What's Right about "Right?"
: And how do you know that the logic one uses is of God?
Obviously, you do not understand formal logic. If you did, you would have never asked that question. Formal logic is formal logic and "God logic" falls under the same rules as "human logic," logically speaking! I was not talking about the many "matters of faith," but rather moral issues of which some can be evaluated logically. Specifically, I was talking about a certain moral ethic known as the "Divine Command Theory of Ethics" and nothing more. That particular theory CAN be evaluated logically as I have shown. If you want to challenge my conclusions, please feel free to do so.
I suggest you study the subject and you will then see that if certain theological and ethical dilemmas cannot stand up to logic, then they are not worthy of consideration, much less belief.
Sorry Moxy, I missed this one:
: i doubt youll have much luck disturbing the faithfuls' logical footing with it.
Oxymoron: "faithfuls'" and "logical footing." History and tons of facts prove it to be so.
If you don't understand, I will be happy to explain.
is all-powerful= to all other power? or is it all power?
all-powerful+ all other power= grater that gods power
all powerful, being all power from, by and of the all-powerful?
all-present? god is all that is present?
or god is present with all?
if god is present with all then there is a "present" that is not god and therefor god is not ALL present?
all-knowing is it = to all other knowlige
or the knowing is all gods
if god is all-powerful, no power outside of god then the words good and bad do not apply and to use them is to call god not- all- powerful but of grate-power
i like your logic but to talk about it i will need to understand your tarms
you say the given is god is all-powerful then you say that things happen outside of gods power. if i go with the given i can not go with the good/bad or of god not of god god being by the given the power of good/bad the presents of g/b the knowlige of g/b
if you can see where i am going, maby you could define your turms
the ideas and opinions expressed in this post do not necessiarly represent those of the WTB&TS inc. or any of it's subsidiary corporations.
:If you can see where i am going, maby you could define your turms
I already did, and I also spelled them correctly. Please stay with the topic of my thread, and then if you want to start another one, please do.
Farkel: As per your request to refute the logic. No won't play that game cause basicly I agree. I dont beleive in Santa, The Tooth Fairy, Omniscient Omnipotent omnipresnt or omnivorous gods. (The reasons for my conclusion are outlined elsewhere on the site.) As some one else said on the site about throwing the baby out with the bath water - "there isn't any baby in the bath"
And please excuse my lack of education but I am from the generation that frowned on education. You know - The end is near so go pioneer! You dont need any skills the new system will be here!
Wow! Fantastic post! Made a lot of sense to me. Thanks. This one is a keepie. I wish I was still in association with some of the Jdubs so that I could ask them to explain this to me. It would be fun to see them spin their heads and spit green goo! I sure wish I had the thinking skills I have now a number of years ago...oh, that's right, I couldn't have, I was a JW.
Again, great post, loved it!
How about this from a book I'm reading about Freemasonry? (My paternal grandfather was involved in this, so I thought I'd have a look.)
"Albert Pike (1809-1891) was born in Boston, Massachusetts. He was a teacher and a Brigadier General in the Civil War. Later, he was tried for treason. He held the highest office in Scottish Rite Masonry and rewrote all Scottish right rituals which are still practiced today. These rituals are pagan and occultic in design. Mr. Pike was an admitted Luciferian, believing that two co-equal Gods exist in the universe; Lucifer, the god of good and light, and Adonay, the Christian god, who rules evil and darkness.
"'The religious beliefs of Albert Pike should be considered as they are found in the instructions issued by him on July 4, 1889 to the twenty-three Supreme Councils of the world. That which we must say to the crowd is - We worship a God, but it is the God that one adores without superstition. To you, Sovereign Grand Inspectors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the Brethren of the 32nd, 31st, and 30th degrees -- The Masonic religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine. If Lucifer were not God, would Adonay (The God of the Christians) whose deeds prove his cruelty, perfidy, and hatred of man, barbarism and repulsion for science, would Adonay and his priests, calumniate him? Yes, Lucifer is God and unfortunately Adonay is also God. For the eternal law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without black, for the absolute can only exist as two Gods: darkness being necessary to light to serve as its foil as the pedestal is necessary to the statue, and the brake to the locomotive. In analogical and universal dynamics one can only lean on that which will resist. Thus the universe is balanced by two forces which maintain its equilibrium: the force of attraction and that of repulsion. These two forces exist in physics, philosophy and religion. And the scientific reality of the divine dualism is demonstrated by the phenomena of polarity and by the univeral law of sympathies and antipathies. That is why the intelligent disciples of Zoroaster, as well as, after them, the Gnostics, the Manicheans and the Templars have admitted, as the only logical metaphysical conception, the system of the two diving principles fighting eternally, and one cannot believe the one inferior in power to the other. Thus, the doctrine of Satanism is a heresy; and the true and pure philosophic religion is the belief in Lucifer, the equal Adonay; but Lucifer, God of Light and God of Goo, is struggling for humanity against Adonay, the God of Darkness and Evil. At the time of this declaration, Pike accepted simultaneously the positions of Grand Master of the Central Directory of Washington, Grand Commander of the Supreme Council of Charleston and Sovereign Pontiff of Universal Freemasonry. He is looked upon today as the foremost literary genius of Masonry and is probably best known for his famous work Morals and Dogman.'"
Ref. is: "Occult Theocracy" - Lady Queensborough - The Christian Book Club of America
From "Freemasonry" - Copyright - Jack Harris - Whitaker House, 1983
Freemasonry is definitely another mind control cult -- as indicated above, you have to make it to the 30th degree before you are told what you are really worshipping. (I wonder if susceptibility to mind-control is a genetic disorder????) But since many of this board's members have a hard time with Jehovah's penchant for blood and in light of Farkel's other post on Evil being a game, I thought the above interesting enough to share.
Just trying to do right in the big chess game of life,
Interesting post. I fail to see how anyone calling apostle Paul a 32nd deg mason along with Jesus a 33rd deg mason would have a luciferian doctrine (but then again I am NOT a mason, so who knows?). Sounds to me like more misinformation to keep the society a secret. (I am noting that the reference from the majority of your post was from a professed 'Christian' source.)
for more info on what masons say of themselves, take a look at:
according to them, what you've posted is yet another religious misconception, as they make no claims of being a religion.
you're right, the substance of my comments were just an impromptu opinion i formed while reading your post late at night :) and yes, i would want to read up on the subject before trying a full-blown debate but let me try to elaborate a bit more on my logical counter-argument and u tell me if u think it has any merit.
in this post and the one on 'god v good' you are trying to establish what is 'uppermost' the standard or god himself. does god follow the standard, making himself subordinate to it or does the standard follow god making him arbitrary and the concept of right basically meaningless? im saying that this is a 'false dilemma', black-and-white argument. it does not necessarily follow that a standard which god follows makes him subordinate to that standard.
eg, if a divine being were to lie, say that something would definitely occur but did not, then we could conclude that he wasnt really god in the omnipotent omniscient sense (lets exclude that line for sake of this argument) or that he is implying that lying is 'ok' or 'good' (at least when he does it.) our god is now inconsistent. what law has he broken? a logical law, i suppose. if a==b is determinably true then a!=b is false. did god invent that law? would it be possible to have a universe for which that law was not true, an 'irrational universe'? if you think it is, then you might as well get off the bus here, i have no counter-argument for that. if there were a supposition of true and false states so that both existed and were both equally 'real' (as in quantum theory's mulitverse interpretation), then god by definition would need to inhabit a state outside of that where the truth or falsehood of a==b was indeterminate. so even though the universe from our viewpoint might be irrational, it could not be for god. so from his viewpoint, that law could not be violated. consistency and rationality and truth then become standards that are the result of a rational state of existence. to say that god might 'follow' that standard in his own dealings does not seem to make him subordinate to a higher standard, because i cannot see how there could be any other state of existence that did not have such a logical basis but is still inhabited by conscious beings. and from there i think you could define 'right' and 'good' in terms of rationality and consistency.
note: 'god' in my arguments is god in the popular definition and not the OT jehovah so please do not use the bible to counter them.
also when i say that you nor i will disturb the logic of the faithful, i am not implying that faith is based on logic. prehaps i should say the 'logic' of the faithful, with logic in quotes.
Just to stay on topic for a change, you and I share the same logic on this issue. Not that it really matters anyway.