It sounds callous to say now, but our sufferings are but a moment. The animals that died in the flood did not suffer horrible deaths, and there are many others that have suffered much more than the ones in the flood. And people. My point is that we don't know enough to judge God, and we'll later think it was the height of foolishness to try. In the extra-biblical Book of Jasher, it was the animals who formed a protective ring around the ark once it was loaded. The people wanted to break into the ark, but the lions and other predators prevented them. Yet they, themselves, would later die in the flood. I'd always wondered how Noah kept the people away once the ship was complete and loaded. It's a plausible account, I think.
Cold Steel
JoinedPosts by Cold Steel
-
26
Dammit Jim, I'm a psychopath not an all loving God!
by Coded Logic inwhen did you discover that the god of bible - and the loving god that you had worshiped your entire life - were not the same?
how did it affect you?.
.
-
-
-
26
Dammit Jim, I'm a psychopath not an all loving God!
by Coded Logic inwhen did you discover that the god of bible - and the loving god that you had worshiped your entire life - were not the same?
how did it affect you?.
.
-
-
Cold Steel
Defender: As stated above, one cannot judge God without knowing what He knows. Regarding the animals and the flood, you assume, without knowing, that God destroyed innocent animals. I'm an ardent lover of animals, and I believe God is as well. Like us, I believe animals have spirits and are co-beneficiaries with us in the Atonement. As such, after death, I believe animals are happy and will partake, with us, in the resurrection. Thus God is just, for what we go through in life cannot readily be understood. The apostle Peter said that when Jesus was dead in the flesh, he was made alive in the spirit, by which he went and "preached to the spirits in prison, which sometimes were disobedient in the days of Noah." Thus the saying in the creeds of men, "He descended into hell." But to the malefactor, he said, "Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise."
Many think Paradise is Heaven, but that's not the case, for man cannot be saved in ignorance. Even the malefactor. It was Origen who sought to remember the teachings of the early church. "Paradise, I think, is a place of learning or school of the spirits," he said, "in which everything they learned on Earth would be made clear to them." This has been bourne out by many people who have had near-death experiences. They undergo what's come to be called "life reviews," where they learn from their experiences during life; and sometimes the reviews are not pleasant. People talk about the beautiful colors and the sights and sounds -- and many have mentioned animals and their ability to communicate. Perhaps God has a working knowledge of this place, and perhaps He also knows His animals are at peace and are happy; and that those who never had a chance to hear the gospel here can perhaps have it preached to them after they pass on. Then, as Peter said, they can "be judged according to men in the flesh, but live, according to God, in the spirit."
Bottom line is, again, we cannot judge God. He knows the most complex secrets of the Universe, and yet He accounts us as His children, not merely His creations. I also suspect He highly regards His animals and delights in their existence and immortality. In the flesh they serve us as food, beasts of burden and, yes, as sacrifices pointing the way to the greatest of all sacrifices. But, ultimately, they will all have a place in the resurrection and be happy throughout the eternities.
Why God does what He does is a mystery. If He could "speak the world into existence out of nothing," as some say, why did it take six "days" (or eras)? Who knows? Until we know these things, can we second guess Him? If the day comes when "every knee shall bend and every tongue confess Christ," I think it safe to say well know a lot more then.
-
11
Satan, perfection, new world, and being s***ted on again
by Tenacious inaccording to the bible man was created a little lower in abilities to that of angels.
this means that angels are a tad higher in regards to their perfection.
perhaps they have a word for it in the spirit realm as we mere mortals do not.
-
-
Cold Steel
Actually, the word isn’t “angel,” but “gods.” Man made man a little lower than the gods, or “holy ones.” Satan rebelled as an angel and took a third of the angels with him. The remaining angels, I think, were those of us who were born into mortality. Witness John, who spoke about falling down before one of the angels showing him his vision. The angel replied, “See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.” (Rev. 22:9) In other words, the angel once lived on Earth as a prophet.
That’s why I’m convinced that God doesn’t create evil beings. People become evil, and, I think, some are born evil. Even though two thirds of us kept our first estate, I believe some were more developed than others. Some of the more wicked spirits may not have rebelled because they knew Lucifer could not possibly win, or they may have had other selfish motives. Certainly, premortality was a popular doctrine in first century Christianity. The apostles asked Jesus, “Lord, who did sin, this man or his parents that he was born blind?” (See John 9) And Jeremiah wrote, “Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, ‘Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.’” (Jeremiah 1:4-5)
I just watched the entire series of interviews with Richard Kuklinski, the “Iceman,” who committed over 200 (by his count) murders, many of them for hire. Then I read Ezekiel 38-39, where the Lord speaks to a man not even born. As I get older, I believe that some people (perhaps all of us) bring a certain amount of baggage into this world. Why do some kids seem to be kind, generous and caring, while others are torturing animals by the time they’re ten years old? Kuklinski said he was beaten up as a kid. Well, so was my dad, but he didn’t turn into a psychopathic killer (that I know of). He was a Type A aviator, whose father was a mean drunk. He definitely carried baggage, but it showed itself in other ways. Still, he was a good, decent, honest man who knew how to make friends and keep them for a lifetime. Kuklinski? Well, he killed all his friends, and anyone who “made me mad.”
Just my view. Having known many kids, and having been one, I know that all men are only equal in the eyes of the law. So where does the evil come from? This isn’t to say that some children are not born innocent. They all are until they reach an age of reason. But as they reach that age, they are capable of great goodness or evil. I can’t believe they just appeared that way.
The apostle Peter, according to the Clementine Homilies, argued:
Learn this also: The bodies of men have immortal souls, which have been clothed with the breath of God; and having come forth from God, they are of the same substance, but they are not gods. But if they are gods, then in this way the souls of all men, both those who have died, and those who are alive, and those who shall come into being, are gods. But if in a spirit of controversy you maintain that these also are gods, what great matter is it, then, for Christ to be called God? for He has only what all have. (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 3.1, in ANF, 2:271)
This is significantly different than the soul-sleeping beliefs of the Adventists (including JWs), but despite their holding on to that doctrine, it just isn't long-lived. According to very old non-canonical Christian literature, it's quite clear that the ancient Christians absolutely and without question belived that men had eternal spirits. It was not a Greek intervention.
.
-
26
Dammit Jim, I'm a psychopath not an all loving God!
by Coded Logic inwhen did you discover that the god of bible - and the loving god that you had worshiped your entire life - were not the same?
how did it affect you?.
.
-
-
Cold Steel
Most people who assume that the God of the Old Testament is a barbaric and cruel entity, and that, as Jesus, He suddenly was this theological pushover, simply don't have the relevant background to make a good judgment...in my opinion. If one accepts, as a premise, that God knows the thoughts and intents of all men, and that he knows their deeds, then one must assume that His judgments are based in the knowledge of all things. We, however, do not know their hearts or deeds, or the evil within. One can only judge God if one knows what He knows, or if that one assumes the writers of the Old Testament conceptualized a god that would justify their heinous acts.
But we cannot accept both. The patristic church envisioned a God who could do anything. He could "speak" the universe into being, and the very elements themselves. He is an infinite and eternal being. But the early Hebrews had some different views. If God could speak things into existence, why did it take Him seven "days," or eras? Couldn't He just utter a word and the world appear? Their view of God is a being that created the earth out of existing materials and over a period of time. He was loving, compassionate, merciful, but He also knew the evil in the hearts of men and their secret deeds.
In one extra-biblical event, Enoch, in vision, beholds God weeping and asks Him why. The Lord then shows him the coming flood and the people who would die. At first, Enoch entreats God to spare humanity, but then the Lord shows him the wickedness of the people and their deeds. When Enoch sees this, he does a complete turnaround and proclaims that God should rid the earth of them. What Enoch initially lacked -- insight -- completely changed his mind.
Many of those whom the Lord slew, or ordered slain, were horribly profligate people -- people who sacrificed infants and who practiced the most debased sexual rituals imaginable. God knew these people would have a corrupt influence on His people, and later, when these cults infiltrated His people, He often either withdrew from the people and left them in a state of apostasy, or He took measures to surgically remove it. And though this may sound harsh to some today, from the Lord's perspective He's simply moving people to penalty boxes, where they will await the time when the Lord opens the gates of the prison and they will have their chance to hear the gospel and have their chance for redemption. "For for this cause was the gospel preached unto them who are dead," Peter wrote, "that they may be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."
The day will come when every knee will bend and every tongue will confess that Jesus is the Christ. Why? Because, like Enoch, you will have the same insight that the Lord had and realize that He did what had to be done in the context it was done.
-
11
Monotheists my ass!!!
by Crazyguy inwe have been taught that the hebrews were monotheists believing and worshiping in only one god, except for those times when they sinned and worship pagan idol gods.
their one true god is yahweh / jehovah.
comparing the book of genesis with older sumerian and babylonian writings what do we find?
-
-
Cold Steel
Yes, but since when are Sumerian and Babylonian accounts part of the canon? Because some of these accounts appear older than the biblical accounts, some scholars understandably believe that the biblical stories are derived from them; however, I believe the biblical accounts are older as a matter of faith. And the council of gods (Psalms 82) is a topic that is being given far more attention today because of newly discovered sources linking them to the early Hebrews who, as you correctly noted, were not the strict monotheists they later appeared to be.
This is from the site thedivinecouncil.com. There are a number of articles listed on the topic. Keep in mind that the early Christians associated Jesus with Yahweh. It was Yahweh who was a son of El. The early Christians saw Yahweh as the mediator between the Farther God and man. Thus, when Yahweh spoke to Moses, it was actually the pre-existing Jesus. In other words, after the fall, Jesus became the great mediator, or advocate of man, while Satan was the great accuser. Only during the patristic era did the "church" begin using a linguistic crowbar to turning the Godhead into a Trinity.
-
2
Jesus' verdict on John
by Doug Mason injesus verdict on john (matthew 11:7-17).. 7-9. johns preaching had created a sensation.
... jesus now show(s) the real significance of john.
10. john is not just a prophet, but the messenger of malachi 3:1.
-
-
Cold Steel
Hmmm...Tyndale's take also is speculation. Jesus, having taken the sins on the world on his shoulders (Isaiah 53), had the least claim on the Kingdom of Heaven of all. He, however, was greater than John. Just as the greatest of all is the servant of all, this saying of Jesus, in my view, has nothing to do with old and new testament dispensationalism. John, as well as all worthy prophets of old, have every right of inheritance as the newest worthy new testament prophet or apostle. Jesus' statement, I think, simply means that HE is greater than John.
-
38
Jeptha's Daughter- what actuallyt happened??
by Kudra inhi all, especially the scholars amongst you ;)a .
i was listening to richard dawkin's talk at lynchburg va and he was tlaking about how horrible the god of the old testament was- and he mentioned this: .
that when jeptha's daughter came out (and jeptha had promised god he'd sacrifice the first thing out of his house) that he had to sacrifice her as a burnt offering.
-
-
Cold Steel
Atheists will always assume the worst at a moment's notice, then stick with that assumption until Judgment Day.
See Feminist Musings On The Strange Story of Japtha for an LDS take.
The Lord has NEVER countananced human sacrifice. In Judges, we find Samson, a man that not only did NOT deliver Israel; he was a total screwup from the time he born to the day that he died. He frequented prostitutes, did horrendous things to animals, consorted with the enemy, murdered to pay off a debt. Not much of a role model for kids. I've oftentimes wondered if he was even real. Contrary to what many Bible people think the Philistines were actually more cultured, more technelogically adept than the Jews and were excellent warriors. No one knows where they came from exactly, but they were Greeks. They were later absorbed into the various cultures in the Middle East and we're only now learning more about them from the cities and art they left behind.
I can't see anyone but an apostate Judge in Israel doing such a thing. As the author (above) notes, what if a dog had come out to meet him? To offer up an unclean animal would be an affront to God, so Japtha most likely dedicated her to service to the Lord. Had he actually offered her up as a human sacrifice, I can't see that Paul would have any admiration for him (see Hebrews 11).
Also, if you want to have a serious discussion about the Bible, please stop using the New World Translation. Is is both course and horribly inaccurate. It might also help to quote scholars instead of activist atheists who know next to nothing about what they're talking.
-
9
What Is The Fate Of Adam and Eve? And Will John the Baptist See Heaven?
by Cold Steel inat one point, didn't the society teach that adam and eve either would not be resurrected or, if so, they would not attain the kingdom of heaven?
i remember that a number of years ago, a jw told me that john the baptist also would not obtain eternal life in the kingdom of heaven.
their evidence was matthew 11:11, where jesus says, "verily i say unto you, among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than john the baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.".
-
-
Cold Steel
The way it should be rendered is, "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that partaketh of the sacred emblems is greater than he."
Do you know any elders who partake of the sacramental emblems? If so, ask them, "Do you think you're greater than John the Baptist? Chances are they'll be far too modest to say YES!
-
9
What Is The Fate Of Adam and Eve? And Will John the Baptist See Heaven?
by Cold Steel inat one point, didn't the society teach that adam and eve either would not be resurrected or, if so, they would not attain the kingdom of heaven?
i remember that a number of years ago, a jw told me that john the baptist also would not obtain eternal life in the kingdom of heaven.
their evidence was matthew 11:11, where jesus says, "verily i say unto you, among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than john the baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.".
-
-
Cold Steel
The idea that you've got people at the various conferences taking the emblems (that were intended for the entire membership, by the way), each thinking he or she is greater than John the Baptist, is a very bold stance. That there are people in the Society who believe that the Governing Body is inspired in such interpretations is a fascinating aspect of the religion. As of now there appears to be no safeguards in place -- no balance of power -- that can call into question such doctrines.
Granted, the two classes of those who gain salvation is pure nonsense; however, this heavenly class (right or wrong) did have the power to put the brakes on until comparitively recently, when it was stripped from them in a breathtaking consolidation of power at the top. It was, of course, inevitable that this would happen sooner or later, as power tends to condense rather than expand. But unless there's resistance from the people who lose power, the power keeps consolidating. Now that the power rests with the Governing Body, the next step will undoubtedly be towards a one-man rule. But in the body, alas, there may be some resistance.
-
9
What Is The Fate Of Adam and Eve? And Will John the Baptist See Heaven?
by Cold Steel inat one point, didn't the society teach that adam and eve either would not be resurrected or, if so, they would not attain the kingdom of heaven?
i remember that a number of years ago, a jw told me that john the baptist also would not obtain eternal life in the kingdom of heaven.
their evidence was matthew 11:11, where jesus says, "verily i say unto you, among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than john the baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.".
-
-
Cold Steel
At one point, didn't the Society teach that Adam and Eve either would not be resurrected or, if so, they would not attain the Kingdom of Heaven? I remember that a number of years ago, a JW told me that John the Baptist also would not obtain Eternal Life in the Kingdom of Heaven. Their evidence was Matthew 11:11, where Jesus says, "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."
The reasoning is that there are two classes of resurrection. One is the immortal, earthly type and the heavenly class. So what Jesus was saying was that John, though great, was not as great as the least of the heavenly class. The traditional Christian view, however, is:
By "the least" we prefer, then, with Chrysostom and other ancient Fathers, to understand Jesus himself. The literal meaning of the Greek μικρότερος is "the lesser," not "least" (in the Revised Version, in the text we find "he that is but little," but in the margin "lesser"). By "lesser" or "little" Chrysostom supposes that the Saviour refers to himself as less than John in age and according to the opinions of many. "Thus, then, among the sons of men no prophet greater than John the Baptist has arisen; yet there is one among you lesser in age and perhaps in public estimation, - in the kingdom of God, though, greater than he." Wordsworth strengthens the above interpretation by his comment on the words, "among those that are born of women." "No one among those born of human parents had appeared greater than this John the Baptist; but do not suppose that he is greater than I. I am not γεννητὸς γυναικῶν , but Θεοῦ , and though after him in the gospel because he is my precursor, yet I am greater than he." This great expositor, while on the whole preferring the usual interpretation, yet considers that the explanation which refers "he that is least" to Christ, is not lightly to be set aside. If this interpretation be adopted, the usual punctuation of the passage must be slightly altered thus: "He that is lesser, in the kingdom of God is greater than he."
Another view, closely related, is that because Jesus took upon himself the sins of all mankind, then he has the least claim on the Kingdom of God. Either way, Jesus was referring to himself. He was the least in the Kingdom of Heaven, because Christ, being the greatest, is the servant of all, paying for our sins and removing our pains and scars.
Yet the WTBTS has chosen its own unique way of interpreting scripture. Do they still hold to their views about Adam/Eve and John? And do the emblem takers really think they're better?
