Here is the link to a very well written research done by a Christian who also believes in Evolution with some books recomended at the bottom. It is long so I recommend saving it so you can read it later.
Are you tired of the whole atheist/believer debate?
by nicolaou 115 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Narkissos
Second pitfall of the debate imo: morality.
Just as I don't regard the divine primarily as a cause for being (as in the Jewish-Christian notion of creation), I don't regard it primarily as a warrant for morality (e.g. by punishment and reward) either.
In polytheism there were creator gods and goddesses; there were also justice deities. But this was only a small part of the divine realm and functions.
The OT Yhwh, at least in the pre-monotheistic texts, is definitely not a highly moral character. He can cheat, lie, favour who he wants. The monotheistic Yhwh of Deutero-Isaiah, Job or Ecclesiastes, cannot be reduced to morality.
The NT God imo retains many amoral aspects -- whether as he who "makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous," or as the Pauline God of grace who justifies faith rather than works. Very unfair if you think of it.
One essential aspect of Kierkegaard's thinking was that the leap into the (Christian) religious sphere involved a suspension of/from ethics.
Against most Christian apologists' claims, I don't think a godless society is bound to be an immoral one. It can easily become a moral totalitarianism instead, in which no appeal beyond good and evil is socially justified anymore. Human freedom exceeds morals, and this excess was expressed in traditional religion; however it will be expressed (in art, for instance) it will probably retain a somewhat "religious" dimension.
-
JamesThomas
It seems to me that the mind in awe of existence, comes up with confused ideas it calls God, to "resolve" origin and causation. It then vivaciously argues whether or not it's cherished and foolish little imaginings really exist and rule us.
It all seems weirdly understandable and insane, and can be one of the most vigorous and highly lubricated forms of mental masturbation. In the mean time the reality and vibrancy of life passes us by as we heatedly rub and stroke away.
j
-
startingover
Lovelylil
God and Science CAN be reconciled together and I encourage my children to look to science for proof of Gods existance or the intelligence behind it. To just dismiss it without investigating makes most Christians seem closed minded and uneducated.
Now it seems to me that you have started with a presumption, that there is a god. In this country I think we are subject to that presumption from birth. With the majority of people believing that way it's inevitable. It was when I took away that presumption after leaving the JW's that things looked so different.
BTW, just curious. Were you raised a JW? My bets are that you weren't.
-
XJW4EVR
Yes, and the reason is simple. Look at Gregor's opening post in the "Put Up or Shut Up Thread." WHy would anyone want to debate that?
-
startingover
JT
It seems to me that the mind in awe of existence, comes up with confused ideas it calls God, to "resolve" origin and causation. It then vivaciously argues whether or not it's cherished and foolish little imaginings really exist and rule us.
It all seems weirdly understandable and insane, and can be one of the most vigorous and highly lubricated forms of mental masturbation. In the mean time the reality and vibrancy of life passes us by as we heatedly rub and stroke away.
The confused ideas you mention describes just what I see believers describing. Seems to be alot of leeway allowed in what defines a "christian"
-
JamesThomas
Seems to be alot of leeway allowed in what defines a "christian"It's evolutionary. Starting with a basic anthropomorphic figure the mind adds the details which it finds attractive to form it's own little idol.
j
-
lovelylil
startingover,
Let me for the sake of not getting into another debate about whether God exists just say this: I should say that IF you believe in God, you do NOT have to dismss evolution. Many who feel you do, have not studied evolution at all and the overwelming evidence that supports it. So IF you believe in GOD, I feel YOU can still reconcile the two beliefs.
And yes, I personally believe there is an intelligence behind creation and any principles in evolution. I CHOOSE to say it is God, someone else may not feel compfortable in doing so. And I have no problem with that at all.
No, I was not raised a JW. My parents were Catholic and father was the most immoral person you could ever know. He commited horrible acts of attrocities on his kids in the name of God. But, I don't blame God for it - and I will not go into why.
I agree with Narkissos that in a society where he majority believe in a higher power, the morals standard is usually higher. But my point was that there are moral people who are athiests and immoral people who are Christians. Since I believe in God, I believe the Bible when it says that God gave all people a moral compass to judge right from wrong. And even though some are not believers, they are guided by this compass.
-
Oroborus21
The question of whether there is something bigger than our existence is one fundamental to our being human. It isn't going away and will always be debated -- unless of course there is a God which manifests himself in a way that convinces everyone :-)
Anyway, what is the question regarding the Origin of God? I haven't followed the threads debating this topic so I was curious about that.
I don't see why it has to be an either/or proposition. I believe that humans are not only capable but actually quite comfortable with holding dichotic paradigms, ideas, or explanations (one of the inherent flaws in Cognitive Dissonance theory) and can find both of them useful.
As for myself, I have both a "Believing paradigm" and a "Non-believing Paradigm."
My believing paradigm accepts the Bible as God's inspired word (but not the homely folktale of its origins and compilation), including both its origins and the explanation of our destiny (more or less along the lines of the JW explanation) [I don't accept any belief or theology that essentially makes life on earth a "way-station" or mere intermediate visitations while we aren't in Heaven - that just seems stupid], and sees the Earth as the starting point for man's ultimate destiny of populating the entire universe as we get to live forever and expand our culture beyond Earth's boundaries eventually.
The non-believing paradigm, finds value in the Bible and good advice for how we may live our lives, recognizes that our life is brief, and this is all there is, so enjoy it as the Epicureans might say - but yet, seems less hopeful and a bit depressing. The non-believing paradigm essentially could be summed up by the expression "reality sucks."
At best, the non-believing paradigm instructs us that we should enjoy our life, enjoy our relationships as these are the most important thing in the world, says there is little point in trying to accomplish anything in life except to help your fellow man in whatever small way you can and maybe try to leave a more comfortable life for your offspring, but really, when you are dead that is all - your game is over. There is no reset and there is no second-game.
Maybe the non-believing paradigm is reality, is the "correct" one but it sure isn't inspiring. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, it seems like the non-believing paradigm is something that was developed by guys who don't get invited to parties.
When Pandora looked inside the box, after all of the world's troubles had escaped because of her curiosity, what she found still lingering there was HOPE.
There is a lesson there for all men of science, who through their eager investigation, have unleashed upon the world such troubles as Doubt and Despair.
Hope still and will forever linger in many persons' hearts. That hope, namely, is that there really is something more than these 70 or 80 years upon this third rock from the Sun.
-Eduardo
-
startingover
Lovelylil,
If you are wondering why I asked about your past check this out:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/100900/1.ashx
Eduardo,
Maybe the non-believing paradigm is reality, is the "correct" one but it sure isn't inspiring. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, it seems like the non-believing paradigm is something that was developed by guys who don't get invited to parties.
I'm afraid that's the harsh reality of being a non-believer in christian nations.
Seems to be alot of leeway allowed in what defines a "christian"