by Half a Person 26 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
This where a little study of the Talmud and Mishnah can help the modern Bible reader to grasp the underlying concepts in books like Job and Genesis. Personifications given to evil, plays acted out, puppetry and the retelling of the oral traditions.
Yetzer Tob and Yetzer Ha-Rah
Fundamentalists would give a Rabbi a good laugh or a good cry by some of their literal readings. In the Talmud is a story of a flying rodent, Mighty Mouse to the rescue!
HaP: imo it's not only a matter of superior intelligence (in a quantitative way), but qualitative or structural incompatibility as it were; "God" in strict monotheism (which is actually the exception) must be seen not only as the one who acts or permits, commits or omits, but also as the one who makes (and hence transcends) the "rules" (logical or moral, for instance) by which his action or permission, commission or omission, might be "explained" and a fortiori judged (positively as well as negatively). Iow, the only position consistent with strict monotheism is that of negative theology: nothing can be said about God. Or, to a lesser extent, that of "revelation positivism" such as Barth's: only God can validly say anything about God (implying that all theology assumes a circular reasoning within the presupposition of revelation, and thereby renounces any attempt at theodicy, or more generally apologetics, susceptible to make sense out of revelation).
I can't answer for all "Christians" but the JW version kind of creates an impotent version of Almighty God who is thwarted by the Devil (at least temporarily) and has his tied throughout the millennia. (I'd like to end wickedness but I can't because the Devil pulled a fast one on me.) I agree that the WT seems logical, but it is difficult to square with the Bible. It elevates the character of Satan and dilutes the sovereignty of God. In Scripture, God's sovereignty is beyond question and his Name does not to be sanctified or vindicated. The so-called "Universal Court Case" is something Rutherford, himself a lawyer dreamed up.
Humans have more in common with microbes than they do with God. God created the entire universe, and knows every detail about it. What gives "YOU" the righ to think of yourself as one of God's children? On what basis do "YOU" get to refer to God as your "parent"? Show us from the bible.
WTF? Let me stress this again. IDO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. I do not refer to God as my parent or anything else. I'd sooner call the Flying Spaghetti Monster Pops.
However, the Bible, which I assume it is the God of the Bible that you are referring to, repeatedly makes mention to him having human children and calling him Father. 1 John 3:1-10 for example. It doesn't matter if it's applied to all of humanity. The point is that the Bible makes a parent/child comparison between God and humans. If you're talking about some other God, fine. But this one has opened himself up to being held by human standards.
Genesis 1:27 God created man in his own image. Not even remotely similar to a comparison of men and microbes. Again, if you want to believe in the god who thinks of us bugs to be squashed on his windshield, fine, that's your right. But that definitely doesn't jibe with the description of the God in the Bible.
Thanks Narkissos
qualitative or structural incompatibility
…
the one who makes (and hence transcends) the "rules"
I can see that if God is in a class (category) of his own, then he could be called “unexplainable”. Almost like how the designer of a computer game isn’t subject to the rules of the game. Kind of like if Pac-Man asked how many pac-dots his designer ate per minute, or how many “levels” there are in his creator’s environment. It’s impossible to adequately explain “actual real life” if all you have for reference is the limited concepts of the “game world”.
@Deputy Dog
God can give reasons "if He wants". But, doesn't "need" to.
It’s such a contrast to Watchtower reasoning. Although they didn’t claim to have an answer for *every* question, they were proud to be able to answer most questions, including the issue of theodicy.
@donuthole
The so-called "Universal Court Case" is something Rutherford, himself a lawyer dreamed up.
Yeah, all the WT answers boil down to the "issue of university sovereignty"
I'd like to end wickedness but I can't because the Devil pulled a fast one on me.
And the WT answer sort of falls apart here, for me, because if the ransom has already been paid, then what is God waiting for? If Jesus provided the "ultimate answer" to Satan, then isn't the case closed? Surely there's nothing left to prove?
DD
" Maybe the question should be; why does God bless anyone at all? He doesn't owe us a thing."
Yah!!! What a wimp!!
S
bluecanary
However, the Bible, which I assume it is the God of the Bible that you are referring to, repeatedly makes mention to him having human children and calling him Father. 1 John 3:1-10 for example.
1Jn 3:9
No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 10By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.
As a JW you probably never thought much about this verses like this one.
John 1:12
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
It doesn't matter if it's applied to all of humanity. The point is that the Bible makes a parent/child comparison between God and humans.
The point is that the parent/child comparison only applies to those born of God through faith. Not simply being human
But this one has opened himself up to being held by human standards.
That's where we disagree. His children are held to His standards through faith in Christ. There is nothing in the bible that holds God to the standards of humans.
Genesis 1:27 God created man in his own image. Not even remotely similar to a comparison of men and microbes. Again, if you want to believe in the god who thinks of us bugs to be squashed on his windshield, fine, that's your right. But that definitely doesn't jibe with the description of the God in the Bible.
Just because God reveals Himself (in Jesus) in a way men can understand, that in no way means man is on par with God.
