by Shining One 122 Replies latest watchtower bible
Hi Itsallgoodnow,
How many of your 863 posts are one liners? It is so easy to follow the clique, isn't it?
Rex
Oh, sad.
Maybe the question should be, how many of my multiple paragraph posts did Shining One refuse to respond to? Follow the clique? What is this clique of one-line posters he speaks of, and if there is one, why am I not more popular?
myelaine,
If god created the universe out of nothingness, then logically, everything within that universe is his own creation. Ergo, god created evil. You can argue that he did not directly
create 'evil' and 'sin' but gave us the free will to choose evil and sin....its irrelevant. If god endowed humans with choice, he himself CREATED the two sides of that choice, good and evil. The problem with your analogy is that the old man on the boat is also the creator and designer of the boat and of the young man. IF there exists the possibility for evil and sin and imperfection in the boat or the young sailor, the designer of said objects is solely responsible.
Your analogy is like the Ford car company saying, hey, we made a bunch of faulty automobiles, but the danger only happens if the driver CHOOSES to go over 65 miles an hour, therefore, we are not responsible for the design flaw and if the driver dies due to this flaw, its his own fault. This is what your god has done, created hopelessly flawed creatures, then washes his hands of them and blames THEM for the havoc they create on earth. Does this really make sense to you?
Shining One had written to Terry:
::: It's too bad you can't deal with an one issue at a time but instead attempt to smear and paint your muck with generalizations.
I replied:
:: HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Point being: Rex is so laughably hypocritical that he doesn't realize that his statement to Terry is far more applicable to himself than to anyone else who regularly posts to this board, with the possible exception of scholar pretendus.
Completely missing the point, and demonstrating the usual Fundy sharpness of mind, Shinging One wrote:
: My how the 'high and mighty' have fallen.
To which I again reply:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Shining One wrote:
: 1) God rules by divine providence.
Divine providence = God's will and predictive ability.
Thus, your statement is a meaningless tautology.
: 2) Man knew the rules.
Correction: according to the Genesis account, Adam and Eve "knew the rules". "Man" in the sense of "all mankind who now suffers for the 'sin' of two people" did not yet exist. This myth of "original sin and redemption", therefore, simply reflects the simple-minded and outmoded notion of justice of ancient middle-eastern nomadic tribes -- tribes whose idea of justice included the payment of money to a murdered man's family to atone for the murder. Most people have moved beyond that.
: 3) Man broke the rules.
Ditto.
: 4) Man chose to rebel, separating himself from God.
Nonsense. According to your myth, I am suffering for what my ancestor did some 6,000 years ago. Once again: that's "justice" only in the eyes of the ancient nomads who invented the Adam & Eve myth.
: 5) God covered man's sin.
What the Lord taketh away, the Lord giveth back. When the Lord sees fit.
: 6) God provided a savior for man.
The trinitarian notion is that the Godhead had the Jesus part of him turn into a God-man and die as a man. But in the long run, this Jesus/God-man didn't die, since he still lives on as the Jesus/God-man part of the Godhead. So really, the Godhead sacrified nothing at all in the long run, except perhaps a bit of pride. Oh, and perhaps he suffered a bit of pain. But having created pain, perhaps that's poetic justice. Unless, of course, he's a masochist. Or perhaps he deadened the pain for himself.
: 7) He died for man to be reconciled: He took the hit.
Some hit. The Godhead didn't die. The Father part of God didn't die. The Holy Spirit part didn't die. The man part of the Jesus/God-man part died, in a sense, only for a short time. So no real price was paid.
Besides, as part of the Godhead, the Jesus/God-man part had no choice but to go along with the other parts, since they're all of the same mind and always act consistently with one another. So not even a sacrifice of will occurred. No sacrifices at all -- although many Christians jump through hoops trying to say different.
Note the point that mkr32208 made about this.
: 8) YOU have a choice.
Sure, and the choice of intelligent people is to reject these ancient myths.
myelaine said:
:: I don't understand the point of your story.
: My point is that if the fisherman was just in giving the young man a lifejacket and telling him to use it, how can he become unjust by showing mercy as well. Is he even less just? I don't think so. He is still just and now showing undeserved mercy. You see...the young man didn't take his warning about the lifejacket + just lost his boat + now he is compelled to save his life.
: Nothing that happened to the young man altered the old fishermans being just.
Ok, I see your point. I think that you and I made the same point, with respect to Terry's comment, with respect to a point of logic. However, I think you're comparing the old man to God, and there simply is no comparison, as Terry and pistoff directly pointed out and as mkr32208 alluded to. Indeed, if you're not comparing the old man to God in your analogy, then I see no point to it with respect to a discussion of God's justice.
Your responses to Terry just don't deal with this. You told him that, "but the Bible says GOD is separate from SIN, that is the point! and SIN represents mans viewpoint toward GOD." But as the JWs explained rather well, simply from the Hebrew and Greek definitions of the words the OT and NT use for "sin", "sin" is a "missing of the mark". A missing of the mark from whose viewpoint? Obviously, from God's, not mankind's, because if it were from mankind's viewpoint, there would be a million different viewpoints of "sin". And that is not the way the Bible describes this notion of "sin". As Terry explained, "sin" is nothing more than a person's doing something that God decides he doesn't like.
kid-A makes some excellent points along this line.
Terry wrote:
:: A point of logic: Giving something good to the undeserving has nothing to do with justice, but everything to do with mercy. Otherwise you'd have to declare God unjust.
: God IS unjust and that was my point.
: Mercy, in this instance, is cynical.
: Who does man need mercy FROM? Why, God!
I completely agree with your points. But my point was about the logic of how we arrive at them, which in other posts you've explained quite well.
AlanF
I just popped in for a second and would like to say that some of you are reading too much into my story. there is nothing about a creator in it. i was trying to show terry how the fisherman was not unjust i never said that he was the father of the young man. but incedentally, so what if he was.., so what if he built the boat, so what if this is the 20th time the boy has been out on this boat. This time he wasn't wearing the lifejacket when he should have been wearing it EVERY TIME. he knew the rule.
michelle
p.s. AlanF, A & E missed the mark, for two different reasons. yet, Jesus is said to cover the SIN that entered into mankind because of the first Adam. which means that SIN is within the mind/power of the doer, not the receiver.(I wish I had more time to discuss this but right now I don't)
Explain please how man is responsible for sin, if sin is an integral component of the universe that GOD created? This is a DESIGN FLAW, and therefore, the DESIGNER
is to be held accountable. Jesus has nothing to do with the equation because it was god who endowed us with the ability and capacity for sin and evil, if he is our creator and designer.
dear kid-A,
Jesus was made of the same "stock" as Adam, but he followed the rules and always did what his heavenly Father asked Him to do, because of this He was without flaw it had nothing to do with His physical being. Therefore Adam's flaw was something that could have been avoided. But since Adam created this flaw within himself, as did Eve, there had to be a physical separation from God because God can not be with sin. that would be why SIN is passed down from those two. for the time being there IS a physical separation from God for all of us. if there were varying degrees of sin then there would be varying degrees of forgiveness, but ALL sin is forgiven to the utmost degree because ALL sin is considered equal in the eyes of God. how fair would it have been if Adam's punishment was more than Eve's because he knowingly sinned while she was only deceived? Should God have sent Adam out of the Garden alone because he was the "worst" offender. That is counter productive. God wanted people to inhabit the earth, not one man. God's plan to have man inhabit the earth went ahead because He sent out the two, as a consequence of their two different SINS. If He didn't love them enough to let them live out their lives away from Himself, then He would only be just, not merciful. But God is a just and merciful God.
michelle
just to note...
everyone backed away from the woman caught in aduletry, because Jesus said, "he who is without sin cast the first stone" they knew that they were all under sin and there were no varying degrees. to "cast a stone" would show everyone there that God was not in them, so to speak. but they were convicted by their "conscience" and went away starting from the oldest to the youngest. they knew they were flawed because of the Scriptures that they knew so well. they were hypocrites, knowing the letter of the law but not knowing the spirit of the law, which spirit would have kept them from condemning her as "worse" than them in the first place . Jesus knew the letter and lived within the spirit of the law which is why He didn't condemn her.imo.
michelle
But the Scripture has confined ALL under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. (Gal 3:22)
myelaine, please define "sin". Use whatever resources you need, but do incorporate any and all definitions from the Bible.
AlanF
But since Adam created this flaw within himself, as did Eve, there had to be a physical separation from God because God can not be with sin. that would be why SIN is passed down from those two. for the time being there IS a physical separation from God for all of us
From the standpoint of Adam, his act was designed to enable him, improve his condition and increase his status. The goal: being LIKE GOD. What did that mean? "Knowing good AND bad".
People act for their own benefit and that is sane. Adam acted on information. What is there about the information which Adam would NOT know? Obviously the "good AND bad" of it.
What were his sources of information? God, Eve, Serpent.
The __physical separation__is a bogus issue.
Man was not made equal to god. He was purposely made inferior and dependant. That bespeaks a lack of confidence on God's part; but, I'll overlook that for the moment. (Any sane parent wants not only the best for his children, but, BETTER than he himself has.)
Man was separated in every way conceivable from God at the outset. He was more a pet than an intellectual rival.
And, once again, you fail to understand SIN.
How do you keep missing it?
Whatever God chooses to dislike is sin. He can make a rule about it and threaten to kill us if we piss him off by doing it---but, IF WE ARE SANE we will weigh the consequences.
Adam didn't fully know the consequences. That is clear.
Adam didn't just die and not even immediately. God exacted a continuing price unmentioned: the destruction of all progeny!
Adam operated in his own best interest. He decided it was better to live (if only one day) with full KNOWLEDGE of complete information (Good as well as Bad) with the complete story and not just half. He did what humans always do; he acted to gain and not to lose. But, he got tricked. There was nothing to know. He grabbed only a handful of debt he could never repay. He'd made an enemy of the Godfather.
What was passed down to his children was the God Vendetta. The blood feud with the Almighty. God won't call it quits until enough blood is spilled to satisfy his bloodlust brought on by a wounded ego. God has to have, don't you know, the most massive ego in all the universe! He is like the proverbial woman scorned. Don't cross God or he'll tear off your head and piss down your neck.
That's it, really. The lovely story the Bible offers for our horrified inculcation. Personally, I think it is malevolent and pathogenic. But, I'm not allowed to complain about the management or I'll be fired.
Terry
I just popped in for a second and would like to say that some of you are reading too much into my story. there is nothing about a creator in it. i was trying to show terry how the fisherman was not unjust i never said that he was the father of the young man. but incedentally, so what if he was.., so what if he built the boat, so what if this is the 20th time the boy has been out on this boat. This time he wasn't wearing the lifejacket when he should have been wearing it EVERY TIME. he knew the rule.michelle p.s. AlanF, A & E missed the mark, for two different reasons. yet, Jesus is said to cover the SIN that entered into mankind because of the first Adam. which means that SIN is within the mind/power of the doer, not the receiver.(I wish I had more time to discuss this but right now I don't)
So your story IS about Jesus, sin and God? How is the analogy at all applicable? How is a fable made into life and death doctrine?
Analogies are useless in proving anything; they are only illustrations; they are not proof texts, or expert testimony, or explanations in any sense.
This story might make sense to you in explaining your belief, but it means NOTHING logically. Logic and belief are on different planets, right?
I believe in God, and Jesus. But the doctrine you are promoting is also just a belief, and cannot be proved by anyone or anything; it has to be accepted as a belief.
