The Illogicality of Jehovah's Witnesses

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
17,904
Trophies
2
XP
17,872
Country
United States
I'd say the prayers are mostly for support purposes, but don't quote me on that, for all I know if you don't sincerely identify as a god's servant and go his way, then the prayer is probably useless. Now, if you learn the way, internalize it and practice it, then you won't pray for rain unless there is a situation where people are suffering from drought or something. What I mean is that you will not ask for selfish things, your prayer must go on the same path as the path of the saints so to speak.
Miracles, of which I have read, were not given by a prayer but because the beneficiary was very devoted to, say, a virgin or a saint, etc. The miracle of Calanda, to say something is very famous (among catholics) and is well documented.
Thanks for completely ignoring my point, which was that there's no evidence that prayer has ever worked or that miracles have ever happened. Intercessory prayer, which isn't selfish, has been specifically shown to work no better than random chance. Even if one thinks a miracle has occurred, how can they distinguish between a miracle and a coincidence?

If you can't distinguish between a world with a god who performs miracles and a world without one, it isn't rational to believe that god exists.

Okay, I might be wrong but this is what I can say after reading the whole 21 chapter: First, it says that if a man arbitrarily kills another -out of rage, out of anger- he should be punished by death (12 & 14). Then it says that if two men engage in a fight and one beats the other but does not kill him, the perpetrator doesn't receive death punishment but instead must pay compensation for the days it took for the other to recover (18-19). What about if they're lord/slave? (this is the one you quoted) In case of killing the slave, the perpetrator is under the same law of vengeance, that is, death punishment (the slave had the same natural right as a free man, apparently). What if the slave didn't die? Same story as with any free man: the perpetrator doesn't receive death punishment. Though here's one difference: the perpetrator (lord) doesn't owe the slave any compensation for the days it took him to recover. Why? Because the lord payed for him -and in fact the slave is living under his lord's roof, eating from his fields, etc-.
It's quite clear to me. This law is not promoting any bad behavior, actually the bible talks about the proper way in which a lord/slave should behave towards each other in other passages (see Coloss 3:22- onwards for example). Also by reading exodus ch 21 it can be inferred that slavery in the Hebrew people (unlike that of Egypt) wasn't generally oppresive or cruel, since there were cases in which the slave by his own free will chose to renounce his freedom to stay with his lord, implying that he had a good relationship with him; there's a rule for that aswell.
It is never moral to own another person as property, and it is never moral beat a slave nearly to death. If you think this passage "isn't promoting any bad behavior," you are a fool, and you are foolishly trying to defend literal atrocities for the sake of your foolish and immoral religion.

Sure, but the point of it was that the analogy works in terms of subordination. Children are compelled to follow the rules their parents give them, while parents are also compelled to make their rules agree with God's. It's a hierarchy.
Being a steward to your children isn't analogous to the ownership of another human being as property. The former is a moral imperative, and the latter is a moral atrocity.

Except God did not change his mind in the binding of isaac (I didn't know it was called like that), if that had been the case He would have let it happen. It was for abraham to take the mission God commanded him seriusly I think. Sure it is a sad story but afterwards it was actually God himself who gave his own son for sacrifice, go figure lol.
"Kill your son."
"No don't, lol."

It doesn't matter if God actually changed his mind or intended to do this the whole time. The point of the story is that if God says to murder, it's moral, and you'd better do it. The "he would never do that" counterargument is both irrelevant and also provably incorrect, and this isn't limited to the Binding of Isaac.

The only subjective morality is religious morality, and that's why the Euthyphro dilemma exists.

This is the case when humans make laws though, they can be self-contradictory to the detriment of humans themselves. But what I said about god's law is that he can say something different but not morally different, if that makes sense.
It is not that the later laws were the true ones and the previous ones were lies, the later ones added more things and were more detailed because men were degenerating for being idolaters. eg The commandments for Adam/Eve were simple: grow, reproduce and populate the earth, eat the fruits of the trees, etc. (no eating animals allowed, i think) While by the times of Noah it was allowed for them to eat anything, with a few exceptions. But there was nothing on killing or fornicate; it does not mean god was okay with that.
When Moses was around, slavery was common in society -as I said- for better or worse, so God established laws for it for the hebrew people; there was a lot of idolaters around so he made very strict laws for that, and so on.
In addition to being imaginary, your god is also feckless then. What reason should anyone have to follow the rules in the Bible if they are going to be based on what's "common in society" instead of what's actually moral? Lol.
 

plasturion

temporary hermit
Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
801
Trophies
1
Location
Tree
XP
2,417
Country
Poland
Kill your son."
"No don't, lol."

It doesn't matter if God actually changed his mind or intended to do this the whole time. The point of the story is that if God says to murder, it's moral, and you'd better do it. The "he would never do that" counterargument is both irrelevant and also provably incorrect, and this isn't limited to the Binding of Isaac.

The only subjective morality is religious morality, and that's why the Euthyphro dilemma exists.
In those days the burnt offering was only of animals and fruit. It was an act of thanksgiving to God. Consider that an angel stopped him and prevented it from happening, and there never happen again. There is no human sacrifice in the Old Testament except Himself (Jesus) in recompense to us and in basically at the same mountain - Calvary and the Moriah.
 
Last edited by plasturion,

september796

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 4, 2015
Messages
247
Trophies
0
XP
857
Country
Cote d'Ivoire
Thanks for completely ignoring my point, which was that there's no evidence that prayer has ever worked or that miracles have ever happened. Intercessory prayer, which isn't selfish, has been specifically shown to work no better than random chance. Even if one thinks a miracle has occurred, how can they distinguish between a miracle and a coincidence?

If you can't distinguish between a world with a god who performs miracles and a world without one, it isn't rational to believe that god exists.
A miracle is a supernatural event with no explanation (resurrecting the dead/healing blindness/etc). No one will ever say that rain is a miracle because it is natural. I mentioned the miracle of Calanda but didn't say anything about that, my bad. In short, there was this man who was limp for like 2 years, one of his legs was amputed due to an accident. People saw him daily in devotional temples and gave him alms. It turns out that one night the man had a dream in which he saw an angel or something that brought him his amputated leg. When he woke up his leg was restored and healthy. That meets the characteristics to be recognized as a miracle because it is a supernatural event. Besides there was also a divine manifestation.

It is never moral to own another person as property, and it is never moral beat a slave nearly to death.
Why?

If you think this passage "isn't promoting any bad behavior," you are a fool, and you are foolishly trying to defend literal atrocities for the sake of your foolish and immoral religion.
The tone in which the rules are being explained in that chapter sound like "If an event like this happens, do this to solve it" and not like "I promote this behaviour so don't solve it and let them keep doing it".

It doesn't matter if God actually changed his mind or intended to do this the whole time. The point of the story is that if God says to murder, it's moral, and you'd better do it. The "he would never do that" counterargument is both irrelevant and also provably incorrect, and this isn't limited to the Binding of Isaac.
That is a misleading point. The real moral behind the binding of Isaac is that Abraham considered God more valuable than anything he bound. The moral is similar to that of the Job story, which is also controversial; God letting Satan cast all sorts of curses on him to show that Job was loyal despite having a miserable life but at the end he was blessed with more. Things may look terrible but serve a greater purpose.

In addition to being imaginary, your god is also feckless then. What reason should anyone have to follow the rules in the Bible if they are going to be based on what's "common in society" instead of what's actually moral? Lol.
I said that the law had to include specific rules for things that were common in society (like slavery and idolatry) precisely to promote the good use of it and reject the bad.
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
17,904
Trophies
2
XP
17,872
Country
United States
A miracle is a supernatural event with no explanation (resurrecting the dead/healing blindness/etc). No one will ever say that rain is a miracle because it is natural. I mentioned the miracle of Calanda but didn't say anything about that, my bad. In short, there was this man who was limp for like 2 years, one of his legs was amputed due to an accident. People saw him daily in devotional temples and gave him alms. It turns out that one night the man had a dream in which he saw an angel or something that brought him his amputated leg. When he woke up his leg was restored and healthy. That meets the characteristics to be recognized as a miracle because it is a supernatural event. Besides there was also a divine manifestation.
  1. The kind of miracles you've described have never been demonstrated to have ever happened. For example, there is no real evidence that anyone has ever had a leg regrown.
  2. An event "with no explanation" does not mean we get to call it "supernatural" or a "miracle." If we could verify that someone actually did wake up with a regrown leg, that doesn't mean we get to call it "supernatural" or say "God did it." It would, at best, be without explanation. How did you rule out it being a magic trick? How did you rule out it being time-travelers from the future with advanced technology? How did you rule out it being aliens from a distant star system with advanced technology? How did you rule out a naturally occurring (or genetically modified) trait for limb regeneration?
For the same reason murder, for example, is immoral: It's inconducive to human well-being.

The tone in which the rules are being explained in that chapter sound like "If an event like this happens, do this to solve it" and not like "I promote this behaviour so don't solve it and let them keep doing it".
Anything other than "do not own humans as property, and slaves should do everything they can to safety escape from their deplorable owners" is immoral.

I said that the law had to include specific rules for things that were common in society (like slavery and idolatry) precisely to promote the good use of it and reject the bad.
Then, as I said previously, the laws in the Bible are not indicative of what's moral, and your god is feckless.

It's also incorrect to say the Bible promoted "good use" of slavery (pretending there is such a thing). It sanctioned beating your slave to death.
 

tabzer

etymological and/or pedantic
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
3,454
Trophies
1
Age
38
XP
2,664
Country
Japan
"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

I'd imagine for the time, the clarity and defining of the rules was a relatively progressive reformation, considering they were all slaves, lol.
 
General chit-chat
Help Users
    UnreaLorenzo @ UnreaLorenzo: Well GM then AncientBoi