Predestination and Dubs

Dubs are one of a few unique religions that sprung up from the Second Adventist movement in the 1800's.  They are unique in that they believe in "greater fulfillments" of prophecies recorded in the Bible.  They go even further than that.  They believe that Bible characters and Bible groups foreshadowed their equivalent "classes" of people in modern days.  I once saw a list of WTS "classes" that was in the hundreds!  Ancient prophets foreshadowing modern "types" is another example of Second Adventist thinking.

The Bible tells us that on many, many occassions God himself personally interfered with mankind. In doing so, God himself changed history, and in changing history, he changed the present and the future.

Yet, dubs don't believe in predestination.  Therein lies a major problem.

For the Bible prophecies to be fulfilled as written, God would have to know the future.  God could not just "look" into the future without affecting it, because by "looking" in the future, he has created or determined the future.

The myriad of complexities and events that lead to Charles T. Russell starting the Bible Students movement are beyond the capabilities of the world's biggest computer.  Just ONE little ripple over the millenia, ONE little event that say, happened three thousand years ago could have happened that would have caused Russell never to have been born at all.  An ancient ancestor of his could have gotten a fever of some sort and became sterile as a result, for example.

Now, we're not talking about just one man, but all the subsequent events that occurred in a religion that caused the creation of all of these modern-day "classes" and later-day greater fulfillments of prophecy, including "prophetic" dates like 1914, 1918 and 1919.  One simple variance in history, one simple act by one simple person could have changed everything in the future.  The gun used to kill Archduke Ferdinand could have misfired and WWI would not have started when it did. The dub religion of today would have never been formed had that gun misfired.

This means that if the WTS' claims are to be believed, God knew in advance every act by every person who ever lived.  This means all humans would have HAD to do exactly what they did when they did it, without exception.

Therefore Watchtower beliefs and their role in God's divine plan was not only known beforehand, it was determined beforehand.

Now, one can argue that God "tweaked" events now and then to make sure his prophecies happened as the the WTS claims.  Even so, by his doing this, he determined the course of future events and still predestined all of mankind.

That being the case, we have no free will and no matter what we try to do, we would have done what we did and will do what we do anyway.  Like it or not, the only logical conclusion that can be reached if one believes dub doctrine is to concede we are all predestined.

Of course I don't believe in predestination, but like it or not the dubs MUST believe this if they want to be honest with themselves.

Farkel

I wonder, though, just for the sake of argument, if God could have allowed for several possible futures that would have still fulfilled his purpose.  For all we know, perhaps N.H. Barbour was supposed to have filled the role that Russell did, but because Barbour used his free will to thwart God's purpose, Russell was allowed to replace him.  What do you think, Farkel?

Here's the explanation I got from family when I questioned this issue.

Well, back in the OT times, G*d was personally directing the Israelites.

As a last effort to show personal interest, he sent his 'only begotten son' TM to convince the human race of their folly.  But we would not listen!

Now, he has let Satan have free reign till Harmageddon, and is not interfering in our choices.  We have free will to make up our own minds, with no more direction from G*d (except through the FD&S) till he sends his heavenly forces down upon us. 

Justin,

:  wonder, though, just for the sake of argument, if God could have allowed for several possible futures that would have still fulfilled his purpose.  For all we know, perhaps N.H. Barbour was supposed to have filled the role that Russell did, but because Barbour used his free will to thwart God's purpose, Russell was allowed to replace him. 

I think you missed my entire point.  If God allowed for several possible futures, then he STILL had control over those futures.  If he had considered a million futures, he STILL had control over those futures.

Barbour at least was smarter than Russell:  he saw the "ransom" theory for the bullshit that it was and is.

By the way, when Russell departed from Barbour, he stole his entire mailing list and used it for his own new magazine and put Barbour out of business.  Russell was the first Watchtower scumbag.  Barbour was financially weak and Russell wasn't.  He USED Barbour and got control of Barbour's main asset.  This is how the Watchtower religion took a foot hold.

It's all Bible-Based(tm).

Farkel

Some solid reasoning on the prophecy-freewill dilemma Farkel!

Problem is... many dubs and other funny-mentalists dont see this no matter how often you press their faces in it.. I tried several times to explain Eutyphros dilemma (another nice dilemma of a different sort) to a dub... man! That was enough to curl my toes! I just couldn''t find a small crack in his thick skull onto which I could pry the crowbar of understanding to free his mind...   

Greven

greven,

: I tried several times to explain Eutyphros dilemma (another nice dilemma of a different sort) to a dub... man! That was enough to curl my toes

Ah, yes. The "Divine Command Theory of Ethics" that Socrates so brilliantly demolished!

I've written about this at length on this board. While you got the name wrong, (Eutyphros) you know the character that debated the indominble Socrates and got trashed by Socrates' arguments!

There was no "dilemma", by the way. Either "right" comes from God, or God is subject to an outside thing called "right". If the latter is true, God is not omipotent. If the former is true, God is arbitary and

capricious. This is the sum total argument that Socrates stated with that young buck as related in Plato's Dialogues.

If you search the archives, you will find a thread that I started about this very subject.

I believe I called it something like "What is Right about Right?" In any event, it dealt with the Divine Command Theory of Ethics.  It discusses that EXACT debate Socrates had on that subject.

Farkel

Farkel,

It was known to me as ''Eutyphro's dilemma''. I knew it was from Plato's Dialogues. I read a hard to follow translation that translated the issue as one of 'piety' or 'holiness'. It was hard to read but obvious enough that 'piety' could easily have been 'ethics' or 'morals'. Your sum total explains it quite well. Is 'right' right because God(s) say(s) so or because there is an absolute 'right' (and thus: morals) apart from God(s). Either option has nasty consequences as you point out, God could say rape is right and voila it is right on the one hand, or God is subject to these outside morals, thrashing not only his omnipotency but also makes him accountable for his actions.

I will do a search on your topic about this... sounds interesting!

Greven  

Farkel..........for the record...........is this a purely "intellectual exercise" or are we really all hoping to grow in some way from this?    Just curious.

 

Terri

greven,

Here's the link:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/4252/1.ashx

Farkel

Farkel

Your right, the JWs have a problem.  But I think Socrates has a problem.

I always wondered about this subject and could never make the pieces fit in my mind.

Now let's think, as a JW we didn't believe in predestination, but we need to go out door to door in search of right hearted people who Jehovah is directing us to find. Are they then predestined for being a JW?. Or the end of the system of things--everyone who is not a JW is predestined to die as that is their destiny. It was very confusing...

Farkel, 

How and why was the ransom doctrine bullshit.  Inquiring minds wanna know.

Wow - I never heard of this:

Very interesting, I wonder if that is in the Insight book :) Seriously, Farkel, where can I find that info? Or is it predestined that I don't know :)LL :)

Larry,

I can get it for you, but it will involve me contacting someone who has the source for that information.  It will take a little time.

Farkel

bigboi,

Most Christian religions believe that Jesus died for our sins or that he took all of our sins upon himself.  Although I happen to think that notion is also wacky, I don't think it is nearly as wacky as the ransom doctrine.

The Bible never said Adam and Eve were perfect, and never said they would live forever if they obeyed God, so those who believe that it took a perfect man to "buy back" what Adam and Eve lost can't make there case on the evidence.

Furthermore, in the real world what happens when a ransom is paid?  The hostage is almost immediatley returned!  It's 2,000 years after this "ransom" was paid and the billions of people who have lived and died and those living today are still hostages.  Makes no sense.

For it to be a genuine ransom, when Jesus died we should have been returned to a perfect condition, and perhaps made to pass a test similar to the one Adam and Eve had to pass.  But no!  We still get to keep our diseases, faminies, criminals and we have to make all the mistakes people who  perfect would not make.  But besides all this, we have to face tests and challenges a thousand times harder than those faced by the first couple, both now and at the end of the 1,000 year reign.

So, to me at least, that "ransom" made by Jesus was meaningless.

Finally, if one of your children's friends committed a terrible crime, would you kill your own innocent child as restitution for that sin?  NO!  It's stupid, and unbelievably cruel to even consider such a thing.

But that's exactly what Bible God did.

Farkel

Thanks for the reply Farkel. 

The Bible is indeed very different when you look at exactly what's written without all the extra assumptions. 

 

Damn, that was an excellent reply re: the ranson.  I haven't read or thought about that subject in years.  To bad being a Christian is based on faith and not of facts.

 LL :)

PS - Take your time about getting that info., but when you do get it please post it on the board.

 

Here's a link to an article dealing with the issue of omnipotence:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/

from the Stanford Encyclopedia, by Joshua Hoffman and Gary Rosenkrantz.

I hope this helps.