Leaderboard

Hi Geisha, The comparisons between the so-called New Testament and the Old Testament seem potentially very fruitful yet fraught with possible error, and the later observation unfortunately is just a simple matter of recollection for me and not simple speculation. It is generally true I believe that the dispensationalism that Wierwille took fron Bullinger for the most part screwed up or ability to get the correct lessons from the OT. I remember that when it suited Wierwille he took upon himself to destroy the lives of men, women, and their children if he chose to. And he didn't do it with actual swords as recorded in the OT, but by controlling peoples' loyalties and manipulating their situations which were totally within the control of his iron grip. As such he presented a fearful and impressive counterfeit of how God works, and unfortunately many people still seem captivated by the man and others like him such as the folks who are a part of my former splinter group, "River Road Fellowship. When I was in the middle of that struggle I often responded with scripture such as, "As you judge, so shall ye be judged" or other scriptures in order to try to help Barnard turn from the high minded insanity he learned from Wierwille. Now that I am out of RRF and see things more clearly than when I was in the middle of them all I see that not only do Barnard and unfortunately many of his lapdogs deserve that fate that our Lord warned them of, but Barnard's sin and insanity was far worse than I knew at the time. Now I believe that the things they did in order to break me will be returned upon their own heads with change to spare, except for (maybe) those that did not know they were doing evil may recieve fewer stripes as our Lord has promised some mercy on the ignorant evil doers. While I find many of the OT laws to be harsh and unnecessary, I also am certain that in the prophets there is talk of and acknowledgement saying that God was fully well aware of the truth that he gave them harsh commandments that the children of Israel were not able to keep and even were plainly called "Not Good" in some respects. But IMO even these excessively harsh commandments have enough truth in them that I can usually relate them to myself in a figurative and/or spiritual sense. As far as the future judgments promised to those who are of faith there is still plenty of direct warnings IMO that should give us pause to fear doing evil.

Geez. It's just a cruise. Don't you ever go and hang out with folks you haven't seen in awhile? Do you ever go to high school reunions? They're generally kind of fun. Most folks on John's website haven't been involved with TWI for a couple of decades, and we do other things with our lives now. I know I can't make the cruise, because I'll have to work, but if I could, I would. This is not really worth getting one's panties in a twist. People who were creepy "back in the day" are probably still creepy today, and therefore probably don't play well with others, and therefore probably won't be on the cruise. If you are still mad at various people who mistreated you decades ago, perhaps this is more of a burden to you than it will ever be to them, clueless as they are, and the person who will benefit most if you unload that burden (i.e. get over it) will be you. Some people (like the folks who hurt you) just suck, but most don't. Most Corps didn't. Most Corps worked their butts off to try to help people come to God. If you are mad at folks for having a reunion, that's a little extreme. I'm just sayin'.

I dunno. Maybe it's a clique or a cult, maybe not. Doctors hang out with other doctors because they get it. Teachers have a special bond, because they work with children and teens, and they get it. The WC was a horrible time for me, but maybe not for others. Even if they suffered together, had good times, bad times, sweet times, nostalgic times, perhaps this group feels like they are there because they want/need to be with others who "get" that particular experience. Some of the WC grads I met in 23 years were cliqueish, snobbish, superior, and gave the impression they genuinely believed they were the only ones on the planet who had "in depth spiritual perception and awareness." A very few of them actually DID. In any case, bon voyage, Belle, R**chesons, et all. Have a good time! WG

I don't watch Fox News either, Mrs. Oakspear happened to catch it one morning and I saw a few commentaries on it. Until Brit Hume brought it up I had never heard anyone bring up Woods' faith or lack of the same, even by Woods himself. Brit Hume brought it up during a segment of Fox News where he and several others were making predictions about the coming year. Short version, he suggested that Woods would better be able to fully recover and become great again if he turned to Christianity due to Christianity's superiority in terms of forgiveness and redemption as opposed to Buddhism, which Hume said was Woods' religion. An article that I read in response to this incident by one who agreed with Hume contained quotes from a Buddhist scholar who talked about karma and how Woods' actions had consequences and could not be erased by a forgiving deity. The connection that I made with your statements is that you are presenting a god who is at once loving and willing to exact justice, wrathful and merciful, not at all the god of free passes for sin that some folks imagine their god to be. As far as your other remarks, I'm personally not a believer in karma as taught by eastern religions and that by extension has permeated the neo-pagan movement, too much has to be taken on faith.

Geisha, Thanks about explaining to me about the origins of your Geisha 'moniker' (which we all have here. Mine is GarthP2000. ... And, oh well, I had originally thought that it suggested something else. My bad. ) You speak of a relationship with God, which you emphasize more than the scriptures. Ok. And evidently that is what you're loyal to, as you see God to be a very real thing in your life. And, contrary to your ASSumption ;) that I never had any real faith (else I wouldn't have left _fallacy_), I did indeed have had a faith in the Christian God, something that I believed (<--- please notice the emphasis here. Its there for a reason) in. Now I know that that contradicts your supposed belief that no-one who has really had faith or a faith can actually depart from it. ... Well, they can. Like it or not, they can, and often do. ... Why can they do that? Look back to the emphasised words: I believed. Think about what that means. I believed. Ie., accepted as true. And people change what they believe every day. When we were in TWI, we believed that they were teaching The Rightly Divided Word © 1942 All Rights Reserved. ;) When we left (in one way or another) we believed that they wound up being full of shyite, or some other form of excrement. :D In the political world, that is _replete_ with people having beliefs of one staunch form or another. (Hello! Talk radio anyone? :wacko: ) So my beliefs have evolved and changed over the years: From fundamentalist Christian to Unitarian Universalist to Agnostic Atheist (ie., I don't believe in any god/deity, but can't prove it 100% to be sure. But until the believers prove their side, I ain't buying it) Oh, and your swipe at me re: "I doubt you ever entered into a covenant with God, giving Him your word to obey and follow Him. . . . . . . . only to unfaithfully walk away. That would seriously bring into question your morals and ethics. . . . those things you use to make value judgments on me." at first ticked me off, as it was a condescending and ad hominum swipe, as well as giving the flawed argument that if I have come to the view that there is something seriously wrong with God, based upon what I see God doing/endorsing in the Bible exactly the things in the OT that you started this thread out with, ... that if I left this belief system as a result of this view, then *my* morals and ethics are in question here? (Yeah, yeah, I know. Long run-on sentences - bad) Never mind that that is the same premise that we all here used in rejecting TWI, regardless of whatever _commitment_ we made to follow it as a valid ministry. We saw the BS, and we said "No way!", and walked away. Well, I saw similar BS in the Christian religion (like all of those innocent people being killed in the Bible), and _I_ said "No way!", and walked away. (As well as other valid reasons as well.) Breaking of a commitment to "obey and follow him"? No bigger a breaking of a commitment to follow TWI. Ie., it was due to cause. And a valid one at that. And when it comes to 'breaking a commitment' via not believing any more, that is a decision that is up to the _person_ involved, ... NOT any authoritarian God. Ie., the person has the final authority to make the decision what to believe or not believe in. At any point in their life. Now all that being said, remember what I said earlier in this post about the part that "... at first ticked me off". And then I thought about where I said earlier in this thread in my swipe against religious people when I referred to their mentality as "Ie., UNindependent thought". So maybe its where you were taking a pot shot at me after I took a pot shot at you. Ie., mitigating factors here. I believe that I'm an ethical and moral person, just as much as you are. And, as your posts clearly indicate, you are just as much of a thinking individual as I am (or I try to be anyway). Anywho, that's where I come from at any rate. So, with no malicious thought towards you or yours, I'll wind this up.

We don't know from reading verse 1, but we can know from how the word is used throughout the Old Testament. "The Word" is always the communication of God's heart and mind, and never a separate person. Both. God's Word is something continuing from the beginning, and it became flesh in a one-time event. BTW, here is a good list of books about the subject: http://kingdomready.org/blog/2010/01/13/biblical-unitarian-books/

Geisha: You're more articulate than you give yourself credit for, you just sometimes get ....ed off at us heathens! I appreciate your efforts to explain the "apparent" contradictions in the bible; I'm not personally convinced, but your arguments are reasonable and rational once you accept certain premises. Some of what you're saying is interesting to me in light of Brit Hume's opinion about what he thinks Tiger Wood's religion is. Eastern religion is often about justice and balance, not imposed necessarily by a deity, but by the universe balancing itself out.

Maybe it really just doesn't fit "like a hand in a glove". That would certainly make it a lot easier to understand why the contradictions exist.

First off, I didn't take it as 'an offering' to me, or anything else directed at me. ... Last time I checked, I do think that this is a _public_ thread, addressable by _anyone_ who wishes to contribute. Two, since this thread _is_ in regard to the 'scary Old Testament God', I was addressing what (I thought) are discrepancies about how the OT god often (supposedly) showed righteous wrath towards many people who didn't pose any threat towards that society (ahh, no REAL threat, in any event) or did anything hideous or immoral that would be considered as such by many moral people here. ... Then again, perhaps gathering sticks on the Sabbath, mixing different cloths in one garment, ... or not worshiping "The Lord thy God" as one nation was probably seen as a Clear and Present Danger back then, and, of course, society went into a moral tailspin since then. And that's righteous judgment that you find so worthy of praise?? <_<

Actually, you do a fine job articulating. I'll react to your post tomorrow.

Ah yes, idols. Let's talk about the golden calf for a minute. (Please turn to Exodus 32 in your bibles...) What lesson are we to draw from this account? Moses was gone for while and the people got restless and wild. Then it was Aaron's idea to melt down everybody's gold and create a golden calf. God was understandibly angry and sent Moses down to straighten his people out. Moses pleaded with God on his people's behalf and God relented. Fine. But then as Moses approaches the camp and sees that everyone is out of control, he gets ....ed off himself. Aaron told him what they had done and so Moses has the Levites go in and kill 3,000 "brothers, friends and neigbors." Harsh, but okay. The next day Moses admonishes the people for their sin and says he'll go and try and make it right with the Lord (never mind that 3,000 were executed already). But instead, Moses's plea only seemed to remind the Lord of what happened, so the Lord struck the people with a plague. And Aaron lived. Maybe I'm oversimplifying it?

I'm reading the bible for the first time (without any colored glasses on) and finding out that I have a lot to learn about God. I'm reading the OT and NT at the same time, and it seems to me that the God of the OT isn't just different from the one in the NT, but the OT God didn't seem to be internally consistent or fair in doling out punishment. Was the Sabbath Day wood-gatherer in Numbers who was stoned to death on God's order the only person to ever gather wood on the sabbath? I don't think so. Yet Moses (it was Moses, right?) goes through the trouble of telling us about that one guy. So far, I don't remember any other Sabbath Day wood-gatherers getting summarily executed for his or her transgression.

You know, it's interesting that the 'evil, wicked' factor of the people who God found worthy enough to focus his wrath upon just happened to be those who 'worshiped other gods', who refused to turn to the god of the Israelites. As regards Isreal defending itself, that's one thing, and it's worth showing wrath upon the invaders. But far more often than not, the enemy country was not invading Israel, but rather Israel invading _them_. Classic example: the Samuel, King Saul, and the Amalakites situation. (No, that's not an early 60's singing group. ) I mean, when God sees fit to have someone stoned to death for simply picking up sticks on the Sabbath, ... spare me the 'God's mercy' song-and-dance, OK? <_<