Religion: pros & cons (Religion)
I'm following with interest the discussion between David and Tony on their respective religious views. Unfortunately, it has taken over the thread on "An Inventive Mechanism", though they might find it a welcome diversion. Tony's latest post under "Evolution v Creationism" finishes up doing the same, so perhaps we could shift the whole topic to this thread.-Dhw (under "Evolution v Creationism"): An alternative would be that the ultimate purpose is to relieve God's boredom with an ongoing entertainment. That too constitutes perfect sense.-TONY: This only makes sense if you view God as the bully that pulls the wings off flies or puts ants under the magnifying glass.-Or sends down a meteor to kill off the dinosaurs and a few other lovingly made species.-TONY: Assuming that entertainment was part of the purpose (which I do not agree with, at least not as you state it here), why would god take such pains to make sure everything was so perfectly balanced, so harmonious, only to destroy it? If that were all he was interested in, why not simply make temporary planets and temporary creatures and then invent new ways to kill them off?-Even our own planet is temporary, and your God did make temporary creatures, and your insistence on his purpose suggests he did invent new ways to kill them off - though your expression was “they were allowed to die off” - thanks to his control of the environment (see my post under "Evolution v Creationism"). Why create such perfectly balanced harmony for the dinosaurs to rule the earth for 160 million years, and then kill them off, when with his almighty powers he could simply have prepared the environment for us humans and our needs? You will say he had a purpose. Others will say it shows a lack of purpose. I am not championing any particularly theory. I don't even know if God exists, and I certainly don't confine entertainment to horror stories. Maybe God, like humans, enjoys a mixed bag of love, heroism, adventure, comedy, tragedy etc. I am simply pointing out that all the theories can be made to fit the facts. The rest is a matter of faith. However, you go on to claim that generally - I appreciate this is not personal - recognition of God's purpose stops people from harming themselves and others with their self-centredness (a paraphrase), and you tell us to watch the news. I do, and am horrified at the sectarian violence that is tearing whole countries apart. Not God's fault, but it simply demonstrates that "an obligation to learn and understand that purpose, and then to fulfill our part in it" is not quite what you crack it up to be. Religion brings comfort, security, and sometimes admirable morality and charity into many people's lives. It also tears communities apart and leads to appalling cruelty. And what people claim to be the Word of God can be used to justify the best and the most evil acts humans are capable of. Humans can lead moral lives without God, because there is enormous satisfaction and happiness to be gained from doing as you would be done by. Love and empathy are not confined to the religious. And I'm sorry to say, self-centredness is not confined to the irreligious.
Religion: pros & cons
by David Turell 
, Sunday, September 14, 2014, 16:25 (3733 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Religion brings comfort, security, and sometimes admirable morality and charity into many people's lives. It also tears communities apart and leads to appalling cruelty. And what people claim to be the Word of God can be used to justify the best and the most evil acts humans are capable of. Humans can lead moral lives without God, because there is enormous satisfaction and happiness to be gained from doing as you would be done by. Love and empathy are not confined to the religious. And I'm sorry to say, self-centredness is not confined to the irreligious.-This paragraph is a wonderful summary of why it is best to think for ones' self and not let the dictates of those who appoint themselves as religious authorities, through their organized religions, tell you what to think and how to act. Cults are another example of the dangers lurking for unthinking followers.
Religion: pros & cons
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, September 14, 2014, 23:21 (3733 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw: (under "Evolution v Creationism"): An alternative would be that the ultimate purpose is to relieve God's boredom with an ongoing entertainment. That too constitutes perfect sense. > > TONY: This only makes sense if you view God as the bully that pulls the wings off flies or puts ants under the magnifying glass. > > Or sends down a meteor to kill off the dinosaurs and a few other lovingly made species...Even our own planet is temporary, and your God did make temporary creatures, and your insistence on his purpose suggests he did invent new ways to kill them off - though your expression was “they were allowed to die off” - thanks to his control of the environment (see my post under "Evolution v Creationism"). Why create such perfectly balanced harmony for the dinosaurs to rule the earth for 160 million years, and then kill them off, when with his almighty powers he could simply have prepared the environment for us humans and our needs? You will say he had a purpose. Others will say it shows a lack of purpose. I am not championing any particularly theory. -Ecclesiastes 3 There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens: 2a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot, 3a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build, 4a time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance, 5a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them, a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing, 6a time to search and a time to give up, a time to keep and a time to throw away, 7a time to tear and a time to mend, a time to be silent and a time to speak, 8a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.--In my other post from today, I made the analogy of a Master Chef making rich bread. When you make bread, you kill the yeast after allowing it to serve a purpose in your creation. Is that an act of cruelty, or the knowledgeable act that it is a necessity to achieve a desired purpose? The dinosaurs enjoyed 160 million years of global domination during which time they, along with other pre-historic creatures, served a purpose much like yeast. When that purpose was served, the next step was taken and their time ended. Was that an act of cruelty, or a necessity to achieve a desired purpose? -You insist, and have done repeatedly, that God should act like a Djinn, twiddling his nose and clapping is hands to make everything *poof* into existence just so. I do not know where you, or anyone else for that matter, got such a notion, but I can assure you that from a biblical standpoint that view of God is entirely unsupported. If one were to look back at the many, many miracles in the OT and the NT, you would see that almost all of them were comprised of utilizing existing natural forces to serve a purpose. An east wind blew day and night to part the read sea, for example, a feat proven feasible by MIT. Directing natural forces, dabbling as you like to say, is the way God operates. Yet you seem to expect him to act differently when it comes to creation. Why?--> > DHW: However, you go on to claim that generally - I appreciate this is not personal - recognition of God's purpose stops people from harming themselves and others with their self-centredness (a paraphrase), and you tell us to watch the news. I do, and am horrified at the sectarian violence that is tearing whole countries apart. Not God's fault, but it simply demonstrates that "an obligation to learn and understand that purpose, and then to fulfill our part in it" is not quite what you crack it up to be. Religion brings comfort, security, and sometimes admirable morality and charity into many people's lives. It also tears communities apart and leads to appalling cruelty. And what people claim to be the Word of God can be used to justify the best and the most evil acts humans are capable of. Humans can lead moral lives without God, because there is enormous satisfaction and happiness to be gained from doing as you would be done by. Love and empathy are not confined to the religious. And I'm sorry to say, self-centredness is not confined to the irreligious.- You might be surprised, but I don't necessarily disagree with this. Serving God the way he asked to be served DOES bring comfort, security, morality, and charity. And yes, self-serving individuals, regardless of their religious affiliation or belief in God DO cause sectarian violence, fear, pain, and death. And no, it is not God's fault. If you would, take a minute to read Job 2:1-4, 1 John 3:15, and Mathew 4:8-9 (It really doesn't matter which version of the bible you have). It is hard to discuss religion and beliefs without sharing literature, just as difficult as it is to share scientific views without reading the articles we share with each other. The latter two tell who is currently ruling the earth, Job explains why. Romans 2:14-15 supports your statement that "Humans can lead moral lives without God, because there is enormous satisfaction and happiness to be gained from doing as you would be done by. Love and empathy are not confined to the religious." Though, I might alter it to state "Humans can lead moral lives without religion.."
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Religion: pros & cons
TONY: You insist, and have done repeatedly, that God should act like a Djinn, twiddling his nose and clapping his hands to make everything *poof* into existence just so. I have never done so. See my answer on the thread “Evolution v Creationism”. I have also tried to cover purpose and the Master Chef on that thread. -DHW: [...]Humans can lead moral lives without God, because there is enormous satisfaction and happiness to be gained from doing as you would be done by. Love and empathy are not confined to the religious. And I'm sorry to say, self-centredness is not confined to the irreligious.-TONY: You might be surprised, but I don't necessarily disagree with this. Serving God the way he asked to be served DOES bring comfort, security, morality, and charity. And yes, self-serving individuals, regardless of their religious affiliation or belief in God DO cause sectarian violence, fear, pain, and death. And no, it is not God's fault. If you would, take a minute to read Job 2:1-4, 1 John 3:15, and Mathew 4:8-9 (It really doesn't matter which version of the bible you have). It is hard to discuss religion and beliefs without sharing literature, just as difficult as it is to share scientific views without reading the articles we share with each other. The latter two tell who is currently ruling the earth, Job explains why. Romans 2:14-15 supports your statement that "Humans can lead moral lives without God, because there is enormous satisfaction and happiness to be gained from doing as you would be done by. Love and empathy are not confined to the religious." Though, I might alter it to state "Humans can lead moral lives without religion.." -I didn't think there would be much for you to disagree with. What I have written is only an attempt to redress what I felt was an imbalance in your earlier statement, and despite all our disagreements over evolution, religion, God's existence, nature and motives etc., I feel very strongly that we share the same humanitarian values. One of the great pleasures I've derived from this website is the bond created between people genuinely searching for explanations - a bond that was epitomized by David's unforgettable trip to England. Even though we still fight like cat and dog! -Re the references to Job, John and Matthew, I didn't realize you believed in Satan. I just remember you not believing in hell. I see no reason at all to believe in Satan, let alone that he is currently ruling the earth. Humans are doing that, with the inevitable mixture of good and bad, love and hate, beauty and ugliness with which Nature or your God has endowed them. Incidentally, I seem to remember we also had a major disagreement over the story of Job, from which I feel your God comes out very badly! But as David always reminds us, even theists need to remember that the Bible was written by various fallible humans, and in most cases we can't tell fiction from fact.
Religion: pros & cons
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, September 16, 2014, 22:52 (3731 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: I didn't think there would be much for you to disagree with. What I have written is only an attempt to redress what I felt was an imbalance in your earlier statement, and despite all our disagreements over evolution, religion, God's existence, nature and motives etc., I feel very strongly that we share the same humanitarian values. One of the great pleasures I've derived from this website is the bond created between people genuinely searching for explanations - a bond that was epitomized by David's unforgettable trip to England. Even though we still fight like cat and dog! > -Absolutely, and that is the prime reason I hang around here! We can all disagree, sometimes quite spiritedly, but we all respect each other and I think of you as friends. I would not feel at all out of place having these same discussions over coffee/tea/beer or your particular poison of choice.- >DHW: Re the references to Job, John and Matthew, I didn't realize you believed in Satan. I just remember you not believing in hell. I see no reason at all to believe in Satan, let alone that he is currently ruling the earth. Humans are doing that, with the inevitable mixture of good and bad, love and hate, beauty and ugliness with which Nature or your God has endowed them. Incidentally, I seem to remember we also had a major disagreement over the story of Job, from which I feel your God comes out very badly! But as David always reminds us, even theists need to remember that the Bible was written by various fallible humans, and in most cases we can't tell fiction from fact.-Why should I believe in God, or Christ, or angels, but not the other spirit creatures mentioned? I don't pick and choose what to believe, I simply make sure that I can back up my interpretations of what is there both within the bible, and wherever possible, through science/history. That is what got religions so messed up to begin with. -You see no reason to believe in Satan, and considering that that you do not believe(nor dis-believe) in God, that is not surprising at all. However, if you do believe in God, the reality of Satan is abundantly clear. Just as is the reality of Anti-matter in the material world. While the bible was indeed penned by man, I do believe it to be inspired, which is in fact all that the bible itself claims. 2 Tim 3:13
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Religion: pros & cons
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 17, 2014, 06:08 (3730 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony While the bible was indeed penned by man, I do believe it to be inspired, which is in fact all that the bible itself claims. 2 Tim 3:13-Inspired, yes, but is it inerrant in your opinion?
Religion: pros & cons
TONY: Why should I believe in God, or Christ, or angels, but not the other spirit creatures mentioned? [...] You see no reason to believe in Satan, and considering that you do not believe (nor disbelieve) in God, that is not surprising at all. However, if you do believe in God, the reality of Satan is abundantly clear.-I'm afraid this is where we part company. My rejection of atheism rests mainly on the fact that I cannot swallow the atheist line of chance as the originator of complexities way beyond the grasp of our most gifted scientists. There are other factors, but they are connected with the equal mysteries of consciousness, love, music and other profound experiences which I find impossible to explain in material terms. My potential belief in God would certainly not include a belief in Satan, but that is because the Bible plays very little part in my thinking. In some ways, my approach to the Bible is very like yours to scientists who believe a theory you find dubious. Discounting the rogue scientists, as we should also discount the rogue priests, there are countless genuine seekers after truth who believe that the evidence is sufficient to accept evolution just as you accept separate creation, the personal love of God, and the existence of Satan. And just as you are not prepared to accept the word of scientists without definitive evidence, I am not prepared to accept the word of people I know nothing about but who claim to know things they can't possibly know. Many of the books are written as third person narratives, by an omniscient narrator. In the terrifying, heartrending, ultimately sanctimonious Book of Job, for instance, how the heck does the narrator know what God and Satan said to each other? These are texts by fallible humans, strung together by other fallible humans (with their own agendas) centuries later, containing stories unwitnessed (even the gospels were written decades after the events), and texts unreliably translated, edited, and open to all kinds of interpretations - e.g. to justify war, murder, slavery, apartheid, persecution, and dammit even to forbid me to marry the girl I loved. (But I married her all the same.) As for Satan himself, well, the reality of evil is abundantly clear, but I can't think of him as anything but a metaphor. TONY: While the bible was indeed penned by man, I do believe it to be inspired, which is in fact all that the bible itself claims. 2 Tim 3:13. -I must prove to you that I have the Bible close at hand! I presume you mean 2 Tim 3:16! “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” But it's not the Bible let alone God claiming this, it's a man called Paul. And when Paul goes on to say that it's “profitable...for instruction in righteousness”, does he realize that it's only profitable if people interpret it according to his own standards of righteousness? I reckon I'm better off working out my own standards than, for example, obeying some of the precepts in Deuteronomy! And if I'd lived in Spain about six hundred years ago, I'd have been burned at the stake while Torquemada quoted scripture at me. However, the Bible inspires good people like yourself to do good deeds, and it brings comfort and hope to those who have faith. In the light of my own ignorance I respect your beliefs and theirs, so long as they do no harm. I just don't have such faith. I hope none of these comments are offensive to you.
Religion: pros & cons
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, September 21, 2014, 13:44 (3726 days ago) @ dhw
Of course I am not offended. People have indeed used twisted interpretations of the Bible to do horrible things, just as twisted versions of science have been used for terrible ends, and just as twisted versions of governance have been used to terrible ends. One of the places where we differ, it would seem, is that you hold the bible(and by extension God) accountable for the actions of humans with free will. I on the other hand, have seen the way it plays out when people do not take only what they want from it, when they dig and seek for the truths that lie within it. -As an example, we all know of the recent conflicts between Russia and the Ukraine. I was fortunate enough to attend an international convention of Jehovah's Witnesses a few months back, and witnessed first hand Russians and Ukrainians working together in peace, love, and harmony. People from 17 different countries gathered together in one place for a week no fighting, no bigotry, no political rivalries, no hatred, and none of the other madness so prevalent in the world. -I'm not claiming any miracle here. I'm simply claiming that those who truly do live by the standards taught in the bible, instead of some twisted version thereof, are living demonstrations of the power that it has to change lives and bring peace, even among traditional enemies. "If only you had paid attention to my commands, your peace would have been like a river, your well-being like the waves of the sea." Let us put the blame where the blame truly lies, with people. -I could argue every point that you have made in your post, but it would be pointless. It would be pointless to demonstrate the historical accuracy and prophetic fulfillment that are verifiable, or to show how and where things got twisted by men for their own gain. It would be pointless because, as demonstrated in your last post, you take the pain caused by men and blame it on God. -As for your beloved wife, there is nothing in the Bible that would have prevented you from marrying your wife. Nothing at all. Not even the bit about marrying within the faith, as evidenced by 1 Cor 7:13. And further, the bible does not hold people who are not Christians to the same standard Romans 2:14 "when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law."(i.e. the bit about marrying in the faith). But, surely you must recognized the wisdom of telling people to marry someone that shares your beliefs so that "your peace (could be) like a river, your well-being like the waves of the sea." If you've never lived in a split faith household (even if atheism or agnosticism is your faith), then trust me when I say that it causes conflict. -I'm not offended my friend, but I am saddened that you have had things happen to you that have brought you to this point. Believe it or not, I have had similar experiences. However, I recognize the difference between what God does and what his fan club does.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Religion: pros & cons
TONY: One of the places where we differ, it would seem, is that you hold the bible(and by extension God) accountable for the actions of humans with free will. -This is a complete misunderstanding of my whole argument. My point was twofold: 1) The Bible is a collection of books written by and selected by fallible human beings. 2) It is wide open to interpretation, and consequently is of little value as a guide because humans can use it to justify whatever actions they wish to perform. This is not to say that it is not full of wise counsel, but “seek, and ye shall find” applies just as much to what you and I would regard as the baddies as it does to the goodies. I am therefore questioning the value of the Bible as a truthful record (e.g. how does the narrator of Job know what God said to Satan?) and as a book of moral guidance. Of course the blame for bad behaviour lies with people and not with God (if he exists). By the same token, I would argue that the credit for good behaviour also lies with people and not with God. As I wrote earlier, humans can lead moral lives without God - a statement with which you agreed.-The convention of Jehovah's Witnesses is an excellent example of how people ought to behave. I expect Shias of different nationalities would also hold peaceful conferences, and so would Sunnis. In the past, Catholics would have held hands with Catholics, and Protestants with Protestants before they went to war with each other. No, it's not God's fault that the world is full of “madness”, but let's not pretend that religion is the cure.-The rest of your post is based on the same misunderstanding, apart from one blip. You say there is nothing in the Bible that would have prevented me from marrying my wife - not even the bit about marrying within the faith, because 1 Cor. 7:13 and Romans 2:14 say it's OK. (I do admire your amazing ability to quote these relevant passages.) Sorry, but I can't find any passages in Deuteronomy that tell me to ignore Deuteronomy and read Corinthians and Romans instead. (Or are you saying that the OT is not the Word of God, whereas the NT is?) Besides, Cor. 2: 6: 14 makes it clear that my wife (who was a Methodist) should not have got herself “unequally yoked” to me (an “unbeliever” and so by definition unrighteous...thank you, Paul, for your tolerance). Again, my point is that you can find whatever you want in the Bible. Of course it's not God's fault. He didn't write it, and he doesn't interpret it for us.
Religion: pros & cons
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, October 16, 2014, 03:24 (3702 days ago) @ dhw
Sorry for the extended pause here. Life happened, as it so often does with me, and I was kept unavoidable busy. - >DHW:This is a complete misunderstanding of my whole argument. My point was twofold: 1) The Bible is a collection of books written by and selected by fallible human beings. 2) It is wide open to interpretation, and consequently is of little value as a guide because humans can use it to justify whatever actions they wish to perform. This is not to say that it is not full of wise counsel, but “seek, and ye shall find” applies just as much to what you and I would regard as the baddies as it does to the goodies. I am therefore questioning the value of the Bible as a truthful record (e.g. how does the narrator of Job know what God said to Satan?) and as a book of moral guidance. Of course the blame for bad behaviour lies with people and not with God (if he exists). By the same token, I would argue that the credit for good behaviour also lies with people and not with God. As I wrote earlier, humans can lead moral lives without God - a statement with which you agreed. > -1) I believe the bible to be the inspired word of God. Yes, it was penned by man, but done so under divine inspiration. The fallibility check is found in its internal consistency and prophecy. -2) It is actually not as open to interpretation as you might think, provided it is taken as a whole and not cherry picked.-3) Even the bible says that humans can live moral lives without knowing what they bible says. -->DHW: The rest of your post is based on the same misunderstanding, apart from one blip. You say there is nothing in the Bible that would have prevented me from marrying my wife - not even the bit about marrying within the faith, because 1 Cor. 7:13 and Romans 2:14 say it's OK. (I do admire your amazing ability to quote these relevant passages.) Sorry, but I can't find any passages in Deuteronomy that tell me to ignore Deuteronomy and read Corinthians and Romans instead. (Or are you saying that the OT is not the Word of God, whereas the NT is?) Besides, Cor. 2: 6: 14 makes it clear that my wife (who was a Methodist) should not have got herself “unequally yoked” to me (an “unbeliever” and so by definition unrighteous...thank you, Paul, for your tolerance). Again, my point is that you can find whatever you want in the Bible. Of course it's not God's fault. He didn't write it, and he doesn't interpret it for us.- Well don't worry, just because you can't find them doesn't mean I can't. Jeremiah prophesied about a 'New Covenant' that would replace the Mosaic Law Covenant along with the reason why that covenant was being replaced: (Jeremiah 31:31,32). The New Covenant makes the old obsolete.(Hebrews 8:13) Covenants had to be sealed in blood (Hebrews 9:15-17). The New Covenant was sealed with the blood of Christ(Colossians 2:14). As Christ took over as a new high priest in the "manner of Melchizedek", the law had to change. (Hebrews 7:12)Christ was the end of the Mosaic Law. (Romans 10:4)And that is why you are not under the Mosaic Law Covenant found in Deuteronomy. -Additionally, consider this: 1 Peter 3:1,2;
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Religion: pros & cons
TONY: Sorry for the extended pause here. Life happened, as it so often does with me, and I was kept unavoidable busy.-Relieved and delighted that you are back! Where were we? Ah yes, you thought I was holding the bible (and by extension God) “accountable for the actions of humans with free will.” This was a misunderstanding. My point was that the bible is a collection of books written by, chosen by, translated by and interpreted by a collection of fallible human beings and is therefore not to be trusted as a truthful record or as a reliable source of moral guidance, since it can be interpreted any way one chooses. (But we have agreed that people can live moral lives without religion.)-TONY: 1) I believe the bible to be the inspired word of God. Yes, it was penned by man, but done so under divine inspiration. The fallibility check is found in its internal consistency and prophecy. 2) It is actually not as open to interpretation as you might think, provided it is taken as a whole and not cherry picked.-Those people who throughout history have interpreted it to justify slaughter, slavery, apartheid, racism, bigotry etc. cherry picked, and if they had picked cherries from other parts of the bible they would have found that these offered different cherries. But you say the bible is not as open to interpretation as I might think. I believe Jehovah's Witnesses base their rejection of blood transfusions on cherry-picked passages of the bible, whereas Protestants and even Catholics don't seem to have a problem. Is this because they don't consider the whole of the bible? Many a luckless Catholic has been confronted with the story of poor old Onan, whom God killed because he spilled his seed on the ground - a sure sign that God is against contraception, though the Church of England tells us there's nothing in the bible against it. So is it the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury who has failed to consider the bible as a whole? Our exchange concerning my marriage made me smile with sheer pleasure at your erudition, and at the trouble you have taken to answer me. Thank you. But it is a wonderful illustration of the problem I have in seeing the Bible as a whole. Jeremiah prophesies that there will be a new covenant, thanks to which God will write his law into the hearts of the Jews. You tell me this means that I as a Jew will be allowed to marry a Christian. Does it? The rest of your references are from the NT, which wouldn't count for much with the rabbi who refused to intercede with my father because according to him, the bible forbade me to marry outside the faith. But of course he would not have accepted your claim that the NT invalidates the divinely inspired Mosaic Law. Even your NT references simply talk of a new covenant, though, and when Paul (the same guy who forbade my wife to get yoked to an unbeliever, and therefore by definition an unrighteous man) says: “For Christ is the end of the Law, so that everyone exercising faith may have righteousness”, does he really mean it's OK for a Christian to marry an agnostic Jew? How much of the Law did Christ end anyway? Surely not the Ten Commandments. And according to Matthew 5, 17, Jesus said: “Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill.” I'm cherry-picking, of course, but I'm sure you understand why I'm not convinced that God said it was OK for me to marry my wife and for her to marry me. I don't know if your post was truncated, but you referred me also to 1 Peter 3:1,2: “In like manner, you wives, be in subjection to your own husband, in order that, if any are not obedient to the word, they may be won without a word through the conduct of (their) wives, because of having been eyewitnesses of your chaste conduct together with deep respect.” I have difficulty understanding this, but it would appear to mean that wives must acknowledge the superiority of their husbands, and should keep quiet, so that if the husband misbehaves he will become a good man because he's seen that his wife has behaved herself. I'm not at all sure why you have cherry-picked this passage. I can't relate it to my marriage, but I can well imagine a husband teaching his wife that when he goes off the rails, the bible (God) tells her to shut up. Tony, my knowledge of the bible is on a par with my knowledge of a hundred other subjects, including all the sciences - namely, pathetically weak. I accept and admire your faith and your learning, but as with the many other blank areas of my education, I'll argue the toss over the conclusions the experts draw, because they see the same material and cannot agree among themselves what it means. It seems to me that the bible is as wide open to interpretation as virtually every other subject connected with the great mystery of life.
Religion: pros & cons
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, October 17, 2014, 03:22 (3701 days ago) @ dhw
(I had to cull for brevity... sorry)-To address these in order:-Rejection of Blood Transfusions:-NO cherry picking necessary. Blood is considered sacred (Lev 17:11; Gen 9:1,5,6) and humans were commanded not to ingest it (Deut 12:15-16). The only scripturally legit use of blood was for sacrificial atonement of sins, but that was done away with when the Mosaic Law Covenant was. (See previous post).Numerous scriptures link blood to life (Lev 17:11, Gen 4:10, 9:5-6; Num 35:33; (Ex 12:7, 22, 23; 1Co 5:7) The Law covenant, which had a typical sin-removing feature, was validated by the blood of animals. (Ex 24:5-8, Heb 10:1-4, 8-10) The prohibition against blood was reaffirmed in the NT at (Acts 15:19-20, 28-29) So, a simple question, if you would not eat something, would you mainline it into your bloodstream?-On Onan-A son of Judah, his second by the Canaanite daughter of Shua. (Ge 38:2-4; 1Ch 2:3) After Onan's childless older brother Er was put to death by Jehovah for wrongdoing, Onan was told by Judah to perform brother-in-law marriage with Er's widow Tamar. If a son was produced, he would not be the founder of Onan's family, and the firstborn's inheritance would belong to him as an heir to Er; whereas if no heir came, Onan would get the inheritance for himself. When Onan had relations with Tamar, he “wasted his semen on the earth” instead of giving it to her. This was not an act of masturbation on the part of Onan, for the account says “when he did have relations with his brother's wife” he spilled his semen. Apparently it was a case of “coitus interruptus,” in which Onan purposely prevented ejaculation of his semen into Tamar's genital tract. For his disobedience to his father, his covetousness, and his sin against the divine arrangement of marriage, not for self-abuse, Onan, himself also childless, was put to death by Jehovah.—Ge 38:6-10; 46:12; Nu 26:19.- > > Jeremiah prophesies that there will be a new covenant, thanks to which God will write his law into the hearts of the Jews. You tell me this means that I as a Jew will be allowed to marry a Christian. Does it? The rest of your references are from the NT, which wouldn't count for much with the rabbi who refused to intercede with my father because according to him, the bible forbade me to marry outside the faith. But of course he would not have accepted your claim that the NT invalidates the divinely inspired Mosaic Law. Even your NT references simply talk of a new covenant, though, and when Paul (the same guy who forbade my wife to get yoked to an unbeliever, and therefore by definition an unrighteous man) says: “For Christ is the end of the Law, so that everyone exercising faith may have righteousness”, does he really mean it's OK for a Christian to marry an agnostic Jew? > -First, your Rabbi obviously was not overly familiar with the OT, which in fact made provisions for marrying outside of the faith. (De 21:10-14) Granted, this referred to marrying captives, but it does in fact prove that there were provisions for it. The prohibitions were specifically against those from the land of Canaan who were involved with Baal worship and human sacrifices.(Ex 34:14-16; De 7:1-4) This would not have applied to relationships between Jews and Christians because they both (supposedly) serve Jehovah (The difference being the acceptance of Christ). I am not exactly certain how you could be both agnostic and Jewish though... That is like saying you were black white man. - Further, the new covenant was not limited to the Jews at all. In fact, the Jewish Nation (as a group, not individuals) broke their covenant with Jehovah. The new covenant applies to people of all nations, including Jews, that follow God's laws. (Lev. 24:22; Num. 15:15; 1Ti 2:5, 6; 1Jo 2:2; Gal. 3:8, 9;) The 'Israel' being referred to in Jeremiah's prophecy is a nation unified in spirit and purpose, not bound by blood. (1 PETER 2:10;Ho 2:23; Ro 9:22-25; Mt 21:43; Isa 10:21, 22; Ro 9:27.) Yes, Christ fulfilled the law and we are no longer bound by its provisions. When something is fulfilled, it is completed. - > ..1 Peter 3:1,2: I have difficulty understanding this,..-“In like manner, you wives, be in subjection to your own husband, in order that, if any(husbands) are not obedient to the word(Christ), they may be won(won over to Christ) without a word through the conduct of (their) wives, because of having been eyewitnesses of your chaste conduct together with deep respect.”-In a sense, it is telling wives that badgering an unbelieving mate will not win them over, but rather, living bible principles and demonstrating why they are a superior way of life will win their mate over without them having to say a word. Also Read This: 1 Corinthians 7:12-16.-> > DHW: I'll argue the toss over the conclusions the experts draw, because they see the same material and cannot agree among themselves what it means. It seems to me that the bible is as wide open to interpretation as virtually every other subject connected with the great mystery of life.- The bible is only wide open to interpretation when people ignore what it says either through ignorance, malice, or in the pursuit of self-interest.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Religion: pros & cons
TONY: The bible is only wide open to interpretation when people ignore what it says either through ignorance, malice, or in the pursuit of self-interest.-This is an extraordinary statement. Are you saying that in the argument over blood transfusions, every member of every other branch of Christianity (and Judaism) is guilty of ignorance, malice or self-interest? There are even Jehovah's Witnesses who question the validity of your interpretation, and suggest that saving life would be more in line with Christ's thinking than sticking rigidly to a dubious interpretation of the bible. Besides, I thought you said the NT invalidated the old laws. Acts 15:19-20 merely says people should abstain from idols, fornication, things that have been strangled, and blood. Hardly a commandment to sacrifice a life rather than submit to an advance in medical science that was unknown at the time. About 20 years ago, my wife nearly died through horrendous post-operative negligence, and was hovering between life and death for three days. She was saved by massive blood transfusions. You ask: “So, a simple question, if you would not eat something, would you mainline it into your bloodstream?” Yes of course I would, if it meant saving my life, my wife's, or anyone else's. So too would the Chief Rabbi, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope.-But I'm using this only as an illustration of the two points I raised earlier: 1) the bible is wide open to interpretation. I challenge your assumption that anyone who interprets it differently from you does so out of ignorance, malice or self-interest. 2) The bible is an unreliable moral guide. Once again, this is because its texts allow for multiple interpretations. With respect to you (and I really don't want this to develop into a personal confrontation - we are arguing about the authority of the bible and not our personal standards of morality), I simply cannot accept the moral priorities of anyone who is prepared to sacrifice the life, say, of a child because they are afraid to disobey what they think to be God's commandment - though millions of other sincere believers challenge their interpretation.-Re Onan, I was aware that it was a case of coitus interruptus and not masturbation. My point was that it is an example of believers interpreting the bible in what I regard as a destructive manner. You may blame the Catholics for their ignorance, malice or self-interest, but I doubt if their scholars would agree with you. That doesn't mean you're wrong. I'm not going to argue about the meaning of these ancient, man-made texts. But I will argue if you tell me that only one interpretation - namely yours - can possibly be right. The same applies to inter-faith marriages. I don't have your knowledge, so I googled the subject and found this:-What Bible says about inter-faith marriages-http://www.religioustolerance.org/ifm_bibl.htm-You will disagree when the authors say the texts (some of which you have also referred to) condemn inter-faith marriages. You may be right. You may be wrong. It's a matter of interpretation.-You raise two interesting points: that the Jews and Christians worship the same God. Yes, but they have different views of what God wants, and since they base their views of his will on the bible, it follows that the bible is open to different interpretations. Secondly, you don't know how a Jew can be agnostic. Jews are unique in that the term is not confined to religion. Nobody really knows how to define its non-religious component: race, nation, culture, family, ethnicity - none of them quite fit. But I have no doubt that if I'd been born in Nazi Germany, my protestations of agnosticism would not have saved me. “Once a Jew, always a Jew.”
Religion: pros & cons
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, October 17, 2014, 21:55 (3700 days ago) @ dhw
edited by Balance_Maintained, Friday, October 17, 2014, 22:02
DHW: Acts 15:19-20 merely says people should abstain from idols, fornication, things that have been strangled, and blood. - Yes, exactly. Abstain from blood. Abstain from things strangled. If the prohibition were merely against EATING blood, why the double statement to abstain from blood AND things strangled? The Jews recognized the latter, but why not the former? As for your statement regarding the Witnesses, as always, I make a distinction between the teachings of the organization and the personal thoughts and choices of individual people. Their official stance can be found here: http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000774 Even they recognize that certain subtopics are going to matters of conscience, but whole blood is clearly against bible principles. - >Hardly a commandment to sacrifice a life rather than submit to an advance in medical science that was unknown at the time. About 20 years ago, my wife nearly died through horrendous post-operative negligence, and was hovering between life and death for three days. She was saved by massive blood transfusions. You ask: “So, a simple question, if you would not eat something, would you mainline it into your bloodstream?” Yes of course I would, if it meant saving my life, my wife's, or anyone else's. So too would the Chief Rabbi, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope. > -(Mat 16:25; Luke 9:24, 17:33; Mark 8:35) You know, you are correct in that that is what most people would do. Most people would do anything to save their life, even disobey God's laws. And that is exactly why those 4 scriptures above were written. The challenge made to Jehovah by Satan in Job 2:4 was explicitly this: "“Skin for skin. A man will give everything that he has for his life." Gods request of us was to "Be wise, my son, and make my heart rejoice, So that I can make a reply to him who taunts me." (Prov 27:11) If you break his law to save your skin, you are doing exactly what Satan said you would, if however, you remain faithful, you "make a reply to him who taunts" God. I don't expect you to agree, but it is all there for you to see, in clear black and white. - > But I'm using this only as an illustration of the two points I raised earlier: 1) the bible is wide open to interpretation. I challenge your assumption that anyone who interprets it differently from you does so out of ignorance, malice or self-interest. 2) The bible is an unreliable moral guide.-Yet, at each interpretation I have shown you multiple scriptures that clarify the bibles position. You interpret it your way because it means you can justify saving a life, and do so by only taking those that support a personal view(Prov. 3:5). I understand it, but I disagree. I don't have a death wish, but I am not afraid of it either. I love life, and my family but I put my faith in God. But your dilemma is what was referred to in Mat 10:37. It is also the same challenge that Abraham faced with Isaac. -You may questions my morals because of that, but consider this. If I do not believe in hell, and I do believe in a resurrection, and I believe that Jehovah will keep his promises, then why should I be afraid of death.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Religion: pros & cons
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, October 18, 2014, 00:52 (3700 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
On the topic of blood, I wanted to clarify something that I realized (belatedly) might have come across wrong. I was not implying that you should have just simply let your wife die. That is the furthest thing from my intention. Faith sometimes means simply trusting that someone else knows better than we do, and that is the case with blood. Please see the following articles to illustrate my point.-http://articles.philly.com/2011-01-11/news/27021883_1_blood-cells-cell-transplant-blood... http://www.nataonline.com/np/71/brief-history-bloodless-medicine-and-surgery http://www.surgeryencyclopedia.com/A-Ce/Bloodless-Surgery.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/25/us/bloodless-lung-transplants-for-jehovahs-witnesses.... http://adc.bmj.com/content/89/11/1076.1.full.pdf http://www.savebloodsavelives.org/physicians/about-bloodless-surgery-benefits.html-I don't want to give up my life, or that of my family. Rather, I trust that the one that made us knows damn well how we are put together and has told use the best way to live. Turns out, he was right and we are stupid. Go figure.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Religion: pros & cons
dhw You ask: “So, a simple question, if you would not eat something, would you mainline it into your bloodstream?” Yes of course I would, if it meant saving my life, my wife's, or anyone else's. So too would the Chief Rabbi, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope.-TONY: (Mat 16:25; Luke 9:24, 17:33; Mark 8:35) You know, you are correct in that that is what most people would do. Most people would do anything to save their life, even disobey God's laws. And that is exactly why those 4 scriptures above were written. The challenge made to Jehovah by Satan in Job 2:4 was explicitly this: "“Skin for skin. A man will give everything that he has for his life." Gods request of us was to "Be wise, my son, and make my heart rejoice, So that I can make a reply to him who taunts me." (Prov 27:11) If you break his law to save your skin, you are doing exactly what Satan said you would, if however, you remain faithful, you "make a reply to him who taunts" God. I don't expect you to agree, but it is all there for you to see, in clear black and white. -The clear black and white concerns some sort of loss of soul (needs to be clarified, since you don't believe in hell) if we disobey God. But that does not mean your interpretation of God's will is correct. Do you really believe the Chief Rabbi, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope are disobeying God's laws, blinding themselves and their followers, taunting God and risking whatever loss of soul means, to save their own skin? Is it not possible that they too have read the same texts as you and found a different meaning that is just as valid as yours? Are you not in danger of “losing” your own soul in trying to save it by your willingness, at least in theory, to sacrifice the lives of others? I can't argue the point with you in theological and biblical terms, and so I have googled to find someone who can. Please read this article. It's a long and detailed refutation of your arguments, and I don't think you will accuse the author of ignorance, malice or self-interest. •	Blood Transfusions - Jehovah.net.au-http://www.jehovah.net.au/incorrect-doctrine/blood-transfusions-Why the Jehovah's Witness stance against blood transfusions is unbiblical and ... or fractional, one's own or someone else's, transfused or injected, it is wrong. -TONY: You may question my morals because of that, but consider this. If I do not believe in hell, and I do believe in a resurrection, and I believe that Jehovah will keep his promises, then why should I be afraid of death.-I do not question your morals, and I admire and appreciate the strength of your faith, your erudition, and your willingness to discuss these matters with sceptics like myself. But I am appalled by your apparent readiness to sacrifice the lives even of children on the strength of your interpretation of ancient texts which so many scholarly believers have interpreted differently. If I were a believer myself, I would assume that God would want us to enjoy, enrich and save life. Of course death must come, but just as he forbids murder, I would expect him to forbid the deliberate shortening of life when the means to prolong it are available.
Religion: pros & cons
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, October 18, 2014, 21:26 (3699 days ago) @ dhw
The clear black and white concerns some sort of loss of soul (needs to be clarified, since you don't believe in hell) if we disobey God.-Soul = Life, Living Being- >DHW: But that does not mean your interpretation of God's will is correct. Do you really believe the Chief Rabbi, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope are disobeying God's laws, blinding themselves and their followers, taunting God and risking whatever loss of soul means, to save their own skin? -I did list ignorance among the possible reasons. But, to give you a different perspective, look at the Olsteen's.:->"I just want to encourage everyone of us to realize when we obey God we're not doing it for God. I mean, that's one way to look at it. Were doing it ourselves. Because God takes pleasure when we're happy. That's the thing that gives him the greatest joy this morning. I want you to know this morning just do good for your own self. Do good cuz God wants you to be happy.. When you come to church when you worship him you're not doing it for God really. You're doing it for yourself because that's what makes God happy." ~ Victoria Olsteen-->DHW: Is it not possible that they too have read the same texts as you and found a different meaning that is just as valid as yours? Are you not in danger of “losing” your own soul in trying to save it by your willingness, at least in theory, to sacrifice the lives of others? -No, because I am not trying to sacrifice anyone else's life. I am not causing their death, nor am I telling them to risk their life needlessly or to take it for granted. I would expect any human to preserve their own life at almost any cost, except that of breaking God's law. It is a difference of values. The grand creator can give back anything lost in service to him, and in fact promises to do so. Mankind can not give you back anything. So, who do I trust more? Who do I encourage people to trust more? God, or man?--> > http://www.jehovah.net.au/incorrect-doctrine/blood-transfusions- Yeah, I've read this type of stuff before. To counters some of his points, the Witnesses never claimed to have had it right all along. They have in the past, and continue to do so, make corrections when they find that they were in error on some scriptural teaching(How many other religions admit when they were wrong?). They also used to celebrate Christmas, condone smoking, believed in the trinity, hell-fire, and a number of other things that they have long since abandoned as unscriptural. They do not hide their mistakes, nor are they ashamed of them. They humbly take their corrections and move on. Also, some of the points in your article are factually wrong on what the witnesses allow. Even the link I sent you said that ultimately, the partial components are a matter of personal conscience.Also note that your source is trying to use an article from 1989 to counter a stance given in 2000.-As for the biblical portion, lets test the validity of your source:->Source: Consuming blood was not forbidden until the Mosaic Law. Noah was not forbidden from consuming blood.. Genesis 9:4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.(ESV) -Does that seem like a legit argument to you?-Ultimately, this is what your man had on his mind: "when lives was at stake God allowed his laws to be broken if it would result in the preservation of life." This is a direct contradiction of scriptural principles that I have already sent to you in previous posts.-God does not break his own laws. He may be allowed to do things that we aren't, such as judge a man and condemn him to death, but that is his right as God. Neither does God give us special dispensation to break his laws whenever we deem it necessary. That is the same kind of reasoning that allowed for the Crusades, the Inquisition, and other church atrocities. -- > TONY: You may question my morals because of that, but consider this. If I do not believe in hell, and I do believe in a resurrection, and I believe that Jehovah will keep his promises, then why should I be afraid of death. > > I do not question your morals, and I admire and appreciate the strength of your faith, your erudition, and your willingness to discuss these matters with sceptics like myself. But I am appalled by your apparent readiness to sacrifice the lives even of children on the strength of your interpretation of ancient texts which so many scholarly believers have interpreted differently. If I were a believer myself, I would assume that God would want us to enjoy, enrich and save life. Of course death must come, but just as he forbids murder, I would expect him to forbid the deliberate shortening of life when the means to prolong it are available.-We do not deliberately shorten life. We do not murder. We even avoid unsafe acts which may lead to early death or injury of ourselves and others. We do everything we can to ensure a long life and happiness because we too believe that God wants us to enjoy, enrich, save, and preserve life. However, there is a line beyond which we simply do not cross. Would you kill to save a life? Would you steal to save a life? Would it matter to you if the amount stolen was $5 or $1,000,000,000. This in essence is your argument: This law is not as important as a life, so we can break it if there is a life involved.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Religion: pros & cons
TONY: We do not deliberately shorten life. We do not murder. We even avoid unsafe acts which may lead to early death or injury of ourselves and others. We do everything we can to ensure a long life and happiness because we too believe that God wants us to enjoy, enrich, save, and preserve life. However, there is a line beyond which we simply do not cross. Would you kill to save a life? Would you steal to save a life? Would it matter to you if the amount stolen was $5 or $1,000,000,000. This in essence is your argument: This law is not as important as a life, so we can break it if there is a life involved.-This sums up the great gap in our thinking. In all your posts you have emphasized the need to obey God's laws, but you never acknowledge the possibility that your interpretation of the texts purporting to lay down these laws might be faulty. You do acknowledge that mistakes have been made in the past, and in a different context such as evolution, you would seize on such confessions as reasons for doubting the present consensus. But in this case, you are prepared to dismiss the combined scholarship of Jews and virtually every other branch of Christianity as “ignorance”. The questions you have asked me pose clear moral dilemmas: we know the meaning of “killing” and “stealing”, both of which harm other people. But the dilemma in this context is far from clear. Whatever the original words may have meant (translation is a subjective exercise), we know that the people who wrote these texts did not have blood transfusions in mind, since the procedure did not exist. Would you then allow a child to die because a tiny minority of biblical scholars believe eating and ingesting are synonymous with transfusing? Of course you have the right to let yourself die, and that is why I am using the example of a child. You say you believe God wants us to enjoy and preserve life. You have also said that some of the most vicious laws in the OT were cancelled by the “new covenant”. The article I referred to quoted Luke 6, 7-10, in which Jesus cured a man's withered hand on the Sabbath, and the author comments that “Jesus invoked the Rabbinic principle...that the obligation to save life supersedes Jewish law.” In the scenario we are discussing here, it is not even clear that a law is being broken. And we also know that barring the unforeseen - a proviso that applies to all medications and operations - this manner of taking blood is harmless to the donor as well as life-saving to the recipient. Do you really believe, then, that the Jesus who cured on the Sabbath would have refused to allow the child to have a transfusion?-The blood example has taken over our discussion, as I'm sure it often does when you discuss these matters with outsiders. But the discussion in itself serves only to illustrate my point: that the bible is wide open to interpretation. One can hardly say it's not, when your own interpretation is so fiercely contested by your fellow biblical scholars. The “I am right and they are wrong” approach certainly does not mean that the text itself is clear.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, October 20, 2014, 21:28 (3697 days ago) @ dhw
I split these up because the post was getting to long. ->DHW: This sums up the great gap in our thinking. In all your posts you have emphasized the need to obey God's laws, but you never acknowledge the possibility that your interpretation of the texts purporting to lay down these laws might be faulty. You do acknowledge that mistakes have been made in the past, and in a different context such as evolution, you would seize on such confessions as reasons for doubting the present consensus. But in this case, you are prepared to dismiss the combined scholarship of Jews and virtually every other branch of Christianity as “ignorance”. > -As for the Jews, they willfully acknowledge that they refuse to accept the NT. To me, this is like refusing to accept the existence of atoms. The predictions were there. The evidence was presented that agreed with the predictions, but they ignored the results because they were inconvenient. Yes, I do see that as ignorance, of a sort. Virtually every other branch of Christianity fully acknowledges the prohibition against blood, they just choose to say that one form of ingesting is forbidden while the other is not. Yes, I view that as a form of ignorance as well. Note, however, the difference between my view and the way that you present it (in the worst light possible).-To use your evolution example (in analog with the Jews), if the predictions were made, and the evidence were presented, I would accept it. But the predictions were made and continuously have failed to produce the expected result, therefore I reject it. (In Analog with other Christian scholars) If I chose to ignore what evidence evolution DOES actually offer, namely that things do change, at least on a small scale, then I would be ignorant, and willfully so. Self-deluding might be a more appropriate term.- As for mistakes being made, I have never denied that, nor would I. (1 John 1:8) Yes, mistakes were made. I will go one step further and tell you point blank that the truth was concealed directly by Jehovah. Don't believe that? (Isa 6:9, 10; Mark 4:11; 1 Cor. 2:1, 7.)) This brings up a third kind of ignorance which is not the fault of anyone. The truth was actively concealed. - Further, you have completely sidestepped all of the medical data that fully supports the biblical view that abstaining from blood is healthier for the patient, poses fewer complications, and leads to faster recovery times. (Isa 48:18) "If only you had paid attention to my commands, your peace would have been like a river, your well-being like the waves of the sea." So for me, the fact that these patients who abstain from blood have greater well-being than those that do not is simply verification of the truth that Jehovah knows better than we do what is good for us. Had they heeded that prohibition instead of relying on their own understanding, bloodless treatments would be far more advanced than they currently are, and we would not even be having this conversation.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
by David Turell , Monday, October 20, 2014, 23:06 (3697 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: So for me, the fact that these patients who abstain from blood have greater well-being than those that do not is simply verification of the truth that Jehovah knows better than we do what is good for us. Had they heeded that prohibition instead of relying on their own understanding, bloodless treatments would be far more advanced than they currently are, and we would not even be having this conversation.-As you point out with Factor 8, HIV can be lurking. I remember the issue when I was in practice.-Doctors have recognized the value of not using blood. A bloodless bypass machine was developed years ago for open-heart surgery with excellent results. Also, as mentioned, giving blood in advance for oneself has been standard for year. On the other hand safe factor 8 is extremely helpful, and the drug that helped save the two volunteers who came home recently, used antibody factors from blood and from genetic playing with the tobacco plant.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 21, 2014, 01:33 (3697 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> > Tony: As for the Jews, they willfully acknowledge that they refuse to accept the NT. To me, this is like refusing to accept the existence of atoms. The predictions were there. The evidence was presented that agreed with the predictions, but they ignored the results because they were inconvenient. Yes, I do see that as ignorance, of a sort.-With my Jewish background, I find your comment as somewhat contentious in tone. Perhaps you don't mean it that way. I view the OT as perfctly adequate to teach the lessons of life, when modified by the interpretations of the Mishna and later the Talmud, the Midrash, the Kaballah and other commentaries by Rashi, Maimonides and Nahmanides (Ramban). These soften the somewhat fierce view of God in the OT that comes about from simply reading words, rather than looking for deeper meanings. My belief in the Godhead is unitarian. The NT presents in simple reading seemingly presents a more loving God. That represents to me the maturing of a more civilized human population. But for Jew and Christian He is the same God. Naturally, as a Christian, you take the point of view you have stated and perhaps wonder why we Jews don't need the NT. I have read portions of the Gospels. I consider Jesus a great teacher who followed in the footsteps of Hillel. -I find your knowledge of both testaments as truly amazing. I hope you will continue to teach us from your viewpoint.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, October 21, 2014, 02:20 (3697 days ago) @ David Turell
David: With my Jewish background, I find your comment as somewhat contentious in tone. Perhaps you don't mean it that way. I view the OT as perfctly adequate to teach the lessons of life, when modified by the interpretations of the Mishna and later the Talmud, the Midrash, the Kaballah and other commentaries by Rashi, Maimonides and Nahmanides (Ramban). These soften the somewhat fierce view of God in the OT that comes about from simply reading words, rather than looking for deeper meanings. My belief in the Godhead is unitarian. The NT presents in simple reading seemingly presents a more loving God. That represents to me the maturing of a more civilized human population. But for Jew and Christian He is the same God. Naturally, as a Christian, you take the point of view you have stated and perhaps wonder why we Jews don't need the NT. I have read portions of the Gospels. I consider Jesus a great teacher who followed in the footsteps of Hillel. > > I find your knowledge of both testaments as truly amazing. I hope you will continue to teach us from your viewpoint.-I didn't mean them as contentious or offensive any more than any of us mean any of our differing view points on anything to be offensive. To me, it is a matter of record. Part of it stems from a look at prophecy. The prophets of the OT, which you accept, prophesied a great many things that were fulfilled in Christ, which you reject as the Son of God. Not AS God, as his Son, which is all he ever claimed to be. How can the Jews accept their prophets and prophecies but not their fulfillment?-Some people, I find, also take offence at the term 'ignorant', seemingly confusing it with 'stupid', 'foolish' or some other derogatory remark. I simply mean it in the purist sense of 'not knowing'. In some cases, they willingly remain 'not knowing' because 'knowing' infers a kind of accountability on people that is uncomfortable. Ironically, this too is a well established by principle. Romans 3:20 "... through the law we become conscious of our sin."-The OT, even in its original form is a book dominated by love. DHW looks at the laws espoused in it and sees them as vicious. As you rightly pointed out, this comes from "simply reading words, rather than looking for deeper meanings". In many cases this type of view doesn't even come from reading the words because a great many of the words are completely and utterly ignored.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
I have argued that the bible is open to different interpretations, and is therefore an unreliable moral guide, and we have focused on the example of the Jehovah's Witnesses' rejection of blood transfusions. As our posts are getting very long, I hope you won't mind my “cherry picking” the points that are relevant to this subject. -TONY: Virtually every other branch of Christianity fully acknowledges the prohibition against blood, they just choose to say that one form of ingesting is forbidden while the other is not. Yes, I view that as a form of ignorance as well. You choose to say that transfusions - unknown in those times - were included in the ban, whereas presumably the rest of the Christian Church points to the word “eat”, and takes that as an indication that the ban was on blood ingested as food. They could just as easily describe your views as a form of ignorance. The bible is open to different interpretations. TONY: As for mistakes being made, I have never denied that, nor would I.-It was indeed you who drew attention to mistakes made in the past by Jehovah's Witnesses. That was why I suggested that there must be reason for doubting their present consensus on a highly debatable point of interpretation.-TONY: Further, you have completely sidestepped all of the medical data that fully supports the biblical view that abstaining from blood is healthier for the patient, poses fewer complications, and leads to faster recovery times.-I have no problem with efficient substitutes being used, but the dilemma arises/arose when no efficient substitute is/was available. I shudder to think of the JWs that may have died in the last 50 years or so, since the process became as safe as any medical procedures, drugs and operations can be. The issue between us is not whether there are better alternatives, but whether the text has to be interpreted your way. Dhw: Do you really believe, then, that the Jesus who cured on the Sabbath would have refused to allow the child to have a transfusion?-TONY: To answer the first question last, Christ would have not needed to allow a transfusion, as he demonstrated many times in front of numerous witnesses. Your so-called provisio also completely ignores all of the other scriptural evidence presented. I am not sure if you are actually reading the scriptures I post, but I have shown you several that explicitly say that saving your life is not grounds for breaking God's law.-I do indeed read them, but I sometimes wonder if you read my replies. The dispute is not over whether one should break the law, but over whether your interpretation of the law - in stark contrast to the rest of the Christian world - is correct, which leads to the obvious conclusion that the bible is open to different interpretations, and hence is not a reliable guide. You actually answered my last question first (ah, the last shall be first!) but didn't answer my first question, which was: “Would you allow a child to die because a tiny minority of biblical scholars believe eating and ingesting are synonymous with transfusing?”-TONY: The two prime components of the Old Law Covenant are stated at Mathew 22:34-40, "‘You must love Jehovah* your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul* and with your whole mind.'+ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.'" You look at the Law and see it as cruel and vicious.-You know that these were not the laws I was referring to as vicious. When you told us that the new covenant invalidated the old laws, I even pointed out that it wouldn't have excluded the Ten Commandments. My reference was to laws in Deuteronomy such as those that forbid inter-faith marriages, and demand the stoning to death of anyone in the captured cities who worships other gods, or of any rebellious son who drinks and eats too much. Dhw: The “I am right and they are wrong” approach certainly does not mean that the text itself is clear. TONY: Not at all. The bible is right, God is right. Everyone, including myself, could certainly be very wrong in deed. Fortunately, there is a provision for our ignorance. Prov 16:2 Tells us that God judges the motives of a man, not just the actions. Indeed, all of our ways 'seem pure to us', that is, we'd like to think we are doing the right thing, even when that thing causes unknown harm. [...] As for me and mine, we will be obedient to the best of our abilities.-The sceptic in me can't help thinking of all those throughout history, right up to the present, who have slaughtered the “infidels”, believing they are “doing the right thing”. However, your acknowledgement that you could be wrong is a gracious and for me a very important one, and I have nothing but admiration for the steadfastness of your faith, which I have no doubt would lead you only to doing unto others what you would have them do unto you. I'm also grateful to you for debating this subject with me, as I'm aware that at times it must be very frustrating!
Religion: pros & cons pt1
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, October 21, 2014, 22:00 (3696 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: You choose to say that transfusions - unknown in those times - were included in the ban, whereas presumably the rest of the Christian Church points to the word “eat”, and takes that as an indication that the ban was on blood ingested as food. They could just as easily describe your views as a form of ignorance. The bible is open to different interpretations. > -Actually, no. I choose to say that a prohibition against ingesting blood means not to ingest blood. You are choosing to say that ingesting blood intravenously is different than ingesting it through your mouth. I gave a specific example where the word 'eat' was not even used, and in fact it was said, "abstain from blood" AND not to eat meat with the blood. Abstain from blood is pretty cut and dry. I am not the one making arbitrary distinctions.- >DHW: I have no problem with efficient substitutes being used, but the dilemma arises/arose when no efficient substitute is/was available. I shudder to think of the JWs that may have died in the last 50 years or so, since the process became as safe as any medical procedures, drugs and operations can be. The issue between us is not whether there are better alternatives, but whether the text has to be interpreted your way. > -The process has never been 'safe', and never will be. Even David has admitted as much. There is no interpretation. "Abstain from blood". Does, "Though shall not kill" get reinterpretted as "Thou shall not kill except to save your life" or "Thou shall not kill unless it is convenient"?- ->DHW: I do indeed read them, but I sometimes wonder if you read my replies. The dispute is not over whether one should break the law, but over whether your interpretation of the law - in stark contrast to the rest of the Christian world - is correct, which leads to the obvious conclusion that the bible is open to different interpretations, and hence is not a reliable guide. You actually answered my last question first (ah, the last shall be first!) but didn't answer my first question, which was: “Would you allow a child to die because a tiny minority of biblical scholars believe eating and ingesting are synonymous with transfusing?” > -I would do my damndest to save my children, but I would not break God's Law to do it. Further, my children wouldn't do it to save me. You will see that, no doubt, as cruel or vicious, but between us it is a matter of loving respect and strong faith.- >DHW: You know that these were not the laws I was referring to as vicious. When you told us that the new covenant invalidated the old laws, I even pointed out that it wouldn't have excluded the Ten Commandments. My reference was to laws in Deuteronomy such as those that forbid inter-faith marriages, and demand the stoning to death of anyone in the captured cities who worships other gods, or of any rebellious son who drinks and eats too much. > -Yes, I know what you meant. As David said, you read the words, but not the deeper underlying meanings and messages. Do you honestly think that the law meant that the first time someone smarted off to their folks they were killed? Or that it was a simple case of 'he eats too much, kill him!!' I suppose the part of "and they have tried to correct him but he refuses to listen to them". went unnoticed as well. Yes, the penalties were hard. Under biblical law, there is only one penalty for sin, only one. The only difference between the laws is when that penalty is paid. - And on the topic of marriage, check out Deut 21:10-14. That seems to be another scripture that is often ignored. - > Dhw: The “I am right and they are wrong” approach certainly does not mean that the text itself is clear. > TONY: Not at all. The bible is right, God is right. Everyone, including myself, could certainly be very wrong in deed. Fortunately, there is a provision for our ignorance. Prov 16:2 Tells us that God judges the motives of a man, not just the actions. Indeed, all of our ways 'seem pure to us', that is, we'd like to think we are doing the right thing, even when that thing causes unknown harm. [...] As for me and mine, we will be obedient to the best of our abilities. > > The sceptic in me can't help thinking of all those throughout history, right up to the present, who have slaughtered the “infidels”, believing they are “doing the right thing”. However, your acknowledgement that you could be wrong is a gracious and for me a very important one, and I have nothing but admiration for the steadfastness of your faith, which I have no doubt would lead you only to doing unto others what you would have them do unto you. I'm also grateful to you for debating this subject with me, as I'm aware that at times it must be very frustrating!
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 21, 2014, 22:57 (3696 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: Does, "Though shall not kill" get reinterpretted as "Thou shall not kill except to save your life" or "Thou shall not kill unless it is convenient"?-The proper Hebrew translation is " thou shalt not murder". We can kill as a societal punishment.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, October 21, 2014, 23:47 (3696 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony: Does, "Though shall not kill" get reinterpretted as "Thou shall not kill except to save your life" or "Thou shall not kill unless it is convenient"? > > The proper Hebrew translation is " thou shalt not murder". We can kill as a societal punishment.-Even still, does that mean you can murder to save your own life, or someone elses? What about murdering over religious ideologies or for political reasons. -DHW wants to start making exceptions to the laws based on human reasoning. That is a slippery slope, and the same trap that lead to all the religiously motivated wars and murders in the past. It is the idea that you can say, "Sure, this is the law but....." and then make an excuse as to why the law does not apply.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 22, 2014, 01:24 (3696 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: Does, "Though shall not kill" get reinterpretted as "Thou shall not kill except to save your life" or "Thou shall not kill unless it is convenient"? > > > > David The proper Hebrew translation is " thou shalt not murder". We can kill as a societal punishment. > > Tony: Even still, does that mean you can murder to save your own life, or someone elses? What about murdering over religious ideologies or for political reasons.-Be careful in your thinking. Murder in the Hebrew meaning is deliberate killing without sufficient reason. I said the interpretation is we can kill for societal reasons in war and as a punishment for murder. I have an S&W in my bedside table. I will shoot to kill if a stranger enters our bedroom. We live in a gated community, so I won't stop to ask questions. I'm not licensed to carry, but if I were and chanced upon an attempted murder I would shoot to kill. With ideologies and politics, of course not. My actions under Texas law are permissible.-If you are confused by the Biblical interpretation of the word as 'kill' this is because the original English traslations, including the KJV were wrong. My bible says murder.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, October 22, 2014, 02:04 (3696 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony: Does, "Though shall not kill" get reinterpretted as "Thou shall not kill except to save your life" or "Thou shall not kill unless it is convenient"? > > > > > > David The proper Hebrew translation is " thou shalt not murder". We can kill as a societal punishment. > > > > Tony: Even still, does that mean you can murder to save your own life, or someone elses? What about murdering over religious ideologies or for political reasons. > > Be careful in your thinking. Murder in the Hebrew meaning is deliberate killing without sufficient reason. I said the interpretation is we can kill for societal reasons in war and as a punishment for murder. I have an S&W in my bedside table. I will shoot to kill if a stranger enters our bedroom. We live in a gated community, so I won't stop to ask questions. I'm not licensed to carry, but if I were and chanced upon an attempted murder I would shoot to kill. With ideologies and politics, of course not. My actions under Texas law are permissible. > > If you are confused by the Biblical interpretation of the word as 'kill' this is because the original English traslations, including the KJV were wrong. My bible says murder.-The New World Translation uses the word murder as well, and in Exodus 22:2, the bible does give us the right to exercise self-defense. However, note the limitations. If the thief breaks in at night, and is struck and killed, there is no bloodguilt. If the thief is caught during the day, and is struck and killed, there is bloodguilt. So yes, you have the right to self-defense, but the first response should be the preservation of life if at all possible. This is followed up with (Math 5:39; Luke 6:29) Preserving material goods is not just cause for taking a life, neither is simply abuse or assault unless there is reason to fear for your own life(or presumably that of another). Yes, it is also permissible to use death as a form of punishment for crimes. However, war was NOT permissible unless it was defensive or specifically directed by Jehovah.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
TONY: I choose to say that a prohibition against ingesting blood means not to ingest blood.[...] I gave a specific example where the word 'eat' was not even used, and in fact it was said, "abstain from blood" AND not to eat meat with the blood. Abstain from blood is pretty cut and dry. I am not the one making arbitrary distinctions.-In my New World, Watch Tower translation, Gen. 9: 4 and Deuteronomy 12, 15-16 categorically use the word “eat”, not ingest. “Eat” is pretty cut and dried. Please remind me where the bible uses “ingest”. The two passages in Acts tell us to abstain from things polluted by/sacrificed to idols, from fornication, from things strangled and from blood, the last two of which presumably refer to the “kosher” way of slaughtering animals before eating them. It can hardly refer to blood transfusions, which were unknown at the time. And yet you would rather die than accept even the possibility that these phrases are open to interpretation. DHW: I shudder to think of the JWs that may have died in the last 50 years or so, since the process became as safe as any medical procedures, drugs and operations can be. The issue between us is not whether there are better alternatives, but whether the text has to be interpreted your way. Tony: The process has never been 'safe', and never will be. Even David has admitted as much. I wrote: “as safe as any medical procedures, drugs and operations can be”. If a patient's life can be saved by a blood transfusion, but the patient doesn't have one and dies, what part does medical safety play in your argument? I would still very much like to know how many patients have died as a result of this highly debatable interpretation of an ancient text.-DHW: “Would you allow a child to die because a tiny minority of biblical scholars believe eating and ingesting are synonymous with transfusing?” TONY: I would do my damndest to save my children, but I would not break God's Law to do it. Further, my children wouldn't do it to save me. You will see that, no doubt, as cruel or vicious, but between us it is a matter of loving respect and strong faith.-Not cruel or vicious (both too deliberate). Since the death is based not on God's law but on a hotly disputed interpretation, perhaps heartbreakingly unnecessary.-DHW: You know that these were not the laws I was referring to as vicious. -TONY: Yes, I know what you meant. As David said, you read the words, but not the deeper underlying meanings and messages. Do you honestly think that the law meant that the first time someone smarted off to their folks they were killed? Or that it was a simple case of 'he eats too much, kill him!!' I suppose the part of "and they have tried to correct him but he refuses to listen to them". went unnoticed as well. Yes, the penalties were hard. Under biblical law, there is only one penalty for sin, only one. The only difference between the laws is when that penalty is paid. -I don't know why you assume I didn't notice the rest. In my view, stoning someone to death because they worship a different God, or because they are drunkards or gluttons (regardless of how often they've been told to mend their ways) is vicious. You were swift to point out that the new covenant rescinded the old laws, but you never said which ones. Were these rescinded? If so, does that mean the old laws were regarded as too vicious? It's difficult to know which laws are in and which are out, but perhaps that's why the bible is so wide open to interpretation. TONY: And on the topic of marriage, check out Deut 21:10-14. That seems to be another scripture that is often ignored. -Let me summarize: if you've captured a beautiful woman (forget the ugly ones) from your enemies, you must let her grieve for the rest of the family you have killed, and then you can marry her (no mention of what she might want), and when/if you've had enough of her, you can send her away with her agreement, but you mustn't sell her. “You must not deal tyrannically with her after you have humiliated her.” OK to humiliate her first, then. But you are right: it doesn't forbid inter-faith marriage, in contrast to 7: 1-4, which says that when God enables you to capture a country, you must kill all the inhabitants and you must not intermarry with them. You just don't know where you stand with these laws. I guess it's all a matter of interpretation. Which is the subject we are discussing.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, October 22, 2014, 22:33 (3695 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: The two passages in Acts tell us to abstain from things polluted by/sacrificed to idols, from fornication, from things strangled and from blood, the last two of which presumably refer to the “kosher” way of slaughtering animals before eating them. -So perhaps if it were just pure blood and in a cup and you drank it, which is not "eating" you would be ok. Maybe if you put it in a enema, and shot it up your rear end you would be ok too. Abstaining from things strangled does indeed refer to a kosher diet. So what about that second tag? Why include it if the first tag covered the same topic?-->DHW: If a patient's life can be saved by a blood transfusion, but the patient doesn't have one and dies, what part does medical safety play in your argument? I would still very much like to know how many patients have died as a result of this highly debatable interpretation of an ancient text.-Well, that is pretty hard to say for certain, particularly seeing as how accepting blood does not guarantee your survival if you were already in a situation that caused a Dr to suggest a transfusion. I've looked, but I have not been able to find hard numbers. Out of curiosity, how many deaths are required to condemn us for our beliefs? 1? 10? 100? Maybe 1000? -My guess is that it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if we are right or wrong. It doesn't matter if none of us died or a hundred thousand of us died. We reject what is the social norm, and that, in and of itself, is enough to condemn us. Of course, no one mentions how our teachings and practices SAVE lives. No one mentions the drug addicts, alcoholics, smokers, or other reckless life threatening practices that Witnesses actively work to stop. No one mentions the fact that right now, Witnesses are doing more than local governments to PREVENT people in Africa from catching and/or spreading Ebola by providing basic sanitation solutions to the people there, free of charge. No one mentions the fact that through our faith, we have spurred a branch of science that is saving lives, saving money, and improving health. -We hold life as sacred, but we hold that Jehovah's sovereignty, love, mercy, and justice is worth more than our own lives. It's called faith. I know you respect faith, but your answers over the course of this discussion make me wonder if you really understand it. So I pose a question. Do you have faith, and if so, in what?- > DHW: In my view, stoning someone to death because they worship a different God, or because they are drunkards or gluttons (regardless of how often they've been told to mend their ways) is vicious. -What if the God they worshiped burned their children alive on the alter? Would you kill them then? Would it be considered "vicious" to eradicate those people? - > > TONY: And on the topic of marriage, check out Deut 21:10-14. That seems to be another scripture that is often ignored. > > Let me summarize: if you've captured a beautiful woman (forget the ugly ones) from your enemies, you must let her grieve for the rest of the family you have killed, and then you can marry her (no mention of what she might want), and when/if you've had enough of her, you can send her away with her agreement, but you mustn't sell her. “You must not deal tyrannically with her after you have humiliated her.” OK to humiliate her first, then. But you are right: it doesn't forbid inter-faith marriage, in contrast to 7: 1-4, which says that when God enables you to capture a country, you must kill all the inhabitants and you must not intermarry with them. You just don't know where you stand with these laws. I guess it's all a matter of interpretation. Which is the subject we are discussing.- Oh the cherry picking knows no bounds. You do realize that there are specific nations mentioned in Chapter 7, right? These were Baal worshiping nations. (Burning their kids in the fire and all that.) Those nations were indeed committed to complete and utter annihilation. Chapter 20 & 21 are not talking about those nations. --“If you approach a city to fight against it, you should also announce to it terms of peace.+ 11 If it gives a peaceful answer to you and opens up to you, all the people found there will become yours for forced labor, and they will serve you.+ 12 But if it refuses to make peace with you and instead goes to war with you, you should besiege it, 13 and Jehovah your God will certainly give it into your hand, and you must strike down every male in it with the sword. 14 However, the women, the children, the livestock, and everything that is in the city, all its spoil, you may plunder for yourself,+ and you will eat the spoil of your enemies, which Jehovah your God has given to you.+ 15 “That is what you will do to all the cities very far away from you that are not of the cities of these nearby nations. 16 But in the cities of these peoples, which Jehovah your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not allow any breathing thing to live.+ 17 Instead, you should devote them completely to destruction, the Hit?tites, the Am?or·ites, the Ca?naan·ites, the Per?iz·zites, the Hi?vites, and the Jeb?u·sites,+ just as Jehovah your God has commanded you; 18 so that they may not teach you to follow all their detestable practices that they have done for their gods, causing you to sin against Jehovah your God.+
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
PART ONE-DHW: The two passages in Acts tell us to abstain from things polluted by/sacrificed to idols, from fornication, from things strangled and from blood, the last two of which presumably refer to the “kosher” way of slaughtering animals before eating them. TONY: So perhaps if it were just pure blood and in a cup and you drank it, which is not "eating" you would be ok. Maybe if you put it in a enema, and shot it up your rear end you would be ok too. -I don't follow your reasoning. We're not talking about performing revolting actions for the sake of it, but about a medical procedure whose sole purpose is to save life. You claimed that the bible banned ingestion of blood. I pointed out that the OT used the word “eat” (I can't find “ingest”), which to me suggests a ban on blood as food. TONY: Abstaining from things strangled does indeed refer to a kosher diet. So what about that second tag? Why include it if the first tag covered the same topic? Perhaps because even if the animal has its throat cut, it's still perfectly possible to eat some blood. All this illustrates how the bible is open to interpretation, which you deny, because you insist that “eat” does not refer only to food but also to the then unknown practice of transfusion.-DHW: If a patient's life can be saved by a blood transfusion, but the patient doesn't have one and dies, what part does medical safety play in your argument? I would still very much like to know how many patients have died as a result of this highly debatable interpretation of an ancient text. TONY: ...I've looked, but I have not been able to find hard numbers. Out of curiosity, how many deaths are required to condemn us for our beliefs? 1? 10? 100? Maybe 1000? -You did not answer my first question. You have argued (correctly) that the practice is not safe. I'm arguing that if the patient dies, your practice is clearly not safe either. As a matter of interest, perhaps David could tell us roughly what percentage of his patients died from blood transfusions by comparison with those whose lives were saved. TONY: My guess is that it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if we are right or wrong. It doesn't matter if none of us died or a hundred thousand of us died. We reject what is the social norm, and that, in and of itself, is enough to condemn us. Of course, no one mentions how our teachings and practices SAVE lives. No one mentions the drug addicts, alcoholics, smokers, or other reckless life threatening practices that Witnesses actively work to stop....etc. Sadly, I have to agree with you, and here we must distinguish between the personal and the general. I used to have long discussions with a delightful Jehovah's Witness couple (both dead now), who came regularly to the house. I bought the Watch Tower and Awake and several excellent books, including a very useful one on evolution (Life - How did it get here? By evolution or creation?). I admire the dedication and social work of the JWs. Unfortunately, you are right that many people condemn them or laugh at them, largely on account of the blood issue and the salvation of the 144,000. But the issue we are discussing has nothing to do with JWs as such. You defend your interpretation of these biblical texts brilliantly, and I wish we had another scholar to debate the details with you, but the fact is that other scholars DO disagree with you, and (a) this proves that the bible is open to interpretation, and (b) by labelling them ignorant, malicious, or self-interested, you are expressing precisely the same dismissive (and grossly unfair) attitude that you resent when they “condemn” JWs. DAVID: We hold life as sacred, but we hold that Jehovah's sovereignty, love, mercy, and justice is worth more than our own lives. It's called faith. I know you respect faith, but your answers over the course of this discussion make me wonder if you really understand it. So I pose a question. Do you have faith, and if so, in what?-I can understand people being willing to die for their beliefs, and I do respect such faith, except when it impinges on the life, health, wellbeing or happiness of others, e.g. fundamentalist suicide bombers who combine martyrdom and murder for the sake of their religious cause. (You have said that God will judge people by their motives. If he welcomes them to paradise, so be it.) My arguments are meant as a critique not of faith but of dogmatism. Perhaps I have a built-in resistance to any claim that X is the truth and everyone else is wrong. (Hence my antipathy to militant atheism.) You ask if I have faith in anything. It's a difficult question, and I've had to think hard about it. The only answer I have come up with is so corny that I hesitate to put it in writing, but I will, because it's what I feel: I have faith in the power of human love and laughter.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
PART TWO dhw: In my view, stoning someone to death because they worship a different God, or because they are drunkards or gluttons (regardless of how often they've been told to mend their ways) is vicious. -TONY: What if the God they worshiped burned their children alive on the alter? Would you kill them then? Would it be considered "vicious" to eradicate those people? [...] You do realize that there are specific nations mentioned in Chapter 7, right? These were Baal worshiping nations. (Burning their kids in the fire and all that.) Those nations were indeed committed to complete and utter annihilation.-Which I assume includes annihilating mothers and their children, since Chap. 20 also says: “you must not allow any breathing thing to live”. Much better for them to be slaughtered wholesale by the Jews than individually by their own people, I suppose. Chap. 7 talks about them serving other gods, burning graven images etc. This suggests to me that by extension it is OK to slaughter people who worship any God other than the god of the OT. Such thinking has been and still is the basis of faith-based murder. You seem to approve of stoning habitual drunkards and gluttons to death, and the rest of your post appears to defend the practice of conquering foreign countries and, if they don't surrender, killing the men and using the women and children as one pleases. You also seem quite happy with the humiliating arrangements detailed in 21:10-14. Such texts can be used to justify slavery, sex slavery, child abuse....My point is that I don't regard them as a reliable guide for how we should behave, no matter what slant you put on them. -*******-I have drafted a reply to your somewhat puzzling post of yesterday concerning what you wrote about evolutionists, but I think this is enough for today! I'll post it tomorrow.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, October 24, 2014, 22:59 (3693 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: What if the God they worshiped burned their children alive on the alter? Would you kill them then? Would it be considered "vicious" to eradicate those people? [...] You do realize that there are specific nations mentioned in Chapter 7, right? These were Baal worshiping nations. (Burning their kids in the fire and all that.) Those nations were indeed committed to complete and utter annihilation. > >DHW: Which I assume includes annihilating mothers and their children, since Chap. 20 also says: “you must not allow any breathing thing to live”. Much better for them to be slaughtered wholesale by the Jews than individually by their own people, I suppose. Chap. 7 talks about them serving other gods, burning graven images etc. This suggests to me that by extension it is OK to slaughter people who worship any God other than the god of the OT. Such thinking has been and still is the basis of faith-based murder. You seem to approve of stoning habitual drunkards and gluttons to death, and the rest of your post appears to defend the practice of conquering foreign countries and, if they don't surrender, killing the men and using the women and children as one pleases. You also seem quite happy with the humiliating arrangements detailed in 21:10-14. Such texts can be used to justify slavery, sex slavery, child abuse....My point is that I don't regard them as a reliable guide for how we should behave, no matter what slant you put on them. > -Yes, utter annihilation means everyone. There was to be no opportunity for that sick practice to be revived by anyone that had been raised up in it. However, there is no 'by extension'. He was very, very specific, which was why I pointed out that he told them to deal fairly with other nations. Those other nations served other God's as well, you know, so your logic does not hold water there, neither does that same logic's use to justify incidents such as the Crusades (which were actually not about religion at all.)-Note also that he did not actually condone the practice of making war. It says, "Those making war with you." This implies defensive action. He gave the Israelites land, and actively forbid them from making war or taking lands to other people that he given them to. However, he knew that there would be wars coming, and so gave them guidelines on how to deal with it. Women were not to be killed, nor were they to be raped. Also, the children, livestock, and even the damned trees were forbidden from being killed or harmed. They could be taken as servants or slaves. They could also be taken as wives, at which time they assumed all the social status and protection afforded to a wife. - A close examination of scriptures, however, showed that even such slaves were not without rights and legal protection, nor were they slaves indefinitely. All slaves were set free every 7 years. Here is a really good and clear explanation of biblical slavery, and it is NOTHING like the way you present it. It was more along the lines of what we would consider 'employment' these days, without the option to leave before the sabatical year. If a slave was injured bad enough by their master to be out of work for two days, or were permanently injured, they were free.-http://www.bible.ca/sin-no-jails-prisons-in-judaism-old-testament-law-of-moses-slavery-... (Be Warned, if you view the word 'slavery' in the modern context this article will seem a little weird. I think the many used poor choice of phrasing, but it is still a reasonable depiction)
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
Dhw: I pointed out that the OT used the word “eat” (I can't find “ingest”), which to me suggests a ban on blood as food. TONY: Read Leviticus 17 (the entire chapter). I'm done arguing semantics. The prohibition against blood is firmly established.-I'm afraid interpretation is all about semantics. For you, the all-important factor in the two quotes from Acts was “and”, because you thought that meant something separate from eating strangled animals. I pointed out that one can cut an animal's throat but still eat some blood. A different interpretation. Leviticus 17 repeatedly prohibits the EATING of blood, in the context of food. It gives instructions about using blood as a sacrifice (though I think you said the new covenant invalidated that). Nowhere does it mention the medical use of blood for saving life. Hardly surprising since the treatment was then unknown. Had it been known in Christ's day, perhaps the new covenant would have allowed for it, since “You must love your neighbour as yourself” took precedence over the law relating to the Sabbath (the man with the withered hand). Who knows? Of course you will stick to what you think is the right interpretation. So will other people. That's why the bible is not a reliable guide. TONY: People can twist anything. There are hundreds, thousands of truths that have been twisted for one reason or another. That doesn't make those truths less true.-Nor does it mean that we know which version is the objective truth, and that is where I take issue with anyone who claims to know it and dismisses other people's beliefs as ignorant or malicious or self-interested. Of course you can cherry-pick instances of all three (I love to pick cherries with you!), but if the bible were as clear as you say, there would be no need for theologians to dedicate their lives to exegesis.-TONY: If there is a fundamental rule, principle, or set of principles in physics, and three or four people disagree, does that mean the principles are wrong or the people? I've often seen you give latitude or benefit of the doubt to scientist that you do not give to religion, and I wonder why that is. I'm sure there are fundamental rules and principles, but if the physicists don't agree, the rest of us cannot know which version is correct. Even if the bible was the Word of God, only God knows what he meant, because there is no consensus among his human interpreters. As for latitude/benefit of the doubt, I need an example. Perhaps once more you are thinking of evolution, and I certainly believe the theory of common descent as it is so convincingly logical. How it all started, and how it proceeds, I don't know. Please give me a reference.-Once again you appear to approve of the Jews slaughtering every man, woman and child in a community worshipping a different god, and are happy with habitual gluttons and drunkards being stoned to death. You say God did not condone making war: “It says ‘Those making war with you.' This implies defensive action.” Ugh, I thought you were done arguing semantics! Earlier you quoted Deut.: “If you approach a city to fight against it, you should also announce to it terms of peace. If it gives a peaceful answer to you and opens up to you, all the people found there will become yours for forced labor, and they will serve you. But if it refuses to make peace with you and instead goes to war with you, you should besiege it.” Approach a city...offer peace terms...besiege it. What sort of defensive action is this? (The same text says that the women, the children etc. "you may plunder for yourself.” Sounds like carte blanche to me.) All this refers to “cities very far away from you.” How come the Jews were defending themselves against cities very away from them? -You have drawn my attention to Mosaic law, which dispenses with prison and uses death and slavery as alternative forms of punishment: death is the punishment for worshipping idols, persuading someone to take another religion, blasphemy, homosexuality, adultery, a bride who is not a virgin, breaking the Sabbath, disrespecting and disobeying your parents etc. You have warned me not to equate biblical ‘slavery' with more modern forms, and have emphasized that biblical slaves had certain rights. I'm sure it would have been reassuring for a biblical slave to know, for instance, that “in case a man strikes his slave man or his slave girl with a stick and that one actually dies under his hand, that one is to be avenged without fail. However, if he lingers for a day or two days, he is not to be avenged, because he is his money.” Frankly, I'd rather go to prison. I have to admit a lot of these instructions are absolutely clear (unlike the blood business). I am, however, bewildered by your apparently enthusiastic support for them. “You must love your neighbour as yourself” sounds like a pretty good guide to me, but I really don't like the subclauses (e.g. if he's a homosexual, kill him). Sorry, but I have a different concept of neighbourly love.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, October 26, 2014, 01:45 (3692 days ago) @ dhw
DHW:A different interpretation. Leviticus 17 repeatedly prohibits the EATING of blood, in the context of food. It gives instructions about using blood as a sacrifice (though I think you said the new covenant invalidated that). -There is also the prohibition about having sexual relations with a woman while she is bleeding. Don't you find it the least bit odd that there are all these prohibitions about even the possibility of exchanging blood with another creature, even through sexual intercourse? If the prohibition was simply against eating it, why the additional exclusions?- > DHW: .. Even if the bible was the Word of God, only God knows what he meant, because there is no consensus among his human interpreters. -You know, to a large extent I actually agree with that statement. I have shown before where the Bible clearly states that things were hidden. It also states that things were especially hidden from those who are wise in their own eyes. (Matt 11:25) See, in my opinion, it doesn't matter if I am wrong about blood. If I am wrong, but my motives are correct, then there is a chance at least that my mistakes will be forgiven. So we err on the side of caution.- On the Law-Because the the Nation of Israel was continuously under assault. The Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, and others all at one point or another made war against them. The difference in wording between those passages is one refers to the lands of Canaan, which Jehovah gave to them. Those are the ones that were supposed to be utterly destroyed. The 'lands far away' consisted of essentially the entire rest of the world at that time. Even you have to admit that it was a damned bloody time in history. All of the nations at that point were pretty into the wholesale conquering of their neighbors. If someone attacks, are you just supposed to wall yourself up in your cities and wait to die? Wars don't work that way. To claim that setting rules and limitations on what the standard of conduct during war is, or what the standard dispensation for POW's is during wartime is a carte blanche to attack anyone you want is akin to saying that the Geneva convention is a carte blanch for the modern world to attack everyone they want. -What you do here is to look at one bit to the exclusion of everything else, without looking at how ALL the laws work together. Yes, there was the Death penalty and no prison. Prison is a drain on society with absolutely no benefits to either the prisoner or the public. The only thing the catch and release program benefits is the State. Prisoners earn no money to pay restitution to their victims, then turn around and get free room, board, education, medical care and other benefits paid for by their victims tax dollars. -Now, you cry foul over some of the things punishable by death, but you are not putting them in their historical context either. -In the case of slavery, consider things as a system for a moment. If a man took a woman as a captive, he was not allowed to have sex with her without marrying her. So, no rape. If he did marry her, and they had sex, he either had to keep her as her wife with all the rights and privileges thereof, or let her go freely with all the rules regarding the assets to be given to a wife applying. Being someone's slave did not exempt them from the law in regards to their actions towards the slave, nor was a person allowed to take a free individual and enslave them except through the course of a war. They were free to marry, have children, earned wages, and had protection under the law. If they had a wife, the wife had to be set free with them so that the families weren't torn apart. -The section you stated regarding the 'if you beat your slave and..' was to protect slaves from abuse. If the owner beat the slave with a lethal instrument, and the slave died, that signaled that they intended to kill the slave and they were put to death. (They were allowed to be disciplined, but the law protected them from permanent harm and provided terms of restitution if that law was broken. At the same time, it also protected citizens from being killed over accidental deaths, but even that was up to the judges of the city who would judge the intent behind the case. In fact Ephesians 6:9 and Collosians 4:1 Put that in a pretty good perspective for you. "Also, you masters, keep treating them in the same way, not threatening, for you know that both their Master and yours is in the heavens,+ and there is no partiality with him."-So, when taken as a whole, the law protected victims and allowed for restitution, protected the life of people from cities captured during war as well as their rights and safety during their captivity, and protected individuals from being put to death over accidents.-There is a pretty good article on it here:http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200004160?q=slavery&p=par-And lastly, the bible says we are all slaves, bought at a high price through the sacrifice of Christ. So, I suppose in a way you could say that the New Law Covenant didn't abolish slavery, it just made slaves of us all, for a time.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
by David Turell , Sunday, October 26, 2014, 14:45 (3691 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony: There is also the prohibition about having sexual relations with a woman while she is bleeding. Don't you find it the least bit odd that there are all these prohibitions about even the possibility of exchanging blood with another creature, even through sexual intercourse? If the prohibition was simply against eating it, why the additional exclusions?-As interpreted by the Talmud, this prohibition has to do with ritual purity. The woman is considered unclean until seven days after menstruation is over. It is quite stretch to try to relate it to transfusion. The OT is filled with rules of purity, such as the Kosher rules. We were taught that it wa an attempt to avoid disease. Pigs eat garbage, therefore, thre were dirty and might carry disease. Bottom feeders in the ocean had the same prohibition. I'm not supposed to eat lobster, hallibut or flounder for the same reasoning.-I was taught the Bible (OT) gave advice for the times it was written. These were rules to protect, not laws. I guess our difference is that you seem to take every word literally. But in your reply I see you agree that the Bible is open to interpretation, so perhaps we are not that different.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, October 26, 2014, 20:53 (3691 days ago) @ David Turell
David: I was taught the Bible (OT) gave advice for the times it was written. These were rules to protect, not laws. I guess our difference is that you seem to take every word literally. But in your reply I see you agree that the Bible is open to interpretation, so perhaps we are not that different.-No, I do not take every word literally, not by a long shot. The bible is full of analogies, metaphors, parables, and other devices used to make people think. That being said, I DO believe that there are principles which our outlined in the bible. Yes, being holy is one of those. Staying free from blood is another. -And here is the key, the bible ALSO does not say "If a man shoots a man, blah blah blah.." IT only says, if a man hits another man with a stick. So does that mean that we can shoot each other freely as long as we don't kill each other, simply because the bible does not mention a specific technology? Or is it the principle that matters. -Further, you are right! The laws there were to keep the people safe! They didn't have the technology to understand that blood is dangerous, we do. Modern medicine recommends many of the same practices. Imagine that, the bible being right thousands of years in advance. So, you two seem to be arguing (particularly DHW) that now that we KNOW it's dangerous, we should be free to use it however we like. That is what lead the bible writer to state "It does not belong to man even to direct his steps."
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
by David Turell , Sunday, October 26, 2014, 21:57 (3691 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: Further, you are right! The laws there were to keep the people safe! They didn't have the technology to understand that blood is dangerous, we do. Modern medicine recommends many of the same practices. Imagine that, the bible being right thousands of years in advance. So, you two seem to be arguing (particularly DHW) that now that we KNOW it's dangerous, we should be free to use it however we like. That is what lead the bible writer to state "It does not belong to man even to direct his steps."-I would paraphrase your statement to: now that we know its (blood) dangers we can use it judiciously to save lives. It was given on the batlefield in WWII. Now primarily volume expanders are employed. As allowed our interpretaton of the Bible can differ from yours.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, October 27, 2014, 06:13 (3690 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony: Further, you are right! The laws there were to keep the people safe! They didn't have the technology to understand that blood is dangerous, we do. Modern medicine recommends many of the same practices. Imagine that, the bible being right thousands of years in advance. So, you two seem to be arguing (particularly DHW) that now that we KNOW it's dangerous, we should be free to use it however we like. That is what lead the bible writer to state "It does not belong to man even to direct his steps." > > I would paraphrase your statement to: now that we know its (blood) dangers we can use it judiciously to save lives. It was given on the batlefield in WWII. Now primarily volume expanders are employed. As allowed our interpretaton of the Bible can differ from yours.-Err, no. Now that we know it's dangers, we can actively pursue alternatives that do not require blood at all, recognizing that the prohibition against blood was for our own benefit, and always has been.-Isaiah 4817 “I, Jehovah, am your God, The One teaching you to benefit yourself,*+ The One guiding you in the way you should walk.+"-Perhaps if people quit looking for ways to circumvent his rules, and started trusting them, we could benefit even more.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
DHW: Leviticus 17 repeatedly prohibits the EATING of blood, in the context of food. TONY: There is also the prohibition about having sexual relations with a woman while she is bleeding. [...] If the prohibition was simply against eating it, why the additional exclusions?-I used the example of blood to illustrate my contention that the bible is open to interpretation and so is not a reliable guide. The article below provides a detailed analysis of the argument (I'm pleasantly surprised that my own attempts at theological exegesis were not far off the mark!) and concludes: “To demand that Acts 15:29 means never taking any kind of blood into the body for any reason in any way is going far beyond what is written (1 Corinthians 4:6).” I don't think even you will accuse these people of being "ignorant, malicious or self-interested.” •Apologetics Press - Must Christians Today “Abstain from Blood”?-http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/2276-Please read the whole argument, which I'm sure you'll want to comment on, but I suggest we then drop the subject of blood, since you have made your point (you think blood transfusions are banned) and I have made mine.-DHW: .. Even if the bible was the Word of God, only God knows what he meant, because there is no consensus among his human interpreters. TONY: You know, to a large extent I actually agree with that statement. I have shown before where the Bible clearly states that things were hidden. It also states that things were especially hidden from those who are wise in their own eyes. (Matt 11:25) See, in my opinion, it doesn't matter if I am wrong about blood. If I am wrong, but my motives are correct, then there is a chance at least that my mistakes will be forgiven. So we err on the side of caution.-In this case, fair enough. But there are other cases in which certain interpretations of the bible have been and continue to be extremely damaging to others - e.g. through persecution, bigotry, oppression, all the way through to slavery and slaughter. You will no doubt say such interpretations are wrong, but when Christians slaughtered Muslims during the Crusades (and Christians and Muslims are still slaughtering one another today in Africa), I don't suppose they actually believed they were breaking God's laws. And Deuteronomy sets them a fine example of what they should do to people who don't share their religious views. We needn't argue semantics here: once again, my point is that the bible is open to different interpretations, and so is not a reliable guide. If God forgives the persecutors, bigots, oppressors, slave-owners and slaughterers because their motives were pure, that's his prerogative. I feel sorry for the victims. On the subject of war, you have high praise for the rules laid down, and have also rightly pointed out that “it was a damned bloody time in history”. Most times are. However, this was in response to my challenging your claim that God did not condone making war and that Deut. implied “defensive action”. You quoted a passage: “If you approach a city to fight against it...if it refuses to make peace with you and instead goes to war with you, you should besiege it.” The same text refers to “cities very far away from you.” I asked you how this could refer to defensive action. You have not told me. I see no reason why this text should not be taken as justification for wars of aggression. Next you say what's wrong with the prison system, praise the rights given to slaves under Mosaic Law, and in this context even tell me that “The section you stated regarding 'if you beat your slave and..' was to protect slaves from abuse.” The passage states that if the person is beaten and dies, the owner must be punished, but “if he lingers for a day or two days, he is not to be avenged, because he is his money.” To me that means the owner can thrash him to within an inch of his life, but so long as he survives for a couple of days, it's OK because the slave is the owner's property. Even this ancient concept of slavery still involves people being forced against their will to serve others - and in some cases, to marry them. For us today, the idea is abhorrent. Times have moved on. You say the New Covenant abolished slavery, though that didn't seem to bother the many Christian slave owners in your country and mine from using the bible to justify their practices. That's the problem with a book that offers so many openings for different interpretations. -TONY: Now, you cry foul over some of the things punishable by death, but you are not putting them in their historical context either. -You are quite right. That is why killing people for worshipping different gods, blasphemy, homosexuality, adultery, breaking the Sabbath, disobeying their parents etc. doesn't seem like a good and reliable twenty-first century guide to someone like me, who believes in the rule of “do as you would be done by”. I find these laws “vicious”, and dangerous in the light of the influence they still have on some modern minds.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, October 27, 2014, 06:29 (3690 days ago) @ dhw
You are looking for laws spelled out in modern legal terminology that cover a specific subset of actions according to what you hold to be correct by today's societal standards. You are looking for loopholes and methods to circumvent the law. -The law truly was, love Jehovah with everything that you are, and love your neighbor as you love yourself. Jehovah is not just described as a God, but also as a king, a sovereign lord. If your king or ruler tells you to go to war with these people, but not these other people, do you trust his judgement, or do you question every decision he gives out? What if, like the Israelites, you had witnessed many miracles that defy and surpass all human rulership? -His laws are not burdensome, and they applied to everyone. He was not partial, to his friends or his enemies. He held them all and himself to the same exacting standard of justice. I've already proven many of the points from your latest reply unsound in my previous responses, and I am not going to do so again at the moment because I am short on time. However, I will say this: If you try to take any law, mans or God's, outside of the framework of the entire body of the law, you will find some thing that looks wrong. The law is a system, not a bunch of individual independent components. You have been taking them as individuals without looking at the entire framework. -That would be like trying to defend the use of a protein without the context of the cell that it is designed to function in. It will not work.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
TONY: You are looking for laws spelled out in modern legal terminology that cover a specific subset of actions according to what you hold to be correct by today's societal standards. You are looking for loopholes and methods to circumvent the law. The law truly was, love Jehovah with everything that you are, and love your neighbor as you love yourself.-I am questioning the validity of specific laws set out in a collection of books written many centuries ago, and of course I judge them by today's standards. What is the point of obeying laws that are not applicable today? But those specific laws cannot be taken as a “subset”. Either they are laws or they are not laws, and someone who rejects the call to execute homosexuals is not trying to circumvent the law that we should love Jehovah and love our neighbour. I do not regard executing my homosexual neighbour as a sign of love for him. TONY: Jehovah is not just described as a God, but also as a king, a sovereign lord. If your king or ruler tells you to go to war with these people, but not these other people, do you trust his judgement, or do you question every decision he gives out? I question most of the decisions my rulers give out, including the wars they have led us into. They are fallible human beings, as is apparent from their frequent blunders. In the case of biblical texts, if I see a commandment which I consider to be unjust (as above), I do not and cannot question God (if he exists); I question the reliability of the author, or of the translator, or of the person interpreting the text, or possibly all three.-TONY: His laws are not burdensome, and they applied to everyone. He was not partial, to his friends or his enemies.-According to Deuteronomy, he ordered the Jews to slaughter people who worshipped other gods. I'd call that partiality.-TONY: I've already proven many of the points from your latest reply unsound in my previous responses, and I am not going to do so again at the moment because I am short on time.-I sympathize with you over shortage of time! I'm not at all sure which points from my latest reply you have proven to be unsound. I have shown you that other biblical scholars reject your interpretation of the blood issue, which proves that the text is open to interpretation. I have asked how you can equate Jews approaching a far away city, and besieging it if it doesn't surrender, with “defensive action”. I have suggested that a law which allows a slave-owner to beat his slave to within an inch of his life is not designed “to protect slaves from abuse”. I have pointed out that even if the New Covenant abolished slavery, Christian slave owners in both our countries used the bible to justify their practices. And I have pointed out that the Mosaic laws you praise so highly are still causing trouble today. TONY: However, I will say this: If you try to take any law, mans or God's, outside of the framework of the entire body of the law, you will find some thing that looks wrong. The law is a system, not a bunch of individual independent components. You have been taking them as individuals without looking at the entire framework. Of course the law is a bunch of individual components. It sets out a code of conduct to cover individual facets of human behaviour. The Ten Commandments are a prime example. If we had one law that said “Love your neighbour as you love yourself”, you might have a case, but that's not how the law or society works, because our neighbour can get up to all sorts of things we don't like. If my neighbour is a thief or a rapist or a murderer, I would want the law to protect me. Since I disapprove of the death penalty, I would want him to be put in prison. But if he's an atheist or a homosexual or a glutton, I would not want him even to be put in prison, let alone executed. Individual components of the law are constantly changing as society changes. Some of the bible's individual laws still apply, and others don't. If they did, you would be hanging me up from the nearest tree.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, October 28, 2014, 00:04 (3690 days ago) @ dhw
Ok, let me try a different approach here. -1 John 5:2-3 "By this we know that we love the children of God,+ when we love God and carry out his commandments. 3 For this is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments;+ and yet his commandments are not burdensome."-“‘You must love(see above) Jehovah* your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul* and with your whole mind.'+ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. (Matt 22:36-38)-Under this heading we have:-
- “You must not have any other gods against my face,” (Exodus 20:3)
- You must not make a carved image or a form like anything in the heavens, on the earth, or in the waters under the earth, nor are you to bow down to or serve them.Because I Jehovah your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion.” (Exodus 20:4-6)
- “You must not take up the name of Jehovah your God in a worthless way, (Exodus 20:7)
- "“Remember the Sabbath day to keep it sacred" (Exodus 20:8)
- Love your Neighbor as you love yourself. (Matt 22: 39)-Under this heading we have:-
- “Honor your father and your mother,+ so that you may live a long time in the land that Jehovah your God is giving you.+
- 13 “You must not murder.+
- 14 “You must not commit adultery.+
- 15 “You must not steal.+
- 16 “You must not testify falsely when you are a witness against your fellow man.+
- 17 “You must not desire your fellow man's house. You must not desire your fellow man's wife+ nor his slave man nor his slave girl nor his bull nor his donkey nor anything that belongs to your fellow man.”+
-These were the primary principles of the law. All other laws were based upon these. -Now, the Mosaic Law was harsh in terms of punishment, and there is a notable difference between the harshness of the Mosaic Law Covenant and the forgiving nature of the New Covenant. Why? To wrap your head around this, you have to understand that there were 3 states for mankind. Initially, we were free people living under God's rulership. Adam and Eve had but one law to obey, and that was to abstain from what was not theirs to take. Literally EVERYTHING had been given to them directly save two things, immortality and perfect knowledge. (Genesis 1:28-30, 2:16-17) Life and Knowledge are the key elements. (Genesis 3:22)-When they gave in to temptation and broke the law, they figuratively sold themselves into slavery to sin. (Compare Ro 6:16, 7:14; Jas 1:14, 15) The wage that this figurative master pays, is death. (Ro 6:13) In other words, just as the instructions for life were placed within us (DNA), the instructions for living life were given to us as well. Just like mutations (failing to follow instructions) in genes lead to death, so does failing to follow God's commandments.The Law, the Mosaic Law, was designed not only to protect the civilization from corrupting practices that would hasten death, but also under the concept that as slaves to sin, the only possible punishment was death. Sin was the master, it paid the wages.-Animal sacrifice could not cover the cost. A perfect life was given up, only a perfect life could pay the price. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Jehovah even held himself to this standard. That is where Christ comes in. His death was a ransom, figuratively buying us back from our former master, sin, and placing us under the authority of our new master, God. Note the difference here. We aren't free. We are still slaves. The difference is that now that the ransom is paid and we are God's property, he can forgive sins without breaking his own laws. -Romans 5:19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were made sinners,+ so also through the obedience of the one person many will be made righteous.+ 20 Now the Law came on the scene so that trespassing might increase.+ But where sin abounded, undeserved kindness abounded still more. 21 To what end? So that just as sin ruled as king with death,+ so also undeserved kindness might rule as king through righteousness leading to everlasting life through Jesus Christ our Lord-Romans 3:19 Now we know that all the things the Law says, it addresses to those under the Law, so that every mouth may be silenced and all the world may become accountable to God for punishment.+ 20 Therefore, no one* will be declared righteous before him by works of law,+ for by law comes the accurate knowledge of sin.+ 21 But now apart from law God's righteousness has been revealed,+ as the Law and the Prophets bear witness,+ 22 yes, God's righteousness through the faith in Jesus Christ, for all those having faith. For there is no distinction.+ 23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,+ 24 and it is as a free gift+ that they are being declared righteous by his undeserved kindness+ through the release by the ransom paid by Christ Jesus.+ 25 God presented him as an offering for propitiation*+ through faith in his blood.+ This was to demonstrate his own righteousness, because God in his forbearance* was forgiving the sins that occurred in the past.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
TONY: Ok, let me try a different approach here.-The approach you have tried, as I understand it, is a general survey of the law, followed by a history of human sin and the possibility of redemption through God's sacrifice of Jesus. I'm touched by the time and trouble you've taken to explain the general background to your thinking, but I'm also apprehensive about moving onto this level for fear that I might cause offence. (I hope I haven't offended Casey, as she has not replied and I tend not to hold back in these discussions.) If you do find the rest of my post too objectionable (although I have no doubt you will find answers!), I'd rather we ended the discussion. But I'll reply and we'll see where it leads us. You have said that “only a perfect life could pay the price” for our sins. There is a passage in the “Brief Guide” in which I question the whole concept of ransom, forgiveness, and the value of Christ's death. I shall reproduce it below.-First, though, I'd like to ask a couple of questions. You have reiterated Paul's warning that the wages of sin is death. You also talk of “righteousness leading to everlasting life”. I know you do not believe in hell, but you have also in the past talked of the “development of the world”, which you never explained. Are you then saying that God will condemn everyone he dislikes not only to physical death in this world but to everlasting death, whereas everyone he likes will be resurrected after their physical death and will live for ever on Earth? One more question, out of curiosity: do you share the belief of many JWs that only 144,000 will be “chosen” to do this?-The passage (lightly edited here) from the “Brief Guide” about the sacrifice of Christ is taken from Section 6, on “The nature of a “Creator”: "Christians believe that Christ died his agonizing death on the cross in order to redeem them [...] What precisely is the point and process of this “redemption”? If we are good, we will be rewarded; if we are bad, we will be punished. So where does Christ's agony fit in? Couldn't the designer have “redeemed” us without Christ's blood? Of all the verses in the story of Jesus, there is none so resonant and chilling as Matthew 27, 46: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” -Christians may argue that Christ's suffering is an example to all of us: so long as we have faith and behave ourselves, we will be rewarded for our pain. It is the same message as that given in the story of Job (see "Religion"), but why inflict such suffering? Christ and Job were presumably both "perfect and upright", so they should have been saved anyway. And I, who am not "perfect and upright", will not be made so by Christ's crucifixion or by Job's losses, since it is clear that I too must have faith in God (or Christ [....]) and obey his commandments, or I shall be condemned. We are told by John, in his first epistle general, that if we walk in God's light, "the blood of Jesus Christ his [God's] son cleanseth us from all sin." But if I already walk in God's light, what need is there for Christ's blood? Will I obey the commandments simply because Christ died an agonizing death? And could I not have had faith in him anyway without such a death? -The fact is, I am no closer to "redemption" after Christ's death than I was before it. This is not to deny that he may have been a great teacher, and many of his principles set out a good moral and social basis for living (most religions do). It is simply a comment on the senselessness of the sacrifice. The nature of the "Creator" as it emerges from this story is very much in tune with a haunting line from a Madonna song: “Only the one that hurts you can make you feel better.” God hurt Job and Christ, then made them feel better, but that won't help the rest of us, unless we can live up to their noble standards - and even that is no guarantee of favour."
Religion: pros & cons pt1
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, October 29, 2014, 04:56 (3688 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: I hope I haven't offended Casey, as she has not replied and I tend not to hold back in these discussions.-Don't be, apprehensive. I am not so easily offended. As for Casey, we have tied up in a lawsuit and she has had her hands full with that. She is not so thin skinned either. So, no worries.->DHW: (Summarized for word count) - Are you then saying that God will condemn everyone he dislikes not only to physical death in this world but to everlasting death, whereas everyone he likes will be resurrected after their physical death and will live for ever on Earth? -Do you share the belief of many JWs that only 144,000 will be “chosen” to do this?-First let me say that I don't expect you to take my word for anything, and God doesn't expect you to follow blindly either. (Romans 3:4; Proverbs 2:1-6; Acts 17:11)-Instead of responding to these in my own words, I would prefer to let the Bible speak for itself. However, let me make a few key points briefly, and then point you to the scriptures to back them up. -
- The Dead are conscious of nothing-(Psa 146:4; Ecc 3:19, 9:5, 10; John 11:11, 13, 14; Isa 26:14;Ps 6:5; Isa 38:18, 19;Ps 13:3;
- Resurrection of both righteous and unrighteous- 1Co 15:12-21; Revelation ch. 7 & 20;Acts 24:15;Ro 8:28-30(no natural righteousness, some 'declared righteous')
- Judgement- (Heb 9:27; Rev 20:12-15)
- 144,000 to reign as kings and priest- Rev ch 7, Rev ch 20
- The Great Crowd to 'inherit the Earth'- Rev 7:9,
- Earth is Restored- Isaiah 14:7
-This is just a very, very, very cursory discussion of the topic. Entire books have been written on less. And I am sorry that some are sparse, but I ran out of time. - > "Christians believe that Christ died his agonizing death on the cross in order to redeem them [...] What precisely is the point and process of this “redemption”? If we are good, we will be rewarded; if we are bad, we will be punished. So where does Christ's agony fit in? Couldn't the designer have “redeemed” us without Christ's blood? -This is a wonderful breakdown of that topic.-The short version though, is no, he couldn't. What kind of ruler would Jehovah be if he broke is own laws? Let's just assume for a moment that you believe in God and the existence of other higher life forms, call them what you will. If someone challenged his right to rule, and he killed them, he would appear wrong. If someone called him a liar, and he did not allow the opportunity to prove his word true, he would appear wrong. If someone challenged his creation, and he didn't allow the opportunity for his creation to prove itself, he would appear wrong. If he did not follow his own laws, he would appear to be wrong. His law required an EQUAL sacrifice to what was lost, equal payment. Adam was sinless, until he sinned. So in order for the law of equivalence to be maintained, it required a sinless life to be given up freely in exchange. There was no other way to both maintain the law AND his sovereignty AND redeem us AND remain above reproach himself.-The 'If we are good, we will be rewarded; if we are bad, we will be punished.' Is a bit misleading though. We are all bad. We all sin. We all fall short. And because of that, we all die. -> >DHW: .. Why inflict such suffering? Christ and Job were presumably both "perfect and upright", so they should have been saved anyway. What need is there for Christ's blood? Will I obey the commandments simply because Christ died an agonizing death? And could I not have had faith in him anyway without such a death? -Everyone sins. We are all guilty, either knowingly, willingly, or ignorantly and unintentionally. The price for that is death. We all pay it. Christ's blood is what gives us the hope, not guarantee, of forgiveness and a second chance. There will be a resurection of the righteous AND the unrighteous. There will be a period of time where they get to learn the right way to live, and so, having experienced the wrong way and the right, they will be presented with the choice. Those that choose life by remaining faithful, gain life, those that do not, gain death. Fair is fair. (Most of this is outlined in the scriptures listed above. If you can not find references to what I am talking about, let me know and I will either look them up for you or point them out.)- > > The fact is, I am no closer to "redemption" after Christ's death than I was before it. God hurt Job and Christ, then made them feel better, but that won't help the rest of us.-This is where you are part right, part wrong. God did not hurt Job, he allowed him to be tested, just as he did Christ. But notice who did the hurting: Job 1:12 Then Jehovah said to Satan: “Look! Everything that he has is in your hand.* Only do not lay your hand on the man himself!” So Satan went out from the presence* of Jehovah.+ (Also see Math 4:1-11) -So to answer your question with a question: Who actually was causing harm?-Satan tested Job and Christ, one in pain and misery, the other in pain and death. Both remained faithful, and both were rewarded for their faith. That is the promise given to all of us. (John 17:3, Isa ch. 65, Nu 23:19; Heb 6:13-18)-If I can offer more clarification, or if you would be willing to read some really well researched articles on it, let me know.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
DHW: I hope I haven't offended Casey, as she has not replied and I tend not to hold back in these discussions. TONY: Don't be apprehensive. I am not so easily offended. Casey [...] is not so thin skinned either. So, no worries.-Thank you. This is important to me. TONY: First let me say that I don't expect you to take my word for anything, and God doesn't expect you to follow blindly either. [...] Instead of responding to these in my own words, I would prefer to let the Bible speak for itself. -Although I'm always impressed by your erudition and it can be fun to trace the links, it might save us both time if you stick to your own words! -Dhw: "Christians believe that Christ died his agonizing death on the cross in order to redeem them [...] What precisely is the point and process of this “redemption”? If we are good, we will be rewarded; if we are bad, we will be punished. So where does Christ's agony fit in? Couldn't the designer have “redeemed” us without Christ's blood? -TONY: (link to an article) This is a wonderful breakdown of that topic.-I'm afraid both you and the article assume a range of premises that I cannot accept. I will cherry-pick from your post to explain why:-TONY: What kind of ruler would Jehovah be if he broke is own laws? [...] Adam was sinless, until he sinned. So in order for the law of equivalence to be maintained, it required a sinless life to be given up freely in exchange. There was no other way to both maintain the law AND his sovereignty AND redeem us AND remain above reproach himself. The 'If we are good, we will be rewarded; if we are bad, we will be punished.' Is a bit misleading though. We are all bad. We all sin. We all fall short. And because of that, we all die.-I neither believe nor disbelieve in God, but the picture you draw of him and of “us” makes little sense to me. Let's begin at the beginning. I don't take the Adam and Eve story literally, but I find its implications horrendous. Didn't God, in his infinite wisdom, know what would happen when he organized the temptation? And is it justice that we must all pay for their sin? I don't accept that we die because we're sinners. All matter disintegrates, and if God did make us, I don't believe human bodies would have survived intact for ever, or that they would after a resurrection (see below). Weren't Adam and Eve meant to have children? Wouldn't they all have grown older? Nor do I believe that new-born babies are sinners, and although no doubt we all do wrong eventually, that doesn't mean we're bad. You've said God wants us to be happy. So why this constant harping on about how bad we are and undeserving of his love? Who spreads all this misery? If we enjoy life and do as we would be done by, why must we assume we need to be redeemed? You ask what kind of God Jehovah would be if he broke his own laws. He made the laws in the first place. Nobody forced him to condemn the whole human race for Adam's sin, and nobody forced him to ask for blood, let alone the blood of his son, so that he could forgive us, although he might not anyway.-I don't believe that the zillions of humans will be resurrected (at what age and in what state?), or that we're to be killed off again afterwards. Someone called John had a vision, and its inclusion in an anthology of religious writings was controversial, but we're supposed to believe it. And even if God did say to us all, “Love me or I'll kill you off again,” and in fear and trembling we replied, “I love you, God,” he'd know what's in our hearts, and he'd have known it even before resurrecting us, so what's the point? I find the near-death experiences reported by people like Pim van Lommel and Eben Alexander far more convincing than the long ago apocalyptic visions of a Mr John. I have had a happy life. I don't think I'm a bad person, though that may sound arrogant. If I thought I might meet my darling wife again, I'd be delighted. But if death is the end, so be it. I don't see it as a punishment, but as an inevitable fact of material life. If there is a God, I will gladly say a huge thank you for his marvellous invention (life), and I would also wish that others could be as lucky as me. But if he rabbits on about my sins, and tells me Jesus died so that he (God) could forgive me, I still shan't understand why he felt obliged to impose such bloodthirsty conditions in the first place. You say there was no other way he could “remain above reproach”. It's good to hear that the biblical God considers he might be open to reproach. Grateful though I am for my life, I can think of far more terrible grounds for reproach than forgiving sinners without first demanding the blood of Christ. Please forgive my scepticism.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, October 29, 2014, 20:13 (3688 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: Please forgive my scepticism.-Nothing to forgive in that, there is nothing wrong with being skeptical. As I said at the beginning, I don't expect you to believe, and neither does the Bible.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, October 30, 2014, 01:09 (3688 days ago) @ dhw
DHW:I don't take the Adam and Eve story literally, but I find its implications horrendous. Didn't God, in his infinite wisdom, know what would happen when he organized the temptation? And is it justice that we must all pay for their sin? -Consider God from the perspective of being a ruler. If he doesn't allow free will, he is a dictator. If he does allow free will, but allows for no possibility to choose something other than him, then free will is an illusion. So A) In order for free will to be possible, there had to be a choice. Breaking the law has a penalty.- >DHW:I don't accept that we die because we're sinners. I don't believe human bodies would have survived intact for ever. -So you could believe that he could create the universe, or design intelligent cells from scratch that would make all of evolution possible, but you doubt his ability to sustain life?- >DHW:Weren't Adam and Eve meant to have children? Wouldn't they all have grown older? -They would have matured, yes, but not aged in the terms that we think of today. They would have remained healthy and vibrant.->DHW: So why this constant harping on about how bad we are and undeserving of his love? Who spreads all this misery? If we enjoy life and do as we would be done by, why must we assume we need to be redeemed? -It is NOT just constant harping on the wrong things we do, at least not in the bible. Yes, it talks about the bad things to make them evident, much as you no doubt told your own children when they were doing wrong. It also praises the good things that are done and the people that remained faithful.--> > I don't believe that the zillions of humans will be resurrected (at what age and in what state?), or that we're to be killed off again afterwards.-No, most likely only about 10 Billion, realistically, not much more than what we have today. Bear in mind too that it only mentions the righteous and unrighteous, not the wicked. There is a difference. Wicked implies knowingly and willingly doing what is wrong. Unrighteous means making the honest mistakes and not knowing any better. Righteous would be those that, while making mistakes and knowing better, actively try to repent from those mistakes and knowingly follow God's law to the best of their ability. So there are likely to be a rather large number of people that will never get a second chance.- DHW:And even if God did say to us all, “Love me or I'll kill you off again,” and in fear and trembling we replied, “I love you, God,” he'd know what's in our hearts, and he'd have known it even before resurrecting us, so what's the point?-Exactly so. Yes, he judges intent and motivation, not purely deeds. Hence the 1 Cor 13, " if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing." - > >DHW: I have had a happy life. I don't think I'm a bad person, though that may sound arrogant. If I thought I might meet my darling wife again, I'd be delighted.-If she lived a life of love and truth to the best of her abilities, then yes, there is most certainly a strong chance that it would be possible. I do not think you a bad person. I don't think most people are "bad" people. I think they, like you, carry wounds, pain, suffering, doubt, and a great many other negative experiences that make it difficult for you to believe in the love and mercy of God.->DHW: If there is a God, I will gladly say a huge thank you for his marvellous invention (life), and I would also wish that others could be as lucky as me. -So thank him now, while you are still living the wonderful life. Is it so difficult to show appreciation for all the GOOD things, instead of merely condemning him for the bad things that he did not do?->DHW: why did he felt obliged to impose such bloodthirsty conditions in the first place? -Because no law, no world with intelligent creatures can exist with peace if wrongs are not righted with justice. Justice demands equal payment for damages. Even human justice, flawed as it is, recognizes that.- >DHW: Grateful though I am for my life, I can think of far more terrible grounds for reproach than forgiving sinners without first demanding the blood of Christ. -That is because you and I are humans. His was are not our ways. -Isaiah 55-Search for Jehovah while he may be found.+ Call to him while he is near.+ 7 Let the wicked man leave his way+ And the evil man his thoughts; Let him return to Jehovah, who will have mercy on him,+ To our God, for he will forgive in a large way.*+ 8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,+ And your ways are not my ways,” declares Jehovah. 9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So my ways are higher than your ways And my thoughts than your thoughts.+
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, October 30, 2014, 04:35 (3688 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
As I said before, sometimes it is best to let the bible speak for itself...--Romans 1:18-32-18 For God's wrath+ is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth+ in an unrighteous way, 19 because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them.+ 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made,+ even his eternal power+ and Godship,+ so that they are inexcusable. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened.+ 22 Although claiming they were wise, they became foolish 23 and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and birds and four-footed creatures and reptiles.*+ 24 Therefore, God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, so that their bodies might be dishonored among them. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated* and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the Creator, who is praised forever. Amen. 26 That is why God gave them over to uncontrolled sexual passion,+ for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature;+ 27 likewise also the males left the natural use of* the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males,+ working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full penalty,* which was due for their error.+ 28 Just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God,* God gave them over to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting.+ 29 And they were filled with all unrighteousness,+ wickedness, greed ,*+ and badness, being full of envy,+ murder,+ strife, deceit,+ and malice,+ being whisperers,* 30 backbiters,+ haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, schemers of what is harmful,* disobedient to parents,+ 31 without understanding,+ false to agreements, having no natural affection, and merciless. 32 Although these know full well the righteous decree of God—that those practicing such things are deserving of death+—they not only keep on doing them but also approve of those practicing them
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
TONY: As I said before, sometimes it is best to let the bible speak for itself... Romans 1:18-32-18 For God's wrath+ is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth+ in an unrighteous way, 19 because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them.+ 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made,+ even his eternal power+ and Godship,+ so that they are inexcusable. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened.+ 22 Although claiming they were wise, they became foolish 23 and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and birds and four-footed creatures and reptiles.*+ 24 Therefore, God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, so that their bodies might be dishonored among them. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated* and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the Creator, who is praised forever. Amen. 26 That is why God gave them over to uncontrolled sexual passion,+ for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature;+ 27 likewise also the males left the natural use of* the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males,+ working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full penalty,* which was due for their error.+ 28 Just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God,* God gave them over to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting.+ 29 And they were filled with all unrighteousness,+ wickedness, greed ,*+ and badness, being full of envy,+ murder,+ strife, deceit,+ and malice,+ being whisperers,* 30 backbiters,+ haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, schemers of what is harmful,* disobedient to parents,+ 31 without understanding,+ false to agreements, having no natural affection, and merciless. 32 Although these know full well the righteous decree of God—that those practicing such things are deserving of death+—they not only keep on doing them but also approve of those practicing them.- This is the sort of text which makes people sympathize with Richard Dawkins' antipathy towards religion. God's invisible qualities as manifested in the bible and the world around me are the mixture I have listed in my first post. I accept that my reasonings are empty-headed in so far as they lead me to no conclusions, but I vehemently deny that my heart has become darkened. I do not claim to be wise since I have no answers, but God so far as I know has not turned me into a rapist, a homosexual (this seems to have been an obsession among the law-givers), or a greedy, envious, murderous, deceitful, malicious, backbiting, haughty, untrustworthy, unloving, merciless candidate for the death penalty. You will of course read the text differently, but the implication that godlessness leads to sin is as obnoxious as my saying that religion leads to greed, paedophilia and war because bishops are rich, child abuse is rife in the Church, and different believers continue to wage war on each other. Human weakness is not the fault of godlessness or of religion. It's the way we are - or perhaps the way God made us.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, October 31, 2014, 01:36 (3687 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: As I said before, sometimes it is best to let the bible speak for itself... > Romans 1:18-32-> >DHW: This is the sort of text which makes people sympathize with Richard Dawkins' antipathy towards religion. God's invisible qualities as manifested in the bible and the world around me are the mixture I have listed in my first post. I accept that my reasonings are empty-headed in so far as they lead me to no conclusions, but I vehemently deny that my heart has become darkened. I do not claim to be wise since I have no answers, but God so far as I know has not turned me into a rapist, a homosexual (this seems to have been an obsession among the law-givers), or a greedy, envious, murderous, deceitful, malicious, backbiting, haughty, untrustworthy, unloving, merciless candidate for the death penalty. You will of course read the text differently, but the implication that godlessness leads to sin is as obnoxious as my saying that religion leads to greed, paedophilia and war because bishops are rich, child abuse is rife in the Church, and different believers continue to wage war on each other. Human weakness is not the fault of godlessness or of religion. It's the way we are - or perhaps the way God made us.-And no one said that this condemnation applied to everyone, or even equally to everyone. Some of it will apply more to some people than to others. Perhaps, it is exactly what it said it is. That people turned away from all the teachings that are right there, the basics of love your neighbor. What I find interesting is that you SEE exactly all the things that it said would be, and we see them running rampant today, far worse than at any other point in history, and you STILL say it wrong because you don't feel it applies to you personally. I have, on occasion, been a back biter, a little haughty, occasionally greedy, and envious at times. When I was younger, there were times I was even deceitful, most especially to myself. I am not saying I am a BAD person, but I definitely can see where I have made my mistakes, and I am cognizant enough of them not to deny them.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
Like yourself, Tony, I've had to select passages as I don't want to divide this into two parts.-TONY: Consider God from the perspective of being a ruler. If he doesn't allow free will, he is a dictator. If he does allow free will, but allows for no possibility to choose something other than him, then free will is an illusion. So A) In order for free will to be possible, there had to be a choice. Breaking the law has a penalty.-I have no problem with free will. But your God in his infinite wisdom would have known the choice Adam and Eve would make, so why the outrage? And punishing the whole human race for a crime committed by the first humans is not my idea of justice. I say “your God” because this is not a criticism of God. It's a criticism of a particular vision of God. DHW:I don't accept that we die because we're sinners. I don't believe human bodies would have survived intact for ever. TONY: So you could believe that he could create the universe, or design intelligent cells from scratch that would make all of evolution possible, but you doubt his ability to sustain life?-No, I doubt your interpretation of sin and death. If I believed in God, I'd believe he created matter to be in a constant state of change. Permanence would be boring! Life, change and death are part of the endlessly shifting pattern. -DHW: Weren't Adam and Eve meant to have children? Wouldn't they all have grown older? TONY: They would have matured, yes, but not aged in the terms that we think of today. They would have remained healthy and vibrant. -Imagine if Adam and Eve had not “sinned!” and their descendants had lived for ever, we would now have a planet overloaded with zillions and zillions of humans. But your God knew that wouldn't happen. DHW: So why this constant harping on about how bad we are and undeserving of his love? [...] TONY: It is NOT just constant harping on the wrong things we do, at least not in the bible. Yes, it talks about the bad things to make them evident [...]It also praises the good things that are done and the people that remained faithful.-We're talking about sin and the sacrifice of Christ “for our sakes”, and I'm questioning the emphasis on badness and the need for redemption. You say later that you don't think most people are bad. Nor do I. I can only remember meeting two people who ended up in prison. The atheists and agnostics I know live thoroughly decent lives. If God does exist, I'm sure we'll all genuinely repent our ignorance. Otherwise my own mistakes or thoughtless, selfish actions remain on my conscience, and that's my punishment. Did Christ have to die in order for God to forgive me? -dhw: I don't believe that the zillions of humans will be resurrected (at what age and in what state?), or that we're to be killed off again afterwards. TONY: No, most likely only about 10 Billion, realistically, not much more than what we have today. -Sorry, but you're analysing John's vision. Eben Alexander was brain dead, and found himself in a world of incredible beauty, with a woman he later discovered was the sister he'd never met. Why should I discount his version of death and accept John's? -TONY: I do not think you a bad person. I don't think most people are "bad" people. I think they, like you, carry wounds, pain, suffering, doubt, and a great many other negative experiences that make it difficult for you to believe in the love and mercy of God.-I doubt if most people's suffering has anything to do with their so-called sinfulness. In fact religion seems to have a greater hold among the suffering poor than among the rich and comfortable. But you're right, the negatives cast doubt on the rosy image.-TONY: Is it so difficult to show appreciation for all the GOOD things, instead of merely condemning him for the bad things that he did not do?-It's difficult to say thank you to something that might not even be there, let alone listening. Similarly, I can't condemn something that might not be there. Much of the suffering is caused by human behaviour, but much is not, and if God exists, I can see no reason to accept your view of his nature. This is a faith-bound interpretation of unreliable texts and it doesn't conform to the image I take both from the texts and from the world around me. But my picture is hopelessly complex and blurred (typically agnostic!) because it's a mixture of good and bad, unsolved mysteries, endless change, birth and death, mystical experiences, impersonal Nature, one god, many gods, no gods, love, fear, cruelty, indifference, beauty...If God is the mind of the universe, I can't read it, and I don't think anyone else can. But maybe the universe doesn't have a mind.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, October 31, 2014, 01:14 (3687 days ago) @ dhw
I have no problem with free will. But your God in his infinite wisdom would have known the choice Adam and Eve would make, so why the outrage? And punishing the whole human race for a crime committed by the first humans is not my idea of justice. -That is illogical. First, it wasn't a human that defected first. Second, the two humans had been around for quite some time without making a mistake. Third, he might not have known it would be the very first generation that messed up. Had it been a member of a subsequent generation, he most likely could have punished one without punishing all. Lastly, allowing us to punish ourselves is not the same as punishing us directly.->DHW: No, I doubt your interpretation of sin and death. If I believed in God, I'd believe he created matter to be in a constant state of change. Permanence would be boring! Life, change and death are part of the endlessly shifting pattern. -No one said anything about a lack of change, only a lack of death.- >DHW: Imagine if Adam and Eve had not “sinned!” and their descendants had lived for ever, we would now have a planet overloaded with zillions and zillions of humans. But your God knew that wouldn't happen.-Or perhaps we would have been colonizing other planets by now, you know, in that other 99.99999% of the universe that is empty at the moment.-> > DHW: So why this constant harping on about how bad we are and undeserving of his love? [...] > We're talking about sin and the sacrifice of Christ “for our sakes”, and I'm questioning the emphasis on badness and the need for redemption... If God does exist, I'm sure we'll all genuinely repent our ignorance. Otherwise my own mistakes or thoughtless, selfish actions remain on my conscience, and that's my punishment. Did Christ have to die in order for God to forgive me? -Just like any crime, there must be an equivalent punishment, a repayment. Saying that he should absolve the crimes without them having been repaid is to demand something for nothing. Certainly you don't expect something for nothing? But what can we give god? Everything we have he has given to us, everything that is apart from our freely given love, loyalty, and obedience. Our free will is the only thing that is ours alone to give. If we gave that freely and perfectly, then we wouldn't pay the price of death, but, who can say they have not sinned? Who can say they are perfect? That is why Christ HAD to die.- >DHW:Eben Alexander was brain dead, and found himself in a world of incredible beauty, with a woman he later discovered was the sister he'd never met. Why should I discount his version of death and accept John's? -Because Alexander was not dead. He was not conscious, and he had no brain activity ,but that is much much different than being dead. Just like we have a hard time defining the moment life starts, we have an equally hard time determining where it ends. We know the difference between life and death, but the thresholds are still very much a mystery.- >DHW: I doubt if most people's suffering has anything to do with their so-called sinfulness. In fact religion seems to have a greater hold among the suffering poor than among the rich and comfortable. But you're right, the negatives cast doubt on the rosy image.-Surely it does, their own sinfulness and the sinfulness of others. And you are right, it is easier for a poor destitute person to be wise than the rich fool. After all, the rich fool has so much more clouding his vision.- > It's difficult to say thank you to something that might not even be there, let alone listening. Similarly, I can't condemn something that might not be there.-But even you have a hard time denying his existence. You see it and you can't turn away from it any more than I can. If you could you would be an atheist and not agnostic. You see as well as I do that the other explanations make no sense. The difference, I think, is that I embrace it, and you look for a way around it. Perhaps because some of the bitterness that you've seen or been through.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
by David Turell , Friday, October 24, 2014, 22:06 (3693 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: As a matter of interest, perhaps David could tell us roughly what percentage of his patients died from blood transfusions by comparison with those whose lives were saved.-> > DAVID: We hold life as sacred, but we hold that Jehovah's sovereignty, love, mercy, and justice is worth more than our own lives. It's called faith. I know you respect faith, but your answers over the course of this discussion make me wonder if you really understand it. So I pose a question. Do you have faith, and if so, in what?\-This qoute is Tony's > > I can understand people being willing to die for their beliefs, and I do respect such faith, except when it impinges on the life, health, wellbeing or happiness of others, e.g. fundamentalist suicide bombers who combine martyrdom and murder for the sake of their religious cause. (You have said that God will judge people by their motives. If he welcomes them to paradise, so be it.) My arguments are meant as a critique not of faith but of dogmatism. Perhaps I have a built-in resistance to any claim that X is the truth and everyone else is wrong. (Hence my antipathy to militant atheism.) You ask if I have faith in anything. It's a difficult question, and I've had to think hard about it. The only answer I have come up with is so corny that I hesitate to put it in writing, but I will, because it's what I feel: I have faith in the power of human love and laughter.
Religion: pros & cons pt1
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, October 24, 2014, 22:29 (3693 days ago) @ dhw
PART ONE > > DHW: The two passages in Acts tell us to abstain from things polluted by/sacrificed to idols, from fornication, from things strangled and from blood.... You claimed that the bible banned ingestion of blood. I pointed out that the OT used the word “eat” (I can't find “ingest”), which to me suggests a ban on blood as food.-Read Leviticus 17 (the entire chapter). I'm done arguing semantics. The prohibition against blood is firmly established. -> > DHW: If a patient's life can be saved by a blood transfusion, but the patient doesn't have one and dies, what part does medical safety play in your argument? ... > You did not answer my first question. You have argued (correctly) that the practice is not safe. I'm arguing that if the patient dies, your practice is clearly not safe either. As a matter of interest, perhaps David could tell us roughly what percentage of his patients died from blood transfusions by comparison with those whose lives were saved.-I do not think that anyone ever claimed that refusing blood transfusions were safe. We claimed, and it is repeatedly stated throughout the bible, that blood is considered sacred and there is a clear prohibition against any use of blood save one, that of a sacrifice, a practice which was abolished under the new covenant.-- > > TONY: My guess is that it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if we are right or wrong. It doesn't matter if none of us died or a hundred thousand of us died. We reject what is the social norm, and that, in and of itself, is enough to condemn us. Of course, no one mentions how our teachings and practices SAVE lives. No one mentions the drug addicts, alcoholics, smokers, or other reckless life threatening practices that Witnesses actively work to stop....etc. > >.. You defend your interpretation of these biblical texts brilliantly, and I wish we had another scholar to debate the details with you, but the fact is that other scholars DO disagree with you, and (a) this proves that the bible is open to interpretation, and (b) by labelling them ignorant, malicious, or self-interested, you are expressing precisely the same dismissive (and grossly unfair) attitude that you resent when they “condemn” JWs.-People can twist anything. There are hundreds, thousands of truths that have been twisted for one reason or another. That doesn't make those truths less true. Even observable facts have been twisted at times, generally through ignorance or malice. Being ignorant is not a crime, and I am certainly not dismissive of people that, with an honest heart, did the best they could with what they know. In particular, it is with the latter category, the malicious, that I take issue. For example, removing God's name from the bible some nearly 7000 times, even though one of the major themes is to "Glorify his name" or "Sanctify his name" or "Make his name known throughout all the inhabited earth." I take issue with forbidding the translation into common languages so that they can hold a monopoly on power. I take issue with denying Christ despite the evidence. There is a difference between ignorant and malice. I do trust that Jehovah will judge appropriately when the time comes in perfect justice. Their disposition is not mine to say. -> > Tony: We hold life as sacred, but we hold that Jehovah's sovereignty, love, mercy, and justice is worth more than our own lives. It's called faith. I know you respect faith, but your answers over the course of this discussion make me wonder if you really understand it. So I pose a question. Do you have faith, and if so, in what? > > I can understand people being willing to die for their beliefs, and I do respect such faith, except when it impinges on the life, health, wellbeing or happiness of others, e.g. You ask if I have faith in anything. It's a difficult question, and I've had to think hard about it. The only answer I have come up with is so corny that I hesitate to put it in writing, but I will, because it's what I feel: I have faith in the power of human love and laughter.-That is a wonderful start. There is enormous power in love, and God wants us to be happy. (Psalms 98:4) "Shout for joy to the LORD, all the earth, burst into jubilant song with music". Now consider, if we are made in God's image, reflecting his traits, how much greater than are his love, joy, justice, power, and mercy?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Religion: pros & cons
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, October 20, 2014, 21:51 (3697 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: The questions you have asked me pose clear moral dilemmas: we know the meaning of “killing” and “stealing”, both of which harm other people. But the dilemma in this context is far from clear. Whatever the original words may have meant (translation is a subjective exercise), we know that the people who wrote these texts did not have blood transfusions in mind, since the procedure did not exist. Would you then allow a child to die because a tiny minority of biblical scholars believe eating and ingesting are synonymous with transfusing? Of course you have the right to let yourself die, and that is why I am using the example of a child. You say you believe God wants us to enjoy and preserve life. You have also said that some of the most vicious laws in the OT were cancelled by the “new covenant”. The article I referred to quoted Luke 6, 7-10, in which Jesus cured a man's withered hand on the Sabbath, and the author comments that “Jesus invoked the Rabbinic principle...that the obligation to save life supersedes Jewish law.” In the scenario we are discussing here, it is not even clear that a law is being broken. And we also know that barring the unforeseen - a proviso that applies to all medications and operations - this manner of taking blood is harmless to the donor as well as life-saving to the recipient. Do you really believe, then, that the Jesus who cured on the Sabbath would have refused to allow the child to have a transfusion? > -To answer the first question last, Christ would have not needed to allow a transfusion, as he demonstrated many times in front of numerous witnesses. Your so-called provisio also completely ignores all of the other scriptural evidence presented. I am not sure if you are actually reading the scriptures I post, but I have shown you several that explicitly say that saving your life is not grounds for breaking God's law. Further, the Sabbath was about taking a day of rest and setting aside time to worship God. And how loving of a provision is that? We can see today that humans will happily work each other to death, but the Sabbath law ensure that EVERYONE, even slaves, received time to rest and recover. -Yes, Christ cured on the Sabbath, and even endorsed saving life on the Sabbath, but he did not break God's laws to do so. The two prime components of the Old Law Covenant are stated at Mathew 22:34-40, "‘You must love Jehovah* your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul* and with your whole mind.'+ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.'" You look at the Law and see it as cruel and vicious. Why? I would love to discuss the law with you. -- >DHW: The blood example has taken over our discussion, as I'm sure it often does when you discuss these matters with outsiders. But the discussion in itself serves only to illustrate my point: that the bible is wide open to interpretation. One can hardly say it's not, when your own interpretation is so fiercely contested by your fellow biblical scholars. The “I am right and they are wrong” approach certainly does not mean that the text itself is clear.-Not at all. The bible is right, God is right. Everyone, including myself, could certainly be very wrong in deed. Fortunately, there is a provision for our ignorance. Prov 16:2 Tells us that God judges the motives of a man, not just the actions. Indeed, all of our ways 'seem pure to us', that is, we'd like to think we are doing the right thing, even when that thing causes unknown harm. Isn't it loving that, conceding our ignorance, he doesn't judge us based on our stupidity, but on what motivated us to take the course of action that we did. So, they can suck blood out of little baggies all day long, and call it whatever they like. As for me and mine, we will be obedient to the best of our abilities.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Religion: pros & cons
by David Turell , Monday, October 20, 2014, 21:23 (3697 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony: As for the biblical portion, lets test the validity of your source: > > >Source: Consuming blood was not forbidden until the Mosaic Law. Noah was not forbidden from consuming blood.. > Genesis 9:4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.(ESV) > > Does that seem like a legit argument to you?-This is simply the source of koshering meat. The blood is drained out, and the meat cut into portions. The Rabbis have never forbidden transfusion.
Religion: pros & cons
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, October 20, 2014, 21:52 (3697 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Tony: As for the biblical portion, lets test the validity of your source: > > > > >Source: Consuming blood was not forbidden until the Mosaic Law. Noah was not forbidden from consuming blood.. > > Genesis 9:4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.(ESV) > > > > Does that seem like a legit argument to you? > > This is simply the source of koshering meat. The blood is drained out, and the meat cut into portions. The Rabbis have never forbidden transfusion.-Yes, I know, but his source specifically said Noah was not forbidden from consuming blood..
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Religion: pros & cons
by David Turell , Monday, October 20, 2014, 22:58 (3697 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> > David This is simply the source of koshering meat. The blood is drained out, and the meat cut into portions. The Rabbis have never forbidden transfusion. > > Tony:Yes, I know, but his source specifically said Noah was not forbidden from consuming blood..-Fair enough
Religion: pros & cons
by DragonsHeart , Wednesday, October 22, 2014, 22:38 (3695 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Hello, gentlemen.-Perhaps I might weigh in on some of this discussion. I hope you will pardon if I don't quote you all directly, and if I forget who said what. Now, onto the discussion.-I saw it mentioned about interfaith marriages, and whether they are forbidden or not. No, they certainly weren't. Joseph married an Egyptian, certainly of a different faith. Moses married a Midianite, after he had given up the beliefs of the Egyptian gods, so he and his wife were of different faiths. Over and over, we are shown examples of interfaith marriages.-Interfaith marriages, while not the norm, were certainly not discouraged.- Yes, Witnesses abstain from blood transfusions and such. When one of my children had to have surgery to remove a benign cyst over her left eye, I had to fill out all the paperwork, and I checked that I refused blood transfusions. I had done much research through the years, and I just do not feel the benefits outweigh the risks. My grandfather contracted Hepatitis (I forget which specific one) years ago through a blood transfusion. Yes, he lived, but he had health consequences.-The medical community had to develop new ways of operating and new treatments to accommodate their patients who were Jehovah's Witnesses. As a result, research has shown that these bloodless procedures and treatments actually have quicker recovery times, and the healing process is faster. - To say that Tony would "sacrifice the lives even of children" is a bit of a stretch. To say that Jehovah would "forbid the deliberate shortening of life when the means to prolong it are available" is also a stretch. Witnesses are not against treatment for illnesses, not by any means, but when the "best option" also brings with it the potential to kill the patient, it no longer becomes the best option. Transfusions are not 100% safe, and never will be. They were viewed as safe, and then HIV was discovered to be transmitted through transfusions. -The statement where Protestants and Catholics don't seem to have an issue with transfusions. Then mentioning the issue of contraception, and questioning whether the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury failed to consider the Bible as a whole. Here's my answer: They both have. I was raised in the Catholic Church, and for nearly 20 years, there were many stories that I never heard. Ever. Adonijah, the 4 men in the fiery furnace, much of Job, many of the Proverbs. I did not have a complete knowledge of the Bible. Reading on our own wasn't particularly encouraged. The Catholics ignore many passages in the Bible simply because it is convenient for them to do so(such as Mark 7:9 which says "You skillfully disregard the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.").
Religion: pros & cons
by David Turell , Thursday, October 23, 2014, 01:53 (3695 days ago) @ DragonsHeart
Dh: Hello, gentlemen.-Welcome back Dh. Good to have you. > > Dh: Interfaith marriages, while not the norm, were certainly not discouraged.-I'm in one now and it is great. > > Dh: The medical community had to develop new ways of operating and new treatments to accommodate their patients who were Jehovah's Witnesses. As a result, research has shown that these bloodless procedures and treatments actually have quicker recovery times, and the healing process is faster. -It was more than Jehovah's Witnesses. Blood can certainly have complications. Luckily, in my case over 40 years in medicine, all I every saw was fever. But many ways around blood are now used. Plasma expanders for one; simply fluids as was done with my first wife, who lost close to 30% of her blood with birth of our son. Blood pressure was stabilized with adding fluids rapidly and stopping the bleeding. Then she took iron for months until the counts were back to normal. Self-transfusion as I have mentioned. And work on synthetic blood is ongoing. > > > Dh: Transfusions are not 100% safe, and never will be. They were viewed as safe, and then HIV was discovered to be transmitted through transfusions.-In my lifetime in medicine they were never viewed as 100% safe( I mentioned fever above). HIV is an example of what can happen; that came as a surprise in the 1980's, but even before we always tried to use blood judiciously. > > Dh: The statement where Protestants and Catholics don't seem to have an issue with transfusions. Then mentioning the issue of contraception, and questioning whether the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury failed to consider the Bible as a whole. Here's my answer: They both have. -I've had to deal with all sorts of patients and clergy. I've always kept an open mind as to how they viewed their medical care and their religious beliefs. I've even had Christian Science folks in the office. To be a helpful human, folks must be accepted for how they believe.
Religion: pros & cons
CASEY: Perhaps I might weigh in on some of this discussion. I hope you will pardon if I don't quote you all directly, and if I forget who said what. Now, onto the discussion. I saw it mentioned about interfaith marriages, and whether they are forbidden or not. No, they certainly weren't. Joseph married an Egyptian, certainly of a different faith. Moses married a Midianite, after he had given up the beliefs of the Egyptian gods, so he and his wife were of different faiths. Over and over, we are shown examples of interfaith marriages. Interfaith marriages, while not the norm, were certainly not discouraged.-Thank you for joining in. You can be pretty sure that any complaints about the bible are from me! However, my fundamental point is not which interpretation is correct, but the fact that the bible is so open to interpretation that it cannot be seen as a reliable guide. I'm no theologian, and I'm no physicist, but when theologians disagree and physicists disagree, I get the feeling there is no consensus! On the subject of inter-faith marriage, what you say is very convincing, but perhaps you could look at this website: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ifm_bibl.htm The authors mention exceptions, but conclude from their many biblical quotes that “almost all references to inter-faith marriage are condemned”. I was happily married (inter-faith AND mixed race) for 48 years. I still try to behave myself. And I see no reason why I should be told who to marry or how to behave by one or other set of scholars squabbling over the correct meaning of ancient texts written by, translated by and above all interpreted by fallible human beings. I know you believe the bible is the word of God and I don't, but if different people find different meanings, the words themselves do not seem to me to carry any authority. You rightly say that blood transfusions are not 100% safe. No medical treatment is 100% safe, but that is a different reason from the belief that transfusions are against God's will. You are obviously telescoping arguments here, perhaps to say that God has warned you against using such a process. We have had very different experiences. My wife was given 20 more years of life by massive blood transfusions following post-operative negligence. I don't know of any Jews, or Christians other than Jehovah's Witnesses, who would claim that God will condemn her for that, but they all have the same bible and believe in the same God. Once again, my aim is not to establish what is right and wrong, but to show the ambiguity of these biblical instructions. As regards the Catholics, they are in a mess of their own making, adhering to ancient ideas on contraception, homosexuality, celibacy in the priesthood, the status of women etc. These are not necessarily based on the bible, but they do raise the whole question of reliance on ideas that took root when times were totally different. Tony has defended some of what I call the vicious laws in Deuteronomy. (I wonder what you as a modern woman make of Deut. 21, 10-14!) The Islamic fundamentalists (IS, Boko Haram etc.) are indulging in precisely the same practices, citing their own religious texts. You criticized the Catholic Church for not considering the bible as a whole, and you wrote: “The Catholics ignore many passages in the Bible simply because it is convenient for them to do so (such as Mark 7:9 which says "You skillfully disregard the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition."). But what IS the commandment of God? In so many contexts, there is no consensus. If I need moral guidance, my inclination is to follow the simple rule of do as you would be done by. That seems to cover most things.
Religion: pros & cons
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, October 24, 2014, 21:44 (3693 days ago) @ dhw
DHW:.... if different people find different meanings, the words themselves do not seem to me to carry any authority.-Examine this statement for a moment. If there is a fundamental rule, principle, or set of principles in physics, and three or four people disagree, does that mean the principles are wrong or the people? I've often seen you give latitude or benefit of the doubt to scientist that you do not give to religion, and I wonder why that is.- > > You rightly say that blood transfusions are not 100% safe. No medical treatment is 100% safe, but that is a different reason from the belief that transfusions are against God's will. You are obviously telescoping arguments here, perhaps to say that God has warned you against using such a process. We have had very different experiences. My wife was given 20 more years of life by massive blood transfusions following post-operative negligence. I don't know of any Jews, or Christians other than Jehovah's Witnesses, who would claim that God will condemn her for that, but they all have the same bible and believe in the same God. Once again, my aim is not to establish what is right and wrong, but to show the ambiguity of these biblical instructions. >-Actually, even Jehovah's Witnesses would not say that she was condemned for life. They simply would not do anything to jeopardize their relationship with God. There are a lot of misconceptions about the way that the Witnesses believe, and admittedly, some of those misconceptions are because we tend to talk about things without remembering that other people do not have the same background, so the context for them is lost. -For example, we don't just view Jehovah as God, but also as a Father, and a friend. He is our protector, our provider, and our loyal companion. In short, we love him, not as some abstract creature, but as a dear, personal friend. Just like you wouldn't do anything to hurt your friends feelings, or even risk hurting your friends feelings, we don't want to risk hurting his, even inadvertently. Where most people get lost is that they think that we are saying or doing things out of fear of being condemned or that we are afraid of not being part of the resurrection. While I am sure that is true in the case of some individuals, the entire point of showing you those challenges from Job is to say that we don't do it for what we can get out of it, and we don't do it just to save our own skin. - > But what IS the commandment of God?-"Love Jehovah your god with your whole heart, whole soul, and whole body, and Love your neighbor as you love yourself." All of the laws in the Bible break down into these two laws, and only by examining the laws from this perspective will they ever make sense. Not only does this set the standard for behavior, it also sets the precedence for whether you put your God, your fellow man, or yourself first. (Clue: It is in that order: God, your fellow man, or yourself.) If you follow the rule of 'Do unto others as you would have done to you", then you are already following half of God's law.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Religion: pros & cons
by David Turell , Friday, May 06, 2022, 21:00 (942 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
A new discussion of a meaningful life with and without religion:
https://psyche.co/ideas/religion-gives-life-meaning-can-anything-else-take-its-place?ut...
"Theologians sometimes argue that, without the existence of God, life would be meaningless. Some secular people agree. For instance, in his book An Atheist’s Guide to Reality (2011), the philosopher Alex Rosenberg claims that, because the observable physical universe is all that exists, human life is meaningless. Whether you accept this philosophical claim or not, the fact that many people seem to believe that God or other supernatural entities are necessary for life to be meaningful suggests that, psychologically, there is some important connection between religious faith and the sense of meaning in life.
***
"One possible explanation has to do with the way religion tends to act like social glue, drawing the faithful into likeminded communities. People often find social support and a sense of belonging within such communities, which can be a powerful source of perceived meaning in life. Imagine, for instance, the close personal relationships that someone might find in a Bible study group. Hence, one route from religion to the feeling that life is meaningful could be through this sense that one matters to others. We can call this explanation the ‘social mattering hypothesis’.
"Another possibility is that religious faith helps people to feel that they matter not just to others, but in the grand scheme of things. The observable universe is inconceivably vast and ancient: it is approximately 93 billion light-years in diameter and c14 billion years old. Against that backdrop, it’s easy to see why some regard humanity as utterly insignificant. As Stephen Hawking once put it, science tells us that humanity ‘is just a chemical scum on a moderate-size planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies’. That’s not a particularly uplifting thought.
***
"These explanations were well summarized by Rabbi Harold Kushner. Defending the importance of religion, he wrote:
"Religion offers us a cure for the plague of loneliness by bringing us into a community of people with whom we share what is most vital in our lives … [R]eligious faith also satisfies another, even deeper human need – perhaps the most fundamental human need of all. That is the need to know that somehow we matter, that our lives mean something, count as something more than just a momentary blip in the Universe.
***
"It’s worth reiterating that these studies were conducted in the US, where most religious people are adherents of Abrahamic monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Things might look very different in other cultures. But, if these findings are correct – at least in this Western context, where being religious typically means believing in a creator God – they raise the question of whether secular Western society is in a position to reproduce the existential benefits of religion.
"Unfortunately, the data suggest a pessimistic answer. If religiousness were associated with perceived meaning in life primarily because of the social resources that come from religion, then new forms of social organisation could be developed to step in for religious ones. In fact, a number of ‘atheist churches’ have already been established with this goal in mind. Such communities are likely to be very beneficial for their members. Yet our research suggests that these secular substitutes will be less powerful sources of perceived meaning than religious faith because they are unlikely to support perceptions of cosmic significance.
"Is it possible to cultivate a sense of cosmic significance without adopting religious beliefs? One might contribute to science (ie, attempt to comprehend the Universe), or work to protect Earth from the climate crisis or other global threats. These are enormously important and good things to do with one’s life. Yet the impacts of such endeavours are confined to the comparatively humble scale of our planet – which, again, is a very small part of the cosmos overall.
***
"If you’re not religious, you might side with Karl Marx, who wrote that ‘Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.’ That is, you might think that religion makes life feel meaningful by fostering positive illusions – ie, it’s consoling, but nothing more than a fantasy. On the other hand, if you are religious, you might take this research to demonstrate the importance of faith, the distinctive and perhaps irreplaceable role that it plays in making life worth living.
"In any case, one clear implication of this research is that a person’s sense that their life is meaningful depends on their perceptions of their own significance. But a person can be significant in various ways. Hence, those seeking to lead more meaningful lives would do well to seek out ways in which they can matter – whether that means mattering to other individuals, to their communities, or perhaps even in the grand scheme of the Universe.
Comment: I skipped the research decription. I think life can be meaningful without religions.
Any further thoughts?
Religion: pros & cons
QUOTE: "In any case, one clear implication of this research is that a person’s sense that their life is meaningful depends on their perceptions of their own significance. But a person can be significant in various ways. Hence, those seeking to lead more meaningful lives would do well to seek out ways in which they can matter – whether that means mattering to other individuals, to their communities, or perhaps even in the grand scheme of the Universe."
DAVID: I skipped the research description. I think life can be meaningful without religions.
Any further thoughts?
I couldn’t agree more. In my view it is not so much a question of my own significance, but of what is important to me. If it is important to me that I raise a happy family, enjoy my work, and my football team wins, then therein lies my “meaning”. I hope that whatever is meaningful to me will be of benefit to others, and if I’m applauded by others, then that will enhance the meaningfulness of what I do, but it still comes back to what matters to me. If it is important for someone to feel that they are important to the universe, then religion is probably the only way they’ll satisfy their self-centred desire, but otherwise the only unique “pro” that I can think of is the blind faith that enables people to believe that no matter what misery they may endure in this life, God will somehow make it all come right in the end. Such personal comfort is priceless. All the other “pros” are available outside of religion, and I should add that in view of the appalling consequences of certain religious beliefs (e.g. the Inquisition and the Crusades right through to modern terrorism in the name of God) – the article is a little short on the “cons”!
Religion: pros & cons
by David Turell , Monday, May 09, 2022, 16:00 (939 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: "In any case, one clear implication of this research is that a person’s sense that their life is meaningful depends on their perceptions of their own significance. But a person can be significant in various ways. Hence, those seeking to lead more meaningful lives would do well to seek out ways in which they can matter – whether that means mattering to other individuals, to their communities, or perhaps even in the grand scheme of the Universe."
DAVID: I skipped the research description. I think life can be meaningful without religions.
Any further thoughts?dhw: I couldn’t agree more. In my view it is not so much a question of my own significance, but of what is important to me. If it is important to me that I raise a happy family, enjoy my work, and my football team wins, then therein lies my “meaning”. I hope that whatever is meaningful to me will be of benefit to others, and if I’m applauded by others, then that will enhance the meaningfulness of what I do, but it still comes back to what matters to me. If it is important for someone to feel that they are important to the universe, then religion is probably the only way they’ll satisfy their self-centred desire, but otherwise the only unique “pro” that I can think of is the blind faith that enables people to believe that no matter what misery they may endure in this life, God will somehow make it all come right in the end. Such personal comfort is priceless. All the other “pros” are available outside of religion, and I should add that in view of the appalling consequences of certain religious beliefs (e.g. the Inquisition and the Crusades right through to modern terrorism in the name of God) – the article is a little short on the “cons”!
For me the real issue is the answer to the question, 'why am I here'? Certainly, to enjoy what life offers as you note. However, there is another answer. The background of parental teaching tells me how to treat others. Now the final answer is to find the purpose behind your arrival. To contribute to others to enforce our communal interdependence. As you can see from our discussions, I look to purpose in the universe.
Religion: pros & cons
Religion pros and cons
QUOTE: "In any case, one clear implication of this research is that a person’s sense that their life is meaningful depends on their perceptions of their own significance. But a person can be significant in various ways. Hence, those seeking to lead more meaningful lives would do well to seek out ways in which they can matter – whether that means mattering to other individuals, to their communities, or perhaps even in the grand scheme of the Universe."
dhw: […] In my view it is not so much a question of my own significance, but of what is important to me. If it is important to me that I raise a happy family, enjoy my work, and my football team wins, then therein lies my “meaning”. I hope that whatever is meaningful to me will be of benefit to others, and if I’m applauded by others, then that will enhance the meaningfulness of what I do, but it still comes back to what matters to me. If it is important for someone to feel that they are important to the universe, then religion is probably the only way they’ll satisfy their self-centred desire, but otherwise the only unique “pro” that I can think of is the blind faith that enables people to believe that no matter what misery they may endure in this life, God will somehow make it all come right in the end. Such personal comfort is priceless. All the other “pros” are available outside of religion, and I should add that in view of the appalling consequences of certain religious beliefs (e.g. the Inquisition and the Crusades right through to modern terrorism in the name of God) – the article is a little short on the “cons”!
DAVID: For me the real issue is the answer to the question, 'why am I here'? Certainly, to enjoy what life offers as you note. However, there is another answer. The background of parental teaching tells me how to treat others. Now the final answer is to find the purpose behind your arrival. To contribute to others to enforce our communal interdependence. As you can see from our discussions, I look to purpose in the universe.
Enjoyment was not the only thing I noted. The question concerned the meaning of life, and my point was that this was totally subjective, and did not depend on “perceptions of [our] own significance”, but on what was important to us. If you think the purpose of life is to help others and foster social interdependence (which I too would applaud, and mentioned in my response) then that is what gives your life meaning. And you don’t need religion to do it. But if someone else thinks that the acquisition of wealth at the expense of others is the most important thing, then that will constitute his/her “meaning” or “purpose”. Purpose in the universe is certainly a province of religion but, as I pointed out above, this can lead to plenty of cons – not to mention fierce disagreements on an agnostic website!
Religion: pros & cons
by David Turell , Tuesday, May 10, 2022, 14:54 (938 days ago) @ dhw
Religion pros and cons
QUOTE: "In any case, one clear implication of this research is that a person’s sense that their life is meaningful depends on their perceptions of their own significance. But a person can be significant in various ways. Hence, those seeking to lead more meaningful lives would do well to seek out ways in which they can matter – whether that means mattering to other individuals, to their communities, or perhaps even in the grand scheme of the Universe."
dhw: […] In my view it is not so much a question of my own significance, but of what is important to me. If it is important to me that I raise a happy family, enjoy my work, and my football team wins, then therein lies my “meaning”. I hope that whatever is meaningful to me will be of benefit to others, and if I’m applauded by others, then that will enhance the meaningfulness of what I do, but it still comes back to what matters to me. If it is important for someone to feel that they are important to the universe, then religion is probably the only way they’ll satisfy their self-centred desire, but otherwise the only unique “pro” that I can think of is the blind faith that enables people to believe that no matter what misery they may endure in this life, God will somehow make it all come right in the end. Such personal comfort is priceless. All the other “pros” are available outside of religion, and I should add that in view of the appalling consequences of certain religious beliefs (e.g. the Inquisition and the Crusades right through to modern terrorism in the name of God) – the article is a little short on the “cons”!
DAVID: For me the real issue is the answer to the question, 'why am I here'? Certainly, to enjoy what life offers as you note. However, there is another answer. The background of parental teaching tells me how to treat others. Now the final answer is to find the purpose behind your arrival. To contribute to others to enforce our communal interdependence. As you can see from our discussions, I look to purpose in the universe.
dhw: Enjoyment was not the only thing I noted. The question concerned the meaning of life, and my point was that this was totally subjective, and did not depend on “perceptions of [our] own significance”, but on what was important to us. If you think the purpose of life is to help others and foster social interdependence (which I too would applaud, and mentioned in my response) then that is what gives your life meaning. And you don’t need religion to do it. But if someone else thinks that the acquisition of wealth at the expense of others is the most important thing, then that will constitute his/her “meaning” or “purpose”. Purpose in the universe is certainly a province of religion but, as I pointed out above, this can lead to plenty of cons – not to mention fierce disagreements on an agnostic website!
The misuse of religion is a gross human error. But then again religions are inventions of humans. On the other hand, the overwhelming evidence of design strongly suggests Whatever is 'God' is real.