The toleration of evil and the issue of universal sovereignty explanation fails

gubberningbody

Of course I should have seen it right away, but I had two tickets to paradise, so I was willing to ignore all the things that didn't add up.

Things that don't add up if Jehovah has even a shred of morality:

You don't tolerate evil for generations because you have a bet with the Devil.

Jehovah has supposedly waited and watched for eons as people have suffered and died.

All of this to what end?

Is this to prove that man doesn't have what it takes to live forever in peace and happiness?

Some have suggested that the angels are watching and that we're aspectacle to them, so apparently we're being used as lab rats so they can learn the consequences of sin as well.

How stupid are these angels? Only severe mental would make it such that it took eons to learn this lesson.

You don't move the pieces around on the universal chess board. Jehovah supposedly did this at least twice:

Once at the flood, and another time at the tower of Babel.

So even if I accept the first, the second screws up any possibility of knowing what man might have accomplished.

I think if we'd agreed to play a game of chess and the person we were playing decided he didn't like the arrangements of

the pieces on the board so he would just move them around, we'd say he forfeits.

The Bible clearly shows Jehovah forfeiting by breaking the rules of engagement.

Some might say "Oh, but he's Jehovah, and can do what he wants." and I'd say, "That's certainly true, however it begs the question of universal sovereignty as outlined by JW's."

The outline of the Bible makes no moral sense to me at all. I don't see how a person can embrace the morality of Christianity and still worship a being like the one depicted by Jehovah.

gubberningbody

BTTP

wobble

Dear Gubbers,

I think you have summed up well what many of us on here feel.

Of course the Christians on here seem to be able, by making JC be the One in the driving seat now,to distance their belief from these moral problems.

I think the reverse is true, if "All authority has been given me ..... " as Jesus claimed, why has he done sweet FA for close on 2000 years ?

Love

Wobble

Caedes

I had almost the same conversation with a street preacher, he didn't have any answer as to why god likes to stir the pot from time to time.

maninthemiddle

WWHD

What would a Human Do?

I for instance wouldn't put my son to death because he disobyed me once. We put thoes kind of people in jail.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/showing_children_gods_love_wit.php

How is the story of Adam any diferent than this?

The Oracle

Gubber : Excellent, logical points. I fully agree.

The morality of the mythical beast Jehovah is appalling to say the least. I find it fascinating that even intelligent people can not see, or at least refuse to see, this reality.

To further your first point - the whole concept of descended generations paying for the errors of their ancestors is ridiculous.

Think of the public outrage it would cause if someone were even fined by the authorities $1,000 for a crime that their great great great great grandfather committed just 200 years ago? Or what if that person were thrown in jail for 2 years for it, or perhaps executed? Would that not scream out injustice?

Now escalate that to a lifetime of pain and suffering and then death for billions of people. Say it with me now.... RE - DIC - U - LOUS!

And children dying at Armageddon because of their parents views? Just plain silly.

The old dent in the bread pan analogy almost causes me to dry heave because of the high level of absurdity.

The Oracle

gubberningbody

Sorry for the double post...

If was thinking more on this.... (SB = Supreme Being)

It seems to me that the most serious deficiency that any system of belief has to contend with is the apparent morality of their peculiar SB as exemplified through its action or inaction.

As humans, we have certain behaviors we in general consider moral and those we consider immoral.

If we accept the idea that we're internalizing the morality given to us as a result of our being children of this SB, then we invariably make the same comparisons that we make with regard to our own parents, namely, we expect them to adhere to the same moral code that they pass on to us.

By that measure, I can't think of a single instance of any SB in the past or the present whose adherents have effectively explained the reasons for the obvious delta between the published standards of their own SB vs its actual behavior.

I have read apologies attempting to explain this behavior by various (in my view ineffective) strategies.

1. We're human.
2. The SB is the SB and everything about it is better.
3. Therefore if we have a problem with the morality of the SB, that's our problem, because by definition we're in the wrong.

This explanation doesn't explain anything. Yes, it's true we're human, and yes the SB is the SB. However, if we take the children analogy and use it in this case, we can see that to argue that the parent is greater than the child, and therefore, possesses a superior morality, doesn't necessarily follow. Intelligence and power are tools which leverage moral actions, but these are not their source.

Another I've heard, more than read is:

"The SB works in mysterious ways, but trust in it, and you will come to understand my child."

This isn't really an explanation. It's more like, "I don't know, but I know, and I can't tell you either, but trust my instincts on this that one day you too will know what I know and cannot express. Trust me."

Another which is a melange of the two is a bit like:

"It's our fault, but the SB is being patient with us. If we but listen to the inner workings of our own conscience and act without knowing whether there will be good or bad results it will all work out well in the end. Just wait and see."

It seems to me that this one condemns us without presenting the facts to the open court. We're not allowed to look at the evidence or cross-examine the case for the prosecution, which in this case is the SB. <- This, with regard to any culpability on the part of either the individual or man in general.

The other phrase in the above "explanation", seems to move immediately to the punishment phase where we are sent individually or collectively to have a "time out", where we can ponder our ways and make amends. We are told, that if we do so there will be a wonderful reward in the end. <- This again is not really an effective explanation, because we just have to trust the SB that we are all guilty. The baby who is born deformed is guilty, or the parents are being given a gift/test to refine their latent good qualities. Acceptance of this sort of nonsense demands that we take a rejecting attitude towards our own inner sense of justice and bifurcate it when it comes to the SB. We are to trust because we are to trust.

I haven't read or heard anything, which serves to reconcile the delta to my satisfaction. I'm not even sure I can imagine one.

I know the "Shut up you puny human and tremble!" argument is a non-argument and can be immediately dismissed.

It strikes me that the second option is muddled and worse than the first for complicating the issue and creating a moral shell game whereby no one is ever a winner, because the SB has palmed the hidden ball no matter what shell we choose.

If there were an SB, what I feel I can legitimately conclude is that this being is not concerned with the individual, and not the species. Neanderthal man apparently engaged in religious rituals of some sort, however their line has long since died out. The DNA of modern man isn't the same as Neanderthals.

I look at my cat. I watch the Dog Whisperer. I conclude that my cat looks to me and relates to me as the best mama cat that could ever be. It knows at some level that I am not a cat and yet has no other way of relating. Cesar, on the show the Dog Whisperer, is always underscoring the need for the human to relate toward the dog as the pack leader.

I have to conclude that humans had for one reason or another the need for an SB, and whether the SB existed or not, these humans had no choice but to relate to it as if it were a human, with human morality.

If there is an SB, it clearly cannot have human morality or human concerns.

The kind of person we generally consider to be moral, would never have designed a world like this one.

BluesBrother

It is great when entrenched belief systems can be suddenly blown apart by simple clear logic...I love it..

I would say that this exposes the WTS 's unique and peculiar view of "God's Eternal Purpose", rather than the message of Christianity itself

ldrnomo

You don't tolerate evil for generations because you have a bet with the Devil.

Don't forget my friends, it is the SB we are talking about here. And the SB can do whatever it wants whether we think it's right or not. Remember what we've been taught my friends, whatever we think, it is foolishness (stupid) to the SB.

So let the SB play with peoples lives by letting those lives become ruined because the SB stood back and didn't do anything. After all the angels are it's real star creations they are the ones that need a good lesson. Why should they have to suffer in all of this, humans are the star monkeys in the lab and if we prove ourselves through this science experiment, we get a ticket to paradise.

Makes sense to me.

LD

The toleration of evil and the issue of universal sovereignty explanation fails

Share this