This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty 496 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • John_Mann
    John_Mann
    If eternal heaven is the greater good then is human existence on a hostile earth some kind of experiment? game? entertainment for God?

    Humans came to existence by natural laws (evolution).

    They developed a very sophisticated mind but they were not conscious (That's why Adam and Eve didn't knew about good and bad). They were just like the bicameral men proposed by Julian Jaynes.

    In a very recent point in history (in Mesopotamia) God elevated human nature by giving an immortal soul to a couple of "bicameral" humans (Adam and Eve). This soul enables humans to have consciousness.

    This process of unification between physical and spiritual nature in humans was interrupted by this couple someway somehow.

    So the full double (physical + spiritual) human nature was broken.

    This broken human nature are being repaired in a masterplan since then and will be complete in the Last Judgment.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    On the subject of "what we need in order to believe", I think Karen Armstrong's perspective on this is interesting. From my reading, she argues that the common notion that religious actions follow beliefs is the wrong way round. She says that in order to believe a religion we first need to practise the religion. You don't become convinced about a religion by reading or studying or debating. The only way "in" to a religion is practice. If you practise a religion, often you will find your faith growing before too long.

  • cofty
    cofty

    I was just commenting on Jonathan Haidt's perspective on religion in another thread. He also disagrees with Sam Harris' direct link from belief to action - at least he thinks it is too simplistic.

    He illustrates it in a threeway relationship between believing, doing and belonging.

  • Saethydd
    Saethydd

    Humans came to existence by natural laws (evolution).

    They developed a very sophisticated mind but they were not conscious (That's why Adam and Eve didn't knew about good and bad). They were just like the bicameral men proposed by Julian Jaynes.

    In a very recent point in history (in Mesopotamia) God elevated human nature by giving an immortal soul to a couple of "bicameral" humans (Adam and Eve). This soul enables humans to have consciousness.

    This process of unification between physical and spiritual nature in humans was interrupted by this couple someway somehow.

    So the full conscious human nature was broken.

    This broken human nature are being repaired in a masterplan since then and will be complete in the Last Judgment.

    Okay, so that means we are back to a God that isn't all-knowing and all-powerful. Because if he were those things then he would have been capable of "introducing consciousness" to humankind without screwing it up. Now because this God you envision is in contradiction with the God of the Bible that means your God didn't inspire the Bible, or that your God doesn't care or is incapable of making the Bible accurately portray him. In either case, the Bible can't be trusted to tell you anything about God.

    So my question remains: Where do you get your evidence for this God you are envisioning that is clearly not God as he is described in the Bible?

  • John_Mann
    John_Mann
    that means we are back to a God that isn't all-knowing and all-powerful. Because if he were those things then he would have been capable of "introducing consciousness" to humankind without screwing it up.

    This full process was meant to be a two way deal. The first souled humans screwed up. Protestants affirm the human nature was totally broken (total depravity) and Catholics say the human nature was not totally broken.

    This is not what I envisioned but this is the mainstream Christian view. The fundamentalist view of Genesis is a very recent approach in history.

    Atheists here seems only to know the JW version of Christianity.

  • deegee
    deegee

    John_Mann,

    I'm not sure if lacking moral sense is the same as lacking consciousness or vice versa.

    As far as I can see Adam & Eve were conscious but they were lacking moral sense - the ability to distinguish right from wrong.

    It doesn't seem to me that their consciousness had anything to do with their lack of moral sense.


    What God needed to give Adam & Eve was moral sense not consciousness as the Genesis account shows that were conscious:

    According to Genesis 2:4-3:24:

    Adam:

    • was able to take care of the Garden of Eden
    • was able to name the animals
    • was able to recognize that the animals did not make a suitable mate for him
    • was able to identify/recognize Eve as a suitable mate compared to the animals

    Eve:

    • was able to carry on a conversation with a talking snake (BTW, If a snake started chatting with you, wouldn’t that raise an eyebrow or two? Somehow, “Eve” jumped right into a casual conversation with a snake, as if it were an every day thing)
    • was able to recall and repeat to the talking snake, God's instructions regarding eating from the various trees in the Garden
    • saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom

    Adam & Eve:

    • Genesis 3:8 suggests that both Adam & Eve were able to carry on conversations with God before the Fall.


    Adam & Eve's situation was comparable to a child who, though conscious, commits a crime but cannot be held criminally responsible because the child lacks moral sense at that age. Courts around the world show mercy to accused children - they cannot be prosecuted if they are under the age of criminal responsibility:

    http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/five-year-old-boy-investigated-for-rape-in-manchester-is-one-of-70-children-under-10-to-be-accused-of-sex-attacks/ar-AAgJl0U?li=AAggNb9

    When it came to moral sense, Adam & Eve were like an infant whose parent puts a plate of cookies in front of the infant and tells the infant not to eat any, with the parent being fully aware of what the infant will do.

  • deegee
    deegee

    John_Mann,

    ........This soul enables humans to have consciousness.

    - What exactly is the soul?

    - What does the soul do?

    - What function(s) is the soul responsible for?

    - What function(s) is our brain responsible for?

    - What proof do you have that it is the soul and not our brain that controls every aspect of our consciousness?

    - Where is the soul hiding? Area after area of the brain has yielded up its secrets to the probing of neuroscience, and not a trace of it has been found.

  • deegee
    deegee

    John_Mann,

    This is not what I envisioned but this is the mainstream Christian view. The fundamentalist view of Genesis is a very recent approach in history.

    How did the Hebrew Scribes, the original writers of the Adam & Eve story, envision it when they wrote the Genesis account hundreds of years ago?

  • Cold Steel
    Cold Steel
    Cofty » So murdering millions of innocent children in natural disasters is for the greater good is it?

    So who gets to define murder? And how does one rightfully charge God with murder when He is the chief judge and arbiter? If God created man and if man has free agency and is an eternal being, like God, being created in His image, then He is quite incapable of being murdered by God, for his mortal body ceases to exist and his spirit continues on. The body, according to Christian theology, is merely a shell (and a burdensome one at that). People don't cease to exist at death, and those children you seem so fond of protecting are, in reality, are actually adults in spirit. Even Jesus, the greatest, wisest and most powerful of all, was at his birth in mortality, a spewing, gurgling and helpless infant who had to be rushed off to Egypt by his parents to escape being murdered by Herod. But what was He before He was born? He was the great Yahweh, the God of Israel, the One who taught Moses, the Great Lawgiver, for hours at a time. So what do you know of those who were “murdered” in natural disasters or by God's hand?

    Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? Or hast thou walked in the search of the depth? Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? Or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death? Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? Declare if thou knowest it all!

    Where wast thou when He laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? Or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? Or who laid the cornerstone thereof; when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

    For all you know, you were one of those sons of God...or not, how would you know? “What is man, that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the gods, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet.” As John declared, “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.”

    Jehovah's Witnesses see man as being little more than an afterthought on God's part, but who knows the width, breadth and depth of God's works and His plans? You can speak with some knowledge about evolution, Cofty, but your knowledge of God and His ways is sorely lacking, as is any mortal's. You can only only build up strawmen, then knock them down; but it's amazing how people like you feel qualified to sit in judgment of God. To put it in terms you can understand, it would be like a 4-year old sitting in judgment of Darwin's theories.

    Just Fine » Mormons made up a whole book, given to a crook on golden tablets only he could read. It tells of the Lamanites, Nephites, and others who supposedly came to North America, and yet there is not a shred of historical evidence to support it. All religions have their own delusions. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses just think their beliefs make them morally superior to everyone else. It must be hard being the chosen one of God.

    Uh-huh...and tell me, how, exactly, you know there's not a shred of historical evidence to support the Book of Mormon? Did you read that somewhere? People say there's no evidence, but not those who have actually studied the evidences. Do you even know where the events in the book were supposed to have taken place? Do you know that the places Nephi described as taking place in the old world actually exist and that no one knew anything about them in 1830? How would that be possible? Joseph Smith had never been to that part of the world, nor had anyone else living in the Western Hemisphere. Even Bedouins in the Arabian Peninsula tended to be locals -- they didn't travel all over the land. Yet if Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, he would have had to have traveled it. So, again, how would you know there's no historical evidence?




  • konceptual99
    konceptual99

    CS - So when a father abuses his child is this permissible and acceptable either because the father has an absolute right to do as he pleases with his child or that Jehovah has the right to allow any amount of suffering to the child?

    This argument that somehow the carrot of a future everlasting existence mitigates all the pain, suffering and premature death present in the current one is one of the most sick and illogical examples of cognitive dissonance that we bought into as Witnesses.

    How can behaviour that sickens me as a father be continually and willingly tolerated by a God that has the power to put a stop to it? How much death, pain and suffering has to be permitted before it proves Satan a liar? Exactly how much of this shit do the innocents have to endure before God is happy that he has won the argument?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit