Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Jehovah Witness - The ultimate in religious delusion?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 560 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 28 Aug 2011 05:07:25 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 22 Sep 2011 12:54:17 BDT]

Posted on 28 Aug 2011 09:03:33 BDT
Jim Guest says:
:) Be honest? Here? What a wag.

How about this for lunacy (which is probably what you're trying to bury).

The Dawkins Delusion

'Yahweh: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it;'

'Jealous' is better translated 'solicitous'- solicitous of the welfare of humanity.

'a petty,'

So is all crime petty? Or is it just homosexuality that Dawkins is concerned about?

'unjust,'

Only the unjust can say so. The just have nothing to fear.

'unforgiving'

Unforgiving of those who reject forgiveness.

'control-freak'

A control freak who allows Richard Dawkins the greatest possible publicity????

'a vindictive, bloodthirsty'

If a deity can create, surely he can reverse the process? Particularly if what he creates decides to behave in a vindictive, bloodthirsty way against those who behave more civilly?

'ethnic cleanser,'

Anyone at all could become a follower of the deity of the Hebrews, and many non-Hebrews had done so, by the 1st century CE. Not that Richard Dawkins could be expected to know about that.

'a misogynistic,'

A deity who tells men to treat their wives as their own bodies is misogynist? Or are homosexuals in no position to comment?

'homophobic,'

Assuming that homosexuality is not the quintessence of homophobia.

'racist,'

The only race that the Bible deity recognises is the one that treats others as they would be done by. What other acceptable criterion can there be?

'infanticidal'

When a quick death is better than a terrible death by exposure, as the Romans practised on their neonates.

'genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, '

In the interests of eternal truths. Gratitude for warnings may be in order.

'megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."'

Bully of bullies, yes. Though not just now.

Posted on 29 Aug 2011 00:04:01 BDT
Spin says:
Why don't Mormons make love standing up? They believe it could lead to dancing....=)

Posted on 1 May 2012 04:13:46 BDT
Last edited by the author on 1 May 2012 04:18:10 BDT
Malcolm says:
Was this some sort of a joke?
Having been a Mormon for 35 years and now Ex-Mormon
I can assure you that Mormons do dance, albeit something
of the barn-dance and ball room variety. The LDS church
encourages all forms of artistic expression, so long as it
fits in with church policy. Mormon chapels are purpose built
to include a cultural hall where dances, basketball, and other
physical exercise activities take place.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 May 2012 13:06:09 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Malcolm- why did you leave? Also did it cause you problems with the social group?

In reply to an earlier post on 1 May 2012 13:53:39 BDT
G. Heron says:
Jim Guest

Unfortunately for you the old testement is freely available so it is very easy for people to check it and see that Dawkins is correct.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 May 2012 14:36:05 BDT
Jim Guest says:
Freely available, eh? How is it that you haven't acquired a copy, then? You obviously haven't. Or, you bought one, but have yet to open it.

But, tell you what, I'll give you a week or two to buy one, read it, and come back with reasons to believe an ex-biologist who also hasn't read it yet.

Amateur, shamateur.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 May 2012 16:16:51 BDT
Malcolm says:
I left simply because I stopped believing.
It caused me some problems, pressure to return to the social group as it were,
but it is easier to leave Mormonism in the UK as there are so few Mormons
over here. Less than 200,000, and some of those are inactive.

I had joined in 1975, and had become a widower, so although there was some
social and cultural attachment to the group, the theological connection had
gone simply because I no longer accepted the teachings.

Posted on 1 May 2012 16:46:38 BDT
Spin says:
Mormons base their belief on the actions and beliefs of a man who was twice jailed for counterfeiting ancient texts.His last conterfeiture succeeded...because he left the city in favour of the ignorant land-owners...Jesus left Israel and buried his golden texts on the coast of America? To be found by a counterfeiter and con-man? And I thought Scientology was a mad belief...

In reply to an earlier post on 1 May 2012 16:50:10 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Spin - all religions are mad beliefs.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 May 2012 16:50:28 BDT
H W says:
I can understand how Jesus is portrayed as kind, and indeed I can see why he is defended.

But in the OT, there is one instance where a man named Uzzah touched the Ark of the covenant to steady it, and stop it from falling to the ground, and Yahweh struck him dead.

Is there any morality to be gained from this?

In reply to an earlier post on 1 May 2012 16:52:35 BDT
Spin says:
CA: No. All beliefs are mad...=)

In reply to an earlier post on 1 May 2012 17:43:31 BDT
Jim Guest says:
'But in the OT, there is one instance where a man named Uzzah touched the Ark of the covenant to steady it, and stop it from falling to the ground, and Yahweh struck him dead.

Is there any morality to be gained from this?'

Not morality, but the seriousness of immorality. The Ark represented the holiness of deity, and was intended to engender respect for Jehovah because of the very special way it was treated. Levites were not permitted to touch it, on pain of death. However, David had put the Ark on a cart, when it should have been carried on poles. Uzzah was a Levite, so he should have known that to do what he did was wrong, as should David, who put him in that predicament. It was no doubt an instinctive reaction, and it may be supposed that Uzzah will not be judged for it; but the point was that the Law of Jehovah was to be taken very seriously indeed; and this was indeed the lesson learned by David.

On the last day Uzzah may well think that his demise was well worth the benefit, that lasts to the present day. He may not be the only OT person to say likewise.

It may be of interest that Uzzah's name means 'strength', which may have indicated that Jehovah needed no human assistance in guarding the Ark.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 May 2012 18:35:05 BDT
The fact that the original post was offensive enough for Amazon to step in and delete it should give a clue.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 May 2012 18:35:47 BDT
Assuming the OT is correct in the first place, or else Dawkins is fruit from the poisoned tree.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 May 2012 18:36:46 BDT
Last edited by the author on 1 May 2012 18:37:19 BDT
It's not polite to call other people crazy when their only act is believing something you do not, especially if they've done nothing to hurt you.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 May 2012 19:01:24 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Oh so brainwashing children and lying to them isn't damaging, trying to convert people who are very ill and vulnerable isn't hurting? When the religious butt out, fine, until then they can take the flak.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 May 2012 20:40:14 BDT
Jim Guest says:
Until then, Small will continue to throw out the baby with the bathwater. In full confidence that there will always be bathwater.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 May 2012 09:54:42 BDT
H W says:
Again Jim that is a scholarly answer.

But I feel that there is something missing from the whole equation.

Should not God's mercy; and he is 'the' most merciful of entities, save us from our own downfall?

Uzzah did not have time to repent, and being a good man I'm sure he would have. God struck him down without a merciful reconsideration. Ok God's laws cannot be broken, but God does have the power to override them and protect his vulnerable species with love...right?

Posted on 2 May 2012 10:36:41 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 30 May 2012 11:01:51 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 May 2012 10:53:17 BDT
Last edited by the author on 2 May 2012 10:57:46 BDT
Jim Guest says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 May 2012 11:34:24 BDT
Last edited by the author on 2 May 2012 11:39:33 BDT
H W says:
With respect Jim, I don't class all things in the categories of "sin or not sin".

Theft and murder are a lot worse than stablising the ark by sheer reaction, and therefore a mistake. There are even rules for punishment in Leviticus, for when one accidently kills a person. And they are different to when you kill on purpose. God himself gave Adam an Eve a chance to redeem themselves, by asking for mercy perhaps? But they chose to blame another, for their own actions. Uzzah didn't have a choice.

There are levels, according to Christ there are unpardonable sins, which seemingly are set aside from normal sins.

Posted on 2 May 2012 11:34:58 BDT
H W says:
[including Uz, the third child of a couple living in a Chinese cave 100 000 years ago, who died aged two]- Jim

This will certainly make for an interesting read later!

In reply to an earlier post on 2 May 2012 11:37:38 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Popcorn- please use the "reply to" button, it makes it easier for the rest of us!

In reply to an earlier post on 2 May 2012 11:40:22 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 30 May 2012 11:02:00 BDT]
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 23 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  35
Total posts:  560
Initial post:  28 Aug 2011
Latest post:  28 May 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions