YOU are bound to be like God, KNOWING good and bad.

by nicolaou 11 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • nicolaou

    Let's assume God decides what is good and bad. Does he (a) decide what is good because it is obviously good or (b) is it good simply because He says so?

    If (a) God has no choice in what is good. If (b) what is good is arbitrary - God could decide child abuse was good and it would be because he said so.

    Clearly that's ridiculous, we all recognise child abuse as a bad thing and would never consider it as good even if God himself said it was. To recognise this however is to accept that we don't need God to determine for us what is good or bad.

    Satan was right.

  • sir82

    I remember I took a philosophy 101 course back in the day, and this topic was discussed in class.

    This is probably my earliest memory of cognitive dissonance. I just shut up and listened, and when the class was over, tried to think of something else.

    But I still remember the occasion today, 30+ years later.

    Just goes to show - never think that the "seeds" you may plant have no effect. They may lie dormant for years, or even decades - but they can never die.

  • fukitol

    This is called the Euthyphro Dilemma, which refutes Divine Command Theory.

    More here.

  • DesirousOfChange

    If (a) God has no choice in what is good. If (b) what is good is arbitrary - God could decide child abuse was good and it would be because he said so.

    Evidently(TM), in the past God had decided that slavery was OK. Who are we to think that we know better than God? . . . . . . Doc

  • Simon

    Some (JW's) take the "knowing" to be "deciding" ... which means if we paid the price and can decide what the hell we want to do, then why do people still get judged by god and "smited" and all that?

    He broke the deal. He was the liar in the bible.

    (if you believe that crap)

    There are clearly absolute good's and evil's in the world and only, it seems, the religious can tie themselves in knots trying to declare something obviously wrong as right when their god liked seeing it happen.

  • WTWizard

    Joke-hova thinks it's bad for mankind to mind its own business, to learn where they came from and where they are going, and to be happy. Anything that makes the whole human race miserable and works to prevent us from being anything else is "good" to joke-hova. Effectively, that thing is imposing Pleiades law on the earth--which is about as moral as busting someone for "underage drinking" while it is legal in the country where they are doing it, or issuing a speeding ticket for doing 60 on a 40 because it's 40 where the cop lives (even though it is 60 or more where the ticket was issued).

    As for letting us abide by Belt of Orion Law or the original law of the earth (which are more in harmony with nature), joke-hova cannot be happy with that.

  • nicolaou
    the religious can tie themselves in knots trying to declare something obviously wrong as right when their god liked seeing it happen

    Agreed Simon. The story of God killing David and Bathshebas's innocent baby as punishment for its parent's sin is completely irreconcilable with any standard of morality.

  • nicolaou

    I really would like to hear from the faithful on this if any are willing. How do you reconcile this problem? Do you even see it as a problem at all?

  • stuckinarut2

    So according to the bible, god thought the following was ok:

    Genocide of people who believe different things

    Slavery of 'other people' not chosen by him

    Incest (committed by his "friends" - faithful worshippers like Lot)

    Allowing daughters to be pack raped (Lot)

    Shall we go on? So is God the standard for moral decisions?

  • TheWonderofYou

    When I was yet faithful? .... I thought that most commandments were logically explainable because they were for a human benefit, basically what was in OT the 10 commandments.

    But two commandments I thought had no benefit

    1 the blood probition, for which there was no logical explanation - only that blood should belong to god was no explanation for me, pouring out blood I thought was only a benefit for god (giving back)- and

    2 the Test God gave Adam and Eve "not eat from this fruit".

    Those two commandements I understood to be "tests of obidience" without reasonable benefit for man and I accepted it until some day I questioned it. But that was process with some years of thinking about. Then I asked myself:

    "Would God ever give a command that is not reasonable and not explainable and had no benefit?" and so slowly I allowed doubts in the J.W. literal explanation of the story about Adam and Eve and Blood issue


    Today, incidentally, I am reading Erich Fromm and what he thought about the story of Adam and Eve, because am yet looking for the "perfect" explanation, means the most reasonable explanation for me, i hope I can find it, cause I am a guy who always wants explanations, what lead me into the arms of that cult. I hope that I am not boring you with any of my findings.

    For Erich From this old elementary myth about Adam and Eve is not mainly a story about obidience but about freedom ..yes. but not disobidience was the main subject - he thought - but the freedom to human independence. The prehuman nature with insticnts without knowlege about dead is over. The perfect prehuman existence with no problems only living in instincs is in the story the paradise.

    The shame and guiltfeelings and fear ( of Adam and Eve in the story) are the effects not of "disobidience" but of seperateness, strangeness because humans have a mind and are AWARE that without love they have nobody and only will die.

    This is acccording to Fromm clearly to see in the story because Adam gave Eve the debt, he didnt love her, he didnt defent her when God asked. Why? The nakedness in the story is expression of the awareness of otherness between men. Foreigner feel ashamed like naked.

    Awarness of nakedness cant be a consequence of disobidience to Jehovah because why should the bible be written for the puritan moral of the 19. century!

    Here I found corresponding text in english, I like this explanations

Share this