Southernhybrid's Contradictions

[DLH]

I think the usual interpretation has been that the ancients believed that the god(s) entered into those figurines. The ancients understood that men like themselves had fashioned them.

Just as the Hebrews believed Name of G-d dwelt in the Temple that Solomon built.

Not Solomon. Not literally anyway.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This is an adaptation of an article originally written by former Interim President and current member of the Board of Directors Frank Zindler.

I'm excited! Let's have some fun kicking it around. Poke it with a stick to see what happens, huh? He asked for it, not unlike ourselves. I've got the text you pasted saved in a text editor and I'm going TO TRY to get to all of the alleged contradictions one at a time in this thread. Now, having said that, keep in mind I get bored pretty quick and I've been doing this for a long time. It doesn't do any good that I can see. I think Jehovah would agree that I would be better off just letting you go on thinking whatever you would like to think. It isn't like ideological fixation pays much attention to reason unless it can benefit from it.

It is a central dogma of all fundamental Christians that the Bible is without error.

Well, that will teach Frank not to trust the Christians with knowledge of the Bible. Might as well ask the cat.

Spoiler: The Fallible Bible

The Bible is fallible. The inspired word of Jehovah God is infallible, but the Bible itself is an imperfect translation of that. Thus, if you have a good reference Bible, at Mark 16:9-20, John 5:4, John 7:53-8:11, and 1 John 5:7, it will indicate that these verses did not appear in earlier manuscripts; they are spurious, added later.

The Bible also warns readers to test rather than just believe even the inspired expression (some translations read "spirit") because there are many false teachings or expressions (1 John 4:1-3).

At 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, where the KJV uses the term "a strong delusion," other translations use "working of error" (ASV), "a misleading influence, a working of error" (AMP), and "fooled into believing a lie" (CEV). The question arises: what does this mean?

In a basic sense, it means God will allow them to believe whatever they want, which in this case, was a lie. This was similarly seen with King Ahab at 1 Kings 22:1-38 and 2 Chronicles 18. If one prefers the lie, there is nothing God can do to change that except hold you accountable for it. Note that other translations use the term "judged" rather than "damned" as the KJV does. Also, where most translations, including the KJV, use "found pleasure" in unrighteousness, the Greek literally means "having thought well." This implies that they have given it thought and intellectually strive to reach the conclusion they desire.

This is a fundamental problem with both believers and unbelievers. Believers want to adhere to the traditions of their denomination, while unbelievers often seek the worst possible alternative. What, then, is the meaning of the Bible? What is it really all about? It can be summed up simply as the vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus.

Are JW's fundamentalists? Personally, I think they are but I don't think they identify as fundamentalists.

Are Jehovah’s Witnesses Protestants, Fundamentalists, or a sect?
Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christians, but they are not Protestants for the same reason that they are not Catholics—they recognize certain teachings of those religions as unscriptural. For example, the Bible does not teach that God—the very personification of love—tortures people forever in a fiery hell. Nor does it teach that humans have an immortal soul or that Christians should meddle in politics.—Ezekiel 18:4; John 15:19; 17:14; Romans 6:23. *

“Fundamentalism is a broad movement within Protestantism in the United States,” says The World Book Encyclopedia. Some Fundamentalist organizations “have adopted social and political positions based on a literal use of Biblical texts.” That definition does not fit Jehovah’s Witnesses. As mentioned, they abstain from politics and do not impose their views on others by political or any other means. Rather, they converse with people, usually one-on-one, using reason and convincing evidence, in imitation of the early Christians.—Acts 19:8.

A sect is a dissenting group within a religious community or one that breaks away to form a new religion. Jehovah’s Witnesses have not broken away from any church. They are not a sect.

https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/g201008/frequently-asked-questions/

 

[DLH]

Are JW's fundamentalists? Personally, I think they are but I don't think they identify as fundamentalists.

Are Jehovah’s Witnesses Protestants, Fundamentalists, or a sect?
Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christians, but they are not Protestants for the same reason that they are not Catholics—they recognize certain teachings of those religions as unscriptural. For example, the Bible does not teach that God—the very personification of love—tortures people forever in a fiery hell. Nor does it teach that humans have an immortal soul or that Christians should meddle in politics.—Ezekiel 18:4; John 15:19; 17:14; Romans 6:23. *

“Fundamentalism is a broad movement within Protestantism in the United States,” says The World Book Encyclopedia. Some Fundamentalist organizations “have adopted social and political positions based on a literal use of Biblical texts.” That definition does not fit Jehovah’s Witnesses. As mentioned, they abstain from politics and do not impose their views on others by political or any other means. Rather, they converse with people, usually one-on-one, using reason and convincing evidence, in imitation of the early Christians.—Acts 19:8.

A sect is a dissenting group within a religious community or one that breaks away to form a new religion. Jehovah’s Witnesses have not broken away from any church. They are not a sect.

https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/g201008/frequently-asked-questions/

As I've said elsewhere, religion isn't of much interest to me. I am more familiar with the Watchtower religion. The question is somewhat ambiguous though since protestant and especially fundamentalist a labels and broader terms used prior to those applications. I would think that though they may not be a part of either they are those things. I don't know if that makes sense, but you get the picture.

 

[Politesse]

Very few institutions identify as "fundamentalist", it's more a slur that critics use against relatively conservative Protestant churches. Since the term has little in the way of a consistent definition, it's hard to say exactly how well it describes any given community. I avoid it, personally and professionally. You save a lot of time by just referring to people however they refer to themselves.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I see it as follows:

Person A: Fundamentalists say X.
Person B: Oh yeah, well, this JW I know says not X. Here is evidence of the JW saying not X.
Person C: JW's do not consider themselves fundamentalists and so your counterexample does not work. Here is evidence of the JW's saying they are not fundamentalist.

 

[DLH]

I see it as follows:

Person A: Fundamentalists say X.
Person B: Oh yeah, well, this JW I know says not X. Here is evidence of the JW saying not X.
Person C: JW's do not consider themselves fundamentalists and so your counterexample does not work. Here is evidence of the JW's saying they are not fundamentalist.

To me a fundamentalist is a person who adheres strictly to the basic principles of any subject or discipline: I like to refer to militant atheists as fundamentalist militant atheists for obvious reasons. Do JWs adhere to a strict, literal interpretation of scripture? I suppose so, but I would also say that they have the sense to tell the difference.

There is that religious label pigeonholing but also useful for distinguishing, then there is a literal definition which can be at odds which is why I don't like labels. If someone asks me if I'm a fundamentalist I would ask exactly what they mean by it. For me personally, being, admittedly, an odd little tit, I would not want to associate myself with any group because of the pigeonholing.

I would consider the possiblity that I were fundamentalist but not a fundamentelist, whether or not it were "popular." Which, come to think of it, I sort of do all the time with JWs. Am I a JW, or a Christian, even? No. Am I an ifedel? Yeah. But I don't adhere to any prescribed concept of what that means. As a group. I never take sides.

 

[DLH]

Human Sacrifice
“… Thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God…” — Leviticus 18:21

[In Judges, though, the tale of Jephthah, who led the Israelites against the Ammonoites, is being told. Being fearful of defeat, this good religious man sought to guarantee victory by getting god firmly on his side. So he prayed to god] “… If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering” — Judges 11:30-31

[The terms were acceptable to god — remember, he is supposed to be omniscient and know the future — so he gave victory to Jephthah, and the first whatsoever that greeted him upon his glorious return was his daughter, as god surely knew would happen, if god is god. True to his vow, the general made a human sacrifice of his only child to god!] — Judges 11:29-34

Normally I would just write as briefly as I can, some correction here. No one is terribly interested in that. What do you think? Do you think the Bible presents Jehovah God as omniscient? What does that mean? What do you think Jephthah meant by such an offer? What happened to Jephthah's daughter? What did she later say about what happened to her?

 

[DBT]

DLH, just curious...how do you explain the failure of the return of Jesus in power and glory prophesy?

I thought I had already posted on this, but having searched 10 pages of my content I don't see it.

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (SAB) raises the question of whether or not Jesus' return would be visible to all. This response concludes that his return would be visible but not in the manner in which is often thought. The Bible never indicates that Jesus would return in physical form, but that he would return his attention back to Earth, where he would be in spirit. Jesus' return is often thought to be in the physical form of a man, but scripture never speaks of his return in such a manner.

In order to establish a contradiction, the SAB uses John 14:19 in support that Jesus return would not be visible and parallel accounts given at Matthew 24:30; Mark 13:26 and Luke 21:27 as well as Revelation 1:7 in support that his return would be visible.

John 14:19 - Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

Jesus was telling his disciples that the world would see him no more because he would be put to death, but they would see him again because he would be resurrected and he would resurrect them in spirit upon their deaths. The verse has nothing to do with his return to Earth. Paul later confirms this by saying that, in spirit form no man has seen Jesus and none will, unless they be changed into spirit form. (1 Timothy 6:14-16; 2 Corinthians 5:14; 1 Peter 3:18)

At Matthew 24:30 the Greek word horao is translated "see" but can also mean to discern. A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, says of horao "metaphorically, of mental sight, discern, perceive." - 1948 edition, pages 1244, 1245. This metaphorical perception can also be confirmed by Paul's use of horao at Romans 1:20 where things are invisible yet perceived.

Clouds, like those mentioned in the verses given by the SAB are typically used in a symbolic sense to signify the presence of God (Isaiah 63:9 / 1 Kings 8:10-12)

The SAB then says: "Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus returned invisibly in 1914 without clouds, glory, or being seen by anyone.

Thanks to the Watchtower Society for pointing out this contradiction. (Reasoning From the Scriptures, p. 313, 342-3)"

Response: From page 313 of that Watchtower publication, it says: "Jesus foretold: "Then they will see the Son of man [Jesus Christ] coming in a cloud with power and great glory." (Luke 21:27 RSV) In no way does this statement or similar ones in other texts contradict what Jesus said as recorded at John 14:19. Consider: At Mount Sinai, what occurred when God 'came to the people in a thick cloud,' as stated at Exodus 19:9 (RSV)? God was invisibly present; the people of Israel saw visible evidence of his presence, but none of them actually saw God with their eyes. So, too, when Jesus said that he would come "in a cloud," he must have meant that he would be invisible to human eyes but that humans would be aware of his presence. They would "see" him with their mental eyes, discerning the fact that he was present."

Rationale doesn't work.

It is clearly stated that all the tribes on earth would see the momentous event.

This did not happen;
''And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.''

Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.“ (Matthew 24: 25-34)

Ever man has not been repaid according to his deeds.

This did not happen;
“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28)

 

[Ramaraksha]

Clearly their behavior and terminology shows that these are Master/Slave religions

It seems to me all too easy to politicize slavery in an overemotional and unsophisticated attempt to trigger cultural and temporal influences and demonize current perspectives that have nothing to do with those archaic practices. You don't have to carefully examine such criticisms; you only have to feel the intended emotional response to the provocation. At Romans 12:11

First look at the Biblical Hebrew meaning behind various uses and words which might be translated as slave. Depending on the context it could be slave or servant. A person owned by others. The word husband means owner. It could also apply to subjects, like that of a king, to be a subject of a king or a person in royal service. It could be a respectful term like sir, etymologically from sire, master, lord. Or servant, a servant or slave to God, to debt, to an addiction etc.

Joseph was sold into slavery in Egypt and he was the second most wealthy and powerful man in all of Egypt, second only to Pharaoh. A slave could signify a willingness to be permanent slave by piercing his ear, a slave could have their own business and it was illegal to take anyone against their will to sell into slavery.

What Father asks his son to MURDER his OWN son and what son would hurry to obey?

Soldiers? After Adam sinned Jehovah began a plan in which ultimately mankind was saved from their own self-destruction. In order for that to happen a spirit being in heaven had to come to Earth from heaven and live briefly (33 1/2 years) as a human who was killed. Jehovah didn't plan on Abraham killing Isaac, he only wanted to insure that Abraham and Isaac were the people to understand the sacrifice he himself was about to make.

What Father demands belief, support, submission, obedience and loyalty to him and him alone & if such demands are not
met, tortures his children in Hell?

Hell isn't a Biblical teaching. The Bible teaches that the wicked will suffer everlasting destruction. Death without the resurrection afforded the righteous. You may be thinking of Naraka?

What son, upon meeting his father, gets down on his knees and begs for mercy?
Clearly this is a Master/slave relationship

Okay. I think that would apply to anyone whose life was in the hands of the one kneeling.

Ancient people living under Kings, Dictators used them as a template for God
They envisioned an afterworld that was similar to the life they had back then, hence a
King, Dictator like Putin "God" sits on his THRONE, Heaven is his KINGDOM & only those who profess

I addressed that above, without the obvious politicization and demonizing of a Russian leader. Like the ones that lberated the German work camps. Funny how we use things to further our agenda or even just make a point we want everyone to agree with. Facts have less to do with such efforts than emotional manipulation.

to blindly believe, support, submit, obey and sing his praises are allowed in, the rest kept out to suffer!
In today's world, it would be like living in North Korea!
These are their Gods - Putin, Kim Jong Un!

[Sigh] Okay.

I look for rational down-to-earth explanations to religions
WE created our Gods & I am asking how they might manifest themselves?
Some people viewed God as a Master, a King - to be blindly obeyed
But that was the life they lived in - back in the past when these religions were born, Kings, Dictators ruled with an iron fist
Believe, support, submit or else!
In today's world that would be like Living in North Korea!
.
And so these simple people envisioned an afterworld similar to the life they had back then, a King, Dictator like God
demanding obedience, loyalty to him and him alone and rewarding/punishing accordingly
And their stories and views reflect such Dictator like Gods
No Father would make such requests from his children & no son would hurry to obey such requests
And so for Christians and Muslims - God is a Master, the followers are blind obedient slaves/servants - these are Master/Slave religions
I wish they would stop addressing God as a Father

 

[Ramaraksha]

Sometimes I pinch myself - am I really living in the 21st century?
THESE are the top religions of the day? Master/Slave religions?

You seem extremely attached to the concept of Cosmic Justice. I see no reason to believe in that, and it contradicts the reality that I do observe.
I see Justice as an abstract concept that humans use to help guide us towards a better world for all. But it isn't real. What is real is "Nature, red in tooth and claws."
Tom

I am not talking about nature - I am talking about our beliefs, values
The top 2 religions portray a God who cannot deliver Justice, only Vengeance, torture, brutality
A child is killed - a life cut short
Away from her parents, loving family, friends, school, the activities of daily life of a child, dreams, hopes of a great future
Watching her peers getting on with their lives - have careers, fall in love, marriage, kids
All the joys of life denied to her
And her parents? Siblings? At every graduation, celebration, marriage, birth - they are reminded of their child/sibling
and this child is now sitting in Heaven singing praises of God? forever?
Does this make ANY sense at all?

 

[Ramaraksha]

DLH, just curious...how do you explain the failure of the return of Jesus in power and glory prophesy?

I thought I had already posted on this, but having searched 10 pages of my content I don't see it.

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (SAB) raises the question of whether or not Jesus' return would be visible to all. This response concludes that his return would be visible but not in the manner in which is often thought. The Bible never indicates that Jesus would return in physical form, but that he would return his attention back to Earth, where he would be in spirit. Jesus' return is often thought to be in the physical form of a man, but scripture never speaks of his return in such a manner.

In order to establish a contradiction, the SAB uses John 14:19 in support that Jesus return would not be visible and parallel accounts given at Matthew 24:30; Mark 13:26 and Luke 21:27 as well as Revelation 1:7 in support that his return would be visible.

John 14:19 - Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

Jesus was telling his disciples that the world would see him no more because he would be put to death, but they would see him again because he would be resurrected and he would resurrect them in spirit upon their deaths. The verse has nothing to do with his return to Earth. Paul later confirms this by saying that, in spirit form no man has seen Jesus and none will, unless they be changed into spirit form. (1 Timothy 6:14-16; 2 Corinthians 5:14; 1 Peter 3:18)

At Matthew 24:30 the Greek word horao is translated "see" but can also mean to discern. A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, says of horao "metaphorically, of mental sight, discern, perceive." - 1948 edition, pages 1244, 1245. This metaphorical perception can also be confirmed by Paul's use of horao at Romans 1:20 where things are invisible yet perceived.

Clouds, like those mentioned in the verses given by the SAB are typically used in a symbolic sense to signify the presence of God (Isaiah 63:9 / 1 Kings 8:10-12)

The SAB then says: "Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus returned invisibly in 1914 without clouds, glory, or being seen by anyone.

Thanks to the Watchtower Society for pointing out this contradiction. (Reasoning From the Scriptures, p. 313, 342-3)"

Response: From page 313 of that Watchtower publication, it says: "Jesus foretold: "Then they will see the Son of man [Jesus Christ] coming in a cloud with power and great glory." (Luke 21:27 RSV) In no way does this statement or similar ones in other texts contradict what Jesus said as recorded at John 14:19. Consider: At Mount Sinai, what occurred when God 'came to the people in a thick cloud,' as stated at Exodus 19:9 (RSV)? God was invisibly present; the people of Israel saw visible evidence of his presence, but none of them actually saw God with their eyes. So, too, when Jesus said that he would come "in a cloud," he must have meant that he would be invisible to human eyes but that humans would be aware of his presence. They would "see" him with their mental eyes, discerning the fact that he was present."

Rationale doesn't work.

It is clearly stated that all the tribes on earth would see the momentous event.

This did not happen;
''And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.''

Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.“ (Matthew 24: 25-34)

Ever man has not been repaid according to his deeds.

This did not happen;
“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28)

Damsels in distress hoping for the knight in shining armor will come SAVE them, GIVE them the easy good life
OR
They get to go to some magic land in the sky & a Sugar Daddy God will SAVE them, GIVE them the easy good life!
Sorry, no such Knight in Shining armor is coming to save us
WE are not damsels in distress
Problems in life, on earth, have to be faced by US, overcome by US!