Stupid questions require stupid answers

by Norm 71 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hamsterbait

  These Apologists for the deity make me sick.

  If anyone else criticises the particular coconut shell they bow down to they shrill "Blasphemy".

  I say they are blasphemous themselves, these "ants", these "layers of dust on the scales" saying what this God would be should be ought to be would not be, and then only if it agrees what they think is right.

  How is their concept of a god to be held responsible?

  Hang them with their own rope: "Wouldst thou prove me unjust to show thyself innocent?"

  They twist things around to do just that.
• 

  LittleToe

  Didier:Interesting sidebar. How does that mesh with the concept of an omnipresent God?

  Surely there's yet another possibility (if Paul's comments in the Areopagus can bear this interpretation - Acts 17:27, 28) in that God is actually experiencing all that we experience, we being composed (along with the rest of the material universe) of "godstuff"? In that sense our whirling atoms of "godstuff" are engaged in a maelstrom of chaotic activity, on the scale of a Mandlebrot, with "Him" being intimately conncected to/in it all.

  Whether or not "He" deems it necessary to take direct action, just as we take little cognisance of the attitude our bodies take towards infection within "us", would surely set things on a slightly different scale.

  Just another 2p of philosophical gibberish. Just because I "don't know" doesn't mean I can't speculate ~grins~

  ~Passes Hamsterbait a brown paper bag~
• 

  hillary_step

  Though I am swathed in an engulfing agnosticism I very much enjoy the writing of Martin Palmer, atheologian and naturalist and a Christian of refreshing values who tries to think outside the mainstream religious boundaries and who incidentally has done much worthy work for the WWF.

  In his book ?Living Christianity? Mr Palmer posits a view of ?creation? that at least tries to honestly face the issue being discussed . I wish to quote a few sections of his comments:

  ?We have written an account of the purpose of our existence ? the Bible ? and then assumed that this was the only purpose of creation ? a very mighty jump. We have even done this when telling the stories and myths of science. We create a version of evolution which seems to lead, inexorably and inevitably, to us humans sitting at the top of the tree of evolution. We have been very presumptuous. I do not believe that creation has taken place with *us* in mind. I do not believe that we are the purpose or end result of creation or evolution. We are but one species among many on a small planet circling around a moderately important sun in one amongst a number of galaxies. Our place in creation is very, very small?..The fact is that life will go on either with us or without us. We are not all that God requires of existence?..Therefore we need to throw away the anthropocentrism ? the ?we are the centre of the universe? mentality ? which so afflicts us. Only God is the centre of life?.This is a blow to our self esteem. After all, we have behaved for centuries as if we are the centre of the world and the purpose of its existence. We are not, and it is proving a tough bullet for Christians to bite. I think the Nestorian documents on Christ and the Celtic prayers on our inter-relationships with nature and thus with God, show us a less anthropocentric Christian understanding should be expressed.

  Palmer posits that eventually mankind may even reach a point of self destruction on the planet through ecological and social catastrophe, but that this matters not a jot as nature always wins and that new life forms will rebuild and grow and that it is through the process that God proves the finest expression of his love by being able to let go ? not having to judge and punish.

  He continues :

  Jesus gave us an image of this kind of love, which let?s go but never ceases to love. The parable of the prodigal son is about the risks of love and the necessity to let people go. For me God is no distant deity watching the machinations of the world unmoved. Nor is God the just Judge who has judged the world and found it wanting. God?s creativity is entirely due to love, and that means the creativity and the pain of creation.

  The theology in many ways seems to me to be flawed, but I take my hat off to a Christian who is at least trying to struggle with the obvious issues in his faith, without reaching for childish philosophies to see their way through the mysterious quagmire of our existence.

  Best regards - HS

  I have no idea why one tends to lose most of the post when pasting from Word, but it is bloody irritating!
• 

  Greenpalmtreestillmine

  Narkissos,

  I don't really understand why you are reluctant to say "God limits himself" (even temporarily), which afaik is the classical Christian stance on theodicy.

  I cannot say God limits himself because I don't think that is the most accurate way to express it. I would say, "God chooses, and among his varied choices are: to intervene or not intervene or to partially intervene or a number of other things I suppose. I am not a spirit person and so am not aware of all the choices that may be available when it comes to intervention in human affairs by God, his Son or his angels.

  You mentioned Paul. Just for the record, I posted recently that I believe Paul's law was just as liable to be put on the obsolete list as the Law of the Moses was. If the Law of Moses reached it's end and applicable usefulness so can the Law of Paul. It served its purpose. In my opinion, the only law is the teachings of the Christ. Just trying to make clear where I stand on Paul. A good Christian to be sure but in the 3rd millennium, the 3rd day since the death of our Lord, the time has come for a return to the teachings of Jesus alone unfettered by Paul's. imo

  I enjoy reading your posts Narkissos though I don't mind admitting that I have to read them several times and with great care. But I'm trying to understand as best I can. When you post, I read. School time maybe?

  Great knowing you, Narkissos.

  Sabrina
• 

  Narkissos

  Hi Ross!

  Interesting sidebar. How does that mesh with the concept of an omnipresent God?

  You mean the zimzum? Although it doesn't really affect the concept of omnipresence, it springs out of the Jewish concern to maintain God's transcendance over creation against pantheism. The late Jewish (and Christian) notion of creatio ex nihilo implies that creation is not God, and the (still later) qabbalists wondered how a such an "exteriority" or "non-God space" came about in the first place, were it in the primeval "non-form" of "nothingness" (nihil) or (second stage) "chaos" or "tohu-bohu" (cf. Genesis 1:2). This is explained by zimzum or the "shrinking" of the previously all-embracing deity. Fascinating speculation indeed.

  As to "omnipresence", this doctrine is to be complemented by the older rabbinical concept of shekhinah or "dwelling" (even the WT mentioned it sometimes) which accounted for the presence of God within the "exterior" world. [Edited to add: the Aramaic shekinah is related to the Hebrew root shkn, "to dwell", whence mishkan "tent" or "tabernacle", which may be alluded to by the similar-sounding Greek verb skenoô in John 1:14: "the Word became flesh and dwelt (or more literally "pitched his tent") among us."]

  For a Christian reception of those Jewish concepts in relation to incarnation and theodicy, Jürgen Moltmann's The Crucified God is a good read...

  Surely there's yet another possibility (if Paul's comments in the Areopagus can bear this interpretation - Acts 17:27, 28) in that God is actually experiencing all that we experience, we being composed (along with the rest of the material universe) of "godstuff"? In that sense our whirling atoms of "godstuff" are engaged in a maelstrom of chaotic activity, on the scale of a Mandlebrot, with "Him" being intimately conncected to/in it all.

  Here we have the quite opposite view of popular Greek philosophical pantheism ("In him we live and move and have our being" may be an approximate quotation of the old Epimenides). Another sort of pantheism is also apparent in stoicism, which clearly influences the Pauline epistles (e.g. "that God be all in all"). Of course full-fledged pantheism does not really suit the orthodox Jewish or Christian dogma of a transcendent and personal "God". For a Christian theology leaning this way, Paul Tillich (well known for his doctrine of panentheism: "everything is in God") is another excellent read.

  In any case it shows that the concept of "God" is a very complex one in early Christianity (especially on the Hellenistic side).
• 

  Greenpalmtreestillmine

  Hi Norm,

  Wow! Christians always tell us that God is just, caring, loving. But now you come clean here and show us this apparently new side of God which according to you "doesn't give a damn" about what happens to us. Well, we already knew that from merely observing the world around us.

  Well, you see! We do have common ground here, we finally found something we agree on. I'm glad about that.

  You seem to have gotten into your head that asking you simple questions about God which you claim to believe in somehow amount to whining.

  I think that's probably due to the small reasoning ability AlanF so kindly pointed out to me.

  I understand that you find it frustrating and quite a nuisance to answer, because you haven't got a leg to stand on.

  Well, I could joke and say, "you're right Norm I haven't got a leg to stand on I have two (God and his Son) but that would be tacky and childish so I won't say that. (sorry I couldn't resist)

  From my position the questions are asked because I hope that it will make you think about it all, and the impossible position you are in. I guess your latest post here really demonstrate that with thundering clarity. it surely didn't make much sense. But that's exactly what religion and faith is all about Sabrina, it doesn't make any sense at all, that's why you just have to have blind faith.

  Norm, I don't know if you will believe me or not when I say this, but I truly do appreciate with all my heart your sincere efforts to help me. Ironically, again we are on the same path. I know to you I don't make much sense. I can't Norm. I believe, you don't believe. There is a divide that may never be crossed there. I can never leave God, that is an impossibility. You may never leave your disbelief that could also be an impossibility. But I say this again, I truly appreciate your efforts to do what you believe is right. I respect that.

  Good day to you, Norm.

  Sabrina
• 

  Norm

  Thank you Sabrina,

  You said:

  "Norm, I don't know if you will believe me or not when I say this, but I truly do appreciate with all my heart your sincere efforts to help me. Ironically, again we are on the same path. I know to you I don't make much sense. I can't Norm. I believe, you don't believe. There is a divide that may never be crossed there. I can never leave God, that is an impossibility. You may never leave your disbelief that could also be an impossibility. But I say this again, I truly appreciate your efforts to do what you believe is right. I respect that.

  Good day to you, Norm.

  Sabrina"

  You see there are many of us who really would like to be believing in a God, but are unable to do that because we simply don't find any reason to do so. I presume for the same reasons you don't believe in Zevs, Thor, Vishnu etc. You simply don't see any reason to believe in them, so in relation to those Gods you are taking the position of atheism. We are both atheists, you are a 99% atheist. I am however a 100% atheist as I also reject the God you believe in, the guy who don't give a damn. I simply see just as little reason for believeing in him as I do for the others.

  Take care,

  Norm
• 

  upside/down

  People,

  I have a hard time understanding some viewpoints, especially athiests. Why is it always fault finding with "god" that supports your reasons for their not being a "god"? If there is no "god" there is no fault, no injustice, no error- stuff just happens because it happens, not because "god" isn't there. There is no right - no wrong. The basis for all justice systems in civilization is baseless. For what makes anything right or wrong? Who is the "judge"? Very illogical. Also your arguments seem to stem from a great "distaste" of the "god" as portrayed by almost all organized religions.

  If "god" were to step in now and right all wrongs and stop all badness (from our viewpoint) from ever even getting a start, how is free will exercised? Like it or not all of recorded human history shows that badness has been committed on every level concieveable without restraint (by a "god"), thus truly allowing free will (even bad choices) to be exercised without restraint. For example I can do anything I want, albeit not without consequences, but I CAN DO IT IF I CHOOSE! You would have "god" step in and stop all of this.

  I've been around "liberal" minded people my whole life, and you would never hear so loud a cry of "FOUL", if "god" actually did that. You think you're mad at "god" now for what He allows? If He didn't allow all the "bad" things that people practice, they would hate Him even more and would have an "intellectual" argument to boot. Imagine the debate you could have with "god" if he put the brakes on things you WANTED to do!

  Now I must temper this with that I agree the world is a very unpleasant place for most at this time. Love (as the Judeo/christian concept) dictates that this cannot go on indefinitely and the wrongs and injustices must be fixed. The Bible is almost obsessive in this thought of "atonement" and "justice", the whole "eye for an eye" and "ransom" concepts. The problem is in the meantime there IS great suffering, no one would deny. Most of this suffering is because for now, God is not doing anything, for reasons that can be debated endlessly.

  Religion has and continues to mis-represent the Creator. Look at how many of us have been slandered and shunned and "skinned and thrown about" by the "so-called people of Jehovah". If they treat this many people this badly, how do they treat their "God"? Just look, you know...

  Please don't let people make you bitter toward a "creator", and if they do (it can defy the intellect and heart, I know), try to recognize it for what it is- very poor (even wicked) examples at times. Remember too haven't we ALL done things and "god " didn't stop us, and we probably wouldn't have wanted us to, even if it were for our own "good"?

  Peace,

  U/D
• 

  Greenpalmtreestillmine

  Hi Norm,

  You are a good person, Norm. Please don't get upset okay? Just let this stupid believer have her little say. (By the way, AlanF is right, I'm not that good at this debate stuff but I will never admit that to him. ) There are many kinds of "brothers", some fleshly, some religious, some racial, and so forth. But there are also those who can be thought of as "brothers" just because of respect for one another or just because an accord has been reached. Well, Norm. That's how I feel about you. So if you don't mind just this one time in this one post, I will call you brother.

  Much love and respect to you brother. You too take care.

  Sabrina
• 

  frankiespeakin

  U/D,

  For example I can do anything I want, albeit not without consequences, but I CAN DO IT IF I CHOOSE!

  You do not have the ability to do what ever you want. You can only act within certain boundaries. If you wanted to blow up the moon you might never be able to do it. So you do have very many limitations and it is these limitations that take away your free will.