DEBATE: Jehovah's Witnesses vs.Y'all (Note to mods inside)

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2002-10-01 06:54pm

yep. it makes the universe so much easier to live with if you beleive god doesnt like you. a little double rant I wrote a few weeks ago. been meaning to post it for a while.

here's a thought for you. you, prolific charming person that you are, are a grandparent. you have kids. they have kids. nice, young, wonderful kids.
now, you have this friend from childhood. a true bastard, serial killer, rapist, manipulator, all those things. he asks if he can muck about with your grandkids, kill a few, torture a few, turn a few into psychopaths.
you can say no. ypu even have enough infomration to get this friend the death penalty. what do you do?
what kind of person says, sure, go play with the kids. tell their parents, too, that I said you could. just as a test of their love.
so, the friend mucks about, with predictable results. your kids (not their mutilated children, heh) still love you. so the friend asks if he can do the same to them. what do you do?
what kind of person says, sure, go ahead, but dont kill them.
in the book of job, the god of isreal does just this. he may be a heavenly father, but he's a true abuser. some would say job is a story, meant to explain. one could say the same of jesus. no christ, just a metaphor. and that would muck up christianity, no?
maybe satan in job is a metaphor, too. no need for christ.
a father who abuses his children, either by letting his childhood friend the devil do it, or , if the devil doesnt exist ,do it himself. a massively powerful figure who lets millions wither and die.

~next rant~

god is involved ina popularity contest. he works tirelessly to gain the love of millions, and his old aquintance lucifer does the same. their methods are remarkably similar.
look to revelation. lucifer takes control of the earth, granting vast power and freedom to those who serve him, while annhilating those who serve his nemesis. god did quite similar in the old testament, granting massive wealth to those who worship him, while blasting away at the dissidents in a bloodsoaked tale of genocide.
it continues to the end times, reading like a nuke war. the two superpower deities continously aid their workers, giving them charisma, power, and life. they also look to their enemy, lucifer setting up concentration camps and moving armies, god blasting earth with astroieds, plagues and earthquakes. genocide of the enemym usa and ussr blasting ceaselessly at the hordelings of the enemy, and those still thinking about it. mushroom clouds for everyone, and the survivors entering paradise and kingship over the scorched earth.
its the popularity contest of the police state, with blood dripping from the polls.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2002-10-01 07:04pm

I think it's about time to hand out some Fundie Moron titles.

shut up, i dont even believe in a god nor do i think that religions are good.

Sorry

Because the Samaritans chose to worship another deity, God promises to dash their infants to pieces and their "women with child shall be ripped up.

that was for evil advertising reasons.
as i´ve said before: there are laws in the bible which were stupid, even then.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-10-01 07:08pm

Was the Israelite treatment of the Canaanites supposed to be a morally correct manner of doing things?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-10-01 07:13pm

Or how about their racism and slave-trading practices?

salm · Post by **salm** » 2002-10-01 07:14pm

Master of Ossus wrote:Was the Israelite treatment of the Canaanites supposed to be a morally correct manner of doing things?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH:

as i´ve said before: there are laws in the bible which were stupid, even then.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2002-10-01 07:15pm

stupid? or immoral?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-10-01 07:17pm

salm wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:Was the Israelite treatment of the Canaanites supposed to be a morally correct manner of doing things?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH:

as i´ve said before: there are laws in the bible which were stupid, even then.

But God told them to do it. Isn't God infallible?

salm · Post by **salm** » 2002-10-01 07:18pm

aahh for slavery:

slavery was a common thing then. it´s similar to the eye for an eye law.

completely outdated but progressive for them.

i can remeber it fully but i believe to remember something like: dont beat your slaves to death.
release them if they can buy themselves out.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2002-10-01 07:19pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
salm wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:Was the Israelite treatment of the Canaanites supposed to be a morally correct manner of doing things?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH:

as i´ve said before: there are laws in the bible which were stupid, even then.

But God told them to do it. Isn't God infallible?

god is a nonexistant idiot

i´m talking about the fucking laws in the bible nothing else.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2002-10-01 07:21pm

and guidelines

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-10-01 07:22pm

I see. Thus, the Bible was a complete fabrication and some of its laws are reasonable, but many others are not.

In essence, you are taking the stance that the Bible, like the later Koran, was intended more as a legal document rather than as a religious manuscript.

VF5SS · Post by **VF5SS** » 2002-10-01 07:22pm

The laws in the bible aren't anything new. Just the same moral code people around the world have been using for thousands of years.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2002-10-01 07:25pm

VF5SS wrote:The laws in the bible aren't anything new. Just the same moral code people around the world have been using for thousands of years.

With a lot of hatred and intolerance thrown in for good measure.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2002-10-01 07:30pm

Master of Ossus wrote:I see. Thus, the Bible was a complete fabrication and some of its laws are reasonable, but many others are not.

In essence, you are taking the stance that the Bible, like the later Koran, was intended more as a legal document rather than as a religious manuscript.

yes, kind of.
there are laws which are reasonable, laws which were reasonable, and others which have never been reasonable nor will they ever be reasonable imo.

. a god was invented or he probably already existed to explain things that people didnt understand such as natural phenomenoms or "why does rain fall from the sky" and then used or abused as final judge who kicks you for all your sins.

it was intended to be a religios manuscript in so far to get the people into churches or whatever they had back then so some priest could spread these laws. since nobody would go to a law broadcasting show they needed to use some preasure on the people (god who tortures you after life if you dont attend masses). i´ve never red anything in the koran but i guess it´s the same and most of the other religious books.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2002-10-01 07:31pm

VF5SS wrote:The laws in the bible aren't anything new. Just the same moral code people around the world have been using for thousands of years.

yes, written down + an authority (god) who sees to that you stick to this code.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2002-10-01 07:35pm

AdmiralKanos wrote:
VF5SS wrote:The laws in the bible aren't anything new. Just the same moral code people around the world have been using for thousands of years.
With a lot of hatred and intolerance thrown in for good measure.

yes but back then probably everything had a good amount of hatered more than now.
the problem with the bible is this absolute being which makes it impossible to change this moral code ( see american constitution in a weakend way).
and adapt it to the present problems and society

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-10-01 07:39pm

It is most certainly NOT the case that the Bible was written in a time where there was more hatred/intolerance than there is today. Back then, Blacks were NEVER discriminated against. They were seen as unusual and exotic in most of Europe, but they were NEVER seen as being inferior. Further, even the earliest Christians participated in genocide and SEVERE intolerance of other religions. This was most definitely not the norm in Middle Eastern societies, back then. The Bible was written in a time with LESS intolerance than today. Christians and their views are one of the primary causes of modern intolerance.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2002-10-01 07:46pm

Master of Ossus wrote:It is most certainly NOT the case that the Bible was written in a time where there was more hatred/intolerance than there is today. Back then, Blacks were NEVER discriminated against. They were seen as unusual and exotic in most of Europe, but they were NEVER seen as being inferior. Further, even the earliest Christians participated in genocide and SEVERE intolerance of other religions. This was most definitely not the norm in Middle Eastern societies, back then. The Bible was written in a time with LESS intolerance than today. Christians and their views are one of the primary causes of modern intolerance.

blacks where not discriminated against. well i dont know, but an interracial marriage would probably have been a problem. ( and i´m not talking about marriage between some prince and princes for political power regulation purpouses). how would you know that they were not seen as inferior by white people. i highly doubt that.

the christians participated in genocide. that´s not necessarily the bible´s fault. they didnt stick to the " thou shalt not kill" comandment.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-01 07:49pm

salm wrote:blacks where not discriminated against. well i dont know, but an interracial marriage would probably have been a problem. ( and i´m not talking about marriage between some prince and princes for political power regulation purpouses). how would you know that they were not seen as inferior by white people. i highly doubt that.

Caesar didn't seem to have a problem with Cleopatra (the real Cleopatra did not look like Elizabeth Taylor, just in case you've never seen pictures of real Egyptians), and that's pretty fucking high-profile if you ask me.

the christians participated in genocide. that´s not necessarily the bible´s fault. they didnt stick to the " thou shalt not kill" comandment.

You mean commandment #6, behind no less than five other commandments, many of which instruct them to uphold their religion above all other considerations? You mean one of the ten commandments that was given to Moses immediately before he came down from the Mountain, saw his people worshipping a golden calf, and had 3000 of them killed, with God's blessing?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2002-10-01 07:57pm

Caesar didn't seem to have a problem with Cleopatra (the real Cleopatra did not look like Elizabeth Taylor, just in case you've never seen pictures of real Egyptians), and that's pretty fucking high- profile if you ask me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Cleopatra wasn't exactly a real Egyptian, was she? I thought she was more of Greek descent.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-10-01 08:04pm

One of her grandmothers has never been identified and is presumed to have been black.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-10-01 08:29pm

The Fundies take it literally. Trust me I know. The Bible was made too be taken literally. All Christain Light does it says it "a series g good moralke stories" Oh, wait didn't God wipe out the population the final days? Didn't he kill innoncent children in Soddom that were unborn? How about the young killed in Noah's flood? The only way you can argue aganist my arguments is take the Bible literally, or admit it is wrong.

The OT was written by men without direct guidance from God. It is only natural that thy would interject their own predujices and hatreds into the story, and that some stories are inspired by God but did not actually happen; this is probably the majority of the OT; flood, etc.

It does not matter whether these things actually happened, and, frankly, I do not care. I believe that they reveal something about God, and that everyone is free to interpret that as they will.

Because the Samaritans chose to worship another deity, God promises to dash their infants to pieces and their "women with child shall be ripped up.

Hosa is OT, right? Overrided, of course, by happy peace-loving NT.

'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'.

Was the Israelite treatment of the Canaanites supposed to be a morally correct manner of doing things?

The Canaaite campaign, if it actually occured, was the action of fallible, nasty, land-hungry *men*.

But God told them to do it. Isn't God infallible?

If you refer to Leviticus, it was written by the equilavent of tribal elders.

'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. Straight from the mouth of God.

In essence, you are taking the stance that the Bible, like the later Koran, was intended more as a legal document rather than as a religious manuscript.

I realize the question wasn't addressed to me, but I believe that yes, Leviticus was. The NT is an entirely differant matter.

Christians and their views are one of the primary causes of modern intolerance.

Care to back it up? The Christian Byzantine Empire, was, if IIRC, very tolerant. Or I could be spewing bull here, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2002-10-01 08:39pm

Cyril wrote:
The Fundies take it literally. Trust me I know. The Bible was made too be taken literally. All Christain Light does it says it "a series g good moralke stories" Oh, wait didn't God wipe out the population the final days? Didn't he kill innoncent children in Soddom that were unborn? How about the young killed in Noah's flood? The only way you can argue aganist my arguments is take the Bible literally, or admit it is wrong.
The OT was written by men without direct guidance from God. It is only natural that thy would interject their own predujices and hatreds into the story, and that some stories are inspired by God but did not actually happen; this is probably the majority of the OT; flood, etc.

Ah, just as the New Testament was made by the most successful cult oin the world. Was the New Testament corrup too? Because John cast the nonbelivers of Christ into Hell, or let them experience the final days. Soddom & that other city did happen, as historians are 95% percent sure with the exception of finding a sign saying welcome too Sodom. All Sodom was an was earthquake and possible volcanic eruption which they added the story too convince the people that God didn't hate them. Jeses also hates I don't have scpriture for scripture, but I know alot. Mike knows of the scripture where God called the woman a Canannite Dog. So if you aren't Jewish Jesus must hate you.

Care to back it up? The Christian Byzantine Empire, was, if IIRC, very tolerant. Or I could be spewing bull here, so correct me if I'm wrong.

You aren't spewing bull, but the Western Church normally killed people for being "witches & heretics" because they were insane, retarded, crazy etc. Not too mention the Spainish Inquistion..

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-10-01 08:44pm

Cyril wrote:
The Fundies take it literally. Trust me I know. The Bible was made too be taken literally. All Christain Light does it says it "a series g good moralke stories" Oh, wait didn't God wipe out the population the final days? Didn't he kill innoncent children in Soddom that were unborn? How about the young killed in Noah's flood? The only way you can argue aganist my arguments is take the Bible literally, or admit it is wrong.
The OT was written by men without direct guidance from God. It is only natural that thy would interject their own predujices and hatreds into the story, and that some stories are inspired by God but did not actually happen; this is probably the majority of the OT; flood, etc.

I see. So Moses never met God. No, I do not think it is natural to write one's own prejudice into a story. Ever read "Catcher in the Rye?" Clearly authors can be different from their protagonists, and even narrators.

It does not matter whether these things actually happened, and, frankly, I do not care. I believe that they reveal something about God, and that everyone is free to interpret that as they will.

Okay, but your interpretation of the Bible and your belief is in direct contradiction with what the Bible says we're supposed to do (read: blind faith).

Because the Samaritans chose to worship another deity, God promises to dash their infants to pieces and their "women with child shall be ripped up.
Hosa is OT, right? Overrided, of course, by happy peace-loving NT.

'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'.

So God, by sinning and destroying the Samaritans, also gave up his ability to pass judgement on people? WTF?

Was the Israelite treatment of the Canaanites supposed to be a morally correct manner of doing things?
The Canaaite campaign, if it actually occured, was the action of fallible, nasty, land-hungry *men*.

And it was endorsed by God. What of the destructions of Saddam and Gamorah? Were they also the results of fallible, nasty, land-hungry *men*?

But God told them to do it. Isn't God infallible?
If you refer to Leviticus, it was written by the equilavent of tribal elders.

'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. Straight from the mouth of God.

Oh, so now we get to pick and choose what parts of the Bible we want to believe in? How is this possible?

In essence, you are taking the stance that the Bible, like the later Koran, was intended more as a legal document rather than as a religious manuscript.
I realize the question wasn't addressed to me, but I believe that yes, Leviticus was. The NT is an entirely differant matter.

So you believe that the New Testament was written by God directly, and not by a man? What of the translations of the Bible? What of the translations of the translations of the Bible? What of the additions to the Bible and the apocrypha? You cannot pick and choose parts of the Bible to believe in and disregard the rest while claiming to be a Christian. If I went around murdering people while claiming that because I never once violated the other nine commandments do you think people would think I was a Christian?

Christians and their views are one of the primary causes of modern intolerance.
Care to back it up? The Christian Byzantine Empire, was, if IIRC, very tolerant. Or I could be spewing bull here, so correct me if I'm wrong.

[/quote]

No, you are quite correct, however the Byzantine Empire was not the only early Christian group (and it was not even very early). If you believe them to be early, then I am sure you will also believe the Crusades to be early. And the Spanish Inquisition. And the removal of Jews and Muslims from Spain in 1492. And the persecution of them in France, Spain, England (to some extent, though few Muslims and Jews ever lived there), Italy, Portugal, and Eastern Europe (particularly Bulgaria and the Balkans) were all relatively early, and ALL of them resulted in persecution. Incidentally, these Christian groups can also be held responsible for the current Middle East crisis. Had they not driven the Jews back to Israel/Palestine, there would not today be nearly the tension that there is within the region. The fact that the Byzantine Empire was relatively tolerant (with only a small tax on non-Christian citizens) does not remove the ridiculous amount of persecution that many other Christian groups furthered within the world.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-10-01 08:54pm

Because John cast the nonbelivers of Christ into Hell, or let them experience the final days

Yeah, so? I can accept that.

Soddom & that other city did happen, as historians are 95% percent sure with the exception of finding a sign saying welcome too Sodom. All Sodom was an was earthquake and possible volcanic eruption which they added the story too convince the people that God didn't hate them

So if God did kill them, so wht? I can accept that because I accept that God is inherently superior to man and thus has better judgement.

You aren't spewing bull, but the Western Church normally killed people for being "witches & heretics" because they were insane, retarded, crazy etc. Not too mention the Spainish Inquistion..

And Nigeria executed a woman for being an adultress(something that is, by the way, explicitly spat upon in the NT). Doesn't mean that Islam is a violent cult.

I see. So Moses never met God. No, I do not think it is natural to write one's own prejudice into a story. Ever read "Catcher in the Rye?" Clearly authors can be different from their protagonists, and even narrators.

It was back then and it happens now.

Okay, but your interpretation of the Bible and your belief is in direct contradiction with what the Bible says we're supposed to do (read: blind faith).

Quotes. From the NT, preferably.

So God, by sinning and destroying the Samaritans, also gave up his ability to pass judgement on people? WTF?

OT is inferior and overruled by NT. As I said, it was written by men.

And it was endorsed by God. What of the destructions of Saddam and Gamorah? Were they also the results of fallible, nasty, land-hungry *men*?

See above.

Oh, so now we get to pick and choose what parts of the Bible we want to believe in? How is this possible?

Because I'm not the stereotypical Biblical perfectionist you so want me to be. Leviticus is a legal document, not the holy word.

So you believe that the New Testament was written by God directly, and not by a man? What of the translations of the Bible? What of the translations of the translations of the Bible? What of the additions to the Bible and the apocrypha? You cannot pick and choose parts of the Bible to believe in and disregard the rest while claiming to be a Christian. If I went around murdering people while claiming that because I never once violated the other nine commandments do you think people would think I was a Christian?

I believe that all of the Bible is subject to error, but because the NT was written by men very close to God and is the younger, it is less subject to erro and overrides the OT. I regard the apocrypha and the letters as morale insights, not holy canon.

No, you are quite correct, however the Byzantine Empire was not the only early Christian group (and it was not even very early). If you believe them to be early, then I am sure you will also believe the Crusades to be early. And the Spanish Inquisition. And the removal of Jews and Muslims from Spain in 1492. And the persecution of them in France, Spain, England (to some extent, though few Muslims and Jews ever lived there), Italy, Portugal, and Eastern Europe (particularly Bulgaria and the Balkans) were all relatively early, and ALL of them resulted in persecution. Incidentally, these Christian groups can also be held responsible for the current Middle East crisis. Had they not driven the Jews back to Israel/Palestine, there would not today be nearly the tension that there is within the region. The fact that the Byzantine Empire was relatively tolerant (with only a small tax on non-Christian citizens) does not remove the ridiculous amount of persecution that many other Christian groups furthered within the world.

Nor would the Middle East situation be like this if the Islamic armies had not conquered all of the Middle East. To say that an entire institution is X because X part of it was is patently absurd.