responsible to give mankind an end date 20 years before the end. Or how about 200 years before the end? I personally have struggled with some degree of demotivation as regards earning money and physical things and even family and kids etc. How long can a society last knowing the date of the end? The wicked will just run riot and the governments will suppress and kill those who believe it surely.
The idea is that the Great Tribulation gets going and is the artillery barage for the truth, so that those who believe it are protected for a while whilst the governments are busy with the Tribulation.
As regards the ambiguity. It is explained by Paul to his own people:
12 For the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul
and spirit, and of joints and [their] marrow, and [is] able to discern thoughts and intentions of [the] heart (Hebrews 4).
The ambiguity is deliberate and can be used for Good and for bad. It sorts out the loving from the abusive.
It all has to do with free will and the purpose of this system. We are here to learn about Good and Bad. And God has done much worse than give us an ambiguous book, he has given the whole world into the hands of the worse angel there has ever been, a lying murderer, a merciless abuser, a self indulgent egotist etc. If you want to charge him God with being unloving, that is the route to go, rather than his giving us this ambiguous book.
He did it for this reason. I do recommend you watch the film: I, robot in this regard.
[1] Any intelligent creation eventually gets free will, if you do not give it to the creation, then it will rebel and take it for itself. Indeed the first thing we did was to rebel in Eden.
[2] Then we have to learn about bad and good, in order to understand why we need a set of rules which we choose to obey, which prevents us from destroying ourself as a race. Since we have free will, God doesn;t just come down here and beat this set of rules into our heads. He lets us experience so much good and so much bad that our experience beats it into our heads.
So yes, the bible could in the past be used for both good and bad. It is very like TNT. It can be used to create roads and railways and to mine valuable minerals or it can be dropped on human beings. But it carries within it a set of rules which are the very rules necessary for the continued existence of our species. The way we respond to this beauty reveals our true disposition. This helps us all to learn about good and bad. The different responses to the rules we obviously need is all part of the learning process, it is all part of the experience we need to learn how to survive as a species whilst maintaining our free will. The ironic thing is that free will has no future in the absence of sacrifice of that free will to a set of rules. Man has no future without sacrifice. This is the component necessary for our security. You restrict you free will so that I can exercise mine and I restrict mine so that you can exercise yours. This is love.
This is a univeristy, it is not a kindergarten!
Now at the very end things are different. For we are going to be the seed that starts off the next system. We will detemine that shape of the new system morally. So we need to be esepcially resilient to bad and especially knowledgable when it comes to good. So we are going to get more bad than any other generation has ever seen and more good, more truth. We will get the absolute and unambiguous truth from the bible whilst we see more clearly than any other generation in human history the result of not following the rules and not accepting this truth. We are the SAS trainees in good and bad. We are the special forces of God, merely due to the time period in which we live.
Now today only a few people admit to being LWs, but the scriptures speak of a lot of JWs who follow our work and understand some of the code too. But however you look at it hardly anyone gets it yet. But do not worry, the size of a tree is determined by the genetic material in the seed, not the amount of water it gets or the soil it is in (so long as these are both present). We will grow to be the biggest of all the trees even though we start as a mustard seed. Obivously everyone will get a chance to see it before the end. In fact why would we be persecuted if no one gets to know our work? We will play a part in the destruction of Babylon itself.
As regards the Watchtower being faithful and discreet, you make another good point. They were faithful and discreet when they were appointed to feed in 1914Tishri and over all of Jesus' belongings (the sons of the JAC) in 1918Nisan. They became a foolish virgin of Matthew 25 under Knorr, who stopped doing research. He was the one who started all this blood transfusion stuff etc. to try and give the appearance of being a holy people by physical works, in order to cover up his blindness as regards bible interpretations. The true order of play as best as we can presently see it was:
1. Russell faithful and discreet
2. Rutherford faithful and discreet
3. Knorr fooish
4. Franz foolish
5. Hencschel foolish then wicked and sluggish (1994Tammuz30)
6. Multi Head Beast, Good For Nothing (2001Tammuz1)
7. False Religion (2004Elul14)
Or to put it in the words of John. Knorr, the angel of Pergamum ran the compromising church, Franz, the angel of Thyatira ran the corrupt chruch, and Henschel, the angel of Sardis, ran the dead church.
But look! everything that the Jewish Pharisees did, the JW Pharisees also do. Jews were the physical firstborn of God, but the 1NC saints are the spiritual firstborn of God and firstborn sons have this tendency to become Pharisees, believing they actually deserve what they got by an accident of birth. Have a look at www.truebiblecode.com/understanding78.html
The bit about the large doctor's bags is my favorite!
It is no suprise therefore and it was prophesied that the JWs would behave just as badly as the Jews.
God has of course helped me and all the LWs to get these interpretations and this code. One of the main things he does is give me the order of the accounts to interpret. I cannot tell you the number of times that I have eben looking at an account and realised that I could never have got it had I not looked at something else a few days before. But this code is there because God is not a dumbo. We are the dumbos!
Blessings
Gordon
If this “isn’t kindergarten,” then we don’t need “more bad than any other generation” in order to understand what bad is. I don’t have to experience being burned at the stake to understand that it’s bad (nor do I have to witness anyone else being burned at the stake.) I don’t have to watch Bush drop bombs on innocent people to know that such actions are bad. If your god thinks I need such object lessons, then who is really the “dumbo”?
If the Bible “is the most valueable book ever written even in the literal meaning,” then
how can it be “daft” and “stupid” at the same time (as you elsewhere have stated)?
If we need rules, and we go to this “most valuable book” in search of them, what do we find? “Ambiguity,” as you admit, but also much worse.
The god of the Bible, in his “perfect law” said that not only was it okay to have slaves, but that it was okay to beat them to death (as long as they took at least two days to die.)
This “perfect limousine” of a book also teaches by example: with the god of the Bible commanding his chosen people to “rip open the bellies” of pregnant women, run babies through with the sword, commit genocide, stone female adulterers, stone one’s own stubborn children, etc…
It also teaches us rules by example in holding up as “great men of faith” such paragons of virtue as Jephthah, Moses, and David.
Jephthah burned his own daughter to death.
David (whom biblegod claimed had only done “what was right” except in the Bathsheba affair) sawed people asunder and baked them in kilns.
Moses (whose only sin in biblegod’s eyes was striking a rock) ordered the murder of thousands of children, the raping of hundreds of young girls, and human sacrifice of “Jehovah’s portion” of the “spoil”.
Why do you think Jehovah’s Witness children die for want of a blood transfusion? It’s the same reason that some fundamentalists drink poison and handle deadly snakes, and the same reason why Christians burned “witches” and upheld slavery and genocide for so long: they are all due to following the literal meaning of the Bible.
The majority of the “Old Testament” consists of one horrible atrocity after another. (When not relating such stories it occupies itself with praising its “god of armies” for helping with the slaughter.) It’s not a simple matter of “deliberate ambiguity which can be used for Good and for bad: Sorting out the loving from the abusive. “ It wasn’t loving to murder babies or wipe out entire peoples and non-human animals, “leaving nothing left to breathe”; it was bad and abusive to begin with.
Make no mistake: it’s not the case that “bad people” have taken the Bible the wrong way. Take for instance slave owners. The Christian slave owners found much support in the Scriptures for their stance, but it wasn’t because they were reading it through evil eyes. The Bible nowhere condemns slavery. Far from it: it lays out rules for slavery. Instead of teaching that all men are free and that it is immoral for one man to own another, the Bible states: “Slaves, be obedient to your masters!” And when a slave ran away from his master, Paul sent him back!
“And God has done much worse than give us an ambiguous book, he has given the whole world into the hands of the worse angel there has ever been, a lying murderer, a merciless abuser, a self indulgent egotist etc. If you want to charge him God with being unloving, that is the route to go, rather than his giving us this ambiguous book. “
Where is your evidence for this preposterous claim? Could it possibly be (yet again) that ambiguous book?
Unlike the Bible (which charges God with committing evil) I don’t “want” to charge God with anything. If there is such a being as God, then I couldn’t possibly know anything about such a being (since it is beyond my 5 senses). It would be foolish, then to make charges against such a being.
The case is far otherwise with biblegod: the Bible depicts its god as a vain, stupid, hateful fiend. I didn’t do that: the writers of the Bible painted that portrait. If there is such a being as God (which I sincerely doubt) then certainly one of the biggest insults one could pay that being would be to attribute inspiration of the Bible to it.
In fact, I can’t remember ever reading an instance in the Bible where this “worst angel” you refer to lied or murdered anyone, or even acted like an egotist. That description sounds more like the god of the Bible to me; we are provided with many instances of that god murdering people, acting egotistical, and even a few instances of lying.
“it carries within it a set of rules which are the very rules necessary for the continued existence of our species. The way we respond to this beauty reveals our true disposition.”
How do you respond to the “beauty” of slavery, the suppression of women, genocide, rape, murder, racism, human sacrifice, and the murder of babies and pregnant women? All of these things find support (via rules or by approved example) in the Bible. If you respond, “all of this must be okay since the Bible says so,” it does reveal something about your true disposition: that you lack humanity.
I suggest you take a step back and investigate where the Bible came from. Put it into historical context. Humankind has been around a lot longer than the 6,000 years it accounts for. Millions have lived and died before it was written and before the time period it covers. Within the past 2,700 years millions have lived and died without ever hearing of the Bible. It is one book amongst many which claim to be "sacred". Humankind is one species amongst many on this planet, and this planet is one amongst many orbiting a star which is one amongst billions in a galaxy which is also one amongst billions. The earth is but a speck of dust in the universe, and your "last days" are less than a nano-second in the timeline of the universe.
It is the height of egotism to claim that God had a son who incarnated himself as a man on this speck of dust to somehow atone for someone else's sin (which wasn't a sin since that person didn't know right from wrong at the time, and which contradicts the whole idea of justice by suggesting that one man can pay the penalty for another's crime.) It is also the height of egotism to claim that your group of a handful of men have been given the "truth" about God's plans.
The various assortment of writings that make up the Bible were written by anonymous men (often using the pseudonyms of legendary figures). More anonymous men (Catholic Bishops) voted which writings were "inspired" and which were not. Such votes were not reached by pious, prayerful, or even reasonable methods, but rather by political bickering, power plays, and violence. Later the Protestants decided that those Bishops had made mistakes and threw out some of the writings, so it seems the Bishops hadn't followed the lead of the "Holy Spirit" very well. (Luther wanted to throw out Revelation as well, but he couldn't quite pull it off as it was too firmly entrenched.)
Of course, your "faithful and discreet slave" has told us that the Catholic church was "Babylon the great empire of false religion", and so was the Protestant religion (and of course "angel" Rutherford faithfully and discreetly revealed to us that "all religion is a "snare and a racket").
So we have the Bible: fabulous contradictory stories by anonymous writers (and editors) deceptively posing as legendary heros, with anonymous members of false religion using decidedly "unholy" methods to pass judgment on those writings (which judgment we know was at least partially incorrect since it was later revised -- by false religion's "racketeers".) This is the book that you gentlemen are wasting your valuable time on. And you invite me to do the same? Thank you very much, but I think I'll pass.
The Bible simply does not work when taken literally, and I have produced a
verse-by-verse online Bible commentary in evidence of that fact.
I wish you would read it before wasting any more of your valuable genius on playing with the Bible as if it were some kind of brain-teasing puzzle book. I would also strongly recommend the following works:
-
The Golden Bough by Sir James Frazer
-
The Jesus Mysteries by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy
-
Crisis of Conscience by Ray Franz
-
Atheism: the Case Against God by George H. Smith
It’s true that blood transfusions and organ transplants became a disfellowshipping offenses under Knorr. But it was under Rutherford that vaccinations were denounced as “against God’s law” and as “filthy pus” and as “never having prevented smallpox.”
Rutherford was the one who prophesied that the “ancient worthies” were “certain” to be resurrected in 1925. Unless Abraham et al. have been hiding out in the basement of Beth-Sarim for the past 79 years, I think it’s safe to say that this prophecy did not come true.
What do you call prophecies which fail to come true?
What do you call those who make such prophecies?
It is an indisputable historical fact that Rutherford was a false prophet. It is also an indisputable historical fact that his stance on vaccinations cost his gullible followers dearly (in terms of persecution and an increased risk of contracting smallpox). Would you honestly characterize such an individual as “faithful and discreet”?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is yours? Where is the evidence that Russell was a “faithful and discreet slave”? Just because he said so? Nothing of his teachings that remains as recognized “truth” by Jehovah’s Witnesses was original with Russell. Even the idea of the “invisible presence” had been published in Adventist literature (even prior to N. H. Barbour). Everything Russell taught about 1914 (other than that there was some significance to that date) is now discounted by the Witnesses. Witnesses are not even allowed to read his books (or Rutherford’s, for that matter). If these were “angels of the church” as you claim, it seems that what they wrote should be held in as high regard as the Bible (written by ordinary men). How is it that the “angels’” writings are obsolete within a few score years, whereas ordinary men’s writings thousands of years old are still valued as current?
You could argue that what they taught was “meat in due season” (a.k.a. “truth for its time”): just what they needed to hear at that particular time in history. But when smallpox was killing people, do you think Rutherford’s “truth” about vaccinations being against God’s law was really what they needed to hear?
Throughout history some of the most dangerous people in the world have been those who thought that they were “chosen by God” to carry out “his” work, or were somehow the “chosen people” or “name people” of God. Look at the Jews and the genocide they committed (according to the Bible). Look at the Jehovah’s Witnesses who have let their members die due to their stance on vaccinations, organ transplants, and blood transfusions, and have destroyed people through shunning. Look at Charles Manson and his “family” who were going to help fulfill the “prophecies” in Revelation by inciting a race war by committing murders and framing them on blacks. Look at “Reverend” Jim Jones and the Jonestown mass suicides. Look at David Koresh. All of these people thought they were God’s special people, charged with carrying out “his” work.
Maybe no one ever told them differently.
Allow me to tell you differently. You are not the “special forces of God”. You are not “the seed”. God has not “given you the order of accounts to interpret”. So please don’t attempt to “play a part in the destruction of Babylon.” If there were such a thing as God, it certainly wouldn’t need your help.
“If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities.” –Voltaire
Hi Jason,
Yes, another very well put together piece but it fails to address any of the points raised in my last email (did not get it?) However you have put so much thought into it that I will attempt to address your points.
Gordon & Bill:
If this “isn't kindergarten,” then we don't need “more bad than any other generation” in order to understand what bad is. I don't have to experience being burned at the stake to understand that it’s bad (nor do I have to witness anyone else being burned at the stake.) I don't have to watch Bush drop bombs on innocent people to know that such actions are bad. If your god thinks I need such object lessons, then who is really the “dumbo”?
Yes, but regrettably President Bush believes in: Get them before they get us, a morality that went out in primary school. You and I have learned that lesson but a few billion other humans haven't yet. This reminds me of the guy who said to me when I was a JW: Where was God in WWII? My response was how many World Wars do we need to see before we realise that there is no future in breaking his laws? Obvious Bush and sons of Bush need a bigger lesson and they will get it. Even if you do not believe in God, it is not hard to believe that we are on a course to self destruction, planetary destruction, moral destruction financial destruction, and the destruction of our basic freedoms in the name of protecting them. My favourite Bushism, is I declare war in the name of peace!?!?
If the Bible “is the most valueable book ever written even in the literal meaning,” then how can it be “daft” and “stupid” at the same time (as you elsewhere have stated)?
By having more than two chapters and by being written in a stupid looking manner which conceals a hyper intelligent code. It is also written in some places in an arbitrary or immoral looking manner but a deeper readng reveals it is neither.
If we need rules, and we go to this “most valuable book” in search of them, what do we find? “Ambiguity,” as you admit, but also much worse.
The god of the Bible, in his “perfect law” said that not only was it okay to have slaves, but that it was okay to beat them to death (as long as they took at least two days to die.)
Yes but how do you ensure that? Bit of a risk beating someone and timing his death isn't it. This is not a licence to beat people to death, it is a practical measure to stop masters from beating their slaves to death. I am not a doctor but all the beatings I have had result in instant pain. Even with internal bleeding I think you die fairly quickly. OK you could beat someone into a coma. But how do you know when he will come out of it or if he will. I mean I do agree it appears savage on the face of it. However it is merely a simple rule that is easy to apply and I suspect although I do not know, that it had the effect of stopping you beating someone to death. You represent that it permits this so long as the guy lives for two days. I suspect that if you die after two days, you are not really dying of the beating, but I do not know.
This “perfect limousine” of a book also teaches by example: with the god of the Bible commanding his chosen people to “rip open the bellies” of pregnant women, run babies through with the sword, commit genocide, stone female adulterers, stone one’s own stubborn children, etc…
It also teaches us rules by example in holding up as “great men of faith” such paragons of virtue as Jephthah, Moses, and David.
Jephthah deliberately burned his own daughter to death.
David (whom biblegod claimed had only done “what was right” except in the Bathsheba affair) sawed people asunder and baked them in kilns.
Moses (whose only sin in biblegod’s eyes was striking a rock) ordered the murder of thousands of children, the raping of hundreds of young girls, and human sacrifice of “Jehovah’s portion” of the “spoil”.
The trouble with your arguments above is that God gave us life and owns our life (until show him that we are not a threat to ourselves or our communites by learning his morality) so he has the right to kill us if he so chooses since he is only taking back what is his. But of course his mercy is infinite. Satan is still alive is he not? How do you know he hasn;t resurrected all of these ones already? We do go through some incredibly painful lessons however.
Why do you think Jehovah’s Witness children die for want of a blood transfusion? It’s the same reason that some fundamentalists drink poison and handle deadly snakes, and the same reason why Christians burned “witches” and upheld slavery and genocide for so long: they are all due to following the literal meaning of the Bible.
These false doctrines are the result of one step thinking, they are one scripture doctrines. Most churches and priesthoods just do not do the work. They read a few verses, come up with a doctrine and do not check it against the rest of the bible. Russell was a proponent of the 'whole jigsaw' method of doctrinal veracity. He never claimed to have invented anything, he just collated what he saw as the good bits of other churches. It was later that the Watchtower falsely and dishonestly declared itself to be the font of all true bible interpretation. The danger is following the literal meaning of a part of the jigsaw without completing the Jigsaw.
The majority of the “Old Testament” consists of one horrible atrocity after another. (When not relating such stories it occupies itself with praising its “god of armies” for helping with the slaughter.) It’s not a simple matter of “deliberate ambiguity which can be used for Good and for bad: Sorting out the loving from the abusive.“ It wasn't loving to murder babies or wipe out entire peoples and non-human animals, “leaving nothing left to breathe”; it was bad and abusive to begin with.
I disagree. Was wiping out Nazi torturers abusive? And surely they are just the end of the line of a certain way of thinking. People behave very very badly as we both know. It is incredble actually given the lessons that God dealt out to mankind through the Jews that the whole world did not become proselytes.
If God said to you personally, look, I own your house, I own your life and I own the lifes of your wife and kids. Here is the deal. I need your house for my purposes actually to teach and save mankind. Now if you do not give me it I will take back the lives of you ahd your wife and your kids which I own anyway because I know how I built you and you know in your heart that I also built that I have the right to your house. And my experience tells me that if you do not give me your house in these circumstances then it means you do not care about teaching saving mankind or about your creator or his plans, which means you are 'wicked' which means you will eventually become a lying genocidal murderer like Satan, I have seen this around 10 billion times before.
It does not seem too unreasonable. However if you say. Oh God killed my whole family because I wouldn't let him steal my house it sounds very unreasonable. It is a question of the bigger picture. In the case of the Jews, he was thinking about the bigger pciture, the security of the salvation of mankind through the Jews. So he took his justice to the limit in punishment to protect them. Why did the Philistines keep attacking one wonders? The answer to that question is probably why God wiped out whole cities. But he owns life, he can do that. Also he can put humpty dumpty back together again.
The same is true of fornication or homosexuality. I was a tennager in the 60s and 70s and we had free love without much VD in those days. I could see nothing wrong with it at the time. Now I understand that it destroys the family unit, the brick out of which the house of society is built. Without any bricks there is no society and without society there is no human race. So fornication can be lethal to the human race and homsexuality certainly is, although the politcally correct media rejoice over the supposed fact that now 'at last' 50% of women have AIDS as if that exonerates the gays who turned the disease into an epidemic. Truly if everyone on the planet was dying in agony of AIDS including all of our children and all of them had caught it as a result of homsexual acts, then many homsexuals would still be advocating gay 'rights' to dying AIDS victims. God advocates family rights and in particular children's rights.
Make no mistake: it’s not the case that “bad people” have taken the Bible the wrong way. Take for instance slave owners. The Christian slave owners found much support in the Scriptures for their stance, but it wasn't because they were reading it through evil eyes. The Bible nowhere condemns slavery. Far from it: it lays out rules for slavery. Instead of teaching that all men are free and that it is immoral for one man to own another, the Bible states: “Slaves, be obedient to your masters!” And when a slave ran away from his master, Paul sent him back!
Yes but the Law of Moses did not insist on that. I have thought long and hard about slavery as God
requires us to do about such things. We have both done this, and that is what this system is about.
Learning Good and Bad. What happens in the UK right now is that I pay all of this tax
(basically everythiing I earn in one way or another).
I and every other tax payer have around 5 million slaves, everybody on unemployment benefit.
We pay for them and they do nothing for us and the government just wastes thier lives,
and the unemployment bureacrats probably get more than the slaves in order to manage them in a totally useless way.
This is a theft it is not good. I think that unemployed should work in real jobs
subsidized possibly by the government.
What I am getting to is this slavery was the social security system for salary in the Jewish system.
The social security for food was gleaning but that cannot have worked all the year round. The housing benefit was inherited land. I agree that slavery is open to abuse of the slave. But our system is a total abuse of the paymasters of the slave by government. It is all rather like a mad trade union for slaves. Today's slaves are completely useless and demotivated and not abused physically by any one master, but abused emotionally by the state. Furthermore their masters are abuse completely by the sate. The bible principle would be if I pay money to help another (not in the case of food or shelter but in the case of salary) then he should do something to earn it. This brings me to prostitution. The bible does not condemn it, because being realistic, the world is full of unofficial prostitution and. Just as today the world is full of unofficial slavery. I have several close friends who are totally dominated by their partners, one of them was physically abused and had been beaten for years, all of them are emotionally abused and controlled. We think by abolishing 'slavery' we got rid of it. I do not think we did that. God has desinged us to work, when we don't in his opinion we should not eat. The way he enforces this is slavery. We today do not enforce it at all and that is another thing that like fornication might seem like not a big deal, but in fact could prove ultimately destructive for a society. My brother recently dealt with a refugee who deliberate went to a war zone to become a refugee to get assylum in the UK. He has done no work here for 20 years at all, and he fell over or seomthing and now want a load of damages from the state (I think). Now I on the other hand sometimes feel close to a heart attack trying to make enough money to keep my company and my employees in work. And many private and public sector people die or get ill or have breakdowns trying to keep this mad system going. Yes the slaves are no longer physically abused by one Master. But both the master and the slaves are now abused and furthermore nothing productive occurs in the relationship.
“And God has done much worse than give us an ambiguous book, he has given the whole world into the hands of the worse angel there has ever been, a lying murderer, a merciless abuser, a self indulgent egotist etc. If you want to charge him God with being unloving, that is the route to go, rather than his giving us this ambiguous book. “
Where is your evidence for this preposterous claim? Could it possibly be (yet again) that ambiguous book?
Well yes, the bible, but not only the bible, also it is the Boss of the girl I love. Which girl is now also his wife but was his abused mistress for 19 years. His character traits are those I have come to identify of Satan. Of course you may say that I am not a fair judge in this matter. But I think we both know people who show wicked behaviour to a great degree. I mean there are tell tale signs that you learn. There is only one wicked character at the end of the line. He cannot resist abuse, he nevers tells the truth deliberately, he tells what he wants you to hear, which may or may not be the truth. He knows how to butter you up and make you feal great and he knows even better how to take away your self esteem and make you feel crap. He kills the children and donates to the orphage as a cover. He accuses you of what he is guilty of pre-emptively before you can accuse him of it, so that when you do accuse him it looks like tit for tat. He has no love he only knows power and control. Now this is the predominant behaviour of all of the governments of the world. So it is good evidence that there is a really rotten guy behind the whole thing who has been alive for a long time. It is the ultimate conspiracy theory from a physical perspective.
Unlike the Bible (which charges God with committing evil) I don't “want” to charge God with anything. If there is such a being as God, then I couldn't possibly know anything about such a being (since it is beyond my 5 senses). It would be foolish, then to make charges against such a being.
The case is far otherwise with biblegod: the Bible depicts its god as a vain, stupid, hateful fiend. I didn't do that: the writers of the Bible painted that portrait. If there is such a being as God (which I sincerely doubt) then certainly one of the biggest insults one could pay that being would be to attribute inspiration of the Bible to it.
Now here is the point of the ambiguity. For by condemning God you condemn yourself. Because you and only you have chosen to ignore Jesus Christ who cannot be described as doing anything evil. It is unarguable that he had a lot of power and there is no record of him abusing it. Yet he himself desribed God as 'good' in circumstances where he would not accept that title himself.
So you are in the position of the guy to whom Einstein goes up to and says Jason, 1+1=3. Now if most people came up to me and said that I would say right, nice meeting you. But if Einstein said that to me I would OK, please explain how you deduce that. This is because I respect Einsteins mathematical capability. You act as though you have no respect for God's moral capability. He deliberately gives you that lattitude. You think you condemn him, but he is out smarting you. Satan thought he condemned Adam, it was never a test on Adam. Adam was always going to fail. What the only woman available to him and he having no knowlege of bad. He was always going to fail the test and he prophesied his own failure saying before the test. this is why a man will leave his father and nother and he must stick to his wife. (Just what he did).
It was Satan who was being tested, because Satan could not kill any angels, but he could kill Adam. He did this through Eve.
In fact, I can't remember ever reading an instance in the Bible where this “worst angel” you refer to lied or murdered anyone, or even acted like an egotist. That description sounds more like the god of the Bible to me; we are provided with many instances of that god murdering people, acting egotistical, and even a few instances of lying.
Let me remind you. Satan lied to Eve and himself said: I sinned when I betrayed righteous blood as regards Jesus. So he is a self confessed murderer and obviously a liar to Eve who is of course dead physically today.
“it carries within it a set of rules which are the very rules necessary for the continued existence of our species. The way we respond to this beauty reveals our true disposition.”
How do you respond to the “beauty” of slavery, the suppression of women, genocide, rape, murder, racism, human sacrifice, and the murder of babies and pregnant women? All of these things find support (via rules or by approved example) in the Bible. If you respond, “all of this must be okay since the Bible says so,” it does reveal something about your true disposition: that you lack humanity.
You see murder I see the command not to do it. You see rape I see the law not to do it. You see the killing of children, I see the law that anyone who knowingly caused a miscarriage was to be killed. Like I said it is a seemingly ambiguous book. You see 'suppress women' I see love thy neighbour.
Today of course men are suppressed in the West and that is fine because it is politcally correct. Whites suffer racism in Africa, and that is fine because it is politcally correct. Homophobes are denied employment and that is fine because it is politically correct. This 'morality' will kill us all. One lying phrase used a lot is positive discrimimntion. There is no such thing, all discrimination is negative. Is there positive injustice?
I suggest you take a step back and investigate where the Bible came from. Put it into historical context. Humankind has been around a lot longer than the 6,000 years it accounts for. Millions have lived and died before it was written and before the time period it covers. Within the past 2,700 years millions have lived and died without ever hearing of the Bible. It is one book amongst many which claim to be "sacred". Humankind is one species amongst many on this planet, and this planet is one amongst many orbiting a star which is one amongst billions in a galaxy which is also one amongst billions. The earth is but a speck of dust in the universe, and your "last days" are less than a nanosecond in the timeline of the universe.
It is the height of egotism to claim that God had a son who incarnated himself as a man on this speck of dust to somehow atone for someone else's sin (which wasn't a sin since that person didn't know right from wrong at the time, and which contradicts the whole idea of justice by suggesting that one man can pay the penalty for another's crime.) It is also the height of egotism to claim that your group of a handful of men have been given the "truth" about God's plans.
We do not claim that we have been given the truth. We claim that we are the true religion. We claim that our baptism actually works and we have a covenant, well actually a couple of them, which are the basis of our church. We attempt to find the truth, and we believe and claim that we are closer to it than any other church. But a monoloply on the truth does not exist on this planet.
The various assortment of writings that make up the Bible were written by anonymous men (often using the pseudonyms of legendary figures). More anonymous men (Catholic Bishops) voted which writings were "inspired" and which were not. Such votes were not reached by pious, prayerful, or even reasonable methods, but rather by political bickering, power plays, and violence. Later the Protestants decided that those Bishops had made mistakes and threw out some of the writings, so it seems the Bishops hadn't followed the lead of the "Holy Spirit" very well. (Luther wanted to throw out Revelation as well, but he couldn't quite pull it off as it was too firmly entrenched.)
Of course, your "faithful and discreet slave" has told us that the Catholic church was "Babylon the great empire of false religion", and so was the Protestant religion (and of course "angel" Rutherford faithfully and discreetly revealed to us that "all religion is a "snare and a racket").
So we have the Bible: fabulous contradictory stories by anonymous writers (and editors) deceptively posing as legendary heroes, with anonymous members of false religion using decidedly "unholy" methods to pass judgment on those writings (which judgment we know was at least partially incorrect since it was later revised -- by false religion's "racketeers".) This is the book that you gentlemen are wasting your valuable time on. And you invite me to do the same? Thank you very much, but I think I'll pass.
The Bible simply does not work when taken literally, and I have produced a verse-by-verse online Bible commentary in evidence of that fact.
I wish you would read it before wasting any more of your valuable genius on playing with the Bible as if it were some kind of brain-teasing puzzle book. I would also strongly recommend the following works:
Here is what God said to Aaron and Miriam re Moses:
8 Mouth to Mouth I speak to him, thus showing him and not by riddles and the appearance of Jehovah is what he beholds (Numbers 12).
So God himself describes his book, which is the collection of his words to the prophets and visionaries etc etc as riddles.
Rutherford was the one who prophesied that the “ancient worthies” were “certain” to be resurrected in 1925. Unless Abraham et al. have been hiding out in the basement of Beth-Sarim for the past 79 years, I think it’s safe to say that this prophecy did not come true.
What do you call prophecies which fail to come true?
Good efforts so long as they never claimed to be inspired
What do you call those who make such prophecies?
Christians who keep of knocking keep on asking and keep on seeking, so long as they do not claim any exclusive on true biblical intepretation or any papal infallibility.
We have got the UN expansion date wrong 22 times. The 23rd looks good right now but time will tell. I spend my seculat life in reasearch, Maths and Computers etc. In any research it is a catalogue of mistakes, especially in decoding work. If you say the minute you get a bible interpreation wrong you should give up, as many churches do, which as you point out leaves them screwed, then you prevent bible interpretation. the book is prefect the interpetters are not, hence the mistakes. The thing to do is keep working at the puzzle.
It is an indisputable historical fact that Rutherford was a false prophet. It is also an indisputable historical fact that his stance on vaccinations cost his gullible followers dearly (in terms of persecution and an increased risk of contracting smallpox). Would you honestly characterize such an individual as “faithful and discreet”?
No it is not. He did not claim to be an inspired prophet. If you claim to speak with God's authority and then say next tuesday it will rain and it doesn't then you are a false prophet. But if you say I have looked at Isaiah chapter 5 and I think it means that rain will fall next Tuesday and it doesn't you are not a false prophet, you are someone who doesn't fully understand Isaiah.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is yours? Where is the evidence that Russell was a “faithful and discreet slave”? Just because he said so? Nothing of his teachings that remains as recognized “truth” by Jehovah’s Witnesses was original with Russell. Even the idea of the “invisible presence” had been published in Adventist literature (even prior to N. H. Barbour). Everything Russell taught about 1914 (other than that there was some significance to that date) is now discounted by the Witnesses. Witnesses are not even allowed to read his books (or Rutherford’s, for that matter). If these were “angels of the church” as you claim, it seems that what they wrote should be held in as high regard as the Bible (written by ordinary men). How is it that the “angels’” writings are obsolete within a few score years, whereas ordinary men’s writings thousands of years old are still valued as current?
For the JWs the way I do it is this. Either the Gentile Times is right or wrong. If right then Jesus came in 1914Tishri, only one group warned of that and recognised his coming. Jesus' true disciples in the first century physically recognised him and followed him. the guys in the 20th century are no different.
For us there are bucket loads of chronology covenants comings etc etc - it is all on the site for the whole world to see. Andno one, you included has logically destroyed the basics of our argumentation as yet - by addressing that argumentation.
You could argue that what they taught was “meat in due season” (a.k.a. “truth for its time”): just what they needed to hear at that particular time in history. But when smallpox was killing people, do you think Rutherford’s “truth” about vaccinations being against God’s law was really what they needed to hear?
Throughout history some of the most dangerous people in the world have been those who thought that they were “chosen by God” to carry out “his” work, or were somehow the “chosen people” or “name people” of God. Look at the Jews and the genocide they committed (according to the Bible). Look at the Jehovah’s Witnesses who have let their members die due to their stance on vaccinations, organ transplants, and blood transfusions, and have destroyed people through shunning. Look at Charles Manson and his “family” who were going to help fulfill the “prophecies” in Revelation by inciting a race war by committing murders and framing them on blacks. Look at “Reverend” Jim Jones and the Jonestown mass suicides. Look at David Koresh. All of these people thought they were God’s special people, charged with carrying out “his” work.
Maybe no one ever told them differently.
Allow me to tell you differently. You are not the “special forces of God”. You are not “the seed”. God has not “given you the order of accounts to interpret”. So please don't attempt to “play a part in the destruction of Babylon.” If there were such a thing as God, it certainly wouldn't need your help.
I agree he does not need our help. But I will give him it because I love him. And he may let me play a part because he loves me. Everything is not about need you know. Hilter was a bad president of Germany do we therefore abolish the German government? Well OK the EU has pretty much done that! But when you find a corrupt policeman do you abolish the whole policeforce? I agree Satan has done a great job of making anyone who talks about knowing that date of Armageddon seem like they are running a suicide cult. But as I said in the email you ignored completely (did you get it??) No one makes a fake in the absence of an original.
“If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities.”
–Voltaire
Voltaire is my favourite too. But it is absurd to believe that we were created by random chance. And all of those who do not will destroy mankind and that will be the world's greatest ever atrocity. I like his statement:
I disagree with everything you say but I would give my life fighting for you to have the right to say it (Beautiful French Irony - Voltaire).
So your problem is this as I see it, my brother in logic. I am a pure mathematician. I have pretty much got the grammatical code of the bible. It is the same code in both Greek and Hebrew (modulo various grammatical differences between Hebrew and Greek). Now you need to be quite industrious and interested to see the code at present. But we have decoded around 30 NT accounts and 10 OT accounts. The same code works and gives us the consistent answers. The book is in a code I assert and we have that code. Now as time progresses, we hope to be able to grammatically prove this but it all depends on the way God wants this done and his timing as this world self implodes. Right now if you make the effort and if you want the truth, you can see the code. It isn't that hard to see it. It was much harder to work it out.
Finally I hope you do not take this as being patronizing or anything but I would like to thank you for being logical and not being abusive in your emails. My quite large experience of these conversations which admittedly are normally with religious people, is that they become abusive eventually. You have the 'advantage' of not having to blindly protect a religions dogma that you have invested in and that you cannot change or modify. I too have that advantage, not that I do not have such a dogma, but that I can change or modify it whenever I see better understandings, because firstly I run the church, hopefully under Jesus' direction, and secondly we do not and have never claimed to have any papal infallibility. On the contrary we rejoice in improving our understandings, which is a daily occurrence as of late. It amazes me that Christian churches based on repentance cannot admit that their doctrine might be or is wrong?!?
Gordon:
I did not receive any response from you that I have not replied to (this is the second email I have received from you). However, my name is Steve, not Jason, so you may be confusing me with someone else.
I will reply to your points in order (hopefully the quotes will remind you of the context: it's getting too long to keep including all of the previous text.)
"My response was how many World Wars do we need to see before we realise that there is no future in breaking his laws? Obvious Bush and sons of Bush need a bigger lesson and they will get it."
So your god punishes innocent people en masse in order to teach Bush a lesson? Why not just zap Bush instead of allowing him to kill so many innocent people? I can't accept that a supposedly benevolent god would be so unfeeling and unjust.
In any case, Bush will never "get it": he thinks he is following the Bible already (thanks to its ambiguity, as you point out.)
"Yes but how do you ensure that? Bit of a risk beating someone and timing his death isn't it. This is not a licence to beat people to death, it is a practical measure to stop masters from beating their slaves to death. I am not a doctor but all the beatings I have had result in instant pain. Even with internal bleeding I think you die fairly quickly. OK you could beat someone into a coma. But how do you know when he will come out of it or if he will. I mean I do agree it appears savage on the face of it. However it is merely a simple rule that is easy to apply and I suspect although I do not know, that it had the effect of stopping you beating someone to death. You represent that it permits this so long as the guy lives for two days. I suspect that if you die after two days, you are not really dying of the beating, but I do not know. "
Slave owners aren't in the habit of killing their slaves anymore than they are in the habit of destroying any of their other "property". The reason I find fault with this law is that it allows a slave owner to beat his slaves with impunity, almost to the point of death (and even to death -- in the case where his anger accidentally goes too far -- as long as it's a slow one). How could you possibly argue that this was a moral, just law? Try to imagine yourself as a slave back then. Would you feel adequately protected by such a law? Would you call such a law "perfect" or "righteous"? How about if your "master" was a sadist who liked to beat you every night? Might that change your opinion?
Bringing in welfare / unemployment seems to me a way of trying to obfuscate the issue. I can't see where it has any bearing on the real issue.
"I disagree. Was wiping out Nazi torturers abusive? And surely they are just the end of the line of a certain way of thinking. People behave very very badly as we both know."
Please explain to me how the babies -- who were run through with a sword -- were like Nazis. Please tell me who it was that these babies (and unborn babies) tortured so that I can agree with you that biblegod was justified in ordering their murder.
"Well yes, the bible, but not only the bible, also it is the Boss of the girl I love. Which girl is now also his wife but was his abused mistress for 19 years. His character traits are those I have come to identify of Satan."
People abuse other people because, sadly, that's part of human nature gone awry. Mostly, boys learn it from their fathers who learned it from their fathers. It isn't proof that invisible spirits are causing us to behave badly. "The Devil made me do it," is a joke: it's not a valid excuse, and certainly not any kind of proof of evil spirits.
This type of thinking kept the mentally ill locked away and abused for centuries. It wasn't until people discarded the notion of demon possession that better conditions resulted.
When people stop blaming evil spirits and start using their brains to find the real cause, then the abuse begins to be reduced.
"Now here is the point of the ambiguity. For by condemning God you condemn yourself. Because you and only you have chosen to ignore Jesus Christ who cannot be described as doing anything evil."
I have not condemned God. I have condemned the writings of anonymous ancient writers who depicted their god as an immoral monster.
If I have "ignored Jesus Christ" it is because I was discussing the atrocities of the "Old Testament" at the time, which stories also ignore him.
"Let me remind you. Satan lied to Eve and himself said: I sinned when I betrayed righteous blood as regards Jesus. So he is a self confessed murderer and obviously a liar to Eve who is of course dead physically today."
Thanks for reminding me what the Watchtower teaches about Satan. However, having read the Bible for myself, I must say that I find no mention of "Satan" in Genesis. There is a story in there about a "serpent" deceiving Eve. I suppose if you use your "jigsaw" method of reading the Bible as "one book" you could piece it together to say this was Satan. However, I don't believe the writer of this part of Genesis thought that this was anything more than a snake, and he was simply explaining the counter-intuitive reality as to why men die while snakes shed their skins (seemingly taking a new lease on life, and seeming to therefore be immortal).
Although other parts of the jigsaw state that Satan was a liar, this part does not show the serpent as lying at all. Biblegod is the liar in this story: he states that in the day they eat the forbidden fruit they will "surely die". The serpent says that this isn't true, and that instead they will come to know good and evil by eating. According to the story, it turns out that the serpent was right: they eat and they do not die that day, and biblegod admits that they now know good and evil as a result of eating the fruit. So, who was being deceptive here? Not the serpent.
I don't recall reading where Satan is quoted as saying "I sinned when I betrayed righteous blood as regards Jesus." Can you give me the citation?
"You see murder I see the command not to do it. You see rape I see the law not to do it. You see the killing of children, I see the law that anyone who knowingly caused a miscarriage was to be killed. Like I said it is a seemingly ambiguous book. You see 'suppress women' I see love thy neighbour."
I think that if you could open your mind a little wider you'd see both. It's a very hypocritical book if you take it as a whole. Biblegod may lay down a law against killing, and then order killing a few chapters later. Jesus may teach about turning the other cheek and never calling anyone a fool and blessing one's enemies, and then call the Pharisees fools and whip the money-changers.
Since you mentioned Hitler: it would be as if somewhere in Mein Kampf, Hitler had written, "thou shalt not kill," and you decided to only see that: and you ignored all the rest of the hate-filled pages and the impact they had on the world.
The real key to the dilemma is that many different people wrote the many different writings in the Bible, and many of them had very different ideas about morality. Trying to reconcile them will drive you crazy.
"Here is what God said to Aaron and Miriam re Moses:"
No; this is what the anonymous writer of this part of Numbers wrote about what he imagined of his god.
"No it is not. He did not claim to be an inspired prophet. If you claim to speak with God's authority and then say next tuesday it will rain and it doesn't then you are a false prophet. But if you say I have looked at Isaiah chapter 5 and I think it means that rain will fall next Tuesday and it doesn't you are not a false prophet, you are someone who doesn't fully understand Isaiah."
You're right: if someone merely expresses an opinion, they're not guilty of prophesying falsely if their opinion turns out to be counter to reality. However, Rutherford did not say "I think it means..." He claimed to be God's prophet and he claimed certainty for this prophecy.
If you read the statements of the Watchtower:
- It has claimed to be "God's prophet" numerous times.
- Rutherford, writing in the Watchtower ("God's Prophet") stated that he was "certain" that the ancient worthies would be resurrected in 1925. That was a prophecy. One who claims to be "God's prophet" is claiming divine inspiration. Claiming to be the "sole channel" of truth," and "God's organization on earth" etc., is claiming to "speak with God's authority".
- It has claimed to have been "dependable" since its first issue:
The "Watchtower" An Outstanding Bible Aid...Since 1879 it has been published regularly for the benefit of sincere students of the Bible. Since that time it has proven itself dependable.
Advertisement in the back of the 1953 edition of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
- Speaking of Rutherford's time it has stated: "God had a prophet back then to warn them."
Look at what was being published in the "always dependable" Watchtower during Rutherford's reign:
We resolve that we shall obey all instruction received from the Watch Tower, knowing that such proceed from the higher powers, Jehovah God and Christ Jesus. We resolve to be completely obedient to the Society as the visible part of the Great Theocracy.
Watchtower, Feb. 1, 1940 p.47
Sounds to me like he was claiming to speak with God's authority there.
Here's a specific instance where he claimed that the Watchtower (written mostly by Rutherford) was the words of God's prophet:
Such persons should remember that the Watchtower sets out the words of God's prophet.
Watchtower 1936 p. 182 par. 18
Far from saying something along the lines of: "I've looked at Isaiah chapter 5 and I think..." what he actually wrote was:
God uses The Watchtower to communicate to his people; it does not consist of men's opinions.
Watchtower 1/1/1942, p. 5
And what were some of the always dependable instructions that were proceeding from Jehovah and Christ Jesus through the Watchtower for the Witnesses to be obedient to?
Thinking people would rather have smallpox than vaccination, because the latter sows the seed of syphilis, cancers, eczema,erysipelas, scrofula, consumption, even leprosy and many other loathsome affections. Hence the practice of vaccination is a crime, an outrage and a delusion.
The Golden Age, May 1, 1929, p. 502 - WBTS
[Vaccination is] a direct violation of the everlasting covenant God made with Noah after the flood…Vaccination has never saved a human life. It does not prevent smallpox.
The Golden Age, February 4, 1931, pp. 293-294 - WBTS
We may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old ... 1925 shall mark the resurrection of the faithful worthies of old and the beginning of the reconstruction...
Millions Now Living May Never Die, pp. 89, 90, 97 - WBTS
We have no doubt whatever in regard to the chronology relating to the dates of 1874, 1914, 1918, and 1925.
Watchtower 1922 p. 147
The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures than 1914.
The Watchtower 9/1/22, page 262
Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the Scriptures. As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had upon which to base his faith in a coming deluge.
The Watchtower, 4/1/23, page 106
Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a "prophet" of God. It is another thing to prove it. The only way that this can be done is to review the record.
(Watchtower 1972 April 1 p.197 'They Shall Know that a Prophet Was Among Them')
And what does the record show? Since they claim to have been prophets back then, they must have prophesied something. And they invite us to "examine the record." Well, there wouldn't be any record to examine if this "prophet" hadn't made any prophecies.
So, then: did any of their prophecies ever come true? No, they did not. But let's limit our scope to one specific prophecy: the resurrection of the ancient worthies in 1925. Are we in agreement that this prophecy failed to come true? I can't see how you could think otherwise.
Now, what does the Bible and the Watchtower (Rutherford era) itself say about people who make prophecies which don't come to pass?
But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
Deut. 18:20-22 KJV
If he is a false prophet, his prophecy will fail to come to pass.
Watchtower, 5/15/30
The difference between a true and a false prophet is that one is speaking the word of the Lord and the other is speaking his own dreams and guesses.
Watchtower, May 15, 1930, p. 45
Notice that there are no "escape clauses" in the above (it doesn't say that they're off the hook as long as they didn't say the exact words "I am inspired prophet" immediately prior to issuing their prophecy.)
Let me refine your example by posing a new one. If I were to say,
"I believe that in the year 2010, Napoleon Bonaparte will come back to life and take over Europe."
That would be an opinion. But, now let's say that I changed the statement to read:
"I am certain that in the year 2010, Napoleon Bonaparte will come back to life and take over Europe."
Let's say that I published this statement in a newsletter in which I had previously stated:
"This newsletter sets forth the words of God's prophet: it does not consist of men's opinions. Christians are obligated to obey the instructions in this newsletter because they proceed from the higher powers, Jehovah God and Christ Jesus."
Now it is no longer an opinion. Now it is a prophecy. If the year 2010 comes and goes without Napoleon showing up on the scene, what sort of prophecy have I made, and what sort of a prophet am I? Of course, in 2011 my newsletter will state:
"I never claimed to be a prophet, and the Napoleon thing? That was just a "probability" that some overly zealous readers read into a certainty.
Then I would be a liar on top of being a false prophet.
This is exactly the case with the Watchtower, and so the conclusion is inescapable: they have earned the titles of “false prophets” and “liars”.
That's not the description of a "faithful and discreet slave". If your theology teaches that Rutherford was such, then this is a gaping hole in your theology (which you've asked me to point out to you.) So, now that you know these facts, will you be true to your word about changing your beliefs based on the truth? Or will you continue to hold that Rutherford was a Faithful & Discreet Slave?
"The trouble with your arguments above is that God gave us life and owns our life (until show him that we are not a threat to ourselves or our communities by learning his morality) so he has the right to kill us if he so chooses since he is only taking back what is his. But of course his mercy is infinite. Satan is still alive is he not? How do you know he hasn't resurrected all of these ones already? We do go through some incredibly painful lessons however."
And the trouble with your arguments above is that might does not make right.
My mother gave me life, does that give her a moral right to kill me? I think not.
Your argument is basically that "God is God, so he can do whatever he wants, and there can be nothing wrong with any action of his because he made everything to begin with, so it is his to do with as he pleases." That's not true, given my example of a mother and son, above. But worse is that you are applying this "might makes right" philosophy to the men who claimed to speak for (and to) God! This automatically makes their every command "right!" We're right back to the Watchtower organization with its instructions from God. We're right back to the Nazi's who were "just following orders" as they committed their unspeakable atrocities. We're right back to the Israelites and their stories of genocide excused by the saddest, most dangerous joke of all: "God told me to do it!"
No doubt you have built an impressive edifice, appealing to the mathematician in you. But I think it's built on quicksand.
--Steve
|
|