by KateWild 100 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Tammy,
When one listens to Christ... who is the Word of God... one may be warned ahead of time of things that might bring harm to them or to their loved ones. That is not pointless.
I have prayed all my life, even when I was studying with JWs and before I got baptised. I got no warnings it was a damaging cult, if anything the care and love I was shown imitated the Christ of the Bible. I feel all those prayers were pointless
Kate xx
Kate - if you start hearing voices in your head like Tammy - see a doctor!
Whatever reasons 'God' has had for never intervening to prevent evil in the past are the same reasons he will never intervene in the future. Hell, if he won't do anything to stop an atomic bomb being dropped on hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children and he won't lift a finger to stop the systematic torture and extermination of millions of his former old covenant people the Jews, why would we expect him to ever intervene in the future?
Just face your existential crisis and deal with it!
i did not do this either. however, adamah believed i did. hence the example.
I have to assume you either did not read or did not understand what I wrote. I stated quite clearly that your assertion that Gallileo was intellectually dishonest was erroneous and suggested to me that you do not understand the meaning of the phrase 'intellectually dishonest'. You appear to not understand the simplest of the concepts you are discussing. Are you prepared to admit you were completely and utterly wrong about Gallileo?
actually, i've been defining God, as a Symbol. of what? well, of love for example.
If you wish to limit your god to being little more than a small heart shape that is fine. But that isn't what you have previously stated, see below with my emphasis added.
I stated that God is power, justice, wisdom, and above all else, love.
but please remember that i am stating that God is a SYMBOL, a symbol representing many things and possible open to various interpretations. A symbol can be a synonym, which is what you allude to when using the example of 'i god you'.
I see you have changed your position. The second statement just sounds to me like 'I want to define my god in such a way that the idea is so nebulous that it is beyond critical review' Which is fine because it means that your god is completely and utterly ephemeral. After all when we talk about power, justice, wisdom and love we are talking about our (humans) power, justice, wisdom and love since those concepts were defined long before the bible was written.
but when the Bible states that God is Love, it is conveying the idea of love, just like a symbol conveys an idea or a concept, not necessarily a literal synonym.
It's funny because when I read the bible the overwhelming message was that god was hubristic and judgemental and generally in favour of a lot of smiting, but even if that was the message why should I pay any attention to what the bible states?
Non-existant
except, Love does in fact exist. as well as wisdom, good and wholesomeness, loyalty.
Well now are back to stating god is love and changing the definition of words, you really should make up your mind. By the way how is the definition of god, loyalty? The whole first half of the bible has god vacillating between loving people and killing them. Would you like some examples from the bible showing god displaying a lack of wisdom, and generally being a murderous twat?
In what way does the fact that love, wisdom, goodness, justice and loyalty exist prove the existance of god.
in class rooms there may be some kids of athiest, kids of christains, kids of muslims, kids of jws kids of rcc. etc... i dont think the school should teach any of theses as truth, if they had a class that taught what each group believes that may be differant. but the school should not imposes any thing on kids with evolution or religion.
Sic.
Unstoppableravens (sorry I had to correct your name)
Atheism and evolution are two entirely seperate and distinct things. Teaching kids about different religions is not a problem as far as I can see, why shouldn't they learn about what muslims and hindus and christians believe? Evolution is science and is a fundamental part of any kind of science curriculum. Teaching evolution has got nothing to do with atheism.
Whatever reasons 'God' has had for never intervening to prevent evil in the past are the same reasons he will never intervene in the future. Hell, if he won't do anything to stop an atomic bomb being dropped on hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children and he won't lift a finger to stop the systematic torture and extermination of millions of his former old covenant people the Jews, why would we expect him to ever intervene in the future?
Just face your existential crisis and deal with it!
yada yada,
you are expecting a 'god' that has never intervened to start intervening now?
this should be another clue as to what 'God' cannot be.
we've often heard the phrase 'If you were god, would you stop all the evil in th world?' And we respond (hopefully) 'Yes!'
i don't concur with the idea that we should just deal with our existense as it is. we have a lot of power to change the status quo. the day that ALL of mankind decides to put this thought to action, evil will be considerably less prevalent. When man decides to Love more, and hate less, you will see the ultimate representation of the symbol of God as love.
Caedes said-
I see you have changed your position.
And that would be another way of saying that Monsieur is "moving the goalposts", and why it's frustrating to waste words engaging with anyone who is cognitively-blinded by their emotionally-driven religious convictions to be unable to recognize they do it.
Monsieur, you seemingly don't grasp that a 'symbol' is perceptible, and is thus helpful to represents an imperceptible (eg a rose is said to be a symbol of love).
A religious icon (eg a statue or idol) can be said to be a symbol of God, but the molecules of the tangible item are NOT God. Your saying the word 'God' is a symbol of God, but the sound waves travelliing thru air are NOT God (or coming FROM God).
Thus saying "God is love" is connecting two imperceptible concepts together, but neither one is perceptible, and hence neither can be described as a symbol for the other.
Adam
caedes,
I see you have changed your position. The second statement just sounds to me like 'I want to define my god in such a way that the idea is so nebulous that it is beyond critical review' Which is fine because it means that your god is completely and utterly ephemeral.
there are two obstacles that are currently preventing you from understanding what i am stating.
you believe that i am being complicted and two, you are still seeing 'God' as a literal person in the heavens somewhere ready to dispatch angels of death to inflict punishment on the next sinner.
i am not being complex, i simply stated that 'God' is a SYMBOL. a symbol represents MANY things. that is not complex! therefore, God CAN be love, loyalty, wisdom, power, intelect, insight, why? Because these are all GOOD things, and God is also defined as good.
When we read that God is perfect and infalliable, it cannot possibly be an old man in heaven, because you and i know that he doesnt exist due to lack of proof. Obviously then, 'God' must be something else. what? what is perfect and infalliable, indefinetely trustworthy? i argue that in this case, it is science and math, AND your mother's love (or MY mother's love).
This is possible because 'God' is a SYMBOL, representing many things. Remeber, the name attributed to God is Jehovah Yahweh, and it is suppose to mean 'I will be WHATEVER i need to be'.
Are you prepared to admit you were completely and utterly wrong about Gallileo?
sure, i used Galileo in an improper comparison. but with a very specific reason. that the current line of thought is always open to questioning and reinterpretation, as i am doing in this thread.
After all when we talk about power, justice, wisdom and love we are talking about our (humans) power, justice, wisdom and love since those concepts were defined long before the bible was written.
here i will differ with you. can we REALLY prove that the concept of 'God' came along well after the these listed attributes? if we can't, then we should not assume it as fact. I am open to the idea that both of these concepts originate in the mind of man at about the same time.
Well now are back to stating god is love and changing the definition of words, you really should make up your mind. By the way how is the definition of god, loyalty? The whole first half of the bible has god vacillating between loving people and killing them. Would you like some examples from the bible showing god displaying a lack of wisdom, and generally being a murderous twat?
here is where you make the second mistake. you KNOW 'God' is not a literal bearded man somewhere in heaven, yet your reaction toward these accounts would indicate otherwise. You react to a SYMBOL as you would react to a literal person. Man has a tendency to do this, watching a fictitious movie can arise strong emotions in us for example.
what you are reading Caedes, are also symbols, NOT actual accounts of literal occurrences. If you don't believe me, show me proof that they actually happened.
Monsieur, you seemingly don't grasp that a 'symbol' is perceptible, and is thus helpful to represents an imperceptible (eg a rose is said to be a symbol of love).
adam,
let's settle this 'definition of what a symbol is' issue now, lol.
they symbol above, what does it stand for?
it stands or represents comedy and tragedy. (both of which or NOT perceptible according to you, only the manifestations of comedy and tragedy are perceptible. )
YET, this symbol also represents, THEATER (another imperceptible concept!) In fact, the play for which this symbol is used might not even have humor in it! But the symbol applies nonetheless! When you look at it, ALL these things come to mind at once in your mind, and thus the symbol has done its job.
Monsieur said-
they symbol above, what does it stand for?
it stands or represents comedy and tragedy. (both of which or NOT perceptible according to you, only the manifestations of comedy and tragedy are perceptible. )
YET, this symbol also represents, THEATER (another imperceptible concept!) In fact, the play for which this symbol is used might not even have humor in it! But the symbol applies nonetheless! When you look at it, ALL these things come to mind at once in your mind, and thus the symbol has done its job.
The MASKS are the symbols, which are symbolic for the CONCEPT of theatre.
The THEATER is NOT the symbol, but it is symbolized BY THE MASKS.
Symbols are not exclusive: there can be MANY meanings associated with symbols.
Adam
