by rvalich 44 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
We might as well be robots because if you say anything against God or don't worship him He gets p'off and will kill you.Read Ezekiel.
By the way what is evil (no not murder,war, etc)What about all the good people who just live a good life.But if you don't worship some shit in the sky you are shit according to him.
B
rvalich,
I want you to take the time to read this. This will answer all of your questions. "Good" and "bad" are interchangeable with "Right'" and "Wrong" or
"Good" and "Evil", by the way. Trust me here. This was inspired by a Socrates debate several millenniums ago which was recorded in Plato's Dialogues of the Socrates debates.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/4252/1/Whats-Right-about-Right
Farkel
Religious philosophers have struggled for millenia to weave a satisfying latticework of logic for the existance of evil in a monotheistic faith. Polytheists had no issue with the problem of evil because the gods were just as diverse as people. Monotheism early on felt one god could account for everything but his personality was complex and mysterious. This in time proved to be unsatisfying. Some (Bible writers included) had grapsed at predeterminism/predestination as the solution to the mystery. Free Will was an illusion if the deity had forknown everything and determined it. Many Christians to this day accept this solution. Others imagined a new archenemy that would become responsible for the bad choices people made. These demons/Satans inspired people to do bad stuff and caused suffering. They really didn't have a need for some philosophical concept of Free Will. Of course many mix both of these approaches together.
Augustinian/Arminian philosophies deeply influenced Christian thought though the centuries, having largely formed the basis for most all the modern spins on the topic. It is good to do a bit of discovery on these topics so as to understand the way these concepts evolved and were adopted. It is healthful to question why it is most of the posters so far commenting have the opinions they have. Their views are the result of centuries of debate and contention and in many cases Catholic execution.
Farkel, I prefer to drop all the moralizing inherent in vocabulary like "evil" or "bad" and when discussing behavior use "helpful", "harmful" or "harmless". It is much easier to defend a particular judgement if I can demonstrate the positive or negative effects. If I can't then it goes in the "harmless" category. We'd never be forced to simply appeal to authority like the "Bible/God says so" as the justification for such judgements.
peacefulpete-
Nicely put.
It is also intersting that the video depicting Eistein as defending God is an urban myth. It apparently never happened and the religious makers of the video would have known that if they had done a simple google search.
pp: "I prefer to drop all the moralizing inherent in vocabulary like "evil" or "bad" and when discussing behavior use "helpful", "harmful" or "harmless". It is much easier to defend a particular judgement if I can demonstrate the positive or negative effects. If I can't then it goes in the "harmless" category. We'd never be forced to simply appeal to authority like the "Bible/God says so" as the justification for such judgements."
classic!
A word about the logic of the video. The child equates good to the physical properties of light and heat energy (photons and excited molecules), evil to the absence of these. The analogy falls of course given that photons and energy are physical realities that can be measured and good and evil are religious/ ethical values. But even on its surface the analogy has flaws. If we assume that, like heat and light, evil doesn't really exist but is simply a contrast or absence of good, then the universe is by default, evil. Why?
Another way to think of it, if we argue that good is a choice to not do evil, and evil doesn't really exist, could not the reverse be argued. Could we not equally say that evil is a choice to not do good and that good does not really exist but is simply the absence of evil? If both are true then neither good nor evil exist, there is just choice. I doubt that is the opinion of the proponents of the analogy.
The analogy also suggests that since evil doesn't really exist buti s simply the absence of good, then there is no need to explain the source of evil. No need for a Devil in their theology. Again there is only choice. By simply reversing the arguement again, good doesn't really exist but simply is the absence of evil, then there is no need to explain the source of good. There is no need for a God, only human choices.
The analogy fails to logically convince primarily because it equates physics to ethics as if Good or Evil are objectifiable quantifiable physical realities, when they do not really exist as such but are in reality judgements of the choices humans make.
Boy that last sentence ran on a bit.
peacefulpete,
could the Almighty God of the bible exist? Can you give me undisputable evidence he doesn't exist? If not logic surely demands that we accept the possibility and look at the consequences of our denial. If he exists he is the reason we have a limited form of logic.
Finger, replace your words "Almighty God of the Bible" with anything else (martians, dragons, vengeful dead people etc.) and be honest in asking yourself if the arguement is compelling. Logic most assuredly does not demand belief in everything lacking undisputable evidence against its existance. The reverse is closer to true. Logic demands belief in everything that there is undisputable evidence for its existance. Your third sentence is the naked motivation behind the acceptance of and pertetuation of all superstition "But what if it is true?". Fear. Why do people still do foolish things like wear lucky talismans and avoid 'unlucky' numbers etc... Because of the blinding irrational fear of "consequences of denial".
