by JosephAlward 63 Replies latest jw friends
Does Knowledge of Evil Condemn Us?
Only if we don't report the incident to the police... otherwise we are considered complicit or aiding and abetted.
"As every one knows, there are mistakes in the Bible" - The Watchtower, April 15, 1928, p. 126
Believe in yourself, not mythology.
<x ><
Achristian argued that knowledge of evil leads to the contemplation of doing evil, and that is what makes man less worthy than God, who is incorruptible, and thus incapable of even contemplating doing evil. Because we fall short of God, we are undeserving of eternal life, he claims.
Achristian further argues that the reason God made man corruptible is that
He wanted to create people whom He could have a loving relationship with. But since true love can be neither forced nor programmed, in order to have loving relationships with us, God had to create us as free people. Free to choose to love God and His ways or to not love God and His ways. In other words, free to do both right and wrong, free to do both good and evil.This doesn't make sense. The love of God Achristian is describing is necessarily a corrupted one, for it comes from the hearts and minds of corruptible men who contemplate evil. From uncorruptible men, however, the love would be pure--uncontaminated by thoughts of doing evil.
AChristian argues that God wants the love from man to be a "true love," a love which comes naturally from men who can choose between good and evil, a love which is not programmed, as it would be if the man were perfect and would by his very nature love God. This is why God makes man corruptible, AChristian thinks.
This doesn't make sense. The unprogrammed, natural love from corruptible man would nevertheless be unavoidably contaminated by his evil thoughts, and thus be corrupted, limited, and suspect. Is not corruption by its very nature evil, according to Achristian? If so, then the corrupted love God receives is unavoidable tainted with evil. Why in the world, then, would God prefer love tainted with evil from corruptible man over love absent of any hint of evil, from uncorruptible men?
Saying that the limited and imperfect love is nevertheless natural doesn't explain it, Achristian; that which is good is not always that which is natural, and, besides that, limited corrupted love can never be better than the limitless and uncorrupted love that would come from uncorruptible man.
AChristian, if you believe that the Bible teaches that corrupted love from corruptible men is better to God than the pure love that would come from uncorruptible men, will you please show us the verses? If they don't exist, then why should we accept your view?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
Joseph,
Why any Christian ever bothers to discuss theology with you I don't know. If we say "black" you will surely say "white."
I say God made us free so that our love for Him and for others could be true love, being neither forced nor programmed. You say such love from free people who are capable of disobeying God is imperfect love, because you say it is tainted by the evil all free people sometimes do. On the other hand, if God made us all "incorruptible," incapable of disobeying Him, you would surely say that the "love" we then showed for God and others was not real love at all, since we had no choice in showing it.
So Joseph, because you are capable of doing evil, does that mean that the love you have for your wife, your kids and for others is not real love?
In the future, I will try to remember not to waste my time talking to people who argue against anything said by anyone calling themselves "Christian."
Achristian has argued that the reason God made man corruptible is that he wanted to create people with whom he could have loving relationship with--a "true love" coming from people whose love is neither forced nor programmed. But, AChristian has also argued that corruptible men know evil and may contemplate doing evil at any time.
Thus, at any time the thoughts, speech, and emotions, and feelings of the corruptible man might become contaminated with thoughts of doing evil; thus, the "true love" that AChristian imagines is coming from the corruptible man God created may in fact be tainted by thoughts of doing evil. This is the reason why AChristian's argument makes no sense. Not only does he not explain what "true love" is, beyond saying he thinks it is that love which comes unforced from a corruptible man, he also fails to take into account the inherently corrupted nature of the love God gets from corruptible man.
The love that would come from an uncorruptible man would never be tainted with thoughts of doing evil, or evil emotions, and thus would never be suspect. This love could be without limit, whereas the "true love"--whatever that is--that AChristian is talking about would necessarily be corrupt, and limited.
If God is "all about love," as you say AChristian, then why would God want from man a love which is inherently corrupt, suspect, and limited, when he could have perfect love, a love that is not corrupt, not limited, from uncorruptible man? It doesn't make sense does it?
AChristian provides his answer:
I say God made us free so that our love for Him and for others could be true love, being neither forced nor programmed. You say such love from free people who are capable of disobeying God is imperfect love, because you say it is tainted by the evil all free people sometimes do. On the other hand, if God made us all "incorruptible," incapable of disobeying Him, you would surely say that the "love" we then showed for God and others was not real love at all, since we had no choice in showing it.This is nonresponsive, AChristian. You haven't explained why you think God prefers from man a love which is inherently corrupt, suspect, and limited, when he could have perfect love, a love that is not corrupt, not limited, from uncorruptible man. Saying that God gets "true love"--whatever that is--from corruptible man, is not enough of an argument. You need to explain what your "true love" has--beyond being unforced--that outweighs its inherently corrupt, suspect, and limited nature, and why what's left is better than the perfect love, the uncorrupt, pure, limitless love that could come from the uncorruptible man. If you cannot do this, then why should we accept your interpretations?So Joseph, because you are capable of doing evil, does that mean that the love you have for your wife, your kids and for others is not real love?
In the future, I will try to remember not to waste my time talking to people who argue against anything said by anyone calling themselves "Christian."
Now, as for your question about my love for my family: It seems to be a red herring, that is, a question designed to throw the readers off the scent. We're not talking about whether corruptible men can show "true love." Instead, we are talking about God having a choice of between receiving perfect love--uncorrupted, pure love--from uncorruptible men, or receiving what you call "true love," (now you're calling it "real love") from men, a love which is necessarily corrupted. You don't explain well why God would choose the latter; all you say is that "true love" is better, even though it's corrupted, suspect, and limited. But, where is your argument in support of this conjecture? All you really offer new in the way of rebuttal is this one question, which you think will settle it:
So Joseph, because you are capable of doing evil, does that mean that the love you have for your wife, your kids and for others is not real love?I don't know what you think "real love" is, but I really do love my family, even though, according to you, my thoughts at any moment might swing to the dark side. Selfish thoughts may often arise as I express my love, and this cannot help but taint in some way my love, and make it less than it could be, but I still feel "true love" for my family. Do you understand what I mean?
In the same way, the love corruptible men show to God may still be a "true love," but it nevertheless must have a corrupt component, however much man may wish not to have it. Would it not be better if man naturally and automatically loved God perfectly, without having his thoughts of love contaminated by occasional dark thoughts? God could make this happen by making man uncorruptible, couldn't he?
You argue that this would be bad, because then the love would be "forced," but so what if it's forced? What's wrong with being forced to do what is one's extreme best interest? God forces us to breathe without our wanting to, and our heart to beat without our necessarily wanting it to; it's an involuntary behavior which is in our best interest. If there really is a god who could have made us uncorruptible, thus forcing us to love him perfectly, he likely would have done so, don't you think?
Joe asked >>>>> If there really is a god who could have made us uncorruptible, thus forcing us to love him perfectly, he likely would have done so, don't you think?
I don't. Because you can't "force" someone to love you. Anyone knows that. Even Joe. But he would rather die than admit any Christian is right about anything.
As AC said earlier, true love can neither be forced or programmed. If I hypnotize someone into showing adoration for me, does that person really love me? I don't think so. If I build a robot and program it to always faithfully serve and obey me, does that robot love me? I don't think so.
Give it up Joe. As usual, you have lost another argument.
Achristian
When a corruptible person gains a mere intellectual knowledge of evil he is immediately corrupted by it. For he then immediately considers the possibility of acting in an evil way. And, as Faithful pointed out, Jesus clearly indicated in Matthew 5:28 that merely thinking of committing an evil act is itself an evil act. Thus a mere intellectual knowledge of evil can and does corrupt us.When a person gains knowledge of evil he is corrupted by that knowledge.
Jesus was human
Jesus had knowledge of evil
Jesus must have been corrupted therefore...
hmmm, I'm expecting you to answer that your a trinitarian or something...
Gweedo,
Your comments do not involve the Trinity doctrine. They do, however, involve the deity of Christ. All Christians accept the doctrine of the deity of Christ, meaning that regardless of how they may feel about the Trinity doctrine, they understand that Jesus was far more than a mere man, and far more than "a perfect man" or "Adam's equal" as JWs call Him. All Christians understand that Jesus was God. And the Bible tells us that God is "incorruptible."
Achristian
All Christians understand that Jesus was God.So if I dont believe this, I'm not a Christian?
I know heaps of Christians who dont believe the above...I was one.
AC
Jesus was GodAnd yet no man has seen God. But people saw Jesus. Jesus was of course God. So people have seen God. But, No, they haven't seen God...but they have seen Jesus...who is God...who was seen....
eeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
***headache***need****asprin****
You think a divine perfect being could have written a book that was a little more clear, and a little less contradictory.
AChristain said:
I say God made us free so that our love for Him and for others could be true love, being neither forced nor programmed. You say such love from free people who are capable of disobeying God is imperfect love, because you say it is tainted by the evil all free people sometimes do. On the other hand, if God made us all "incorruptible," incapable of disobeying Him, you would surely say that the "love" we then showed for God and others was not real love at all, since we had no choice in showing it.
C'mon AChristain! God didn't give us "free-will" because if he really did, we would truly be free to choose whether we wanted to worship him or not. And don't say God favouring people who worship him is a way of rewarding them, and therefore not really "punishing" those who don't worship him (like with awarding a Nobel Prize only to those who worked for it). Death is not the default state of man, according to the bible, everlasting life is the default state, and the bible clearly states that God actively punishes those who disobey him (The wages of sin is death, not the reward for not sinning is life). So since in reality God only wants us to worship him one way (he doesn't respect our "free will" choice to not worship him without punishment), then the only purpose of creating us with "free will" is to give us the ability to mess up.
If you want to say that God is somehow trying to test our loyalty, then fine, but that test is not a loving test. It's the equivalent of me placing 2 glasses of water in front of my child, one good, and one poisonous. I want to test my child to see if he is obedient, so I tell him to only drink from the good glass. If my child were to drink from the poisonous glass, that would prove that he was rebellious. He made a "free will" choice to disobey me. Sure, I could have made it impossible for him to have drank the poisoned water, but how would I have known if he was truly obedient to me or simply doing something because he didn't have a choice? I don't want my child to simply be some "robot" following my orders, the only way I can truly know if my child loves me is to put this test before him. Any judge would understand my story, right?
I really liked this article discussing the problems of "free will".
. http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/whybad.html
Question of Evil Remains Unanswered
by David B. McCalmontWhen people who believe in the existence of a kind, all-knowing, and all-powerful god are asked why such a god permits so much cruelty, torture, murder, and war on Earth, the usual answer is that god did not wish to create men and women who were automatons, that s/he wanted human beings to have free will. In exercise of that free will, believers argue, human beings often choose to be violent, cruel, and warlike. God could not prevent this, they say, without making human beings into automatons.
Not so. An all-knowing god would have known in advance that, if s/he created people like Genghis Khan, Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, or Jack the Ripper, these people would personally, or by inciting others, inflict injustice, violence, torture and death upon other human beings. To prevent this, god need only have refrained from creating these evil individuals. God had the power to do that without in any way preventing other human beings from exercising their free will.
You and I do not feel that we have been made into automatons because our federal and state governments forbid us to murder, rape, or maim other people, or steal or destroy their property. On the contrary, we still have plenty of leeway for exercise of our free will. Similarly, human beings would not have been turned into automatons if the alleged god had placed the same kind of reasonable limits upon their exercise of free will.
Consider also the terrible suffering which is inflicted upon human beings by hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, and drought. These painful calamities are obviously not caused by our exercise of free will. Yet, the alleged kind, all-knowing, and all- powerful god permits them to occur. This is an additional reason why the asserted need to give human beings free will cannot serve as an excuse for the pain and suffering endured by millions of people in this unhappy world.
Sometimes the people killed or maimed by an accident or natural disaster turn out to have been criminals. When this happens, believers happily proclaim that their misfortune was arranged by god as a punishment -- even though millions of other evil-doers escape such godly retribution.
On the other hand, if some of the victims turn out to have been persons of admirable character, believers then assert that they died because they were SO good that god desired their company up in Heaven!
By this mental legerdemain, believers can cling to their precarious faith. But people with common sense are not impressed.
NOTE: It has also been of great interest to me that those who experience a close call in a catastrophe, the survivors of plane crashes, etc., are the source of great praise to the almighty when those who perish in these same disasters do not evoke any blame to this same deity.
Go therefore and baptize the people in the name of the father and of the son... what the hell, we just need to bring up the yearbook numbers!
