Rescuing a God who is blind to Evil

by Terry 36 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • King Solomon
    King Solomon

    TT2C said:

    Ahh, another ex-JW who thinks God wants man to HAVE free will

    Nope, if you accept the bible as the truth, then there is no point to "free will"; because a true servant of god, would only do what their god wills them do. The whole notion is really ridiculous when you think about it.

    While all of what we're discussing is based on concepts none of us (Terry, you, or I) actually believe, the discussion IS being conducted so we can help point out the errors to those who are still trapped under the weight of the WT's flawed logic. Tryin' to break some chains here, cut thru some Gordian knots to extract those buried under the rubble!

    The Bible's view of Will is pretty simple, and boils down to only two types that exists:

    #1) God's Divine Will. Any action contrary to His Divine Will is broadly categorized as a sin.

    #2) Man's Free Will. This is the moral decision-making capacities inside man, but is to be used ONLY for matters of conscience, i.e. any decisions that aren't already covered by #1). Think of what color of tie to wear, or any moral decision not covered by a command found the Bible.

    God's Divine Will ALWAYS trumps mans use of Free Will. In other words, God doesn't grant men His permission to sin.

    So with that in mind, sometimes you'll hear JWs parrot the line, "God created A&E with free-will, because He didn't want to create them as mere ROBOTS, who HAD to worship and love him"....

    Nope, that's EXACTLY what God did: He created A&E devoid of a developed inner moral compass, AKA a conscience, but worse, He actively prohibited them from ever being any different from the way He created them, since He denied them from ever obtaining wisdom.

    Hence A&E were created possessing the morality capabilities of children, with their impaired moral sensibility, and hence were unable to do any other than simply follow orders. So while they may have had a DESIRE to be wise (and hence, the temptation to eat of the fruit existed), God didn't give them two things very important things to become wise:

    1) the capacity to use their Free-Will. Their use of free will was handicapped by a lack of "moral fuel", AKA wisdom (remember that the Bible considers foolishness and wisdom as antonyms; hence if they lacked wisdom, the implication is they were actually created as fools).

    2) His permission to USE their free will. The very act of prohibiting eating of the fruit blocked their ability to eat it under free will; the act was taken from A&E's free will domain, and placed it into God's Divine Will domain.

    So in order to gain the capability to responsibily exercise their free-will in the future, they had to violate God's Divine Will: they HAD to steal the fruit to ever gain moral decision-making for mankind.

    Taken as a whole, that suggests God did NOT create men with free-will: they had to disobey God to obtain free will.

    A good analogy is the U.S. not wanting Iran to become a nuclear state: we may not want them to do so, but once they get nukes, it's too late. They gained the capacity, and it's no longer a theoretical, it becomes a reality that must be dealt with.

    @@@@

    It's interesting is compare the story of King Solomon, who supposedly experienced a dream as a boy wherein he was told by God that whatever He wished would be granted. Young Solomon asked for WISDOM, the very same trait that A&E STOLE from God; God granted young Solomon his request. So instead of STEALING it, King Solomon was GIVEN it by YHWH.

    So the idea of YHWH wanting to play "Mother May I?" with A&E may not be so far off from the mark; A&E lost at YHWH's intented game, whereas Solomon caught on quickly.

  • Terry
    Terry

    Still nobody has picked up on the question I asked about the STANDARD of God in bargaining to allow a group of evildoers to live.

    To wit: In Noah's day their were 8 people on the ark and everything else had to die.

    However...

    In Lot's day, God agreed to spare Sodom if EVEN ONE righteous man were found.

    Why the change of standard??

  • King Solomon
    King Solomon

    Terry said:

    Why the change of standard??

    Same reason He couldn't punish A&E with death on "the very day they ate": who'd populate the Earth? The story would open a can of worms (more than it currently does). It reads to me more as a lesson on the importance of semantics, and the importance of paying attention to very minute details (fitting, for a culture that has spurred on the development of more lawyers than you can shake a stick at!)

    If the death sentence was taken literally, God would have to start from scratch, gathering more dust from which to fashion Adam 2.0 (which WAS the idea of letting only 8 people survive in the Flood: that WAS Armageddon 1.0, and we see how well THAT one worked out, right?).

    So in both, God's hand was forced, and since He didn't want to start over, He was forced to work with what He had....

    Remember the story was serving as a moral allegory, much like you're not going to attend traffic school without it beginning with some gruesome traffic accident photos to grab your attention as to why the information to be presented is important. A&E was the story to grab one's attention)

    Lot was a sub-population of humanity, so God could use a different moral standard and wipe them all out.

    Point is, God shot his wad by killing so many in the Flood, and He learned a lesson in population genetics, bottlenecking, etc.

    It's like a hunter who over-harvests the population: you run out of animals to hunt (or victims to blame/kill, in God's case), and you've only made it harder on yourself!

    Besides, it's NOT like YHWH is omnipotent, or something, right? (Remember, God was more man-like, with warts and human limitations, in Genesis than later on. It wasn't until later, when the writers of Isaiah got carried away with the "With God, all things are possible" omni-everything you can think of stuff, that the tall tales kicked in full-force....).

  • tootired2care
    tootired2care

    Why the change of standard?

    Not factoring in that god is actually going through with Armageddon... perhaps his intelligent creation is actually teaching him something. As you go through the divine retribution accounts, you’ll no doubt notice that god gets more soft handed, less reactive, and more selective in his destruction of people on the earth; he changes his methods to use powerful nations instead of natural phenomenon etc.

    Does that mean that the people are just less bad, or is god slowly realizing that his institution of living under a threat of - “do it my way or die” - is really not ever going work? Or is he just trying different things and expecting different results [Einstein's solution to insanity]?

    What result? perfect obedience?

    - OR -

    Could it be that the bible really is not inspired, and just the writings of some delusional and inconsistent human writers; who thought that God talked to them, and related things in a very inconsistent, and very human way?

    The implications of this statement in genesis (and other similar accounts) are too huge to brush aside - “The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth”. These imply that god, is not all knowing, not all powerful, not omnipotent (as KS brought out), and subject to inconsistent thought patterns.

    It’s hardly believable that such a god would be powerful enough to create an orderly and precise universe (debatable), and at the same time have regret? Think about it…Would this same god also have regrets about certain laws of physics too?

  • sabastious
    sabastious

    Beautiful post, Terry. I think you are really on to something. This is a great explanation for why God acts in the way he is said to act.

    Numbers 23: 19 - God is not human, that he should lie

    So the Torah states that because God is specifically not human that he doesn't lie. If he is "evil blind" as you say, he literally would not have the capacity to lie which is an evil.

    -Sab

  • King Solomon
    King Solomon

    Aside from regret being inconsistent with omniscience, it's also inconsistent with his infallibility, since he's not capable of changing his mind. Same applies to situations where he shows mercy: that's inconsistent with his "I cannot change his mind" statement (which occurs with alarming regularity, where Moses intervenes on behalf of Israelites).

    Heres a logical dissection of why he cannot change his mind:

    Once God expresses his Divine Will, it becomes law; acting counter to it is a sin.

    Jesus expresses the idea that even thinking about sinning is a sin. Therefore, God cannot even contemplate changing His mind, or it would be a sin; God cannot sin.

    Once God issues a decision, there is no mercy. However, mercy is a claimed trait for God.....

    Conclusion: someone didn't think through implications when writing His traits.

  • King Solomon
    King Solomon

    Sab said:

    Beautiful post, Terry. I think you are really on to something. This is a great explanation for why God acts in the way he is said to act.

    Numbers 23: 19 - God is not human, that he should lie

    So the Torah states that because God is specifically not human that he doesn't lie. If he is "evil blind" as you say, he literally would not have the capacity to lie which is an evil.

    Soooo, Sab, you're actually comfortable with the idea of YHWH being evil-blind (in effect, turning a blind eye to the problem of evil)?

    And that would be OK with you, even preferable to a God who lies?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit