by Factfulness 169 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Scenario 1 - Compelling evidence for the existence of god but there appears to be a contradiction between some of the claims made for god and evidence from the real world.
Rational solution - Keep an open mind and consider that there may be facts we don't understand.
Scenario 2 - No evidence for the existence of god AND blatant contradictions between fundamental claims made for god and evidence from the real world.
Rational solution - Dismiss god-talk as superstition.
nicolau says:
Job's children were innocent of any crime and yet god authorised their deaths anyway. You are using your religious beliefs to justify the deaths of innocents. Isn't that what terrorists do?
Allowance doesn't equal causation. False analogy.
The devil is the ultimate terrorist. But your point is well taken. Should God make a world capable of evil and then prevent the possibility of evil? How does that work? Who defines what is evil so as to prevent it?
Should God prevent us from burning our hand on a hot stove? Should he make it impossible for little kids to have their fingers closed on a car door? Maybe just take away our fingers so they don't get hurt?
This materialist critique of God falls quite short once examined. Just review the condition of someone who has a birth defect and cannot feel pain. Go tell his mama about your supposed utopia.
The whole concept of Freedom is under scrutiny here. The devil caused the evil theft of Job's wealth, health and children. But, it was God who wrote the end of the story wasn't it?
"If the thief be found let him pay double" - Ex. 22: 7
God was the one who liberated, blessed and "caused to become" the final fate of Job. But what about his children? Why did Job get twice as much wealth, but only the same number of children once the Evil had passed?
The answer is because God writes the end of the story. Job and all of his children are in heaven right now.
What believers have seen with their own experience (once they make friends with God through the blood of Christ) , is that God has not changed in the least. He stills allows evil, he still limits it; and still liberates, blesses, and writes the end of the stories.
Romans 8: 28 is the bubble that successful Christians live by.
all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
God will either remove the evil from my life or he will enable me by his Grace to go through the evil and get to the other side of it. Either way, the outcome will be "good".
Evil will be punished, forever.
God's children will seen "good" forever.
As JW's we were constantly told to "wait on Jehovah". This was a hugh mistake to do this without first being pardoned by God through the blood covenant of his Son. (The one we rejected each Memorial) Unbelievers still get relief from evil when God acts, but his promises (about writing the end of the story) are to those "who are called".
Judgment & Sonship, are God's solutions to the problem of evil - not the elimination of freedom.
The devil is the ultimate terrorist.
Then god is the ultimate despotic dictator who kills anyone who points out his failed policies and unfair treatment of people.
Should God make a world capable of evil and then prevent the possibility of evil? How does that work? Who defines what is evil so as to prevent it?
We do, it's called "morals". We happen to have better ones than god. How does that work? And yes, it would help if he didn't intentionally put evil in people's paths (I know he's fantasy, but lets go with your delusions for the conversation). Let's face it, everything he's ever touched has been a disaster.
But what you're saying is that god is incapable of creating a perfect world without evil ... right?
Should God prevent us from burning our hand on a hot stove? Should he make it impossible for little kids to have their fingers closed on a car door? Maybe just take away our fingers so they don't get hurt?
Or, he doesn't leave the stove on - pretty basic parenting. He certainly shouldn't hold people's hands to the stove - that makes him an abusive parent.
This materialist critique of God falls quite short once examined. Just review the condition of someone who has a birth defect and cannot feel pain. Go tell his mama about your supposed utopia.
You are mixing up a completely different thing. You're trying to blame the people who suffer for the suffering that someone else caused and the only answer you can consider is that they should stop feeling, rather than the 'cause being removed.
The whole concept of Freedom is under scrutiny here. The devil caused the evil theft of Job's wealth, health and children. But, it was God who wrote the end of the story wasn't it?
Yeah, god just stood and watched and allowed it to happen, that makes him complicit in the crime and responsible because he's supposed to be in charge of his creation.
When do we get freedom from a psychotic god? How has it even been settled because we have never been allowed to rule ourselves without gods interference so what is the point?
"If the thief be found let him pay double" - Ex. 22: 7
Or chop off hands, also keep slaves and sell women ... so much "enlightenment"
God was the one who liberated, blessed and "caused to become" the final fate of Job. But what about his children? Why did Job get twice as much wealth, but only the same number of children once the Evil had passed?
He liberated us from himself? I think you have stockholm syndrome. You treat the children as simply props in a play to be broken and replaced instead of human beings. It's the mindset that often makes religious people uncaring and every so slightly raging sociopaths and blind to the heinous crimes that you excuse as unimportant.
The answer is because God writes the end of the story. Job and all of his children are in heaven right now.
Q. If you had a Men-In-Black forget-me zapper, could you commit all crimes as long as you wiped people's memory? Would wiping their memory make you a good person and excuse those crimes?
What believers have seen with their own experience (once they make friends with God through the blood of Christ) , is that God has not changed in the least. He stills allows evil, he still limits it; and still liberates, blesses, and writes the end of the stories.
That's not experience, it's delusion. You have not experienced anything to do with god and never will. You do experience your own wishful thinking.
God will either remove the evil from my life or he will enable me by his Grace to go through the evil and get to the other side of it. Either way, the outcome will be "good".
So now you are saying evil could be removed? Before you said it couldn't.
Evil will be punished, forever.
Remember, past performance doesn't guarantee future results, although in this case I think it does - guaranteed fuckups, it's what god does best!
God's children will seen "good" forever.
"It be very goodly for them". Hey, forget about that whole horrible being crushed to-death and dying under rubble - 'cause look, now I'm giving you an ice-cream! So we're agreed, I'm a good guy ... right? (answer carefully unless you want some more squishy-squishy!)
As JW's we were constantly told to "wait on Jehovah". This was a hugh mistake to do this without first being pardoned by God through the blood covenant of his Son. (The one we rejected each Memorial) Unbelievers still get relief from evil when God acts, but his promises (about writing the end of the story) are to those "who are called".
When exactly does he act to prevent evil? PEOPLE act to prevent evil and evil happens when good men do nothing. There is no god involved other than to excuse evil and justify evil acts.
Judgment & Sonship, are God's solutions to the problem of evil - not the elimination of freedom.
Nope, his sole solution to everything is "obey me 100% or I'll inflict some more evil on you". That is not freedom. Freedom is being able to tell god to shove it.
Slimboyfat— Some reasons people have for believing in God in the first place include: 1) the fact that anything exists at all rather than nothing 2) personal experiences or encounters with the divine ....
It would be wrong to ignore this thought, slim. It very likely is root and branch where the idea of god arose in the first place —with rigid theologies soon to follow.
Many of us have had experiences so compelling that we are forced bear witness that they did indeed occur even if we are loathe to admit it. If it were universal and normal experience then others wouldn’t be suspicious of our mental state and our motive.
Some weeks ago there was a thread that invited us to share our experiences of the supernatural. (For obvious reasons this applies to your second point for why folks might believe in god. ) It drew a lot of stories...and a few critics.
What am l wallering around is the notion that when we elevate these strange encounters and make them a point of theology we do harm. To call these events an encounter with the divine can be harmful. Framing the tale to prove or disprove god might give hope to some but often inflicts a great deal of pain for those l not similarly “blessed”.
There would be no stigma attached to simply recounting strange happenings if religion and theology didn’t demand to co-opt our story. It would be delightful if we could learn to tell our stories without having to fit it inyo another’s moral framework
We could if the theologians let us alone. And if science would not judge us either.
But we too are at fault . We have to let go of the need to force others to believe along with us. After all, what is divine anyway?
The effort to “true up” all these stories and theologies is unending. Your point #2 is where we should let the mystery be .
Some reasons people have for believing in God in the first place include: 1) the fact that anything exists at all rather than nothing - SBF
This is wrong for at least two reasons. Firstly it requires wilful equivocation regarding the word 'god'. If the fact that anything exists did suggest a pre-existing being that leaves us a very, very long way from anything theists could call god. You would still have all your work ahead of you.
Secondly the mystery that anything exists rather than nothing is only exacerbated by positing an equally mysterious pre-existing being.
2) personal experiences or encounters with the divine
So the apologist whose argument rests on the fact that humans are frequently mistaken and misled by everyday personal experiences of the natural world, thinks that personal experiences count as evidence for a supernatural being. Don't you see the irony?
And which 'god' is personal experiences evidence for? If it counts as evidence for the god of christians then it must equally be valid as proof of every other god - and of alien abductions for that matter.
3) indications of God acting in and through human history
Every single detail of history and of the living world screams that there is nobody in control.
Hi Simon,
‘‘Tis a worthy topic. You speak of morals. There must be a moral law giver, right?
Man cannot agree on morals amongst themselves, must less Gods. One persons moral truth allows for the destruction of the unborn.
Another persons morals allow to charge for a double murder for the killing of a pregnant woman. This does not take into consideration the opinion of the children killed.
One person allows for the death penalty for capital crimes, anothers’ just The opposite. They view the state as a murderer.
How much more difficult would it be to morally judge He who made everything, who has the power of LIFE at his command. Especially not being able to see the end of things?
I believe that because God writes the end of the story, He must see a greater good in the allowance of evil.
The bottom line is since one persons morals are not really any more legitimate than the next person what right do we have to judge each other or God for that matter?
The materialist will simply assert that they just “know”.
Without blushing, they believe this even though they are not all-knowing or all-powerful and make no implicit claim as such, although it tacitly implies just the opposit.
Ironically, They assert the the SAME argument as God does. They just “know”.
The bottom line is since one persons morals are not really any more legitimate than the next person what right do we have to judge each other or God for that matter? - Perry
Morality is not simply a matter of personal opinion. Objective morality - as opposed to capricious ethics by divine fiat - is only possible by first leaving god out of the discussion.
'Morality' is simply what we mean when we worry about how our actions affect the flourishing of conscious beings. That doesn't mean that all moral questions are easily resolved or that intelligent, well-intentioned people won't disagree but it does mean that we can base our moral judgements on objective facts.
'Divine morality' leaves us in a conflict between our 'god-given' conscience and 'god-given' laws. When god commands his followers to commit genocide or to kidnap and rape vrgins or to take slaves what are we to do?
The materialist will simply assert that they just “know”.
No that is a strawman as I just explained above.
The believe this even though they are not all-knowing or all-powerful and make no claim as such.
Nobody believes that. If you are going to challenge people who disagree with you at least try to honestly present their position. Christian apologists never do that.
I agree that there being something rather than nothing is evidence that God exists but is not evidence for what kind of God he is. God is the source of being, so he does not add to the “things” in existence which require explanation, but is rather in himself the explanation for everything else which is dependent upon him for existence. If you look outside and see lots of trees blown over you might remark that the wind caused the trees to fall over. If someone said that answer was no good because “it doesn’t explain anything, because where did the wind came from?” we would think the objection doesn’t really fit the conversation. One gets the sense that skeptics who ask for an “explanation” for God, as if he is the next on the list after the universe to be explained, are not listening to what believers understand by “God”. Because God is understood by many believers to be the uncaused ground of all being, not an item or thing in the universe to be explained like any other.
Saying that God is the reason for existence may not exhaust everything there is to be said or that pertains to existence, or to God himself. But it doesn’t mean the utterance is without meaning or content in itself either.
God is understood by many believers to be the uncaused ground of all being - SBF
Which is meaningless doublespeak that I despised for its pathetic sophistry even when I was a christian. Anybody who has to resort to that sort of hand-waving is not worth further attention.
