The Bible's Biggest Problem(s)?

[POI]

In a continuation of this topic (viewtopic.php?t=39327&start=990), which only discusses one important topic, I present a follow-up....

For Debate:

1) Why didn't Jesus write the NT Himself? Why leave this task up to fallible humans to write what was floating around, only after decade(s) of oral traditions? Wouldn't Jesus know that earnest confusion would soon prevail, and that his true message(s) may get fouled up by human error and/or corruption?

2) Case/point: There exists countless denominations, with opposing belief systems, all in earnest in reading the exact same collection of books. If Jesus' intent is to convey truth, why not assure his message(s) are crystal clear and unified for all?

3) If Jesus also recognizes that many/most were/are illiterate, and/or the many who are literate merely read at a lower grade level, and that differing languages can also blur the message(s), why not write the Bible in a cohesive way in which even the most rudimentary person can understand, in all languages?

This is, in part, the problem of communication....

[POI]

WHY you feel these scriptures support your case (preferably in complete sentences ) I will be happy to consider redponding. Until then your scripture posting does little to further the discussion.

My point being is that if scripture was self-explanatory, I would not need to articulate. Alternatively, when something is posted or read from the Watch Tower, I do not need you to explain it further to me. I can just read the quoted passage(s) and I clearly know of the stance or position. Why is the Bible not at least as clear as JW publications? You'd think it would be even more crystal clear?

4th request:

To not agree with my "assumption" is to instead take the position that not only is the Bible directed at deliberate confusion, but when Jesus gave direct messages to physical followers/other, they too were sometimes left with confusion.

So, what is your position(s)?

1) Was Jesus pleased with the messaging of the Bible?

2) Did direct followers at least clearly understand what Jesus's intended message(s) were?

[Clownboat]

It would be way above humans' ability to understand, and grasp.

What you are saying here is that the God you believe in, is incapable of expressing a clear message for all to understand.

That's not what I am saying.
God is not a human.
Because God is not a human, it does not mean God is incapable of communicating a clear message for all to understand.

The teacher of a class of students may have all the answers, and know how children think, but because she does not spell out everything for the children, does not mean she doesn't know how to, or is incapable of doing so.
She chooses to communicate in the way she does, for reasons that are necessary to accomplish her goal.

God, likewise chooses to communicate his message, in the way he chooses, in order to accomplish his goal.
Consider one example, in the Bible book of John. John 6:28-71
Obviously, jesus knew how to break down what he said, in baby steps.
He deliberately chose to say what he did, in order to achieve his goal, and he did. He sifted the honest-hearted, and humble, from those not deserving.

So instead, his best alternative was to allow for an extensive amount of oral traditions to take place, only to later be written down to paper by fallible humans.

That's correct.
It achieves his objective.

In essence, here is the failed dichotomy:

A) God would write an incoherent message system to humans

Or...

B) God allowed for a widely non-unifying message

B
The honest-hearted, humble ones are given the unifying message. Hence, why they alone are united everywhere on the globe. Even if they are imprisoned for decades.

When it comes to communication, this does not prove to be a problem for God, as seen from the preceding.

Yes, it does prove a problem of communication. I demonstrated the problem only after your first given point. There is no need to address any more of your points. Your argument here is that we only have two choices. A) Confusion because of God's inability to convey a coherent message to all humans. Or, B) leave it to fallible humans to muck it up.

Sounds like a terrible strategy, unless God really did not want to convey a clear message to all humans.

I think you got the point then.
The scriptures reveal that God has determined that those unworthy of life will not get it, because they are not deserving, and so, they will remain in confusion. Matthew 13:10-16; 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12
Those worthy are freed from confusion, because they know how to listen, and they gain freedom and peace. John 6:44, 45; John 8:31, 32 Luke 8:18

Luke 10:21
At that time Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and declared, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was well-pleasing in Your sight.
1 Corinthians 1:27-29

It is not logical that a God would be behind a book that had a message for everyone, but then require pastors, priests and theologians to then interpret his said message.

[POI]

.


SECOND REQUEST

If you would like to articulate in words (rather than telepathy) , WHY you feel these scriptures support your case (preferably in complete sentences ) I will be happy to consider redponding. Until then your scripture posting does little to further the discussion.

• Do you consider bible passages satisfactory evidence to prove your point ?

• What do you think the scriptures you quoted mean ?

• what position is it that you feel they support and how?

.

My turn...

I don't know what you mean by "my turn" since your reply was a mere deflections which did not further the discussion. I am posting my request for the second time. (See above)

Deepest apologies no offense was intended. If I could re-word the above : What I am asking in my clumsy and inarticulate way is, would you would provide a supportive argument for the scripture you have posted so that a response can be provided.

Again I am very sorry I expressed myself inappropriately, and will try to do better next time, please forgive me.

Kind regards,

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

No worries, JW. I did not report you I have pretty thick skin. You need it when debating religion and politics. Please do not take anything personal. I think you are kind and smart. I enjoy debate with people of alternative views and positions. It's boring having discussions in an echo-chamber

I trust post 151 will suffice?

[POI]

It is not logical that a God would be behind a book that had a message for everyone, but then require pastors, priests and theologians to then interpret his said message.

Yes. And even then, we're still screwed. Case/point, I once had a simultaneous discussion with two hermeneutic scholars. And even their fundamental views did not align with one another, starting at Genesis

And to add to this, why all the 'parables' to boot? It's as if Jesus wanted to remain mysterious and cryptic... Why?

[1213]

...Does this mean that if your daughter was assaulted, raped, stabbed, left for dead, later found, rushed to emergency, and 4 pints of blood was ordered to save their life, the 'righteous dad', who is there to offer consent, would refuse it? I just want to make sure we are clear, that there are NO exceptions here?

First of all, people can't safe life, only God can do that. People may perhaps extend life in some case, but if the cost is losing life with God, it is in my opinion a mistake.

But, if we speculate, why not speculate the scenario to end: you accept the transfusion, it alters the receivers persona and she becomes serial killer who kills thousands of people and then herself. Would you refuse it?

Maybe you don't really like speculating, so we can go back to your question. And I think it is a difficult question, because I think both options can also be harmful. Before making a decision, I would think, what the Bible actually says. And as said before, Bible tells "abstain from blood". I think it is about eating or drinking blood, because it is also forbidden in the OT (Lev. 7:26) and that is the context of the matter. But, what if I have understood it wrongly, what if it means also blood transfusion and I cause permanent damage to someone by accepting it? In a way it would be best to not accept it, because if we go just by the "abstain from blood" it clearly means that people should avoid blood and it can also mean blood transfusion. The crucial question is, what are the all forms to avoid blood. If we take it to mean that we should abstain from blood in all possible ways, it would mean that we should cut our wrists open and let the blood flow out. I believe we all understand that is not the point. We can have our own blood. And this leads to question, what counts as own blood? In a way blood relatives have the same blood. And so, in your hypothetical situation I think it would be acceptable to allow person to get blood transfusion from own parent.

I think righteous person prays he never gets in that situation.

To become "righteous", is to always refuse blood, no matter what.

People don't become righteous by refusing or accepting something.

Statistically speaking, some JW's will have died from refusing this service. ...

Actually the reason for death is always something else.

[1213]

...
It has been argued that because blood transfusions did not exist at the time of writing, blood transfusions should be exempt from the prohibition but is this reasonable? ...

By the context I think it was about eating/drinking blood, which is forbidden also in OT. God's rule was that people should not eat/drink blood, and I think it is good, if people obey that rule. Because of that and blood transfusion not existing in the text, I think it is reasonable position to think it is about eating blood.

[POI]

First of all, people can't safe life, only God can do that.

Then I guess you do not carry medical insurance, or ever visit a doctor, right? Hospitals are also not necessary, and going to medical school is for the feeble. Prayer is all you need. Right?

People may perhaps extend life in some case, but if the cost is losing life with God, it is in my opinion a mistake.

So, getting a blood transfusion IS always a sin?

But, if we speculate, why not speculate the scenario to end: you accept the transfusion, it alters the receivers persona and she becomes serial killer who kills thousands of people and then herself. Would you refuse it?

Yes. But is it logical to assume that a blood transfusion can alter someone's brain chemistry like that? Prolly not. Hence, it is not a reasonable hypothetical. Alternatively, it is reasonable to assume that a JW family member has refused blood and died, due to blood loss? Yes!

And I think it is a difficult question, because I think both options can also be harmful. Before making a decision, I would think, what the Bible actually says. And as said before, Bible tells "abstain from blood". I think it is about eating or drinking blood, because it is also forbidden in the OT (Lev. 7:26) and that is the context of the matter. But, what if I have understood it wrongly, what if it means also blood transfusion and I cause permanent damage to someone by accepting it? In a way it would be best to not accept it, because if we go just by the "abstain from blood" it clearly means that people should avoid blood and it can also mean blood transfusion. The crucial question is, what are the all forms to avoid blood. If we take it to mean that we should abstain from blood in all possible ways, it would mean that we should cut our wrists open and let the blood flow out. I believe we all understand that is not the point. We can have our own blood. And this leads to question, what counts as own blood? In a way blood relatives have the same blood. And so, in your hypothetical situation I think it would be acceptable to allow person to get blood transfusion from own parent.

I think righteous person prays he never gets in that situation.

Why is the Bible not clear? I'll take a stab at it... Is it possible that the Bible authors had no worldly clue that someday, humans would begin transfusing blood products intravenously to extend/save lives? Hmmmm? Is it also possible the Bible was trying to be as clear as they could be, at the time, but did not yet realize that someday, more options would be available? What'za think? Jesus was not clear, as evidence by the bold red you provided. You are truly pondering here. Hence, you wish instead that you are never presented with this situation. I do not blame you, as you really do not know whether or not IV blood transfusions are ever an exception to the rule, or not.

People don't become righteous by refusing or accepting something.

The Bible says people do, via Jesus-faith: "righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." Romans 3. Oh, wait a minute, the Bible is not clear, I almost forgot....

Actually the reason for death is always something else.

Hemorrhage is the cause of death for many. Hemorrhage can be prevented by transfusing blood products, along with stopping the source of the hemorrhage.

[Clownboat]

Thats quite a dichotomy you have there; I am not voicing agreement nor am I voicing disagreement, I am simply asking you a question: upon what basis do you assume to reject the notion that things have not turned out exactly as Jesus intended?

Genesis 6:6, New American Standard Bible (NASB): The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

[JehovahsWitness]

My question is : Can one take blood into ones body by ANY means... orally , anally, transfusionally (or in in the future they invent telepathicaly) ... and claim to be obeying the word that is in scripture ie to ABSTAIN from blood ?



DO BIBLICAL PROHIBITIONS ONLY APPLY TO INVENTED TECHNOLOGY THAT EXISTED AT THE TIME OF WRITING?

It has been argued that because blood transfusions did not exist at the time of writing, blood transfusions should be exempt from the prohibition but is this reasonable?

If your doctor told you To "ABSTAIN from alcohol" but he said this a year before a new methods was invented to absorb alcohol through inhaling it or smoking it , would it be reasonable to conclude that this new method must be exempt because the Doctor couldnt have possibly imagined the technology of getting alcohol into your body,? If the doctor recommended total abstinence, was he warning against the METHOD or the end result?

The bible tells Christians to ABSTAIN from blood, would this not cover all future technologies, methods and uses? Does the biblical prohibition on MURDER only apply to stabbing with a sword , since the writers could not have imagined the invention of a gun?

By the context I think it was about eating/drinking blood, which is forbidden also in OT. God's rule was that people should not eat/drink blood, and I think it is good, if people obey that rule. Because of that and blood transfusion not existing in the text, I think it is reasonable position to think it is about eating blood.

... if we go just by the "abstain from blood" it clearly means that people should avoid blood and it can also mean blood transfusion.

ACTS 15:28, 29a

For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things:  to keep abstaining ...from blood

All Emphasis MINE



Duly noted.



JW

[John17_3]

The boy is unworthy.
No. The boy is worthy.
The boy that refuses to take the soap, and shower, is unworthy.

To make a long story short, God states all are 'unworthy'. Conditional grace is issued (however), by way of Jesus-faith, via Romans 3. Again, you state that "those worthy are freed from confusion". This would essentially mean that the faithful would no longer be confused. Why? Conditional grace is applied anyways, to the faithful. Thus, according to your rationale, if you remain confused, you are not truly faithful. But this is illogical, because this would mean that only one very specific sect or denomination is truly faithful, and the rest are impostures/liars/mistaken. It would also be illogical because some, under the correct specific doctrine, may not actually have Jesus-faith, but still may carry the same set of beliefs as the others, in the same sect, who do have faith.

Thus, your quoted statement fails.

That is not my rational, because I did not say that the faithful would no longer be confused, because Conditional grace is applied anyways, to the faithful.