Millions die in Natural disasters - God is doing nothing. Do I adopt Anthropomorphism to him?

by KateWild 199 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • tec
    tec

    Stating the fact that people die in the flesh... I fail to see how that is denigration of the physical. I guess you denigrate the physical too, huh? Unless you deny that people die in the flesh?

    People die in the flesh. This body dies. That is an undeniable fact. Yes?

    My faith gives hope in the renewal and resurrection of those who have died (in the flesh). That is about LIFE.

    Your thoughts and reasoning on this 'cult of death' from my faith are so backward... I just 'smh'.

    Though i do understand that you may have refused to live and enjoy your life as a jw, and kept putting it off... and perhaps as a evangelist, you were more focused on the teachings of hell and wickedness, etc... rather than on life. I am sorry for you and those trapped in those lies as you once were also. But that is YOU. Not me. Not truth.

    Peace,

    tammy

  • NAVYTOWN
    NAVYTOWN

    Folks, 'God' is a fairy tale dreamed up thousands of years ago by primitive people. Yet here we are...in. 2014.....and there are still people buying into it. Maybe they also believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. Come on, people....get real for Pete's sake!!

  • besty
    besty

    @kate

    And then there was Eitnein who believed in God too.

    Not according to the man himself:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein

    In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, 17 December 1952 Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve.

    But you knew that, right?

  • Apognophos
    Apognophos

    I'm sure she did. Kate's style of communication is unusually dishonest, it's why I don't participate in her threads.

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    Ignoring the argument about whether God exists or not, and just sticking to the question as to whether God has human characteristics, I would start off with the statement found in Isaiah 55:8,9 (New Living Translation)

    My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts," says the LORD. "And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.

    For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.

    So we haven't got a clue about God beyond what God tells us. And if we make a comparison of how insects might view humans, it is very unlikely that they would view us in terms beyond something to eat or something to avoid. When we speak of God as having a human's anatomy - an arm, an eye, a face - we accept that we are just expressing in human terms, in terms we can understand, certain facets of God. But most do not think of him as having these anatomical parts in a physical sense - God is spirit - it's just human terms to explain something out of human experience. Likewise, when we speak of God as having anthropomorphic qualities we are only speaking about something to which we can relate. So perhaps when we speak of justice or mercy or kindness we should accept that is the nearest term we can have in our understanding to describe certain qualities of God, but the actual quality might be something we simply couldn't understand or articulate. It's just the nearest we get to it in human terms.

    Is this a cop-out. In a sense it is but if God has always existed in a spirit form, how can we with limited, physical existence have any way of gainsaying Isaiah's statement that God's ways are far beyond anything we can imagine. That is what I would expect of God. To misquote Groucho Marx - I refuse to recognise any God whose ways I can understand.

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    The first question before answering does he care question ? one has prove there is one.

    No one in human history has proved that fact yet.

    .... .and sorry the god created by the ancient Hebrews was a creation from themselves

    from their own inherent ignorance and imagination.

  • rebel8
    rebel8

    What I learned in a basic philosophy course:

    God is good. psalms 136:1

    God is all-powerful. rev 11:1-19

    God is all-knowing.Psalm 147:5

    All three of the above were written and said to audiences comprised of only humans. Why would the words mean something different if the audience did not understand them? There'd be no point of saying them unless you want to mislead them.

    All three of the above cannot be true because evil exists.

  • John_Mann
    John_Mann

    God = good+omnipotent+omniscient+omnipresent

    God + evil = fatal error.

    Evil = exists.

    God = does not exist.

    If evil exists, God cannot exist. Evil exists.

    You cannot beat logic. You just can blind yourself.

  • adamah
    adamah

    Apo said-

    I'm sure she did. Kate's style of communication is unusually dishonest, it's why I don't participate in her threads.

    Kate's admitted to being a troll, and seems to think she can just repeat that willful misrepresentation of Einstein's views enough times, and it'll eventually become true. Such 'magical thinking' is the tactic of many a theist: utter disregard for evidence, which doesn't bode well for claims to be a scientifically-minded rational person.

    Earnest said- But most do not think of him as having these anatomical parts in a physical sense - God is spirit - it's just human terms to explain something out of human experience.

    Speaking of Einstein, his most famous equation (E = mc^2) actually rules out the concept of a Divine Being with a conscious mind existing as only "pure energy" (AKA a spirit), since although the equation allows for matter and energy to be inter-converted into each other, if the 'matter' side of the equation drops to zero, so must the 'energy' side.

    Outside of science fiction (eg Spock's famous line in Star Trek, sampled for use in the dance track by Information Society), there actually is no such thing as ‘pure energy’ found in the Universe, where energy can exist apart from matter; similarly matter cannot exist apart from energy.

    It seems fairly self-evident to say that much like every other material in the known universe from which consciousness has emerged, ALL processes that result in consciousness to emerge require both matter AND energy (in the case of the human brain, the matter is the atoms that make up brain's neurons, and the constant energy consumed by the brain comes in the form of brain glucose, required to fuel all those hungry neurons; no energy means the individual loses consciousness). So Einstein’s famous equation implies that consciousness existing detached from matter is impossibility, since 'pure energy' cannot exist.

    So keeping God alive as a ethereal spirit being (i.e. one devoid of matter) existing as only energy would require throwing out Einstein and his famous equation on it's butt, when the relationship has been experimentally-confirmed in many different ways for a century now, and the relationship is exploited every minute of every day via eg man’s manipulation of nuclear energy.

    Of course, believers then simply claim God is above and beyond His own rules, and hence they engage in 'special pleading' on His behalf (doing so not only for moral questions, but also for physical laws).

    Adam

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    Adamah : Speaking of Einstein, his most famous equation (E = mc^2) actually rules out the concept of a Divine Being with a conscious mind existing as only "pure energy" (AKA a spirit)

    My own understanding of a spirit being is that such is beyond the physical world, and so physical laws would not apply. Both matter and energy are physical.

    It is not special pleading to maintain that the spirit and the physical world are distinct. That is obvious. It is special pleading to equate the spiritual with the physical as you do, referring to human consciousness and then immediately drifting into keeping God alive as an ethereal spirit being.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit